90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:

Suzanne Venker: Feminism Doesn’t Liberate Women

(Update: To continue the debate, Radio Boston hosted feminist scholar Sally Haslanger.)

Author Suzanne Venker doesn’t think the feminist movement liberated women.

Suzanne Venker (Courtesy)

Suzanne Venker (Courtesy)

In fact, she thinks the movement has sabotaged American women’s happiness. Venker writes “according to a 2007 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, as women have gained more freedom, more education, and more power, they have become less happy.”

The Boston University grad teamed up with her aunt, conservative thinker Phyllis Schlafly, in her new book “The Flipside of Feminism.”


Excerpt: The Flipside Of Feminism
By Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly


When a crowd adopts a point of view en masse, all critical thinking stops.
—William Powers

When it comes to women in America, progress is the operative word. According to the Free Online Dictionary, progress means “steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.” It’s a relative term—how to improve something is entirely subjective. Yet when we talk about women in America, progress is never defined, debated, or qualified. The topic is misleading right out of the gate.

For the past several decades, it has been widely accepted that women in America usually, if not always, get the short end of the stick. According to feminists, women, like blacks, have been oppressed for centuries. We’re told not enough progress has been made and that society still hasn’t leveled the playing field. This philosophy is so embedded in our culture that Americans don’t question it. We don’t even label it “feminist” to think this way; it’s just commonplace to believe women suffer discrimination. Turn on the television, flip through a magazine, or search America’s airwaves, and you’ll be deluged with stories about women who wonder how their needs can best be met, how they can balance their lives better, or how they can deal with the myriad of problems and dangers they face. Women’s grievances dominate the conversation.

The Flipside of Feminism

But grievances are like crabgrass: the more heat they get, the more it spreads. And that is precisely what has happened with modern women. Feminist organizations even promote the growth of grievances by consciousness-raising sessions, where feminists exchange tales of how badly some man treated them and what government’s role should be as compensation. (See the NOW Resolutions on the Equal Rights Amendment in Appendix C.)

In the meantime, buried beneath the surface lies the truth: American women are the most fortunate human beings who have ever lived. No one has it better. No one.
This is a new twist to an old debate, one that elicits shock. It even sounds wrong on a piece of paper or rolling off the tongue. That’s because Americans have been conditioned to believe otherwise. Millions of Americans think progress requires women’s liberation—from men, from children, from society’s constructs, from just about anything that makes women feel morally obligated to someone or something other than themselves.

The saddest part of this misguided view of human nature is that it hasn’t made women any happier. In fact, it has done just the opposite. According to a 2007 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, “As women have gained more freedom, more education, and more power, they have become less happy.”1

The authors of this report, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, suggest that “the salience of the women’s movement fueled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years.”2 That isn’t surprising. Most women in America are a right-of-center bunch and don’t want what women on the left want. The majority of women in this country are traditionalists and don’t want to change America.

Feminists do. They’ve spent decades trying to convince women that America needs to accommodate them so women can be unshackled, free, and presumably happy. It has been an alluring concept. Certainly women like the idea of being free from their responsibilities from time to time; they may like the thought of being liberated from husbands and children occasionally. Who wouldn’t? Marriage and motherhood require a lot of work and sacrifice. But women don’t want to be “free” if being free means being single, dependent on the government, or even being a big-shot powerhouse with no time for family. Most women in America want what any reasonable person wants: a family to love and—yes—even depend on.

The female left wants something else. “As we approach a new century—and a new millennium—it’s the men who have to break through to a new way of thinking about themselves and society,” wrote Betty Friedan in the 2001 edition of her 1963 landmark book, The Feminine Mystique. “Too bad women can’t do it for them, or go much further without them. Because it’s awesome to consider how women have changed the possibili- ties of our lives since we broke through the feminine mystique only two generations ago.”3

Those powerful words helped to shape a generation of American women. Implicit in Friedan’s worldview—the worldview so many Americans have been raised to accept—is the notion that women are oppressed, and that men are the ones who need to change. Friedan believed the odds are severely stacked against women. The only way to eliminate female oppression, she said, is to change men and society—to create a different America, one that’s more fair and just to women.

Those who are tempted to write off Betty Friedan as a has- been shouldn’t. Her words live on in the minds of influential female leftists whose goals are no different from Friedan’s. In November 2009, Maria Shriver, along with the left-wing think
tank Center for American Progress, produced an exhaustive, four-hundred-page document titled The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything. Its fundamental argument is that government policies and laws “continue to rely on an outdated model of the American family.”4

Shriver and company—which includes Oprah Winfrey—seek to remedy this supposed problem by proving we are no longer living in a “man’s world” but are now living in a “woman’s world.” They consider the traditional family a thing of the past, which is fine with them because what feminists really want is a matriarchy. And now they’ve admitted it. The Shriver Report boasted, “As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table.”5

Every couple of years Time and Newsweek ask, “Is Feminism Dead?” It is not dead. While people associate feminism with the 1960s revolution, since that is when feminism began, feminism and feminists didn’t disappear just because they’re no longer marching in the streets. They simply chucked the loud protests and morphed into the fabric of society. The left offered feminists a home, a place where they could comfortably hang out—along with the Barack Obamas of the world—and plot their strategy to “fundamentally transform” America.

Other stories from this show:

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Chris B

    Phyllis Schlafly Doesn’t Liberate Women

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      Neither does feminism. Single moms who thought they needed their kids baby daddies only for insemination end up being dependent on the state which is even worse than being dependent on a husband.

      Liberals love seeing single moms as well as poor black, whites, and hispanics on welfare. Most on government handouts vote a straight democratic ticket.

      Star Parker was right when she said white progressives want to keep blacks on Uncle Sam’s Plantation. What she missed is that they want to keep as many as people as possible there
      regardless of color.

      • Chris B

        You tea bags are such a bore.

        • http://www.facebook.com/james.e.hodges James Hodges

          The people who are the real bore(s) are the liberal/progressives.  They like to posture as though they are the avant-garde of open mindedness.  The reality is that they are the most narrow minded, intolerant an noninclusive people who walk the face of the earth.

  • julie


  • Irina

    As someone more eloquent than I put it, interviewing this woman on the subject of feminism is like inviting a flat-earther to discuss climate change. Interviewing crazy radicals is not the same as presenting both sides of an issue.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      So pointing out the negative results of feminism makes her a radical?
      Liberals seem to think anyone who disagrees with them is a radical!

      Whether it’s regarding the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming,
      the “hey it’s the best we’ve come up with thus far” theory of evolution, or the
      highly chauvinistic dogma of men-hating feminist, anyone who disagrees
      with liberal thought is a radical.

      Your post and others like them prove one thing. The old saying about liberals and free speech is still very valid. Liberals are only for free speech when you happen to agree with them!!!

      Another old saying is that Abortion, Evolution, and Global Warming are the
      holy trinity of the church of secular progressivism. Given the liberal
      squeals Ms. Venker’s interview produced on this thread, it’s obvious that this saying too
      is still very valid.

      • Daniel

        Mark: Why do you assume the contrast that Irina is drawing is between liberals and radicals? Irina doesn’t mention liberals. Do you really think that anyone who draws an analogy between radical anti-feminists and flat-earthers must be a liberal? What does “liberal” mean for you? It is clear from the flat-earther analogy, that Irina’s point is that when you wish to discuss a topic on radio, you should invite people who are actually experts on the relevant topic, where being an expert necessarily involves being more on top of the real evidence for and against claims in the area of expertise than people normally are. Political ideologies don’t, in themselves, provide evidence for or against global warming (for example), so they can’t supply a person with expertise on global warming: only many years of very careful scientific study can do that.

  • Cat

    How old is Suzanne? She’s out of touch. Women of my generation are having kids in their twenties AND having careers. Her ideas are out of date. Better for my mother’s generation, not mine.

  • Kathy

    What a joke. Now she’s spewing out the left wing media nonsense. Why does the media keep giving people like this a platform to spew insanity?

    BTW your grandmother and mother were able to go to college because of feminists. Feminism didn’t start in the 60s, well at least not the 19-60s.

  • Old enough to know

    Aaaahhhh! Suzanne doesn’t realize that when someone of Alice Walker’s generation and before decided to have children, they were then deciding in effect NOT to have a career. In those days, a woman could have one or another. Now that we can have both, it is easy for someone who did not live through that, to forget that there were real, absolute, hard choices to make.

  • E.O.

    As a young woman, I was never under the impression that being a feminist meant you were not allowed to have babies or enjoy traditional feminine roles. Feminism is about being respected as a human being at the same level as a man–and that INCLUDES respecting motherhood and other feminine roles. When my mother was my age, she could not even buy property because banks would not loan to women. You can’t tell me that there hasn’t been progress.

  • Anonymous

    She has constructed a straw woman instead of engaging contemporary feminists.

    • Kathy

      I think that would be a “straw lady.” :)

      • Anonymous

        That was great!

  • Amy

    I don’t mind a good argument, but to say society owes no debt to feminism because someone’s grandmother went to college is not a good argument. What is this, fox news? The radio is off!

    • mnm

      Privileged women have been able to go to college for many generations. Until 30 years ago, men were the vast majority of people enrolled in college. One person’s grandmother going to college was an exception at one time; it is closer to the norm now. It’s not what opportunities are available to the elite, but which are available to all, that denotes progress.

    • Irina

      In another article she cites Fox News and “the internet” as alternative sources of unbiased information!

      Why this woman has a platform from which to spew her ignorance is beyond me. A constructive conversation about the significance and legacy of feminism is a great idea, but inviting a conservative mouthpiece on the show closes off the possibility of real discussion. This is just meaningless sensationalism.

  • Jemimah

    I think it’s interesting that conservatives always use the “different values” argument, but they never elucidate what those differing values are. Can you?

  • TJ

    This is crazy. I’m in college and know plenty of girls who are here to get a degree, leave and start a family. They don’t give a damn what people think!

  • Alex G.

    Excellent show. I would like to talk about how many young women’s ideal of feminism has actually caused a fair amount of poverty. The idea that women “don’t really need men” and the demeaning of motherhood has actually caused a rise in single-parent households led by a mother, who often have little or no income.

    • Anonymous

      Perhaps the problem lies with inequality rather than feminism: you are proving feminism’s point. Women should be able to choose not to marry, and still survive, with or without children.

      • Alex G.

        I agree with you. But perhaps a failure in feminism in the 20th century has been how it has actually increased poverty among mothers, rather than decreased it. Clearly feminism has a lot to work on. Perhaps more needs to be done in the workplace, such as more equal pay, recognizing workplace discrimination against new mothers, and advocating paid maternity leave like all other industrialized countries have besides the US.

        • Anonymous

          Aren’t you concerned about laying the blame on feminism though? How has feminism, for advocating for all of those positive elements of progress you mention, brought about poverty among mothers? It is hardly feminism that has suppressed the Equal Rights Amendment, increased the cost of health care and childcare, stood in the way of family planning, and made discriminatory decisions across society that disadvantage women.

  • mnm

    I really wish this speaker hadn’t been given the opportunity to speak for so long on the radio. She’s ill informed, profoundly biased, and poor at logical argumentation. Her comments refer to vague and abstract ideas, not to specific issues – straw men, left and right. She’s free to live the kind of life she wants; I am too, and my women friends who have put family and motherhood at the center of their lives don’t seem to encounter this backlash she claims exists. I’m an “Everyday American” too, and I think she’s full of one thing: self-promotion – with few ideas of her own to offer.

  • Anonymous

    She doesn’t appear to have statistics to back up any of her claims just anecdotal evidence to match her claims about contemporary society or about history. Based on a sample size of just Venker, perhaps Larry Summers was right.

  • Patty Nolan

    Ms. Venker is right — when you say something often enough it becomes fact, even when it’s wrong. An example is her premise that feminism is responsible for denigrating motherhood and housework. In fact, feminists valued housework and motherhood very highly, more than others. They were the first to suggest that the value of women’s unpaid work should be included in the nation’s calculation of GNP. Feminism has always been about choice — including the choice to be a mother full time if you can. To say it is “fact” that women can’t say that on campus is completely false.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TFIFUQSXTOZHDLB3RAVYFRS2ME NWOslave

      Patty…Shall we calculate mens unpaid work into the GNP, Heating , plumbing, electrical, cleaning the gutters, taking out the trash, auto repair, shoveling snow, masonry, siding, shingles, moving furniture, remodeling, general maintenance, child care, discipline, ect, ect, ect., and of course the cost of a mans mere presence as a security factor. The list goes on endlessly.

      I’m certain this can’t compare to the modern day womans supreme effort of hauling the laundry down to the river with a washboard and bucket, or the horror of slaving over a microwave and pushing the “cook” button, and the immense discomfort of cleaning the outhouse on those cold winter mornings.

  • KH

    feminism destroyed the ability for women to admit wanting marriage and family in college? Age of first marriage keeps increasing, people (men and women) in college typically aren’t thinking about it because it feels far away. It is not out of shame. I wanted to get married when I was in college but when I attended the wedding of a peer at 22 all I could think was, “why so soon?” It just wasn’t on the radar but not because the members of the campus Women’s Forum berated me. Ugghhh…give us a bit more credit to think for ourselves.

    • Jonathan

      Not to mention that thanks to the wonderful economy, getting married and having a family just out of college today is quite an economic challenge. Paying off college loans, day-to-day costs, and then adding in the cost of raising children – it’s very tough.

  • Claudia

    I think just the fact that Ms. Venker is here talking about this subject shows how much women have feminism to thank for…

  • Lauren

    I agree that Venker doesn’t deserve this much air time. As a 30 something woman who married and had children in her 20′s (to my college sweetheart), I can say that women still have choices. I choose to have a fulfilling career, but my kids and husband come first, followed by my extended family. There is no pressure from the “feminist elite” to do anything else. Venker’s stockbroker mother and a college educated grandmother had a lot more choices that my own mother and grandmothers, and certainly sound more elite than most of us “everyday Americans”, whatever that means.

  • Bornin57

    Having been drummed out of an engineering class by a teacher who thought women didn’t belong, and having had a boyfriend who required me to work in the kitchen while he and his male friends played frisbee (because I was the female in the crowd), I am grateful for the decrease in gender-based prejudice, preconceptions, and expectations that limit my choices and self-expression. I attribute the freedom I’ve enjoyed to the feminist movement and resulting social awareness. It is easier for me to be myself because of the partial dismantling of traditional female/male roles.

  • Chris B

    This woman is another refugee from the mythical, non existent Leave-It-To Beaver-Land that the tea bags are trying to crawl “back” into.

  • Anonymous

    I find this discussion leaving out two large issues associated with the Feminist Movement.

    First, the Feminism Movement I lived through in the 1960s and 1970s was far from anti-motherhood. It was anti-misogyny and anti-homophobia. If Ms Vender see the right of women to control their own bodies and to get equal pay and education as anti-motherhood, then she has missed the whole point of feminism. Her co-author was vocally homophobic in her hatred of feminism and gay liberation.

    Second, her examples drawn from her obviously comfortable middle class family of women historically having an easy path to education and professions is class-blind and typical of the Republican Party’s denial that there are class differences in America. Her co-author, whose narrow-viewed tirades were notorious, was rabidly anti-working-class in her Social Darwinist opinions about social inequity.

  • Busterstreats

    This author posits that her family is typical–3 generations of women attending college, and that those who believe feminism allowed them to attend college are erroneous. However, the experiences of her mother and grandmother were atypical. It wasn’t until the 1980s that college became a right for women, not a luxury. And when she indicates that women are not allowed to express a desire for marriage and family in college…well, the fact is neither men or women are allowed to express that desire. If women express that desire it is MEN who ridicule them for pursuing and “MRS” not WOMEN and feminists. Men trivialize that desire, not women. And at the same time, 20 year old men are mocked if they express a desire for family–it is a question of a developmental stage, not feminism. Also, she seems to indicate that women can “have it all,” but the fact is that many studies show women are punished in their professional lives for having families and women are disproportionately responsible for the care of their families and are thus in a no win situation. Do not blame feminism for that–blame society.

  • mnm

    Nice fake laugh.

  • KH

    Another thought…some of this is how women are pitted against each other. I have no doubt some women who express interest in motherhood and family life are guilted. Much like I’ve been guilted for not wanting those things. In fact, I’ve been made to feel like a freak at times. But neither is the feminist movement. I find women are often pitted against each other, critiquing each others choices instead of focusing on supporting each other.

  • Jan Krause

    My problem with this discussion is that it is too much “either/or” instead of “and/both.” I went to Boston College in the late 60s. During all of the time I was a student I (and most of my female classmates) wanted to marry and have children, as well as be allowed to take the courses and majors that were restricted to males. I did marry and have 5 children. I have never viewed the ability to conceive children as oppression. But I do view the fact that I was not entitled to take courses that were open to men, yet paid the same tuition, was oppression. I believe that doing the same work for less pay is oppression. I think the feminist did more good for women, than harm, but there have been some women who were hurt by it. Evaluating the role of feminism has to take an “and/or” perspective.
    When I was raising my children and staying home, and later working as a teacher, one of the most frustrating and ridiculous thing to me was the “battles” between stay at home moms and working moms. If people’s thinking was not so polarized, both sides could have supported each other, rather than criticize each other.
    To me Suzanne is polarizing, especially her non-negotiables.
    Let people be individuals!

  • Lee Scoresby

    “mnm” presents a very good analysis of Ms. Venker. I just have a quick observation. If there was no need for feminism to provide equal rights then why did she describe her grand-mother’s profession as “male dominated”?

    My conclusion? I MUST think of a nutty pretend controversy and write a book about it. It’s a much easier way to fame and fortune than starting a new religion.

  • Jan Krause

    Just read my post and realized I should have re-read before I posted it. Sorry for the grammatical errors – that is what I get for trying to type and wait on the phone line and listen to the show at the same time. Oh well.

  • Dana Franchitto

    IN all fairness, I couldn’t hear the whole interview but isn’t Ms Venker aware of labor history let alone the professional community? Women weren’t bestowed with rights of ciizenship by wise old fathers. they had to fight for the right to collective bargasining ,for a relatively decent wage, for legal protection from harassment. that struggle in many ways continues today. women are still struggling for equality in academia. and elsewhere. But Ms venker’s milk and cookies wholessome fntasy is just what I would expect from someone who uses such trite terms as “babyboomer” and “greatest generation”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      You’re confusing the suffrage movement with the feminist movement. Two completely different animals.

      Liberals own the world of academia. Are you telling us that liberal men within the world of academia don’t support the feminist movement? Most claim to do so.

      As for the use of trite terms, it would be interesting to review a few of your writing samples.

      • Lauren

        The suffrage movement and the feminist movement both hold that the sexes should be equal in terms of basic rights– whether that is the right to vote, or the right to equal pay for equal work. They are not “completely different animals”, and demonstrate the historical nature of this struggle.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

          Ok, but not identical animals either. Can we agree on that? Venker points out the differences in her book.

          Lauren, do you feel the “struggle” continues to this day?

          • Anonymous

            I definitely feel the struggle. Thus the motto “I’ll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy!”

      • Anonymous

        Adding to what Lauren said, the suffrage movement was part of the feminist movement: the ideals are the essential element, and not the title.

  • mnm

    Oppressive systems always tend to pit the oppressed class against one another in order to focus threat away from the system itself. Patriarchy does that to women (and to men). The only way to win is to refuse to play – don’t critique other women’s choices, whether they are career-focused, family-focused, both or neither – simply work to support and maximize the free and honest choices of others and assert your own, for yourself. This author has accepted a place in reinforcing an oppressive system. No one else has to accept such a place by tearing down other women, or men, even if we seek to understand their choices.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      Please send a copy of your last sentence to every feminist on the planet. They need to read it more than any conservative I know.

  • Alec

    Oh, Meghna, I’m embarrassed for you that you gave a platform to such an intellectual lightweight. Her assertions and generalizations about the character of Americans today were completely unsubstantiated. The only objection to feminism that she could articulate, except for the fact that feminists don’t like her, was that feminism casts marriage and motherhood in a negative light. Given that many people who consider themselves feminists are married and/or have children, this assertion is a gross generalization at best. She read what she considered to be the manifesto of 3rd wave feminism, in which I could perceive no denigration of motherhood, yet never explained her objection to it. I don’t mind listening to someone I disagree with, but her reasoning was just lame.

  • Nausetsunrise

    The reason that the caller who got cut off should put grad school before children, if not marriage, is because she will be able to have an easier life with an advanced degree affording her better paying part time work, that is the hallmark of today’s happy motherhood.

    There are MYRIAD reasons not to be “just” a wife and mother. The second title is fleeting. While you are a mother to your adult children, if you’ve done your job, you’re no longer actively mothering anyone. You will need something to do with your time. Keeping an identity…hmmm, much like the author of the book!…helps a woman feel like a whole person.

    Back to the caller: as someone who did this in reverse: had kids and then went to finish college and grad school, I can speak from experience. Unless you have a husband who brings home plenty of income to support both of you, or all three or four or more of your family, then the whole “wife and mother” thing does not work. Instead, you end up in dead-end, support-like positions at work with little flexibility. I had secretarial jobs while my kids were little. While the higher ups left early due to snow, I was there taking their phone messages, for example. While they left to see their kids in school performances, I had to either take a cut in pay that week or miss the performance. So, being the “higher up” helps you be a better mother, hence the master’s degree!

    I agree we cannot possibly “have it all” all at once. Men never had, either. No one can. Thus, if we want to embrace in the home or out of the home roles, we need to take them “one at a time” sort of, or let our careers play second fiddle to our parenting. I use the term parenting versus mothering consciously since my husband does NOT have a career that will support our family. Hence, I work odd part-time jobs (3 of them) at varying schedules and he is also “home” more often than not, so that he is an active, participatory father/parent. He wants to be with our kids and to raise them, not just “pay” for me to raise them. These are value choices we’ve made and I’m not actually complaining though it might sound that way.

    We love the life we’ve made, we both love being parents and spouses, and we’re both all for feminism, too. It’s what has allowed him to explore his care-taking self, rather than “just” be a breadwinner, for example.

  • katydid

    Reproductive decisions naturally loom larger in a woman’s life and the fact that something so basic is being legislated over our heads strikes me as a bigger issue for modern feminists than tearing into each other over the kids v. work issue. For me feminism is the acknowledgment that women and men both must have the right to determine their lives, regardless of their aspirations.

    Also, I think “having it all” isn’t a realistic goal for men or women. Isn’t that why we look for a partner, because we cannot do it all alone? Everything in life is a trade off in some way.

  • Rachel

    I am 27, recently married to my boyfriend of seven years, whom I met in college; I am currently earning a second masters degree, because jobs in my field are limited. We plan to conceive our first child this year. I work part time, and feel content; even though things take time. I think that feminisim allowed for women to plan children, to have more control over when they have children (I do not believe in abortion, but birth control); men too have more control over this, and while children are a blessing, we often wonder if we, even at our age, are ready for children. Many in our generation have longer life expectancies, and while women do have a biological time table, we can now make choices to go drive to school, or travel, and spend time with friends or family and not be beaten by our husbands for it. The protections and rights that allow women to live the lives they do today made me feel like I can compete with men, actively engage my mind, and still have time for children. The real issue is money to raise children, and not all men are great family providers by themselves. Women have always, for the most part, needed to work (except those that can afford to go to Brown). The evolution of male attitudes towards women has also been positive; I am currently a receptionist, and I have never experienced sexual harrassment in the workforce; people see that I have a professional attitude, and they respect me. This would not be the case even in the 1970′s. I want people to see me and my ideas, not my “breasts”, and I feel that feminism is not a rejection of womanhood, but a compliment to it. I still love the color pink, flowers, and I want kids. I would say, while I do not think women should prioritize marriage and children over career, neither should they do the opposite; we need to work on balance and fitting the pieces together in the time we have on this earth.

  • mes

    I found that entire conversation to be ridiculous and ill-informed. Venker has a very priviledged, white, heternormative gaze and I doubt could ever see outside of her box.

  • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ Dave

    Listening to Susan Venker, all I could think was Duh!, what do you expect when you hang around with Conservative men? Who is the poster boy for Conservative men? Newt Gingrich. A man who cheated on and divorced his first wife while she was in a hospital bed. Cheated on and then divorced his second wife when she wouldn’t tolerate him having a mistress. This is what Conservatism has to offer women? Second-class status? Being dumped and dumped on by Conservative men?

    And what about gay women? What about women who want a family without a husband? Why do Conservatives say they can’t marry someone they love?

    And I must say, it is pretty easy to do what you want without a career if you are independently wealthy. Conservatives are doing their damnedest to make sure no one in the middle class can creep up, or even stay where they are.

    The reason most woman work is because they have to. There are no single earner middle class jobs that can support a family any more. Want your kids to have the opportunity to go to college? Both parents have to work their child’s entire life to be able to afford it.

    Why is that? It is because Conservatives have cut social services, increased social security taxes and cut taxes on the wealthy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      I can tell you haven’t picked up the book yet Dave. Venker points out that both husband and wife don’t have to work. Particularly in the early years of a marriage a couple can get by on less. If you want a flat screen tv in every room, European vacations and the opportunity to eat out every night, then yes both partners will have to work. Not because they have to, but because they choose to do so.

      Please elaborate on exactly how conservatives are holding back the middle class. I don’t know that many middle class people who receive social services. The wealthy pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country already. The bottom third pays Zero. When Bush 43 cut taxes for the wealthy and the middle class, liberals screamed that he had only cut taxes for the rich. When his tax cuts were about to expire, suddenly, democrats began suggesting leaving the tax cuts for the middle class in place. My thought was, “what middle class tax cuts?” Liberals always said Bush’s tax only cut taxes for the wealthy.

      Why is the liberal solution always raising the taxes on the wealthy as opposed to cutting spending on unnecessary programs. Is anyone really going to miss the Cowboy Poet Festival in Harry Reid’s home state?

      BTW, many people who earn under 250,000 per year will end up having to pay the Cadillac insurance tax. Not to worry though if you’re a union member. In the true liberal way, most of the unions have already received wavers.

      • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ Dave

        Please, the notion that low wage workers pay zero taxes is nonsense.

        6.2% FUTA (employer)
        6.2% FICA (employer)
        1.45% Medicare (employer)

        4.2% FICA (employee) (reduced from 6.2% this year)
        1.45% Medicare (employee)

        That is 19.5% Federal tax that every wage earner has to pay, until their income becomes so large that the limits kick in, in which case they pay a lesser percentage.

        Maybe to you 20% of $10/hr seems like “zero”. Try living on $10/hr for a year, then tell us if $2/hr still feels like “zero”.

      • Lauren

        As I mentioned earlier, the idea that families with two working parents do so in order to live a luxurious lifestyle is simply not true. I have never been to Europe, budget 120. a week for groceries for my family, and still have to work. Most families with two parents that work do so in order to get by. It just doesn’t make sense to try to attack them, because so many families know the truth– they live it.

  • Proud conservative

    Go Suzanne! You have given smart people a voice! I think most of these comments are from an ill-informed and ignorant place. It is so sad to me that they just don’t get it. For example the comment below :”There are no single earner middle class jobs that can support a family anymore.” Oh, really?!?! Ask ME how! I do it.

    If you say that the ‘average middle class’ family has 3 tvs, 2 cars, ipod(s), cell phone(s), cable tv, 1500-2000 square foot homes, THE LIST GOES ON….tell me where your priorities are?! Give up some of that so one parent can actually stay home and raise their own kids instead of someone else. (ie, day care workers). That’s just an excuse for todays generation of 20-30 somethings that want everything. If it includes leaving your kid with someone else for uip to 40 hours a week, then have at it.

    • Average MA Mom

      There are smart people across the political spectrum, they don’t all have the same views.

      I WOULD like to know how you do it– raise a family on a single, middle class income (which is about 54k annually). Do you live in the Radio Boston area? If so, where, because if you can afford to live in a area with decent schools in the radius of Boston on a midrange income, I’d like to move next door.

      My husband and I have never been able to do it. We needed two incomes to afford rent, never mind own a home, and believe me, our second-floor of a two family, very modest rentals were nothing to brag about. We lived there for over ten years so that I could work part time and we could take shifts in taking care of our kids. It took us 12 years of saving to buy a house, three bedrooms, 1.5 baths. We have one TV.

      The bottom line is don’t attack moms who have to work, and I do mean HAVE to. It’s not just for luxuries and glamourous lifestyles, it’s to get by. If you don’t believe me, check the data, or please, share your secret.

  • jluber-narod

    I have 2 comments: 1) your guest should try being a female scientist if she thinks we are on an equal plain with men now and 2) Your guest may come from an affluent family where her grandmother got a college education (I am sure, not equivalent to a male of the time, but a degree none-the-less). However, in my family, I discovered that in my parent’s will, only my brother was to get to go to college, as a girl “didn’t need to go to college”–and they helped pay for my brother’s education, while I am still paying for mine—and I had the grades, not my brother. Such was common prior to the Feminist movement and so, your guest may not “ride on the backs of Feminists” but most of the women in college now surely do.

  • Jlubernarod

    And I will add yet one more comment–if your guest wants a second child, try ADOPTION–especially since she is against abortion and family planning, she ought to help a poor child born because of her stand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

      Her book mentions “sequencing” life’s events as a suggested method of family planning. Family Planning Centers are just a euphemism for abortion clinics in the United States. At least have the courage to call them what they are – Baby Killing Clinics! “Reproductive rights” is yet another ludicrous term liberals use. The liberal view that anyone against abortion should be adopting children is a ridiculous suggestion. Why don’t those of you who feel cheap one-time hook-ups empower women adopt the unwanted babies?

      • Anonymous

        Family Planning is about options (sometimes including abortion, sometimes giving a child up for adoption) and education (about the choices, about birth control, about abstinence even). Would you deprive young women of that information.

        What do you find so strange about advocating that those who oppose abortion adopt? If abortion were more widely legal, available, and affordable, there would be fewer orphans and foster children. The right’s anti-choice stance is responsible for that tragedy, so they should take responsibility.

        Not all pregnancies result from “one-time hook-ups,” and it’s insulting to the women who must make such painful choices about their bodies for you to suggest so.

  • Suzannevenker

    One correction for the naysayers and one statement I failed to make today:

    1) My mother, aunt, and grandmother did not have wealthy, privileged backgrounds. Far from it.

    2) When one does a lot of radio interviews, it’s easy to miss an important point or two. Modern women don’t owe feminism for their liberation because it is men, ironically, who liberated women — via technology. Laborsaving devices such as the washing machine, along with the textile industry (that saved women from having to make all their clothes) and the birth control pill — which was approved by the FDA in 1960 BEFORE the feminist movement — are what “freed” women to pursue interests outside the home.

    • Lauren

      Pell Grants began in 1974. If your mother and grandmother were able to pay for college without significant financial aid in the 1920′s and 1950′s, that would be wealthy (and privileged) by most people’s standards. Just a suggestion that your views may be more “elite” than the academics and journalists you critique.

      • Suzannevenker

        Wrong again. Grew up in the Depression — three generations under one roof, in an apartment. No car — couldn’t afford one.

        The women in my family did it the old-fashioned American way: they WORKED their way through college by taking full-time jobs. I know — strange concept for us modern privileged folks. Plus they had plenty of leftover time what with not getting drunk and hooking up all the time.

        • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ Dave

          How did you pay for college?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Gillar/1204195673 Mark Gillar

            What’s the point here Dave, that anyone who didn’t receive a Pell Grant or take out student loans must come from a privileged family? My parents who were not wealthy, paid half of my college expenses. I paid the other half of the bill by working various retail jobs while in school.
            It can be done.

          • Chris B

            Liberty University?

        • Lauren

          Most of our mothers and grandmothers worked after high school, or left high school early because their families needed their income, or work within the household. Working with only one obligation– to take care of oneself, even if that was for the very noble goal of higher education– was a privilege that most American women did not have. It was not about a lack of “hard work” or “merit” or because they were “drinking and hooking up”. I have nothing but respect for earlier generations of women who were able to attend college, but do think you need to recognize within your argument that this was a fortunate exception, rather than the rule that makes equal rights unnecessary.

  • Meghna Chakrabarti

    Thank you everyone for your comments. Do keep them coming. This is a very vibrant discussion that deserves to keep going.

    I’m certain we have a variety of guests on every week that at least some listeners think we shouldn’t have featured. If they are interesting and provocative, that is and should be the case. There are many, many people who will read Suzanne Venker’s book. To know what her argument is, to hear her perspective, gives listeners (whether they agree with it or not) a window into vein of thinking. Just as they do when we feature guests from Amnesty International, or Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

    There’s also always more critical analysis to be done on every segment. I never get in everything I want to on air. I appreciate the fact that you’re listening closely enough to hear where those gaps are, and to raise the issues here. Just know that if I put on the air everything I’d prepared, Radio Boston would be 17 hours long every day. I know I’d love that… but you? Maybe not so much!

    • Irina

      Thank you for your reply, Meghna. There is just one point I would like to make and it’s in response to the following:

      “I’m certain we have a variety of guests on every week that at least some listeners think we shouldn’t have featured. If they are interesting and provocative, that is and should be the case.”

      You’re right that features on provocative people will, almost by definition, receive more critical feedback. But I assume that what you want to provoke is discussion of the issues, not discussion of your mode of presentation. The reason that many people, myself included, wrote critical feedback of the show (not the topic) is not because we wanted you to be silent on the subject of feminism or even about Suzanne Venker (or the controversy that Boston University’s newspaper suffered upon publishing an interview with her on International Women’s Day). There are many ways to discuss radical viewpoints, but making clear that they’re radical and, where appropriate, offensive is critical. Venker’s book may have a wide audience, and that is itself an interesting subject for discussion: what draws people to this fundamentalist worldview? But her potential impact on potential future readers does NOT make her an authority on the subject, even a controversial authority. And her (frankly offensive and uninformed) opinions should not be presented as “just one side of the story” because that gives a false impression of the landscape of the debate.

      This is why giving someone like Susanne a pulpit discourages real debate. If you want to talk about feminism, invite a working feminist (there are many professional feminist philosophers who would love the chance to talk about feminist theory and history!). But if you want to talk about Susanne Venker, invite a sociologist.

      Thank you for reading this and for coming to the forums to defend your choices.


      • Sees62

        You are making Ms. Venker’s feminism-as-mind-control case for her. Let me name the ways you have tried to deny an anti-feminist an opportunity to enjoy the same rights to free speech that feminists insist on. You use “offensive”, “uninformed”, “radical”, “fundamentalist”, non-working feminist, non-authoritative authority. Feminists who slander or silence anti-feminists have no right to expect to be respected as democrats in nations in which free speech is Constitutionally protected.

        • Irina

          Hi Guest,
          I would love to address your points about constitutional law, but I’ve just received a telepathic transmission from Feminist High Command telling me to disengage. I wish I had the option to disobey, but I do not.

          • Sees62

            Hi Irina,

            Thankfully, you don’t need to address my points about constitutional law. While ugly feminist slander is still epidemic in the media, and in Hollywood, feminist-inspired speech codes are collapsing under the crushing weight of the Constitution in colleges all across the nation. That said, I cannot but be impressed by the incredible power your Feminist High Commanders have over you. You’ve been doing em proud. Too bad, I don’t have a Masculinist High Command (or whatever) to tell me how to think, and when to engage or disengage. Life would be so much easier.


      • Meghna Chakrabarti


        Thank you for your considered and thoughtful feedback. I hope I didn’t sound defensive in my earlier comment; I certainly don’t feel defensive.

        In our preparation for the segment, the Radio Boston staff had extensive discussions on whether or not to feature another voice. We ultimately decided not to – but not because we had any intention on stifling debate. Not at all. The allotted time, the format of the segment and, most importantly, the fact that we wanted to include as many possible callers were drivers in our decision not to have another voice yesterday.

        When it comes to having an actual debate, I don’t think we failed, as is evidenced by the vigorous discussion going on here.

        However, I do take your point about representing the full landscape of the conversation surrounding feminism today. It’s a complex landscape not easily explored in one 20-minute segment. We will return to the subject again in the near future.

        Thanks again for being such a thoughtful participant in the totality of what Radio Boston is trying to achieve – both on the air and online.

        • Irina


          Thank you for your reply! It’s nice to know that you’re willing to incorporate input from your audience. (For what it’s worth, by the way, I _did_ think your original reply was a little bit defensive, but understandably so — you had some harsh criticism to contend with. :) )

          Anyway, I don’t want to waste anybody’s time by detailing my views on journalistic objectivity or on what makes for a productive conversation (versus sensationalist opinion-slinging), since I think you and your team were making your decisions in good faith.

          Instead, may I recommend that for your follow-up segment on the subject of feminism, that you invite one of the local philosophers who teach about feminism? I could give you many names, but you might just contact Sally Haslanger at MIT, as I suspect she would be happy to either speak with you or recommend someone else.

          Thanks again for listening!

    • guest

      Thanks for being brave in feminism’s Brave New World. In that spirit, please consider featuring some independent male perspectives on feminism since we tend to suffer the most from false feminist scapegoating. In addition, please go beyond the tired old cliche of a bipolar world. Independents are the majority ‘party’ today. There are a least three sides to every debate. In this particular debate, there are so many sides that one can lose track. We have feminist, anti-feminist, counter-feminist, and non- feminist, in addition to Gamers, anti-misandrists, masculists, Men’s Righters, anti-masculists on the male side. Giving everyone an opportunity to join this party is likely to create far more vibrant discussions…than even this feminist(?)-anti-feminist discussion provided.

      • Meghna Chakrabarti

        Hello there,

        I did try to raise the multi-faceted nature of this issue in the on-air discussion, both in questions I asked of Suzanne Venker, and in reading the comment from one male listener. I understand that those efforts may not seem satisfactory, so I’m glad the conversation continues here.

        • Sees62

          Meghna, you did indeed raise many core issues that deserved to be addressed. I was particularly impressed that you dealt repeatedly with the ever so slippery topic of ‘what feminism is’. By refusing to define feminism thoughtfully, feminists are able to shape shift endlessly with no adult accountability for the effects of the philosophy. I was very pleased to see how thoroughly you, your guest, and your call in guests worked to nail down what feminism is. Thank you.

          As for truly multifaceted coverage of feminism, I tend to be very suspicious of mainstream media ‘treatments’ of feminism because knowledgeable male (and female) voices are so rarely included in the discussion. In addition, I rarely hear from powerful LIBERAL feminists who have made many of the same arguments about feminist mind-control that Ms. Venker did here. I will believe that reporters like you are being truly open-minded as soon as I hear from those experts who have thoroughly debunked 2nd and 3rd wave feminisms. I will also believe you are being ‘straight’ (pun intended) as soon as I hear from scholars who study how males have suffered from feminist scapegoating, from feminist-inspired misandry, and from the feminist politics of entitlement.

          Your work here was refreshing. Irina’s Feminist High Command obviously wasn’t able to completely censor YOU or your guests. That was a very pleasant surprise…one which I hope to enjoy in future broadcasts from you.

          I didn’t mean to diss your work here. I do hope you will be far more inclusive next time though. Right now, GENUINE (that is LIBERAL in the true sense of the word) discussions of feminism (including the good, the bad, and the ugly) are very rare in progressive propaganda organs like NPR or CNBC.

        • Sees62
  • J.O.

    It’s obvious that the author is stuck in the past, sort of like many of those folks who are always fighting the ‘last wars’. Really! People in college can’t talk about marriage

    And by the way Susan, despite your claim, the US is not the only country where women have rights. And they certainly are not the most fortunate on earth, like you pretend. Unless you never heard of Western Europe and Canada. Never heard of the problems facing women workers in this country when they become pregnant? The few who are lucky enough to get maternity leaves only get six weeks. And this is just an example.

    If you’ve only been to the US and never set foot in any other develop country, I can see why you can be so narrow minded about how good women have it in this country. I’m sure that compared to other Third World countries we’re doing a far better job, mainly because of the work of those same feminists that you like to despise.

    Before putting out a book and throwing statements like “No one” has it better than American women, expand your horizon, do a little research. I’m sure that you and your readers would be better served with a minimum of world knowledge.

    • J.O.

      Correction: Suzanne
      I was such in a hurry to reply that I barely had time to form coherent sentences. I never read the book, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone simply because of some of the logical fallacies displaying by one of the co-authors during the show.
      My main problem is the fact that Ms. Venker refused to give credit to a movement that is so pivotal to our modern lives.
      And we shouldn’t be surprised, since we now have people like Ron Paul in Congress questioning some of the tenets of the Civil Rights movement.

      It is sad that what used to pass for extremism only a few years ago are now becoming mainstream.

  • J.O.

    By the way Susan, the reason why people are shocked when women in college start talking about marriage has nothing to do with negative views about child rearing and family.


    See, a simple common sense is enough to refute some of your claims.

    • Bobby Orr

      Dear J.O. until you actually read the book your words mean nothing.

    • Abric772008

      What a shock! A woman wanting to have children when she is young! I can tell you as a dad that nothing is or has ever been more important in MY life than my four daughters and granddaughter. Feminism is typified by anger and contempt for classy family women such as Sarah Palin. She alone gives the lie to the idea that marriage and children are a “burden”. Bob in Scranton

      • Lauren

        Hi Bob, I had my children in my 20′s, I’m still married to the same (wonderful) man, and I consider myself a feminist. Most of my “feminist” friends thought that I was incredibly lucky, and I was not criticized or looked down on. Things aren’t as polarized as you may think. Dads and moms everyone think their children are the most important thing in life. That doesn’t take away the need to work to support them, and to expect equal pay for equal work. We aren’t all that different, in spite of the political labels.

    • http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/ Dave

      During her talk, she made a “holier than thou” big deal out of her parents being 10 years older than the parents of her peers. She said her parents were older, more mature and better able to be good parents because they were older and more mature. Now she is making a big deal out of women in college wanting to do things before they have children, just like her parents did.

      Why can’t she make up her mind? Is delaying having children the way her Conservative parents did a good thing? Or is delaying having children a bad thing when Liberal college students do it?

      My sense is that her value judgment depends on who it doing the action. If a Conservative wants to do it it must be a good thing, if a Liberal wants to do it it must be a bad thing, and if a gay person wants to do it it must be an unmitigated evil thing.

  • Jan Krause

    I think certain comments in this debate have taken on a tone of “I’m right and you are wrong.” I feel that most of Suzanne’s responses have this tone, but so do some others on both sides. I bring this up because I feel this is the problem with so many discussions in recent years. It seems that polarized dialectical thinking has replaced substantive debate. If the goal is to convince the other person that they are wrong (not to mention being smug in doing so), then the real value of such discussions – which is understanding another person’s perspective – is lost.
    The question for me is not whether the entirety of the feminist movement has been either good or bad for all women. It is, rather, what aspects have been good for most women and in what ways has the movement either created situations or been mis-used in ways that have been harmful to some women. More importantly, where do we go from here?
    How do we keep the gains that women have made in so many facets of their lives, while still allowing each woman to make the very personal choice about when and if to marry, and when and if to have children. To suggest that one size fits all, or one sequence fits all does not take into account the immense diversity of experience and opportunity of the women in the U.S., not to mention the world.
    I do not believe that feminism attempts to limit this choice.

  • Kass

    I was excited about the topic, but disappointed by the one-dimensionality of the speaker. I hope Radio Boston will explore the subject in more depth. Suzanne’s assertion that feminism has changed how women think about themselves is an interesting idea to explore. I personally feel like feminism gives me more choice. Choice in profession, choice in lifestyle, choice in what qualities of femininity I choose to embrace, or not to.

    I also still feel like feminism has a long way to go. I look forward to a time when our politicians reflect the demographic of the people and when the statistics of rape and violence against women shrink to a point where I am not afraid of becoming one.

  • Genevieve

    Dear Ms. Venker,

    I found your argument against feminism so thoroughly uninformed and one-dimensional. One caller said that feminism wasn’t one movement, it was the accumulation of generations of women fighting for equality, and she was so very right. Feminism is nothing more than the belief that men and women are equal…not the same, but equal. Therefore, if you are against feminism, you are against the belief that women are equal to men.

    For you to suggest that women for decades have been brainwashed because of staunch feminist ideology is ignorant. The Betty Friedans and Gloria Steinems didn’t brainwash anyone; they gave voice to what millions of woman across America and around the world had been experiencing and feeling for Millennia. And your insisting that women are embarrassed to discuss their desire to marry and have children while they are attending university is nothing more than condescending and leaves me to belief that your education somehow failed you. Women had nothing BUT marriage and children to talk about from the dawn of civilization. Did it ever occur to you that maybe women would rather talk about politics, engineering, art, history, math, business…you name it and explore their budding womanhood without focusing on the weight of responsibility that comes with children and marriage?

    I am a 41 year old woman who has had a vibrant personal and professional life. I have traveled the world and followed my dreams. I am also one of those women who hasn’t been able to conceive because she chose to establish a professional life and pursue her passions. And if I never experience pregnancy, birth or motherhood – while it will be a heartbreak – I wouldn’t trade my experiences in for anything. That’s not feminism speaking, that’s maturity and a little bit of grace.

    I think if you’d been surrounded by non-bigoted people growing up (yes, I’m talking about your aunt), you might feel differently about a movement that has saved women’s lives…literally; opened doors; empowered us; given us courage and confidence; and yes, the opportunity to publish a book that’s about more than baking or homemaking.

    I wish you well…sort of.


  • Jan Krause


    I don’t agree with everything Marianne Willamson says here, but I think she makes some interesting points that are very relevant to this discussion.

  • Sunnymc22

    “I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me.” -Mother Teresa
    Ms. Venker, the essence of this quote is to be “for” something rather than “against”. I have learned
    that people are much more open when I am not righteous or judgmental….maybe you should try that too. I hear insecurity in your defensiveness, and an inner struggle in your “shadow” laugh (Debbie Ford). We are all just trying to find our way….I happened to be born to an activist/feminist, you were born to a conservative..if switched at birth we’d have different beliefs. My advice to you….don’t take all of this so seriously, lighten up, have a sense of humor, have respect for other opinions, then maybe more people would have respect for yours….the way to change is finding common ground.

  • Themenstruator

    What’s funny is 90% of females do seem brainwashed, but by the media and male oppressors, not other women. The only thing that would make women happy is if we could live without males all together. They are the crime makers and rapists and war mongers.
    Seems to me suzanne and phyllis are gender turncoats. Hope they make a nice sunday dinner tonight and enjoy their date rapist husbands. Being with men is so 1950s. Who cares.
    Feminists aren’t happy because they know NOTHING has changed since caveman days. Plus, who wants equality with men? Males are all piles of dog crap, no woman is equal to that. Women are far more superior.

    • Mjay

      “Males are all piles of dog crap, no woman is equal to that. Women are far more superior. ”

      Thanks for your feminist post, Sister!

      • Anonymous

        Well, Mjay, lesbianism is an option, if you haven’t already gone there. But be careful what you wish for. There is FOUR TIMES the abuse and forced sexual activity (rape) in lesbian relationships. That’s female vs. female violence, so you can’t blame it on men.

    • Anonymous

      It’s obvious that FEMINISTS don’t want equality. They’d have to give up too much.

    • Tux_penguin7

      Lol this is a joke right?

      got brainwashed into thinking that either all or generaly men are rape, crime, and warmongers. To bad feminism is a form of political and gender war. Rape, women have done this as well like you ever heard of it must be all that brainwashing, as for crime well if all the false accusations of rape, sexual harrassment, and DV where criminal by law, there would be a larger female prison population then there are male.

      In the 1950s children could go outside and play, they didn’t always need parent supervision. Feminist created there own criminals wether it was from fatherless families or self fulfilling prophecies

  • Jennifer Gilman

    Heard the show Friday…Phylis Schlafly co- author? Isn’t she the woman who worked so hard against the equal rights amendment in the 70′s? We now make a whopping .74 to each man’s $1.
    Feminism has helped men become better fathers and has helped them considerably in being able to choose who they want to be.

    • Anonymous

      That canard about women earning 74 cents to a man’s dollar has been soundly debunked by no less an authority than the U.S. Dep’t of Labor. Read Dr. Warren Farrell’s masterful book, “Why Men Earn More, and what women can do about it.” It’s all about ‘CHOICES”.

      • Tux_penguin7

        How did feminism help men become better fathers? When women divorce them, and leave them with nothing. Yep men are really good fathers to their children two states over.

  • Mary Robb

    What’s truly sad about this is that the valid points that Ms. Venker makes are overwhelmed by her (and Ms. Schlafly’s) “either/or” thinking. Her non-negotiables and claims that feminism is the WORST thing to happen to women over simplifies a very complex issue. Sadly, this type of thinking permeates our nation on too many issues. It’s very easy to draw lines and say, you’re either with us or against us. In doing so, one doesn’t need to do the very hard work of looking at an issue from multiple perspectives. Ms. Venker, who clearly feels passionately about feminism, seems intelligent enough to do so, yet she does not. Her main goal seems to be to tear down feminism rather than acknowledging that it has had both positive and negative repercussions for women and men.

    • Tux_redhat

      The question I have to ask you is, what of feminism is positive for men? The way the laws are set in most countries any public, work place or otherwise is filled with politicaly correct landminds. Secondly ,All i have to do as a man is look in the wrong direction and I could be convicted and sentenced as a sex offender.(just search google you’ll find some intresting stuff that our feminist news channels will not report) I generaly believe there with be more unhappiness for women in the coming future because quite francly I, most of my friends and the people I meet have come to be completely indifferent and ignorant of women.

      Feminism has chased men away leaving women alone, 18 to 40, not married and without children. Yep “feminism wasn’t for the benefit of men, it wasn’t even for the benefit of women”

  • MaryM

    Feminism allowed women to quote Louisa May Alcott to “take fate by the throat and shake a living out of it. She would have us go back to a time when a woman was solely dependent on the earning power and practicality, or lack thereof , of her husband, or on the kindness of strangers or more well off relations. It appears that Ms. Venker had little enough experience of this if she attended BU, one of the most expensive schools in the country. Either she graduated with a great deal of debt or her parents were able to pay the bills. To paraphrase Alcott again, ‘marriage is not the only aim of a woman’s life.

  • Amanda

    As a 26 year old woman, I have to disagree with Ms. Venker’s generalization that women feel they have to shy away from having (or talking about) a husband and children. I, too, grew up in the Midwest before moving to Boston. The two regions of the country are still very different. My female classmates from high school were much more interested in the idea of marriage and children than in careers. Although my female classmates at my (Midwestern) college were generally more interested in the possibility of a career, they often considered it a second priority to having a family. These women were clearly not “brainwashed” by left-wing media. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their choices and goals. However, there is also nothing wrong with my choices, of education and career first, and possibly no children in the future. This is what past generations of “feminist” women have given mine: choice.

    It is also well worth noting the impact the feminist movement has had on men. It seems that it has also “liberated” them. They now have many more choices as well in regard to career and family.

    • Suzanne Venker


      Just to be clear: I never stated that there is anything wrong with women making the choice of pursuing an education and career first — or even having a career in general. That was my life plan as well. I also never stated that there is anything wrong with not having children. The reality, however, is that the vast majority of women do want and do have children so it is more prudent as a society to help steer young women in the direction they want to go in life — one that makes sense and allows them to truly have it all. That is what Flipside is about.

      The feminist movement did not liberate men whatsoever — quite the opposite, actually. But that is too big an issue to respond to here. It’s all in Flipside; I hope you take the time to read it. Women your age are my target audience.

      Hope you’re enjoying Boston — it’s a great city. Even if it is liberal :)

      Suzanne Venker

    • Frank

      Oh, Amanda, I wish I could agree with you about feminism liberating men, but from my experience and the experience of virtually every man and boy I know we are actually now in a totally impossible position for any human being. I don’t know that I want to blame feminism, but I do want you and WB UR and the other readers here to face facts.

      We boys and men are still raised by our parents to be tough and suck it up and man up. Our girlfriends and wives actually use those phrases with us too. When it is convenient for them we are supposed to understand their feelings and listen. But God help the man who expresses emotion to a wife or girlfriend or sister or even a daughter — we can just feel the respect draining away. We are expected to share women’s joy at their career choices and freedom and most of us do (they are our wives and girlfriends and sisters and daughters for heaven’s sake!), but in our own lives we are required to compete with women for the same, and diminishing, set of jobs men were always allowed to have. Nurturing jobs for men? Forget about it. The women who make the decisions on school boards and school administrations and day care centers don’t want to hire men for some reason. And many mothers feel uncomfortable having men as teachers and day care providers. Just look at the New York Times correspondent who freely acknowledged the best woman for the job of being nanny to her two daughters was a young man, but wouldn’t hire him because of his gender. Women just flat refuse to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is a man.

      Look at the statistics just released by the White House Council on Women and Girls: 1 in 5 unemployed in America today is a man. That’s 20%. That’s Great Depression levels. And nobody gives a good goddman. Women’s unemployment? At least 1/3 lower. America is on track to have only 39% of college degrees awarded to men. In just 30 years men have gone from 61% of college degrees to 39% and falling. The news from MIT this morning: women making great strides in being named professors in the sciences and engineering.

      More than 13 years after William Pollock published Real Boys, American schools continue to be largely female-controlled and to disproportionately medicate boys when they do not meet the new educational behavior norm, which is female-based. Boys of 3 and 4 are now regularly expelled from preschool (preschool!) because they do not sit quietly. And nobody cares.

      Young men in their 20s commit suicide at a rate 5 times that of young women in their 20s.

      Older men commit suicide at a rate 13 times rate of older women.

      Yet the American Psychological Association for political reasons steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the differential, tell-tale, early-warning signs of depression in men: workaholism, alcoholism, irritability.

      All of the reputable studies, including a 2008 joint study by Harvard University and Clark University, as well as lots of data from other countries similar to the US (e.g. Australia) show that 1 in 3 victims of domestic violence is an adult man. One in 3. Yet, until the 2006 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, federal law prohibited the expenditure of funds to assist male victims or female abusers. In the last 5 years when VAWA has had at least arguably gender-neutral language, virtually the entire Domestic Violence establishment has formed a solid wall to continue to deny services to male victims and female abusers. Go to the web site for the Women’s Bar Association in Massachusetts — virtually every pronoun screams that only women are abused. Yet 1 in 3 victims, by documented studies, is a man. Only one, count it, one, DV shelter in Massachusetts takes in male victims: the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project in Cambridge. The Education Director there was quoted recently in an article in the e-Zine Good Men Project Magazine as saying that “heterosexual men are the bottom of the barrel” which is why GMDVP takes them in — because everybody else has abandoned them. The word on the web is that some Massachusetts Domestic Violence shelters actually call the police on men who call them seeking help.

      Four out of 5 homeless are men. 92% of all workplace deaths are men. As I write this tens of thousands of fathers are in jail for no reason other than they are unemployed. The women’s movement conspired with State and Federal bean-counters to go after so-called “deadbeat dads.” The only problem is that means the Offices of Child Support Enforcement refuse to acknowledge unemployment. Unemployment insurance is garnished, frequently leaving men virtually nothing to live on. So they lose their apartments and can’t see their kids becuase you can’t have visitation in a homeless shelter or in a cardboard box. And when the unemployment insurance runs out? The Child Support offices refuse to acknowledge the existence of long-term unemployment and send men to jail for failure to pay child support.

      Look at the federal spending on Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer. Roughly equivalent levels of morality (actually slightly higher for prostate cancer). But something like 4 times higher levels of federal spending on Breast Cancer. Same holds true for other sex-specific diseases.

      Look at morality itself: in 1920, women lived only 1 year longer than men. The last 90 years have been good for women. Now women live 5 years longer than men. Who cares? Nobody, we just assume (even Niall Ferguson in his xenophobic and men-bashing column in the 3/14/11 Tina Brown Newsweek) that women have always lived a lot longer than men.

      Look at what happened to Mass. Lt. Governor Tim Murray when he rescued two kids from a burning minivan just a couple of months ago: the grandmother went after him because she assumed, as a man, he was a child abductor and child molester.

      Look at what happened just one week ago in Astoria, Oregon: Julie Green, a 38-year old woman plead guilty to getting a 14 year old boy drunk and then raping him. The boy was too ashamed to show up at the sentencing hearing and was represented by his mother. What sentence did Ms. Green receive? 30 days! 30 days! In the local county jail! What do you think would have happened to a 38 year old man who got a 14 year old girl drunk and raped her? (Given the increasingly frequency with which this happens, I am beginning to think Cougars are the New Catholic Priests.)

      Just last fall Hamilton College, led by its woman President and women Dean of Students ordered all incoming freshmen men to attend a mandatory, card-swiped, special lecture entitled “She Fears You” in which they were instructed in how all men are rapists. At the same time the incoming freshwomen were treated to a play celebrating women’s accomplishments. When Hamilton College was called on it by academic freedom groups and some faculty members, the Administrator refused to respond and only at the last minute didn’t punish men with name-taking and expulsion if they objected.

      So, yeah, there are a handful of men at the very tippy top of the socio-economic ladder who are doing ok, but as the bottom has fallen out of the American middle class, most of those plummeting are men, and our sons and brothers are falling with us, and nobody, nobody, nobody cares. I Long for the day when I will not be treated as a potential rapist when I walk the street at night because I can’t sleep. I Long for the day when somebody finally acknowleges the US HHS data showing that biological mothers are twice as likely to abuse their children as biological fathers. I Long for the day when I am not acosted by mothers on the playground when I go there with my daughter as a suspect pervert. I Long for the day when I can defend myself when I am hit by a woman without knowing that if I do so I will automatically be viewed as the aggressor. I Long for the day when I am allowed to cry without my wife thinking me weak and saying I am a burden to her. I Long for the day when 8 out of 10 TV program and TV commercial don’t automatically treat me as a stupid, drunk, violent oaf. I Long for the day when women realize that men think of sex in an even semi-committed relationship as love, emotional love, and not just getting off.

      Until then, it would be better not to be born in North American today than to be born a boy.

      Again, let me be really, really, really clear about this: I am not going to demonize feminism. But men and boys are being demonized and denigrated and hated on and told to live by completely contradictory codes and shut out every day in countless ways.

      • zd

        Frank, as a man I completely agree with you. I don’t know if that is your real name but I’m glad that you have had the guts to be so…well…frank.

        It is a serious and well documented issue that more and more boys are dropping out of school, not finishing college, stumbling as they reach adulthood. I’m no exception. I firmly believe that a lot of the problem has to do with the general negativity that has been directed at the male gender over the last few decades. The common narrative that we all see is that men are dumb, women are smarter. The silly man is dipping his feet in glue so he doesn’t have to buy socks. The half-wit man can’t read the yoghurt containers to see that there’s no Boston cream pie in the fridge. I doubt anyone can name me a single modern ad that paints the woman as dumb. The vast majority of sitcoms today revolve around a husband or father that is constantly creating a mess that the wife must clean up. In the end he’s always sweet and apologizes, but regardless he is almost always wrong.

        For those who are old enough to know better, this is all funny and amusing. I get it, it’s not reality it’s TV. But when kids grow up in that environment, it has it’s effects. Especially on a generation of kids that are almost completely saturated with popular media. What we end up with are boys and young men that have lost a sense of a role model to aspire to be. Most of what they see is about what nasty people they are, so they bottle everything up and are then derogatorily labeled “closed off”. If they try and express this frustration they are laughed at.

        So really the unhappiness in women today is probably because of two things: 1. There are a ton of internally depressed men that they are dating/marrying, and 2. The media has sold them an idea of a man that doesn’t exist. Just like the stick figure on the cover of Cosmo, there is an image of a man that listens to all of your problems yet has none of his own. He always picks up the bill even though we are “equal”. He is kinda stupid and controllable even though he has a successful career. On the flipside, women are taught to expect all the things they love about chivalry and none of the consequences. A long time ago men paid for everything because women weren’t allowed to have jobs. Men opened doors for women because they were considered the “weaker sex”. These are remnants of an oppressive hierarchy which the feminist movement did it’s best to destroy. It does no justice to hang on to these customs.

        So I too want to end by saying I am very, very, much for the feminist movement. The positive things that were accomplished by it are irrefutable. The pendulum desperately needed to be pushed back towards the center, but unless we stop it’s momentum it will continue to swing long past a healthy balance.

    • Anonymous

      And among those choices are: Jail, Suicide, Homelessness, Alcoholism.

  • Meghna Chakrabarti

    We will be doing a follow-up segment on this issue today on Radio Boston.

    • Irina

      I’m so glad that Professor Haslanger is your guest! :)

  • Carribeth

    I’m so glad someone has finally spoken up about this. I am going to run out and get my hands on this book. Personally, I feel that feminism has NOT helped all women. For those who want to be career women, great, enjoy yourself, I am geniuinely happy for you. But for the rest of us, it has changed the climate in a way that makes things very difficult. Those who do not want to be the career minded ladder climber are looked down on by feminists.

    As a mother of two grown sons, I have seen the way our boys and young men are expected to meet the new feminised behavioral norm, as Frank has accurately stated. I know many young women with such glaring cases of princess syndrome – they’ve grown up being told they are God’s gift to humanity, and they’re running around each day treating everyone as if they are owed something. I see it every day. In the meantime, the poor guys are running around being told they’re not sensitive enough – until they express sensitivity, at which time the Princess tells them they are weak.

    • MaryM

      No. We don’t “look down” on you. Instead, we wonder how you will make things work if your marriage falls apart and you get divorced or worse yet, what happens if your husband dies. Women are unhappy because while they are both working a full time job and taking care of the home, men haven’t quite picked up on their share of house hold duties and child rearing. It seems that men are struggling to come to terms with the new roles in marriage. Some, not all, are still stuck yearning for the days when they could come home and the little woman was waiting with dinner in the oven and the paper, the pipe and slippers… Others aren’t. That is what has actually caused the increase in divorces.. . Women now have options.. before they didn’t and no matter how unhappy or abused they were in a marriage- they had to stick it out because they couldn’t earn their own living.

      • Frank

        MaryM, I believe your comment bears more resemblance to the world of the 1970s and 1980s than the world of the 20teens. I also want you to drill into the statstics and studies you are implicitly quoting. Men who have paid employment continue to work several more hours outside the home than women. This allows the women who choose to do so to work more flexible hours. But the statistics do not give men credit for that. Moreover, the statistics do not including home repair work for some reason (because home repair work isn’t work???).

        As for men not picking up the slack on child rearing, my experience is that a good many women are chauvinistic about who has child rearing capabilities (i.e., “don’t think you can match me in the kid-raising department, bucko!”). I know a very successful woman litigator at one of the very top firms in Boston. Her husband, a successful professional in the helping professions, wanted to stay home with the kids for awhile, since she had the higher income. Her response, which I heard first hand, “If there is any staying home and raising kids to be done, I will do that, thank you!” If you look at the web articles written about how many men have time on their hands now that they are unemployed (mostly written by women), they question whether men have the nurturing capacity to raise children. The most respectful, even-handed article I have seen on the subject appeared a few months ago in the London Times, which spent time in several diverse socioeconomic sectors of British society and found that both the professional dads with the less-lucrative careers in greater London, as well as the long-term unemployed dads in the old coal mining areas of Wales who had banded together in mens groups for the support their government would not provide, were actually doing a great job of raising happy, talented, clean, well-fed kids and were getting supper on the table for their wives when they came home from a hard day of work.

        So, spare me the talk about how men can’t be complete human beings and consider whether you and your sisters, as women, actually prefer for men not to be complete human beings.

        The bottom line remains that men and women, together, have worked to give women options and to prevent men from having and exercising options. This is not healthy for us as men or healthy for you as women. It is not healthy for our kids and grandkids.

  • Meg

    As a mother with a full time career, I disagree with Ms. Venker’s views. Feminism was and is pivital to modern lives. Feminism is about giving women choices. A woman’s right to chose to pursue a career, or to stay home with children. A woman’s right to have children or not have them at all.

    Our lives today are very different from the lives of women in the 1950s – the cost of living has significantly increased. If a women is forced to rely solely on her spouse to be the economic backing for the family, isn’t she gambling with her family’s security? What is her spouse dies or becomes ill? Further, is it fair that we ask husband’s to carry the sole burben of being the wage earner?

    The bottomline is feminism is about giving woman choices. Without it, Ms. Venker would not be given the opportunity to write and publish her book.

    • Tux_redhat

      Its odd that you say that because the sole reson its hard to make ends meet is because of feminism to begin with. It is because of feminism that it takes two incomes to pay the bills so to speak hence why DINK (double income, no kids) are becoming more prominent.

      Your first paragraph causes the increase in cost, then your question causes the results in the first. It this circular reasoning that just so like feminist. You do relize its more risky having two wage earners and not just one. Say your husband or wife got sick and/or died the other spouse has to be able pay for double the expenses. In the traditional setting one wage would be enough to support the family. Not to mention you would also have the security of the family (i.e inlaws)

  • MM

    If anything, our current climate requires an increase in those advocating for women’s rights. Women are able to “have it all” and have proven they can be excellent mothers and have stellar careers. Now that we have proven ourslves, we need “feminists” who advocate for our right to adopt non traditional roles outside the home. Most employers still remain inflexible and offer little accomodations to women in the workplace. Because of feminists, we can proudly say we want to have a meaningful career and need to fulfill our roles as mothers. Feminism is more important than ever in helping American women obtain the balance they desperately seek.

    MaryM., I could not agree more. When we have children, we become responsible for their health and well being which is tied directly to economics. Is it really responsible of us to completely opt out of the workplace and rely solely on husbands to be the breadwinners? What is something were to happen to him? Years ago, women could move in and out of the workplace. In today’s increasingly competitive and changing society, if someone is out of the workplace for too long, they become incredibly disadvantaged when seeking employment. I fully respect a women’s desire to stay at home full time, but I ask them to think of the security of their family and insure they are able to quickly pick up the pieces in the event the primary breadwinner is unable to provide financial stability.

    • Tux_redhat

      Yet again having your cake and eating it too. I wish I could do that. It this prepetual myth of having a successful career and a family (just without the husband). No wonder women are not happy, they have what they want and double the responsiblity. ( luckily those alimony checks come in once a month.)

      Also see my other reply below it explains why you need two incomes to survive as a middle and lower class citizen. If its common for families two have two wage earners, its common for businesses to increase the costs of living.

  • Carribeth

    I find this discussion very interesting. I’m actually not a stay-at-home mom. (Or I wasn’t – my sons are grown now) It was my first choice but to Mary M’s point, finances did not allow and so my spouse and I both work, always have. I’ve accidently ended up with the career/higher salary. I definitely feel that we could and should have made more sacrifices in order to have me at least work part-time. When I brought up the idea of making sacrifices so I could have more time at home with our sons, doctors, bosses, parents, grandparents, friends and even the spouse all pretty much said the same thing – “What’s the big deal, plenty of women work outside the home nowadays, the boys are happy and well adjusted.” It was like the entire concept of staying home had been devalued. That’s really what I have an issue with. If everyone presented the issues the way you have, Mary M – I think I’d be more interested in dialogue. Others I’ve spoken with have been much more forceful, almost angry. Overall, the cubicle jungle has been both good and bad to me. God knows it sure as heck isn’t my “calling” but it’s a paycheck. My main issue is that one of the unintentional results of feminism has been a cultural shift that devalues home and child-rearing.

  • Cmacd1

    I was particularly offended by Venker’s statement that the initial goal/intent of “second wave” feminism was to degrade mothers and motherhood. I minored in Women’s Studies at BU in the 1990s, and in all of my readings of feminist philosophy – including some extremists like Mary Daly – I have never encountered this intent. Certainly some of the theoretical discourse is critical of the situations mothers find themselves in or accepting, but I have not found it condemning of motherhood in principle. I echo many of the sentiments I heard from women in the original show on Friday and the follow-up program on Monday. My mother was a homemaker. She was/is very traditional in her role as a wife and mother. I have asked her about her life many times – she loved most minutes of it, but she also laments limited options as a young 18 year old girl in the late 1950s. Even though my mother did not go to college, she always emphasized the value in doing so. She knew that an education would open up many more opportunities for me. She encouraged me to follow my heart’s desires but to do it self-sufficiently. She always said, “You can do whatever you want to do, but do it with an education behind you.” She never said that I should pursue an education INSTEAD of being a wife and mother nor do most feminists of any generation.

    This is the 21st century. We should have options, and I am grateful to the feminist movement that our choices can be as varied as are women. However, I do not feel like I “owe” the feminists of previous generations anything except honor and respect, nor do I think the work of feminism is complete. As the guest on Monday explained, feminism is a social movement, which means that it is in constant flux. I agree that as American women we are not as “oppressed” as we used to be nor are we as oppressed as, perhaps, women in other parts of the world. However, it is our job, as women and as human beings, to fight oppression EVERYWHERE and in EVERY FORM, regardless of its relativity.

    Feminism is also relative. My “feminism” of today is very different from my “feminism” in my twenties; yet, I am still a feminist. I am sure the feminism of my fifties or eighties will be different from my feminism at 35. Today I am married to my childhood best friend and the father of my two awesome children. We have a much more traditional relationship than I ever would have predicted for me when I was a college student. This is not because “feminists” told me it was bad to be a wife and mother back then, but because I was younger and full of unlimited and utopian plans for myself. I wanted to join a commune, travel the world, join the Peace Corps – all noble and admirable endeavors. Then, I fell in love and that mattered more at the time. I chose to give some of those plans up for a different plan. No one told me I should or should not do it; it was what was in my heart at the time. I can still pursue those endeavors, but from a different angle. Now, I want to travel the world with my kids so they can appreciate all it has to offer. Life changes our goals and our values, which is the way it should be, right? I am a very happy wife, mom and full-time teacher of 121 bright high schoolers. Yes, like all human beings I harbor regrets about some of the decisions I made in life, but that is inevitable. The one thing I do not regret is having the agency, means and opportunities to learn from all my decisions, regardless of the outcomes. I did not settle nor did I betray feminism; I evolved.

    • Tux_redhat

      You evolved from a feminist to a non- feminist end of story. Even traditional families the mother/woman had the right to teach.

      The only oppression feminist face is other feminists. It was men that freed women from their biological desired family life through the discouvery of the pill. The supposed “oppressors” saving the oppressed. Now theres a shock.

      So why are women not happy?

      • Anonymous

        And the answer is…

        They ["modern" women] are harder to please, and hence pleased less often.
        - H.L. Mencken (1917)

        You’d have to ask them why they’re harder to please, but I doubt you’d get a straight answer.

  • Matt

    Whatever made anyone believe that along with “liberation,” however defined, comes happiness? They are two entirely different things. Example: Plenty of indoor cats seem very happy with their lives but can hardly be considered free or liberated by most standards– unless one says they are liberated from having to hunt for mice all day to stay alive.

    “Liberation” is and has always been a relative word. “Happiness,” likewise. That’s about the only thing the two concepts have to do with one another.

    • Jennifer Armstrong

      Excellent points!  Indeed, if one is seeking happiness, rather than liberation, one could do even better than becoming a housewife.  There are surely all sorts of ways to keep oneself safe, like never going outside, or spending more time in front of the TV.  The housewives have only partly reached their goals to make themselves more comfortably happy.

  • who are you kidding?

    Veneker is a poor writer with a poorly argued point to make, relying on opinion rather than any facts, and twisting arguments as well as history to argue a point that has very little thought or research behind it(feminism BEGAN in the 60′s, who are you kidding?). One shouldn’t be surprised, given who her aunt is, but one should not spend a lot of time refuting her points either.

    • Anonymous

      If, in your blind ignorance, you want to insult someone, at least try to spell her name correctly.

  • Amber

    I am a stay at home mother of four (gasp) children ages 9, 7, 3, and 1. I married at the age of 18, not because I was pregnant, but because my husband and I knew we wanted-to build a home, family, and HIS career. I had no real desire for my own career, I was a dance teacher, and that was good enough for me. We have been married for eleven and a half years. All of my married life, I have been looked down on, pitied, and viewed as an oddity. I have received many negative comments for have “so many children” and for marrying so young. This is not the worlds view of success, and why is that?
    We have had to make sacrifices financially. We do without a lot of what is now the norm, must haves.
    The life I chose has not been easy, but what life is? When I am old and I have my children around me, I will NEVER regret the time I spent raising them. What is more important, all of the things we have owned, money we made, careers we have built, or a legacy of children that will one day be taking care of us old and gray ones?
    I realize not all women have the option of staying at home. I consider myself blessed. When I talk to peers my age who have the big career and “glamorous” life, they seem a bit lost. Their hearts desire is to have a family.
    Our culture and society push this “me-isim” philosophy-it’s all about me, what I want, when I want it, and if anyone stands in my way I will cut them down.” This happens in many marriages, I have seen so many break apart because the women decides her husband is holding her back, so she leaves, and who suffers? Her children.Oh, but it’s her choice, she has the right! Where has that come from? I believe mostly from the feminist movement.
    I find this book refreshing, and it’s about time!
    The feminist movement may say it’s all about choice, but in my experience, in the real world, it’s about choice as long as you chose their agenda. That is not getting married young, have kids, and staying at home to take care of your kids, and yes, dare I say it, your husband!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TFIFUQSXTOZHDLB3RAVYFRS2ME NWOslave

    The first thing that needs to be done is proceed from the truth. Where did modern day feminism originate and what was the goal? The modern day marxist feminist hate movement began in the former Soviet union with the goal of transferring all wealth, education, status, social and economic power from men to women with the state being the ultimate authority, and replacing men with The State as the new Husband and Father. Here is a link to one of the first feminist posters which reads, “8th of march is the day of the rebellion of the working woman against the kitchen slavery. Say NO to the oppression of the babbitry of the household work. http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/images-3.jpg

    Now we always “have” to say women were oppressed in the past but this is clearly not the case. Did women stay at home and take care of household matters? Of course they did. It was hard work as opposed to the ease of the modern world. Were the men partying all the time? No, they were dying of black lung, working as loggers, carpenters, masons, farmers. They were working long hard hours and risking death daily. Women in the past were privileged and they knew it, they were grateful for the privilege of not having to work these hard and dangerous jobs and did all they could to show their gratitude to these men who sacrificed for them.

    We “have” to say that women were oppressed in education in the past. Again this is not the case. Many, if not a majority of the homes in the past women could read and men couldn’t, why is that? Well, because men were working and didn’t have the time to learn to read so it was a woman’s duty to learn to read at home. When documents or news was presented she would need to inform her husband and a decision was made on a course of action. How were women oppressed if this is a historical fact?

    We say the reason women haven’t invented any devices, art, literature, math, science, philosophy, ect. is because of oppression. Over the past 20 years women have garnished 2 of every 3 dollars spent on education, 59% of college degrees are given out to women. In the past 40 years they have garnished over 50% of all monies and degrees. Why has every innovation, invention, patent, ect. still went to men in all this time? Many if not most of these inventions were done in houses, basements, garages, on paper or computers. If women were locked in the home in the past wouldn’t that have given them an advantage in the realm of invention, art, music, philosophy…every invention?

    Where are all the innovations from women over the past 40 years? Why are there none? Well, the reason of course is the same thing it always was, biology. Here is the most up to date link in the differences in brain chemistry. http://www.boysadrift.com/2007Giedd.pdf
    In that link you’ll see the massive differences in brain structure. I personally can’t draw a passable stick figure, does that mean I’m artistically oppressed? Should we kick someone out of Julliard so I can draw? I can’t dunk a basketball, I can’t cook worth a damn, I can’t speed read, I’m not over 6 feet, I can’t swim to save my life. Biology has determined this, I’m not oppressed.

