The Sexist

Who Is to Blame For An Effeminate Man?

[youtube:v=uziV_kMyIv4]

Last month, I wrote about how chivalry encourages men to take responsibility for maintaining feminine virtue. Of course, once men assume ownership over the actions of women, women are encouraged to police themselves in order to avoid embarrassing the men in their lives. Endless cycle, no?

Let's take a look at how this collaborative gender policing works when the roles are reversed. Who is to blame when a man doesn't act masculine enough when fulfilling his traditional role in a heterosexual relationship? According to traditional gender role expert Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the woman is always at fault (also, she's a mouthy, feminist prude).

Andrea writes in to Dr. Laura for some advice about her husband. Apparently, Andrea is a bit concerned about his tendency toward sissiness on one particular issue:

"My friends and I, who are stay-at-home moms, would love to have you address how we can help our husband be strong fathers. We're doing our best to be great wives (we've read your books)"—good—"who support and respect our husbands. Yet, we think feminist concepts still influence us because we tend to entirely take over the discipline of our kids. Our husbands seem to be more gentle and compassionate than we are! We can't use that old line 'wait 'til your father comes home!' We didn't marry wimps. These are men who bravely and patiently put up with our occasional crabbiness. They provide for their families, listen and care. Are we doing something wrong?"

As far as traditional gender roles are concerned, Andrea and her friends are fulfilling their responsibilities as women. They've rejected careers in order to stay home to care for their children and husbands. They've read Dr. Laura's books on how better to cater to their husbands' desires. They work to appear gentle and compassionate and allow their husbands to assume the domineering, disciplinary role in the household.

But their husbands aren't holding up their end of the bargain. They're acting like women when they need to be acting like men. That's the deal. These women are doing everything right. . . or are they? Schlessinger responds:

On a prior YouTube, I was asked about a three year old who says "shut up," and I was telling the person who asked me the question that probably they're saying "shut up" and that way the kid is learning to say "shut up". So here I am, being a total hypocrite: Shut up! When your husband starts disciplining the kids, even if you don't like it, don't agree with it, think it should be done a different way—leave it alone.

You are emasculating your husbands by judging and critiquing what they do and taking over, just because what they do is different. I am here to tell you, kids don't do well in a house without an alpha male. And if you emasculate your husband so that he's afraid to express himself because he's going to get garbage from you and no sex, he's going to seem like a wimp. He's not going to be an alpha male and that's going to hurt your kids. And frankly, a guy who's not an alpha male is not very horny, even for a feminist. So, what I want you to do is, "Honey, they did 'such and such'. Could you take care of it?" And afterwards go, [takes a deep, sensuous breath] "I love when you handle things that way".

Interesting. So while chivalry encourages men and women to police female behavior to shoehorn women into traditional roles, the policing of men in these backwards heterosexual relationships functions much differently. For good housewives like Andrea, a man's failure to embody the "alpha male" role still reflects her own personal failure as a woman. But the solution, unlike with chivalry, isn't to encourage her man to be more masculine. The solution is to pretend that he's more masculine than he is, and to put out more.

According to the Dr. Laura model, a woman is required to fulfill her role—no excuses. But if a man is uninterested in fulfilling the traditional male role—hey, maybe he's just not into yelling at and/or hitting children!—no problem. We don't want to inconvenience a man—but we also can't just let his effeminate behavior slide.

So we place the full responsibility for the husband's more feminine qualities on his wife. She needs to (a) pretend that her husband is "alpha," even when he doesn't really want to be; and (b) privately focus on fulfilling her own role better, regardless of what her husband does. In Dr. Laura's world, that means offering herself up for sex more, remembering to always let out "deep, sensuous breaths," and intensifying her feminine performance in order to make her husband appear more masculine in contrast.

And if her man doesn't want as much sex as she's aggressively offering him? That's the woman's fault, too. Perhaps she should try offering even more sex! Nevermind that aggressively pursuing sex is traditionally considered a pretty masculine thing to do—if this shit actually made any sense, it would make it a lot harder to indiscriminately blame women for everything.

