First let me preface this by saying I'm not arguing (and I don't think these women are either) that all men are virtuous, loyal, loving and deserving of appreciation. There are certainly many men out there who are dogs and scoundrels and deserving of scorn. But what I think each of these women is arguing is that the feminist culture has become so focused on the rotten men out there that women now feel as though ALL men are inherently untrustworthy and rotten, which is certainly not the case. Like most of the women out there I have been mistreated and hurt by men I have cared about and have experienced in my own family unspeakable betrayals by men. BUT just as there are men out there who do rotten things and destroy their families there are women who do the exact same thing. This is human nature, not specifically male nature and this is something that feminists do not seem to recognize. I think what each of the articles I am about to link points out is that many women have become totally blind to the fact that good men still exist out there and that our perception of men becomes our reality. In the movie The Wedding Date there is a line, "Every woman has the exact love life she wants." When I first heard that line I (like the main character) was a little bit offended, certainly this couldn't be true. But as the movie progressed both I and the main character came to realize that while this is obviously a generalization and perhaps not applicable to specific cases, it is largely true. If you see all men as untrustworthy pigs, undoubtedly that is the type of man you will end up with. However if you recognize that there ARE good men out there and diligently seek them out your chances of finding one will be much better than otherwise.

And with that...onto the articles...

Via The Anchoress I was directed to this thought-provoking piece by a lady named Fausta. The piece entitled A hypothesis on why men's lives are more difficult nowadays argues that three factors have contributed to making modern American mens' lives more difficult than their female counterparts:

1. The Church of Oprah
2. Sex and the City
3. Teen girl media

In the updates of the piece she links to another excellent article written by a woman who calls herself MaxedOutMama. I agree with almost everything she has written but here are some of the best parts:

We have created a situation in which men cannot win, and then we wonder why so many women end up bitter and dissatisfied? Get real, sister. Men are less inherently certain of themselves than women, and they need public affirmation that they are on the right path. They could use a little private appreciation, too. Virtuous men are like perpetual motion machines for women who love and support them. You give them an ounce of love, and they return a pound of loving loyalty, support and deep, unspoken appreciation.

The best thing a mother raising a daughter can do in this society is to teach her to be virtuous, and to make demands of herself to do the right thing towards others. Then, and only then, will the daughter become an adult woman who is capable of recognizing and appreciating a fine man. Because decency is hard. Decency is a struggle! Trying to live a decent life is an epic adventure much more praiseworthy and admirable than climbing Mount Everest. Anyone who tries it will find that out, and in light of the knowledge of her own failures to live up to her own standards will then be able to appreciate the attempt in a man.

Here's the truth: If women want virtuous men, then they need to publicly say that, and live out that truth in their own lives. If women want abusive, useless men, then the best way to produce them is to announce that all men are untrustworthy and vaguely sinister addictions against which every enlightened woman should be on guard. In our public culture, women treat men as if they are food addictions, and constantly go on anti-male diets, fearful that an extra pound of male-appreciation might creep into their psyches and wreck their superbly lean and mean naked-psyche profile in the vast, bathic, confessional world of Oprah, hallowed be her name.

I think that MaxedOutMama points out truths that modern American women seem to have forgotten, or perhaps were never taught: Men are inherently egotistical animals. Stroking their egos will go a VERY long way. Modern women nag and criticize in the hopes that somehow this will nudge their man into doing the things they want them to do when what I've found is that the best way of getting your man to appreciate you and do the things you want him to do is to lavish praise on him and not to lash out at him. I never simply *expect* him to do anything and I thank him for doing things from giving the cat water to taking out the trash, to doing all the heavy lifting when it came to our move. Although I *do* expect him to do these things, I know that in order for him to continue *wanting* to do these things he must feel as though he is being recognized for them. Because this is how men are. They want to know that you know they are doing it out of love and not because it is merely expected of them.

In MaxedOutMama's comment section she has another excellent post in response to one of her commenters:

On the other hand, if a woman is taught to deny instinct for the first 35 years of her life, she will have a danged hard time learning to exercise those instincts suddenly. All the scar tissue she has built up over those years, combined with the truly devastating messages society instills, will serve as a barrier. That was what Fausta meant by "surrendering to a man's love".

That's what it feels like. You lose a piece of yourself that you can never get back. You are never going to be whole again without him. That's what that "one flesh" thing means. It's true. There actually is a union at some sort of non-physical level. For instance, if I stop off at the store on the way home, I can tell whether I need to buy eggs or Chief No-Nag did just by thinking of him. I usually know if he's getting sick before he does. I admire him. I respect him. I like him. I love him. But we are also joined in a very basic way that I cannot explain to you. It is below mind.

I don't know if you have ever spent much time around animals? I swear to you that this is a very strong and observable trait in females. It's unquestionably genetic.

I could no more cheat on or try to attack Chief No Nag than I could fly. But then, I wasn't raised in a setting that taught me to lie to myself about what I wanted and then blame a man when I never felt instinctively satisfied with the life I had. I was raised by parents who wanted us to understand that we are both animals and something else, and to understand that instincts are not all bad and that thoughts are not automatically wrong.

