This is one area where as a blogger I have an embarrassment of riches. Excellent comments are so common that I more often than not don’t acknowledge them even in the discussion itself. There are simply too many great insights to try to acknowledge them all.
As for Bennett et al, they would do well to understand that the reason why men are underachieving is because they can. If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women. Again, these are two sides of the same coin. For some reason the numbskulls who pass themselves off as public intellectuals in this culture can’t seem to wrap their puny minds around that truism.
As a recovering So Con myself, I will venture that the instinctive So Con response to Brendan’s point is something to the effect of:
But what if I’m against feminism?
or (more to the point)
But what if we pretend feminism didn’t happen?
But of course feminism did happen, and denying it or not agreeing with it doesn’t change the fact that it did.
Commenter Woof corrected me on my misinterpretation of Dennis Prager’s position on marriage (followed by divorce) being good for men:
In the text you quote, Dennis Praeger does not argue “that it is good for men to marry and then have their wives divorce them”. He claims instead that it’s good for society. He’s not saying the fatted calf benefits from the slaughter. He’s saying the guests do.
Johnycomelately very kindly characterized my post fisking Ms. Nance with:
That’s the sound Dalrock’s response has to conservatives, just goes over their heads.
I can see their counter, what are you unpatriotic?
As much as I appreciate the intended compliment (and I truly do), I’m hoping that my post will be able to sway at least some social conservatives. I really meant it when I said that they don’t know what raving feminists they are. If you know some diehard So Cons, that probably would be the post to send to them and test their reaction. Realistically nothing I or anyone else can write is likely to change many minds on such strongly held beliefs, but I think if we can point out to So Cons (and everyone else really) that they have unknowingly swallowed feminism whole there will probably be at least a few on the margins who we can swing. We don’t have to win the war of ideas, but it is a nice bonus and hopefully we can speed up the process of returning to sanity.
Chels asked an excellent question:
Most of the MRAs seem to be against traditional gender roles–the man brings in the money, while the woman stays at home, raises children and takes care of her family. I’ve always been curious, what gender roles do you propose? (if any)
I don’t have the time or energy to write a reply which would do this question justice. I had some fun with the question here, and that plus having read some of my other writing hopefully gives you a rough sense of where I’m coming from. I may devote a separate post to this in the coming week or so. What I will say for now at least is that I don’t see us making radical changes in this area. I think there will be and should be plenty of opportunity for men and women to define how they want to live their lives. Some women are born to be CEOs, and I say more power to them. But this doesn’t mean we have to pretend men and women are the same, or that we should deny what we know about the mechanics of male-female relationships, or that we should create lower standards for women in order to make them or politicians feel good. And it doesn’t mean that we should lie to women about the real trade-offs they need to be prepared to make when deciding what they want to do with their lives. It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t roll back the incredibly biased laws and institutions feminism has erected against men. I’m sure I’m missing a great deal here, but hopefully you get the gist of it at least.