Romancing a Feminist or Romancing Your Ego Part 2

by V

via Flickr

Okay, I’m back for more commentary on this ongoing nonsense from TTH. Today, I’m going to begin tackling the comment section. For convenience, I shall put the parent link right here, right now, so that you can easily get to it to read the actual post and some of the comments for yourself. I will be tackling them in order.

Drina writes:

Assuming that Jack W. shows through his manner and actions that he is a traditional man, isn’t it a wonder that liberal women are attracted to him? Isn’t there something telling in the fact that these young feminists are attracted to a man who presumably takes pride in being a man and asserts his authority? I suppose you could flip that around, and wonder why he is attracted to them. But it seems that he is attracted to their femininity, much of which they still retain, though they hold liberal ideas. I am guessing that they, on the other hand, are attracted to his manliness, even though that is the very thing their liberal ideas hold in disdain. Regardless, it seems that he is on the right track in hoping that a traditional way of life will win in the end because it is a good way to live. Similarly, Christians are exhorted to preach often, and use words when necessary.

Let’s look at this commentator’s first few sentences. She is implying that feminist/liberal women all secretly long for the love of, and a relationship with, a traditional man. As she states, you can easily flip this argument and put it around to wonder why the traditional man is attracted to the feminist/liberal female. And, I certainly would if someone put such a nonsensical observation to me. However, she makes some observations that don’t really make a whole lot of sense.

She assumes that he is attracted to this woman’s femininity. Okay, probably. Also, I think he’s attracted to how she looks. But, he is not attracted to HER. He hates everything that makes up her self and wants to remold her into something else. He doesn’t like her world view, or the majority of her personality, or her politics, and he does not respect her as an equal in any capacity. He is attracted to her outward appearance and mannerisms and that is it. So, I don’t see how his being attracted to this woman’s femininity is at all relevant.

And what is this nonsense that feminist/liberal women hold manliness in disdain? We do no such thing. We just do not like being belittled or told to ‘know our place’, as if we shouldn’t shoot higher than the home unless Big Papa tells us it’s okay, because he wants us to amuse ourselves. Men don’t like being told what to do and what place they should hold by women, so likewise do women not enjoy being belittled by men. Or other women. We object, not to masculinity nor to a man’s assertiveness, but rather to the notion that women are only good for four things. Cooking, cleaning, sex, and birthing/rearing babies. We are more than just that. We are more than robots that can sexually reproduce. Just because we have boobs and vaginas doesn’t mean that we’re suddenly to be equated with children or slaves to be relegated to one way of life, that we need guidance and reigning in by men. THAT is what we dislike. If a man is going to tell us that that is where we should be and we should know our place, and always defer to the man whether he is right or not out of respect, and give up everything that makes us who we are just so that he is comfortable with himself and his place in the world, the relationship and the household, then, yes, we’re going to tell him to kiss it! Just like he should rightly do if any woman does that to him.

If you ask me, any man who NEEDS to subjugate a woman and relegate her to a specific area of society/relationship/household is not very confident in himself or his own masculinity. That makes him not a man, but a boy. A man who is truly confident in himself and his own masculinity and sexuality is not worried about whether “his woman” (ugh) is staying home or working outside of the home, whether he has to help raise the kids or she does it all, whether she makes more or less than he does, etc. etc. etc. My grandfather was like this, not threatened by competent or powerful women, and he was the most masculine man I’ve ever met.

Nobody has ever said the “traditional” way of life was bad, per se. Just the traditional idea that it was the ONLY option for a woman. So, I don’t know why she seems to think that any feminist who knows what feminism is has decided that the traditional way of life, if chosen freely and willingly, is a bad way of life. Just because a lot of women don’t seem to want to choose that for themselves means nothing other than that that way of life is not for them. That doesn’t mean it can’t be for any woman, ever. The point is not how you live, but whether or not you have chosen that way of life and are content with it. If you have and you are, then there is no problem. However, if that life has been chosen for you and you are not content, THAT is a problem.

And then she mentions something about Christianity, and I don’t see how that is at all related to the post itself, since this man said he wasn’t Christian anyway. Yes, he mentioned Christianity, but that was just in passing, really. It was in no way important to the post.

