| A
age
41-50,
writes: Aunts and Uncles:Lately, I’ve noticed a lot of questions on this site generate divided and predictable responses depending on the gender of the poster…or the gender of the aunt/uncle answering. Yesterday I read a question posed by an upset boyfriend; his girlfriend had slapped him after he had done something insensitive. Predictably, most of the posts were by women saying how he deserved to be slapped because he had failed to be a “gentleman”. I know if the gender of this poster and his girlfriend were reversed, these very same women would be the first to insist she break up with him immediately, call the police, and give the standard, “violence is inexcusable” sort of shpeil.A lot of these sorts of predictable discrepancies between genders trouble me. Not so much because I believe in martially imposed equality of the sexes, but because I think it indicates that the gender giving this predictable reaction isn’t really sure how to fill their gender role or what to reasonably expect of the opposite sex. Where there is this sort of inner ambivalence, people cling to simplified ideas of their gender ideals. For instance:“He was wrong for saddling me with the dinner bill. That is not what a gentleman does.”Or“I’d been curious about how many partners she’s had so I asked her and found out the number was far more than I expected. I don’t know if I can stay with her because she was such a slut.”I’m not as interested if these sorts of concerns are right or justified…I’m interested in them because they are SO gendered. I’ve been on this site for 3 months, but I have yet to see a post where a man complains a woman failed to be a “lady”. I have never read a question from a distressed woman asking, “Should I leave my boyfriend over his multiple past sexual adventures?” Where there are these gendered sorts of beliefs, I feel there is also a disappointment of expectations about how each gender should live up to their role.Now, I happen to believe there is a lot of reason for this sort of regular disappointment, especially on the part of women. Women enjoy an unprecedented moment in history where we have far many more opportunities and access to power than ever before (at least in the western world). Less than a century ago we weren’t allowed to vote. It’s been less than 50 years that we were entitled to the same pay as men for working the same job. (I take these statistics from the US historical law) I don’t think twice about wearing jeans and trousers, but I can’t help but sneer at the granola guy who insists on wearing a skirt in public to make a point. And though women have far less control in the economically in the world than men do, they are starting to throw their weight around. More women are private business owners than ever before, but in general, women assert themselves by being a powerful consumer force to be catered to.I just think with all these social changes in so short a time, it’s no wonder then that women and men are a little confused and disappointed about what to expect of each other. The parents who raised us came from a totally different world and their expectations of gender that they passed on to us don’t necessarily mesh with the reality of the modern world. If your mother was a housewife, a woman might think it’s normal for a man to provide for them financially. If your mother picked up after you, a man might be literally blind to the mess he leaves after him. I think women in particular suffer from this cultural whiplash since it’s been our roles that have changed the most. Women tend to give nods to our independence and sexual equality, particularly when it comes to our careers, but we occasionally revert to medieval standards when it comes to our expectations of what a man “should” do.I also think that the rise of women’s status troubles a lot of males. What is a man? Most precisely and succinctly, he is not a women…and the cultural and social barriers between the sexes for the longest time ensured him of being a “man”….when those barriers break down, what does a man have left to contrast himself with and build his identity on? The same question can be applied to women, when you are told that they sky is the limit and you can do anything you want, do you happen to feel like it’s harder to make choices in a zero-gravity world?One uncle on this site, whose viewpoints I generally respect and agree with talked about a theory of “female domination” in the world. I’ve heard this theory before from my brothers and other men, and frankly I think it’s a crank theory. Economically and even socially women are far from dominating the world. Perhaps female sexuality is more democratized and is used to push products, but I don’t interpret that sort of female cultural presence as domination. I think it’s a theory that stems from men’s fear that they will become socially obsolete. This fear is understandable given the social changes in the past century, but I think it’s a theory born out of hysteria, not rational observation.A question was posed a while ago that fascinated me and prompted me to write this article. It was written by a young man who upon watching an angry feminist on TV, consulting his girlfriend, felt that males were responsible for all the suffering in the world, started to cry, and brought this question to DearCupid: “Do women wish there was a world without men? www.dearcupid.org/question/do-women-wish-there-was-a-world-without.htmlI wasn’t interested in answering question so much as this man’s genuine distress and imagination that women had a secret wish to take over the world.So Aunts and Uncles, I’d like to solicit your disappointed expectations, your personal fears, your observations, your irreconcilable arguments, and general disappointments with the opposite gender for civil discussion. I’m not trying to start a flame war, but I feel like I’ve learned a lot about the opposite gender from being on this site and I think I stand to gain a lot more from hearing your thoughts. Reply to this Article
