Kathleen Parker has finally done something that is long overdue.
She is a conservative columnist who has just released a book called “Save the Males”.
In “Save the Males” she pretty much highlights all the relevant points of the Men’s Movement knowing full well that she will be attacked quite relentlessly by her feminist sisters.
What she talks about is nothing new for any Men like ourselves doing our best to spread awareness and change the feminist tide that is so determined to sink us.
But nonetheless she’s a brave woman putting forth the same message because she has the foresight to realize that if traditional Men go down in flames..
Then ultimately so will Women.
I’ve read several articles and interview by her and its interesting to note that one of the key reasons she decided to write this book and join this important crusade is because she has 3 sons and realizes just how hostile our modern culture is towards them.
I feel that the Men’s Movement has hit a pretty important milestone with her book release.
I realize that there are many Men who have championed this cause for years but if Western Women are to truly adjust their attitudes and beliefs then their inspiration will most likely have to come from within.
So here is another serious red flag being hoisted from within their ranks.
Also important is the fact that she’s getting serious press coverage because of it.
Good for her.
Good for us.
Here are some links to follow.
Notice the defensive and hostile tone some feminist reporters have taken with her.
July 27, 2008 at 3:15 am
Please excuse the sceptics GL, but the proof is in the pudding. It didn’t get this way quickly, nor will it reverse course.
July 27, 2008 at 3:19 am
Thank you for the comments and links. This is indeed very important — mainly because it’s a self-described feminist saying these things.
July 27, 2008 at 3:25 am
Hi Jacque
I don’t think my eyes are wide shut on this at all. I know there is way too much momentum behind the denigration of Western Men for it to stop anytime soon.
But I still see this event as a key milestone.
This is a serious voice of dissent within their movement and it’s gaining good press.
Think of how many men and some good women will be able to reference her and her book now to make a point.
Small but significant.. and this is how anything starts.
GL
July 27, 2008 at 3:25 am
Your more then welcome Cody..
July 27, 2008 at 3:53 am
Remember good and well that we are part of this movement. We don’t need to write books or start a popular blog or anything like that, we simply need to make the decisions in our daily lives that will foward what we believe in.
It’s truly entertaining to see how they are trying to spin the news already. I’ve read on MSN somewhere that there is supposed to be a surplus of over 1,000,000 men over women in the US by 2010. What that doesn’t mention is the number of available men. I’m single, but I’m definately not available to any women here. Perhaps I should reply to the article to turn that number down to 999,999.
July 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’m not available either, even though I am alone. I have no interest in American women anymore, so maybe that number should be 999,998. Since my society is rotten from the inside out, the only sane thing for a man to do is vote with his feet and turn his back on these walking hurricanes o’ troubles.
Taras
July 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for the article, rw_man – I really did not know the situation is THAT bad in America…
It seems to be slightly better in Europe
July 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm
It’s much worse in Europe that it is here, and the situation here is akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned to the ground. Spend an hour reading the British press will horrify you Axinia. The situation is every bit as dire as the one the people trapped on the Titanic were in. As if that’s not enough, the consequences of this are going to spill over to other countries the same way sea water overflowed from one compartment to the next over the Titanic’s 16 watertight bulkheads.
Taras
July 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hey,
Count me in… 999,997. -M
July 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Taras,
) I heard that in Scandinavia the feminism has won over a long time ago too… but the Middle and South Europe is a bit different, really.
UK is not really Europe
July 29, 2008 at 11:38 am
And my son makes it 999,996. Sigh.
Kathleen Parker isn’t the first to say these things, though. Christina Hoff Sommers has been writing about the plight of the American male for at least ten years, now. And does she ever get slammed by the feminists. I’ll have to look for the Parker book — I’m slowly building my library on this subject.
You know, if you are the mother of girls, you buy into the feminist propaganda totally (usually). If you are the mother of boys, you suspect that the reverse of the propaganda is more realistic. But if you are the mother of both, as I am, there are no doubts in your mind at all: the education system in the US is *vastly* skewed in favor of girls, and in dire need of a course correction!
July 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’m strictly limited edition and haven’t been available on the market for over 20 years. Since I’m not an American I simply write 999,996(-1)
August 1, 2008 at 5:26 am
Everyone should read this article by the daughter of the famous American feminist Alice Walker. The author of the “The Color Purple.” Her daughter, Rebecca, describes what is like growing up with a priestess of feminism and her views on children and family. It’s quite sad when she rejects her own grandson.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html
August 2, 2008 at 3:31 pm
While Parker’s book may have a good message, she is STILL a feminist; she is STILL the enemy! She isn’t proffering her message out of any concern for us; she’s doing it for selfish reasons, since she’s seen how feminism has hurt her sons, not because of any concern for men-please.
Note also that, when you follow the NRO link for her interview, she NEVER renounces feminism; she only says radical feminism is bad, not feminism itself. That’s like saying that there are good forms of Nazism! There are no good forms of feminism, either. As long as she calls herself a feminist, then she is the enemy-end of story.
August 2, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Hi MarkyMark,
I think your position is polarized to the point of being counterproductive and I believe you are missing a few important aspects here.
The best thing that can happen for Feminism is for real dissent to start from within and it looks like this is happening now on a serious level.
Leaders reward good behavior and punish bad ones. Real Leaders understand the difference between the two no matter what the underlying motivation is.
The other point that’s missing from your argument is something called credibility.
Kathleen Parker has credibility as a previous feminist who has seen the light.
In my mind Feminism in many ways is no different from Alcoholism.
They are both vehicles designed to mask a weak identity and to distract the user from confronting and solving their own internal issues and growing up..
There’s a good reason why people who are recovered alcoholics are the best mentors possible for people who are still active alcoholics. These mentors have simply “been there” and are naturally given deep respect because of it.
To just continually declare someone an enemy is both foolish and unrealistic.
And if you study your history you will see that both the US and the UK aligned themselves with many former Nazi’s after WWII in order to quickly bring stability and reconstruction to West Germany.
And personally I would love to be allied with Kathleen Parker because of her valuable perspective as a woman and a “recovered feminist” that neither you or I could ever have. If I were going into a battle with the feminist horde then she would be the first person that I would have by my side.
GL
August 2, 2008 at 7:18 pm
GL,
We don’t often see things from different points of view, but regarding Parker’s new found awareness that ultra feminism is wrong, it looks strangely like another historical deception, i.e. The Trojan Horse. That too was looked on as a gift until the belly opened up to expose its true intent.
While I believe that a reformed feminist is something we should all look forward to meeting and helping to stay “well” I also know that far too many so called ‘enlightened’ feminists are nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. The very idea that an outspoken feminazi would somehow do a 180 now that her own sons have fallen prey to the poisoning she’s spewed out to hundreds of thousands of women is akin to an alcoholic drinking ‘near-beer’ in public then chugging whiskey in a closet at home.
Feminism is much more a mental illness than an addiction. While it begins with some hype and a bit of bonding between women, it ends up more like clinical depression, drawing in everyone and everything around it like a huge vortex. The similarities between addiction and depression, for example, may seem overwhelming but one is merely an underlying cause while the other is a response. Such as someone who is depressed will often begin to self medicate which leads to addiction.
While Parker may not like the effect her vile past has on her sons, I would not rush to her as an ally just yet. She will need to go much further to denounce her past attitudes and admit to the disastrous results people like her have had on our way of life before I’ll let her inside my camp.
However, I long to be proven wrong as I am with you when it comes to the potential strength the situation offers. Just as you’ve mentioned, a reformed addict can be the very best coach and teacher for those still struggling with the habit.
Richard
August 2, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hi Richard,
I actually think we are still on the same page here. The only issue comes down to Trust.
Would you or I trust this woman on the issue of Feminism?
Personally I would..
And this is why.
I always watch what people do as opposed to what they say.
Kathleen Parker has taken a very dramatic and bold step in releasing “Save the Males”. She knows darn well that she’s going to take incoming fire by doing this and it takes a courageous individual to do it.. let alone someone who once belonged to their ranks.
Like I said in my post.. This woman has guts to be one of the first outspoken critics of feminism from within.
For example during the Cold War.. Imagine what it would be like for a life long communist military or intelligence officer to actually defect to the west because they finally understood the truth of what communism was all about.
Could this persons be a double agent or a plant? Certainly possible..
But.. What secrets do we in the Men’s movement have to keep? I think our agenda is pretty transparent and this automatically eliminates any underlying “double agent” motive.
