the boy will be screwed up or resent women

Right. Unlike, say, most of the other men in the world.

Please. If single motherhood was responsible for misogyny we'd have a much better history than we do. He'll grow up dysfunctional? He can join the club. It's kind of crowded in here, what with every single member of the human race being involved, but on the plus side, you're almost sure to meet someone to hang out with.

It always amazes me how people are willing to make proclamations about other people's parenting choices with almost no evidence whatsoever.

I'm very interested in this book, for precisely the same reasons you are, Jessica. Most of what worries me about it is the money aspect. I earn a decent living for myself, but...Does the book address that kind of thing?

EG: I'm not sure, I haven't read it yet. Going to pick up a copy this week. But I hear you on the money aspect, definitely. I have a hard enough time financially supporting Monty. ;)

I wonder if boys who grow up without fathers because they were killed in Bush's stupid war are going to be "screwed up or resent women." I mean, isn't the outcome the same? Hmmm.

Mirm: Those kids won't be quite as bad off. It's not the just the lack of a father that dooms kids like Sloan's, but the accompanying piffle-mongering. You can't forget about the piffle-mongering!

Good point, EG.
The vast majority of men resent or even hate women. Many of them learn to resent and demean women from their, GASP!, fathers.

Holy hyperbolic generalizations, SarahMC.

This pissed me off so much from the letters section:

"I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed.

Sorry ladies, but this is not the way to a man's heart and more and more men will do what it takes to tear down this insulting world you want."

Asshole. As if anyone would want to know the way to his heart. He sounds like a kid having a temper tantrum.

"Sorry ladies, but this is not the way to a man's heart"

A completely irrelevant point, as bagging a man is not the motivation for everything we "ladies" do.

Especially when we've deliberately decided to have a child without one.

And, as in the case of Sloan, we're lesbians.

After reading this article I realized that the three guys with whom I have been in serious, long-term relationships were all raised by single mothers. My current boyfriend, who is shockingly free of "issues" regarding women (and who has never drank, smoked, done drugs, and whose criminal record consists of skateboarding past curfew in highschool and a speeding ticket), was raised solely by his grandmother, and never met his father. Then again, though he's not a violent criminal, he seems to have embraced a lot of "feminist piffle" pretty readily - I mean, he lives with me - so maybe he IS part of the problem.

I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed.

#1--Does anyone else hear the Nice Guy siren going off? and #2--has there been gangs of women going 'round drugging men and throwing them in jail? B/c no one invited me and I'm mad and hurt about that.

Salon letters section is a landfill. It's not meant to encourage discourse in that every thread devolves into "2 minutes of hate" with a dick joke chaser. Perhaps that is reflective of the magazine's readership. You get a particular breed of kook that trolls BroadSheet, usually the same 3 or 4 people, or perhaps just one nutjob trolling under a few different names. It's really sad the amount of energy wasted to troll a website day, after day, after day--- but some people have nothing better to do.

Salon letters section is a landfill. It's not meant to encourage discourse in that every thread devolves into "2 minutes of hate" with a dick joke chaser. Perhaps that is reflective of the magazine's readership. You get a particular breed of kook that trolls BroadSheet, usually the same 3 or 4 people, or perhaps just one nutjob trolling under a few different names. It's really sad the amount of energy wasted to troll a website day, after day, after day--- but some people have nothing better to do.

What I hear is that it's not men's fault for behaving badly (and, "a few"? Like, what hundreds of years of patriarchy, disenfranchisement, sexual violence, and brutality were the work of only around 10 guys?), but somehow it's women's fault for actually taking that behavior seriously.

Salon has an interesting interview with Sloan, but even more intriguing is the vitriol she's getting in the letters section.

Doesn't it occur to these people what harm THEY are causing these kids? Being told that they will grow up to resent women or be criminals or won't do as well as the "Mom + Dad" kids is more detrimental to them than having a single, loving parent. Of course, we all know the "Mom + Dad" parenting situation always produces normal, healthy kids. They are never underachievers, misogynists, misfits, criminals, abusers, addicts, ect...nope.

My favorite comment is by a guy who berates the author for wanting to raise a child without a father in one comment and in his very next comment wants to know why feminists aren't "coming up with a plan" to help him be a single father. Love those MRA's.

It's interesting that the same people who say that children of single mothers will grow up messed up don't expect anything more from fathers than working outside the home and sitting on his ass in the home. How can the less involved parent have such an influence over the development of the child? What is the difference between being a single mother and being a father who does no child rearing whatsoever? It just doesn't make any sense.

I wonder if many of the people against this woman having a baby she actually wants aren’t the same people who would force others to have babies they don’t want.

I love the letter writer that claims that today's children are "coddled" and "infantilized". WTF? Of course they are, they're children! And what does he think he's doing by telling mothers what to do? Children should be treated like children and grown women should be treated like adults!

Your child will grow up fatherless and disadvantaged. But you got what you want, and that is what is most important. How sad.

Apparently I was wrong. We aren't living in the 21st century.

I wonder how much Sloan talks about the financial side of choosing single motherhood in the book...
For me that seems like a far greater barrier for single women who would like to be moms, much more so than the stigma.

Side note-the most well-adjusted, awesome little boy I know is a 9-year-old whose mom had him on her own by choice. With his amazing mom, adorable grandparents and extended family of his mom's fascinating friends, he's definitely not going to grow up "screwed up or resenting women."

These poor guys probably feel like we are taking away their 'purpose'. I mean, if a man can't implant and then tote around his spawn, what good is he? Nevermind that we wouldn't have sperm banks without donors, emotion is not logic.
They also may be resentful because its a hell of a lot harder to make the choice to be a single father with no mother present. You have to get an egg (more $$ than getting sperm) and a woman to host who won't decide that she wants to keep the baby (nigh impossible and quite expensive).
And then there's the power thing. We took away men's power over us (hooray), and they don't see what feminism has done for them. And now, they aren't breadwinners, or landowners, and we are telling them we don't need them to be fathers either. I'm not a man, but maybe that hurts a little?

"the boy will be screwed up or resent women, not having had a father around. he will have a higher chance of being a criminal."

I love how people (and, I'm sorry, but they're usually of the conservative stripe) don't want to deal with real, social-economic reasons behind crime, so they just go for the easy way out: Yeah, just blame it on women.

If they could, I promise you they'd find a way to blame it on gays, too.

ccchile, they will probably also say, if they haven't already, that these children will be GAY...GAY! (I imagine them shouting it)

Let's all get back to raising a maladjusted army of misfits, gays, and future felons!

"I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed."

Ok, I didn't read the article, only what feministing posted, but are these women really declaring all men bad and all been are drugged and jailed? Maybe that quote is taken out of context but it makes no damn sense. It seems these single moms don't want to settle or get married with someone just to have kids since a couple that doesn't love each other or has a dysfunctional relationship would have a negative impact on the children...Not so much with having one loving and caring parental figure. The men are drugged and jailed?! For not being chosen as mates?! Alright, lets rally the feminist, anti-man, lesbian pink army together to attack, drug, and jail men!

Statistically, children of single parents are more likely to get in trouble and have problems in life. However, I view that statistic much as I view the PSAs telling parents to eat dinner with their children. The statistics say that families that eat dinner together are more functional.

Well, ok, but what if you absolutely despise your family members? In that case, eating dinner with them would be nothing other than sheer agony and wouldn't do anything to help familial relationships. I think it's far more likely that eating dinner together is a symptom of a happy family, not a cause.

Which brings me to my ultimate point: I believe that many parents don't truly know what they're getting into when they choose to have children. If there are two parents involved, the potential damage of them not realizing the amount of time/money/commitment/responsibility is mitigated. When there's just one parent, that parent is going to be overwhelmed that much more easily. So, in other words, you can't tell me that the children of a single mother who knows what she's getting into and makes necessary preparations are going to be any worse off than children in nuclear families.

typo, all men, not been

I've read that having children is an inherently selfish act- that if you rationally and coherently weigh the "benefits" of having a child versus the "cost" to both yourself and the world around you, you'd be hard pressed to come up with an altruistic reason for having children. SO any argument that she "got what she wanted" at the expense of someone else is BS. Moving on...

As keshmeshi said, motherhood and parenting is different for ever person, there is no plan to execute, no formula to apply. It is hard and crazy and wonderful and I've only been a member of the club for 18 months and pretty much every thought I had about being a mom has gone out the window save the whole "love the hell out of the kid and treat her like a person" goal that I'm managing to keep up with. So knowing what you're getting into? Also total shit. And I hear it changes with every kid you may or may not have, so there's no real method to the madness.

If anything, Sloan should feel welcomed into the increasingly judgmental parenting club. No matter what you do, there is someone who is gonna tell you quite passionately that you made the wrong choice, you're harming your kid and you're going to hell for it and what is the matter with you. How you feed him, how you clothe her, how you care for him, do you let her cry, attachment parenting- she'll get through this blip of judgment and be into the next phase soon enough.

One other thing- while I believe Sylvia Ann Hewlett is a complete nut ball and should shut up, thankyouverymuch, waiting doesn't work for everyone. Fertility is crazy complicated, genetic, environmental, and all sorts of difficult to figure out, and in some cases, it's harder and not as healthy to be pregnant later in life. I'm not saying change life plans, but maybe visit a doc and ask- so, 10 years from now, you think I'll be good for this pregnancy thing?

And now, they aren't breadwinners, or landowners, and we are telling them we don't need them to be fathers either. I'm not a man, but maybe that hurts a little?

It's not that "they aren't breadwinners, or landowners," it's that women are also breadwinners and landowners. And, men still make more than women, they still own majority of the land, and they've always had the (virtually consequence-free) option of walking away from fatherhood. I don't give a flying fig if some random dude got his feelings hurt because a woman decided to have a child on her own (let's not forget that men have to knowingly donate sperm and give up any future rights to the resulting child for this process - but I guess the MRA's don't think that's so awful).

Statistically, children of single parents are more likely to get in trouble and have problems in life.

See, I just don't know about this. Does this stem from the fact that they are raised by a single parent or because society bombards them with that message? Do these statistics lump parents that were single from the start (further broken down to those who choose to be single parents and those that didn't) with parents who were partnered originally? If it includes single parents who weren't single in the beginning, how did the loss of the other parent contribute to these children being "more likely" to get in trouble and have problems in life? I guess I believe that being wanted and loved gives children the best possible chance in life. I don't believe that "Mom + Dad" is better for the kids than any other parenting scenario.

I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at how linearly some people think of parenting and families in general.

I've had friends who grew up with Mom + Dad + money + house + dog + sibling - and they're still messed up.

I'd never give up my four parents, my eight families, and all my friends. It makes life more interesting.

Again, why does everybody have to be a clone? Haven't any of these people met someone drastically different than them and thought "Wow, I am so lucky to know this person - I never would have seen the world in such a way if I hadn't met him/her/it."

I personally liked spacekase's comment in the Salon letter's section (on the first page).

I liked spacekase's comment in the letters section re: this issue being a "faux-cause".

I think rather than focusing on single mother vs. mom-dad, the important thing is how many people that child has that loves them, supports them, and helps them thrive.

This can be moms, dads, coaches, uncles, teachers, and so on. Gender seems less important than just simply having people around that believe in you and want to see you succeed.

For me, that was my mom, my dad, my sports coaches, and some of my teachers. For others it might be their two moms, their priest, and their next door neighbor.

"It's not that "they aren't breadwinners, or landowners," it's that women are also breadwinners and landowners. And, men still make more than women, they still own majority of the land, and they've always had the (virtually consequence-free) option of walking away from fatherhood."
Yeah i know... I kind of meant only breadwinner/landowner. I'm just saying - these types of men don't see the benefit to themselves of feminism.
They are lashing out because they keep 'losing'. We have to deal with that emotion every day we deal with men. So I'm just saying let's see that they're hurting from the loss of power that they (unfairly) had, and instead of getting mad back at them and having playground fights, we could kindly remind them of what feminism will do for them.

Honestly I don't care what they're feeling either so much, but it's easier to argue with an enemy if you can see his POV and tear it apart.

EG: "the boy will be screwed up or resent women

Right. Unlike, say, most of the other men in the world."

SarahMC: "The vast majority of men resent or even hate women."

What is this crap? I'm a guy, a feminist, and a pretty regular reader of feministing. I sure as hell don't resent or hate women, and I'm betting that there are a lot of you out there who have male friends, family, and significant others who also support the equality of women or think it's crap that roughly 50% of the people they care about in the world are second-class citizens (more, actually, if you bring race, religion and LGBT issues into it). Additionally, there are plenty of women who support a male "matrix of oppression." Coulter and Malkin, I'm looking in your direction.

Don't be so quick to make the sort of mean-spirited, sweeping generalizations that have been used in the past by those justifying a woman's limited role in society. In doing so, you're disparaging people who support and care about your right to be a full human being in society's eyes.

Geeky_girl, I'm really into what you're saying, it's something I really believe.

Men don't see how feminism could POSSIBLY benefit them but in my conversations with anti feminist men I point to all the sexist traditions that might benefit women (which may seem trivial, like the man always buying dinner) to men being forced to so rigidly stay in their gender roles and then they GET IT. The patriarchy benefits men, but those benefits come at a price that harms men, and when they see that, they become more receptive to feminism.

But then they always ask "but why the word feminism" but that's another topic I guess.

SHELBY: I think the whole nuclear family business and "kids are better off" is more about financial situations than having two parents. Are kids better from single parent homes not as well off in life because of only having a mother, or is it because they only had one income? Poverty is the basis for a lot of these issues, and single mothers are more likely to be impoverished.

Devil's Advocate, considering your trollish behavior on the other thread, I'm not sure why we should take you seriously on this one. But if you really want to know:

Indeed there are women who support the patriarchy. But whom does the patriarchy benefit? Largely men. For hundreds of years, men have physically and sexually abused women. They have justified this abuse with a vast ideology about women's inferiority. They have kept women from learning. They have kept women from positions of power. They have set themselves up as the norm and punished women for deviating from that "norm."

And yet, you object to me saying that most men in the world resent women. You object to me saying that most men are screwed up. As to the latter, I refer you to my following paragraph in which I note that most people are screwed up. As to the former, I refer you to the state of the world and women's position in it.

And yes, there are plenty of men who are feminists and reject all that crap. Which is why I said "most."

I teach sociology at a small regional university. A few years ago a colleague and I analyzed data from a large longitudinal sample (about 13,000 in our analysis) of middle and high school students to see what affected high school graduation.

Sure enough, the traditional family with both mom and dad married to each other was associated with higher completion rates. But when you controlled for parents' education and custodial parents income, those differences in family composition became insignificant (and the single mom family was not at the bottom of the list in any case).

I remarked at the time that what kids needed more than a traditional male role model, was for their parent(s) to have a traditional male paycheck. My impression is that other reputable studies have shown similar patterns with other important outcomes for kids.

It seems that if kids are brought up in loving, supportive environments with adequate resources, they generally do well regardless of the sex of the parents or whether that parent is a single mom. Also, my own experience with kids raised by single moms who have adequate resources or by all-women couples is that the kids are a: well-adjusted, and b: not man-hating. Or if these single or lesbian moms are going to instill the man-hating business, perhaps they just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Devil's Advocate, I haven't denigrated anyone. I pointed out that MOST men, no matter who raised them, resent women. If you don't fall into that category, you aren't part of the "most." What's so hard to understand about that?

SarahMC, think about the implications of what you're saying. Most men hate or resent women? Do you honestly believe that? What part of the world do you live in?

It's impossible to read what you wrote and not take offense. If I said "most women..." (something negative), I should have my head chopped off for generalizing women in a sexist manner. If I said "most black people..." (something negative), I should have my head chopped off for generalizing black people in a racist manner.

It's gross, it's sexist, and it's inaccurate.

If you don't fall into that category, you aren't part of the "most." What's so hard to understand about that?

What's hard to understand is the statistical data / studies / information you've used to come up with such a definitive statement.

Perhaps the phrase is "in my experience, most men I know are..." O.k., then I get a frame of reference for whom you are speaking of- assholes you know, not the men I happen to be surrounded by.

EG:
And yet, you object to me saying that most men in the world resent women. You object to me saying that most men are screwed up. As to the latter, I refer you to my following paragraph in which I note that most people are screwed up. As to the former, I refer you to the state of the world and women's position in it.

While you've certainly qualified your statement, and I usually find myself in complete agreement with you, I'm not sure saying that the state of women in the world today means that most men are anti-feminist or hold anti-feminist positions. Could be true, may be not true. I just don't think "most men are..." statements help anyone any more than "most feminists are" or "most women act like..." etc.

I think the whole nuclear family business and "kids are better off" is more about financial situations than having two parents... Poverty is the basis for a lot of these issues, and single mothers are more likely to be impoverished.

You and I may understand that poverty plays a part in it, but the people using this argument don't (or don't care). The woman who wrote this book is obviously financially able to take care of a child on her own, yet the argument against her doing it is still "But children raised by a single parent are more likely to...blah, blah, blah." I guess my point is that there is no one cause for a child having problems (in most cases), but, blaming it on single parents alone, is a problem for me.

EG, first off, I had to google the "trollish" post you were talking about, and I agree it is trollish, but it wasn't me; I didn't have a typekey profile that far back.

SarahMC, you said "the vast majority." And what I'm about to write applies to "most" as well, EG. I don't think you're so naive as to think that these words, unsupported by actual numbers, don't radiate prejudice. And EG, if you'd wanted to make the case that most people are screwed up, as opposed to most men, it would've been a good idea to say "Unlike most people in the world," instead of just "most men." It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that these words in context aren't weighted and then point back to the most literal possible interpretation.

EG, you're right. Men have propagated and taken advantage of a patriarchal society which has led to the systematic oppression of women. What I'm objecting to in your posting is the tone, and my objections hold true for your response. Your language (They, they, they... as well as the aforementioned screwed-up men statement) is unnecessarily antagonistic towards a group which contains people who support you. I understand that it's easy to get incensed over this sort of thing but it's important to be careful in how you say what you're saying.

I've never read it (as I dont have kids) but the author of the book, "Raising Boys Without Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men," believes boys raised in female-headed households may be better than those with men.

Second,
I completetly agree with you SarahMC. Ever read the book, "The Average American Male?"

I would love to have some sort of study that figures out where misogyny comes from.

I don't have a problem with "most" statements. They're often true, and they're what enable us to have conversations that take into account matters other than individual circumstances and choice. If a group has been in power for hundreds of years, and has used the power to systematically disenfranchise another group, I don't find it to be too much of a stretch to assume that the dominant group "resents" the subordinated one.

I also think that men can afford to take a few potshots for the team, given the dominant position they're in, as a group. For such reasons, I don't object when black people make "most" or even "all" statements about whites.

Just imagine the complainants who are deadbeat dads. If boys raised by single mothers became men who were dysfunctional criminals as a matter of course there'd be far more prisons. What bull. Idiots.

So... for the most part men view women as their intellectual, moral and sexual equals? Bull. shit.

So sorry if by speaking the truth about our woman-hating, patriarchal rape culture offended you as one of the few enlightened guys out there. IRCC, you often make sexist comments on this blog, don't you? But nooooo, the majority of men aren't sexist! Men love and respect women and wish no harm upon us whatsoever.

:rolls eyes:

SarahMC, all you're doing is revealing your own personal anti-male sentiments. You have no facts, no evidence, nothing other than your own personal opinion which thinks that the idea of men NOT hating women is bullshit.

It's a real shame. Carry on.

If someone has the resources to be a single parent, I have no objection -- better one functional parent than none, or two less than functional ones. I cannot see myself raising a child alone, though, because kids are a huge amount of work. Several close friends of mine have kids, and even with wonderful supportive spouses they are exhausted a lot of the time. My H and I are pretty much child-free by choice at the moment, but if we change our minds, I would have a really tough time without him.
@Sarahmc: I agree with you. Even the men who genuinely care for, like and respect women have some sexist leanings -- seeing women as "the other" and therefore suspicious -- is so ingrained and accepted in our culture that it's become subconscious.

SarahMC, all you're doing is revealing your own personal anti-male sentiments.

Wait, hundreds of years actual damage done to women by men is not evidence of male "resentment" of women, but Sarah observing such damage and extrapolating from it to the eminently logical conclusion that men don't hold women in high regard is evidence of her "anti-male sentiments."

That's...absurd. It doesn't make sense. It's not consistent. On any level.

But congratulations on finding a slightly more imaginative way to call a feminist a man-hater.

Jetgirl, I agree. Children are exhausting even when you have three or four adults to take care of them! I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it comes down to how strongly I want to have a kid. I can't explain it--it's an urge I feel more strongly than almost anything. I would feel incomplete, unfulfilled, terribly unhappy to look back on a life in which I didn't have a child--not, I hasten to add because all women are like that and it's our natural function or any bollocks like that, but because I want to be a mother, and, from the rather extensive experience I've had taking care of small children, I'd be good at it. At least the first part.

So for me, if it comes down to a choice between having a kid by myself or not having a kid at all...it's no choice.

SarahMC and EG:

I think that you would have met with far less disagreement to your claims had you chosen the word "many" or "some" in favor of "most" in describing the attitudes of men towards women in Western culture.

You both make the point that our society is strongly patriarchal, then deduce from this that most men are misogynists. This is hardly such a simple thing to deduce as you imply. I'd go so far as to claim that no misogyny is actually required to maintain the patriarchy once in place (and I hardly think any of us were born into a Western matriarchy)---the standard "keep yourself on top" human nature jazz ought to be enough to keep the top up and the bottom down.

Clearly I'm not implying that misogyny doesn't exist---that would be stark madness. Please do consider: that which you purport to evidence your claims seems on the face of it, as alexmlwallace has said, to reveal little more than your personal bias. Yes, many men are misogynists; I think any sane person will agree with that. When you claim that it's a majority, the burden of proof becomes heavier than either of your arguments can bear.

I specifically chose "most" because I didn't want to say "many," which is kind of a cop out as it doesn't suggest a relation of part to whole, or "some," which doesn't get anywhere near the nature of the problem. Some men are feminists. To use the same word to describe the rampant anti-feminism that has marked men's treatment of women over the years is just meaningless.

I disagree that "once patriarchy is established" it doesn't take effort to maintain it. Western history shows various levels of anti-woman damage at different times. There's not a straight progress toward liberation, which indicates to me that at times misogyny intensifies. Further, the fact that "resentment," hatred, disdain, contempt become second nature and almost unconscious because of cultural inculcation doesn't make them any the less "resentment," hatred, disdain or contempt.

I really don't understand the controversy. Men have been in power and have used that power to systematcially, brutally oppress women. What would be the point of saying "many," or "some"? Is your and Alex's contention that only "some" men have felt that way about women, and they just happen to be the ones in power?

EG, SarahMC, I don't know what to say. I don't always agree with you on your previous posts, but I always thought your opinions were well thought out. This is the first time I have seen something I would call sexist on feministing.

I know women have suffered in the past, and the present, and that men and the culture they promoted was to blame, but to dismiss the counter arguments as "men can take one for the team" is not an attitude that benefits anyone.

None of us are responsible for the sins of our fathers.

It's not that most men don't in principle believe that women ought to be treated as equals. It's just that, because they're not at the recieving end of the majority of the patriarchal bullshit, they don't see it for what it is. They can't see the forest for all the trees, if you will.

A few men are completely aware and just don't care. We call them "assholes." The majority aren't aware, but thru lack of examination, support the system. We call them "sheep." Then there are pro-feminist men, as are several here at feministing. We call them "sweetheart."

Wait, hundreds of years actual damage done to women by men is not evidence of male "resentment" of women, but Sarah observing such damage and extrapolating from it to the eminently logical conclusion that men don't hold women in high regard is evidence of her "anti-male sentiments."

This is completely backwards logic, EG. If SarahMC had said "Throughout the last several hundred years, most men have hated and/or resented women," than I would have agreed with her. However, today I do not believe the majority of men hate/resent women. Trying to correlate the two is completely ridiculous- I am not a hundred years old, so why would you be assume I follow the views of men a hundred years ago? It's absurd.

I'm looking at SarahMC's words that she typed today, in reference to men today. I hoped that in today's world, all men and women (particularly all men and women on Feministing, for God's sake) would be basing their views on men and women on the foundation of equality, as opposed to just resentment.

It's just plain sexist. I am not guilty for hundreds of years of patriarchy. You are not a victim of hundreds of years of patriarchy. We were both born into this world. All this sort of talk does is encourage further division of the sexes, and fuel sexism.

I really don't understand the controversy. Men have been in power and have used that power to systematcially, brutally oppress women. What would be the point of saying "many," or "some"? Is your and Alex's contention that only "some" men have felt that way about women, and they just happen to be the ones in power?

No. My contention is that people should not be making unfounded sexist statements such as "The vast majority of men resent or even hate women." That's all.

In that case, you're not one of the "most," are you? So what's the problem? Neither of us said "all" or "almost all." If you're not the sinner, you're not getting blamed.

Similarly, if a black commenter says "Most white people hate the thought of a black family moving in next door," I don't start saying "But not me! I don't mind!" in large part because the evidence is actually with the commenter, and in part because if he or she said "most," and I know that it's not me, then I don't have to run around shouting about it. And I genuinely don't mind sucking it up for the sake of the team, so to speak.

That, by the way, is different from common courtesy. If one of the long-time male commenters--Tom Head or Roy or you, Andrew--says "Look, it hurts my feelings even though I know you don't mean me," then yes, I apologize and won't say it again. Not because I don't think the evidence warrants it, but out of respect to you.