Comments

  1. #1

    Every time Dr. Laura puts up something new regarding sex or gender rolls, I start out laughing, then get really upset and a bit pissed that there are people out there taking her seriously. *sigh*

  2. #2

    @Flutterby: I know, right? It's like with Glenn Beck - that shit is hilarious, until you remember these people have thousands/millions of real fans.

    Anyway I love how the woman who wrote in seems genuinely concerned that feminism has seeped into her household (despite her best efforts to KEEP! IT! OUT!) and is making her care about her childrens' discipline. Moreover, her biggest problem is that her husband is gentle and compassionate and puts up with her "crabbiness"? Like, what the fuck?? This woman and her friend need some hobbies/something real to worry about, and Dr. Laura needs a time machine, to return to 1943 when her ideas weren't QUITE so horrifically out of place.

  3. #3

    I'm with Flutterby and Katie. I'm always like, "a ha ha ha, Dr. Laura, you big kidder-- oh. Oh, right." And then I make the sad face.

    Incidentally, I grew up in a house largely without an "alpha male" and have managed to avoid the majority of ills and moral failings that we're always told plague girls who grow up without a dad. Studies indicating children who grow up in lesbian two-parent households have fewer behavioral problems also puts the lie to Dr. Laura's theories.

  4. #4

    That's just full of so much "ew" I don't even know where to start.

    Kids need an alpha male in the house? Who the hell says? And her suggestions for the wives...wow.

  5. #5

    I can't even begin to list the ways this is messed up.

  6. #6

    "I am here to tell you, kids don’t do well in a house without an alpha male."

    Funny how that study showed that "Children raised in lesbian-mother families develop into psychologically healthy teenagers and have fewer social and behavioral problems, according to a new US study that followed over 70 such children from birth into adolescence"

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/191233.php

    Dr Laura is so smart!

  7. #7

    HAHAHA!!! Oh, Dr. Laura, you ridiculous, ridiculous asshole. Please occupy yourself by knitting a 12 foot table runner, and stop talking!

    @Katie I wish feminism worked as subconsciously as the patriarchal crap of the world works.

    @Melissa Why are human social patterns constantly paralleled with animal social patterns? We're animals, I know. But we also have the ability to verbalize our problems, instead of, you know, beating each other into submission.

  8. #8

    Who knew diciplining your kids could be so sensual?

  9. #9

    @kza your posts have been good lately. Just wanted to let you know. On the upswing!

  10. #10

    I do it all for your approval!

  11. pipi long stockings
    #11

    I can't believe Dr. Asshole is recommending that women stand by and do nothing even when they believe that their husband is unfairly disciplining the kids.

    It's the stuff abusive households are made out of.

  12. #12

    Well played, kza. I LOL'd for real-reals.

  13. #13

    Frankly, I feel indebted to Schlessinger, because I think she -- largely unconsciously -- has exposed here, in very succinct terms, why anti-feminists who use evopsych to justify their misogyny lack rigorous thinking. They're also mixing two entirely disparate and opposing schools of thought -- one espousing the naturally dominant male, the other founded on the principle that women "secretly" hold all social and political power because they've got vulvas and vaginas and tits and the like, what a lot of idiots conflate with "sex."

    From what I can tell, the concept of a human alpha man is borrowed from the (equally dubious) ethological concept: alpha dudes earn their status by kicking lesser dude's assess, taking charge of their myriad women, I guess, and regularly engaging in bloodsport to prove their alphaness. If we translate that into real-world terms, alpha dudes are hyper-aggressive morons (probably Promise Keepers as teenagers) who purchase rape from prostitutes and possess an MBA, or summat.

    I suppose where evopsych fanatics lose the plot is that women, within their own creepy notion of a human hierarchy, are creatures who permanently occupy a social status lower than the lowliest man and, therefore, cannot by definition rob alpha dudes of their alphaness, whether through "withholding" sex or nagging or "disciplining" the brood or what-not. Alphaness exists through homosociality. It has little currency outside of male relationships. Women cannot challenge alphaness because women cannot possess alphaness. Alphaness does not exist within the nuclear family, because the only conceivable opponent to the father's alphaness is the son, but as children are expected, eventually, to leave the nuclear family unit and start one of their own, this is a moot point.

    Beyond that, Schlessinger's discussion of sex as a source of power is interesting (and fucking dubious as all fuck). On the one hand, dudes who get nagged and don't get sex -- bad shit that obviously goes hand in hand -- become so insecure that they can't assert themselves, or are afraid to assert themselves lest they get nagged and don't get sex. Which, apparently, means that would-be alpha dudes need women to kow-tow to them, put out for them, and worship them, otherwise their alpha powers run out of juice. Assertive women are kryptonite for alphadudes. Not only do their penises get all flaccid, apparently, but they lose their awesome alpha mojo.

    On the other hand, "a guy who’s not an alpha male is not very horny, even for a feminist." HAHA. Feminists hate sex (FACT!), sure, but even yucky ol' feminists cannot possibly be satisfied knowing they've got a goddamned beta in the bedroom, yo. What exactly Schlessinger thinks she's saying here is slightly confusing, but she's absolutely concluding that men's egos are fragile enough (even the mind-bending power of an alpha dude ego) that even fairly innocuous female behavior can have awesome and dangerous repercussions not only on men's well-being but on the lives and futures of their children and the world at large.

  14. #14

    My first baby step, many years ago, towards the bastion of radical feminism, was to acknowledge that female power, a concept deeply ingrained in our culture, is not only a myth, but a very revealing bogey illustrating a very fundamental fear. Only those invested with power, especially unlimited power, fear the worm turning, which is why men shudder at the suggestion of an equitable society, laugh knowingly, maybe a little shamefully, when discussing angry wives, bitter exes, controlling mothers-in-law -- women, who by virtue of a familial relationship, possess or once possessed a certain amount of "control" over men's day-to-day existence, voice decisions and opinions loudly and often without shame. It's a neat parlor trick, to suggest that that a relatively powerless social and political class possesses, behind the scenes, all the "real" power. It's an alluring notion, that a woman, naked and spread-eagle in a magazine, posed to look as vulnerable and child-like as possible, possesses infallible power over (heterosexual) men. The maxim of the "the hand that rocks the cradle" exposes the fear of strong mothers who might teach their sons, through experience, a woman's intelligence and will.

    Chivalry, which emphasizes human hierarchy based on discernible difference, necessarily distances men from women. That's what it's designed to do, as much as it is designed to keep lower-caste men, plebs, and untouchable scum in their respective places. Men of equal status share power and co-operate with one another in the public sphere. When they fight or disagree, their battles are fought on fair lines, and are the stuff of epic, myth, and earth-shattering histories. Women, robbed of a certain amount of autonomy and most public power, occupy a dubious position within the so-called domestic sphere: fuck-toy, wife, mother, spinster kin, the help.

    For men who believe women are distinct and separate from themselves, chivalry is a suitable means of negotiating contact with women that is limited to the banal and strictly physical. Women are thought to possess something men need and require. Men must cultivate elaborate overtures in order to get what they desire “fairly,” according to the terms and rules assumed to be common knowledge. Women who do not cooperate become prick-teasers, gold-diggers, manipulative cunts. Men who do not abide, who do not play the game develop a certain notoriety; their “victims” should probably have known better.

    Chivalry is necessarily distancing, necessarily widens the supposed gap between men and women, male and female experience; it assumes that a man is incapable of physically loving a woman he respects, and it assumes that women, who cannot respect a passive man, need to be firmly taken in hand. Genuine understanding and non-sexual affection are impossible in chivalric relationships, because such relationships encourage both participants to remain vague with one another. Women become more mysterious, their motivations more enigmatic, their charms more exotic, as they are conceived of more deeply as enemies needing to be conquered, controlled, or vanquished. Hate and resentment begin to fester in the breasts of men. They begin to feel entitled to their just rewards, and justified in their violence towards women who fail to cooperate.

