Feminism, femininity, and marriage

[Anonymous]

I mostly enjoyed this blog post from Ian Ironwood entitled "Of Feminism and Femininity: A Brief History."
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2015/05/of-feminism-and-femininity-brief-history.html

I've become mostly disillusioned with the "Manosphere" and this post could have done with a good editor to pare it down, but Ironwood is insightful and doesn't seem consumed by hate like so many of the other manosphere writers seem to be. There's a little more "feminism sucks" and "you reap what you sow" in this post for my tastes. But I think he presents an interesting historical account of how feminism has changed notions of femininity over the past 80 years or so and what that has meant to the family and marriages. He suggests that feminists have encouraged women to embrace types of femininity that have left both genders conflicted and largely unhappy. Some quotes:

"Femininity is experiencing an identity crisis again because now that it has successfully established "Independent Earner" into its matrix, it doesn't know how to make it relate to the other cast-off identities a woman has in her metaphorical closet. The problem is that "Independent Earner" is now the dominant paradigm in Femininity, at direct odds with "Home & Hearth" and "Motherhood". And it's sharing a mostly-unhealthy relationship with "Sex Kitten", these days. "
. . .
On the one hand, the "romantic desire" for a permanent relationship is there . . . but feminism has successfully re-written the social rules enough to use any woman's apparent success in a relationship as prima facia evidence of her failure as "Independent Earner". A woman who is successful in her professional life is NEVER lauded for her relationship or her family, even if she has them. Particularly not her husband.
. . .
"
What was left - what you are left with - is pretty desolate, from a masculine perspective. There was no dedication to children, except in abstract, no devotion to domestic skills, no cultivation of a warm and loving heart to encourage his own perseverance in the face of adversity. Instead young men looked at what their futures held with these determined, driven, highly-competitive girls who saw marriage and family as check boxes and his role as "guest husband" in her domestic fantasies. The looked at it, saw the pain and agony of their divorced dads, saw the misery in the eyes of their married friends, and realized that it just wasn't worth the effort.

By that point feminism's odd ideas about sex had progressed to where sex within marriage was the absolute most boring, patriarchal, non-feminist sex you could have. They denigrated husbands and men in general in popular culture and made the term itself one of cultural disrespect. With that kind of painful humiliation to look forward to in the institution formerly known as marriage, the young men had a decision to make. So the dudes shrugged, went back to porn and video games and women went crazy, a little."

[Anonymous]

I'm 47, so I've been around awhile. Watched the culture change a lot. My mom's generation was the first one thrown out there where not everything was set in stone. She thought she'd get married, be a housewife, and a mom. That's what everyone did. At least, they used to. Her generation was tossed into the air with divorce and careers. And that's scary. Many people like to know what lies ahead for them, what's expected of them. They want that safety net. But they adapted. Some found success with ease. But most stumbled through awkwardly until they figured it out.

Enter my generation. I can't relate at all to anything these manosphere people write. Women have power now and are no longer dependent on a man. So we expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

[Anonymous]

I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

+1

Why do women need to do these things? If men want them, they can do them. Just like if women want a career, she can do that.

I am scratching my head as to why these men are so hysterical about feminism. If they want a woman to stay home with the kids and cook, there are plenty of women who enjoy that out there, who have made the choice to do that instead of a career (but the choice is thanks to feminism).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 47, so I've been around awhile. Watched the culture change a lot. My mom's generation was the first one thrown out there where not everything was set in stone. She thought she'd get married, be a housewife, and a mom. That's what everyone did. At least, they used to. Her generation was tossed into the air with divorce and careers. And that's scary. Many people like to know what lies ahead for them, what's expected of them. They want that safety net. But they adapted. Some found success with ease. But most stumbled through awkwardly until they figured it out.

Enter my generation. I can't relate at all to anything these manosphere people write. Women have power now and are no longer dependent on a man. So we expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

I think this is what it is. They were raised thinking they could "have" a woman with certain looks, personality, and utility and it was their right. Reality didn't live up to that expectation and now they are very angry.

[Anonymous]

By that point feminism's odd ideas about sex had progressed to where sex within marriage was the absolute most boring, patriarchal, non-feminist sex you could have. They denigrated husbands and men in general in popular culture and made the term itself one of cultural disrespect. With that kind of painful humiliation to look forward to in the institution formerly known as marriage, the young men had a decision to make. So the dudes shrugged, went back to porn and video games and women went crazy, a little.

That's funny, this guy seems like he's all worked up and writing a long screed, not shrugging and relaxing. Looks like the ones going crazy are the men like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[W]e expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

. . .

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

I think Ironwood's partial response to that is, "Sure, Masculinity ain't what it used to be either, and we own that. We allowed ourselves to be talked out of our better masculine nature in the false hope that it would lead to a better domestic life, social harmony, and more sex. What we got was more demands, more requirements, and less sex."

Some do take up hearth and home, but the manospherians will tell you that these men generally aren't as attractive to women. Anecdotally, I've certainly seen around here that a lot of women want a "man's man," and/or "a provider." So, if a young man's options are to make himself less attractive by taking care of hearth & home or to remain attractive in exchange for more demands, more requirements, and less sex, he's likely to just check out, sleep around where he can (play video games and watch porn where he can't), but not commit to marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[W]e expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

. . .

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

I think Ironwood's partial response to that is, "Sure, Masculinity ain't what it used to be either, and we own that. We allowed ourselves to be talked out of our better masculine nature in the false hope that it would lead to a better domestic life, social harmony, and more sex. What we got was more demands, more requirements, and less sex."

Some do take up hearth and home, but the manospherians will tell you that these men generally aren't as attractive to women. Anecdotally, I've certainly seen around here that a lot of women want a "man's man," and/or "a provider." So, if a young man's options are to make himself less attractive by taking care of hearth & home or to remain attractive in exchange for more demands, more requirements, and less sex, he's likely to just check out, sleep around where he can (play video games and watch porn where he can't), but not commit to marriage.

Well then, luckily loser dude won't be passing on his genes or personality to any future generations. So this generation of failure men -- ones who can't help out at home and also can't live up to higher expectations -- will die out. Fingers crossed all the FWB women they are hooking up with are feminist enough to use BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they want a woman to stay home with the kids and cook, there are plenty of women who enjoy that out there, who have made the choice to do that instead of a career (but the choice is thanks to feminism).

One of the allegations in the post is that there is social pressure by feminists against women who are content with running a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[W]e expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

. . .

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

I think Ironwood's partial response to that is, "Sure, Masculinity ain't what it used to be either, and we own that. We allowed ourselves to be talked out of our better masculine nature in the false hope that it would lead to a better domestic life, social harmony, and more sex. What we got was more demands, more requirements, and less sex."

Some do take up hearth and home, but the manospherians will tell you that these men generally aren't as attractive to women. Anecdotally, I've certainly seen around here that a lot of women want a "man's man," and/or "a provider." So, if a young man's options are to make himself less attractive by taking care of hearth & home or to remain attractive in exchange for more demands, more requirements, and less sex, he's likely to just check out, sleep around where he can (play video games and watch porn where he can't), but not commit to marriage.

Well then, luckily loser dude won't be passing on his genes or personality to any future generations. So this generation of failure men -- ones who can't help out at home and also can't live up to higher expectations -- will die out. Fingers crossed all the FWB women they are hooking up with are feminist enough to use BC.

Do you think family life is, as a whole, happier, less happy, or about the same as it was 100 years ago? Do you think feminism had an impact one way or the other?

[Anonymous]

I think we all need to take a step back and get some perspective. Recent generations have been through unthinkable, enormous, comprehensive changes. There are huge differences in every generation to the one before it. My grandparents lived wildly different lives than my parents, mine is different to both, my childrens' different to each preceding. And these culture and environment changes are not small, and we can't rely on previous experience to negotiate them, nor can we be sure we can find people we see eye to eye with to form new relationships.

It's tough. It's challenging on everybody in various ways at different milestones in the life cycle.

Some perspective on this will help us move forward cooperatively and compassionately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[W]e expect and demand more from men, more than a roof over our heads and a steady income. We expect men to have good self esteem, integrity, emotional health and maturity, a good work ethic, and good parenting and partner skills. As the playing field has leveled, men have had to up their game. And the antifeminists are the ones who can't or don't want to. They are the ones who can't adapt.

. . .

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. Why don't men pick up the devotion to children and hearth and home aspects of "femininity"?

I think Ironwood's partial response to that is, "Sure, Masculinity ain't what it used to be either, and we own that. We allowed ourselves to be talked out of our better masculine nature in the false hope that it would lead to a better domestic life, social harmony, and more sex. What we got was more demands, more requirements, and less sex."

Some do take up hearth and home, but the manospherians will tell you that these men generally aren't as attractive to women. Anecdotally, I've certainly seen around here that a lot of women want a "man's man," and/or "a provider." So, if a young man's options are to make himself less attractive by taking care of hearth & home or to remain attractive in exchange for more demands, more requirements, and less sex, he's likely to just check out, sleep around where he can (play video games and watch porn where he can't), but not commit to marriage.

Well then, luckily loser dude won't be passing on his genes or personality to any future generations. So this generation of failure men -- ones who can't help out at home and also can't live up to higher expectations -- will die out. Fingers crossed all the FWB women they are hooking up with are feminist enough to use BC.

Do you think family life is, as a whole, happier, less happy, or about the same as it was 100 years ago? Do you think feminism had an impact one way or the other?

"Family life"? What does that mean? You mean how happy men were with their families? Or how happy everyone was to be taken care of by someone who didn't have a choice because that was the only role that person had in society?

I can guarantee you I'm a whole lot happier now than I would have been living in 1915. Women couldn't even vote then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think we all need to take a step back and get some perspective. Recent generations have been through unthinkable, enormous, comprehensive changes. There are huge differences in every generation to the one before it. My grandparents lived wildly different lives than my parents, mine is different to both, my childrens' different to each preceding. And these culture and environment changes are not small, and we can't rely on previous experience to negotiate them, nor can we be sure we can find people we see eye to eye with to form new relationships.

It's tough. It's challenging on everybody in various ways at different milestones in the life cycle.

Some perspective on this will help us move forward cooperatively and compassionately.

This is good advice. I see a lot of the "mansplaining" about feminism's evils to be sour grapes about necessary changes that have happened as our society becomes more competitive, global, and modern.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty simple, women. Either abandon feminism or abandon all hope of being wives and mothers. Because men will not abide feminism and you cannot force us to accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Family life"? What does that mean? You mean how happy men were with their families? Or how happy everyone was to be taken care of by someone who didn't have a choice because that was the only role that person had in society?

I can guarantee you I'm a whole lot happier now than I would have been living in 1915. Women couldn't even vote then.

I guess if the term "family life" causes such confusion, then concerns that modern trends have eroded the family are not overblown.

Also, this seems to be evidence that feminism does, in fact, encourage women to view the family as a tool of patriarchal oppression; not a life to be chosen by serious women with options.