Uh-huh. And look at what's happening to women world-wide. Today. Would you feel better if I said "Most men either actively resent women or are indifferent to women's suffering?"

MirandaJay,
I dont think you can change mens sexism by telling them how feminism benefits THEM. Then theyre still the same sexist tripes they always were.

EG:
I remember that feeling- that absolute NEED, that NO QUESTION I am going to be a mom thing. I don't know how long you've felt it, but for me, it was so consuming, it grew every year, and it would affect the silliest things- a song at church, a walk down the street, shopping- would suddenly be so hard to do without thinking about wanting to have a family. There was not a whole hell of a lot that was going to stop me being a mom, and I was lucky, I guess, that I had my partner when it all went down.

Good luck to you, you'll be a great mom, for sure.

EG and SarahMC are right. And while we're talking about most men being resentful or hateful towards women, we can also throw in there that most white people are racist and most straight people are heterosexist. I include myself in this because though I regularly speak up about issues facing people of color and LGBTQ people, I in no way pretend that I don't hold hidden prejudice that I am not even aware is prejudiced. It's called privilege. It sucks, and we're working to change it but that's the way the world is. Denying it neither makes you look good (in fact, it makes you look a lot more like one of the "most") or solves the problem. This is Oppression 101, people.

Keshmeshi, your comment suggests that women who make an active choice to be single mothers don't have any network of support. I'm sure that most women who make this choice do in fact have close family and friends who will help them raise their child. The fact that there is not a second parent doesn't mean that the woman is raising the kid alone.

I also think that the class issue is being ignored here. For those quoting statistics showing that kids of single parents are more likely to do drugs, end up in jail, etc., you're right. But most of those numbers come from kids of lower class women who did not make a "choice" to be a single parent, but was left by her partner after becoming pregnant or giving birth. But the problem isn't the woman's mothering skills -- it's the fact that she's probably working all of the time to put food on the table, and the fact that when you're in a lower socio-economic class, you see fewer options for your future and are therefore more likely to get sucked into negative activity. To compare these situations, though, to the mostly affluent, white women who make an active choice to be a single mother through a sperm donor is an absolute joke.

Good luck to you, you'll be a great mom, for sure.

Thanks! It's nice to know I'm not the only mother-driven one on the blog, too!

In that regard, isn't this whole discussion kind of killed by the fact that it's a white, affluent person problem, not a "society problem"? I agree with that assessment, BTW, now that you've brought it up.

A.
kwantam,
SarahMC is supposed to play down the realities of men in society just so you don't have to admit to yourself that yes, a majority of men are sexist. Why should she have to write 'many,' or 'most,' in order to soften the realities for you to accept about your own gender? Why should she have to lie just to be met with less dissagreement? I dont see a majority of female posters refuting it. I only see the bullshit men having a problem with it. Yes, a MAJORITY of men are sexist.

Well, lilianna, I quite honestly think that the whole "debate" is ridiculous i the first place. But no, it's certainly not a society problem. And it's certainly not a the top of my list of priorities. I in no way want to stop women taking this path, and good for them. But in the reproductive rights arena, I'm personally a lot more worried about abortion rights, the rights of poor black women to raise the children they have and accessible birth control. Sure, it's all connected, but in the big scheme of things it really is a fringe issue.

EG,

What would be the point of saying "many," or "some"? Is your and Alex's contention that only "some" men have felt that way about women, and they just happen to be the ones in power?

As you've said, "many" would refrain from commenting on the exact nature of the present ratio of misogynists to the total population of men.

It's certainly not my contention that we've been the victims of a coincidence whereby misogynists happened to gain political power and implement their infernal policies. However, I hope you will admit that the nature of politics is such that the participants are not a random selection of the population, but rather those who have a particular agenda to push; as such, a minority of vocal misogynists amongst an apathetic majority could easily maintain or enhance a pre-existing patriarchal structure.

I think it's fair to claim that most men 100+ years ago considered women the "lesser sex," and certainly a portion of them took steps to establish the system of oppression we are fighting to remove. My objection is that it's unfair to characterize the majority of men today as misogynists simply because equality has not yet been achieved.

Perhaps the contrapositive would serve as a good example: assume we do achieve a society where men and women are equal (just assume some arbitrary measure here, the exact nature of which is unimportant). Would it then suddenly be self-evident from the fact that our hypothetical society is gender-equal that a majority of men are not misogynists? Of course not.

To be honest, I'm willing to admit the possibility that over 50% of men today hold women in lesser regard than they do their fellow men. The problem for me is that no evidence to this effect has been presented, and the justification for the choice of the word "most" amounts to little more than the classic math joke, "proof by intimidation." (What? You don't see that it's obvious? Well!)

The echo chamber effect is just as dangerous to our cause as it is to any other. Let us always hold ourselves to the same standards of argumentation to which we expect the opposition to adhere.

-=kwantam

In the mommy-sphere, 9 times out of 10 the "problems" that are "debated" are white affluent problems, nothing more. I say "debate" because really, when a "mommy war" sparks up regarding why women "choose" to go back to work, the debate is framed by people with CHOICES, namely, white, affluent women, and not anyone who doesn't fit in those narrow parameters. It's disheartening, to say the least, but so often the issues that are talked about don't affect anyone except them. Throw class into the discussion and you'd actually have to be for socialized health care or day care or some crazy shit like that, and no one wants THAT, right? Must be all those womenfolk makin' "choices".

EG,
I gotta say your description of the urge to have a child is making me wonder about the choices I'll make. Will I change my mind once I get older about physically having a child? Am I the only woman who quasi-cringes around pregnant women because...well, can't put my finger on that. I just find what is supposed to be natural (given our biology) to be creepy! But I want to raise children, so I have always thought that adopting is the best thing for me - even if I am a single woman...anyhow, it sounds like your urge is a lot more noble (then again who am I to judge) then say wanting to know what the baby will look like.

As for this whole "most" vs. "some" or "many" - I am sorry, but no one can quantify a collective experience. No analysis can adequately give statistics on how many men dislike women and want to keep us in "our place." If some of the guys or gals here don't believe that "most" is appropriate, then kudos. I don't believe, in that case, that your lives have been as affected by such deep-seated (and socially accepted and promoted) misogyny.

This should make you guys feel even more special (because you really are, I mean it's one thing to kinda believe in equality as some men do, and another to embrace the label of pro-feminist).

On the one hand, I agree with you, Lilianna.

On the other hand, I don't think we should fall into the Marxist trap of "if it's not about socioeconomic class, it doesn't matter."

While certainly, being a single mother by choice is an option only available to upper middle-class women (not only white though--the fabulous Patricia Williams is a SMbC), it's important to recognize that it wasn't an option available to women of that same class twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. When I was in college, some ten years ago, I expressed the desire to do this and was assumed by my interlocutor to be drunk, because how else would I say a crazy thing like that?

(For the record, I was stone-cold sober.)

So yes, this is an upper-middle class phenomenon, but the fact that even only upper-middle class women now have this option without running the risk of socal pariah-dom is the result of feminist work, and as it's a relatively new sort of thing, I don't doubt that the women who do it need guidance. And I don't doubt that feminism has more work to do, both to remove the remaining prejudices that they face, and to open this option up for all women, regardless of class.

Gopher, I never saked anyone to lie or play anything down. I genuinley thought the coments were sexist, (I could be wrong, I come to feministing to learn, afterall).

I can honsetly tell you that the men I know are not intentionaly sexist (the intentional part is another debate), certanly do not hate women or have any contempt for them. The guys I have in mind are my age (27) with a five year variance either way.

They have plenty of problems, but mysigony isn't one of them. Yes, like everone they get annoyed with the opposite sex, but it is a short lived flustration, not hatrid, that everone gets at times.

Oh, Jem, don't feel you should necessarily take me as a model.

Adoption is another wonderful way to have a kid. I've wanted to have a child and to experience pregnancy and childbirth since I was a teenager (I mean, I didn't want to do right that instant when I was a teenager, but in general!). There are so many women who never feel such urges at all, and I hate to think of myself as one of those horrible bludgeons used to threaten young women with.

In my opinion, pregnancy and childbirth are intense and complex experiences, and like all such, don't have to appeal to everybody.

I can honsetly tell you that the men I know are not intentionaly sexist (the intentional part is another debate), certanly do not hate women or have any contempt for them. The guys I have in mind are my age (27) with a five year variance either way.

"Intentional," is in fact, Andrew, the key word in that comment. Intention does not negate action. You can think that you're being perfectly reasonable and still be prejudiced. People do it every minute of every day.

Uh-huh. And look at what's happening to women world-wide. Today. Would you feel better if I said "Most men either actively resent women or are indifferent to women's suffering?"

I'd say that sweeping generalizations of that sort don't help anybody. World-wide? Yeah, I'd say most men are indifferent to women's suffering. In the United States? I wouldn't agree that most men are indifferent to women's suffering. World-wide? Yeah, I'd agree that most men resent women, or at least that their behavior reflects resentment disguised in various supposedly non-resentful social or religious beliefs. In the United States? I would disagree.

But what was initially said? The vast majority of men hate women. No specifics, no qualifiers, no evidence, no caveats, nothing. Just a broad, sexist comment about men.

Most of the men I know are feminists in every viewpoint that they hold but would be loathe to label themselves as such, because of the supposed anti-male sentiments that most feminists hold. Do you think that comments such as "most men hate women" are going to convince those men that feminists are actually interested in equality? Most men that I know just feel attacked by comments like those and want no further part in it, even though they support equality in all forms.

Once again, those are most men that I know. Not "most men" because I am not qualified to speak on behalf of all the world's 3.3 billion men. I don't think SarahMC is, either.

And if you honestly believe that at least 1.65 billion men actively hate women, well, I would just say that I disagree, and request that such statements be at the very least preceded with "It's my opinion that..." etc.

Perhaps the contrapositive would serve as a good example: assume we do achieve a society where men and women are equal

That's not the contrapositive, kwantam. It's the inverse. My contention is this:

IF the majority of men consistently oppresses and subjugates women, THEN that majority resents/hates/has contempt for women.

The contrapositive would be:

IF men DON'T resent/hate/have contempt for women THEN the majority of men WON'T/DON'T consistently oppress and subjugate women.

If an if/then statement is true, then it's contrapositive has to be true. Now, all other things being equal (i.e., men are not being mind-controlled by a race of space aliens who do hate women), I would say yes, the contrapositive of that statement is true.

What you are talking about is the inverse:

IF the majority of men do NOT consistently oppress/subjugate women (i.e. society is equal) THEN the majority of men are do NOT resent/hate/have contempt for women.

The truth-value of an inverse tells you nothing about the truth-value of the original statement.

And if you honestly believe that at least 1.65 billion men actively hate women

I didn't say "actively." In fact, I said that unconscious or assumed resentment/hate/contempt is no less resentment/hate/contempt for its passive form.

Do you think that comments such as "most men hate women" are going to convince those men that feminists are actually interested in equality?

I actually don't formulate my statements or actions around the desires or comfort of men. Especially men who don't identify as feminists. I am holding these men to no higher a standard than I hold myself when I read anti-racist blogs.

But what was initially said? The vast majority of men hate women. No specifics, no qualifiers, no evidence, no caveats, nothing. Just a broad, sexist comment about men.

Actually, what was initially said was that boys of single mothers will grow up to resent women. I said "most men" already do and Sarah said "the vast majority." Both "most" and "the vast majority" are qualifiers. They qualify the term "men"; if we had not used those, you would be justified in assuming that we meant all men, which neither of us did. You don't agree with our qualifiers, but that doesn't mean that we didn't use any.

Cara: "Intentional," is in fact, Andrew, the key word in that comment. Intention does not negate action. You can think that you're being perfectly reasonable and still be prejudiced. People do it every minute of every day"

I agree Cara, but that is not hatrid is it? Its ignorance. The point was made that most men were resentful and hateful to women. I have said before that I know women suffer to this day by the hands of men. And much of it is intentional, but the majority is ignorance, cultural conditioning, etc.

Please note I am NOT saying men are victims because of this. That is not my point. Peoples intention is the qualifier here. I don't think most men hate women but are pig ignorant of how to see them as equels.

Andrew, I disagree. Culturally-conditioned resentment/hatred/contempt is still resentment/hatred/contempt, and is very different from ignorance.

I suppose this whole to-do could have been avoided if I'd just cracked "They'll fit right in, then."

Alas, alas.

BTW, alexmlwallace, I didn't see anyone say that the majority of men hate women. I saw someone say that both the majority of men were sexist, and that the majority of men resent or hate women. I would say that is, in fact, a pretty big qualifier.

EG: Cara used the word prejudiced, which I think is closer to ignorance than hatrid. Or is this just semantics?

PS: "contrapositive", never even heard of the term, you will no doubt raise super geinus babies.

What was the topic again?

I think the original statement may have been too much of a blanket, but I get where the OP was coming from and I sympathize. Offended men have all made their points now. If you aren't trying to distract from the subject of feminism and make it all about you and your feelings then it's time to stop. If you are trying to distract then keep it up. You're doing a great job.

In my experience, indifference can hurt others far more than outright hatred. So many men don't hate women -- ok. But as long as they are indifferent to what the men who actually hate women do to them, or downplay it in order to show some sort of solidarity, they do their own share of harm. An as for being "pig ignorant" of how to see women as equals, why is it a lot of people have such a hard time understanding the difference between "equal" and "alike"? A pound of lead and a pound of water are equal in quantity, but couldn't be less alike. Each has their uses. Just because someone is different from you doesn't mean they don't have equal value. And women and men may be different, aka not alike, but that doesn't mean they aren't equally valuable. Does that clear it up for the porcine ignoramuses?

Prejudice is more than just ignorance. And it can be hatred, but isn't necessarily.

But it is kind of semantics. Personally, I have no problem (as I just said it above) with saying that most men are sexist. I wouldn't generally say that most men hate women, because "hate" usually implies maliciousness, and I don't really have the data or life experience to feel comfortable with it.

That being said, I understood perfectly well what was meant. It wasn't highly coded. And since the statement was that a majority of men are hateful or resentful towards women, I would argue that it is in fact accurate, since it covers a very large portion of prejudice.

EG:

My thanks for the correction on my boneheaded word swap, whose actual definitions I really do know (though of course now I'll have to provide evidence! Perhaps eventually I'll have such a chance :-) ...). Please replace in your reading of my previous post the word "contrapositive" with "inverse" and all is well.

It's true that the inverse of a statement implies nothing about the statement; nevertheless, my intent was not to infer something from the truth or falsity of the inverse statement, but rather to demonstrate qualitatively that the inference you're drawing on the relationship between societal structures and the beliefs of individuals in the society is not one that you'd be comfortable making in other situations.

Regarding a previous point: I think I see precisely where our disagreement on the question of a minority-supported patriarchy occurs. You say

IF men DON'T resent/hate/have contempt for women THEN the majority of men WON'T/DON'T consistently oppress and subjugate women

In the above you are discussing the actions of the majority of men towards women on an individual basis. In supporting your initial statement, I read not an appeal to case-by-case misogyny but rather to systematic sociopolitical patriarchy. Thus, the original logical proposition and its contrapositive, in my reading of your initial statement, should really be

[1] If systematic patriarchy oppresses women then a majority of men individually oppress women.

[2] If a majority of men do not individually oppress women then a systematic patriarchy does not oppress women.

I think it's with respect to the contrapositive (for real, this time!) here that our discussion of coincidence and political motivations can be addressed; specifically, I do not believe that [2] above is a true statement. It is my contention that the majority of men could do absolutely nothing to oppress women on an individual basis and yet collectively their society could be an oppressive patriarchy (e.g., through apathetic majority and vocal minority, as I said before). If that's true, then the fact that society is an oppressive patriarchy does not imply anything about the individual actions of men towards women.

Really, that's all I've been arguing all along. [1] does not hold because [2] does not.

-=kwantam

Also, EG: well met! We'll have some fun, I'm sure, as long as we can keep finding nits to pick off one another. :-)

Until next post,

-=kwantam

I could believe the majority of men at least resent women. While many, possibly even most, men in the United States will say they believe in equality for both genders, very few actually have any idea what equality means. I'm 26, and most of the men of my generation that I talk to believe that women have acheived equality, and more so. They don't believe that women are hired less, because of the stereotype that they'll just get pregnant and leave, or that they're paid less, and if they are it's more than compensated by affirmative action, in the eyes of my male peers. It's hard for me to even talk about job discrimination to a man, because they just don't see it. Men also don't realize that our abortion rights are erroding, and when they day they don't realize how important those rights are, so then they turn the conversation to how men get screwed with child support. I really think even my most liberal male friends resent women to some degree, because they don't see any of the negatives of being a woman in our society, they just see that they have to buy dinner for her.

It is my contention that the majority of men could do absolutely nothing to oppress women on an individual basis and yet collectively their society could be an oppressive patriarchy (e.g., through apathetic majority and vocal minority, as I said before).

Allowing oppression to occur via your own apathy is taking part in the oppression.

Allowing oppression to occur via your own apathy is taking part in the oppression.

Allowing oppression to occur via apathy is damaging---no doubt about it. But it's not equivalent to harboring a specific attitude towards women which involves hatred or resentment, which is what we are discussing.

-=kwantam

I support women who choose to impregnate themselves. It's sad that people still don't support women who are single and want to have children. I had a father and my family's dysfunctional. The conservatives stick to what used to work, but doesn't anymore. I child nessarily won't mature dysfunctional with a single mother.

Andrew, kwantam,

Having gone away to think for a little bit, let me come back and say that I do understand why and how individual feminist men and the women who love them (in which I include myself, with nods to my lovely stepfather) would find my initial statement off-putting, to say nothing of distressing, inaccurate, hopeless, and a slur.

So let me say now that I apologize for that. Such was not my intention, but as I have myself argued, intention doesn't matter that much (it matters a little, of course, but not that much!). So I am sorry about that. I'm also sorry to have triggered such a blizzard on this post that distracted from the topic, specifically because I find this topic so important and wish to have these kinds of intense discussions about it.

I also never had any intention of arguing anybody else into agreeing with me. It's not something I feel strongly enough about to do that, and I think there's more than one valid conclusion to be reached by studying institutional and individual patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny. Sometimes the "most men just resent or hate women" one is the one I reach; sometimes it isn't. I also apologize for giving the impression that I was trying to convince anybody to agree with my statement about this.

Andrew, I think that when you bring up the difference and the blurriness between ignorance and hatred with respect to prejudice, you're putting your finger on a really important point. I do often get sick of hearing about prejudice is really ignorance--to such a large state, prejudice is willful ignorance, or that ignorance itself is evidence of great privilege (as marle points out), and such privilege is all too often based on an unconscious contempt (I'm white, I'm "normal," so my experiences/knowledge of the world is "normal," and I don't have to spend time thinking about how race affects my life--it's all those other people who are "abnormal"). In many ways, that was part of what I was referring to when I said "Most men do resent/hate/have contempt for."

I agree with Cara and sgzax that "Most men are sexist and anti-feminist" would have been more accurate." But that wouldn't have let me lead off with a snarky one-liner, which is one of the great (pathetic) joys in my life. Which is why in retrospect, I kinda wish I'd thought of "He'll fit right in, then," instead.

I hope it's been apparent that I have enjoyed engaging with you both, and that I have taken your words seriously. Kwantam, I'm always thrilled to meet somebody else who knows about the contrapositive, as that was one of my favorite units in math! And I do see what you're saying in your last long post--in fact, I agree, though I also agree with Cara (and, if I read you correctly, with you) that such passive oppression is still oppression. Andrew, thank you very much for your confidence in my future mother skills! Let's just hope that my future kids don't mind hearing Mom talk!

Why is EVERY discussion on Feministing these days derailing into 'what about the menz'??

I appreciate that some contributors might have felt genuinely put out. I don't think that's legitimate - I have no problem with people saying white people are mostly racist, or straight people are mostly heteronormative. Because it's true. And it's true about me, even though (as Cara excellently put it) I try to work on it. Admitting it's a problem IS working on it. You can't work on it until you accept it.

And if you honestly believe that at least 1.65 billion men actively hate women, well, I would just say that I disagree, and request that such statements be at the very least preceded with "It's my opinion that..." etc.

I mean, this is a place for FEMINISTS, specifically young and female feminists, to come and discuss all the sexist bullshit. Where do you fucking get off telling us how to phrase our arguments and that our world view is skewed?

It is so fucking frustrating to read EVERY THREAD here and just here a litany of how we're too strident, too anti-male, we're not listening to MEN'S side of things and reforming our opinions to suit MEN. Just please, fuck off. You have every mainstream communication sphere out there conforming to your male perspective. This is our space. Piss off. It's not about you.

(Final note: this is definitely not aimed at people who made their points respectfully, and actually had an interest in dialogue rather than scolding two uppity females. But, I do wish that we could just STOP this man-centric nitpicking that is constantly derailing very interesting topics.)

I'm reading a book right now called "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?"; it's about the psychological formation of racial identity. A lot of the points made about racism can be applied to sexism as well, and the author makes comparisons between the two a number of times. I recommend it very strongly!

Perhaps I should not have used the word "hate" in my initial comment. Men simply don't get their own privilege. And I stand by the claim that the vast majority of men are sexist. In fact, the vast majority of people are sexist. We are sexist by virtue of existing in a sexist society. We are products of that society and we've all internalized sexist ideas and attitudes to a certain degree.

The book talks about the fear white people have of being called "racist." But white people are racist. Not everyone is intentionally discriminatory or hateful, but that's not a requirement. We've all heard people proclaim, "But I didn't mean for what I said to be racist!!" after saying something, well, racist. Just because they didn't mean to offend doesn't mean they don't hold racist ideas. Racism does not require malice. Neither does sexism. One needn't oppose women's sufferage, for example, to be sexist.

The author describes racism (and sexism) in one particularly illustrative manner:
Imagine a moving walkway like at the airport; we'll call it "patriarchy." Some men are actively sexist, walking quickly along with the moving walkway. They believe women are inferior to men. They are gender essentialists who believe women are X while men are Y. They consciously denigrate and torment women. Everyone can agree they're sexist.

The second group of men are standing on the walkway as it moves forward. They are not intentionally promoting patriarchy, but they are passively accepting and benefiting from it. They are not challenging it. They are moving towards the same goal as the active sexists. They don't consider themselves sexists, of course. But they do not believe sexism is a problem anymore. They tell sexist jokes and consider women the "other." They are uninterested in sexual equality. They are unaware of their male privilege. They hold casually sexist attitudes towards women and don't challenge (or recognize!) sexism when they see it.

The final group of men is actively anti-sexist (or feminist). They recognize that the moving walkway is progressing towards a dangerous, unjust goal. They are walking backwards on the walkway. They understand their male privilege and endeavor to learn about women's perspectives and experiences. They are aware of the role sexism plays in society and actively challenge sexism when they witness it. They consider themselves feminists or feminist-allies. They know they hold some sexist ideas but work to unlearn them.

*Most* men are not walking backwards. Most men are sexists by virture of allowing sexism to go unchallenged in their everyday lives, and they are unaware of systematic sexism in the world around them. They privilege the "male" experience/viewpoint above the "female." They are simply not concerned about the victims of sexism.

Even liberal men are sexist. My very very liberal boyfriend admits that, as a man, he is just not as passionate about gender equality as I am, because he does not understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of systematic sexism and gender prejudice. While he cringes at sexist jokes and demeaning, stereotypical depictions of women, he usually keeps quiet when his friends display sexist attitudes and behaviors, as "most of my friends are sexist but they're my friends and I don't want to alienate them all." Most guys aren't even *that* enlightened.

Just to add to the whole resent/hate/sexist thread, I think I will make my own set of sweeping statements with no data :-).

1) RESENT/HATE 1. I definitely disagree with the statement that most men resent women.

2) RESENT/HATE 2. I do agree, however, that there is a large proportion of the male population (the majority, perhaps?) who don't resent women per se. Rather, they resent women who violate gender norms and threaten their privilege.

3) APPRECIATE. I think it is also fair to point out that there is a large minority of men who greatly appreciate the women in their lives who are free-thinking, strong, positive role models, friends, and partners.

4)SEXISM - MEN. I do agree that most men, perhaps all, are sexist. No matter how hard you try to understand someone who has had different life experiences, there will always be subtle ideas that affect you. It could even be as subtle as making more eye-contact or feeling more comfortable interrupting more often because decades of social messages have taught you, even unconsciously, that women are lower status.

5) SEXISM - WOMEN. Obviously some of the same arguments apply - decades of being told "men are different" can lead many women to be sexist and judge men as a category rather than as individuals. Some people argue that this is of little relevance because women on average hold less power. I think that is to some degree too, but not a reason to avoid addressing that sexism as well.

6)THIS BOARD. I think most people on this board, male and female, want to feel like their experiences are validated. For many of the women, this means wanting men to understand just how much crap they put up with. For many of the men, this means wanting women to not make blanket judgments about them because of their sex and recognize that we're often on your side even if we don't always fully understand the experiences you've had.

