It's nice to see at least _one_ man in the world values the efforts of feminists.

Sorry - have just spent parts of the past few weeks arguing with guys about the fact that I'm a feminist who likes men! They can't believe it and just abuse the crap out of me because I'm obviously a "communist" or a "socialist" (like that's a bad thing?) for wanting equal rights for men and women (no point either group having advantages over the other), equal opportunities, good education and health care and _evil_ stuff like that.

Now, I don't doubt there are loony feminists out there who give the rest of us a bad name, but it gets really wearing and boring when guys just condemn us all because obviously all women are evil. It's like saying all (1 billion) Muslims are terrorists. And I also know there are women who take advantage of their situations and screw men for all they're worth. (But I guess this is where education comes into it - people need to be taught that this sort of behaviour is Not On)

So thank you for appreciating those women that blazed the trails before us - I look forward to a time where more men think like you and to a world where EVERYONE has as much opportunity as anyone else to work towards the goals they desire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It isn't that she is a woman that is important, it is if she has a heart, good ideas and the ability to make things happen. We have had women leaders before in this world and not all of them have made the world a better place. If we care about opportunity for women, then we will judge them by the same standards we judge men in the same role. And we will be hard on them when they fail.

Don't let these things blind you to the fact she is a highly ambitious person and a politician and a human being. She will make mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was under the impression that she is a walking corporation but that must be my mistake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, feminism absolutely freed men, or atleast freed me. That's not just theory for me. I understand that on personal level related to my own life.

I believe it is feminism that has allowed me, since my marriage and divorce at a young age 12 yrs ago, to have relationships with women who without exception have been able to support themselves, thereby allowing me to relate to them in a whole new way, where they do not view me desperately as a potential bread-winner/marriage target but on a more equal level as a partner looking to experience life side by side. The financial support issue never comes into the dynamic. I know they are with me out of choice, not financial necessity. The greatest freedom I ever felt was when I got divorced from a woman who could not support herself, not due to laziness but rather lack of opportunity as she had only a HS education, and the jobs were scarce. Anyway, she (understandably) viewed me as the bill-payer, the bread-winner, the rent-payer, etc.. it was a HORRIFIC dynamic. My stress during those years was intense to say the least as I was responsible for survival of two people and was stuck for 4 years in retail sales, which barely pays for the survival of one.

Now I only have relationships with enlightened, well read women who have educations that allow them access to jobs that have good salaries, and all these women are direct beneficiaries of feminism. I am now free to live of a life of some quality on my own dollar, and the women pull their weight too, financially. I can breathe! Yes, feminism has added more freedom and quality to my life than I can measure or put into words.

Viva la liberacion!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In high school in the 60s she was told by her teacher that she should take typing because secretary work was all women were good for. My mom ignored the advice of her teachers _and her family_ and went on to do a masters in Physics. She's highly educated, doing something she loves, and is now making megabucks in her field.
My mom and dad divorced a few years ago. She's single again, but she's successful with no financial dependency. Single men her age - especially men who have gone through messy divorces - look at that and sigh a huge sigh of relief! Female financial security has become very attractive.
As far as I know, Mom was never politically active, never protested, never burned bras. But she was among the first generation to benefit from those who did, and has turned out very well for doing so. Three cheers for liberated women!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

her position is something to be proud of. ok. as she stands there though what else can you tell your child. she stands there because she is a woman or what? she did something to get her there. can you name one thing? i can. so condi rice meets with world leaders all the time,sits with them and gives them advice. isnit this also something to point to? if one only points to your favorite democrat then what other message are you giving? i find the drift of pride only to dems very disturbing lately. a lot has been accomplished by all types of americans. the dems and feminists also get the father knows best idea all wrong. i remember it too. that was also the era of the father as fool, always getting hit in the head and ridiculed. too fat too. then there was the introduction of decent men, family men. men like my own father who gave advice and smiled a lot. yet it is just so pc now to twist all these messages around until another one comes along like pelosi and then all is changed again. now we have the mommie candidates, so reviled by the femininsts not too long ago. fertile myrtle was my nickname when i had my third child. enough taunts for me to leave the cabal. now pelosi is the queen bee to the point that even mommie dearest clinton will be adopting this attitude. dont try to rewrite the history too much, some of us lived it and remember it too well....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having more women as equals in the workplace has been a big help. It has made it more tolerable, diverse, and balanced. And it's kind of nice that there's less pressure on the male to be breadwinner.