Laura writes:

Jack is wise in realizing change will not come quickly, if at all. He is also right about the emotional basis of liberalism for most women. It’s just in the air. Most women orient their political beliefs around compassion. The question is, whom will they feel compassion for? Under liberalism, their political compassion is overwhelmingly directed to those who are non-white or female or homosexual. Most women will not move from these prejudices unless their sense of compassion toward others is awakened. Therefore, it is important, when a woman refers to her feminist views and anti-male prejudices, for a man to gently remind her, “When you talk about men, you are talking about me?” Unfortunately, feminist propaganda has also convinced many women that men do not have feelings.

And Ms. Wood makes the ridiculous observation that having compassion for minority groups that have largely been discriminated against throughout US history, rather than against people who have all of their rights intact, is somehow prejudicial. I don’t know what to say to this other than that it’s idiotic and flies in the face of any logic whatsoever.

I can understand one of her points, though. When you name something that you dislike about a gender, it is important to remember that not ALL people of that gender fit the mold that you are complaining about. And if you are speaking to a member of that gender of which you are complaining about, it can be insulting. Blanket assumptions are not ever helpful. It isn’t really MEN that feminists have a problem with, but rather the idea that women have a fixed place and should be happy with it and if you are not then there is something wrong with you. Men who hold that belief (as well as women who hold that belief) are a large part of the problem. However, when you sound like you’re attacking someone, nothing ever comes of such a debate. Ever. The debate deteriorates into an argument. However, that doesn’t mean that if you are talking to a man who holds these views that you should avoid the topic completely. You just need to be sure that you aren’t sounding like you’re attacking someone when you don’t mean to be attacking them. I don’t like it if someone comes up to me and starts talking about ALL feminists believe THIS and it’s totally ridiculous. Especially if they’re aware that I’m a feminist. It’s rude. And it isn’t at all helpful. It puts me on the defensive. It would anyone. It’s human instinct not to react happily or understandingly to a perceived attack of any kind. But, like I said, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t discuss it!

And I don’t know where she has this idea that feminism is about teaching women that men don’t have feelings. That’s complete and utter nonsense and doesn’t deserve any further discussion to validate it.

Areader writes:
A man must not try to make a comrade of his lover. She will resist it, and your efforts may even diminish her attachment to you. In a society segregated by sex, the inadequacy of a female as a close friend would be abundantly apparent. But in contemporary America, for the most part, men and women are everywhere mixed, and out of politeness, we feel obliged to straddle the chasm of sex, and befriend one another.

As for bringing a woman into the traditionalist fold, this is best done socially. As that enfant terrible Roissy writes ” Men win the argument to win the group. Women win the group to win the argument.” Women, in this area, are driven by status: if they see the people you’re talking about, and they are intelligent and articulate, and she can imagine herself as one of them, she will warm to your view. She will at least respect your views, if not agree with them. When a woman hears something as radical as a defense of patriarchy, her immediate thought is not, “Why is patriarchy better?” but “Who thinks like that?”

Introducing her to respectable, tasteful traditional people, culture and events would do more to change her attitude than any conversation. I recall reading that women vote Republican at greater rates once married, and still more after bearing children. If her only image of traditionalists are fat slovenly rednecks, she will feel superior to them, regardless of the merits of what those rednecks say about oh, Bristol Palin’s latest spawn and what have you. Character and taste are far more important than her stated political beliefs. If a woman is kind, feminine, respectful and careful about her appearance, her political opinions ae nigh irrelevant to me.

Some personal context: I recently graduated from a top college chock full of liberals, and attended all-male religious schooling for 12 years, but am not religious.

There is nothing wrong with being friends with a woman or with a lover. What a completely ignorant statement. I don’t know what else to say about it than that.

And the entirety of the second and third paragraphs of this comment are also ridiculous. Feminists do not believe that there is anything wrong with people leading “traditional” lives. This is something I’ve already addressed. The only problem is when those traditionalists decide to try to dictate to the rest of us, or try to force women in their own fold into a life they do not want. We CAN coexist with both lifestyles, it’s just that some people, for some reason, are afraid to do it. That doesn’t make it impossible, that just makes some people cowardly. It’s not the same thing.

