Why articles like "The War On Men" are ridiculous and offensive

If you haven't seen it "The War On Men", published on Fox News,  is one of the latest sexist and heterosexist backlash articles doing the rounds.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

The author insinuates (with some rather "selective" use of evidence), that independent, working women are repellent to men, who apparently long for the traditional gender stereotype of the genteel subservient housewife, presenting no threat to their idea of masculinity. If after reading it,  it's not already painfully obvious just how ridiculous, offensive and even potentially damaging this article is, allow me to explain!

The author writes:

"The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don't."

Hang on a minute, the statistics the author provides state that 37% of women consider a successful marriage to be very important in their lives, and 29% of men consider a successful marriage to be very important.  Firstly, that's hardly a huge difference. Secondly it means 63% of the women surveyed do not consider it to be one of the most important things.Thirdly what defines a successful marriage in the mind of the people surveyed anyway? One that is permanent?...How on earth does that translate to "modern women want to get married...men don't"...Answer: It doesn't. Both sexes seem to feel roughly the same about it.

"But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault? You’ll never hear that in the media."

HA, has this person not read 'Backlash: The Undeclared WarAgainst Women' by Susan Faludi?! The media have ALWAYS been biased against the social progress of women (for well over a century in fact), constantly demonising the single and/or working woman and painting home-makers as angels. Telling women that they will wind up ill and miserable if they dare strive for education and careers. It's a very old song. Lest we forget that at one stage we were told that a woman's uterus competes with the brain for energy and enrolling in higher education would cause the uterus to shrivel up and die, resulting in an infertility epidemic and the end of the human race...I kid you not. 

"Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them"

Hear that ladies? Your independence is upsetting men, how selfish of you! You should totally go back to a drudgery filled miserable and unfulfilled existence chained to the kitchen sink and popping out babies. Clearly silent, ignorant, dependent, barefoot and pregnant is the only way a man will ever want you. Better turn your clocks back to the 1950's!..What utter patronising rubbish.

Also, gender roles are NOT in the DNA, they happen as a result of social conditioning. The whole idea of gender, what defines "masculinity" and "femininity", is merely a social construction, subject to change. A patriarchal society has placed men in the position of power and authority over women and the family, not DNA. Social hierarchies are deliberately cultivated to privilege certain groups. (Check out Delusions Of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine).

Who needs marriage anyway?

Marriage was originally a ritual of passing ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Hence the changing of her name from that of her father's, to that of her husband's and the father "giving away the bride". The men literally put their name on the woman to show their ownership of her as their property. The woman was socially regarded as a resource, to be traded for wealth and status gained by the father, in exchange for providing a sex slave, house maid and breeding stock to the new husband. The new husband was legally allowed to use and control her as he saw fit-including beating and raping her (I was born in the eighties, shockingly domestic abuse and marital rape was only made illegal in the UK within my lifetime!). She had no say in who she married and had no choice but to marry, as she was not allowed to work and provide for herself. For most women survival meant being financially supported by a man.The virgin bride had to 'vow before God' and a room full of witnesses that she would be subservient to ("honour and obey") her new husband...Unfortunately this is what marriage still is in many countries and for millions of women across the world today.

Clearly this is an antiquated and unjust patriarchal ritual based on the oppression of women. In Western view marriage has moved some way beyond this, but is it even needed/appropriate at all? I'm not religious and do not desire to be someone's property (in name or in practice), so I have no desire for marriage, in fact I'm more inclined to reject it because of it's origins and what it represents (female oppression).

What the author has failed to take into account is whether the majority of people (men and women) actually see marriage as relevant any more. The statistics only refer to marriage, rather than relationships. If they had asked someone like me (who incidentally is in the 18-34 range) "do you want to get married?", I would have said no. Not meaning that I don't want a committed long-term relationship, but that I reject the concept of marriage as it is politically offensive to me, representing the slavery of women. Perhaps a lot of the individuals who were surveyed feel the same or have other reasons for rejecting it. Are the rates of marriage dropping over all? Are we moving beyond marriage as a whole?-Is it merely a relic of the past we need to leave behind for good? Are people who do want to get married simply delaying it until later, now that committing to a partner for life with a legally binding document is a choice (for some) rather than an imperative? Are people simply disillusioned by what marriage actually is and see it as unrealistic and unnecessary in modern times? In fact, the results of the U.S census survey complied into a 2011 report by the Pew Research Centre entitled "Barely Half Of U.S Adults Are Married: A Record Low" support just that. They report:

"...about four-in-ten Americans (39%) said they agree that marriage as an institution is becoming obsolete....Younger generations are more likely than those ages 50 and older to hold the view that marriage is becoming obsolete. Some 44% of blacks say marriage is becoming obsolete, compared with 36% of whites. Adults with college degrees (27%) are much less likely than those with a high school diploma or less (45%) to agree that marriage is becoming obsolete."

Cultural evolution means that marriage need not be a high priority for women or men these days (especially those in the young age bracket that were surveyed), or indeed needed at all. Interestingly, men in the older age bracket now value marriage more than they used to, not less. Do they not count as the "modern man"?

"The share of middle-aged and older men who now say that a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their life has increased nine percentage points since 1997 and is nearly equal (36%) to the share of middle-aged and older women who say this today."

The author of "The War On Men" has included one statistic, without any accompanying explanation or nuance from the original report, cherry-picking it and combining it with her own personal opinion in order to skew the information and make it appear to support the right-wing anti-gender-equality agenda. This is an irresponsible use of data in order to manufacture misleading and inaccurate conclusions. It is certainly not a reason to believe that men are rejecting women "en masse" (since when is 29% en masse anyway?!) on the basis of their strides towards economic independence. Indeed, the survey indicates that those with a higher education may still value marriage more than those with a high-school (or less) education. Logic follows then, that if anything, education and economic independence may make women more appealing for marriage. In fact the same report the author lifted the original statistic from states the following:

"Generally, the public is supportive of more active roles for women in the workplace. A September 2011 Pew Research poll found that 73% of Americans feel that the trend toward more women in the workforce has been a change for the better in our society.¹⁵Furthermore, an October 2010 Pew Research poll found that a majority (62%) of the general public feels that a marriage where the husband and wife share the responsibilities of work and children is more satisfying than a more traditional marriage with a male breadwinner."

Rather contradictory to the author's premise isn't it? Perhaps that's why the report the statistic was lifted from wasn't specifically cited...

Frankly, if a man was in some way deterred by the concept of equality and wanted me to conform to gender stereotyping, then I certainly would not be interested in going anywhere near him! I wouldn't respect anyone who didn't consider women as equals and allow them to be individuals. 

Why women should be offended by this article and others like it.

If you are still unaware of why this article is just so offensive, consider changing the context from gender to race.

If the article was titled "The War On White People" and it complained about how much black people had "changed" since slavery was outlawed and made statements such as "white people are reporting en masse that they no longer want to be friends with African Americans as they are deterred by the strides made towards civil rights", or "black people just don't act like black people any more", or "black people should just give in to their natural trait of being subservient to whites", or "black people are trying to behave too much like white people", or "civil rights is really more harmful to black people and creates an advantage for white people." Or "Black people should recognise how much their legal rights are pissing off white people and making the situation worse for themselves. They should just revert to a time when they didn't have legal rights". Or "white people don't want to compete with black people, non-whites should not enter the work force or bother with higher education". Or "It is natural for white people to take a dominant position over other races, it's in their DNA, white people are feeling lost now they now longer have legal ownership of black people and have to consider them equals" etc etc....

Can you see just how offensive that is? And how illogical to the point of being ridiculous. If it were put in a racial context, it absolutely wouldn't be tolerated, let alone be featured on the website of a national news network.Which just goes to show how normalised sexism is in our everyday lives. 

I think also it's obvious in that context why black people or women wouldn't be particularly concerned about those who seek to dominate them, no longer wanting relationships with them. I'm sure both groups would eagerly exclaim "GOOD! Or boo-fricken-hoo! Why on earth would I want a friendship/marriage with someone who wants me to remain oppressed and is threatened by my equality?!". I'm sure they would want to stay very far away from sexist/racist people like that! I know I would.

Women's Rights Does Not Equate To Man-Hating

Feminsim is about achieving gender equality. It's about ending the oppression of, and gender-based violence against women, and creating a world where women have equal social, political, economic rights, respect, opportunities and representation. It recognises that women are moral equals to men. You don't have to be female to be a feminist (and you don't have to be male to be sexist). It is not, never has been and never will be about hating men, trying to take their rights or freedoms from them, or female supremacy. It is not a battle for domination, it's a social justice movement to end it.

The (female) author of this article would have you believe otherwise. She not only paints women who seek equality and independence as a threat to manhood, but goes as far as to imply that women's rights equals a "war on men". She claims women have been "raised to think of men as the enemy" and suggests that feminism is responsible for a "battle of the sexes". Essentially she is trying to do all she can to turn men against feminism by playing on some of the most popular myths, making the issue of women's rights easy to dismiss as some irrational case of misandry. Not only is this completely inaccurate, it's incredibly irresponsible. At best it is going to reinforce gender discrimination and at worst, it could not only impede social equality, but could actually encourage violence and hatred against women, which is already a massive problem.

It's articles like this that are divisive and fuel conflict between men and women, not feminism.


Recognise The Backlash

There have always been articles/studies/reports (or rather statistics lifted from them) trying to convince women that feminism (the striving for gender equality) has made women's lives worse, trying to guilt/shame/frighten them into giving up the gains they have made, to discourage them from continuing to strive for equality, and instead return to traditional subservience. And in turn often trying to convince men that feminism is a threat to them. It's part of a backlash against women, as of course there are those who feel their positions of privilege are threatened by equality and there is a real effort to stop equality from being realised. Articles like The War On Men are part of that effort. I highly recommend the first couple of chapters of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women by Susan Faludi, which deals with this very topic beautifully (and the rest of the book is excellent).

In the meantime, I'm sure you can understand why women like myself see this article as laughable and to be dismissed as discrimination rather than an as evidence of an actual threat to female happiness.

So why bother to write a post about a clearly absurd, inaccurate and ignorant opinion piece from an oh-so-"credible" source? Because we all need to be aware of exactly what pieces like this really are and the intent behind them. It's not the first, it won't be the last. Recognise it and call it out for what it is. It's not truth, it's backlash-trash. It should not be allowed to intimidate women into subservience and reinforce sexist attitudes. Unfortunately at last count The War On Men has received approximately 200,000 Likes on Facebook and nearly 5000 shares on Twitter! A lie repeated frequently enough often becomes accepted as fact. Please share this post and others like it!