But the article seems to give too much credit to feminism, and oversimplifies the current state of things. Things change for many reasons, such as necessity. For example, one income no longer buys what it did in Beaver's day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. All outcomes should be 50-50, except for situations in which women enjoy better than 50-50 outcomes. (Equality is no longer needed when that sort of thing happens.)

2. Bashing the opposite sex is not only acceptable, it's also good fun.

3. All-male gatherings are rooted in exclusion but all-female gatherings are rooted in solidarity.

4. A woman can do anything as well as a man can do, but there's no way a man can do anything as well as a woman.

5. There's no major differences between men and women, except for the ways in which women are better.

6. Female criminals should be compassionately understood but men should be punished mercilessly if they are accused of crimes against a woman.

Oh, goodness, there's plenty more of these. I could go on for hours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I appreciate Mr. Chethik's observation that feminism has not ruined the world for men, I am puzzled by his confidence that as of 1973 or so, women's "full potential" was no longer "curtailed by society's limitations." While it's true that new educational and work opportunities enabled some women in Mr. Chethik's (and my own) generation to seek "careers and adventure," those women were most likely to be the modest fraction of the female population who were middle class, college educated and white. And even these privileged equality-seekers encountered barriers to advancement in the professional workplace, and (unlike their male counterparts) were very likely to find their careers derailed if they had children (see Joshua Holland's Womenomics 101 on this site).

Women like Speaker Pelosi are the exception rather than the rule, which is why I find Mr. Chethik's representation of women's equality as a done deal irritating rather than a cause for celebration. Perhaps if he viewed the subject of modern mating and fatherhood through a more inclusive lens, Mr. Chethik would see that society continues to limit all women's potential for equality with men, but to different degrees based on education, race and class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I support women's rights and agree with the concept that it is ultimately better for men as well, but don't think we are living on the same planet. Where are these mythical liberated women? I do not see them or run into them and wonder if they are like UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster- a myth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Timebomb has it right: My column is about the impact of feminism on society, not about Pelosi's specific record. Like other males growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, I was warned that rights are a zero-sum game: if she gets more, he gets less. Experience showed me that, on the whole, this is not so. I do think that Pelosi will gain credibility among men if she uses her new power to address some issues that are of particular interest to men, including divorced fathers' rights to be involved with their children, and veterans' rights to mental-health care. You can read my other work at www.NeilChethik.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nancy as House speaker. Hillary in the White House. Why not? Can the women possibly screw things up any worse than we men have? Not bloody likely. Would the fact that women were running the show cause us to love them any less? Does the fact that men are currently in charge cause women to love US any less?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is so refreshing to listen to the blithe self absorbed banter
of those who are oblivious to the fact that the elitist leisure
class that they aspire to is already NAFTA/WTO bound for
extinction. Following Bella Abzug:
"Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel."
So even within the ranks of Euro/US white women..the article
is irrelevant to the predicament of Euro/US white women who
struggle to exist at the economic fringe of society.
On the other hand,
*I don't detect too much concern in the article for the vast majority of women on the planet....who are WOC....black,
brown,red,yellow.
The prime beneficiary of affirmative action in academia and
corporate America was and continues to be the white female. Pelosi's new House role of leadership represents a step in a direction yet to be determined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets thank feminism for lying about rape stats (1 in 4) labeling men predators, fueling misandry and demonizing men! Lets thank feminism for helping to marginalize the role of father to that of , nameless sperm donor, faceless bank account, forced cuckold and economic slave. Lets thank feminism for branding men inherently sexist discriminators blaming the wage gap on men’s sexism alone when that theory holds the LEAST evidence. Lets thank feminism for defining men for thirty years as the worm at the heart of all of societies problems, if I am poor I am a loser or a dead beat if I am rich I am privileged and stole my job from a poor women or minority so I cant fucking win, thanks feminism. Lets thank feminism for writing off boys educational needs a mere 15 years after the system bent over backwards to place women first, now the boys can eat cake ask Kathy Pollit. Lets thank feminism for perpetuating traditional definitions of men, “mra’s are whiney” “men are not victims”, “wifes can’t abuse”, “Vawa is for everyone” It’s just women are more important. Lets thank feminism for infecting our global human rights organizations so now in un industrialized nations they are considering women and blaming men while ignoring their complex problems, AND NO this has not worked in the first world. Most importantly lets thank institutionalized feminism for favoring women in education, health, poverty, war, the justice system the family courts. Thanks feminism for this shitty undemocratic gynocentric male blaming/bashing/ignoring society we live in. I could go on and on and a lot of you know it. After women achieved equal rights and opportunity feminism has been fundamentally a supremacist movement, whites first, women first same thing. It can pose as humanism but it is fooling no one feminism is dead, those feminists in power can prop up the movements dead and lifeless body using lies and demagogy for only so much longer everyone is beginning to notice the stink, yes, even with corporate and lefty media hanging air fresheners, its time to bury the bitch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually feminism didn't really free women. There was a number of things changing where women's freedom was coming regardless.
1. we had the Rosie Riveter affect from WWII. Many women learned that they liked working outside the house.
2. the pill is probably the single-most important scientific creation that "freed" women. It gave them (more or less) total control of reproduction.
3. increased technology & the hurdles jumped by unions (like creating OSHA) made the workplace safe enough for women to enter. Up until WWII, the overwhelming majority of non-skilled jobs were very unsafe. My friend worked for little brothers in Minnesota (inverse of big brothers--they cared for seniors helped them shop & socialize). My friend told me many tales told by seniors of friends who had lost fingers or what have you and were told they had to return to work in 3 days or be fired. BTW these were men this happened to.
4. increase in home-machine technology. This enabled housework to be done quickly. Compare washing clothes on a scrub-board tub & sweeping to using a washing machine & vacuuming. This reduced the necessary time for home-making chores.
5. Increase in jobs from WWII. America's production multiplied 5fold or something ridiculous after WWII. Why? Because every nation had to buy from us. Nearly every industrialized nation had their factories bombed to crap. Somebody had to work these extra jobs.
6. As more & more women piled into the job market, it was going to be a natural extension that education & various professional careers (like lawyer,surgeon, pilot etc...) would follow just from pressure from women alone, regardless if there was ever a NOW. The concept of all women being (only) homemakers was dead.
But the previous poster is correct. 2nd & 3rd wave feminism has done nothing but poison relations between the sexes, and ultimately hurt men, women and children.
In my opinion the single worst thing feminists did (and they have done many things to destroy men & poison man-woman relations) was the passage of no-fault divorce laws in 49 states. Divorce used to work like so:if you were a batterer, drug addict, cheater, or a compulsive gambler you were in violation of the marriage contract, and were penalized with non-custody and a smaller share of marital assets. If you divorce without showing that your spouse filled one of the above deal-breaking roles, then you were held to be abrogating (or cutting-short) the marriage contract. Now-a-days, under no-fault divorce the incentives (marital assets & custody) has shifted from the person trying to preserve the marriage, to the person trying to end the marriage. What is the point of this? Children fare much better under mother/father 2parent families. If someone is trying to keep a struggling marriage together (for the sake of the children) then that person SHOULD have custody! Because they are thinking of the children! By shifting power to the person breaking up the marriage you are destroying children's life's (potentially) for no better reason that one spouse is bored! Where minor children are involved women initiate 68% of divorces. And only 6% state that they are leaving behind an abusive or controlling husband. This is a direct result of feminism. How come all of these draconian laws are passed to squeeze every ounce of child support from men "in the name of the children". But nobody points fingers at these women who have 5 children from 3 or 4 fathers, and say:"you're a morally bankrupt person! You're wrong & selfish!"
Because feminism teaches us that only men have consequences. Women only have choices. Everything the previous poster about feminism is BS is correct on rape, DV, family court etc...
But, the #1 worst thing they did was no-fault divorce. Allowing selfish self-occupied women to terminate marriages (where children are involved) more easily than returning late movies at blockbuster is a shame & tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you're female and...

...you can vote, thank a feminist.

...you get paid as much as men doing the same job, thank a feminist.

...you went to college instead of being expected to quit after high school so your brothers could go because "You'll just get married anyway", thank a feminist.

...you can apply for any job, not just "women's work", thank a feminist.

...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.

...your doctor, lawyer, pastor judge or legislator is a woman, thank a feminist.

...you play an organized sport, thank a feminist.

...you can wear slacks without being excommunicated from your church or run out of town, thank a feminist.

...your boss isn't allowed to pressure you to sleep with him, thank a feminist.

...you get raped and the trial isn't about your hemline or your previous boyfriends, thank a feminist.

...you start a small business and can get a loan using only your name and credit history, thank a feminist

...you are on trial and are allowed to testify in your own defense, thank a feminist.

...you own property that is solely yours, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to your own salary even if you are married or have a male relative, thank a feminist.

...you get custody of your children following divorce or separation, thank a feminist.

...you get a voice in the raising and care of your children instead of them being completely controlled by the husband/father, thank a feminist.

...your husband beats you and it is illegal and the police stop him instead of lecturing you on better wifely behavior, thank a feminist.

...you are granted a degree after attending college instead of a certificate of completion, thank a feminist.

...you can breastfeed your baby discreetly in a public place and not be arrested, thank a feminist.

...you marry and your civil human rights do not disappear into your husband's rights, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to refuse sex with a diseased husband [or just "husband"], thank a feminist.

...you have the right to keep your medical records confidential from the men in your family, thank a feminist.

...you have the right to read the books you want, thank a feminist.

...you can testify in court about crimes or wrongs your husband has committed, thank a feminist.

...you can choose to be a mother or not a mother in you own time not at the dictates of a husband or rapist, thank a feminist.

...you can look forward to a lifespan of 80 years instead of dying in your 20s from unlimited childbirth, thank a feminist.

...you can see yourself as a full, adult human being instead of a minor who needs to be controlled by a man, thank a feminist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Among Westerners, American men seem to be the most angry, most incensed haters of feminism I have come across on my years on the net.

ARE American feminists, therefore, crazier than feminists from other countries? (Or is it the men?)
[just being fair and questioning the sanity of both sides]

We have a few problems here in Australia with some women taking advantage of divorce laws - and _breaking_ them by stealing their children away even though the court insists that the father have an equal part of their childrens' lives, but we don't seem to have anything LIKE the anger you have over there. But we ARE working on these laws and actually encouraging divorcing couples to avoid the court system altogether by using much less adversarial methods.

What's going ON?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just in case you didn't know.

I don't hate men - what would be the point? I'm not even a lesbian, so life would be pretty nasty.

My boyfriend's never oppressed anyone in his life - why would I persecute someone like him?

Some women ARE stupid and evil - men SHOULD leave them and not stick with them just to prove...well, prove what? I dunno. Seems a pointless exercise that just encourages the woman to stay stupip and evil.

Same goes for men - DON'T encourage bad behaviour by sticking around.

Children being used as weapons between fighting couples? Well maybe a LOT of people should have been provided with more education and brains before they married the twits that they did.