And, I don’t know why anyone needed to know his educational and religious background and religious leanings or lack thereof.

Laura writes:
This is an excellent statement.

A man must not try to make a comrade of his lover.

Similarly, a woman must not make a girlfriend out of a man. The effort to do this has led to many divorces and disappointments.

Introducing her to respectable, tasteful traditional people, culture and events would do more to change her attitude than any conversation.

Ha! It’s so true.

I don’t know what Ms. Wood is talking about here. I don’t know any women who ever have tried to make a girlfriend out of a man. It’s possible that she thinks that’s a goal of feminism, but there is no such ridiculous goal. Such a goal exists only in the minds of people who want to believe that that is what feminism is about, but that doesn’t make it so.

And, okay, that’s it for this one! I’ll be back again for more commentary on the reply section of this post another time.

4 Comments to “Romancing a Feminist or Romancing Your Ego Part 2”

  1. So, if a man must not make a comrade of his lover, what exactly is she to be to him? To me “comrade” brings a sense of friendship, partnership even, of commitment to a common goal. Why would a man not want that of his lover? It sounds to me that his lover is then left only to be his sex partner, escort, and cleaning lady. Big-picture interests aside, that sounds like a terribly dull relationship!
    The mention of a liberal woman’s allegiances to specific groups (non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual) as bad strikes me as alarmingly bigoted and specific–there’s no way around this one, Laura is clearly aligning herself *exclusively* with white, heterosexual males and denouncing the importance or validity of all others who do not fit in that box as inferior. It sounds to me like she is silently denouncing her own validity and rights to first-class citizenship, since she is a woman.

    Writings of this nature baffle me.

    • Your assessment is spot on, Fey. I totally agree. And, yes, it IS alarming. I’m sure she’s fully aware of this, as well, but while we think it’s alarming, she does not. That, in itself, is baffling as well as frightening.

    • Hear, hear. I am also left speechless by women who insist on supporting systems that are designed to make them powerless.

      Since when do feminists hold manliness in disdain? I happen to love me a slice of hunky manmeat with hair on his chest. As much as I like to bitch about men, I do enjoy them.

      As for these opposites attracting, you can’t help who piques your interest. It’s very possible that each is attracted to the ‘wrongness’ of the other. Or maybe they’re just young and horny. Whatevs.

      I think this entire thread is ridiculous. The odds of two people with such radically different views on how they should live their day-to-day lives coming together and staying together long-term is incredibly small. Fine, be attracted to each other. Have some angry debates and some wild make-up sex. But it’s almost certainly not going to lead to a successful LTR. So why is this guy starting off with long-term plans to change the women he’s meeting? Talk about cart before the horse! Why has no one in the TTH thread told him to SLOW DOWN before he sprains something? This sort of conversion talk is only going to push people away.

      Now, if he gets to actually KNOW a girl, and really thinks she, in particular, just might be The One, then he has a legitimate issue. And then he shouldn’t be trying to convert her wholly to his side, he should be seeking compromise. And if he can’t compromise, he has no business dating unrepentant liberals!

      “Unfortunately, feminist propaganda has also convinced many women that men do not have feelings.”

      Wait, what? Are we talking about the same movement? Are THEY talking about the same movement from sentence to sentence? Did this person miss the Love And Peace movement, which included “Real men wear pink, cry, and talk about their feelings!”? Responsible feminists are well aware of how damaging patriarchy is to men. A big part of feminism and related movements is helping boys and men feel safe and strong enough to express their feelings.

      The statements by “Areader” are absolutely awful. You could replace ‘woman’ and ‘wife’ with ‘servant’ or ‘slave.’ Don’t befriend the help, dear, it isn’t done. They’ll get ideas above their station. You must discipline them, for their own good. A working servant is a HAPPY servant, it’s what they’re there for! Besides, it’s not as though they think the way we do. They can barely think at all!

      Laura is a piece of work to agree with such things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: