That Philadelphia article, part two

Following up on Part One, let’s get to the second cliche: By becoming successful women destroy any chance of their happiness.
This was covered in the first Undead Sexist Cliche post I ever did, but I will admit Hingston came up with a new twist: Men define themselves by Not Being Women (which is an argument I’m inclined to agree with) so “if boys see girls behaving in a certain way—working hard and excelling in school—they define masculinity in opposite terms: A real man doesn’t work hard at school or get good grades. The more that women try to set an example of responsible adult behavior, the more the guys shout along with the band Deer Tick: “We’re full-grown men but we act like kids!”
So why, pray tell, do we not see this in the army? Now that women are working as MPs and medics, shouldn’t guys be defining themselves as cowards or conscientious objectors? Why do we not see male cops quitting the force in droves and leaving the job to women? Why do men move into traditionally female professions such as nursing?
Hingston notes earlier in the article that “men who are into school are seen as wimpy and nerdy” but why does she think that’s women’s fault rather than, say, jocks? She offers no evidence women are responsible for this perception, but she does assert later that many people argue guys’ loser status is the inevitable result of feminism, because feminism makes us “define masculinity in negative ways.” And presumably because all those women being successful are just so … castrating.
And, therefore, women are hurting themselves by succeeding. Because “women long to be taken care of in a perilous economy” (as Susan Faludi has pointed out, a staple belief since 9/11)so they’re hanging around hoping for some wonderful guy and the guys are too busy downloading porn and playing video games to have real relationships (in addition to sexism, Hingston recycles pretty much every stereotype of game-playing nerds living in mom’s basement). And that, in turn, is turning them into lesbians because the guys are too busy watching porn to fulfill their needs.
So the effect of feminism is, let’s see, rendering men impotent, driving them to watch porn, ruining their ability to find jobs or succeed in school and it also destroys women’s chances at marriage.
OMG, I guess that proves everyone was better off back in the 1950s, huh?

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

2 responses to “That Philadelphia article, part two

  1. Pingback: An exaltation of larks—er, links | Fraser Sherman's Blog

  2. Pingback: Just a link or two | Fraser Sherman's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s