Purely anecdotal, but one of the main reasons I left my first marriage is that I felt like my husband was just another one of the kids, having to be managed and told what to do. Not only did that amplify the disconnect in emotional and actual domestic labor, it put a huge damper on our sex life. Not particularly sexy to want to have relations with a grown baby. If I was doing everything, including earning as much or more money, what did I need him for? Being on my own was a relief, not a burden.
I left my husband after one of my friends told me that it was common knowledge amongst my friends that I had three children, the two I gave birth to and the one I married. It was hard but I got my life back.
One reason our mothers and grandmothers didn’t divorce was their economic dependence on their husbands, particularly if they had children. Another reason was that no-fault divorce didn’t exist until the 70s and 80s in North America. So they had no way to escape, and generally had to make the best of it.
Which is exactly why VP Vance wants to do away with No-Fault divorce. Women would no longer be able to escape.
Why stop there, you Bearded SleezeBall? Just go back to women as property and be done the fuck with it already. You, Trump & the Republican Party have already reduced our uteruses to the property of sperm.
I recently shared a piece of writing I’d done granularly dissecting the way that gendered power dynamics play out in my marriage (Rage Becomes Her is cited!) with my AI and it told me my marriage was “a dreamscape”. I shared this information with my husband, who responded that the AI had clearly been programmed by men.
I'm pretty lucky. My spouse and I have talked about how we actually have a balanced relationship. We don't have kids, but we did admit that we would most likely have run into snags in relating to each other if we did. But until there is a restoration of proper balance between the sexes and each one coming from a healthy and equally balanced psyche, we've got a long way still to go.
Ok, I've read it. The entire premise of the article appears to be the idea that women's emotional state is the responsibility of 'society at large.' Like how women are "subjected" to street harassment and must perform the debilitating duties of child-rearing. This is, in essence, a complaint that biology exists and that natural roles form. It's also a complaint that men are better at doing "things" than women.
That's the way it's always been and always will be. There's a reason that matriarchal (and even egalitarian) civilizations disintegrate in only a few generations. Women need men to maintain a society, men do not need women for anything but procreation. The "male loneliness epidemic," the author correctly ascribes to the fact that women perform a function. The author of course is blind to the fact that men also perform a function for one another. If women are unwilling to perform their function they'll be replaced with women who will take on the necessary feminine roles on both the basis of individuals and that of a civilization.
Women gestate children. That is correct. Men accru resources. Also correct. The idea that men have surplus "leisure time" in child-rearing is nonsense. The author simply is unable to fathom that men do things in their "leisure time" that couldn't otherwise be done. Things like write essays or experiment, or engage in the myriad of other activities that produce advanced civilizations. Women, on the other hand, use their leisure time for petty gossip and reading pornography "women's fiction". God, the women's fiction, don't get me started on the epidemic of female gooners.
Ultimately in failing to acknowledge the reality of human biology and civilization, the author seeks to paint herself as a victim while remaining willfully ignorant. She believes her emotive state to be more important than economics or physical reality. Women like here are the primary reason why good men seek women from foreign nations... because dating a feminist is like dating a nagging trashcan. Fortunately, men are inventors and the creators of civilization, with that in mind it's likely only a matter of time before artificial-wombs and sex-bots take on the female role in feminist societies, at which point women will truly be free. They'll be free of the shackles of oppressive patriarchy and wonderfully positioned to leave. They'll no longer be needed.
Either way feminism ends: if tech keeps developing and we get artificial wombs, the only women welcome in society will be demure and feminine. If things fall apart and we undergo a catastrophic economic and industrial collapse, the only women welcome in society will be demure and feminine. There's no way this ends in a feminist utopia.
You're rather proving all the authors points in this comment.
"Free women force a fundamental renegotiation not only of relationships and systems but of men’s identities.". You're clearly feeling very threatened by the content of this article. Maybe use that as an opportunity to self reflect as to why and to use that self reflection to grow a new, less dependent, masculine identity.
No, it's just wrong. The problem is that free women THINK they can force a fundamental reneogiation of relationships and systems and men's identities. They can't. All they can do is make everyone around them, and themselves, miserable. So miserable that large swaths of the population begin reevaluating Sharia Law as "not a bad idea." Feminism is a weapon old crones use to disempower happy young women to create more miserable old crones.
You can't change biology or ten thousand years of human culture in 3 generations with a sudden radical lurch towards an anti-natal ideological death cult. What you CAN do is permanently harden the culture against considering anything related to your ideas for the next few centuries. Which is what feminists are doing. Which is why there's going to be a renegotiation, but the results are not going to favor women's rights. They've been so obnoxious for so long and so conceited that no one of consequence under the age of 40 is willing to work with them. The real question isn't: "Can we forcefully renegotiate the relationship between genders for the first time in human history?" The question is: "How much are we going to lose given our abysmal behavior over the last century?"
Because I can tell you that the 20th century and 21st century will be held up by philosophers and politicians as an example of "this is why we don't do women's rights" for generations. The Left hasn't had to perform a philosophical defensive retreat for 300 years since before the days of John Locke. I suspect it's going to be a total route.
I've always suspected that this generation of men will struggle to adjust to the new reality. You're kinda proving that suspicion.
I think as a society, we need to stop putting so much effort into helping men and put more effort into raising boys that are free to be themselves, in their full humanity.
Helping men? What are you talking about? Every problem men have is met with the demand for "men to do better," for us to "man up." Every problem women have is met with society bending over backwards to solve that problem, no matter how minor and emotion-based.
I was replying to you saying "men will struggle", placing the blame on men while implying we get helped by society. How does society help men? Give an example other than
College.
Jobs.
Divorce.
Dating.
Marriage.
In every case, men are told to 'do better' even though society gives unfair advantages to women over men in each of those instances.
With respect, what you're calling feminism and what a lot of white, cis, hetero, able-bodied, socially privileged, etc supremacist women call feminism isn't feminism. They aren't the only iterations of women either. So I can understand frustration with a system that claims to be working for liberation when it fundamentally isn't. If what you're truly interested in is an equitable society, and not just clining to patriarchy, I deeply encourage you to engage in intersectional feminism, anti-racism, anti-capitalism. And engage with these spaces in a truly pro-feminist way, not a bring back male dominance way. Because men are crushed by patriarchy more deeply than women, and where patriarchy fails, capitalism does the rest of the heavy lifting. I am interested in abolishing these systems of oppression, and uneducated, privileged white women are not inherently your enemies. The system is. Arguing for a system that down the line will kill you too for the sake of one-upping ignorant white women seems like a Faustian bargain.
Purely anecdotal, but one of the main reasons I left my first marriage is that I felt like my husband was just another one of the kids, having to be managed and told what to do. Not only did that amplify the disconnect in emotional and actual domestic labor, it put a huge damper on our sex life. Not particularly sexy to want to have relations with a grown baby. If I was doing everything, including earning as much or more money, what did I need him for? Being on my own was a relief, not a burden.
Lolll way to prove the point
I left my husband after one of my friends told me that it was common knowledge amongst my friends that I had three children, the two I gave birth to and the one I married. It was hard but I got my life back.
Easy solution: women shouldn't work, then you won't earn more money than him. Problem solved!
Yawn.
I feel sorry for the guy having put up with you for so long.
One reason our mothers and grandmothers didn’t divorce was their economic dependence on their husbands, particularly if they had children. Another reason was that no-fault divorce didn’t exist until the 70s and 80s in North America. So they had no way to escape, and generally had to make the best of it.
Which is exactly why VP Vance wants to do away with No-Fault divorce. Women would no longer be able to escape.
Why stop there, you Bearded SleezeBall? Just go back to women as property and be done the fuck with it already. You, Trump & the Republican Party have already reduced our uteruses to the property of sperm.
I blocked the troll. If you engage the algorithm thinks you’re into it and feeds you more.
I recently shared a piece of writing I’d done granularly dissecting the way that gendered power dynamics play out in my marriage (Rage Becomes Her is cited!) with my AI and it told me my marriage was “a dreamscape”. I shared this information with my husband, who responded that the AI had clearly been programmed by men.
This is brilliant. Saving to reread.
I'm pretty lucky. My spouse and I have talked about how we actually have a balanced relationship. We don't have kids, but we did admit that we would most likely have run into snags in relating to each other if we did. But until there is a restoration of proper balance between the sexes and each one coming from a healthy and equally balanced psyche, we've got a long way still to go.
This is one of the best essays I have read in SO long. Thank you
Thank you ☺️
Thanks for this fabulous discussion. And the title of your book is perfection.💜
Incredible! Loved reading this so much.
As always, I appreciate learning from you. Just pre-ordered!
Many thanks, Sarah! Hope you are well!
Thank you, once again, Soraya, for your clear, visionary voice. You see and declare truth with your extraordinary perception and insight.
Ok, I've read it. The entire premise of the article appears to be the idea that women's emotional state is the responsibility of 'society at large.' Like how women are "subjected" to street harassment and must perform the debilitating duties of child-rearing. This is, in essence, a complaint that biology exists and that natural roles form. It's also a complaint that men are better at doing "things" than women.
That's the way it's always been and always will be. There's a reason that matriarchal (and even egalitarian) civilizations disintegrate in only a few generations. Women need men to maintain a society, men do not need women for anything but procreation. The "male loneliness epidemic," the author correctly ascribes to the fact that women perform a function. The author of course is blind to the fact that men also perform a function for one another. If women are unwilling to perform their function they'll be replaced with women who will take on the necessary feminine roles on both the basis of individuals and that of a civilization.
Women gestate children. That is correct. Men accru resources. Also correct. The idea that men have surplus "leisure time" in child-rearing is nonsense. The author simply is unable to fathom that men do things in their "leisure time" that couldn't otherwise be done. Things like write essays or experiment, or engage in the myriad of other activities that produce advanced civilizations. Women, on the other hand, use their leisure time for petty gossip and reading pornography "women's fiction". God, the women's fiction, don't get me started on the epidemic of female gooners.
Ultimately in failing to acknowledge the reality of human biology and civilization, the author seeks to paint herself as a victim while remaining willfully ignorant. She believes her emotive state to be more important than economics or physical reality. Women like here are the primary reason why good men seek women from foreign nations... because dating a feminist is like dating a nagging trashcan. Fortunately, men are inventors and the creators of civilization, with that in mind it's likely only a matter of time before artificial-wombs and sex-bots take on the female role in feminist societies, at which point women will truly be free. They'll be free of the shackles of oppressive patriarchy and wonderfully positioned to leave. They'll no longer be needed.
Either way feminism ends: if tech keeps developing and we get artificial wombs, the only women welcome in society will be demure and feminine. If things fall apart and we undergo a catastrophic economic and industrial collapse, the only women welcome in society will be demure and feminine. There's no way this ends in a feminist utopia.
You're rather proving all the authors points in this comment.
"Free women force a fundamental renegotiation not only of relationships and systems but of men’s identities.". You're clearly feeling very threatened by the content of this article. Maybe use that as an opportunity to self reflect as to why and to use that self reflection to grow a new, less dependent, masculine identity.
No, it's just wrong. The problem is that free women THINK they can force a fundamental reneogiation of relationships and systems and men's identities. They can't. All they can do is make everyone around them, and themselves, miserable. So miserable that large swaths of the population begin reevaluating Sharia Law as "not a bad idea." Feminism is a weapon old crones use to disempower happy young women to create more miserable old crones.
You can't change biology or ten thousand years of human culture in 3 generations with a sudden radical lurch towards an anti-natal ideological death cult. What you CAN do is permanently harden the culture against considering anything related to your ideas for the next few centuries. Which is what feminists are doing. Which is why there's going to be a renegotiation, but the results are not going to favor women's rights. They've been so obnoxious for so long and so conceited that no one of consequence under the age of 40 is willing to work with them. The real question isn't: "Can we forcefully renegotiate the relationship between genders for the first time in human history?" The question is: "How much are we going to lose given our abysmal behavior over the last century?"
Because I can tell you that the 20th century and 21st century will be held up by philosophers and politicians as an example of "this is why we don't do women's rights" for generations. The Left hasn't had to perform a philosophical defensive retreat for 300 years since before the days of John Locke. I suspect it's going to be a total route.
I've always suspected that this generation of men will struggle to adjust to the new reality. You're kinda proving that suspicion.
I think as a society, we need to stop putting so much effort into helping men and put more effort into raising boys that are free to be themselves, in their full humanity.
I see you. Thank you for taking up space and speaking out against patriarchy.
Helping men? What are you talking about? Every problem men have is met with the demand for "men to do better," for us to "man up." Every problem women have is met with society bending over backwards to solve that problem, no matter how minor and emotion-based.
I don't see that, perhaps you can give me one example of each?
I was replying to you saying "men will struggle", placing the blame on men while implying we get helped by society. How does society help men? Give an example other than
College.
Jobs.
Divorce.
Dating.
Marriage.
In every case, men are told to 'do better' even though society gives unfair advantages to women over men in each of those instances.
With respect, what you're calling feminism and what a lot of white, cis, hetero, able-bodied, socially privileged, etc supremacist women call feminism isn't feminism. They aren't the only iterations of women either. So I can understand frustration with a system that claims to be working for liberation when it fundamentally isn't. If what you're truly interested in is an equitable society, and not just clining to patriarchy, I deeply encourage you to engage in intersectional feminism, anti-racism, anti-capitalism. And engage with these spaces in a truly pro-feminist way, not a bring back male dominance way. Because men are crushed by patriarchy more deeply than women, and where patriarchy fails, capitalism does the rest of the heavy lifting. I am interested in abolishing these systems of oppression, and uneducated, privileged white women are not inherently your enemies. The system is. Arguing for a system that down the line will kill you too for the sake of one-upping ignorant white women seems like a Faustian bargain.
"When his phone rang, he left without acknowledging any transfer of responsibility as she'd had to only 10 minutes prior."
Because his job is to have a job that pays the bills, which his phone was likely related to. Her job is to take care of the children.
Don't worry though, it's not long until relationships are no longer needed, even for reproduction.
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-successfully-grown-premature-lambs-in-an-artificial-womb