    Human resources in employment, what is it? Why was this department unheard of 50 years ago, yet now it is the single largest employment sector for women? Well, in order to be allowed to even have or stay in business by law you must hire x amount of women. So if a construction company that had 10,000 men employed needed to employ 2,000 women or the state would shut them down, they invented human resources. Where did they get the money to employ 2,000 workers they didn’t want? They garnished these wages from the other 10,000 workers of course, they still need to make a profit, right? Of the States 22 million employees over 70% are women, basically in human resources. What does the State produce? Debt is the only thing your Government produces, they produce no products or goods.

    Now look at the industries that grew up around women who work, houskeeping, childcare, catering, cleaning services, laundry, fast food/restaurants/cooking, ect. Who do they employ? Almost exclusively women. Now look at these jobs, they’re all jobs that in the past were housework and are now paying jobs, Women, being paid to do the childcare/housekeeping of other women.

    No fault divorce, child custody, Title IX, Quotas, ect, ect, ad nauseum. Does a man have any reproductive rights? None. Does he have rights to his children? None. Yet he pays for these through taxes, qoutas, entitlments. He pays for women to work, he pays for child support, if he can’t afford child support he is sent to prison with the taxes he has paid. Men pay in every way imaginable, socially, finacially, educationally, status and power for womens choices backed by the guns of the state. Look around you and tell me this isn’t true. You see, feminism has achieved it’s goal, which was always to replace mens power with the power of the State.

  • Anonymous

    So basically nobody is allowed to point out that Western women (as opposed to just American women) are in fact the most privileged people in the history of the world ? They ARE .
    Nevertheless , feminism teaches those same women that they are still some sort of victim class because a long time ago SOME women were mistreated by SOME men .

    I also find it interesting that Western women have an incredible capacity for grievance production while simultaneously denying that men could , you know , have problems that need addressing too . When men stand up for themselves , out come the self-described feminists to make men’s problems into fora to discuss what more we can do to help women who want to help men . God forbid we spend even a single-digit-percentage of the time , effort , and money we spend on women focusing on beleaguered men when some woman somewhere has a hangnail that stops her from feeling empowered (whatever that’s supposed to mean anymore)

  • http://MenandWomen101.com DrD

    Wonderful article. I expand here on your explanation.
    Is the Feminist Culture Harmful to Women?

    A recent analysis finds that happiness and the sense of well-being and satisfaction has declined among women, both in constant terms and also in comparison to men. The decline is found across various investigations, across various measures of subjective well-being and satisfaction with life, across various demographic groups, and within numerous industrialized countries.

    The findings are from the General Social Survey [i], which is the largest sociology project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and is considered highly authoritative. Aside from the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences.

    How strong is the decline for women relative to men? In 1972, in the initial surveys, the average woman had a 3+ percentile happiness advantage relative to the average man, while in 2006, in the last samplings, she was 1+ percentile behind. The figures add up to a 4½ percentile decrease in happiness for women in comparison to men over the 35 year span of the study. The investigators note that a change of such magnitude should be considered quite substantial.

    While various explanations are proposed, we look here at the feminist position that women are oppressed and always have but are a special class of humans who can accomplish wondrous things once the forces of oppression have been overthrown. In spite of widening workplace opportunities, women find that it is not easy to accomplish great things and still raise a family and have a free moment to oneself. It is a tough world out there, indifferent to our fantasies and barely responsive to our best efforts. Inflated expectations are a standard recipe for failure and despair.

    What about the ideology that women are oppressed? “Women are oppressed” usually means “oppressed by men,” so in the active voice the message is that “Men oppress women.” Naturally, the more one believes that, the more resentful she will be toward men, and the less understanding she will be toward her alleged oppressors.

    A recent survey found that 33% of women “often or very often” resent men, while only 14% of men are highly resentful of women. Public condemnation towards men has obviously increased over the last 40 years, and surely contributes to the pandemic of personal resentments toward men.

    Angry women tend to feel empowered when they express their anger, but then returned to the blahs and emptiness once the anger is spent. “I have become increasingly angry,” comments Gloria Steinem, “as the alternative is depression.” Overall, anger is a quick fix followed by a lingering headache.

    Psychotherapists who challenge anger and seek to reduce it are not as popular with their clients but have better outcomes, while therapists who support anger and encourage its expression are more popular but have worse outcomes. Anger reduction, reconciliation, and a heartfelt understanding and appreciation of family and friends is fundamental to healthy living. It is a mainstay in Christianity and in most other religious teachings.

    The hardships and general meaninglessness of life are problems that we all confront and probably always will. Yet increasing animosities toward our opposites is hardly a viable solution and appears to broaden a general malaise among women and nudge possible solutions farther out of reach.

    by drD
    author of “You Still Don’t Understand” with Nancy Ann Davis, PhD.

    [i] Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, “The paradox of declining female happiness.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2009, 1:2, 190–225.

    • Jfizzle80

      Hey! Sometimes women oppress other women, you know, cause there are different kinds of women… Have you seen and/or read The Help yet? Or are Black women not women to you?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TFIFUQSXTOZHDLB3RAVYFRS2ME NWOslave

    Did you know that in ancient China under a particular Mongolian Regime the leaders deemed themselves infallible, almost, if not in fact gods.

    They grew their hair long, brushing it out every day to a fine sheen.
    They grew their nails long and painted them to show their superiority, far above mere manual labor.
    They painted their faces , eyes and lashes outlined, lips painted ruby red, their cheeks were blushed and their toenails were painted and manicured so all could see their superiority.
    They rubbed oils into their bodies making them soft and radiant and expensive fragrances so the serfs who served them would know even their scent was superior.
    They adorned themselves expensive jewelry around their necks, ears, fingers, wrists, ankles and toes. They literally sparkled, being superior they knew they deserved to be praised in all manner.
    The laws they had written naturally reflected their superiority, it wasn’t murder if they deemed it not to be, all laws were written to privilege them.
    They could change their minds from one day to the next. If their mood was foul they might incarcerate a serf and call it justice. All were forced by law to serve and all had to pay for the right to serve them.

    These rulers often stole the serfs children while forcing them to pay for those very children. They were so vile they would even kill the serfs children in the womb and called it their right. They would tell the serfs whats right is wrong and whats wrong is right. Their greed and lust knew no bounds. Naturally after a couple of generations of taking the serfs meager wages by force to support the decandent lifestyle of their masters the serfs grew weary and angry. Eventually the serfs revolted and overthrew their vile overlords in a most violent and vicious manner.

  • Blki

    please, do not tell me that I have to give up my right to work in what I love and stay home just because I was born a woman. If someone take this right away from me just because I am a woman it will make me very unhappy.
    I do not have any quote from famous feminist or anti feminist, I only know that, to be a stayed home mom would never make me happy. My son does not feel less love just because I work. The same as he does not feel less love because his father works and does not stay home.
    My son has learned that we are a family and we worked together to give each other what we need to have a happy life.
    Let’s stop talking feminist versus anti-feminist and talk about woman having a right to choose what they want out of life without having to label themselves conservative or feminist.

    thank you

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TFIFUQSXTOZHDLB3RAVYFRS2ME NWOslave

      If a man gets a woman pregnant and she aborts, he has no choice.
      If a woman commits adultery, takes 1/2 plus of all assets and the children and the man has to pay for children he is forbidden to see, he has no choice.
      If a college class has 50 openings and a woman applies, even though her qualifications are below average she will be admitted and a man will not, he has no choice.
      If a man and a woman apply for the same job she will get the position reguardless of qualifications to fill a quota, he has no choice.
      If a man and a woman get into an arguement and the police come he will be taken to jail, he has no choice.
      If a woman gets a restraining order, no proof is neccesary, a man will be evicted from his own dwelling but still be liable for the bills, he has no chioce.

      Women have choices. Men have responsibilities, or the choice to support womens choices. If they fail to obey they will be subject to the full force of the State. What do you think the outcome of a society will be when dozens more laws are added every year; decade after decade to hinder, hobble and incarcerate men, with women as a whole and individually crying out to the State for more oppressive laws? My guess is gratitude won’t be at the top of mens list.

      • Dreaslist12

        None of what you say has even a grain of truth. It can be hard to get a restraining order, even when ones life is in danger. I have seen it many times. A woman is not more likely to get a job than a man, that is a lie. Women are discriminated against for having children, being pregnant, being too old…the list goes on, and are still paid, on average 70% of what men are are paid for the same work.
        I would argue that if a man gets a woman pregnant, and she gets an abortion, she may have the choice (maybe, depending on where she lives) but she also has the responsibility of either bearing the child, or bearing the sadness of abortion, while the man has the choice of walking away. Your argument is hollow. It lacks maturity, thought, substance.  This idea that the state somehow is a gestapo on behalf of women is not only insulting, it is completely inaccurate. Unfortunately, there are many other men out there who lie to themselves like you..and you probably spend your days talking to each other on the computer in between porn watching and wishing you were man enough to be with a woman.

  • Caburnsie

    As a woman with college degrees and a career, I’ve heard the feminist rhetoric throughout my lifetime and have seen through it. Feminists do not care about the well-being of women at all. They never have. Feminists have always cared about advancing left-wing political agendas.
    In a college classroom, you “play the game” of letting the professors have their say about their opinions in class, knowing that to say what you are actually thinking would make you a target in class. You will also be, quite probably, receiving a lower grade. Our educational system, from the secondary level through college, needs serious change.
    Feminism has given women nothing! The achievements that women have made in their lives have been earned by real, hard-working women.
    I don’t appreciate the effects of the feminist movement on the family, the educational system, the political arena, or on society in general.
    Real women earn their own way in the world. They always have.
    Feminism isn’t dead. I only wish that it were!

    • Jennifer Armstrong

      If “Feminism has given women nothing!”, do you think the absence of feminism would therefore give you something — perhaps the whole world?

    • Dreaslist12

       I think you mean “radical men-hating feminists” because real feminists just thought women were real people who deserved actual rights…like the ability to go to college and get a career..and you know…vote. Real, hard working women, can be feminists too. Women who love men, love their bodies, respect themselves..are feminists too. I would argue that you are a feminist. Feminist just means:
      1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
      That does not mean that we legally must wear beards, burn our bras and hate men. It just means we think that we should get the same rights. You saw the all male panel on Birth control this year…that should tell you that feminism still has a lot of work to do. Stop fighting other women and be a woman!

    • Dreaslist12

       I think you mean “radical men-hating feminists” because real feminists just thought women were real people who deserved actual rights…like the ability to go to college and get a career..and you know…vote. Real, hard working women, can be feminists too. Women who love men, love their bodies, respect themselves..are feminists too. I would argue that you are a feminist. Feminist just means:
      1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
      That does not mean that we legally must wear beards, burn our bras and hate men. It just means we think that we should get the same rights. You saw the all male panel on Birth control this year…that should tell you that feminism still has a lot of work to do. Stop fighting other women and be a woman!

  • WomanOfColor

    The authors make observations and claims from the perspectives of WHITE women in America on both sides of this issue. They never even come close to conceding that women (and, yes, men but they have been at least one wrung higher on the social/economic ladder than women) of color in the U. S. have systematically been oppressed by immoral/unequal laws upheld in courts by judges and lawyers (some on the Supreme Court and signers of the Dec. of Independence), not to mention the social traditions of unequal treatment in all areas of our lives. I had a white man recently tell me that my cultural traditions are not “American” because they are too “ethnic”. (The Founding Fathers didn’t fight and die for the indigenous people,  I guess, just the Anglo Europeans.) As a woman of color, I have no time in my daily pursuit of knowledge to waste on myopic and unintelligent people like these two since they openly–flagrantly with no shame–exclude millions of U.S. citizens like my family, children, and me in the debate on the role of feminism to affirm our  civil rights under the Constitution, as well as our human rights. I watched the BookTV presentation of the authors and I had to laugh in Schlafly’s reference to why the feminist left hates Palin. She lists that Palin has a “cool husband”, big family, powerful job, she’s attractive. But, she never mentions INTELLIGENCE.  ha, ha, ha . . .  So true to life.

    • http://www.colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com Colonel Neville.

      Excellent logical fallacy and identity politics comrade. Five stars for Marxist Critical Theory. Bravo. You have been well indoctrinated with correct feminist nihilist thought. Er, have you designed or built any bridges, planes, dams, cars, infrastructure such as buildings, roads, ports, airports, farms, factories or skyscrapers lately? If not, why not? Men again, huh. They plotted against women so that they could er, do all the hard often very physical work. The fiends.  No, really. Colonel Neville. 

      • Q.

