Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Feminism Keeps My Marriage Together

By Christie Church, Girlistic Magazine. Posted March 26, 2008.


Feminism helps us face the challenge of being complex people in a society that reduces us to pink and blue.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Christie Church

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When it comes to heterosexual marriage, feminism gets blamed for everything from the divorce rate to declining birth rates, or even in the case of Ted Haggard, meth addiction and secret gay affairs. Feminism is, after all, the movement that teaches women to leave husbands, kill children, and become capitalist-destroyin', witchcraft lovin' lesbians (thanks Pat Robertson!). But on the eve of our second anniversary, my husband and I credit feminism with keeping our marriage together.

Many second-wave feminists argue that no matter how many gains feminism makes, it should never cease to be taught, because the younger generations will be stunned powerless in the face of unexpected sexism without having feminist education to help put that sexism into context. Thanks to my marriage, I know this to be true. Patrick and I considered ourselves equal partners, but not necessarily feminists. One night while folding laundry, we, two equal partners decided to get married.

We got engaged for all the reasons that very young 20-somethings do -- we wanted a public declaration of commitment, we hoped we would be together forever, we were straight and it never occurred to us to do anything else, and we were a little bit crazy. From that moment on, sexism smacked us in the face at every turn.

We didn't want an engagement ring, as we felt it was a one-sided gesture based on a tradition involving the man proving his financial worth to the woman he would take care of. We did, however, buy each other some badass high-top sneakers. At first were thrilled. We were counterculture. But I became less thrilled when the same script played out with nearly every person I knew.

"You're engaged? Congratulations! Where's the ring?"

"Oh, we didn't want one."

"You poor thing. He'll buy you one soon."

"No, I didn't want one. We bought each other these rad sneakers, though. We thought it would be more equal. I wanted him to have something too."

"Well, he'll come around. How did he propose?"

"He didn't. We just had a discussion. That's really our style."

"He didn't get on one knee or plan a big surprise?"

"Nope. Hey, don't you know us? I hate surprises and he sucks at keeping secrets. And I've never really appreciated the knee thing."

"Oh, honey. You really shouldn't settle for this. I'm sure he'll buy you a nice diamond if you just drop some hints. You deserve better that this."

This what? This equality?

The overwhelming majority of romantic traditions are deeply rooted in sexism and any deviation from those traditions left me pitied and questioning my own value. Sure Patrick and I thought that sexist traditions were stupid, but if he didn't offer me sexist traditions, how else could he show me that he really did love me? What else was there? I had always known that I wanted to keep my name if I got married, but suddenly I was pretty pissed that Patrick was OK with this. "Why aren't you upset that I won't share your name? Why doesn't this bother you like everyone keeps telling me it will? Oh my god, you don't want to marry me, do you? If you wanted to marry me, you'd be insisting that I keep your name! Everyone told me so!"

We had a lot of confusing, bitter arguments. Patrick couldn't understand why we couldn't just make decisions in a vacuum. Surely if he and I wanted things one way, then all the other ways shouldn't matter. I couldn't understand why there was so much dissonance between what we wanted and what family, friends, magazines, and seemingly the rest of the country told me to expect -- and why it all made me feel awful. I felt guilty for letting Patrick do most of the wedding planning, even though he loved designing invitations, buying decorations and all the other artsy aspects that bored me silly. I felt guilty for not having an aisle.

I felt guilty for not stressing out enough over the wedding itself; I simply didn't do anything that I didn't want to, and it seemed to close me off to bonding with other women who were always asking if I was "going crazy yet" (I was, but it had nothing to do with reception menus). I felt guilty for making decisions, because someone was bound to say, "Hey, look out for Bridezilla!" I felt guilty just for buying a wedding band after the jeweler saw us walk into the shop and said to Patrick, "Poor guy. I know this is the last place you want to be right now. Well, let's make her happy and then you can leave."

Looking back, it's a wonder we even got married. I wish that I had the language of feminism back then, to understand how we are all socialized to see marriage as a woman's prize for being appropriately attractive and wily, and how men are offered no part in it except as reluctant, defeated lumps following behind. But the wedding was just the beginning.

As a wife, thanks to popular culture, well-meaning friends and family, and generations of sexist baggage, I was convinced that I had to be constantly capable. Growing up in my family, the women handled all the cooking, cleaning, event planning and what we call "friend maintenance" (making plans, returning calls, sending cards, etc.). The men didn't dare handle any of that because everyone knew they would fuck it up.

If television has taught us anything, it's that men in the kitchen produce inedible meals and explosions. Men with mops will ignore piles of visible dirt. Best to leave the details to women, who are innately suited to the more mind-numbing elements of daily life. I tried to do it all, plus pet care, paying the bills on schedule, and keeping track of birthdays and big events in both our families.

The more I controlled Patrick's life as well as mine, the better I convinced myself I was at marriage -- and the culture at large reinforced that. Sometimes I told myself that it was better this way, because if we tried to split chores 50-50, then Patrick wouldn't do things as well as I did. But I was kidding myself. Patrick was a great cook and an OK housekeeper. If we would abandon the idea that men don't or can't clean, he would learn to do things well, just as I had learned them.

Marilyn French once said that with feminism, "it always comes down to the damn dishes." In my house, it came down to sex. I wanted it constantly. He didn't. When the tables are turned and a woman has a lower drive, it's natural. It's expected. When a woman wants more sex and isn't getting it, then something is badly wrong. She must be gaining weight. She must be ugly. Because as we all know, men are simply walking penises who want sex all the time. A woman who can't convince him to have it with her must be doing something wrong. Or there's a deeper issue at heart, as a friend said when I complained to her that our drives just weren't synching up. "Do you think he could be gay?" she asked, quite seriously. At this time, we were having sex about twice a week. "Still," my friend said. "What kind of a man turns down sex?"

For me, that's when things began to change. What kind of a man was Patrick, to be an independent, thinking, feeling, capable person, when everything in the world was giving him marching orders to be something completely different? What kind of woman was I to do the same? We always had been individuals who valued equality, but we were gradually beginning to see the impact and influence of sexism on our lives. We didn't live in a vacuum, and we never could. The day we began to acknowledge sexism, instead of pretending that it didn't exist, was the day we started to treat each other like adults.

Patrick has taught me a lot about feminism by being my husband. I've learned that patriarchy hurts men, too. While I was feeling guilty for anything and everything I did, he was beating himself up over his salary and benefits, his lower sex drive, and his own struggles with anxiety and lack of confidence -- emotions that men aren't supposed to have, much less express to their partners. He was chafing under the idea that he wasn't smart enough to manage his own daily life, and he was insulted by the implication that he was so governed by his penis that he would cede all control to it at the prospect of sex.

Just as sexism tells women that they must fit a very narrow mold, it tells men the same thing. Any attempt to simply be yourself is met with derision and disapproval, even from supposedly equal partners who expect you to act as they've been told "all" men do. Intimacy just isn't possible under patriarchy. You don't see your partner or even yourself as a real person, but instead you see through the lens of gender expectations, through which deviation is confusing at best and threatening at worst. You suppress every scary impulse -- whether nonmonogamy, demanding equal effort on chores or relationship issues, or simply slumming it all weekend -- lest you upset the security of living under those expectations. Maybe that works for some people. But at 23 and 25, we hope to have a lot of years of marriage ahead, and we'd rather just relax and be real. There is enormous security that comes from knowing that your partner respects you enough to handle what you dish out, and vice versa.

These days, we're both feminists. In feminism, we've found a language to describe the challenges inherent to being multifaceted, complex people in a society that reduces us to pink and blue, and we've found alternatives to buying into that society. Being heterosexual has afforded us many privileges, but it also has allowed us plenty of opportunities to challenge assumptions about what heterosexual marriage should be. This summer, I'll be enrolling in full-time law school while Patrick takes over all of the household responsibilities. Eventually, Patrick would like to take some time off work to focus on writing. We've even discussed living apart for travel and internship opportunities.

Whatever we do, I'm confident that it won't be motivated by the guilt that drove the early part of our relationship. While our marriage may not look like the ones we knew growing up, it works for us. We married a friend, but we got an ally.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, feminism, masculinity, marriage, femininity

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Feminism is not the same pursuing equality or the better off pursuits of goodness and fairness.
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 26, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is good that you were able to stop stressing over living up to stereotypical expectations for a cross gendered couple. Being considerate of each other, being open to unconventional arrangements that works for both of you, and talking things out with each other are all good for a considerate, communication oriented relationship. Hopefully, people who are not considering themselves feminists, will also find those things good. Feminism is one the things that can help people break free from undesirable pressure to stick to stereotypical expectations of how to be in a cross gendered relationship, and it is good that in your case it helped that way.

Feminism focuses on getting female humans social, political, and other rights of female humans equal to those of male humans. While many self proclaimed feminists do try to focus on equality of sexes, many other feminists focus on female human interests only. and tend to not address rights of male humans. It is not clear whether or not the purpose's of feminist organizations should include addressing the injustices suffered by male humans on some issues.

In any case feminism tends to be more about equality of female humans to male humans, than about goodness or fairness. While many feminists would like to see an equal representation of female humans and male humans in various positions of perceived "authority and power", fairness is not a top consideration. It would be fair to ensure that resources, power, etc., is fairly shared by all (across race, gender, subcultures, species, financial ability, etceteras).

If a job category is better suited for people with a certain ability in which far more male human applicants excelled, than female human applicants, fairness would dictate that people be recruited without reference to the gender, but many feminists would seek equal numerical representation of female humans if the job category were highly desirable. Unlike weight lifting and boxing where there has been some attempt at fairness amongst those with differing weight classes, most people interested in fairness are too busy locked into feminists viewpoints to think about height based jumping categories or basketball matches. If sports competitions is about trying to help people get closer to their peaks, then why segregate only on the genetic differences of male humans versus female humans?

Because too many people who value goodness and fairness are too caught up in feminism to fairly evaluate fairness and goodness that may result in female humans not being equal to male humans, I prefer to not call myself a feminist. Though many of my pursuits may be the same as feminists, and people may be accurate in calling me a feminist, I would rather stick to the superset and say that I am for fairness (and goodness and compassion and ...).

Sincerely,
Aouie

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

» "Including men ... " Posted by: BenCaxton12
Feminism and sexism?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 26, 2008 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds more like good sense: breaking away from silly, expensive traditions and expectations.

Why call all of this "feminism", which is such a dirty, complicated, politically-charged term? Why not call it "Pat", a nice, gender-neutral Irish name. Aren't the Irish known for being simple, cheap, practical, hard-drinking folks?...Hmmm...Simple, cheap, practical, hard-drinking...Sounds like the perfect wedding.

What do other women really think about the princess-for-a-day thing that seems to permeate weddings these days? Have you really been planning it since you were 12? Do you really want all that attention, planning, and expense? Let's take a poll.

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

» RE: Feminism is a terrific term. Posted by: ladyoracle
» What's in a Name? Posted by: BenCaxton12
Re: Feminism saved my marriage
Posted by: btownmadness on Mar 26, 2008 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Christie, very well put ... of course, the types of stereotypes my S.O and I had to put up with were different from yours in some cases but your theme is spot on. People just live their lives as they're told at every step of the way completely ignoring what they really enjoy, like, etc. My spouse has had to put up with the "where's the engagement/wedding ring?" question many times ... I am the more detail oriented person between the two of us which is supposed to be completely bizarre if we followed the gender-types but thankfully we as a couple ignore them. Good post. -AG

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

Refreshing approach!
Posted by: ladyoracle on Mar 26, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a newlywedded feminist, and it's great to see that I'm not the only one trying to balance my values with everyone else's expectations for me (not my wonderful husband, just all these friends and relatives).

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

My Perspectice...
Posted by: dave16 on Mar 26, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see www.discussrace.com

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

Greatest Article ever
Posted by: Fade on Mar 26, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. This just absolutely, perfectly fits everything I experienced as a husband to be, and husband. I don't know that you can pigeonhole it into just a feminist issue. It affects us equally.From a female's perspective I suppose it is a feminist issue. But from both sides I think its is simply getting away from these silly traditions and expectations of people in general. My fiancee and I decided not to buy a big diamond ring, for many reasons, but eight months later, she's got one anyway, and despite her initial disdain for the ridiculousness of it, she preens when other women (and sometimes men) gush over it, (to me its just a worthless shiny rock). It's hard to fight against the status quo. Marriage, itself, is a useless tradition rooted in keeping sexual roles in their place. But, fighting it just made me out to be the loser guy who didnt really want to commit. So, I put all my anti-establishment feelings aside in order to make her happy, because she in turn, wanted to make her family happy. It's what was expected, and for some reason its makes them all (both sides of the family) happier (and more pliable). In the end, do I feel like bit of a hypocrite for acquiesing to tradition? Yes, but not any more than I do for hundreds of other little things, from eating fast food to shopping at Wal-Mart to letting my kids go to public school. Bucking the system in this case had no plus side, except that I would have the smug knowledge that i did it "my way". And a successful relationship has nothing to do with that concept. It was refreshing to read the view of a woman who saw the concept of marriage as most men see it.

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

» RE: Greatest Article ever Posted by: hagwind
Excellent job!
Posted by: hagwind on Mar 26, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonderful article. It's been a long time since I read anything that conveyed so well what "the personal is political" really means. And why all that repartee about rings, weddings, surnames, etc., etc., isn't innocuous at all.

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

Roberta7
Posted by: Roberta7 on Mar 26, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great article. And no, low sexual desire in men is not unusual. Just read The Sex-Starved Wife by Michele Weiner Davis and find out for yourself. This article is very freeing!

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

Unfortunate influences
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 26, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it to be incredibly unfortunate that the author's experience was so difficult. That she was actually influenced by her friends' stereotypical attitudes such as concerning engagement rings and keeping her own name is probably not that unusual, but it's sad that she did not have more confidence in her own choices. Many of us - including myself as a young woman - had the same experience.

Many women are overly influenced by their mates or husbands; in this case, Christie was overly influenced by outside opinions. That doesn't say much for the state of feminism either.

I was married for 25 years to a very manipulative, overbearing man, and I allowed him to control me in ways I didn't even realize he was doing. It finally got so bad I couldn't ignore it, and we separated. I had no intention of ever subjecting myself to another marriage, but, as so often happens, what I thought I wanted and what occurred were not the same thing. Within 5 months I had met and committed to the most incredible person I'd ever known.

At that point, at the age of 45, I was a lot more experienced than someone in her early 20s. When my new husband-to-be and I talked about marriage, there was no question of an engagement ring. I had no desire for one. I was adamant in my mind that, having taken back my birth name, I'd never change it for a man again. His reaction was "why in the world would you change your name for me?" Very, very cool guy, no ego problems.

Incidentally, the whole name changing thing does seem to involve ego for a lot of men. I know women who have gotten married and their husbands threw a fit when they said they wanted to keep their names. The husbands thought it made them look "bad" to their friends and family because they couldn't control their women.

Anyhow, I've been with my new husband for 15 years. He stays home, and I go to work. He does a moderately good job on the housework and a great job on the cooking. We are in a healthy, interdependent relationship. We respect each other's needs for companionship and solitude. We have interests in common and individually. And there has never, ever been any negative input from my friends or family concerning engagement rings or changing names or who does what part of the housework. In fact, the only reaction from my family was from my dad who thought it was great that I wanted to keep my name.

Couples who want to have a relationship based on respect, equal responsibilities, and sharing should not have to fight the opinions of their friends or anyone else in order to feel comfortable about it.

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

"What kind of a man turns down sex?"
Posted by: pdxstudent on Mar 26, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do, but I also compromise when it's been a while between my partner and I. I really resent all sorts of manly expectations, including that my viagra-glands be pumping 24/7 with fresh hard-on juice.

Do I value courage and stoicism and gritty-truth? Sure, but I also value honesty, which means being honest about the fact that failing to live up to values is, in fact, not the end of the world, so long as it doesn't become habitual. I guess if I value anything beyond compromise, it would be the wisdom and compassion of maturity. That, however, doesn't really pertain to my Y-Chromosome, or my X-Chromosome come to think of it. If conventionally masculine or feminine behavior have anything to do with it, it's matter of contingency and nothing more.

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

good luck... come back in twenty years and let us know
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 26, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless a couple is really god damned strong, iron-clad and supported by a core circle around them, the onslaught of patriarchy will most likely wear them down if not break them utterly.

Just wait until she has twenty years experience in her career, then suddenly no one wants to pay her for that experience, and him, without a "real" job history and with all that domesticity, good luck finding work at age 42... the patriarchal fortress does not accept deviants.

All you have to be is a working class SAHD and that pretty much eliminates any possibility of employment. Patriarchy guarantees punishment for all male deviants. Female deviants are punished too but patriarchy just slams them for being feminists while reserving the storehouse of venom and savagery for the male deviant... all that homophobia thing.

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

Here's a better way to have a happier marriage and it worked for my wife and I.
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 26, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For you guys out there, never ever let male chauvanism control your way of thinking. Put down that macho attitude and be reasonable. Besides, it doesn't take machoism to be a successful vigilante. Also, don't expect your wife to be your slave. She too is human.

For ladies, out there, never let "feminism" control your way of thinking. Stop thinking that all guys are bad and that being too picky is the only way to stay "secure". Being a GI Jane member of militaristic feminists already destroys the real meaning of feminism.

Now, let's put the two together. This means not keeping one spouse to be stuck at home all the time or for that matter only one of the spouses working all the time. It's like trying to turn a sports team into a one-man show and we all know that the risks of failures is higher as a result.

Last, like Jerry Springer would always say

"TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND EACH OTHER."

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

» The language does matter Posted by: LeeAnnG
» GRAMMAR Posted by: gellero
» RE: GRAMMAR Posted by: e rice
» RE: GRAMMAR Posted by: Fade
lol, pro-choice = the new feminism
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 26, 2008 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I new they'd come around!

Sneakers, agreed upon. What could be better between two pledged lifetime partners than a mutual agreement to kick things off?

I didn't do it that way, but dammit, I understand! :)

Hell, they'll be supporting happysexshuls' marriage certificates before you know it, and I applaud that.

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

feminism and the new machismo
Posted by: e rice on Mar 26, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i have been fascinated for many years at the changes in attitudes about masculinity as women have become increasingly visible in society.

i grew up with relatives born before the first world war. my father was in the military for 30 years. attitudes about masculinity differed amongst the men, of course, but, when i started comparing those attitudes to the attitudes about masculinity today, i realized one particularly glaring aspect:

in the last 20 years in this country, the acceptance of psychotic behavior as 'manly', especially in the working class, is overwhelming. nowadays, especially in the media, a man is only a man if he's ignorant, crude, abusive, and loutish. in an american film, the man who sits down to play brahms on the piano is the evil, criminal mastermind out to kill our hero--who would shoot himself in the foot if he had to listen to anything other than rock and roll.

while couples such as the article concerns are doing their best to change the brainwashing of millenia, in the face of, at best, incomprehension, others are buying into the current warrior myth. that, of course, plays into the current political efforts to separate rich from poor, black from white, men from women--because when you've divided all the segments of society from one another, you can play them off against each other and end up in the white house.

