Amanda has a terrific post up this morning on the subject of male discomfort with the reality of women’s bodies, particularly post-partum. She’s responding to this Slate article by Meghan O’Rourke, a piece that offered a mild defense of men who lose sexual desire for their wives after watching them give birth.
I read both posts with great interest, and urge my readers to do the same. I will say — perhaps not surprisingly — that I’m with Amanda on this one. I’m not terribly sympathetic to men who struggle with what O’Rourke calls their psychological discomfort with the violent erosion of that sexual/reproductive boundary. In blunter terms, these are fellows who are shocked to come face to face — literally — with the reality that the vagina can be, to put it rather vulgarly, a two-way street.
Amanda has a number of objections to O’Rourke, all of them sound. From a male perspective, my problem with the Slate article is more limited. I am deeply troubled by the psychological discomfort O’Rourke describes, largely because it seems to so clearly represent a kind of unhealthy compartmentalization of women. Mind you, I am not suggesting that "healthy" men ought to find the sight of their wives or partners giving birth to be intensely arousing! I’m not a woman, nor will I ever give birth, but I can’t imagine that many women, if any, find childbirth an erotic experience.
At the risk of sounding a bit like the 1960s feminists whom O’ Rourke derides, I’m convinced that part of having a healthy sexual relationship with another human being is embracing all aspects of the earthy, coproreal reality of the other. That doesn’t mean, of course, that one should never shut the door on one’s spouse when using the toilet; I’m not advocating for the complete eradication of privacy, even in marriage. But giving birth and using the toilet are two different activities. When a woman goes to the bathroom, she is not doing so as a direct result of something she and her partner created together; when she gives birth, it is a natural outcome of an action that she and her husband took (presumably mutually) some nine months earlier. To delight in conception and be horrified at delivery is to mock the reality of women’s unique burden in reproduction.
As O’Rourke points out, a great many men are in the delivery room these days. The problem is not the willingness to be present; the feminist and pro-feminist movements have made great strides in encouraging men to be more active participants in childbirth. But it seems that for some men, their libidos have lagged behind. (I wonder if evolutionary biologists would point out a natural strategy here: given that women need time to heal and nurse after delivery, it’s helpful if a man’s sexual desire for his partner is — at least temporarily — lowered. But I’ve never been much for those sorts of theories). Obviously, we can applaud those men who do come to the delivery room and do what their fathers and grandfathers did not do. I don’t mean to make light of the commitment of millions of husbands and dads. But real commitment isn’t just about doing the right thing at the right time (though it’s a lovely start), it’s about taking responsibility for one’s desires. If needed, that means actively working through the psychological barriers that prevent a man from seeing his partner as both a mother and a lover.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned through my previous marriages, it’s that the marriage process does a superb job of stripping away romantic illusions. Inevitably, what was once mysterious becomes commonplace; what was once hidden becomes revealed. The mistake that all too many of us make is to grow frustrated with the familiar, and begin to seek out new mysteries in that hopeless pursuit of "everlasting novelty." What I’ve learned in recent years is that a healthy male sexuality is one that doesn’t respond only to the new, the unexplored, and the concealed. A healthy, adult male sexuality is one that no longer needs careful illusion or rigid "sexual reproductive boundaries" in order to respond. At its best, healthy male sexual desire is unafraid of the maternal. That has nothing to do with an Oedipus complex or the fear of one. Rather, it means recognizing that one’s wife can be both a mom and a focal point of one’s lust. Vitally, the acceptance of one aspect of her identity does not mean willfully ignoring or obscuring the other.
Ultimately, of course, sexual desire is profound and complex. It doesn’t respond well to coaxing, nor do our libidos always match our ideological commitments! I’m not naive about that. At the same time, it would be wrong to say that our desires cannot change or grow. (In this regard, both cognitive and behavioral therapy can work wonders; trust me!) While it’s not fair or helpful to ridicule men who aren’t prepared for the reality of childbirth, breast-feeding, and so forth, it is possible to challenge them to work through whatever psychological impediments stand in the way of seeing their wives and partners as full and complete human beings.
When I was studying anthropology, I was struck by how many children in world history have habitually slept near their parents, and have been aware of their parents having sex. In our society it’s a sort of skanky idea, and Freud regarded it as the traumatic “primal scene.” But it’s interesting to think that these folks, since they also lived in societies without mass media and the sexual content thereof, would have associated sex primarily with parents. It really puts a different cast on it, doesn’t it?
Camassia, that might be the ultimate in promoting abstinence ed. ;)
I really you are spot-on a ton of points here… I am wondering at it from an opposite direction now. la lot of women, as you must know, likewise have trouble seeing or feeling themselvs to be both mother and lover.
I agree with you and Amanda.
But I also think that some men are just very squeamish about the whole blood and guts factor and that’s why they have a difficult time with childbirth.
But I agree with all the same and I think that men are looking at it all wrong if, instead of being proud and in awe of their partner, all he sees is that episiotomy scar.
When a woman goes to the bathroom, she is not doing so as a direct result of something she and her partner created together
Unless they cook and eat together. And let me tell you, squeamishness about evacuation does not generally persist after a few diaper changes….
Hah. Perhaps I ought to have been more precise in my language.
Hugo said: “When a woman goes to the bathroom, she is not doing so as a direct result of something she and her partner created together;…”
Yet some women (and indeed some men), refuse to have anything to do with oral sex or intercourse after one’s partner has “evacuated” (talking about number 1 here, number 2 is a whole different ball game heh). Even after say, a shower with soap, they refuse to do it. They have to wait until some time where their partner hasn’t “evacuated” in a long time to have sex or deign to put their tongue in that groin area. To me, that is patently silly and stupid when one thinks about it, but in an odd way understandable. Just as this situation is with men and post birth etc.. Human beings can be different from the “norm”, weird, or you know have various hang ups with sexuality. Perhaps instead of castigating these men, we ought to help them through with their hangups as best we can. Oh, wait, men should “suck it up, be a man” and not deal with their feelings but help to understand their woman’s feelings and tolerate her foibles.
Did you read my last paragraph, FP? I said it wasn’t fair to ridicule (or castigate) and suggested gentle therapy (which, I know from experience, can work wonders in this area). I’m not sure you read my post completely.
ahistoricality, you beat me to it. I was thinking just that as I read the post. ^_^
My problem with the original NYT piece was that the author was trying to put the burden on the wives/expecting moms to be sensitive to the possibility that their husbands might be squeamish about watching her give birth. I think she’s got enough to worry about frankly, and if a man is going to freak out about watching a birth he should own it and speak up ahead of time. It’s his responsibility, not hers. She cannot read his mind.
Note that this is different from saying he should “be a man” and be around for the birth even if he thinks he can’t handle it. If someone is deeply disturbed seeing their loved one in pain, I understand that. I just think he should be an adult and consider what he can and can’t deal with, get counseling if he realizes he thought he could deal and really couldn’t, and take responsibility for that instead of blaming his wife.
I think your last sentence is right on. I actually feel kind of bad for the author’s patient… it’s just the author/therapist that I think was kind of a jerk.
Hugo: I can’t imagine that many women, if any, find childbirth an erotic experience.
I’ve read lots of women’s birth stories, and there are indeed some that find at least portions of labor to be erotic. I myself found that to be the case with the light contractions during my early phases of labor. Oxytocin, the hormone that stimulates contractions, is also secreted during lovemaking and during breastfeeding.
Some couples will engage that energy further by being physically intimate together during labor (this is more accepted when the birth is taking place outside of the hospital setting). Some women masturbate and have orgasms during labor. And I read about ONE account of a woman experiencing labor as a series of spontaneous orgasms, without any external stimulation from herself or anyone else (I think that was in Birth as an American Rite of Passage by Robbie Davis-Floyd, if anyone’s interested).
That is not the average labor experience, but it does happen.
LA Mom, I’ve heard that too about women masturbating during labor. If I’m not mistaken, orgasm is a natural painkiller for women and the contractions probably help the labor process too.
You know, the father is not simply there “for the birth.” He is also there, one hopes, to support his wife or partner through a very difficult and at times dangerous physical process. Would we be as ‘understanding’ of a husband who said “Honey, I’m just too squeamish to help you recover from that auto accident”? Or a partner who said that he was afraid it might ruin their sex life if he had to provide care for his lover when she recovered from a mastectomy?
That is not the average labor experience
Understatement of the century.
I suspect blaming squeamishness is just an excuse. What these men really object to is the devotion to the child, the permanently heavier figure with the rounded stomach, the pendulous breasts. Why put up with it when you can easily dump the wife, take the child away and find a new woman who has never given birth? There is no downside to dumping a devoted wife and mother in today’s society. If you can attract a new bimbo and ditch the exhausted, worn out wife, most men jump at the opportunity.
Rainbow, you must have had some nasty experiences with men if you really believe what you say.
“Why put up with it when you can easily dump the wife, take the child away and find a new woman who has never given birth?”
Perhaps because the woman is the love of your life and the mother of your children? Most of us men take such things very seriously indeed. And whatever makes you think he can easily take the child away? Last I heard, mothers still get custody and child support in most cases.
“There is no downside to dumping a devoted wife and mother in today’s society.”
Perhaps you are living in a Moslem society? This is certainly not so in western societies today.
“If you can attract a new bimbo and ditch the exhausted, worn out wife, most men jump at the opportunity.”
I know you have no evidence to support this, but I have to wonder why you would even think it. Perhaps you yourself experienced this and managed to find a circle of women friends with similar stories. The “false consensus” syndrome could then do its work on you. That’s the only thing I can imagine that would lead you to such a cynical (and completely false) conclusion.
There are a lot of very good men out there, Rainbow. In fact, the great majority of us want what you (I believe) want - a loving, caring, secure, lifelong relationship. You may find that people (women and men) live up to your expectations of them. Raise those expectations a bit. You will be surprised at the result.
A piece of advice from a devoted father who was there and had reservations going into it:
1. Don’t burden your wife with the reservations. Talk to someone else about it.
2. The most practical solution: Hold her hand and deal with her face to face. You’ll also be able to see your child’s head emerge and unless you look under the table or look over the doctor’s shoulder you won’t have to worry about squeamishness.
3. If you don’t witness your childs’ birth you’ll regret it for the rest of your life.
She doesn’t want you there for her vagina — she wants you there for support. Believe it or not, this posture can be acheived while at the same time holding her right leg in mid-air. Grandma to be had the left one.
Well, now that we have gotten the dumping on men through, has anyone considered that such men who have reservations might be nauseated by blood and guts? And that some men, after having witnessed the blood and guts, think subconsciously that “Oh my God! That’s because she had sex with me! I did that to her! I can’t put her through that again!”
Well, I suppose that might be giving some measure of credit to men. Can’t have that, can we? It goes against core feminist doctrine that men actually have some measure of feelings and morals.
Oh - full disclosure - I was denied the right to be present at my daughter’s birth, and indeed had her existance with-held from me for several years. And I was there for my son’s and never lost libido. But I do have compassion for those who may not be psychologically constructed like me.
Guess among feminists that is something preached, but not practiced. Or is it just something that gets rationalized away as applies to men?
The quoted article doesn’t make it appear that the reason they were tramatized was out of empathy. Seems like they were going “that’s icky”.
And it’s not that men aren’t allowed to be tramatized: it’s that they shouldn’t expect the woman to burden their trama. She went through her own trama, she has to worry about her own things. Bitch to someone else.
What difference does it make? I don’t get all the judgementalism.. So some guys are squeamish after seeing their parner give birth?
IN fact, what is the point of having men (other than medical) around during birth anyways? they will just get in the way. They really cant do anything to help, to believe otherwize is a delusion in my opinion.
Giving birth is a womans thing. Hey, its not me who made the rules. don’t yell at me. It was mother nature. She was the original sexist. The man’s job in the deal is basically to shoot the load. That is reality. It may not be what we “feel” is right but it is what it is. It is only natural for men to be queamish, because their experiencing and watching childbirth is completely unnatural and is in no way linked to our natural role in the propogation of the species.
I wonder, do other mamals have the male sit around and pretend he can “do something to help” when the female is giving birth? I doubt it. A woman is likely better off getting support during birth from someone who can REALLY understand.. ie another woman, such as a sister, friends, mother, ect. A man? get real. he will never understand and likely be doing all the wrong things to help.
Guys, we can’t win. Just check out the responses here: When we want to be around for childbirth, we’re just “getting in the way” because we “can never understand what women go through during childbirth.” When we opt out, we’re being selfish, whimpy, squeamish, uncaring, irresponsible, etc. There’s no point for men to even bother discussing this any more. We can’t win, so we should just butt out, let the women complain about it amongst themselves in peace, and decide how we want to handle the birth of our own children ourselves without interference from feminists or anybody else.
IMO the mixed messages that men get about childbirth are the most powerful force driving this conflict and misunderstanding.
“A woman is likely better off getting support during birth from someone who can REALLY understand.. ie another woman, such as a sister, friends, mother, ect. A man? get real. he will never understand and likely be doing all the wrong things to help.”
Sorry you feel that way, Neil, because when a man chooses not to be present for his child’s birth he loses something very precious and denies the mother an irreplaceable kind of support and comfort. When I had my kids I didn’t care about having any mother, sister or friends around–I wanted my husband, the one I’m closest to and love the most. And I didn’t care if he understood what I was going thru or not. I just wanted him to be next to me and support me with love and strength. Which he did. I had C-sections both times and he sat beside me through both, held my hand and talked to me about what was going on, made some jokes to ease my tension, watched the incisions with interest and wielded the camcorder with a steady hand as the babies were being pulled out. It would have been a very cold and lonely experience without him there, watching our kids being born and being the first to hold them. Those were among the most thrilling moments of our lives.
Gonzman & Mr Bad, were you even listening? I believe I pointed out in my comment there is a blood and guts factor here that probably appeals to no one. Quite frankly, I don’t want to be around for that either but biology doesn’t give me much of choice in the matter.
Yes Stephanie, in fact I was listening - not only to you, but to the others here. And that’s what I’m talking about: We get as many different, and many times conflicting, messages as there are participants here.
Which is precisely why I figure we men should just forget about the issue, ignore all the chatter and make our own decisions, irrespective of what others may think or say.
Sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent what you were saying. I think what most women are saying though is that they would actually like for their partners to be around during childbirth. I realize that it’s not a pretty sight watching a human emerge from the vagina but it’s a frightening and very painful time for the woman. I think what she wants and needs at that time is love and support from her partner. When she feels she’s not getting that, I think it naturally upsets her.
Actually, gonzman, I think I *did* mention that it would suck to see a loved one in pain. And I think Stephanie mentioned the aversion to blood and guts.
>Which is precisely why I figure we men should just forget about the issue, ignore all the chatter and make our own decisions, irrespective of what others may think or say.
Um, I hope by that you mean that both parents should make that decision together, irrespective of what others may think or say. But basically, I agree… I wasn’t getting all angry about a man not wanting to be present for a birth, that is the couple’s decision alone. But take responsibility for the decision you make, be honest about your feelings on the matter. That is simply the adult thing to do. Maybe I was reading different blogs than O’Rourke was reading, but a lot of the anger I saw was over the fact that the author of the original piece implied that the mothers should worry about their partners’ squeamishness, whereas I think it is the responsibility of each partner to make clear how they feel about the matter. Does that make sense?
craichead, thank you so much for your perspective and advice. good to hear that from someone who’s been there. and your handle cracks me up.
Neil, there are plenty of cultures where men don’t attend, indeed aren’t allowed to be present, during childbirth. There are also cultures where the sexes are pretty strictly separated and while men and women get married and have kids, ones friends are always ones own gender. But I think for most of the people posting here, we can be friends and share feelings and experiences with people of the opposite sex… my boyfriend is also my best friend, and very good at supporting and comforting me when I need it, is that “natural”? If *you* don’t want to be around during birth, that is your and your partner’s business, but please don’t tell me that I shouldn’t want my best friend there if I give birth someday. We can figure that out for ourselves.
>worry about their partners’ squeamishness
or to be precise, anticipate the possibility of their partner’s squeamishness, which may or may not exist, and which would require a mind-reader if their partner won’t speak up about it.
Stephanie wrote: “Sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent what you were saying. I think what most women are saying though is that they would actually like for their partners to be around during childbirth. I realize that it’s not a pretty sight watching a human emerge from the vagina but it’s a frightening and very painful time for the woman. I think what she wants and needs at that time is love and support from her partner. When she feels she’s not getting that, I think it naturally upsets her.”
I understand and can’t argue with you on what you say, but you need to understand that the specifics of “being there for her” are quite individual for every woman and man. One woman might want her partner/spouse to be right in the thick of things with his face right ‘in it’ watching the child exit the birth canal while another might want him to be up front holding her hand, mopping her brow, giving her encouragement, etc. Still another might want him off to the side and out of the way, but there ‘just in case.’ All of those could qualify as “being there for her,” which is why it’s so darned hard - and frankly, impossible - to measure up to the standards of the keyboard pundits around here. As was mentioned in other threads, it’s all in how one defines the desired outcome or behavior.
Mr Bad said…
“Guys, we can’t win. Just check out the responses here: When we want to be around for childbirth, we’re just “getting in the way” because we “can never understand what women go through during childbirth.” When we opt out, we’re being selfish, whimpy, squeamish, uncaring, irresponsible, etc. There’s no point for men to even bother discussing this any more. We can’t win, so we should just butt out, let the women complain about it amongst themselves in peace, and decide how we want to handle the birth of our own children ourselves without interference from feminists or anybody else. ”
Note that the “men just get in the way” comment you’re complaining about did not come from a woman (it came from Neil…any comments from NYMOM on this subject are irrelevant to your argument since she hates feminists just as much as you do). You really need to get over your habit of attributing everything negative you hear to feminists. It’s interfering with your ability to logically analyse a situation. No feminist on this thread has suggested alienating fathers from the birthing process, nor are they likely to.
FYI, in as much as there is an “official” feminist position on the father being present during birth it’s pretty heavily in favour. And Neil, when someone says that they want the father to help they don’t mean that they expect him to actually go in with the forceps or perform the caesarian. In any stressful event the person most of us want around is the person we’re closest to, and for most people this is their spouse/partner. Ability to empathise with the experience isn’t really as important as general moral support, and what makes you think that a woman who has never given birth can empathise any better than a man could anyway?
If I were to give birth I would want my husband there. Not to lend any practical assistance (that’s the job of the medical staff), just to hold my hand and be there for me during a difficult and scary time, and because it would be his baby too and I would want him to be just as much a part of the experience as me. It’s one more thing that reinforces the bond between a couple, and does anyone here not think that a strong parental bond is the best thing for the child?
Being freaked out by blood and guts is totally understandable, but childbirth is a bloody experience and that’s just the way it works. Part of the committment we make when we get married is to be willing to love and support our partners even when it’s tough, even when it’s a challenge that we don’t necessarily feel ready for. Neither partner gets to bail out of their responsibility to support each other just because of a little blood.
Actually, gonzman, I think I *did* mention that it would suck to see a loved one in pain. And I think Stephanie mentioned the aversion to blood and guts.
You’re missing the point - the point being that the first explantions reached for ascribe ignoble or cowardly motives to men. The empathy towards men who might not have the same view is “Well, that sucks, BUT….”
I’ve had occasion a lot lately to recall a lesson my Grandmother taught me years and years ago, to wit, that any apology with a “but” in it is not an apology. Well, likewise, any expression of empathy or compassion with a “but” in it is not empathy or compassion.
Well, likewise, any expression of empathy or compassion with a “but” in it is not empathy or compassion.
You have hit the nail on the head. When a man says I have empathy and compassion for the pain you face in childbirth, but I’m going to leave you to face it without me, it’s not very credible. It’s no kind of empathy or compassion that I recognize.
I see. Women first. What they want is a trump over what men want.
Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. And here I was thinking feminism was all about “Me, me, me!” in regards to women, with no regard for any of the man’s part of the equation.
Well, we are talking about childbirth here. In my opinion, the woman should come first in that scenario.
BritGirlSF said: “Note that the “men just get in the way” comment you’re complaining about did not come from a woman (it came from Neil…any comments from NYMOM on this subject are irrelevant to your argument since she hates feminists just as much as you do).”
Yes BritGirlSF, the comment did come from a man, but it’s based on his experience (and mine) with women in general re. this topic. It’s very much the same as the complaints about men here: Hugo (and others commenting here) have never been present at a birth, he’s (they’re) relating experiences as told to him (them) by others, either from direct participants or third parties. Same thing with Neil.
Once again BGSF, this is about the mixed messages that men get from women throughout society in general and not specific women (and/or feminists) here.
As for hating feminists, I don’t and never said that I do. I have a lot of contempt and no respect whatsoever for them, just as I do for other bigots such as racists, anti-semites, male sexsts, et al. But NYMOM is a special case, because her bigotry and ignorance spans a number of categories; she’s one the few true misanthropes I’ve ever encountered.
You were doing so well, Mr. Bad, till your final sentence… please don’t slur other commenters here or I will ban you once again.
Stanton
There may be some decent men out there according to rumors, but there certainly has never been one in my family. Some of the men I have met through work appear to be decent but of course I don’t know them well enough to know about any double lives they may be leading. That still does not mean there are not many scummy, selfish men just like there are many immoral, selfish women. Only women can be worthless in your book stanton? You never met a cruel destructive man who destroys, impoverishes and threatens death to every woman in his path? You’re lucky, then.
Sorry about that Hugo, I was simply responding honestly to BGSF’s reference to that person vis-a-vis hating feminists. I’ll do my best to refrain, but I’m only human. Apologies to NYMOM.
No problem, monsieur mal. The rhetoric is getting a bit heated on this thread; it’s a good thread, and I’m happy to see it continue, but let’s keep it friendly and light.
Rainbow,
You said, “Only women can be worthless in your book stanton?” I’m not sure why you would conclude such a thing about me, unless, to you, this follows naturally from defending men against blanket condemnation. To set the record straight, I believe that there are no worthless persons, male or female. There are dangerous persons, but even they have worth, possibly untapped.
“You never met a cruel destructive man who destroys, impoverishes and threatens death to every woman in his path?” If you mean this literally, then no, I have not met any such men. If you are referring to sociopaths who have the power of enthralling and virtually enslaving women in great numbers, then yes, I have seen such men. They are rare, and in my experience, only a subset of women are susceptible to their influence. Both victim and abuser in these cases are troubled souls, in need of help. Both are seeking fulfilment in destructive ways that will never work for them.
These extreme outliers in the distribution of human characteristics tell us nothing about the “normal behavior” of any group. From what you say, your own family was highly dysfunctional and you saw no worthy male role models, and that is certainly a sad way to grow up. I can see why that could make you suspicious of all males. I pray that you will find some glowing counterexamples that will show you the world in a different light. But I think that, in order for you to see a good man, you must first believe in them - that they exist. From there, maybe you could eventually see that by far most men are in fact very decent, honorable individuals, as are most women.
Once again BGSF, this is about the mixed messages that men get from women throughout society in general and not specific women (and/or feminists) here.
That doesn’t make sense. As long as a man restricts himself to impregnating one woman at a time, there’s only one woman at a time whose opinion on this subject he needs to listen to. If she wants you there, you go; if she wants privacy, you wait outside. No mixed messages, no scary complication. Feminists do not want you to barge in when the pregnant woman doesn’t want you there: you have my word on that. The whole discussion has been about partners of pregnant women who do want their partners present, and that has been quite clear all along.
The feminists in this argument think that the emotional needs of a pregnant woman in labor take precedence over the emotional needs of her partner at that specific time, when frightening things are happening to her body alone. (Men are not the only ones with pregnant partners.) It is not giving ‘mixed messages’ to note that different pregnant women have different desires, unless you have some reason to expect all women to share a hive mind. And you don’t.
Not in response to anyone specific:
The reason I don’t believe the argument about men wanting to get out of having to be there because they don’t want to see their partners in trauma? Because leaving her to go through it alone when she wanted her partner there puts her through immense emotional trauma, and unlike the pain of childbirth, it’s a trauma that the man has complete power to take from her. You’d think he’d want to do the one thing he can to help, if he was so upset by her pain. And of course, most men do, if they’re needed.
“I don’t want you to be in pain” is worlds away from “I don’t want to see your pain.”
sophonista said: “That doesn’t make sense. As long as a man restricts himself to impregnating one woman at a time, there’s only one woman at a time whose opinion on this subject he needs to listen to. If she wants you there, you go; if she wants privacy, you wait outside. No mixed messages, no scary complication. Feminists do not want you to barge in when the pregnant woman doesn’t want you there: you have my word on that. The whole discussion has been about partners of pregnant women who do want their partners present, and that has been quite clear all along.”
Ok, then if that’s the case then this thread is pointless because for each person here who is offering up their opinion, there’s only one person to whom they should be listening, their partner. And for those with no partners, no children, etc., then nobody should bother listening to them at all.
So, let’s make sure I have this straight: The feminists you claim to speak for (i.e., the ones here) want to be able to speak with self-claimed authority when they choose about the needs and priorities of other people, declare whose emotional needs should take precedent (no surprise that you advocate the woman), and at the same time tell men they should only listen to their partners so there will be no problem with mixed messages, “scary,” “complicated,” or not. Sounds like you’re telling us guys here who dare disagree with you to ’shut up.’ Got it.
So I say it again, we men shouldn’t even bothering listening to you keyboard pundits around here and decide for ourselves what to do in any given situation. To do otherwise? Now that sounds like a “scary complication” to me.
It is too late for me. My life is already destroyed. I have three and half more years before I can escape from my abuser without being forced by the family courts to turn our daughter over to him to be abused by him, his mistresses and his compatriots in perversion. By then, I will nothing left but an impoverished, lonely old age and/or death to look forward to. This charmer even stole from his mother.
However, if you have any suggestions as to how spot sociopaths before you marry them, do provide some hints. My husband was quite slick before we married, seemed like a wonderful person. I was a suspicious type and had lots of friends, no one was the least suspicious of him. Once you have a child with a monster, you can longer protect the child from him according to today’s courts until the abuse is sufficient to meet criminal charges and then there are dozens of women who have lost their child to their and the child’s abuser. three and half more years and then I can finally run away and hope that the sickness in his family is not genetic. Yes, I knew he had a horrible family but so did I.
I would like to believe there is some hope for my daughter and the other young women I know. I would not want any of them to wake up every day wondering whether this is the day her husband finally kills her, drinks himself to death or trades her for a new model and takes her children away like everyone else I know.
Way to miss the point, Steph. Was that accidental, or do you actually have to take lessons for it?
Let’s take it from the top.
Well, now that we have gotten the dumping on men through, has anyone considered that such men who have reservations might be nauseated by blood and guts? And that some men, after having witnessed the blood and guts, think subconsciously that “Oh my God! That’s because she had sex with me! I did that to her! I can’t put her through that again!”
Obviously, Steph, I am talking about such men who have libido difficulties thereafter.
Now, I am willing to bet that if someone signed on as ambulance crew somewhere, and the first really bloody scene left them nauseated and unable to continue in that field, nobody would insinuate they were selfish, self-centered and didn’t care about the poor victims of accidents. There would be compassion, and urging for them to get help, a “Well, hey, you TRIED to make a difference” along with the studied disapproval and Oprahesque pursing of lips if someone suggested they “Get over it.”
It’s more complex, it would be said. Don’t be so judgemental, it would be said.
But, let a man have any other type of trauma, and oh, let’s apply the most simplistic, judgemental perjorative we can find. Wimp. Coward. Selfish. Insensitive.
Have I left anything out? Oh yeah - “Just suck it up and get over it. You’re just a mere male. It’s not like you’re a real person, with complex emotions, who might need some help, and for whom it might be her turn to extend some understanding and compassion.”
Yeah. Suck it up. Tough it out. But don’t you dare start in with that “Macho” BS. We hate that.
No. No mixed message here.
Oh - and I’m also thinking that more importantly, it is the CHILD’s right to have their father in the room when they first come in the world, and if the mother doesn’t want him there, it’s something that her wishes should take a second place to, as well. I mean, since the baby is now no longer a fetus, I assume it does have rights, like people have said before, no? Or was that mere rhetoric?
Rainbow,
I am truly sorry that you are having such a difficult time in your marriage and your life, and I have no doubt that you have received every conceivable type of advice, and still find yourself stuck. Having said that, I am going to take the chance of making a suggestion:
If the situation is as you have described it, then it is precisely what women’s shelters and restraining orders are for. Assuming your daughter is fourteen years old (3.5 years left, you said), then family court may take her testimony very seriously. (At age thirteen, my daughter was taken from me and given to her mother, who had run out on the family years before. Then, at fourteen, she was given the choice, and she returned to my home for the remainder of her childhood.) If she is suffering the abuse of her father, as you describe, you would almost certainly prevail in family court, and your ex would get only supervised visits. Even if she is younger, a therapist could evaluate her and determine har risk level during the period that the restraining order was in force, and the therapist’s testimony would have considerable weight in court.
There may be “dozens of women” who have lost their child to the family abuser, as you say, but there are millions of women who have gotten full custody and the controlling hand in everything that followed, even with perfectly decent fathers involved. The odds are WAY in your favor.
Standard MRA caveat: I do not approve of the use of shelters and restraining orders as a tactic in a dispute. I strongly support their use for their intended purpose of protecting victims from abusers.
Mythago! Help me out here. Am I sending Rainbow down a blind alley?
I really don’t recall saying anything to that effect, Gonzman. What I’m trying to say is that your position is understandable and so is hers. I think most women want their partners in the delivery room and feel let down if he isn’t.
I agree though that there are many mixed messages out there. I think you and Mr Bad make a decent point about that … there isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all solution for this (there rarely is). Ultimately, I think each couple has to figure this one out for themselves.
Even as a female, I sometimes feel like my family and friends are judging my husband if he doesn’t treat me exactly the way they think he should even if it doesn’t bother me personally. I’m sure my husband will be grossed out during childbirth (I can’t blame him, I will too) but I still want him at my side. He’ll be there, I’m quite sure of it but I have some friends and family who will probably nitpick … well, did he hold your hand? did he help you with the lamaze stuff? did he massage your back? did he act all weird? Did he cut the cord? did he? did he? did he? Aaaagh. And my husband is like the nicest guy ever. Societal pressure frustrates me too. Believe me, I hear you.
I think it should be an individual decision. My ex-husband didn’t want to be there either. He had three other children with his former wife and wasn’t there for any of her deliveries either.
He deliberately planned a project to replace every single window in our apartment building about a week before I was due and then used that as an excuse not to show up although the nurse in the unit insisted on calling him every hour on the hour during my labor. That stupid woman embarrassed the heck out of me throughout my entire labor and delivery.
Anyway, I thought it was accidental until his first wife informed me he did the same thing with her for all three of their children. Came up with some HUGE job-related project he had to be there to supervise and each time this was about a week before her delivery dates (they had three children before divorcing). I was his second wife.
Anyway, my conclusion is that I was glad he didn’t come. As if you really have a problem with this, you’re no help to your wife. Many men feel pressure to be there at the labor and delivery now, even if they don’t want to be there. So probably unconsciously they could be there making faces or snide comments throughout the whole thing undermining you psychologically or something.
So it’s an individual thing. If they want to come fine. But if they don’t, do NOT pressure them.
Just my opinion.
“but I’m only human.”
NYMOM said: Really.
You could have fooled me.
NYMOM, stop it; I’ve cautioned the MRAs many times, now I’m cautioning you. I don’t want to ban you, but I will if I need to — sarcasm belongs many places, but not here.
Now, I am willing to bet that if someone signed on as ambulance crew somewhere, and the first really bloody scene left them nauseated and unable to continue in that field, nobody would insinuate they were selfish, self-centered and didn’t care about the poor victims of accidents.
I don’t quite get the analogy here. EMT work is not a marriage. And we certainly would criticize an EMT who stopped being able to provide effective assistance to accident victims because she was really grossed out by the first bloody scene she encountered. I even would hazard a guess that we would not instruct accident victims to be concerned about their effect on the EMTs.
Mythago! Help me out here. Am I sending Rainbow down a blind alley?
No, but honestly, I am not sure Rainbow wants to be helped. Anyone who has decided, three and a half years in advance, that they will have an “impoverished and lonely old age and death” and who claims that “everybody I know” has been abused, dumped for a younger woman, and/or lost custody of their children to an abuvie husband, is…well, I won’t say Rainbow is a troll, but I wonder why she has chosen to see abuse as inevitable. That’s not a healthy perspective to pass on to a child.
That said, I would absolutely encourage anyone, male or female, who genuinely believe they or their children are abused to do everything they can to rectify the situation. Document the abuse. Get a lawyer. Seek help from shelters and abuse resources that can give you support and assistance. Oh, and the thing about sociopaths is that while they’re charming, they also don’t behave well when they’re balked or frustrated, and sometimes they let the act slip when Important People (cops, judges, social workers) who can affect their custody are present.
Folks, Stephanie summed it up with one brief, concise sentence: “Ultimately, I think each couple has to figure this one out for themselves.”
I sure wish I could do that! ;)
Great thread, but after that what more is there to say?
Today, women are influenced by the gay-militant women. Men and women are the same as they were thousands years ago. The make babies. The militant women of today are sick individuals, and interrupt natural human procss.
Jim
But the mens’ rights movement encourages this as well.
It’s not just women.
Jim’s comment doesn’t even make any sense. Does he imagine that the presence of Dad in the delivery room will actually prevent the baby from being born? Or that “gay-militant women” are blocking the baby’s emergence from the birth canal?
I do love it when illiterate whackos post here. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. What exactly is a “human procss”, anyway?
Well no…I think Jim was coming from the perspective of political correctness causing both women and men to do things they’re rather not vis-a-vis labor and delivery of children.
I mean if men don’t want to be in the delivery room, they should NOT feel pressured to be there. Or feel they have to lie or make up a story (like my ex-husband did) in order to avoid others making them feel guilty afterwards.
I mean I had a nurse who kept calling my ex-husband on the telephone every hour on the hour to try and get him over to the hospital and then she loudly announced this to me everytime she passed my room (and everyone else in earshot). I could have strangled her really; but she thought she was doing good.
Frankly, in retrospect, I was glad my ex-husband wasn’t there for the delivery of our daughter as you’re a complete mess when you’re having children, why in the world would you want your husband to see you in that condition…
But then of course afterwards I felt badly as everyone kept saying well what did your husband say or do at the time and I would have to admit he was supervising the fitting of our entire apartment building (he was the building manager) for new windows, while I was delivering our child in agony alone.
No big deal.
why in the world would you want your husband to see you in that condition…
Uh, because he’s my husband? If you can’t turn to the person you’ve sworn to spend your life with when you’re hurt, sick, in pain, or even–and I know this is wacky–having a baby that the two of you made–why did you get married?
That’s not ‘political correctness.’ I just can’t think of a sound-bite term for wanting your spouse to be your partner.
I honestly can’t imagine what kind of mindset I’d need to have to be disturbed by the idea of my husband seeing me not looking my best (understatement) because I was in labour. IMHO, any marriage in which either partner is worried about the other seeing them looking less than perfect is destined for trouble. What happens when you get to the Depends stage of life (not to be crass, but old age comes to us all eventually)? What if one of you gets cancer? How will the other one cope when you’re puking your guts out after chemo?
Like I said, the mindset behind this completely puzzles me. Also, I get the strong feeling that “political correctness” is not at all what Jim was ineptly taking aim at.
I’m with Mythago on this one. I’d want my husband to be there if I was in labour, as I’d want to be there if he was going through any kind of painful and difficult time, because HE’S MY HUSBAND. In sickness and in health, remember? That’s not political correctness, it’s love, and it’s pretty damned important in a marriage.
“I’m with Mythago on this one. I’d want my husband to be there if I was in labour, as I’d want to be there if he was going through any kind of painful and difficult time, because HE’S MY HUSBAND. In sickness and in health, remember? That’s not political correctness, it’s love, and it’s pretty damned important in a marriage.”
Well obviously not everybody feels that way, as many men do not wish to be there and frankly some women don’t want them there either. Wasn’t that what the original article was about that started this discussion? Men becoming horrified after seeing their wives in labor and not wanting to be intimate with them anymore.
The fact that nobody can admit that this could be a normal reaction is what is politically correct.
Or that some women could even feel the same way. I know I don’t want people I love to see me in that bad a shape. Many people also wish to bring older children into the birth room as well…each to his own, I certainly wouldn’t stop them; but in the same vein I think children can become frightened of seeing their mother in this condition. I certainly would not have allowed my older daughter, who was 11 at the time of birth of her younger sister, to see me in that condition either.
People can love one another and still reserve some things privately and not wish their husband to see them in that shape either.
When I was growing up many women reserved a zone of privacy for themselves in certain areas and I don’t think that was bad, as the divorce rates were a lot lower then compared to now. Just because you married someone doesn’t mean you have to surrrender all privacy like the Borg or something on Star Trek, where you’re absorbed into the common body and every memory and thought you ever had or will have becomes part of the commons…
I don’t think it’s necessary or wise.
The fact that nobody can admit that this could be a normal reaction is what is politically correct.
Lots of things are “normal reactions.” It is a normal reaction to want to have all the chocolate cake and not share any with your sister, for example. The fact that something is “normal” does not make it OK or something we should indulge. I don’t much care for your PC attitude that we shouldn’t condemn any normal reaction, because if it feels natural, do it.
When I was growing up many women reserved a zone of privacy for themselves in certain areas and I don’t think that was bad, as the divorce rates were a lot lower then compared to now.
Aren’t you divorced?
“Aren’t you divorced?”
Yes but I said when I was ‘growing up’ referring to the adults around me when I was a child in the 50s/60s…
Remember I was taken in too by much of the feminist rhertoric of the 60s/70s. I would have been better off listing to my grandmother, then feminist propaganda. As much of what she had said turned out to be correct, while much of what feminist said turned out not to be…
If I was an unkind person I might point out that I, like mythago, am still married, so the “have the husband involved” attitude seems to be working out just fine. It doesn’t mean joining the Borg (if you actually knew myself and my husband that would give you a good laugh, since both of us have a great many interests and activites that we pursue separately). It just means being there for the person you love when they’re undergoing a stressful event. I wouldn’t leave him alone during a stressful time either. It’s a matter of committment and caring enough about the other person to be there for them even if it’s hard for you (I HATE hospitals, but if he was hurt and in the emergency room I’d be there as fast as I could, even though I’d be freaking out a bit inside - in that case his need for me to be there trumps my desire not to be around blood and pain).
I agree that having little kids at a birth may not be very appropriate (an acquaintance actually tried this with her 7 year old and the child was pretty upset and had to be taken away), as they’re probably too young to cope with all the blood and pain, and especially with seeing their own mother in pain. It’s not really our decision if they’re not our kids, though. The analogy is pretty silly, however, as any man who is in a position to be watching his own child be born is not in fact likely to be a child himself. I wouldn’t want to place that kind of stress on a kid, but the men we’re discussing are adults. It’s a very different situation.
Also, a thought for NYMOM…it seems that most of your ideas about feminism date back to the sixties. A lot has changed since then, and a great many of the ideas that you often describe as “feminist” are not really very widely held any more. Have you ever read, say, Naomi Wolff, or Susan Faludi? The “party line”, such as it is (achieving discipline in leftist movements being rather like herding cats), has shifted quite dramatically. I met a few feminists of the older generation at college, and the gap between them and women of my age in terms of beliefs is pretty significant.
Yet in spite of the fact of your ‘antedotes’ about how great the two of you are doing,..divorce is up and at least 50% of first marriages will be ending in divorce. Which probably means that will be the divorce rate going forward.
So I believe that generation before mine knew a LOT more about staying together in a marriage then most people today…and I think feminism did have a LOT to do with that increase in the divorce rate and really even the fact that a lot of people never get divorced because so many don’t get married anymore.
I believe feminism had a lot to do with that too.
Also I’m curious what is the gap in beliefs between feminists from the 60s and now? Actually I find the feminists from now to be far worse then the ones in the 60s; as then the aim was mainly focused on educational and economic disparities to be erased and men even benefitted from this as having less of a burden on them to support a family alone.
YET those early feminists NEVER felt that men and women had no other differences between them, the way you do today…
In the generation before yours divorce simply wasn’t an option for most people, and women were highly unlikely to intiate divorce as the lack of career opportunities would have left them destitute. Comparing divorce stats then and divorce stats now is apples and oranges, frankly.
Thinking about your conviction that men and women are basically different species, I suppose I’m not surprised that you find modern feminism offensive. That’s what has changed most, really…the idea that men and women are completely different has given way to the idea that gender is socially constructed. Modern feminists also tend to have warmer relationships with men, which may in fact be part of what offends you. Men are not considered to be the enemy any more, on the whole, except by a few older feminists from the Second Wave generation (hello, Mary Daly).
That’s a very broad set of generalisations I just made, by the way, but I don’t have time to go over every single change that’s happened to the movement over 30-40 years. Anyone else want to chime in? (I mean anyone who actually knows feminist theory, not one of the MRAs who wants to project his own personal issues with women onto the movement)
“Comparing divorce stats then and divorce stats now is apples and oranges, frankly.”
NYMOM said: Of course this isn’t true as people compare divorce stats then and now ALL the time. It’s not apples and oranges at all.
“That’s what has changed most, really…the idea that men and women are completely different has given way to the idea that gender is socially constructed. Modern feminists also tend to have warmer relationships with men, which may in fact be part of what offends you.”
NYMOM said: Right…then why is there a need for a mens rights movement if modern feminists and men have such warm relationships right now????
NYMOM said: I’ll give you the social constructed part and that’s probably 90% of the whole problem really…as MOST men and women do NOT accept this social construct theory of feminism, not just me…you should have just struck with early feminism which was about equal opportunities to education, jobs and access to reproduction services. Men and women agreed with these issues for the most part, so you should have quit while you were ahead.
“That’s a very broad set of generalisations I just made, by the way, but I don’t have time to go over every single change that’s happened to the movement over 30-40 years. Anyone else want to chime in? (I mean anyone who actually knows feminist theory, not one of the MRAs who wants to project his own personal issues with women onto the movement).”
NYMOM said: Yes, you mean everyone who agrees with you that is chime in, but nobody like me or any MRAs…
So I believe that generation before mine knew a LOT more about staying together in a marriage then most people today…
The generation before yours had fault-only divorce and economic limits on women. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the days when a woman couldn’t get credit in her own name, and when it was perfectly legal for companies to hire and promote only men.
Remember I was taken in too by much of the feminist rhertoric of the 60s/70s.
Look, if you want to blame feminism for your divorce and think that kicking your husband out of the delivery room saves a marriage, that’s your problem. It’s when you start generalizing this nuttiness to all marriages that I start to worry about you.
“Look, if you want to blame feminism for your divorce and think that kicking your husband out of the delivery room saves a marriage, that’s your problem. It’s when you start generalizing this nuttiness to all marriages that I start to worry about you.”
As you know my position is more complicated then that. You just want to mock it to give gender neutralized feminists more creditibility, like everyone who disagrees with them is a nut.
Like I said before, if they had so much support in the community (these warm relationships you talk about new feminists having with men) then there would be no need for an MRA movement to exist…
NYMOM said: Of course this isn’t true as people compare divorce stats then and now ALL the time. It’s not apples and oranges at all.
And this means that they are correct to do so without taking the changes in both law and society into account why, exactly? A wise man once said that there are lies, damn lies and stastics…and I notice that you ignored my point about it being more difficult for women to leave a marriage back then.
NYMOM said: Right…then why is there a need for a mens rights movement if modern feminists and men have such warm relationships right now????
You’re seriously asking me to explain why the MRA movement exists? Well, I’m not an MRA and do not accept some of the basic premises of their movement, so you’re asking me to read the minds of people with whom I do not agree. Sorry but my psychic powers seem to be on the fritz today. And what I meant is that many individual feminists nowadays have warm personal relationships with men, and that the idea of lesbian separatism is not longer one of the basic planks of the movement. Obviously not every man in the world is going to like us, and we’re not going to like all of them. Every political movement has it’s enemies, as you should know given that you claim to have studied history.
(Also, very few political movements really “need” to exist, so that’s an odd word choice. The trade union movement in the early industrial age would be an example of a movement that did “need” to exist, as far too many people were dying as a result of overwork and unsafe working conditions. Most other political movements, not so much.)
NYMOM said: I’ll give you the social constructed part and that’s probably 90% of the whole problem really…as MOST men and women do NOT accept this social construct theory of feminism, not just me…you should have just struck with early feminism which was about equal opportunities to education, jobs and access to reproduction services. Men and women agreed with these issues for the most part, so you should have quit while you were ahead.
Well, I was born in 1973, so I’m not sure how exactly I could have “stuck with” something that happened before I was old enough to participate. Also, sorry, but you don’t get to tell a movement of which you are not a member what they should and should not focus on. It’s a little arrogant of you to presume to do so, don’t you think?
NYMOM said: Yes, you mean everyone who agrees with you that is chime in, but nobody like me or any MRAs…
I mean someone who actually knows something about feminist theory should chime in. It’s pointless to offer one’s opinion on a subject which one knows nothing about. For the same reason I refrain from commenting on some of Hugo’s religious posts as I’m not familiar enough with scripture to make an informed contribution to the conversation.
Interesting how you’re suddenly rushing to defend the MRAs given how much they dislike you. Have you undergone some kind of conversion? It’s a bit sad to see someone abandon their principles just to win an argument.
Mythago makes a good point. I’m finding it a bit difficult to take seriously marriage advice from someone who is herself divorced, especially when it is being directed at two people whose own marriages are doing just fine. If you want to blame feminism for your own personal problems, and assume that men as a whole are terrible parents and should never have custody of their children just because you married a man who frankly sounds like kind of a jerk, that’s your problem. I see no reason why I should modify my opinions and/or behaviour based on the advice of someone for whom her own philosophy doesn’t seem to have worked out very well.
Also, that bit where you made an analogy about why husbands shouldn’t be in the delivery room by using your 11 year old daughter as an example? Men are not children. They’re not incompetent around babies by nature and/or incapable of nurturing and/or good parenting. If I was a guy I would be mighty pissed off that you seem to think they are.
“And this means that they are correct to do so without taking the changes in both law and society into account why, exactly? A wise man once said that there are lies, damn lies and stastics…and I notice that you ignored my point about it being more difficult for women to leave a marriage back then.”
NYMOM said: Because I do not accept you or Mythago’s reasoning of why the divorce rate suddenly jumped. I think that we do not really KNOW the reasons yet. Generally you have to look back at something long after it’s over to objectively be able to assess its cause.
To accept what you say I’d have to believe many marriages were unhappy and just waiting for feminism to make all these changes in the laws; so this backlog of unhappy women could take advantage of divorce and I don’t buy that. Actually I bet if you checked many of those marriages made in the 40s/50s, which were the ones I was talking about as those were the adults in my childhood, they are the ones that lasted. It’s the newer ones that probably started increasing the divorce rate, probably like now with first time marriages driving the current 50% divorce rate.
So there was no situation that existed, as you and others have implied, where women wanted to divorce but couldn’t due to rules and no credit and all that. This is another example of feminism trying to take credit for giving women some new ‘right’ that really is a new burden for women, like being divorced while pregnant or something, which feminists now paint as a new “right” they fought for to advantage women but is in fact, an added burden on women now to have to worry about, that their husband can suddenly decide to up and divorce them while they are pregnant…
“You’re seriously asking me to explain why the MRA movement exists?”
NYMOM said: Well I was trying to be polite for Hugo’s sake, as he has frequently asked me to be more polite.
I could have said why do so many movements including the MRA hate feminists and paint feminism as their enemy if they have done so much good for people and relationships are so much stronger with men now due to them?
Actually I think I would be on solid ground if I said gender neutralized feminists are responsible for the success of people like George Bush in the White House, the Supreme Court turning further right and the rise of the religious right in the red states. The radical turn of gender neutralized feminism into all this ’social construct’ baloney has turned even women who benefitted from early feminism against the movement.
But I was trying to be polite and not come right out and say why do so many people hate them if they all do so much good…
“Also, sorry, but you don’t get to tell a movement of which you are not a member what they should and should not focus on. It’s a little arrogant of you to presume to do so, don’t you think?”
NYMOM said: As long as gender neutralized feminists presume to poke their nose in other womens business regarding their roles as mothers, then yes I’m making it my business to tell them what to do. As many child-free feminists have involved themselves in public policy vis-a-vis children and their issues while knowing nothing about that either.
“Interesting how you’re suddenly rushing to defend the MRAs given how much they dislike you. Have you undergone some kind of conversion? It’s a bit sad to see someone abandon their principles just to win an argument.”
Who said I was defending them? I just commented on how you believe feminists have more ‘warm’ relationships with men today which is really a joke when you look at every institution which men dominate and feminists are painted as the enemy. I was curious as to why you believe this.
Frankly it puzzles me too, as many gender neutralized feminists, whose more extreme positions are the exact same positions as MRAs, still profess to hate each other…
Actually, I think our society would be far better off if neither group existed.
So the question was an honest one. Obviously you can’t answer it…
“Mythago makes a good point. I’m finding it a bit difficult to take seriously marriage advice from someone who is herself divorced…”
NYMOM said: I wasn’t giving you marriage advice, I wouldn’t presume to. If you look back I was commenting on advice given to me as a girl by other adults who were more successful in their marriages then MOST today AS PER STATISTICS. But since you disagreed with my conclusion you then turned it around to a personal attack against me because I was divorced along with millions of other people in the US.
“Also, that bit where you made an analogy about why husbands shouldn’t be in the delivery room by using your 11 year old daughter as an example? Men are not children. They’re not incompetent around babies by nature and/or incapable of nurturing and/or good parenting. If I was a guy I would be mighty pissed off that you seem to think they are.”
NYMOM said: The analogy was to counter you and others’ assertion that there could NEVER be a good reason why someone you loved wouldn’t be happy to be in a delivery room with you or why you might not want them there…It had nothing to do with men at that point, except indirectly. I could have used the analogue of my grandmother instead of my daughter, not wanting her to see me in that condition either. Which I probably should have used as you have now taken the analogue totally out of context…but what else is new.
Just like when Mythago lied and said I ‘kicked’ my husband out of the delivery room when I clearly wrote he was supervising a windows replacement project at that time and chose not to be there himself.
“Who said I was defending them? I just commented on how you believe feminists have more ‘warm’ relationships with men today which is really a joke when you look at every institution which men dominate and feminists are painted as the enemy. I was curious as to why you believe this.
Frankly it puzzles me too, as many gender neutralized feminists, whose more extreme positions are the exact same positions as MRAs, still profess to hate each other…
Actually, I think our society would be far better off if neither group existed.
So the question was an honest one. Obviously you can’t answer it…
”
I did answer it, you just failed to notice. There is a difference between feminists as individuals and feminism as a political movement. To give an example that might be easier for you to grasp - I dislike religion as a whole and think that it does more harm than good. Many Christian denominations would probably not approve of me or my lifestyle (I live in the Bay Area and have lots of gay friends). However, there are many individual religious people (Hugo for example) whom I am fond of, and whom I have good relationships with. I even have a friend who is a born-again Christian and a Republican, and I’m a socialist and an atheist. People are more than the sum of their political affiliations.