Share |
You can add your comments or thoughts to this article A
reader, anonymous, writes (15 April 2011): This is verified as being by the original poster of the question*sigh*.....this question totally stole my thunder: www.dearcupid.org/question/why-is-it-that-its-still-a-mans.htmlMaybe next time, I'll just write a rant to provoke discussion. So many good points and different perspectives came up in that thread. The best among them was this quote from an anonymous poster:"“When are woman ever truly going to be treated as equals?” Men and women are NOT EQAUL, instead we are DIFFERENT and for good reasons too. Men and women, let me be clear, are of EQUAL VALUE. "I think Dearcupid as a site is fascinating as a site because it gives us an opportunity to see across the gap. It doesn't mean we have to agree. For instance, Odds: I love reading your posts, but I don't think I'll ever agree that "feminism" has caused men's disinterest in marriage...I tend to believe men aren't as interested and biologically speaking, I don't think they have a real incentive to stay monogamous. (Perhaps older men do...but at least not the age group I encounter.) I think this is has been a pretty characteristic trait of men throughout most periods of time...I don't think that the “father-husband role” has been recently degraded by feminisim. I think it was always less appreciated by men. It doesn't mean men don't or can't value security, monogamy, and raising children, I just think it's a rarer quality and interest among men than among women…and biologically speaking…that lack of interest in understandable. Perhaps I'm being cynical.One thing I've noticed about women is that when we work together we tend to be quite democratic...which has its benefits...we have an egalitarian ethic and we're predisposed to sacrificing our own desires for the group. This is a great attitude for raising children and managing a house...it's not such a great ethic when it comes to the professional and creative world...Why? Because we often find unique talent threatening and we tend to devalue the individual successes of other people in favor of group sacrifice...especially when it comes to members of our own gender. A lot of the scientific development and modern progress came from reckless men individually pursuing an idea at the expense of their communities and families…that’s how the world changes…you end up upsetting a lot of people in the process. At times, I'm convinced that among ourselves, women get a long far worse than men among themselves. Men tend to mentor each other and challenge each other and congratulate each other on their own personal achievements...it's one of the aspect of men that I love..And one of aspects of male social circles that I'm quite jealous of. Women often have a bit of "tall poppy syndrome" when they are in groups. I think a lot of women miss the point that this intense competition within our own gender group actually propagates a lot of the very “sexism” we complain about. It also accounts for why the eternal lament that women are under "more pressure" than men. I contend that a lot of this pressure, we force on ourselves...it's not necessarily manufactured by men to put us down. We like to pretend that men are holding the leash...but often it's not the case....we do it to each other.Speaking of egalitarian ethics...I liked your post dirtball..."female genital mutilation" or female circumcision is a really great example of females take a cultural expectation and run with it to an extreme. It's a hard subject to talk about because it gets played (I think wrongly) as a human right’s issue and many people love to point to it and automatically link it to female oppression. I think that over simplifies the issue. For instance, I don't call male circumcision "male oppression" and I believe many men who are circumcised would call it that either. They would insist that they are "normal" because of it, not in spite of it. Check this article out:www.dearcupid.org/question/should-i-get-circumcised-id-like-to-know.htmlAn adult man asks DC if he should get circumcised. Nowhere did this become a human right’s issue. Cerebus gave the opinion that circumcision was a barbaric practice, but I think he might be a minority in this opinion. That why men have bothered to do it into adulthood Bernard's post on this probably says the most about it though: circumcision normalizes a lot of men and some women find an uncircumcised penis undesirable. Because male circumcision is so prevalent, rather than discuss if this practice is in fact barbaric or not, the issue quickly got framed as a medical issue; circumcision being "medically" preferable. The same can be said for female circumcision in the areas where it's practiced. It's a practice that normalizes the women in their own community. You might argue it's a barbaric practice...but technically, circumcision in men effectively does exactly what female circumcision does; it decreases male sexual sensitivity.I'm in no way suggesting that I support female circumcision, but I am saying that calling it a "human rights violation" oversimplifies the issue. Female sexuality has often been faced with a bit of fear and been perceived as chaotic or uncontrollable. In the western world this explains a lot of the stigma against prostitution and why men appreciate a woman who shows restraint or even repression of her own sexuality. I think other parts of the world, this fear manifests itself in female circumcision. This might seem like a crack-pot theory and I'll admit I'm using a bit my own personal experiences to form this theory. So here goes: I spent a lot of my childhood in parts of Africa where female circumcision was prevalent in rural populations. I knew a woman in her 40s from a rural area who had migrated to the city I was living in at the time. When we broached the topic of female circumcision, she asked me with a bit of curiosity if I had been circumcised. When I told her I hadn't been, she was truly revolted.It's a hard reaction to try to relate, but her basic idea of female circumcision was that it was necessary to guard the virtue of a woman. Without it, a woman was prone to being boy crazy, over interested in sex, and her own desire for men would become a social liability. I think this attitude that rarely gets mentioned explains ultimately why it's a cultural issue at heart, not so much a "human rights" issue. The women who have been circumcised often get it done unwillingly as children (much like men in the west), and even if it's deemed illegal, culturally, it's desirable. The woman I spoke to went so far as to say that it far more aesthetically pleasing and that having your female bits "hanging out" all over the place was gross. Having them neutered and "smoothed out" as she put it was the dignified way of being a female. I never encountered a man, who spoke about the subject openly, but amongst women, (especially rural women whose welfare depended on being married off to a man), this was a common reaction.Anyway... I just think that the at times "human rights" is a luxury the west can afford to believe in...It’s not a concept that always translates well to other places...and as far as concepts go, "human rights" often overlooks the fact that there are places in the world where people value being part of group, a cog in a system rather than being a full blown "individual" as we know it.
A
male
reader, dirtball  +, writes (14 April 2011):
 Great article Mishmash. I've been abstaining from posting due mostly to time (or lack there of lately). Of course, you and Odds are doing a great job of debating and advancing this topic as well.
I think in a lot of ways we are witnessing a backlash from thousands of years of oppression. Women's freedom and equality is only a blink in the history of humanity. It's true that some early cultures were matriarchal, but they haven't been in most parts of the world for the last 3-5 thousand years. Still, in many parts of the world women are very oppressed. Just look at the middle east and Africa. Or China, where due to limits on children, many female babies are killed each year. Women in free society see these atrocities and take it out on the people nearest to them because that's all they can do. They act as if THEY are the oppressed ones, when they have it far better than even their grandparents did.
Caveat time, I believe that women are equal to men in every way, however we are different. I believe in HUMAN rights, and I feel they should be the same across the board. It's not the reality of the world, but it is getting there in much of the "first" world. It's just that these women have no power over the people who are actually oppressing women now. It's tragic.
There are some interesting things going on in the world though. The recent changes in Egypt have largly been credited to young women and the use of social networking. Perhaps we'll see more changes like this as people free themselves from the shackles of tradition and history.
Here's another topic that I won't go into detail on, but it's along these lines. What about the women who perpetuate the oppression. An example is the FGM problem in Africa. This is done mostly by the female elders in villages. Is it because it's tradition, they want to pass along their pain, they think it's actually for the best? Food for thought.
...............................
A
male
reader, Starmonster888  +, writes (14 April 2011):
 Well, I have exhausted my capacity to argue this males vs female debate any longer. I'm simply here to say that the sexism towards men, which is so prominent and accepted in western culture we don't even know it exists sometimes, is the reason I now lack the tolerance required to rationalise this gender divide.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (12 April 2011):
 Don't worry about the responses, this thread's only been up a day or two. Give it some time. If it stays too quiet I'll say something really offensive to get the ball rolling.
Regarding the publicity of "attractive" victims, it's always the case that the media try to find someone who fits the role they're assigning - or who is so ironically different that it's too exciting not to write about. It's ratings at work. For instance, Rosa parks wasn't the first black woman brave enough to refuse to give up her seat on the bus - just the first the media latched on to, because she had a squeeky-clean background and a face for photos. Or, Paul Revere only rode part of the way through his famous ride; a number of other folks like Will Dawes rode further, but didn't have a name fit for poetry. Same goes for publicized victims and aggressors.
I don't think the male protective drive (whether that's instinct or socially ingrained or both) is limited to attractive women, or men wouldn't have given up their seats to old or fat women on sinking ships. (Side note: "Lifeboat feminism" is a fun litmus test for real egalitarians). Their competitive instinct is certainly strongest around attractive women, though.
The drive to violence is part of the same testosterone-driven set of behaviors that can cause a man to strive to cure diseases, built empires of organized crime, build sailing ships, pillage foreign lands, learn to play the guitar, or drunkenly brawl in the streets. Everythign good and evil about men basically comes from the drive to differentiate ourselves from the masses, to stand out, and get chicks. Boring, miilquetoast guys don't get chicks. At least, that's what the professional evo-spychologists say, and I buy it.
That parameter of manhood will never change. It's wired into us by evolution, for good and evil.
I haven't read the book you mention, I'll take a look at it though. Always on the lookout for another book.
Having looked through that thread you mentioned, I think there are three main forces at work there.
The first is the husband - he may fear that a woman with a signficantly better career than has has would lose interest and leave him (and most of the time, I think he'd be right to). It's in his best interest to encourage her to quit. If he can do it nicely, great; if it takes insults and put-downs, not so great, but it doesn't make him a monster. He might have reason to believe he averting a greater unhappiness in the future (whether that belief is accurate or not). I honestly don't know what I'd advise a guy to do when faced with the prospect of a more successful wife losing interest in him.
The second is society (in the form of the media, family, and neighbors/friends), which as usual sends all kinds of mixed messages. The idea of "having it all" is the roughest here; there's pressure to have kids and a career, but once the first couple of kids are out, women realize that having both is damn near impossible if you aren't rich enough to afford a nanny and a maid.
The third is the woman's own biology. Most women alive today are descended from women who wanted kids (surprise!). I think most women are just wired to be happiest when raising a family, less so in a career, even a very fulfilling one (and since I always seem to get yelled at for saying that, I'll say it again: I do not advocate barring women or any other group from any job they are qualified for, nor do I advocate limiting women to the role of baby-maker).
I'll second the call for women's input on those social pressures, though. It'd be easy for me to miss one, being a man.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (12 April 2011): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionIt's funny that you say mention that men have lost their social as protector...that desire to maintain that male role influences a lot of the media. It's why the most publicized female victims of sexual imprisonment or rape tend to be women that will be attractive to the average public. In a way, it a bit perverse to me...You're supposed to pity these beautiful women who've gone through such horrific things, but I sense the pity is deserved only because they're desirable women, not necessarily because they've suffered the crimes commited against them.
The "Jessica Lynch" story during the beginning of the Iraq war is a continuation of that trend...a false rape story aimed at flaming feelings of male nationalism and American protectionism. These stories (and false stories) were popular even when America was expanding west in the 18th century...The rape and "theft" of American women by native Americans was highly publicized, but it turned out that these women had often opted to join the native society voluntarily. I think as a country (America anyway) still doesn't want to let go of the idea of male as a protecter.
I think it will eventually die out or at least change with time. For the longest time, life threatening violence on the part of male defined his manliness and that has changed drastically. Duels were popular in europe and america for a long while....frankly, I don't see the appeal, but a lot of men felt they had to risk immenent death to achieve manhood. I don't it and never will.
I think the pleasure of violence might me a real thing that distinguishes the genders. I happen to be afraid of blood...I flinch if some mock slaps me. But I've watched male friends of mine get drunk, wrestle, and literally beat each other up just for fun. I'll never understand it.
The parameters of manhood are variable with time and culture and I think they'll change in the West with time. It would interesting to imagine what they could be. Ideas?In some times and places, it was the number of wives you had. If you were an Aztec warrior, it was the number of jaguars you managed to kill that made you a man...it's always variable.
I'm going to include a book recommendation in this post. It's a book I've read (twice now) that I think you'de like: Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. It's a bit far flung in topic, but I think a lot of the ideas would appeal to you and the way you think.
Women's roles are just as schizophrenic. I think you might like this post: www.dearcupid.org/question/women-in-my-family-have-given-so-much.html
Essentially, he asks why women work so hard at careers only to give them up and become housewives. It's an excellent question and I wish more women had contributed to this thread...I was surprised to find it so silent. The author verbalizes quite well all the aspects and risks that make me terrified of getting married or having children. I feel like I would sacrifice far too much and give up so much that I've work so hard for to become a housewife or at times even a mother. Maybe my opinion will change...biologically speaking, I've only got about 5 or 6 years to make that choice.
Again, thanks for contributing.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (11 April 2011):
Hey, long and rambling is fun. Better to get the full set of ideas down all at once than to leave out something important. And thanks for the shout-out.
Regarding the effects of feminism on male role models, I think it's the largest influence, though not the only one. There are also a number of scoio-economic factors in play here. For instance, the role of a man as a provider basically disappears once you're looking at families poor enough to get welfare benefits. The role of man as protector disappears in a society with a large enough police force (at least for the men outside the force). The need for a man's physical strength is diminshed in a technologically advanced society, where the proportion of blue-collar workers is much smaller than it was for the previous hundred years. There's more, but you get the drift.
Feminism and the ideas it's propogated, both in our culture and in our laws, have had the larger effect, at least from what I see. The rise of female careerism has pushed back the age of first marriage by quite a bit, and reduced the number of children born (particularly by middle-class and higher-earning families). The laws regarding divorce create a strong financial incentive for a woman to dump a man, turn him into a child-support ATM, and take her kids to go find a new life - all as a result of changes pushed by either avowed feminists or politicians seeking to curry their favor.
Incidentally, a man who sees enough other men get screwed by divorce is going to feel less guilt about screwing women the same way, which would tend to increase male adversarialism in family court, as well.
Meanwhile, traditional roles for women have something of a social stigma. Not a huge one - I've been guilty of exaggerating it when I got really into a debate - but it's there. The bigger issue is that real wages have declined as a result of widespread female participation in the workforce, and that takes choice away from women who want to be housewives instead of having jobs. It's basic economics.
If population is X, then the population of men is about (.5 * X). If only 20% of women are working, the total working population is (.6 * X), not counting unemployment, servicing the needs of a consumer base of X, so the income of each worker (usually the male head of a household) is some fraction of the income from X. If 80% of women are working, the total working population is (.9 * X), then each working person is going to receive a smaller percentage of the income from X.
This is not an argument to go back to 50's-style living. People who advocate for that forget the large proportion of women in decades prior to that working in mills, factories, and farms. Rather, in the modern era we have returned to a pre-50's style economy where most people have to work, because they can't afford not to. I'm all for anyone working who wants to, but like all things there is a real economic consequence of that choice made en masse.
Let me reiterate: I'm all for women, men, minorities, and whoever else being able to work any job they're qualified for. Just remember that every choice affects things beyond the person choosing. Feminism's push for female careerism has taken the choice to be a homemaker away from large numbers of middle-class women. That has, naturally, had an effect on women's roles, and on men's.
Regarding my ambivalence toward marriage: I think monogamous, stable marriage (leaving gay marriage out of it for now; I'm in favor of it, but it's not part of this discussion) is the foundation of a good society, because it tends to do the best job raising kids who will contribute to a functioning, growing society. I just think that given the current state of the culture and laws, it's an irrational and dangerous choice for any man to make.
And guys know that. That's why they react the way they do to getting married. Even before that, marriage for a guy was basically agreeing to take on the burden of protecting and providing for a woman and kids, so naturally there was some hesitation. But now, even if they can't consciously express it, guys know that they aren't gaining anything by getting married, it's just something they "have to do" or their girlfriends will leave them - and when you love someone, you'll make irrational decisions for them. It's an obligation without any benefits. And that part is due, largely, to the success of feminism.
Guys may hesitate to take the step of becoming a husband and father, but talk to any man who has already made the deliberate decision to have kids (as opposed to ones who were surprised by their girlfriends). Even if they don't have a clue how to do it, most of them want to do the best they can, and most of them care more for their kids than their own lives.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (11 April 2011): This is verified as being by the original poster of the questionThanks for contributing Odds...this was my first article and it was a bit long and rambling, but I was hoping you'd contribute. I have run into a lot of the excellent points and unique views you have on gender dynamics on this site.
I hear often about a lack of male role models for younger men, but I've never thought about it as a result of feminism. This part of what you said was interesting: "There is precious little protection for the role of father and husband, both of which are fundamental parts of the male identity. "
I read your opinions and understand your ambivalence towards marriage, I understand how divorce laws favor women, but do you think a lot of men truly aspire to be husbands or fathers? I don't. I hear woman openly desiring marriage and motherhood, but everytime a male friend of mine gets married, they tend to announce it with some degree of shame or awkardness...they make it sound like they're throwing in the towel on life. Even if their buddies wish them well, but act like they're being sent off to war or something. Some even see it a loss of identity...not a gaining a role. Do you really think you can chalk all those attitudes up to feminism?
Also liked your comments about how there's nothing left to conquer or explore...Men always bring that up when they lament their role, but I tend not to think of those things as particularly gendered...I guess that's why a volunteer army still get's recruits.
Thanks for opening up the discussion.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (11 April 2011):
Just a few comments.
"I have yet to see a post where a man complains a woman failed to be a “lady”."
Most of us haven't seen one in a long time, and wouldn't know one if we did. I don't think guys expect it anymore. Some of us want it, but again, wouldn't recognize it. Don't feel too bad, though, most of us aren't quite sure what a gentleman is supposed to act like, or even if we should care.
"...but we occasionally revert to medieval standards when it comes to our expectations of what a man “should” do."
Oddly enough, these reversions happen almost exclusively when it would benefit the woman doing the reverting...
"What is a man?"
What's missing for a lot of guys is a good male role model, and the opportunity to be one. With the rise of feminism has also come the rise in single-parent households - almost always the mother. A significant chunk of this generation has been raised without a father. Meanwhile, those fathers have that part of their role as a man taken from them. Just looking at the stats, children of single parents are much more likely to divorce; a boy raised without a father is much more likely to walk out on his own family when he grows up.
The ones who had fathers grew up among those who did not. There is a strong peer influence at work, even for the kids from intact families. It makes an impression.
There is precious little protection for the role of father and husband, both of which are fundamental parts of the male identity. Throw in the fact that there's not much left to explore or conquer in this world, and how many boys are drugged into submission throughout their schooling, and it's no wonder some men can't quite figure out what they're supposed to be.
"One uncle on this site... talked about a theory of “female domination” in the world."
The world is, always has been, and might always be dominated by a very, very small percentage of men. Tribal chiefs, monarchs, robber barons, and the like. The elite, the exceptional, whatever you want to call them; they oppress whoever they can get away with oppressing. Notably, they don't oppress women to benefit their own gender, they oppress everyone to benefit themselves. The other 99% of us are pretty confused about this whole idea of men being in charge, given that historically very few men ever actually have been in charge of much beyond their own homes (and sometimes not even that).
Granted, a certain amount of "oppression" is necessary to maintain a functioning society (search warrants, police with the power to detain, subpoenas, and so on), but that's another discussion.
If there's anything to the "female domination" theory, it's that women have been the (slim) majority of eligible voters in this country since the 19th amendment was passed. If you think of them as a monolithic voting bloc, I guess you could call it that, but that's as ridiculous as thinking of men as a unified group. The real danger comes from politicians who *are* that dumb, and pass woman-friendly laws to try to gain the female vote. Some are good (civil rights-movement era laws), some not so good (legalizg no-fault divorce).
"I think it’s a theory that stems from men’s fear that they will become socially obsolete."
Possibly, yes. While I agree that obsolesence is a possibility, at least for traditional male behavior, I don't think it will last very long. For good or ill, the modern, safe, prosperous society was built almost entirely on technology and social policy created by men. It's a wonderful thing that we've created a society where women can participate in all the ways men can, and I hope it lasts.
But there is a natural lifespan to all great civilizations, and when the world is not modern, safe, and prosperous, it's almost certainly men who will have to shoulder the burden of making it so once again (though it would be interesting to see women do it - I think they could, but I doubt it would be done the same way it always has been).
"So Aunts and Uncles, I’d like to solicit..."
I can't blame women or men for being the way they are. Nor can I blame them for trying and faililng to make the best of things with the tools they're given. My only disappointments are that I had to figure women out on my own, with some help from player-friends, since everything I was told about girls when I was growing up turned out to be wrong.
My fear is that people will blind themselves to the truth - either by getting offended and fleeing dissent, or by such demagogues that they shut out any evidence against what they believe is the truth (guess which one of those categories I worry I might fall into).
I don't have any irreconcilable arguments with women. A few specific women, sure, but certainly not the gender. "Women" as a group, or duly elected representatives of the gender, have never hurt me. Doesn't mean the gender is without flaws, just that those flaws are a part of the whole - and complaining about women's nature will not make me happy, only learning to work with it will.
...............................
|