No I think Kathleen Parker is the real deal for deciding to take a stand and make herself a huge target for the Feminists in the way she has.
Once again.. that takes guts…
And I respect anyone who has that and would certainly choose to surround myself with people like this.
GL
August 7, 2008 at 8:23 am
Kathleen Parker has written up another more detailed article on “Save the Males”.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article4448371.ece
I highly recommend you read it. It has only strengthened my opinion of her and her work.
August 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Quoted from that Times article:
“Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools.”
That this is the case is clear to everyone here – what I do find interesting though is that in literature this is perhaps less the case. Or, I should say, the kind of literature I read.
I tend to read a lot of fantasy – swords and magic, the hero saving the day. I find that both men and women are portrayed very equally. Villains both big and small come in both genders, as do the heroes.
The women are feminine, strong-willed and sure of themselves. The men masculine, wise and leaders. Both equally intelligent and important in their roles and often complimenting each other in pairs, or parallels.
I wonder why there’s such a disparity between these two mediums?
August 28, 2009 at 5:15 am
I don’t think there is too much of a mystery surrounding the disparity between classic literature (or even much of the modern literature) and modern TV and film. One was offered by masters of the written word and the other by any fool with some financial backing and a soap box they wish to shout from.
For hundreds of years fine authors have given their lives to continuously better themselves and their work. For the past 50 years or so, hack writers and money grubbing producers have intentionally chosen quantity over quality, trying to see just how little they can offer and still become millionaires.
Add to that the support of highly liberal thinking media marketers who are trying to prove how far they can push the envelope and you get feminist b.s. showing up in every TV show and movie that comes along.
Funny thing is, that if you were to try producing a movie or show with a woman being made to look like a moron or an idiot, all hell would break loose and there would be discrimination suits filed and boycotts and God knows what all else.
August 7, 2008 at 11:50 am
Very interesting article(s). It’s very strange for me reading articles about these because the marriages in my family seem to work on these principles without there having to be any philosophic/political debate about it first. It is simply the way things are. At least in the British part of my family, the relationships/marriages in my Danish family seem to work somewhat differently.
In many ways I agree with Kathleen Parker, but… I mean, all men are never going to be alike (thank goodness) and I see little use in setting up standards for how “real men” are supposed to be. Who cares if a man is metrosexual if at the same time he is honest, kind, noble, loyal and courageous?
August 8, 2008 at 5:16 am
I’ve noticed the discussion of “men as men” and “women as women” seems to be mulling around what’s kinda’ okay and what’s kinda’ not so good about the way things appear to be now. Well, I feel a bit less confused about the issue.
Men should act like men; they are, after all, men. It is very much ‘okay’ to have a similar standard by which we judge the prowess and validity of men in our society. Denying those guidelines is denying reality.
There really is something to be concerned about regarding how “manly” the modern man is and that is the ‘diminished return’ or ‘calculated decrease’ in a man’s ability to pass along his natural qualities. Boys can not learn to be men from women just as girls can not learn to be women from men. As much as my ego might like to defend the contrary, in truth I will never be able to teach my daughter what it is like to be a woman for the simple reason I have never been, nor will I ever be a woman. I can teach what I would like her to be with regards to relationships and her value in a career or a marriage, but it will never be anything but my best effort at objectivity from a male perspective.
We do not need a planet full of “its”. Men are men and women are women and there is a deep, profound reason for it. For anyone who disagrees, get over it.
The top qualities of the two, the actual strengths of each when combined is what produces the best mature offspring. Steadily diluting both base elements makes each one weaker but building the two together strengthens both elements, as individuals and as a unit. The concepts of marriage and family are not little experiments that can be labeled as some sort of miscue or failure. Countless generations over thousands of years have proven that it was the best way to continue the species and it still is. It is, in fact, the modern lack of traditional values which is the failed experiment.
Nearly everything that has come from feminism is an abject failure on every conceivable level. The family unit has been lost, children can’t identify their own parents without a team roster or game program, business is in a state of world wide decline, North American government has become the laughing stock of the world, the kingpins (sorry, queenpins) of ‘the women’s movement’ are no better off than they were when they burned their bras 35 years ago, and the glorious equalization of the gender based system has only made heart attacks and stress related illness and death better balanced between men and women. And all of this is basically a direct result of the feminist agenda.
“Watering down manhood while trying to make women more masculine is a dangerous and slippery slope. There is very little chance of correcting the imbalance once it has taken place.” That was from an article written somewhere around 1970. It was correct then and the proof is all around us today. The emasculation of man has no positive future. Modern women are more confused than ever before and they run under assumptions that all will be better ‘one day’ when in fact they have lost their ability to be who and what they were designed to be. A woman who is ashamed of her gender needs a great deal of clinical help. Trying to make the rest of the world assume her psychosis won’t change it.
The concept of ‘metro sexual’ goes against God and nature and every other measure known to humanity. It is not a positive stage of development or a natural progression by any means. It is the result of an overt anti-male societal shift which has been forced down the throat of every person who was respectful enough to listen to it, all fostered by a small number of angry, hateful, mentally unstable feminists. If there was a clearer description of this mess I would use it. The women’s movement had no advantage in theory and it has had only minute victories in practice, yet it was all supposedly directed at a better world for everyone. It was selfish and short sighted at best and ultimately a failure for all humankind. And since its inception, there has been nothing worse than the passive acceptance of this end result which leaves us seriously lacking in real men and real women who are intelligent enough and strong enough to be who they were meant to be.
August 15, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Gasp! Kathleen Parker a feminist? Um, okay, if she says so. But, I have been at this a very long time,and ever since I encountered her first article (so long ago I can’t remember when) she was saying men are not being treated fairly, and complaining about nasty women viewing men as crap.
I was not at all surprised when I heard about this book. It is totally consistent with her writings over the years.
October 4, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Bravo Kathleen Parker!
QUOTE; ‘But nonetheless she’s a brave woman putting forth the same message because she has the foresight to realize that if traditional Men go down in flames..
Then ultimately so will Women.’
So true Rw, so true. But why can’t others see this??
October 5, 2008 at 5:02 am
Hi Melina,
I think many western women can’t see this just because of simple denial. They’ve invested their egos and much of their identity into castigating men and its very hard or impossible for them to reverse course and admit otherwise. I’ve seen this in action many times.
November 13, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Richard,
What about how the West has always been about indiviuality yet gender roles in this culture tell everybody very specifically how to be? Gender roles put humans in a box, or how to act. Don’t see the contradiction? A teenage boy hears from friends, “Be yourself! Don’t follow what the crowd does!” and then a few hours later, “Don’t act like a wussy!” from watching television. I am not one of the difference deniers just so you know. I just pointed out the deep hypocracy in what Western standards expect of men and women. And I also see how traditional gender roles benefit humanity and I do not buy the lies that women were oppressed for eons when they were actually spoiled. Plus I see how horrbily hypocritical feminists are (reaching gender equality can only be done through a woman’s POV?). I often wonder if the traditional family is the only way to building civilization (and I am not against traditional families). I just wonder what happened in hominid evolution that made women dependent on men unlike all other females of the animal kingdom. I think it was men who decided to cave in to their women to provide and protect them (e.g. spoiled) largely because of their sex drive. It would be best if humanity continued traditional gender roles I supposed until necessary technology comes about to safely alter the tight limitations of gender, that is if people want individuality or not.
I must also make the point that natural and unnatural cannot exist because everything came from nature, even God.
November 14, 2008 at 10:20 pm
BrownHyena,
Your new post gave me many thoughts. Some in particular about the way the western society has changed over the past several decades and some about how the world in general has moved away from everything we once held true as cornerstones of all humanity. To be sure, I agree with most of what you are saying. Also, I will try to put some more thoughts out there but not to challenge or contradict anything you have said.
I think you are right in referring to the west being about individuality. It has been that way for at least all of my life. I don’t necessarily think that the gender rolls distract from that individuality though. While gender may have many leadings toward certain patterns of behavior, I still see individuality to be a very reluctant follower. I find a great deal of individual diversity so from my perspective there is less of a contradiction.
At a dinner party two weeks ago there were four women. All were in their 30s to 40s, all were attractive, all were of average build, all had careers, all were intelligent and well spoken, all were Christian, all were pleasant and had a great sense of humor. One was born and raised in the US, two in Canada, and one in China. One of the women raised in Canada had parents who immigrated to North America while she was still in the womb. Two were married, one was engaged and the other divorced. One was in retail sales, one was a commercial realtor, one was a legal assistant and the other a housewife and mother who did occasional modeling and acting jobs. All of them had very strong feelings about traditional gender roles and family structure. In my mind these four women were very much individuals, even though their values were almost identical.
Similarly, of the four men at the same dinner party, the ages went from early 30s to mid 50s. One was a musician, one a realtor, one a photographer and one a recording company promotions director. Three were born and raised in North America while the fourth was originally from Italy. Two were married and two were divorced. All were Christians but they don’t all attend the same church. They shared most social and some political ideologies and also views on traditional family structure.
I guess essentially I’m less inclined to think that gender rolls define anyone now days or as you said “put them in a box” or maybe if that is the case, I don’t see it as diminishing one’s ability to still be a free thinking individual. Does that make sense?
For me as the parent of a young daughter, I find the greatest hypocrisy to be the feminist agenda which screams for equality while categorically denying it to all men. My little girl has to see and learn to understand for herself that equal means the same thing in both directions. Her mother is an outspoken feminist who lives entirely under the sham of neediness when it is beneficial to her personal desires. That is beyond simple hypocrisy; it is outright deception for profit. My primary parental goal is to do everything in my power to steer my daughter away from such destructive behavior.
I do agree with you whole heartedly that women were not “oppressed for eons” and further I don’t think that the majority of them were unhappy or unfulfilled with the way things were. I have known all through my life and still know today, many women who are very happy letting their husbands battle traffic jams and office politics so that there will be food on the table and a warm home to live in. In fact I think that the mediocrity which the women’s movement was crying so loudly about was then, and still is today, equally shared by both genders. I propose that men are just as easily bored after 10 or 20 years of marriage and family and yard work and in-law dinners and everything else. It is ridiculous to suggest that in that particular way men and women are so terribly different. The biggest difference I have seen over the years is that men just tolerate it better. Not because they want to or because they are somehow superior, and not because they are emotionally stronger but more likely because they have less expectation for the fairy tale style of happy endings.
Life gets routine. So? We just all need a heavy dose of “growing up” if we think it will ever be any different. When we wake up to the fact that marriage and family life is not an easy undertaking, and we stop trying to fix blame on others for our own weaknesses and short comings, we will all be better able to cope with the downside of it long enough to understand and appreciate the benefits.
As far as the actual molding of people into those traditional gender roles, while us baby boomers were little, boys were given toy trucks and guns while the girls were handed dolls and Easy Bake Ovens. In my opinion, at no time were the parents of that generation overtly trying to force feed any future demographic upon the world, they were merely following the basic instincts and teachings that brought them through their own childhoods. There was no dark conspiracy afoot to keep women under the thumbs of men and likewise no similar plot to keep men from developing into equal partners with their future brides.
I am only a man. I wouldn’t want it any other way and am completely satisfied with God’s choice and plan in that regard. I am also very happy that He saw fit to make women so wonderfully unique and different than us guys. I think that creation has hit it exactly on the nose when it comes to the gentle, smooth lines of a woman’s body, the softness of her skin, the way her hair flows and moves when she walks.
Women are women and acting like it is not a curse or something to be ashamed of. Women should be admired and spoiled and treated with a very different sense of respect than men. Men should also be treated differently than women, but in much the same way. Treat men with the respect a man deserves but never treat him like a woman who is in essentially the same position in life. BUT, all of this based on what they have earned. A man who has built a company up from the ground and devoted his life to it should not have to share that achievement with a woman who was hired by some quota system to fill an executive opening on the same board table. And that goes both ways. What’s more, a woman that chooses the career of wife and mother over the board room should not be demeaned, ridiculed or looked down on by some loud mouthed, self righteous feminist who thinks all married women are abused domestic slaves.
The Steinem/Fonda crowd went to war over their own selfish, deluded, and extremely misguided sense of speaking for all women. Most women in my mother’s social circles laughed out loud at the feminist platform. They saw it for what it truly was; divisive, destructive and dangerous to families everywhere.
The Marxist/socialist addenda which flooded North America in the post war era and more specifically in the 60s and 70s was planned and carried out by people who I don’t think even belong to our cultural base. During the cold war there were countless societal challenges being tossed at the status quo and as always in any free nation, their voices were heard and unfortunately given some sense of credence.
So here we are now and what will our next move be as a society? Hopefully it will be to reverse the current trends before the damage has truly become irreversible.