Boys Against Girls

New at Reason: Cathy Young reviews Dr. Laura's new book.

Comments

[Pavel]

I think she made a great point. However, I'm not sure it has as much to do with the failings of feminism as the simple fact that when it comes to these kinds of social issues, "extreme" opinions get the best press, incite the most reaction and sell the most advertising. Vitriolic "analysis" always rakes in the dough.

Yes, hi, please publish my book about why we should take the middle ground on issues of sex. No? I didn't think so.

[Ron Hardin]

My version is that feminism is nagging made universal. Something is wrong and man has to change to fix it. In its original personal form, it works out. The guy gets his way about half the time, and the woman gets to send him on quests the other half. Every now and then she lets him know she's satisfied with him. Both sides win. The abstract feminist form has no such outcome and none is possible. Feminism marches in place, and that's its only point.

So who misses the outcome? Both sides, but mostly women. Men can still go out for a while with the guys.

All sorts of old fashioned wisdom can hit one or another truth of this.

[David McElroy]

I think that some of you are underestimating Schlessinger's appeal and popularity, even now. Even on those rare times when I agree with her about something, I can't stand the woman, just because she's so mean-spirited. But she has a lot more listeners and supporters than you might realize. Would you care to guess whether there are more people nationally who say they like her or more who call themselves libertarians? I would be very afraid to see the results of such a survey. 🙂

[Warren]

What's the proper role for women in their relationships?

Hmmm... I don't know. How about we let everyone define their own role and work it out amongst themselves? Nahhhh the sheeple need to be told how to behave and we need the money.

[Mark Anderson]

"Somehow, we've even developed the notion that a woman who seeks to meet her husband's needs is subservient (but a husband who fails to meet his wife's needs is a pig)."

Did anyone notice that this does not make any sense? She's comparing apples to oranges: woman who meet their husband's needs vs. men who don't meet their wife's needs. Furthermore, I would say a man would be considered a pig when he fails to meet his wife's reasonable needs, knows it, and brags about it. A woman would be considered subservient when she bends over backwards to meet unreasonable needs at the expense of her own needs. You are right Pavel, this kind of middle of the road talk won't get the headlines.

[Jim Walsh]

The good doctor is down on gender feminism; so am I. Still, it's prudent to remember that your ally is not necessarily your friend.

[fyodor]

Mark Anderson,

Young's implication is that some people consider a woman subservient even for striving to meet a man's reasonable needs, and that these same people might consider a man a pig for not meeting even a woman's most unreasonable needs. Of course, the reasonableness of needs is in the eye of the beholder, so another way to look at this is that these people (we know who they are!) see all women's needs as reasonable and all men's as unreasonable.

Now, whether feminists and such are really so one sided as this may be open to debate. But just because Ms. Young didn't use as many words as I did to make her point doesn't mean that her point wasn't clear or that she was making an unfair comparison as you claim. Another way to explain what is going on is that your parsing of the matter of how to treat one's partner is just what Ms. Young would agree with, but she is claiming that the targets of her j'accuse are not so fair and employ a double standard instead.

Perhaps if Ms. Young reads this she can tell us if my interpretation is correct.

[TWC]

Feminist thought has spawned two generations of female groupthink that dictates that the man takes care of the yard and the cars while sharing the household chores together with the universal given that men live like bears with furniture.

These women tend to canonize homemakers of earlier generations while ignoring and denigrating the contribution to the household represented by the husband's sixty hour work weeks.

Dr L has identified this fraudulent attitude and the disrespect it has spawned, and, she is mostly right--maybe for the wrong reasons (or maybe for only some of the wrong reasons)

The bullshit that passes for modern feminism is a mildly irritating but constant burr in the saddle that permeates every aspect of our lives.

And, the fact that I have to qualify the foregoing by mentioning that perhaps there are more than two things that chicks are good for (and half of them can't cook-G) amply illustrates how poisoned the culture really is.

[dhex]

it only permeates the stuff you let it. if at all.

about as many people truly buy gender feminism (or gender-driven ideologies) as do those who buy geninue equality. which is to say not a whole damn many.

and more than half of them can't cook. 🙂

[joe]

People get to complain about feminism for the same reason they get to complain about Social Security - they didn't have to live in society before it existed.

[Jason Ligon]

People get to complain about Social Security for the same reason they get to complain about standing in line for government toilet paper ...

[Dan]

Hmmm... I don't know. How about we let everyone define their own role and work it out amongst themselves? Nahhhh the sheeple need to be told how to behave and we need the money.

What's with your love affair with the word "sheeple"? You're like the evil love child of Noam Chomsky and Comic Book Guy.

Anyway, the reason for not just defining your own role and telling society to go fuck itself is that, if your view of your "role" differs radically from what other people, your odds of ever getting laid, let alone married, are virtually nil.

When people talk about changing marriage roles, they are referring to nudging a large number of individuals' ideas of those roles in a more helpful direction. They're not saying "ok, you have received your orders; women, you need to put out more, and men, you are to place the toilet seat in the 'down' position on pain of death". They're just offering suggestions about ways that people might be happier living together.

[TWC]

Joe, some of us lived in America before there was modern feminism--but it doesn't matter because we get to complain anyway. Matter of fact I love to complain, good thing I'm an American.

If America before Catherine McKinnon was as depicted in Womyns Studies 101 then Amy Johnson couldn't have existed.

Touch of Gray Regards,

[MALAK]

Even a whack job like Dr. Laura (how many box tops did she have to mail in for that degree, anyway) hits the mark once in a while. You know, like picking stocks with a dart. Every once in a while you get it right, but mostly you're just putting holes in your wall.

[thoreau]

Normally I like Cathy Young's columns. This time I don't. Here's why:

Does anybody really care about what Doctor Laura thinks? Yes, yes, I know, she has her listeners. Hey, even Barry Manilow has his listeners.

For some time now, Cathy Young has tried to take the "culture wars" and point out that, even though on an actual issue one side or another might have an advantage, the "culture warriors" themselves are pretty much a gang of idiots on both sides. (Do they write for Mad Magazine? 🙂

And normally she's taken some interesting targets. But Doctor Laura? Doctor Laura is a couple years away from complete obscurity. Surely Cathy Young could have found a more interesting topic, one that actually has some significance.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Is Young the only one to review Doctor Laura's book?

[dlo]

She might be the only who's read it!

[thoreau]

Actually, it's possible that Cathy Young just read the Cliff Notes 🙂

[Dave Straub]

Well, Dr. Laura's new book *is* #4 on the NYT "hardcover advice" bestseller list:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/books/bestseller/0208besthardadvice.html

That link might require registration.

[dhex]

"if your view of your "role" differs radically from what other people, your odds of ever getting laid, let alone married, are virtually nil."

no offense, but what dusty corner of the universe do you live in?

i'm sure there are enough freakos out there to satisfy each other, given the chance and enough plastic sheeting and liquid latex.

[Nick]

"Did anyone notice that this does not make any sense? She is comparing apples with oranges". Surely it doesn't take much thought to understand the logic of the argument? The point is that a woman who refuses to meet a man's needs is not called a pig, while a man who tries to meet his wife's needs is not called a subservient doormat.

"People get to complain about feminism for the same reason they get to complain about Social Security - they didn't have to live in society before it existed."
What feminism and Social Security have in common is that they are both economically and socially unsustainable, and the cost of paying for them will eventually bankrupt us unless something is done. I would be happy to stop complaining about both these things, provided that the advocates and beneficiaries were forced to pay more of the costs imposed on society.