Whatever rights women gain/have should be EXACTLY the same rights that men are given/already have. There's no point various groups being treated differently en masse - it just makes people angry (which is where feminism came from in the first place - we don't need another revolution from either side, we need EVOLUTION that we ALL help plan)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Wiki:
===============
Race issues
Most commentators regard his views as libertarian, but some of Mencken's writing displays elitism, and at times a pronounced racist element in excess of early-twentieth century Social Darwinist thought:.
The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown.[1]
In addition to these allegations, Mencken has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic. Many of these charges appear to be at least superficially accurate[citation needed], and Mencken went on the record in many places dismissing Hitler as "hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer" (which, given his disgust with the Ku Klux Klan, is a rather nasty insult.) Another allegation levelled against him was that he was frequently obsessed with the importance of social status or class. For example, Mencken broke off a relationship of many years with his lover, Marion Bloom, when they were arranging to be married. Critics saw this as being due to Bloom being insufficiently wealthy, upper-class, and sophisticated for him. Mencken, however, claimed he ended the relationship because she converted to Christian Science.
Despite the allegations of racism and elitism, Mencken sometimes acted in a manner which tended to upset such views about his character. For example, the most published author during his tenure as editor of The Smart Set was a woman; he helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany during World War II; and on several occasions, Mencken referred to African-Americans as being the equal of whites.[citation needed]
While it is true that Mencken's essays are sprinkled liberally with racial epithets("blackamoor," "niggero," "coon," "prehensile kikes,") Mencken's life, beliefs, and writings show his views on race to be much more nuanced and progressive than those of most people of the era[citation needed].
(emphasis mine...if THIS is 'nuanced and progressive' then
what,pray tell,would be reactionary and blunt? ;o) )
Mencken believed men should be measured as individuals, rather than categorized on the basis of race, and with remarkable consistency he accorded respect and friendship to individuals he deemed superior or excellent within their communities[citation needed]. Mencken considered the African-American intellectual George Schuyler to be a life-long friend — rare in any case, considering Mencken's infamous capacity for personal criticism. On the other hand, while Mencken was fair to individuals, he was deeply negative in regard to social groups and other groupings of people, and ethnic groups were no exception. The balance of abuse meted out by Mencken to races, religions, and groups is overwhelmingly skewed against the "dominant" groups, such as Southern Whites, Christians (especially of the Methodist or Baptist traditions), and even German immigrants, with whom Mencken shared his heritage.
Instead of arguing that one race or group was superior to another (like modern White supremacists), Mencken believed that every community— whether the community of train porters, African-Americans, newspapermen, or artists — produced a few people of clear superiority. He considered groupings on a par with hierarchies, which led to a kind of natural elitism and aristocracy. "Superior" individuals, in Mencken's view, were those wrongly oppressed and disdained by their own communities, but nevertheless distinguished by their will and personal achievement —not by race or birth. Of course, based on his heritage, achievement, and work ethic, Mencken considered himself a member of this group.
=======================
There are a couple of further paragraphs attempting to explain why a mallard really isn't a duck....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe what I am reading. With regard to Pelosi, it really is irrelavant as to whether she is Speaker or not--unless you are one of the myriad men totally enamored of football and baseball stats. When was Golda Meir leading Israel? How many female prime ministers has Israel had since then? None. And Margaret Thatcher of England...how many female Prime Ministers has England had since then? None. The point is that women are vastly underrepresented. Pelosi's position may be historic and important to feminists and doe eyed fawing Metrosexuals like Chethik, however in terms of having meaning, it really has none. I don't know if Chethik is in La La Land but I do know that his perception of reality is certainly not indicative of most men in the the United States today. Today, Feminists have their cake and can eat it too. Men go into combat, with women making the same money they do, but they take none of the risk. Very few women are listed among the dead in Irag. Then these little bitches come back to the states while our sons take the bullets and cry about being a minority and being discriminated against.. they get the same verterans benefits. The government that these young men fought and died for actively discriminates against them at every level. It subsidizes businesses and universities by giving plum jobs to women at the expense of men with their minority and mandatory quota status. Our government blatantly discriminates against these men in the courts when it comes to allowing them equal access to their children. It insults them time and time again when it comes to divorce (97 per cent of divorces are initiated by women) in giving women overwelming custodial rights. It discriminates against these same men by forcing them to pay for child support even when women have systematically and ruthlessly had children against the wishes of these very same men. It discriminates against them again in forcing them to pay for child support without any documentation that the money is actually going to the child. The government discriminates against these men again by requiring them to pay--and if they don't, they are harrassed, their wages garnished, thrown in jail, and publically humiliated. And, that debt follows them until all of it is paid. However, a women can go on welfare and ADC and collect for the entire support cycle of the child, and her debt is wiped free--she has no financial liablibility to either the state or her former husband. The state has no preconditions on the money given.. So she can be a crack whore spending her child support on her habit without any liability to the state or the father that is supporting the child. The father, conversely is required to pay for the child even when the mother withholds state ordered visitation and custodial rights. The Feds/States further discriminate against men by having all kinds of education support/job training but none for men. If he looses his job, he is still required to pay--even if the child is not his, he is still required to pay. These little feminine bigots are the first to chime discrimination on plum jobs like doctor/ lawyer and political jobs, but where are the discrimination lawsuits for jobs like Garbage Workers, Steel Workers, factory Workers, Farm Workers, sanitation workers, Mechanics? They're perfectly happy to let "menial" jobs go to the dumb male slobs--no desire for equality there! When was the last time you saw the National Organization for Women demanding that they should be required to register for the draft? I mean fair is fair. How many women firefighters died at 9/11?...None. Why? It was too dangerous to send in these wannabe firefighting dipshits. Did they file a lawsuit for the right to die like our fallen male heros? No. I'm not sure where this Author is coming from, but he certainly doesn't live in a real man's world. But then again he never had a real man's job either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]