        Please. If you don’t actually have anything to say, then don’t resort to an ad hominem excuse for an argument.  I understand it’s tempting to call progressive thinkers Communists, but let’s refrain from that childish name-calling and address her real argument. Women of color are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the United States. Go ahead and google search “achievement gap in the United States” and you’ll realize how misguided you are.

        • John Doe

          ” progressive thinkers” ?

          … how about some original thinkers or thought and not the same stale cliches .

      • Jennifer Armstrong

        Engineering is quite fascinating.  More women should enter the profession.

      • Jfizzle80

        You didn’t really listen to anything this woman said did you? Women of Color have been doing some pretty physical work for the USA for centuries. Yes, Yes, I am sure that you never owned and/or raped an African slave woman , forced a Chicana woman to pick carrots when her back and hands were screaming, held a Native American woman at gunpoint to take her land,  forced a Chinese woman to carry back breaking wet laundry on her back so that your clothes would be clean, or locked an immigrant woman in a factory so she could make your products and burn to death, but you do believe that all women are afforded the luxuries of ideal white womanhood wherein they don’t have to do “physical” work.  Women do hard physical work, hell, I plunged a toilet today. Read a book on the history of Women of Color, read several, and then you will be making an informed argument based on intellectual reflection rather than emotional reaction.

  • Q.

    This has nothing to do with matriarchy and everything to do with equality. Women comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population and less than 20% of the seats in Congress. You cling to the past female ideals because change is scary; I understand your inclination and also that your basis to do so relies more on antiquated, old fashioned ideas than anything else. I know no one wants to move away from the happy 50’2 style family, but it’s going to happen whether you want it to or not.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Narayan/534854059 John Narayan

      ” Women comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population and less than 20% of the seats in Congress.”

      So the majority of voters in the US are women, and less then 20% of congress are women, so what does tell you about women?

  • Tesla

    Feminism have destroyed family values, morals and virtues: not turning woman into Ladies but into slut and whores, in a world who everyone sleep with everyone like nothing more animals they felt “liberated”… LOL. Feminism also promotes misandry and is the most sexist movement (against the men) of the entire human history… They have teached that to be a motherhood is slave and submission, but in reality it’s most difficult and respective job in the world: rising children, giving love of a mother, and preparing the new generation for the Nation… Abortion is nothing more than a second Holocaust, it’s a Pro-choice for killing just to fulfill selfish desire like “recreational sex”. Look like today people cannot be happy without hooking up around… LOL. Feminist even refute or natural biological tendency of  Woman and Men. Sorry, we’re not equal we are different AND complementary !!! (Ying-Yang Energy). Now, in all the human history when a civilization followed  “Feminist” ideology (so called sexual, moral liberation) they’ve collapsed, Roman Empire, Babylonian Empire are great example, Feminism just induce lust, self pleasure, decadence, and finally a dying falling nation…
    Fact: the whole western civilization is collapsing now and it’s not only due to the financial crisis… From France.

    • Jennifer Armstrong

      And various parts of the middle east are not collapsing?

      • Arab Spring

        Middle East just kick ass to the so called Western hegemony, if USA try to mess up with Iran, it will be your last grave !

    • Rowena

      If you could actually form sentences, more people might take your opinion seriously. The point of feminism is not to drive women to be whores (obviously, since that industry has been thriving for centuries), but to allow women the freedom to decide whether or not they want to be wives and mothers. 

      • The Devil

        What that sophistry ?

    • Dreaslist12

       Please don’t use “yin-yang” references while spewing hate filled ignorant crap.  You are scared of women, I get it…and I am sorry. You should work on your self-esteem so that you can handle a woman who is comfortable with her sexuality, rather than screaming “witch! Whore! Burn her!” You know, some of us work because we have something to give the world. Hell, some of us MOTHER and WORK and have happy children and Husbands who love us and are proud of us. It is true, women and men are different, and can have different strengths, but as a female business owner, college educated woman who is (gasp!) sexually active, nurturing, female, happy and liberated and think (omg!) that I have a right to make my own decisions, I am pretty friggen happy. Sure, I would love it if my partner had more money so I could volunteer and not have to go to work…but I would be equally as happy to support him. He makes great food and cleans the house as well as I do. I am not trying to be a man, just trying to live my life. You should try it.

      • She-economy collapse

        It is true, women and men are different, and can have different strengths, but as a female business owner, college educated woman who is (gasp!) sexually active, nurturing, female, happy and liberated and think (omg!) 

        With a lot of affirmative action, government that help “women business” . 
        Biased Education against male in favor of girl, and the parasitic She -economy backed by Government. Your “Business” will collapse when the debt crisis will hit hard your ass and when gov will nor support female entitlement anymore.
        You comment by the way seem to be a good Troll and unrealistic.

  • Anonymous

    What feminism has done for me…
    1. Delayed and/or eliminated possibility of marriage, as most men have loose morals due to women not holding high standards. It’s near impossible to find a high caliber, marriage-minded man. (BTW: birth control, abortion, all that is for men, not for women… so men can have what they want without the natural consequence)
    2. The above has forced me into a career position whether or not I wanted it. (Yes, some of the younger generations would like to be housewives. I’d rather serve a husband who loves me and also serves me, than a boss who cares nothing for me.)
    3. In my career world, women are still discriminated against. Two men, new to the company, with no more experience or credentials than me (I have over 15 yrs at the company) were given positions over me in the hierarchy. Feminism has not provided any real recourse in these situations. If you file a complaint, you must give your name and get fired. All one can do is leave.

    • Jennifer Armstrong

      Feminism is incomplete.  Its agenda hasn’t yet been fully actualized.

    • Guest

      1. Last I checked, birth control benefited women as much as men. If you don’t like sex, that sounds like a personal problem. 2. Why would you want to serve anyone? 3. You just admitted that women are discriminated against and noted it as a problem. And you still have a problem with feminism? Obviously you need to be reminded that feminism is an ideology that argues that women should not be seen as sub dominant based solely on sex.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Narayan/534854059 John Narayan

    I think the MRA’s @ http://www.avoiceformen.com/ have a good handle on feminism

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Narayan/534854059 John Narayan

    the last fifty years, feminist ideology has moved into a position of
    dominance in western governments, our education systems, legal
    establishments and media outlets of all kinds.  But rather than just
    bring with it the promise of social justice; of equal treatment under
    the law of both sexes and the establishment of a more just social order,
    quite the opposite has happened.We
    live in an age where men are open targets.  Family law has developed
    into a dystopian system of government tyranny against men, on the
    supposed behalf of women, that represents the biggest roll back of civil
    rights since  the age of Jim Crow. False accusations against men for
    all manner vileness including rape, child molestation, domestic abuse
    and the like have become epidemic and the perpetrators remain largely
    unpunished.This is just a part of a modern system of feminist governance that
    has gone to such extremes that we now have women who are murdering
    their husbands, often shooting them in their sleep, and walking away
    because they claim it was an act of defense from domestic abuse.Our
    sons presence in institutions of higher education is dwindling rapidly,
    as is there performance in grades K-12. With 40% representation in
    college compared to women, and falling, there is also expected to be 18
    million American men between the ages of 25 and 54 in the near future
    that will be unemployed and unemployable.Women
    outnumber men in the workforce and young women now out earn young men
    by a decided margin. Despite this our government continues to fabricate a
    false wage gap that favors men over women and has dedicated the
    majority of stimulus monies that bolster female dominated professions,
    leaving men, and boys, behind.Women
    outlive men by six years and die less frequently of all the major killer
    diseases, yet the government allocates the lions share of gender
    specific medical research to women’s health, and is opening a growing
    assortment of women’s health offices. Not even one for men exists, nor
    is there plans for one.In the media men
    have become the butt of socially approved bigotry for that sake of a
    consumer culture that is driven by the whims and tastes of women, and
    that bigotry is fostered and enabled by feminist academicians,
    politicians and ideologues that have been spreading their hatred of men
    in the disgraceful silence of a culture that has been either too dumbed
    down or too intimated to speak up against them. And worse, they have
    been enabled and supported by many that do so out of the misguided
    notion that all this is happening in the name of equality and justice.That
    enabling and silence has resulted in a culture on the decline. Families
    have been devastated, fatherlessness has become a social norm, and
    hatred, real hatred, of women, is on the rise.It is time for that silence to come to an end.A
    Voice for Men Radio, which has grown out of a rising, diverse tide of
    men and women no longer content to sit in silence as the lies that
    infect our culture continue, is set to launch on March 1st, 2011.The show will be hosted by Paul Elam, former Editor-in-Chief of Men’s News Daily and publisher of avoiceformen.com, which has been mentioned in The New York Times and CBS News. It will be broadcast via the internet at blogtalkradio.com on Tuesdays at 9:00 p.m. ESTAs
    you can see in the column to the right here, the mainstream media is
    not so warmly regarding of our efforts.  They have charged AVfM with
    being misogynistic, a tried and true canard for media outlets that must
    pass a feminist litmus test on whatever they publish.Don’t
    buy it. Mark March 1 on your calendar and find our for yourself. They
    have been lying to you all along, and they will invest anything it takes
    to keep you believing. At A Voice for Men Radio, you will find out why
    and exactly what you can do about it.

    Find these podcasts in full @ http://www.avoiceformen.com/avfm-radio/

  • Ty Henderson

    The irony is that as long as women receive special, preferential treatment in just about everything, then they will never be equal in reality.  We can make laws and policies that try to erase inequality but all it does is disguise it or cover it up.  This is true because every time men see women get treated special, whether it be… getting by with hitting men for reasons other than self-defense, affirmative action, having hate-men “scholarly” university programs, all-female public learning institutions, presidential council for women and girls, providing false claims against men and not being punished for it, men risking their lives for women,  lowered standards for strenuous physical tests, SAT’s changed to reflect female unequal  spatial capacities,  political quotas in some socialist countries, favored in family courts, equal pay for unequal work, faces hid from view when claiming rape (while men’s —even if  they aren’t guilty YET, be plastered all over the media, and on and on and on…(The list is endless)… each time females get special treatment, it registers in the minds of many men and most women that they aren’t and CAN’T be equal—else why do they need help?  Equal people can stand on their own, especially when the red carpet has been laid down for women.  All the help is not helping women in the long run.  Common sense, but apparently feminists are lacking that! Special treatment for women is backfiring. You can’t be equal and special!  Duuuh! Feminists are oblivious, selfish, short-sighted, socialistic, and wrong.

  • John Doe

     “Feminism is the WORST thing to happen to women” (Suzanne Venker, NPR interview)

    Too bad NPR isn’t this aggressive with guests that agree with their politics.

  • Mworley

    She has missed the point of feminism. Feminism wants women to have CHOICES, and if that choice means having a family, being a stay at home mom, and taking care of children, feminism thinks that is wonderful! What’s not wonderful is if she wants another type of life deep down, but can’t try for it because of societies expectations. She needs to find some real feminists, such as feminist scholars, and have a chat with them. 

  • shirley

    Wow. She’s really done an awesome job at disregarding class and race, while dangerously simplifying complex issues by mixing systemic problems and personal decisions. Well done.

  • Torodatruth

    a bit strong…but the message is here…anyone can argue how wrong she is about the definition of “feminism” but the facts are there….and any male who has been truckin through the Real world out here dating and dealing with women (and men)… KNOW thats something isn’t right really about this generation of females….their way of thinking is a little off yea… (and not to be a sexist, men are deffinitely screwing up to, just in a more typical idiotic kind of way)…..anyone ever wondered why there’s been such a splurge in gay men (men wanting the role of the women)?

    • tristessa

      a “typical idiotic kind of way”?  just boys being boys?  tell me more please about what you “KNOW” about this generation of females versus this generation of males. maybe if you didn’t let your emotions and suspicions cloud your logic you might have actual words and instances that could help me understand the prescience that has afforded you such clarity on this subject.  but since those are characteristics generally attributed to women (emotions and suspicions clouding logic etc etc) maybe you would be better just shutting up like men are supposed to do when they have feelings, right?

  • Jose Luis Lopez

    Where I can to find a woman like Suzanne Venker ? I need one like her !!! ( And a lot of men as well, really )
    Jose Luis Lopez.

  • LaurenL

    Spoken like a genuine product of a patriarchal society… now try reading feminist works without bias and judgment

  • Truef Naphtali

    Feminism -
    denotes women who want to be men and who act in a totally unfeminine
    manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition. http://truefeminists.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-taming-of-shrew.html

Hosts Meghna Chakrabarti and Anthony Brooks introduce us to newsmakers, big thinkers and artists and bring us stories of relevance to Bostonians here and around the region. Live every weekday at 3.

  • Listen: Weekdays, 3 p.m. on 90.9 FM
  • Live Call-In: (800) 423-TALK
  • Listener Voicemail: (617) 358-0607
Most Popular
This site is best viewed with: Firefox | Internet Explorer 9 | Chrome | Safari