Comments on: American Nursery

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:16:05 +0000

This is pretty unsettling. So many of you seem to just resent women and blame liberalization for everything.

Do a bit of research on women in the 50’s– returning to their “feminine” roots and happily signing themselves up as slaves. Mostly while drugging themselves senseless and being hopelessly depressed– completely baffled as to why! People don’t remember that the 50’s was a flocking to hyperconservative, anti-feminist ways after years of progress (compared to the relatively liberal decades before, which produced plenty of happy, sensible people).

I think what’s really at hand here is a complete UNWILLINGNESS to compromise, from both sexes. This isn’t a liberal problem (or a conservative one). It’s an across-the-board American entitlement problem. A problem that arose from nobody being willing to take on responsibility and grow up.

As an aside, allow me to also remind readers that feminism DOES NOT mean women are placed above men. It means equal rights. Voting, not being treated as an object, etc. I say I am a feminist and that means that I value BOTH men and women equally. And I am saying– men have no idea what women go through. It’s not fair to say it’s a man’s world, though. Men get the short end, too– because NO ONE is raised to help to take care of themselves and others!! All children are coddled. Men aren’t allowed to be men and women are just plain mistreated and ridiculously damaged by the media. NO sex is happy!

Both men and women are devaluated in this culture, whereas adolescents are placed on a pedestal. Someone above mentioned that and I think they are the closest to right in this situation. Nobody wants to grow up! Nobody wants to take care of someone other than themselves. It’s a product of a highly individualistic, selfish culture.

I, for one, am a bright, ambitious, well-educated independent ADULT at 22, and am amazed by those around me– both male and female– of college age who are such children still.

However, I also find GREAT satisfaction making my partner happy. I love cooking meals and baking and keeping things in order to be sure that my partner is happy, too. I find nothing wrong with being a liberated, intelligent, strong woman who also finds satisfaction in taking care of someone else. I also let my boyfriend hang out with his friends, etc., at the expense of our free time. However, I KNOW I am making sacrifices– and I don’t always feel it’s reciprocated. I don’t think it’s unfair to expect similar sacrifices, but it’s damn near impossible to find someone in my age group who understands what on earth sacrifice means. Seems like I’d have to dig into the 65+ sect to find that sort of mindset.

Basically, the moral of the story is: CARE ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE FOR A CHANGE! Both parties, you whiny babies! Quit blaming feminism or any similar external force.

By: Zack

Zack — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:24:03 +0000

You should get down on ur hands and knees and thank god that women have been oppressed for as long as they have been. Otherwise, who would be there for you to take advantage of while you shrink in cowardice from any real expression of this “manhood” you hold so dear. How many of the wars you love sohave you fought in, huh? You leave that for all those men and WOMEN to do for you while you sit at home and order your wife around? You dominate a woman who has been tricked into thinking she needs you (which she doesn’t” and you think THAT qualifies you for “manhood”? Am I the only one laughing here?

By: maggie

maggie — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:21:29 +0000

i couldnt help but be struck by your question “what’s in it for him?” regarding marriage and think to myself ‘what’s in it for me?” the reasons you list for men to avoid marriage could all aply to women just as well. i have used your original text, but modified it to be about women instead of men, to illustrate my point:
“[M]arriage is a large sacrifice for a (wo)man. (S)He gives up [her] right to sleep with a variety of partners, which is [just as much of a] basic an urge in (wo)men as [it is in men]….(S)He takes on responsibilities which will probably curtail both [her] work and [her] social life (especially since women tend to be the ones forced to give up their careers to raise the kids). If (s)he doesn’t also acquire authority, gravitas, respect and, yes, [equal] mastery over [her] own home, what does (s)he get? Companionship? Hey, stay single, [ladies], you’ll have a lot more money, and then you can buy companionship. [and more clothes and shoes!]
i have to also admit i am disappointed in your implication that all women want babies and that few men do. i think you are wrong, and know that you are in my case. my husband returned from his first tour in iraq (he’s a real man, who fights for our country) and it had given him the intense desire to make a baby. i wasnt even close to hearing my “biological clock” start to tick, despite being nearly 30, but i saw how much he wanted a child and i wanted to give him that and did. had the decision been solely up to me, we would probably still be childless, though i love my daughter very much and am glad my husband lobbied for children.
i suspect that the desire to procreate is as strongly ingrained in men as it is in women, though i will agree that the desire to raise and nurture those children does tend to be stronger in women than in men. still, i know several stay-at-home dads who raise their kids while the wife works, and they do an excellent job at it. men have an equal ability for caretaking, though historically cultures have not demanded that of them. just as women have an equal ability for working outside of the home, though that has not been their customary role in the past.