    This is where chivalry of old meets our modern conception of chivalry; within both, male violence functions to correct and punish those who won’t participate, or who grievously fail to fulfill expectation. Male violence is a palpable threat and can erupt at any time. Therefore, women and other lesser creatures need protection from men by men. Men who protect women are rewarded with temporary or permanent possession and use of their bodies. Not without coincidence, men who are violent toward women are also interested in, and sometimes succeed, in obtaining use and possession of women’s bodies. Sex is the inevitable function of women; chivalry affords a woman the “empowering” “choice” to decide what man she’s going to have sex with, maybe, sometimes, if she’s lucky, if she’s the right caste, color, or class. All other women, the 99.9 percent who haven’t earned the title of “lady,” also get to be fuck-toys, but without the flowers, door-opening, and studious efforts by ultra-earnest dudes to commit their purity, beauty, and virginity to decidedly crap art.

    In vulgar parlance, chivalry is the performance of very specific gender roles, in which women are understood, by virtue of their physical, emotional, and intellectual inferiority, to be in need of male protection and guidance in exchange for certain “gifts.” In a kind of mutually shameful and, to the outsider, rather camp ballet, women mince around feigning frivolity, naivete, and fragility and men a kind of knowing sophistication and paternal benevolence only very transparently masking deeply primal physical and sexual prowess. Chivalric performance is limited to silly, demeaning sort of tasks: men “help” women with heavy doors, bulky parcels, opening jars of pickles, giving their children stern and manly "talking-tos," thereby emphasizing the mother's powerlessness. Men assist women making simple decisions, second-guess their instincts, and ingratiate themselves with male family members in order to further negotiations of marriage and ownership. Women reward this heroism with a sort of flighty devotion that eventually must lead to sexual availability. Romance consists of women passively accepting -- and slowly being turned on – by increasingly aggressive courtship rituals. Sex is inevitable once men, who firmly believe that, all along, they have had to painfully suppress their growing lust lest they tarnish or offend natural female modesty and ignorance, decide to stop “controlling” themselves; sex is generally a boring, bodice-ripping sort of affair, in which women are ravished and men are horrifyingly fiendish.

    It's little wonder why women are encouraged to make it their life’s work to cultivate a romantic heterosexual relationship with a man who can “provide” for her; there are few acceptable outlets for women’s time, energy, and creativity once they become adults. Being attractive according to ever-changing standards, “finding” a “man,” and bearing and raising children, again, according to ever-changing standards, are the only acceptable career choices most women are expected to want to make. Romantic heterosexual relationships then, while they benefit men by providing a socially responsible means of bagging themselves their very own concubine and domestic servant, are interpreted as a largely female activity and a female obsession; women are perceived to be irrationally attention-starved for men and the sole beneficiaries of good, heterosexual relationships, even when such relationships inevitably harm and hinder them. Romantic relationships accrue slightly negative reputations because they are associated with women, and men may involve themselves in such relationships only when they are “given” sex in return for their participation. Which is why Schlessinger and people like her have such currency amongst women, especially women who have accepted their lot in life and wonder, probably overwhelmed by guilt that they've failed at their "womanly" "tasks," what they're doing wrong.

  15. #15

    God I love Saurs.

  16. A Father and a Man
    #16

    Wow. So actually feminism is soooo powerful that it seeps in -- what under the front door despite the weather stripping the alpha male installed -- and infects even those who constantly and in every way resist it? That feminism is some powerful stuff! Does the proper wife lick the muzzle of the alpha male when he returns to the den from hunting? What a crock of s*@t.... I have a sister in law who is doing precisely this "for Jesus. I hope that we have parented our daughter well enough in our values taht she doesn't Ev-Ah fall for this stuff.

  17. #17

    @Saurs--another side of the female power bogeyman is that it was/is used, often quite overtly, to discourage women from seeking civil and political rights and social equality. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" = don't bother trying to get the vote/an education/a job/a promotion; that will just expose you to the dirty, nasty world and thereby dilute your specialness, which is the source of your power. Trust us, you're way more powerful when you stay in the domestic sphere and concern yourself with marriage and child-rearing than you would be if you were out in the world, earning money and holding political office.

    I suppose that's just one version of the female power narrative, which exists in tension with the sex = power one that you discussed, and which really degrades men by treating them as these base creatures who are easily manipulated, emasculated, and controlled. The source of a woman's power should be her strength, intelligence, courage, and experience, not one particular function of her body, and, in fact, I suspect that women who have bought into this version of the myth and try to control the men in their lives this way may find themselves in for a nasty surprise when it turns out that (a) men are not all so easily controlled and (b) the women themselves learn that sexual desire is not a one-way street.

    I suppose what all these narratives of female power have in mind is that they fetishize it, reduce it to a single aspect of women, and then exaggerate it.

  18. #18

    "who purchase rape from prostitutes..."

    wtf?

  19. #19

    The best thing I've ever seen with "Dr. Laura" is the Queer Duck episode wherein she takes the place of the Twilight Gremlin on the plane wing. That truly embodies the essence of Dr. Laura.
    Each person is responsible for his or her own conduct on his or her own behalf. Dignity is something to be determined and maintained by the individual for their own sake, not for the benefit of others. Certainly feminine dignity is the responsibility of the woman on behalf of herself, not on behalf of the patriarchy. Chivalry is a sexist concept anyway. It assumes that women are too weak and stupid to take care of or think for ourselves. This is opposed to courtesy, which is a concept that should apply to all of us. Opening the door for someone is a courtesy, for instance. One person does it as a kindness for another. But we women should not be standing around waiting for men to open doors for us, or do anything else for us either. We need to be doing what needs to be done for ourselves. Sure, Prince Charming may show up sometime. But in my experience, he's likely to be gay! ;-)

  20. #20

    Saurs is my favorite! Sorry kza.

  21. #21

    I love Saurs too.

    And yes, at least kza isn't (oh crap what was his name again...Eo, that's it)'s lapdog any more, but ze's still the disingenuous, dishonest little wotsit of yore.

  22. #22

    No points for brevity?

  23. #23

    Right back 'atcha, Hess.

    kza, prostitution is rape-for-payment. Didn't you know that?

    Good points, Kit-Kat. Exile from public was and is supposed to be compensated for running a household, and, presumably, doing a Lady MacBeth when you feel like it. The many tiresome jokes about knowing who "wears the pants" in a relationship is probably indicative of the universal (male) fear of being henpecked, or of women working political machinations behind the scenes, getting shit done.

  24. #24

    Nil points.

  25. #25

    Um I think your memory is a bit off Emily.

  26. #26

    But if a man is uninterested in fulfilling the traditional male role—hey, maybe he’s just not into yelling at and/or hitting children!—no problem.

    Setting the "men who provided financially for their families are child abusers " narrative aside, is your position really that telling mothers not to interfere with how fathers parent their children because doing so would undermine those fathers' authority and make them less inclined to step in when they need to is bad advice? I just want to be clear on that (assuming you will allow for the hypothetical possibility that men who financially support their families are not inherently child abusers).

  27. #27

    Toysoldier, the woman who wrote to Schlessinger, Andrea, and Schlessinger herself are the folk what brought in child abuse. The former, by referring to her husband as a "wimp" and invoking a tired and thinly veiled threat ("wait 'til your father..." etc etc) that is commonly used against children to put the so-called fear o' god in 'em, and the latter by needlessly bringing stupid fucking alpha males into the picture, who are, yes, defined by their propensity for violence to solve problems. Take it up with them, and stop putting words in Hess's mouth, thanks.

  28. #28

    "Setting the “men who provided financially for their families are child abusers ” narrative aside, is your position really that telling mothers not to interfere with how fathers parent their children because doing so would undermine those fathers’ authority and make them less inclined to step in when they need to is bad advice?"

    How much of this post did you read? Vegas puts the over/under at 10%...I got the under.

  29. #29

    @Saurs I have a blog post scheduled for next week that might apply here. It talks about a study done of college age women. Here is the blurb:

    For example, in a large survey of college-aged women,109 while almost all of respondents had at some point initiated sexual contact with a male, their initiatives often were not benign. More than 30% of the subjects admitted getting their partners drunk or stoned to have sex, just under 30% admitted having taken advantage of a teenager, 28% admitted having threatened physical force, and about 25% admitted having obtained sex by abusing their position of authority.110

    109 Peter B. Anderson, Women’s Motives for Sexual Initiation and Aggression, in SEXUALLY AGGRESSIVE WOMEN: CURRENT PERSPECTIVES AND CONTROVERSIES 79-93 (Peter B. Anderson and Cindy Struckman-Johnson eds., 1998). His sample was composed of 461 undergraduate women volunteers in New York,New Jersey, and New Orleans. All students were enrolled in courses on human sexuality. Id. at 87.