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

I envy you...
Posted by: MargoM on Mar 26, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! I was raised in a very conservative family and church where the man is "the head of the household" and the women is the "helpmeet". Now those kinds of attitudes just kill me.

The other day at work one of the guys was talking with some of the gals and saying that he liked how women looked in high heels, and derided flats. I wasn't in the group but it was near my cubicle... I think I broke up the party by saying that some women don't dress to please men.

But, of course, that's not the biggest thing. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who really wants a housekeeper. But a lot of guys want that.

Get past the stereotypes, people!

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

» RE: I envy you... Posted by: urthsong
» You Don't Have To..... Posted by: gellero
» RE: You Don't Have To..... Posted by: meeneecat
Your Feminism has Ruined You....
Posted by: gellero on Mar 26, 2008 8:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tale is like a redo of my history. You're smart, if not brilliant. You have attitude and moxie. Your man sees and feels it every day. You are intellectually his lover ( to him ), but you are/ remind him of his mother. Boys don't fuck their mothers. If you acted like a hot slut bitch ho.......he'd be on you in a minute. But you can't..............because you're a feminist.

Not that I don't undertand......but it's a lose-lose situation.

Congrats on your two years.................

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

Poor guy
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 27, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What's the worst portion in this mortal life?
A pensive mistress, and a yelping wife."
- Theodore Roethke (20th century Amer. poet - 1954 Pulitzer Prize)

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

Having your Cake & eating it to.
Posted by: Fitz on Mar 31, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a sensible response to a truly nonsensical column by By Christie Church, Girlistic Magazine posted on AlterNet.
“When it comes to heterosexual marriage, feminism gets blamed for everything from the divorce rate to declining birth rates…. Feminism is, after all, the movement that teaches women to leave husbands, kill children, and become capitalist-destroyin', witchcraft lovin' lesbians (thanks Pat Robertson!).”
Well Yes. But this highlights the divide most people encounter when the term feminism is brought into a conversation. It is not unfair to talk of “feminism” as representative of the entire self indulgent ethos of the sixties. As proxy for the sexual revolution, the devaluing of men, the sidelining of marriage, the acceptance of out-of-wedlock childbearing and the nurturing of grievances between man & women and so forth.
Not only has it actively promoted various pathologies as progressive it (most importantly) has stifled any debate in our universities & intelligencia that would seriously confront family breakdown in its myriad of forms. It’s hard to argue that with their own “women & gender studies” departments at almost every university that any conversation about sex, marriage or gender gets pulled into its extreme gravitational pull.
I had a conversation with a sociology professor once were he admitted (paraphrase) “ Yes: we’re ignoring the single most important sociological trend in generations” – He was referring to the breakdown of the nuclear family. His remarks basically conceded (off the record) that feminism kept his research and opinions centered on other subjects for fear of peer pressure & career success.
Feminist are caught in a sort of bind when they try and avoid accountability for the social changes of the last forty years. They (rightfully) herald their movement as a powerful revolutionary force changing woman’s lives & society. Yet at the same time they tend to neglect responsibility for any ill effects as being 1) not ill effects, 2) not their fault, 3) outside respectable conversation, 4), somehow worth the “price of progress”
With almost every conversation and analysis concerning sex, love, marriage, and the entire lives of men and woman being fonder for the feminist mill…I for one don’t feel the least bit hesitant to blame “feminism” for a multitude of social ills.
In this sense I feel I am being respectful of feminism & feminists by holding them to accountable for their actions. The last 40 years of this culture cannot plausibly be said to owe its understanding of the sexes to any other ideological movement. Its time this significant force in our society stop playing the victim and start taking responsibility for the world we share.

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

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement