Fox News Op-Ed: Women should learn to accept male control

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Yes, REALLY

We live in a new world. But that doesn’t mean it’s a better world. Women are struggling more than ever with how to rectify their desire for independence with their desire for love. These two things can be reconciled. But you must first be open to ideas that sound blasphemous.

Just because you make your own money doesn’t mean your guy can’t pay the bill. Just because you value independence doesn’t mean you can’t take your husband’s last name. Just because you can do the same a job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it.

Surrendering to your femininity means many things. It means letting your man be the man despite the fact that you’ve proved you’re his equal. It means recognizing the fact that you may very well want to stay home with your babies – and that that’s normal. It means if you do work outside the home, you don’t use your work to play tit-for-tat in your marriage. It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man – even though the culture says you don’t.

In other words, surrendering to your femininity means to put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car.
In fact, it’s rather liberating.


This just leaves me shaking my head. My marriage is about compromise, about togetherness, about equality, not me being in charge no matter what.

I LIKE the idea of a woman who is tough, who can fend for herself, who can live independently.

[HYHYBT]

This attitude does, though, explain certain views on other topics...

[bara]

I LIKE the idea of a woman who is tough, who can fend for herself, who can live independently.

I agree with this statement but would like to add that a woman who fits the above should not have to sacrifice her femininity to do it.

Dont ask me to explain what I mean by that, as I'm not sure I can do so properly.
The best I can come up with is that I do not believe there is any reason to sacrifice your sexual identity to be considered an equal.

[Nekojin]

The problem with the article linked in the OP is that it assumes that any woman who wants equality is actively and aggressively fighting for it - see the references to, "set down your sword," and such. But the fight ended 30 years ago, there's not much of a militant feminist movement these days. While things may not be equal (and, let's face it, it's unlikely to ever be perfectly equal or equivalent), all of the overt obstacles that women had to face are pretty much gone these days.

So, with that said, the OP's Op-Ed completely misses the mark, because he's arguing against a state of affairs that hasn't existed for decades.

FWIW, Andara usually drives when we go places. She's a terrible backseat driver.

[Andara Bledin]

FWIW, Andara usually drives when we go places. She's a terrible backseat driver.

I am. It's really in everybody's best interests that I be behind the wheel.

That said, I'm not sure the op-ed is really all that terrible.

Here's a relevant quote:

If the ultimate goal is lasting love, women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. Because those are the underpinnings of a long-term marriage – for both sexes.

The article is more about those recovering from the militant feminist movement of the last generation and accepting that to make compromises is not to lose one's self and that being independent doesn't mean that you have to do everything yourself.

The writer assumes that there are women fighting for equality because that's the type of woman it's aimed at - or rather, their daughters, actually and spiritually, who are operating under ideals that have become just as outmoded as the ones they were supposed to replace.

She's trying to say that while the woman may choose to be the one driving the car, allowing the man to get behind the wheel doesn't diminish her. Letting him cover the expenses doesn't make her any less successful. It's not saying that this is the way it has to be, just that it can be that way without diminishing the worth of either party.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

There's really no way to say it without sounding a little sexist, which makes me suspicious, but I think I kind of agree. It's saying that, I think, that the fact that women are now capable of doing more than ever, doesn't have to mean that you have tojust want traditional gender rolls, but backwards.

[Greenday]

I agree with this statement but would like to add that a woman who fits the above should not have to sacrifice her femininity to do it.

Dont ask me to explain what I mean by that, as I'm not sure I can do so properly.
The best I can come up with is that I do not believe there is any reason to sacrifice your sexual identity to be considered an equal.

See, this is more my feelings on the subject. I don't mind men and women being equals. It's how it should be. But I don't want women losing their femininity or else I might as well start dating dudes.

[Cymberleah]

It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man

Um? I've been single and on my own for over a decade now. I've managed to somehow fix things in my house by my own self and haven't had to borrow someone with a penis yet. As a matter of fact, I like fixing things. I like figuring out how they go together, what's wrong, how to get to it, how to replace it, and how to put it all back together again. So even if I do find a partner I'm going to be angling to have "fix broken stuff" be part of my duties.

I'm not looking for a "man" to make my life complete. I want a partner, preferably one with aforementioned penis due to my being het. I'm moderately independent because I've had to be the one to do stuff. If I don't do it, it doesn't get done. But part of looking for a partner is that I'd prefer to not have to do it all. Some of the load can be shared!

He doesn't have to make more money than I do, but if he does I won't hold it against him. He doesn't have to pick up the check every time, but I'm not going to expect that someone is going to pay my way. Because to my mind, I'm not being a good partner if I do that.

Just because you can do the same a job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it.

Ideally, the person who is BEST at doing the job is the one to do it. I'm not going to assume that this is something automatically determined by being XX or XY. For instance, if something needs to be moved and the people at hand are my brother in law and myself? I'm sure my brother in law can help move the couch, but I'm going to be better at it. He's a history teacher; I move freight.

I'm totally a feminist. I think that if I can do something that my doing it or not doing it shouldn't depend on my gender. I want a partner and I want to be a partner, not to have a father or to be a mother to my husband. I want to compromise, not to be dictated to or to dictate. I want to respect the man I love and to be respected by him. I want to listen to my partner and to be listened to with the same consideration. I truly don't understand why this is such a difficult and controversial stance.

[Nyoibo]

I think the article has a good message pooly written.

[Lady_Foxfire]

The thing about feminism is that there's a lot of different kinds of feminism, so it's really hard to define exactly what feminists think gender relations should be like. The author of the linked article is apparently arguing against a particular flavor of feminism that I don't personally agree with, and may or not represent mainstream feminism (if such a thing exists).

My understanding of feminism is that people -- men and women-- should not be defined by their genders, but should be free to be themselves. If a woman wants to be president, excellent. If she wants to be a stay-at-home-mom, excellent. She should do what she wants and what makes sense for her, and not base her life around traditional gender roles--whether conforming to or defying them.

[Seifer]

The argument in the article is frustrating because it forces all couples into a specific group. These kinds of things need to be taken on a couple-by-couple basis, because people are different. There are men out there who don't know a hammer from a wrench, so it wouldn't make sense to have them do all of the repair work in the house so they'll "feel like a man." There are also women out there who can't cook worth shit and either look to their husband or spend a lot of money eating out.

Not all women can "lay down the sword" and take on the more "feminine" roles because they simply don't fit them. Same with men.

[Rageaholic]

This sounds like a case of what I like to call "The FOX news exaggeration effect". They find any case of equal rights extremism and act as if these minorities want to take over the world. OMG all Arabs are terrorists! gays want to rape your children! Feminists want to rule over men! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!111

In this case, they are trying to make it seem as though women are discouraged from being mothers and encouraged to be top business executives. That way, they can make it look like they are merely offering a counter to the extremists. But they do it in a way to make it a black and white man vs women kind of thing. They don't want people to see that there is a much saner middle ground in which both women and men have a choice. It's may not be completely dishonest, but it is manipulative.

[guywithashovel]

I'll admit, I want to get defensive whenever a woman describes herself as "tough," "strong," or any other synonym. Why? Well, frankly, it's because I don't like being with people who are controlling, overbearing, pushy, or manipulative. I don't want to be with someone who is constantly picking at how I dress, how/what I eat, how I spent my free time, etc. I also don't want to be with someone who is constantly tearing into me for one petty reason or another. Now, some of you may be ready to come at me and say, "Well, that's not what they mean when they say they're strong!" Honestly, from my experience, it is what they mean. I want to be with someone who is polite, respectful, gentle, and caring.

[Seifer]

I'll admit, I want to get defensive whenever a woman describes herself as "tough," "strong," or any other synonym. Why? Well, frankly, it's because I don't like being with people who are controlling, overbearing, pushy, or manipulative. I don't want to be with someone who is constantly picking at how I dress, how/what I eat, how I spent my free time, etc. I also don't want to be with someone who is constantly tearing into me for one petty reason or another. Now, some of you may be ready to come at me and say, "Well, that's not what they mean when they say they're strong!" Honestly, from my experience, it is what they mean. I want to be with someone who is polite, respectful, gentle, and caring.

Sounds more like you've met harpies, not women.

It's true that some people take "strength" way too literally and go overboard. There are people out there (not just women) who think they have to be an asshole to be heard or to be respected.

[guywithashovel]

I really hope it didn't come off as though I was suggesting that all, or even most, women are like that.

Still, when a person describes themselves as "strong," "tough," or whatever, I expect them to be like what I described. I don't know what most women feel about guys who are like that, but I hear many guys saying they admire women like this and are even attracted to them. All the more power to them, I guess, but I'm not going to claim to like being with a harpie just because it may sound trendy or get some girl in the gender studies program to go to the movies with me.