    110 Id. at 88-89. Note that 20% admit having used physical force to get sex, and 9% admit using a weapon.

    I would also point to http://www.female-offenders.com/ and the hundreds of studies, papers, etc on that site that show that abuse is human issue rather than gender issue.

  30. #30

    It seems to me that the women were wanting the men to take more of an active role in disciplining the kids. But it also seems that the women didn't want their husbands to do it the way their husbands wanted to do it.

    They seemed to confirm that their husbands were a little more calmer in the way they approached their kids then what the mums were.

    I have problems finding out why you think those ladies didn't want to stay at home and look after their kids? With one commentator it seems you are contradicting yourself saying kids do well with lesbian mums... are you suggesting that its ok if at least one lesbian mum stays at home to look after the kids and the other goes and works....

    Yet suggest its not ok for a wife to stay home and look after the kids if the husband goes to work?

    Im all for equality in the home, in the work place and in society. Equality calls for mutual respect. It calls for mutual tolerance. I'm wondering why you might think its detrimental for women to make the decision to stay at home and look after the kids?

    To me it seems like radical feminism shoots itself by declaring that its men who make the better stay at home partner and that its better for the women to go out and work while dad stays home and looks after the kids, because dads will do a better job then mums will do.

  31. #31

    "To me it seems like radical feminism shoots itself by declaring that its men who make the better stay at home partner and that its better for the women to go out and work while dad stays home and looks after the kids, because dads will do a better job then mums will do."

    It seems that way to you, Craig, but only because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Trading patriarchal gender roles one for another isn't the goal of any strain of feminism of which I'm aware, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin's.

  32. #32

    I am impressed with how so many women find it difficult to express an opinion or make an argument without being vulgar or nasty. Shame.

  33. #33

    miss schlessinger, if you're nasty!

  34. #34

    I just think if I hear "alpha males" referred to in a context outside of the canine world again, I am going to actually, physically go live with wolves, because at least then all the alpha male business will make sense.

    Craig-- personally, I have no problem with households where one parent chooses to stay home, no matter which partner it is. What I find objectionable is the notion that children only grow up successfully if the man acts as breadwinner and the woman runs the household (but always, of course, in deference to her husband). This throws to the (metaphorical) wolves all children raised in households with a single parent, two working parents, gay or lesbian parents, or stay-at-home father, which is not fair to the parents but also absolutely unfair to the children, who basically are informed they are going to be failures because they have the wrong sort of family.

  35. #35

    Saurs: Toysoldier, the woman who wrote to Schlessinger, Andrea, and Schlessinger herself are the folk what brought in child abuse.

    Um, no. The letter stated, "Our husbands seem to be more gentle and compassionate than we are! We can’t use that old line ‘wait ’til your father comes home!’ We didn’t marry wimps." My italics. There was no mention of abuse at all. The women essentially complained that their husbands were pushovers, although they never made it clear what bothered them about their husbands' methods of discipline. Hess, however, asserted that the traditional male role (providing for one's family) involved yelling at and hitting children, or child abuse. So it is not putting words in her mouth.

    kza: How much of this post did you read? Vegas puts the over/under at 10%…I got the under.

    That appears to be 10% more than you did. I do not care whether Hess thinks men who provide for their families are child abusers. I do care when absurd, misandrist statements like that go unchallenged.

  36. #36

    Toysoldier, you're being deliberately disingenuous. Schlessinger and Andrea were speaking about physically disciplining children. All physical discipline is violence. They were also mocking men who acted compassionately. I'm surprised that you, who believe men are undergoing a psychological crisis because of the enormous pressures they are under to act like "real men," would disagree with women who think men shouldn't have to be violent to assert themselves, simply by virtue of their being feminists. Not every discussion here needs to end up a pissing contest or a turf war between radfems and MRAs. Really.

  37. #37

    BloggerT, you posted that exact comment at ToySoldier's blog. I must inquire: what does it have to do with the price of tea in China, here or there? We're not discussing EVIL DIRTY LYING WHORE ABUSIVE WOMEN. I know, I'm sorry, I hate them, too, et cetera.

  38. #38

    Wow. Misandry. Yep. Not liking the notion of men having to be "alpha males" is totally misandry. Of course, that also deliberately ignores what a true human "alpha male" would be - a vicious, angry creature, violently protecting his dominance in his household and group of friends through sex, manipulation, and pure violence. We are not dogs, or wolves. There is no necessity for children of any species to be raised in a "traditional" two-parent household with a stay-at-home mother and a breadwinning father. In fact, there is experimental evidence that children raised by lesbians receive a number of benefits over their "traditionally" raised peers. (I can find the lit review that points this out if desired, but it is extremely long)

    BloggerT: I'd like to point out that over 1/4 of all college-aged people are teenagers (the number is probably around 1/3 of all college-aged people being teenagers) so unless the study you're talking about specifically corrected for that . . . well.

  39. #39

    There is no way that's Dr. Laura. If she read The Sexist at all, her radio/youtube shows wouldn't be so fucking unbearable.

    And for the sake of nastiness and vulgarity: fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck!

  40. #40

    Watch out Lizrd, Dr. Laura might come back to SHAME you some more, and the fainting couch is out being reupholstered.

  41. #41

    Oh gosh. Watching that video scarred me for a while. Whose being a mouthy, domineering woman here?

  42. #42

    And why can't more men be compassionate? They sound pretty caring from their wives' point of view.

  43. #43

    Oh, no grogette! As a feminist, my life's objectives involve emmasculating vulgarity. I'll just have to continue on and hope the Schlessinger shame parade does not make me feel faint.

  44. #44

    Schlessinger and Andrea were speaking about physically disciplining children.

    We do not know how Andrea or her husband discipline their children as it was not mentioned. Likewise, Dr. Laura did not mock compassionate men. She affirmed the Andrea's husband's compassion by telling his wife to back off and let him discipline the children his way.

    I’m surprised that you . . . would disagree with women who think men shouldn’t have to be violent to assert themselves, simply by virtue of their being feminists.

    The disagreement is because neither Dr. Laura or Andrea said that men should be violent in order to assert themselves. That is an assumption you and others drew based on how Hess characterized Dr. Laura's statements.

  45. #45

    Toysoldier, Andrea wrote to Schlessinger wondering whether or not she was being a terrible wife by emasculating her husband through acting the butcher and more aggressive of the two, and wanted confirmation from Schlessinger on this point and advice about how to get her husband to act more assertively around their children through physical discipline. Schlessinger confirmed that Andrea has been committing the grave offense of undermining her husband's paternal authority and that the only solution is for him to stop acting like a wimp and for Andrea herself to put out more. If you want to defend the two for stooping to tired gendered stereotypes about abusive, angry, violent men and sexually manipulative women, feel free, dude. Me, personally, I'm going to stick to calling bullshit when I see it, no matter whom we're talking about.

    "That is an assumption you and others drew based on how Hess characterized Dr. Laura’s statements."

    Again, I'll ask you to stop putting words into other people's mouths. I can read for myself. Quit with the fucking pearl clutching and stop insinuating everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. The paranoia, it's tiresome.

  46. #46

    "prostitution is rape-for-payment. Didn’t you know that?"

    I did not know that. How is that so?

  47. #47

    You forgot to mention that these women worry they are being influenced by feminist concepts by NOT sharing the childrearing with their husbands.

  48. #48

    Saurs, your comment on chivalry is intelligent, well-written, and made me intensely aware of how fucked I am by the conventional dating/marriage/heterosexual relationship philosophy. Call me?

    I had not previously heard of this Dr. Laura person, but she scares me deeply.

  49. #49

    Off topic

    Saurs:
    "kza, prostitution is rape-for-payment. Didn’t you know that?"

    Seriously? With a straight face you're saying that people who engage in prostitution are rape victims?

  50. #50

    A dad providing gentle discipline to his child - what a crisis!

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...