Feminism has a serious image problem, no question, but at a micro level most feminists I know have good relationships with men. The fact that many male-dominated institutions don’t like feminism neither surprises nor upsets me - feminism is a challenge to the status quo, and most people don’t give up power graciously. I actually get much more hostile responses to the fact that I’m a socialist than the fact that I’m a feminist (try quoting Marx or Engels at a party in the South and see what happens!).
NYMOM said “To accept what you say I’d have to believe many marriages were unhappy and just waiting for feminism to make all these changes in the laws; so this backlog of unhappy women could take advantage of divorce and I don’t buy that. Actually I bet if you checked many of those marriages made in the 40s/50s, which were the ones I was talking about as those were the adults in my childhood, they are the ones that lasted. It’s the newer ones that probably started increasing the divorce rate, probably like now with first time marriages driving the current 50% divorce rate. ”
In my personal experience you’re dead wrong. I think that in previous times many people, both men and women, were trapped in unhappy marriages but unable to get a divorce, or unwilling to face the stigma of doing so. Frankly I’m not convinced that a high divorce rate is in itself such a terrible thing - it only becomes a concern when there are children involved who may be hurt in the process. If childless couples want to divorced, why is that a problem?
NYMOM said “Actually I think I would be on solid ground if I said gender neutralized feminists are responsible for the success of people like George Bush in the White House, the Supreme Court turning further right and the rise of the religious right in the red states. The radical turn of gender neutralized feminism into all this ’social construct’ baloney has turned even women who benefitted from early feminism against the movement. ”
This is just silly. The rise of the religious right and America’s decision to turn its back on the rest of the world (ie a growth in zenophobia and isolationism) is to blame for the election of Bush and Co (if he was in fact legally elected, which is in some doubt due to what happened in Ohio).
NYMOM said: I wasn’t giving you marriage advice, I wouldn’t presume to. If you look back I was commenting on advice given to me as a girl by other adults who were more successful in their marriages then MOST today AS PER STATISTICS. But since you disagreed with my conclusion you then turned it around to a personal attack against me because I was divorced along with millions of other people in the US.
The problem here is that you seem to be defining “success” as just staying married. This is where I completely disagree. What’s the point in a couple staying married if they’re not happy together? I’ve seen far too many miserable marriages in my parents’ and grandparents’ generations to buy into this idea.
NYMOM said: The analogy was to counter you and others’ assertion that there could NEVER be a good reason why someone you loved wouldn’t be happy to be in a delivery room with you or why you might not want them there…It had nothing to do with men at that point, except indirectly. I could have used the analogue of my grandmother instead of my daughter, not wanting her to see me in that condition either. Which I probably should have used as you have now taken the analogue totally out of context…but what else is new. ”
I think you missed my point. In this case I at least was referring specifically to romantic love, ie to people who are in a sexual and romantic partnership. I would not expect just anyone who I’m close to to be there for me during a birth, but the father is a different matter precisely because it’s his child that is being born. So, it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about daughter, sister, grandmother, friend etc - the husband is a special case, because each of us shares a bond with our partner which is qualitively different to the bond we share with anyone else, and because it’s his baby too.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this issue (and on many other issues) for the sake of civility. I think that our basic ideas about how society should be structured are too different to come to any kind of agreement. I know that Hugo hates nastiness of any kind on his blog, and this is after all his space so I think we both need to respect that and cut this conversation short before it gets unpleasant.
Just like when Mythago lied and said I ‘kicked’ my husband out of the delivery room
Uh, no, actually, I didn’t. Please read for comprehension this time: I said “saves a marriage” precisely because you were generalizing to all marriages. “Why in the world would you want your husband to see you in that condition…” was not “I, NYMOM, would never want my husband to see me in that condition.”
Though if you really believe husbands should not see their wives in labor, because marriages are better off when we follow those kinds of guidelines, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that if your now-ex had wanted to be present, you would have told him to stay the heck out and allow you your privacy?
If you look back I was commenting on advice given to me as a girl by other adults who were more successful in their marriages then MOST today AS PER STATISTICS.
Oh, c’mon. This isn’t even a good troll. If you pass on advice and call it good, and ascribe to it such things as a lower divorce rate, nobody is going to believe you when you shriek “But I’m just the messenger!”. You’re making some rather odd logical leaps–the divorce rate was lower in that generation, therefore advice about keeping husbands out of the birthing room was sound and kept marriages together is solid, time-tested advice? Fill in the blanks for me there, would you?
To accept what you say I’d have to believe many marriages were unhappy and just waiting for feminism to make all these changes in the laws; so this backlog of unhappy women could take advantage of divorce and I don’t buy that.
Of course you don’t. That would lead you to question your belief that it’s all feminism’s fault that women suffer and your marriage broke up.
BritGirlsSF said: “Anyone else want to chime in? (I mean anyone who actually knows feminist theory, not one of the MRAs who wants to project his own personal issues with women onto the movement)”
So BGSF, just curious: Does this mean that you dismiss out of hand the feminist take and analyses of the Men’s Rights Movement as well? After all, most all commentary on the MRM I’ve ever read coming from feminists is nothing but projection of their own personal issues and predudices, but still, I allow them the courtesy of being able to discuss their thoughts and opinions on it. Apparently you Third-Wavers don’t share this integrity and sense of fairness. Pity.
NYMOM said: “Just like when Mythago lied and said I ‘kicked’ my husband out of the delivery room.”
Mythago said: “Uh, no, actually, I didn’t.”
NYMOM said: Uh, yes, actually you did:
Mythago said: “Look, if you want to blame feminism for your divorce and think that kicking your husband out of the delivery room saves a marriage, that’s your problem. It’s when you start generalizing this nuttiness to all marriages that I start to worry about you.”
NYMOM said: But like someone else said let’s drop it, as this is Hugo’s space and he wants it to be civil…
Um, this is in response to an old comment, but for the record:
“You’re missing the point - the point being that the first explantions reached for ascribe ignoble or cowardly motives to men.”
Pete, I never said I thought it was “cowardly” or “ignoble” to hate to see a loved one in pain. If anything, it indicates empathy. Here’s my original quote: “If someone is deeply disturbed seeing their loved one in pain, I understand that.”
You’re ascribing motives to me that maybe you wish I had, but I don’t.
Mr Bad, why do you insist on ascribing motives to others without any actual evidence that they are attacking you? I said nothing about the MRM other than that I do not accept some of the basic premises. I said nothing at all about feminist analyses of your movement. My point was that I didn’t have time to flesh out the entire history of feminism over the last 40 years for NYMOM, so it might be good for others to fill in the gaps. If you started describing the history of the MRM and were unable to finish the task, would you ask a feminist to finish it for you? Unlikely.
Or, in other words, what metamanda said to Pete. Why the need to assume that you know what others are thinking? Why so quick to take offence? If it makes you sleep better at night to think that I hate men then go ahead. Your thinking so does not make it true.
Mr Bad, why do you insist on ascribing motives to others without any actual evidence that they are attacking you?
Because then he needn’t address anything you say directly. Simply labelling you a “Third Waver” (whatever that means) and assuming that what some feminists believe, you must too, is simply a way to get you to waste time disproving stereotypes.
BritGirlSF said: “Mr Bad, why do you insist on ascribing motives to others without any actual evidence that they are attacking you? I said nothing about the MRM other than that I do not accept some of the basic premises. I said nothing at all about feminist an