Children raised by single mothers are at a disadvantage to those with both parents, data show.
In 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” They, and others who comprised what was then called the “women’s lib” movement, fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded that the nuclear family be smashed.
Their fame has faded, but their influence lives on. Lena Dunham, who has built a persona as a spokesman for women, wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist (a 2016 poll found that 68 percent of American women use the term to describe themselves). Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.”
Note the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Without denying the beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women.
While there is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family, other aspects of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution.
In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.
Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers
It should not be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children. Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. But the price has been steep. Women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent.
Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles.
The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. It hasn’t been a picnic for men, either.
Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.”
Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. By contrast, married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree.
Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades.
Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable men to serve as co-anchors of healthy and happy families. The feminist movement was deeply misguided to take aim at marriage. Far from oppressing women, it offers a safe foundation for a full life.
Post-Weinstein Hollywood may be “bending over backward to make sure women get noticed this year,” says Brandon Morse at Red State, but “one movie featuring a powerful woman is noticeably absent from the current crop of Oscar nominations, despite its success and approval.”
That would be “Wonder Woman,” the highest-grossing superhero origin movie of all time. Why the snub? Well, feminists consider the character too sexy and traditional to be “suitable as a rep for their narrative.”
Then there’s star Gal Gadot — an unabashedly proud Israeli and veteran of Israel’s military.
So “a very successful film directed by a woman will get no recognition at the Oscars, because it starred the wrong woman, sporting the wrong values, having the wrong looks and promoting the wrong behaviors.”
‘Wonder Woman’ wins by being feminist without bashing men
Warner Bros.’ “Wonder Woman” continues to break records as the most successful female-led superhero action movie ever — with New York packing theaters along with the rest of the country.
So what, exactly, is winning everyone over?
What is it about this film that seems to be bringing together both men and women from all backgrounds and critics in praise?
The film’s well made, sure, with dazzling special effects and vivid scenes (see the 3-D version if you can) that create a striking contrast between worlds: from a breathtaking, female-only island where Amazons live in a fiercely athletic and secluded harmony, to the merciless front lines of World War I, where man’s inhumanity to man wrought great destruction and suffering.
The film features Israeli actress Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, whose dark eyes sparkle with mischief, mirth and, yes, wonder, and whose compassion and determination infuse her character with a depth beyond Hollywood’s standard spirited heroines’.
At New York City theaters this week, many girls and women said they turned out because the character of Wonder Woman has been a personal inspiration in their lives, and they wanted to support the film’s director, Patty Jenkins.
“It’s nice to see a woman director given a big-budget action film, not just a rom-com,” said Mariel Conway, 30, media manager for Discovery Studios TV network, who was visiting New York from Los Angeles and attended a daytime showing at a Kips Bay theater.
Conway said that in tapping a female director, Warner Bros. is not, in Conway’s view, pandering to women but choosing the individual whom they believe to be best skilled to bring Wonder Woman to the big screen, because the company “is staking its future on the DC Comics universe.”
But the film was also striking, some noted, for what was missing: the man-hating grievance politics that sometimes accompanies a projection of female empowerment.
“It’s not a negative film, not against men, but shows women and men working together,” said Elizabeth Liumbruno, 30, an architect from Forest Hills after an evening screening in Union Square.
“Her leadership style seemed more collaborative than the typical superhero’s,” said Ellie Bastani, 33, of Morningside Heights, an assistant dean at Columbia University. “It was more about working together . . . than one person being this hero.”
“Usually you see females in supporting roles or just as sex symbols [in action films], so it’s really important for little girls to see a female in the lead,” said Bhumika Dyal, 20, a student at FIT from Ozone Park, Queens.
The film resonated with women and girls of all ages. “She did what she believed and didn’t just follow her mom,” said Chelsea Brooks, 8, of the Lower East Side, adding: “She wasn’t actually fighting, because she did want to help.”
“I loved her determination, her strength, and her compassion,” said Josie Lawrence, a retiree in Murray Hill. “I thought, ‘Yay!’ when she crossed No Man’s Land.” Lawrence added that the film is a reminder that “being a hero is not male or female.”
The film’s workmanlike plot provides sufficient momentum to carry the viewer through charming scenes in which our heroine encounters a man for the first time (Chris Pine, who plays British spy Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman’s partner in the fight to save humankind), tries on dresses in early-20th-century London and uses both her superpowers and what appears to be krav maga to fight German spies and soldiers.
But what really distinguishes the story is its heroine’s idealism, and its suggestion that the good and evil that exist in human nature cross all divides, including gender (one of the film’s chief antagonists, the sociopathic scientist Dr. Poison, is a female).
“You don’t think I wish I could tell you it’s one bad guy to blame?” Steve Trevor pleads with Wonder Woman toward the end of the movie. “We are all to blame.”
We’re facing a time when political polarization threatens civil discourse, dehumanization of one side by another cuts both ways and culture wars have recently brought millions of Americans, women prominently among them, to the streets in protest.
Perhaps the resurrection of “Wonder Woman” — an icon of female strength whose righteous anger is driven, and tempered, by compassion and love for the world — is offering little girls and women a role model for cooperative leadership, and a positive vision of empowerment they’re not seeing enough of in the real world.
Heather Robinson New York Post
by Cathy Young, Washington Post
Feminist male-bashing has come to sound like a cliché — a misogynist caricature. Feminism, its loudest proponents vow, is about fighting for equality. The man-hating label is either a smear or a misunderstanding.
Yet a lot of feminist rhetoric today does cross the line from attacks on sexism into attacks on men, with a strong focus on personal behavior: the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit on public transit. Male faults are stated as sweeping condemnations; objecting to such generalizations is taken as a sign of complicity. Meanwhile, similar indictments of women would be considered grossly misogynistic.
This gender antagonism does nothing to advance the unfinished business of equality. If anything, the fixation on men behaving badly is a distraction from more fundamental issues, such as changes in the workplace to promote work-life balance. What’s more, male-bashing not only sours many men — and quite a few women — on feminism. It often drives them into Internet subcultures where critiques of feminism mix with hostility toward women.
To some extent, the challenge to men and male power has always been inherent in feminism, from the time the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments catalogued the grievances of “woman” against “man.” However, these grievances were directed more at institutions than at individuals. In The Feminine Mystique, which sparked the great feminist revival of the 1960s, Betty Friedan saw men not as villains but as fellow victims burdened by societal pressures and by the expectations of their wives, who depended on them for both livelihood and identity.
That began to change in the 1970s with the rise of radical feminism. This movement, with its slogan, “The personal is political,” brought a wave of female anger at men’s collective and individual transgressions. Authors like Andrea Dworkin and Marilyn French depicted ordinary men as patriarchy’s brutal foot soldiers.
This tendency has reached a troubling new peak, as radical feminist theories that view modern Western civilization as a patriarchy have migrated from academic and activist fringes into mainstream conversation. One reason for this trend is social media, with its instant amplification of personal narratives and its addiction to outrage. We live in a time when jerky male attempts at cyber-flirting can be collected on a blog called Straight White Boys Texting (which carries a disclaimer that prejudice against white males is not racist or sexist since it is not directed at the oppressed) and then deplored in an article titled Dear Men: This Is Why Women Have Every Right To Be Disgusted With Us.
Sitting with legs apart may be a guy thing, but there is plenty of visual documentation of women hogging extra space on public transit with purses, shopping bags and feet on seats. As for “mansplaining,” these days it seems to mean little more than a man making an argument a woman dislikes. Slate correspondent Dahlia Lithwick has admitted using the term to “dismiss anything said by men” in debates about Hillary Clinton. And the day after Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination, political analyst David Axelrod was slammed as a “mansplainer” on Twitter for his observation that it’s a measure of our country’s “great progress” that “many younger women find the nomination of a woman unremarkable.”
Men who gripe about their ex-girlfriends and advise other men to avoid relationships with women are generally relegated to the seedy underbelly of the Internet — various forums and websites in the “manosphere,” recently chronicled by Stephen Marche in the Guardian. Yet a leading voice of the new feminist generation, British writer Laurie Penny, can use her column in the New Statesman to decry ex-boyfriends who “turned mean or walked away” and to urge straight young women to stay single instead of “wasting years in succession on lacklustre, unappreciative, boring child-men.”
Feminist commentary routinely puts the nastiest possible spin on male behavior and motives. Consider the backlash against the concept of the “friend zone,” or being relegated to “friends-only” status when seeking a romantic relationship — usually, though not exclusively, in reference to men being “friend zoned” by women. Since the term has a clear negative connotation, feminist critics say it reflects the assumption that a man is owed sex as a reward for treating a woman well. Yet it’s at least as likely that, as Australian-born feminist writer Rachel Hills argued in a rare dissent in the Atlantic, the lament of the “friend zoned” is about “loneliness and romantic frustration,” not sexual entitlement.
Things have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media. Take a recent piece on Broadly, the women’s section of Vice, titled, “Men Are Creepy, New Study Confirms” — promoted with a Vice Facebook post that said: “Are you a man? You’re probably a creep.” The actual study found something very different: that both men and women overwhelmingly think someone described as “creepy” is more likely to be male. If a study had found that a negative trait was widely associated with women (or gays or Muslims), surely this would have been reported as deplorable stereotyping, not confirmation of reality.
Meanwhile, men can get raked over the (virtual) coals for voicing even the mildest unpopular opinion on something feminism-related. Just recently, YouTube film reviewer James Rolfe, who goes by “Angry Video Game Nerd,” was roundly vilified as a misogynistic “man-baby” in social media and the online press after announcing that he would not watch the female-led “Ghostbusters” remake because of what he felt was its failure to acknowledge the original franchise.
This matters, and not just because it can make men less sympathetic to the problems women face. At a time when we constantly hear that womanpower is triumphant and “the end of men” —- or at least of traditional manhood — is nigh, men face some real problems of their own. Women are now earning about 60 per cent of college degrees; male college enrolment after high school has stalled at 61 per cent since 1994, even as female from 63 per cent to 71 per cent. Predominantly male blue-collar jobs are on the decline, and the rise of single motherhood has left many men disconnected from family life. The old model of marriage and fatherhood has been declared obsolete, but new ideals remain elusive.
Perhaps mocking and berating men is not the way to show that the feminist revolution is about equality and that they have a stake in the new game. The message that feminism can help men, too — by placing equal value on their role as parents or by encouraging better mental health care and reducing male suicide — is undercut by gender warriors like Australian pundit Clementine Ford, whose “ironic misandry” often seems entirely non-ironic and who has angrily insisted that feminism stands only for women. Gibes about “male tears” — for instance, on a T-shirt sported by writer Jessica Valenti in a photo taunting her detractors — seem particularly unfortunate if feminists are serious about challenging the stereotype of the stoic, pain-suppressing male. Dismissing concerns about wrongful accusations of rape with a snarky “What about the menz” is not a great way to show that women’s liberation does not infringe on men’s civil rights. And telling men that their proper role in the movement for gender equality is to listen to women and patiently endure anti-male slams is not the best way to win support.
Valenti and others argue that man-hating cannot do any real damage because men have the power and privilege. Few would deny the historical reality of male dominance. But today, when men can lose their jobs because of sexist missteps and be expelled from college over allegations of sexual misconduct, that’s a blinkered view, particularly since the war on male sins can often target individuals’ trivial transgressions. Take the media shaming of former Harry Potter podcaster Benjamin Schoen, pilloried for some obnoxious tweets (and then an insufficiently gracious email apology) to a woman who had blocked him on Facebook after an attempt at flirting. While sexist verbal abuse toward women online is widely deplored, there is little sympathy for men who are attacked as misogynists, mocked as “man-babies” or “angry virgins,” or even smeared as sexual predators in Internet disputes.
We are headed into an election with what is likely to be a nearly unprecedented gender gap among voters. To some extent, these numbers reflect policy differences. Yet it is not too far-fetched to see the pro-Trump sentiment as fueled, at least in part, by a backlash against feminism. And while some of this backlash may be of the old-fashioned “put women in their place” variety, there is little doubt that for the younger generation, the perception of feminism as extremist and anti-male plays a role, too.
This theme emerged in Conor Friedersdorf’s recent interview in the Atlantic with a Trump supporter, a college-educated, 22-year-old resident of San Francisco who considers himself a feminist and expects his career to take a back seat to that of his higher-earning fiancee – but who also complains about being “shamed” as a white man and voices concern about false accusations of rape.
As this campaign shows, our fractured culture is badly in need of healing – from the gender wars as well as other divisions. To be a part of this healing, feminism must include men, not just as supportive allies but as partners, with an equal voice and equal humanity.