Here's an absurd feminism-bashing opinion piece from Fox News. Feminism, it posits, is good for men but bad for women, because while it allows men access to free sex (which is somehow not a benefit for women), it harms women by leaving them "saddled with the consequences of sex" and unable to find a man to marry. Men, you see, are justifiably angry with women because they're not women any more.
From the article: "...the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them."
Uh-huh. Of course. When I look around, I never see guys in the workplace any more *rolls eyes*. Have men all been replaced by female workers while I wasn't looking? Or is the point more that men are threatened (or rather "pissed off") when their wives work, and would like their wives to stay at home and become June Cleaver?
The article ends with this absurd statement: "Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
"If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork."
It isn't clear exactly what we have to do to surrender to "nature" and "femininity," but I'm thinking June Cleaver (or possibly the Stepford Wives) again. Whatever the point may be, I can safely say I wouldn't be interested in a guy who thinks that feminism and the equal treatment of women are some sort of problem. It's no skin off my nose if those guys don't want to get married-- who wants them anyway? What the author of the article fails to understand is that there's a reason those guys crawled into the woodwork to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment