.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Nothing is Wrong

It's a commonly heard rant that women expect men to be mind-readers.

They put up detailed and layered fa├žades, pretending all is OK, but in truth, they are deeply disturbed by things. They say things like 'I want us to get along' when they really mean 'hug me'. They even say 'let's go out to dinner' when they mean 'help me'. They will rationalize even to themselves that unsatisfactory relationships are healthy. They say 'go away' but inside they are hoping we'll fight to keep them. They get upset that you forgot to do the shopping when they are really upset that you didn't talk to them last night. They drop obscure hints and beat about the bush, thinking they communicated the problem with neon lights.

And why do they do this? Perhaps because women are full of needs but are ashamed of them. To admit a need is to admit a weakness, an imperfection. Perhaps, in addition, society has taught women that they must be tough and independent, like men. So modern women want to be helped and supported but to behave consistently is to humiliate themselves. Most women also hope men will make the first moves so that they will not be seen as initiators of questionable behaviour. Feminists say a woman must be twice as good as men to succeed, but perhaps it is simply that they must constrain twice as much of their being.

I don't look down on needs. In fact, when needs are healthy they bring people closer and improve character. Without needs there can be no giving, no love. Most healthy men enjoy giving and feel proud when they make their girl smile and I am no exception. I'm not looking for a superficial relationship.

Of course there is also the other extreme: Women that think every neurotic need of theirs is a relationship-breaker and women that are always demanding attention. But let's ignore this species for now.

When you say 'go away', don't be surprised when I do exactly that. When you say everything is fine and put up a logical, worked-out rational argument of bravado as to why you don't need special attention, don't expect me to reach out. When my instincts scream that something is inconsistent despite all attempts at communication, I will withdraw to think things through for myself. When I'm lied to day after day even when I make direct inquiries, it does not make me want to get closer.

I'll make you a deal: I won't expect you to look like Jennifer Connelly if you don't expect me to be a psychic Superman rubber-band that keeps bouncing back no matter what you do. I'll try to read your mind when you try to share it. I'll understand your needs when you admit to yourself to having them.

Monday, July 11, 2005


Here's a thought. When a man gets divorced from a marriage where he worked and she stayed at home, he suddenly finds himself without someone to clean and take care of his house. After years of working in an office to support his family, his home-making skills have deteriorated. He devoted his life to providing money to his family and now the poor guy is stuck with a dirty home, a lack of good food, and no experience in home-making and cooking. I say that after divorce, the woman should be forced by the courts to continue to provide her services to her ex-husband one way or another, just like he is forced to continue to provide his financial services to her, at least until he finds a new woman or until his home-making skills have a chance to develop.

Obviously this has some obstacles and it sounds ridiculous at first. But the logic is sound once you wrap your mind around it and it raises some questions about the fairness of alimony nowadays. In theory, alimony is awarded when a spouse devoted her life to building a home and helping her partner further his career, thus harming her own prospects and career. But if marriage is a contract and his financial services are deemed obligations even after the marriage, what about her services and obligations to him? He now has to spend time taking care of his home, thus making his career suffer (using the same logic as was used for alimony), or he has to hire a maid, or the quality of his life now suffers after the divorce (another argument used for determining the amount of alimony) because his home and nutrition are falling behind. Not only that, but some feminists claim the wife provides critical moral support to enhance his earning capability. So are her services and obligations taken into account as well and the alimony adjusted accordingly when her obligations are cancelled due to the divorce?

Of course not. Once, it was the man's obligation to provide for the more financially helpless and unequal sex. It was a responsibility even after the marriage ended whereas a woman's services in a marriage did not figure in any selfish calculations. The logic behind alimony was originally very different. Alimony was about doing what is right for a dependent woman who provided him with a family, and it was about lifelong commitments and vows to support dependents, not about what he owes her for her work. But now that there are no-fault divorces and it's all about equality, rights, and who owes who what, shouldn't alimony be adjusted or eliminated accordingly?

Monday, July 04, 2005

The New World Order II

It's time for change. It's time for a male revolution.

We men are tired of breaking our backs at manual labor such as construction, mining, plumbing, mechanic work, garbage collecting, etc. We are tired of fighting and dying at wars for you. We are tired of spending 10 or more pressured hours a day working in offices for annoying people and beaurocrats, being at their beck and call and working all day in order to make other people rich. We are tired of being the wallets in relationships and coming home to find it isn't even our home anymore.

We want to work on our own homes and families like women do. We want to be our own bosses and enjoy the fruits of our own labor. We want to be able to take breaks when we want to and relax at home. We want the rewarding and more satisfying job of raising our own children and improving our own homes. We want women to go out and do their part in the horrible world out there and bring home the bacon for us. We refuse to let women become the tyrants of our own homes and not let us take part in this most rewarding of roles. We want to have a choice whether to work or stay at home. We want equality. We are sick of being oppressed slaves working for everyone but ourselves.

Obviously I'm kidding. But this is exactly what Feminism has done. It has exagerrated and lied both by demeaning the traditional female role and by glamorizing the typical male role. It has decided that the traditional female role is making women unhappy and has lashed out at men, assuming they grabbed all the happiness for themselves. A career is overrated for all the reasons I mentioned above. It is sometimes rewarding but more often is not. Home-making in theory is rewarding as well and it has its advantages but it can also easily lead to depression, social alienation and it involves a lot of back-breaking annoying repetitive chores. Raising children can definitely be very rewarding but it has its own big annoyances as well and it would be too easy to glamorize it.

The fact is, all of these roles are troublesome, challenging and rewarding and it's mostly up to the person to find meaning and happiness in their life. An unhappy person will not find happiness anywhere unless he consciously values what he is doing and feels up to the challenge given to him.

So the stunt feminism has pulled is basically to say 'the grass is greener on the other side'. And that's one of my complaints against feminism: they didn't say we want to choose between traditional male and female roles and pick our own challenge, but that female roles suck and male roles are glamorous. This is a lie and it is making women confused.

In my previous post I also argued that many women are drawn to the traditional female roles more than male ones but are too embarrassed or afraid to admit it because it has been imprinted on the world that home-making, for example, is a loser's role. Perhaps some may argue that there is no longer such things as male and female oriented roles and both genders should share the rewards and hardships of both. But this is where I disagree. The Kibbutz has disproved this. My own eyes and ears have disproved this when I see again and again that many women are drawn to, and feel more at home with their traditional roles (with exceptions of course). If more and more young women today are going for careers and discarding traditional female roles, it's because of Feminist brainwashing. They change their minds a decade or two later when they see through the lies of Feminism. Also, see my addendum to the previous post regarding a survey done on girls in high school that revealed their real intentions and goals.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post however when I said that we should bring back grandmother's roles. What I said was to bring back respect AND keep the new choices open. I.e. mix the two worlds together.

As an example of these differences, how many women do you know take over household duties to the point of not letting their husbands do many of the chores? How many appropriate duties to their family instead of sharing them? How many men vs women feel at home in executive meetings? How many men vs. women put in 15 hour work days despite the fact that they are making other people rich? How many women vs men feel the urge to take years off work to raise their children? How many women vs men take pride in beautiful, clean homes? How many men vs women fight for a fast-track career and promotion and how many are happy in their currently quiet but productive position? How many men vs women take on a technical job as if it were a personal project?

If there is one thing that women and men share, it's the satisfaction of learning, education and the achievement of personal goals through studies, art, sports, medicine and science. And even there, the specific interests often differ. But careers vs home-making? Please! The differences are obvious.

And again, I'm not saying the roles are definitive and that men and women should stick ONLY to traditional roles. I'm saying most feel more at home focusing on one more than the other despite the difficulties involved. Both sides are difficult and need assistance. Both roles can be shared. And both must be balanced with some personal growth and dreams.

I understand wanting financial independence. But this is not an argument against home-making, it is an argument to ensure a backup plan.

Even if one argues that building a family and home is not the answer to meaning and happiness in life, it is still definitely a stronger contender than a career (even for men). So stop lying to yourselves and the world. You'll find that the grass is just as yellow and rotten everywhere unless you stop whining and create some happiness for yourself.