In my last post, I made a point to not address the truthfulness of the various claims being brought forth. I have never been, and never will defend someone who is found guilty of sexual harassment, much less sodomy, rape or other forms of sexual assault on another human being.
But the Cain accusations has me wondering how a man and woman today are supposed to act around work and at home? And what role has today's media and the feminist movement had in my state of confusion?
Before upsetting many of you, let me be specific about the nature of feminism. As I see it, the women's "lib" movement has been centered on giving women equal rights -- be it at home, at work, in athletics, in school, or in the voting booth. I'm all for treating people equally, regardless of sex (or race for that matter). I was raised to help around the home, was eager to help raise my two sons, and didn't feel like it was my job to be the only one bringing home a paycheck.
I'm also fortunate to have a wife who expects me to be a man about certain things, whether it means cleaning out the gutters, killing the occasional bug or cleaning up after the dog. But it also includes admiring how she looks, smells, dances and makes love . For more than 25 years we've worked successfully on family, marriage and our jobs.
So I don't see myself as someone who has a problem with treating women equally. Where it gets tricky is when the rules are changed to make women something radically different. I'm speaking about behavior that falls into one of the following :
. affirmative action feminist
. equity feminist
. femicommie
. gender feminist
. lesbian
. liberal feminist
. PC feminist
. post-modernist feminist
. radical feminist
. socialist feminist
. victim feminist.
I confess that I have no idea what a gender feminist is, but it's safe to say that I want nothing to do with them. It's also safe to say that much of the confusion men face today has something to do with the constantly changing rules that govern the relationship we have with women -- is she into political correctness, socialism, affirmative action or equality? Can't we just be men and women?
It is especially difficult (and dangerous) around the workplace, given the sometimes harsh realities of hiring practices, differences in management styles, and gender stereotypes. What risks are you taking by asking a co-worker out to lunch, or closing an office door to preserve privacy? Will you get in trouble by staying late at the office with a female co-worker present?
We shouldn't have to worry about passing a good joke around the office without someone being offended. Or discussing a scene from last night's Sex and the City or True Blood over lunch. Or wonder if what we are wearing on a sales call is sending the wrong message. And yet all the employment experts tell you "if in doubt, don't do it."
Are we supposed to keep to ourselves, show no personality, then doubt someone's accolades as unwanted harassment? No wonder everyone is stressed at work. If it's not job worries, it's questioning someone's ulterior motives.
Compounding the problem, and adding a huge dose of hypocrisy to the debate about how men and women relate, is how the media -- magazines, television, internet and songs -- portrays this relationship between men and women. My son, who has started his first year of college, often comments on his apprehension to go to parties, dances and campus activities that involve alcohol, drugs and sex. How much of his reluctance is borne out of confusion over what he sees on television or songs he listens to on his IPOD? If I was in the market to start a new relationship, would I know how to act, what to say or expect?
Take television -- its motto should be have sex, behave badly and embrace alternative lifestyles. One the most popular shows is Two and A Half Men with episodes like "Thanks for the Intercourse" and "Twanging Your Magic Clanger" and "Hookers, Hookers and Hookers." There's the bilge known as reality TV with shows like Sixteen and Pregnant, The Bad Girls Club, Jersey Shore and Wife Swap. Flip the channel to MTV, FX and A&E and you can be entertained all day and night by repeated bad behavior and sexual liaisons that has nothing to do with real world expectations at work or home.
Magazines have banned smoking ads since the early 1970's, but have no problem with something selling sex. In fact, it's common knowledge that "sex sells." Ads depict women as something to be acquired, typically through the allure of breasts, cleavage, legs, butts or midriffs. Selling beer in Sports Illustrated? Better have a couple of young girls in bikinis. Open a page in Cosmopolitan or Glamour magazines and you'll find thin, young and happy women displaying their charms to some clueless, unshaven guy laying in bed. And it goes beyond just giving out the wrong image of women, as many of the articles involve body image and relationships. For example: "Get the Body You Really Want," "How to Get Your Husband to Listen," "Stay Skinny" and "What Men Really Want."
These stereotypes are disturbing given how unrealistic they are. Lying about sex and relationships perpetuates the idea the women are primarily there to satisfy men. In a study of Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines, studies have found the both men and women's magazines contain a single vision of female sexuality -- that women should primarily concern themselves with attracting and sexually satisfying men.
This misinformation is also harmful for two other reasons. 1) young people often turn to media for information about sex and sexuality. In 2003, a study reported that two-thirds of young people turn to media when they want to learn about sex -- the same percentage of kids who ask their mother for information and advice. And 2) romance can often have a darker side. An ad for Fetish perfume implies that women don't really mean 'no' when they say it, that women are only teasing when they resist men's advances. The ad copy reads, "Apply generously to your neck so he can smell the scent as you shake your head 'no'." Does this vulnerability contribute to being a potential victim of violence or sexual harassment as displayed in today's news? Of course it does.
So while the alleged behavior of politicians and athletes/coaches today raises disturbing images (some real), I'm led to ask the proverbial question of which came first -- the chicken or the egg? A look at today's feminist agenda and media's misrepresentation of expected sexual relations doesn't provide an answer.
Before upsetting many of you, let me be specific about the nature of feminism. As I see it, the women's "lib" movement has been centered on giving women equal rights -- be it at home, at work, in athletics, in school, or in the voting booth. I'm all for treating people equally, regardless of sex (or race for that matter). I was raised to help around the home, was eager to help raise my two sons, and didn't feel like it was my job to be the only one bringing home a paycheck.
I'm also fortunate to have a wife who expects me to be a man about certain things, whether it means cleaning out the gutters, killing the occasional bug or cleaning up after the dog. But it also includes admiring how she looks, smells, dances and makes love . For more than 25 years we've worked successfully on family, marriage and our jobs.
So I don't see myself as someone who has a problem with treating women equally. Where it gets tricky is when the rules are changed to make women something radically different. I'm speaking about behavior that falls into one of the following :. affirmative action feminist
. equity feminist
. femicommie
. gender feminist
. lesbian
. liberal feminist
. PC feminist
. post-modernist feminist
. radical feminist
. socialist feminist
. victim feminist.
I confess that I have no idea what a gender feminist is, but it's safe to say that I want nothing to do with them. It's also safe to say that much of the confusion men face today has something to do with the constantly changing rules that govern the relationship we have with women -- is she into political correctness, socialism, affirmative action or equality? Can't we just be men and women?
It is especially difficult (and dangerous) around the workplace, given the sometimes harsh realities of hiring practices, differences in management styles, and gender stereotypes. What risks are you taking by asking a co-worker out to lunch, or closing an office door to preserve privacy? Will you get in trouble by staying late at the office with a female co-worker present?
We shouldn't have to worry about passing a good joke around the office without someone being offended. Or discussing a scene from last night's Sex and the City or True Blood over lunch. Or wonder if what we are wearing on a sales call is sending the wrong message. And yet all the employment experts tell you "if in doubt, don't do it."
Are we supposed to keep to ourselves, show no personality, then doubt someone's accolades as unwanted harassment? No wonder everyone is stressed at work. If it's not job worries, it's questioning someone's ulterior motives.
Magazines have banned smoking ads since the early 1970's, but have no problem with something selling sex. In fact, it's common knowledge that "sex sells." Ads depict women as something to be acquired, typically through the allure of breasts, cleavage, legs, butts or midriffs. Selling beer in Sports Illustrated? Better have a couple of young girls in bikinis. Open a page in Cosmopolitan or Glamour magazines and you'll find thin, young and happy women displaying their charms to some clueless, unshaven guy laying in bed. And it goes beyond just giving out the wrong image of women, as many of the articles involve body image and relationships. For example: "Get the Body You Really Want," "How to Get Your Husband to Listen," "Stay Skinny" and "What Men Really Want."
These stereotypes are disturbing given how unrealistic they are. Lying about sex and relationships perpetuates the idea the women are primarily there to satisfy men. In a study of Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines, studies have found the both men and women's magazines contain a single vision of female sexuality -- that women should primarily concern themselves with attracting and sexually satisfying men.
This misinformation is also harmful for two other reasons. 1) young people often turn to media for information about sex and sexuality. In 2003, a study reported that two-thirds of young people turn to media when they want to learn about sex -- the same percentage of kids who ask their mother for information and advice. And 2) romance can often have a darker side. An ad for Fetish perfume implies that women don't really mean 'no' when they say it, that women are only teasing when they resist men's advances. The ad copy reads, "Apply generously to your neck so he can smell the scent as you shake your head 'no'." Does this vulnerability contribute to being a potential victim of violence or sexual harassment as displayed in today's news? Of course it does.
So while the alleged behavior of politicians and athletes/coaches today raises disturbing images (some real), I'm led to ask the proverbial question of which came first -- the chicken or the egg? A look at today's feminist agenda and media's misrepresentation of expected sexual relations doesn't provide an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment