Suzanne Venker …… needed a different title but

Wow did she write a great summation argument for her/our case.

Too bad she called it “The War on Men”. ‘The War On’ is a tired phrase because women and liberals have worn it out, and it is a groan elicitor among the very people are are apt to grasp and agree with what she has to say.

Who could say it better?

During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

Women aren’t women anymore.

The only thing she didn’t say is that, while women have become a pseudo quasi kinda sorta proxy for men, and yeah go gurl and all that, the men who are not the subculture she refers to, those that have adapted to the scene, they have had to become women who happen to have external genitalia and may be a bit taller for the shelf reach. But HE BEST KNOW he has no skills that are attributable to his gender uniquely. That’s bad. And well, he drools too.

She goes on to lay out a cornerstone of the manosphere in a couple of short sentences.

It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?

There was one finer point I wanted to take exception to; when she touches the topic of sex and how its so easy for men now, she claims:

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex
She missed this one. She blew right past the power broker the woman can and do become when the “Taken Into Custody” crowd show up, whether a married man or a single man with a child from a ONS, he can and will be fiscally beholden for the passion play they had. Its not so simple as “women end up worse off”.
She ends by stating how if women could just change their present nature, and allow men back into our spaces unabridged, all could be made right.
This is a good article to use to approach Pastors. Its written by a woman, and her writing with Schlafley (love or hate her) affords her cred. If a pastor could see some angle that in his gender twisting addled brain he could rationalize as good for the goose and the gander, he may take heart.
Sure, and a monkey and a man and a marching band are all around a frightened trapeze swinger.
[ETA: I am well aware the shortcomings beneath the surface, the ever maligned tradcons, etc. I agree with said maligning, I just do not make it part of my coat or arms. Here, she has written, if one isolates only the words on the page, a decent treatise a most basic , most elementary  position statement, and its in major media. To our peril we fail to use these as jumping in points]
About these ads

11 thoughts on “Suzanne Venker …… needed a different title but

  1. I agree,it’s fantastic, and would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago. I don’t think we’re moving quick enough to avert disaster,which is probably impossible anyway,but at least we’ll have our shit together when the bottom drops out.

    You know, I’ve been thinking. We’re (people of reason) so diffuse in our host countries that we can’t really influence or change much,even despite so much being risked and lost by us, but if all of us got together,say in some small neutral country under the auspices of escaping political persecution or something, I imagine we could erect a political edifice that could withstand the insane tendency of human beings to tear each other apart like this for quite some time to come with the knowledge we possess. When the shit hits the fan, all this wisdom we’ve assembled will just be banned and scrubbed anyway, and it ought to be preserved,it could save a lot of lives.

  2. It should come as no surprise that this article is being discussed, and completely misrepresented over at CF. By “this article” I mean the fox news piece, not this post here.

  3. ETA: I am well aware the shortcomings beneath the surface, the ever maligned tradcons, etc. I agree with said maligning, I just do not make it part of my coat or arms. Here, she has written, if one isolates only the words on the page, a decent treatise a most basic , most elementary position statement, and its in major media. To our peril we fail to use these as jumping in points

    I thought it was a good article, especially coming from a mainstream conservative source. As you point out, she explains some foundational concepts of the sphere even though she misses the point on assortive mating, etc. It certainly didn’t get my Trad Con dander up. On the other hand, bskillet was kind enough to point me to this article by Betty Woodruff at the National Review: Girls Not Coming of Age

    Perhaps she did an exceptionally clumsy job of playing devils advocate, and in attempting to hold feminism to its own standard went the extra step of sounding like she was in full agreement with something she isn’t.

    You’d think the feminist elevation of agency would result in women who take pride in being responsible for their own bodies. You’d hope that telling women that they can do whatever they want would imply that they’re responsible for what they do. You’d think serious feminists would argue that true empowerment is something you lay claim to, not something the federal government dispenses in all its benevolence. But for Dunham, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    In fact, for all practical purposes, the patriarchy no longer decides whom American women can sleep with and when. That’s great. But if you don’t want men in Washington telling you how to use your sexuality, you shouldn’t expect them to subsidize it.

    and

    Second-wave feminists lionized the independent woman who paid her own rent and busted through glass ceilings and ran for Congress. Being totally self-sufficient was the goal. The idea was that women didn’t need men, whether those men were their fathers or husbands or boyfriends or presidents. By contrast, Dunham’s new vision of women as lady parts with ballots is infantilizing and regressive.

  4. The idea that women don’t need men is indeed central to second wave feminism. It’s actually rather funny to watch them get their panties in such a bunch as soon as someone suggests that maybe men don’t need(or want) women.

  5. Agree completely that she was skirting something fantastic, I got jolts of good feelings as I read, the kind that suggest there are REALLY good feelings right around the corner, when she’d falter take away my anticipation of a good point pending.

    I’m glad you linked that here, its a good read.

    I don’t even know where to begin when I see those inane ads and think of the minds behind them.

  6. I have to say that I’m a bit surprised on the source of the article. And I have to say that I was one of the lucky ones and found a woman. A woman that is not influence by feminist however I do see the growing problem among the young men. One young marriage I know is going through hell right now since the wife believes she doesn’t have to do much at home but as long as he provide her what she wants. Things are all go, other wise take him through hell. Even relationships have become bad these days as women don’t see or take the responsibilities of their actions. I’ve found some of the young men going through stuff that could have been avoided but like most women these days. A college education means you know all and some and men are something else.

  7. Just re-reading the OP and I thought of something. The article would have been far better if instead of “women aren’t women anymore” the author had really explored the motivations of men who aren’t planning on getting married anymore. “Women aren’t women anymore” opens the door to the response of “well they just can’t handle women being equal to them”. If the article had instead gone into looking at how stacked against men the marriage and especially the divorce deck is, and pointed out that thanks largely to feminism that men can get all the sex they want/need outside of marriage then it would have been better.

  8. Per chaz345, it’s not just a matter of women being women instead of men with vaginas. The divorce and marriage laws have to change, so that there’s some incentive for men to get married beyond the opportunity to play Russian roulette with their future livelihood. Until then, men need marriage like a bicycle needs a fish.

  9. The system being as stacked against men as it is is largely what’s driving men to avoid marriage.

    Want to watch a feminist’s head explode though. Point out the fact that the default assumption that the man pays support after a divorce is a notion left over from the time when women didn’t work outside the home. Her hatred of being treated according to such an old fashioned and oppressive idea will collide with her desire to have it all in regards to the current system. It’s a conflict that most deal with by simply avoiding it.

  10. Pingback: Suzanne Venker on what men are good for. | Dalrock

  11. I agree with you on the baby steps part. When only half the population over age 18 is married, you have to be pretty dense if you have to talk to hundreds or a thousand people to “discover” a subculture of the marriage averse. Didn’t the Marriage Project turn them up at the 25-33% level in men (at what is considered the prime marrying age) years ago?

    It’s like going to Africa and discovering there are black people there. Kindergarten stuff.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s