I don't know, that's my 6 cents at midnight. I'm sure I'll wake up and discover I've written something that came out wrong, but hey, that's why we post on this board - to get a sense of where our thoughts are good and where they break down upon scrutiny.

holy crap! is fluffy the hamster's life on the line again?!?

so i didn't read the whole article...or the letters...only what was here...and my gut reaction is to play my bullshit card...of all the young boys i have met...the ones raised by my single mother friends seem to be the most tolerant, giving, caring and open minded that i know...

my boyfriend...never met his father...is the most amazing man i have ever met. he is so sensitive and supportive of me, as a single mother. he is non judgemental, respectful to others, and great w/ children, since he helped his single mother his whole life...and he is hard working, anti-drug, and successful...one of our roommates also fits in this category...but he is a republican (so he says...i play another bullshit card here)...but i didn't say he was perfect. and i know that it is the whole "my friends are x,y and z so it must be true" but still...good examples. the people who want to rant about how raising boys as a single mother will somehow damage them are full of privilige and bullshit...

i am curious what these same single mom haters have to say about raising daughters. i have read numerous studies about the importance of a father in a daughter's development (i am running out of bullshit cards to throw) and wonder if they want to throw the same bat shit crazy judgements on that one. seriously...are they concerned about all children...or just the almighty man childz?

either way i think they should take a long walk off the short pier...

and i forgot to add...i think that cara, eg, and sarahmc are all spot on...FWIW

In case anyone still needs to pick up the book, Babeland is carrying it. And, you can support feminist sex toy stores!

Ouvangdan, FWIW, another poster tore me a new asshole for joking about Fluffy the Hamster on another thread. *shrug*

I think these folks are also very worried about daughters growing up without fathers- the idea of a woman being the only strong role model is very threatening to them, I think. You know, who's going to indoctrinate the daughter to be submissive to men if she doesn't have a daddy to kowtow to? You know, an actual patriarch? I think it's also a pretty common stereotype that daddy-less little girls will grow up to be promiscuous, looking for father-figures in sexual partners. Bleh. (I think that's false, btw. I think that's much more likely to happen where the father is neglectful, emotionally distant, or abusive- a negative male role model, as opposed to a nonexistent one.)

Do I have anything against two-parent homes? Not at all. I adore my dad. Do I think a child will be irrevocably screwed up if raised by a single parent? Absolutely not. My best friend has always said that if she doesn't get married, she will still probably have/adopt a kid at some point. I fully support her on that.

DRkEYED: "Ouvangdan, FWIW, another poster tore me a new asshole for joking about Fluffy the Hamster on another thread. *shrug*"

Hmmmph!!! Clearly someone who doesn't care about poor fluffy and the dangers that the fluffster faces when people don't post enough.

You know, who's going to indoctrinate the daughter to be submissive to men if she doesn't have a daddy to kowtow to? You know, an actual patriarch?

Er, no, that's not the basis of the doubts about lack of a father.

Here's a stat for you: most every female CEO have one thing in common: they consider themselves to be "daddy's girls." Their dads were their role models, inspiration, and helped them out in the business world.

I was raised by my dad. When I was in sixth grade, the time when girls stop being good at math, I worried about getting an A-, because I knew he expected more out of me. He taught me to shoot a basketball at the age of four, to play baseball when I was six or seven, and to swim. The end result is a woman with an engineering degree who plays sports and, all in all, is about as un-stereotypically female as you can imagine.

Some of us think that fatherhood is more than sperm donation. Frankly, I have no idea how we are supposed to tell men to spend more time on housework and child-rearing if we tell them they are only important because of a paycheck. I would rather tell them that they (like EVERY parent, regardless of gender and sexual orientation of the couple) can have a tremendous influence on their kid's life, so stop reading the paper and start changing diapers.

That's my rant. I'm done, now.

most every female CEO have one thing in common: they consider themselves to be "daddy's girls." Their dads were their role models, inspiration, and helped them out in the business world.

Ugh. You've totally convinced me, oenophile. I'm doing it single even if a partner presents him or herself. The idea of raising a CEO is too appalling for words. (joke, but one with a kind of serious edge, which is that business-world success is not the measure I'm going by)

I can think of a number of reasons for that stat, though, if it be accurate--male-identified women are going to have an easier time in a male-dominated world than their sistren. That doesn't say to me that having a father is vital to a kid's success; it says to me that male domination is detrimental to most other women's success.

Men have made themselves into a paycheck over the years, and that's a real shame for everyone involved. As you say, all parents have the opportunity to have a tremendous positive impact on their children's lives. But there's no evidence at all to suggest that once you control for socio-economic class, children of single mothers (or, for that matter, of two mothers) are any worse off than their classmates with a mom and dad.

yes, oenophile, wouldn't it be grand if more men believed that they were more than just a paycheck. i would have given anything of the fathers of my kids believed that. My kids needed THEM, not their money. I was a single parent for most of my parenting days, and not always because I was single.

Men complain about the amount of money their kids cost them, in both marriage and child support situations, yet few are able to work themselves out of that mind set. I want to both smack them, hard, and then give them lessons in how to parent their kids. Its so frustrating to see the waste of potentially really good parents.

In my case one father did ok, the other should have never been around kids at all. but my person situation aside, there are some really good folks out there with potential if they would just use it. I some times feel that men fall back on the excuse of money just to get out of doing all the dirty work of being a parent.

But there's no evidence at all to suggest that once you control for socio-economic class, children of single mothers (or, for that matter, of two mothers) are any worse off than their classmates with a mom and dad.

Yes, BUT.

I read a book a few months ago (forget the title and author - mea culpa) about the necessity for women to have a contingency plan. The author interviewed hundreds of women, many upper-middle class (or upper class), all educated, all smart. Many of them ended up in dire straights when their husbands left them for younger women, lost their jobs, or became disabled. These women all thought, "It'll never happen to me," and never bothered to keep a foot in the workforce.

What does that have to do with those studies? Fact is, it's actually pretty circular. One of the benefits of a two-parent family is that there is at least the opportunity for two incomes, or, should one parent work full-time while the other stays at home, to switch roles if one spouse loses a job. There is inherently more economic stability in two-parent homes, so, by "controlling" for one of the main benefits of two-parent homes, you design a study that wipes out a very real difference.

--
What's wrong with raising a CEO? Isn't it just as bad to hate your kid if she became a CEO as to hate her if she came out of the closet or worked for a cause you don't believe in? I mean, if that's the way you think, why have kids, unless you expect them to be little carbon copies of you?

Hello. She could end up being a CEO of an environmentally-friendly organisation, or the type that changes corporate structure, or the type that extends the ladder down to other women and minorities. Yeah, ideally, it would be fantastic if we could wave a magic wand and the working world would be a good place for women tomorrow, but fact is, unless you have a fairy godmother you're hiding, that's not going to happen. It will only happen by having women who can work within the structure move in and up, and then changing it from the inside out and bringing along other women.

Of course, though, you don't want to see that happen - what do you want, your daughters to be supported by men? Get real.

----

Kax,

Yes, it would be wonderful if men saw themselves as more than a paycheck - as a viable part of their kid's lives. It's also really sad for the men - I see older men who, in their 60s or older, finally realise that they could have a wonderful thing going with their kids. (I'm not saying that everyone needs kids to be fulfilled, but, if you have them, cutting yourself off emotionally probably isn't healthy.) Wow - that feminism thing is good for people. Go figure.

I know that I'm unbelievably lucky - both my parents are remarried, and I get along (and love) my stepparents dearly. Between them and some extended "family," I basically had/have ten grandparents. Add a slew of aunts, uncles, and cousins, and I know that, even though my parents divorced when I was a kid and I didn't get the dual-parent household until my teens, I have a great family - but it is unbelievably non-traditional.

There is inherently more economic stability in two-parent homes, so, by "controlling" for one of the main benefits of two-parent homes, you design a study that wipes out a very real difference.

Except that you're eliding the difference between children raised by single mothers who did not, as you note, expect or want to be single mothers, and children being raised by mothers who consciously planned, prepared, and chose to be single mothers. The latter category is almost exclusively upper middle-class, well-off, with financial stability. So lumping them together is misleading at best.

Further the distinction points toward what we as a society can do about the changing dynamics of the contemporary family. If there were something inherently destructive and damaging about single-mother families, there would be no action to take. But by controlling for socioeconomic class, we find that isn't the case. It's not single motherhood that hurts children; it's poverty and financial instability, and that is something that we as a society can remedy.

What's wrong with raising a CEO? Isn't it just as bad to hate your kid if she became a CEO as to hate her if she came out of the closet or worked for a cause you don't believe in? I mean, if that's the way you think, why have kids, unless you expect them to be little carbon copies of you?

Jeez, overreact much? I didn't say anything was wrong with raising a CEO. I said I didn't want to do it. I didn't say I would "hate" my future daughter if she became a CEO. You used "being a CEO" as a stand-in for "succcessful." I said that that wasn't my measure of success, and that I didn't see it as necessarily a positive thing. Relax.

I really don't understand why as a leftist, I'm not allowed to have values of my own, why I'm not allowed to have hopes, dreams, and wishes for my children. Being a CEO contradicts many of those that I hold. Part of being a parent is providing your child with a value-system and a structure of morality. Your child, upon maturing, may adopt a value system and a structure of morality like your own, or it may not. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to provide one for my children to start with.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if my daughter became a CEO, or joined the army, or became an anti-abortion activist, or, let's see, what else could she do that would go against my values, a prostitute, I would hate her? I said no such thing. I said I found the idea appalling--and I do--but that's a far cry from hating one's child. I might well disapprove, and I would probably express that disapproval in a more or less reasonable way, but once she made her decision, I'd hope for the best for her. And why on earth am I taking your ridiculous allegation that I would "hate" a child--and cut her out of my life the way religious zealots cut out their gay kids--seriously enough to refute it? It must be lack of sleep.

Seriously. You need to not put words in my mouth.

Of course, though, you don't want to see that happen - what do you want, your daughters to be supported by men? Get real.

Are you on drugs? When did I say that? You are aware, right, that it's perfectly possible for a woman to support herself and her kin without becoming a CEO? It's amazing, I look around at my friends and family and I see nothing but women bringing home the bacon. And yet, amazingly, none of them are CEOs.

My head hurts.
How the hell does not being a CEO = being supported by men? I have no interest in being a CEO and CEO is not the first career I'd choose for a hypothetical child. That's not the epitome of "success" in my eyes. And yet I support myself and strive for a *different* version of success in my career.

And the author of this book doesn't think of her child's father as a paycheck. She's not involved with the father at all; she supports the kid herself. If anything, she thinks of the father as a sperm donor, which is what he was. Feminist women WANT men to be more than paychecks. It's patriarchy that expects men to be paychecks and women to be caregivers.

"Some of us think fatherhood is more than a sperm donation."

Oenophile, when on earth did I ever say that I think all fathers are evil? Didn't I even mention in my post that I have a fantastic relationship with my dad? I think the phrase was "I adore my dad." I think it's fantastic that your dad raised you on his own and that you owe much of your success to his great parenting. I would never suggest otherwise. What I said was, "Do I think a child will be irrevocably screwed up if raised by a single parent? Absolutely not." There's not even a mention of gender in that statement.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Or attribute ideas to me that I never expressed.

I'm glad she wrote this book. I have so many women (of various ages) that ask me about being a mom. I came from maybe the opposite end of the spectrum, having a kid in a relationship at a young age, but I always feel like if a woman (or man) really wants to have a child, they should just do it. I don't see any reason why someone should wait for a person to show up to have a child with. Let's face it, most romantic relationships in our culture are about sex, not about creating a family. This for one thing doesn't always create alot of stability when a couple does have a child and also means that may not be part of the conversation when the couple starts dating or even gets married. Not to say the old way of getting married to anyone to have a child was a better way or more stable at all, just that this is the modern reality. It's actually kind of disappointing that in our society raising a child without a father is still looked down upon.

If anything, she thinks of the father as a sperm donor, which is what he was. Feminist women WANT men to be more than paychecks.
Internal contradiction, much?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Or attribute ideas to me that I never expressed.

Welcome to my world. That happens to me every single day here.

I stick by what I said. You seem to assume that conservatives only want daughters to have fathers so they can be indoctrinated into the patriarchy. I responded that, no, we actually think of them as more than sperm donors - as a positive influence in their daughter's lives.

---

EG,

Chill. Seriously.

Remove "hate" and add in "such strong disapproval that your relationship with your child would be damaged." Yeah, I think it's complete crap that you would hate your daughter for being a CEO or otherwise successful in the corporate world. Babe, you own it - you were the one who threw a hissy fit at the idea of raising a daughter who succeeds in a man's world.

So I logically extended yoru distrust of the male-dominated corporate culture and took that to mean what you said - pretty much anything that makes money.

It blows my mind that you equate financial success with being an anti-abortion activist.

I used the CEO stat as a stand-in for financial success and one of the better outcomes associated with strong father-daughter relationships.

Frankly, I'm thrilled that a leftist acknowledges that her opinions are values and morals. I just wish she (you, here) would understand the logical conclusion thereof and examine your biases.

So let me get this straight: if your daughter were to found her own pro-choice, pro-environmentalism company and lead it, you would be ashamed of her?

If she were to become extraordinarily successful at, say, running an airline, and used her position to ensure that flight attendants are not treated like crap, that women are not shamed for their attire on their flights, and proved that ideals of equality, environmentalism, and non-discrimination are not incompatible with meeting third-quarter earnings - you would be sad.

So if your daughter were to start one of those all-women law firms, all-women medical practices, all-women web design teams, or all-women engineering firms - and be CEO thereof - you would feel as if she were abandoning your values.

That's just fucked up.

Remove "hate" and add in "such strong disapproval that your relationship with your child would be damaged."...Babe, you own it - you were the one who threw a hissy fit at the idea of raising a daughter who succeeds in a man's world.

"That my relationship with my child would be damaged" is all you, babe. I said nothing of the kind--you really need to examine your own biases. And, babe, if you think saying "ugh, I hope not" is a hissy fit, you really need to get out more often.

It blows my mind that you equate financial success with being an anti-abortion activist.

Did I? I did not. I said that being a CEO had in common with being an anti-abortion activist the fact that I would not be happy about either activity. There are plenty of ways to be financially successful that do not involve being a CEO.

So let me get this straight: if your daughter were to found her own pro-choice, pro-environmentalism company and lead it, you would be ashamed of her?

First off, you're being disingenous, aren't you? Saying "being a CEO" without any kind of qualifier does not, in general parlance, equate to that kind of thing and you know it. Second of all, you really need to learn to read properly. I choose words with care because they express best what I mean. So why you would read "disapprove of that choice but wish her well anyway" as being the same thing as "be ashamed of my daughter" is really beyond me. You might want to brush up on reading comprehension. Words matter, you know.

If she were to become extraordinarily successful at, say, running an airline, and used her position to ensure that flight attendants are not treated like crap, that women are not shamed for their attire on their flights, and proved that ideals of equality, environmentalism, and non-discrimination are not incompatible with meeting third-quarter earnings - you would be sad.

I would be amazed--in much the same way I'd be amazed if she brought me out to the ranch where she bred dragons and employed cunning little elves. That's just not how things work. You're indulging in the fantasy of The Good Guy--that if we just got a nice person into a top position, they'd be able to fix things. That doesn't happen. The very structure of, say, the airplane industry requires most of the depredations you list, including "treating employees like crap" and "fucking up the environment." It's not that current airline CEOs just all happen to be evil people. It's that the position requires that certain elements be top priority, and that is exactly why I would be happy about a child of mine taking it. How you get from that to "you'd be ashamed of/hate/damage your relationship with your child!!!!!!" is a mystery to me.

Frankly, I'm thrilled that a leftist acknowledges that her opinions are values and morals.

Again, you need to get out more often. Leftists have been doing so for generations. I see no reason to cede the language of morality to the right.

It's interesting to me that you have both me and Cajun calling you out on putting words in our mouths, and yet not only do you refuse to acknowledge that you've done it, your entire response is along the lines of "people do it to me!" Poor little oenophile. Always the victim.

and that is exactly why I wouldn't be happy about a child of mine taking it.

Heh. I choose my words with care, but I don't always type with care.

I'm sorry, I'm not savvy enough to do italics and bold print. A brief recap:

"Please don't put words in my mouth. Or attribute ideas to me that I never expressed."

"Welcome to my world. That happens to me every single day here.

I stick by what I said. You seem to assume that conservatives only want daughters to have fathers so they can be indoctrinated into the patriarchy."

Oenophile: One, I have never attacked you. Never. I have never responded to a single comment you've ever made. You are definitely the one starting some shit here. All my point ever was is that I don't think a girl will be irrevocably screwed up if raised by a single mother. I think that of all single parents' children. I think that how a child turns out hinges much more on how good the parent(s) is/are, not the number of parents the child has.

Two, you are making some really gross assumptions by attributing so much man-hating and conservative-hating to me. For the love of God, I live in Texas. If I hated all conservatives (and all men to boot), I'd practically be a one-woman island. (And I'm not, I suppose I should add, since you clearly know nothing about me.)

Did I really have to explain to someone, that just because I'm a feminist, I'm not a man-hater? On a feminist blog?

*shakes head* Wow. I need a drink.

There's just something about a single mom by choice that really pisses people off.
Because there's not a fucking thing they can do about it. Women making their own decisions and acting on them? Women controlling their own bodies? Can't have it. Nothing pisses off those who want a say about your uterus more, than for you to ignore their opinion on the matter!