I think it's really sad but true that young women nowadays are taught that dependency on a man is a bad thing. Again, you have to choose wisely, because depending on a bad man is definitely a bad thing. But what is so wrong about depending on a good man? As MaxedOutMama rightly points out, it's not one directional, a good man will depend on his woman too. And this is what a marriage is and should be.

Okay, one last related article (there were a few more but I may have to link those later as this is getting long) by RightThinkingGirl entitled Natural Marriage. Although I wouldn't agree that men are the stabilizing force in all marriages (for example, in my own parents marriage I can conclusively state that my mother is the stabilizing force) I would agree with her that men certainly can be the more stabilizing force in many marriages, my own future marriage definitely included in that category. The crux of this part of her argument is that men are inherently more team-oriented than women and that this fits in perfectly with the idea of marriage:

Once a man decides that you are his teammate, you are his teammate forever. To go back to the example of the firehouse, the man will never leave his friend in a burning structure. He will put himself at risk to recover his teammate. Women, because we're different than men on every level, do not feel this same way to most of our teammates. We are much less likely to commit incredible acts of that kind of physical bravery. We do not typically run into burning buildings, stand and fight back if bullets are being fired in our direction, or fly F-16s into combat zones. But the man will not hesitate. To protect the team, he will run into the burning building. He will stay and fight. It's his job and his destiny.

Men view marriage as a team effort, and are most likely to persevere when things hit a rough patch. They are, contrary to feminist wisdom, the ones who thrive in equal marriages and become disspirited when is the only one committed to so-called 'team' goals. While they might assume a leadership role (or not), they are also teammates and depend on their teammates to perform.

I think this is something I have always really admired in men and is perhaps why I have so many more male friends than female. I do have three very close girl friends who I have known forever and who I don't doubt would do almost anything for me and vice versa, but in general I would say that men tend to be much more loyal to one another and much less likely to stab each other in the back.

Anyway, that was actually kind of a precursor to the actual main focus of her article which is the feminist ideal of marriage, what "should" be and what seems to actually work in the real world.

Sometimes, what should happen within the confines of a human invention is not necessarily what will happen. What really works can surprise you.

...

It's [the division of labor in her marriage] peaceful and happy, but is it equal? Well, he does 100% of the going-to-an-office thing, in an extremely high-pressure job. He also makes 95% of the money. I rely on him to do it and to keep me in personal trainers, nannies, maids, and Prada bags. He relies on me to keep the house running smoothly so he can concentrate on work, which will keep us secure well into the future. We actually talk about his work very little but we talk about my books a great deal. His interest in my writing makes it clear that he understands it's not just a silly hobby or a way to make shopping money for me; outside the family, it's the most important thing in the world to me. None of this is politically correct, but it works. And the thing is - it just happened that way. It didn't require a plan. I think people who criticize traditional roles simply don't understand how satisfying they can be, how - dare I say it? - natural.

Our love and respect for each other is equal - but nothing else is. I do whatever I must to make him happy. He does the same for me. Take away the ratios, and that's what we're left with, in all its splendid, unequal glory.

I think this is a point I try to make to some of my more feminist friends (although I wouldn't consider any of them hardcore feminists and it's not hard to be "more feminist" than me). Having grown up in the mighty blue state of California I can certainly understand their tendency to believe that housework, cooking, childcare, etc. should all be split 50/50 as we all grew up with mothers who both worked and took on the burden of most of the housework. This is mainly because our parents grew up in a culture (traditional asian culture) where the woman does most of the domestic work, yet they lived in a place (California) where generally both parents must work in order for the family to live comfortably. As a result we grew up watching our mothers work both in and out of the home and feeling as though it was all very unfair and that men should really have to participate more in domestic issues. So I do understand where the idea of "this is how it should be" came from. And at the same time, growing up in the big blue state of California amongst lots of liberals we also came to believe that a woman MUST have something outside of the home in order for her life to have value and meaning. And that is why so many of my friends cannot imagine a woman actually wanting and choosing to stay at home, not having a career, and making her family her number one priority. We were never taught that this is "ok." We were taught that if you don't have a career, once your kids grow up you will have nothing and your life will be meaningless. We are taught to fear that. And so we try to do everything we can to ignore the fact that biology and evolution inherently makes us the better care-takers of the home and the man more designed to go out and bring home the bacon.

I was talking to Paul about RTG's article and he said that if you put it in terms of economics its like...comparative advantages. If you have a field that's good for growing wheat and then a very lush tropical piece of land good for growing fruit, it doesn't make sense to say that each plot of land must be split in half and both fruit and wheat must be grown on both pieces of land. Basically - just because two things are different (in this case, men and women) and have different comparative advantages does not mean that they are unequal. In fact, they are equal, they're just...well...different.

This kind of goes back to my post a few days ago about feminisim and fertility and how feminists are always talking about how things should be instead of accepting reality for what it is.

Well, that's about all from me for now as I have to go outside and watch my virtuous, loyal man wash my car even though he just worked for 11 hours and is undoubtedly exhausted. I'm a lucky gal =)