all reasonable women ask for in a marriage is to be treated with respect and to be appreciated. if the woman is getting those two basic things from her husband, then she will be a happy wife, regardless of who brings home the bacon. it sounds like you give your wife both, which is why i believe you probably do have a happy marriage. i have no problem with a man being “king of his own castle”, so long as he treats his wife like the queen and not like the scullery maid.

By: Strawman

Strawman — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:36:49 +0000

a shallow culture that cannot speak truthfully about its most intimate relations

As opposed to what wonder culture? Pakistan? China? Uranus? Do you also sit around and complain that these earth days are so short? And that week-old fish stink? And how much it sucks when you have a zit on your butt?

By: friedman

friedman — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:19:35 +0000

This post and most of the comments make me question evolution in the human species . . . or maybe natural selection will naturally remove us due to such ignorance.

By: Evil Pundit

Evil Pundit — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:44:48 +0000

Clare Spark, you are a misandrist feminist living in a fantasy world. The US is a matriarchy in which women have all the rights, and men have all the responsibilities.

By: clare spark

clare spark — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:25:01 +0000

To bogie wheel who called me out for hyperbole in comment 178. My generalization applies both globally and in this supposedly enlightened country.
If you are a male, you have no idea what supposedly liberated women in the West put up with, physically, emotionally, and intellectually. If you are a female, you are living in a dream world.
I was not attacking men as such, but a shallow culture that cannot speak truthfully about its most intimate relations.
I am impressed that people are still making comments here. It demonstrates what a live and disturbing issue gender relations remain.
And if Klavan was writing a satire on himself, it was not clear to me, and I am as ironic as the next Jewish intellectual,who must often resort to such tactics to survive.

By: Timezoned

Timezoned — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:40:03 +0000

Kurmudge wrote:

“Hmm. A lot of the later commenters seem to be lefties who have linked over from Greenwald, etc., and do not have a clue who Andrew is or what his life is. So they dispense the usual Greenwaldy tripe, hit and run.

The relationship between Andrew and Ellen Klavan is none of your business, guys.”

Yes, the article was a movie review, for pete’s sake, there was nothing about him and his wife in it, why did you “lefties” have to drag her into it?

This comment was the winner in terms of sheer comedy. The amount of self-contradiction in just those first few lines is staggering. The idea seems to be that learning at least something about Klavan before commenting would be the least you can do….. but it’s none of your business!

The author writes a bragging, chest-thumping article about how getting all his needs met is the number one priority around his house, and any criticism of that is a symptom of the “me first” culture?

Hilarious.

By: bogie wheel

bogie wheel — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:54:41 +0000

The condition of women is horrible

If you are not writing from Iran, you might want to avoid the hyperbole.

By: Octogalore

Octogalore — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:53:20 +0000

Marc — appreciate the econ tutorial but it’s unnecessary. I’m not claiming to be a Righty but instead that there’s a critique from the right as well as from the left of the OP that some so-called Righty commenters appear to be missing. Which is that he is willing to go against the theory of individual entrepreneurship and free market when it’s in his interest to group a whole class of people — women — as happier being economically dependent.

I have no problem with Klavan’s chosen marriage paradigm as long as it’s mutually agreeable. I do have a problem with him making a global statement that those who don’t subscribe to it are necessarily “miserable.” This is an attempt at regulating a group of people based on a Big Brother decision as to what works, which is the kind of economic plan preferred by the Left. And as you know, I am not of the left from an economic perspective and based on the OP, I’m certainly to the right of Klavan regarding how much interference I’d tolerate in a free market.