Is it OK for a man to comment on your article? If not feel free to delete this.

My wife has at many times told me that she would like to have a little tummy tuck or a boob job but I don't want her to have anything "done." I have told her on many ocassions that if she feels she is too fat she needs to use the tread mill that I bought her. As far as the "other" cosmetic surguries are concerned, I am perfectly happy with her the way God made her and have been for twenty years of marriage.

Thanks,

Craig

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I also understand the point women like Betty Friedan were making. What I gathered from them is that a woman does not have to think that she NEEDs a man in order to have a complete and full life. I think they were trying to say that you don't need to do the marriage and motherhood thing order to be a real woman. Its okay to date men and to get married. However, its unhealthy to totally give up your own identity in the process of those things. I think she was just trying to say that being a woman does not automatically select a woman for a role of subservience to a man. I think she was trying to say that a woman doesn't have deal with a man treating her like a servant and punching bag just because he thinks he reigns supreme. I also think that they just wanted women to realize their seuxality and be proud of it. Indeed, even to this day, female sexuality is associated with whoredom.

I definitely understand what you're saying, I think. Please help me if I'm wrong. I think you're saying, which I agree, that our free-spirited seuxal liberation has worked against because the media has seized it as an opportunity to further seuxally objectify women. Moreover, its given men license to twist the meaning of the women's lib movement in order to further exploit women and maintain their male chauvinist views. Indeed, its also given them another way to manipulate women on an individual level, because they tell us that they like a strong, liberated woman, yet they still have the same mentality of associating female sexuality with whoredom. They still view sex as some sort of rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. Now that we're living in a civilized society where they no longer just have do the things that their primal instincts thrive on like hunting, women along with sports have replaced the these of venues of carnal pleasure which make them "feel like a man". They have always had a sexual conquest-type mentality about women, however as society has become more advanced, their need to fulfill their primal instincts has been increasingly focused on women.

I think I'm in agreement with you, because I also think the vanity of our own self-love and liberation has started working against us , because men have began to use our vanity and rebelliousness against us. I think that may have been the unintended latent function of the women's lib movement. The only time men get at odds with us is when they can't use or manipulate us in any way beneficial to them by controlling our minds. Thats when they put their hands on us and try to make us feel and behave the way they want us to. Otherwise, men don't care what we do as long as its benefical to them. They'll go with the flow with the flow of whatever we want to do as long as they can have a controlling influence over what we do. They want this control, because in nature men and women are one another's biggest competitors for resources and ultimate Earthly power and control. They don't want things to be equal, because it'd mean less of the pie for them. They use the fashion, beauty and at times the health & fitness industries to distract us from seeing what's REALLY going on around us, because we'll be too wrapped up in ourselves trying to control or eliminate those things deemed to be flaws by those entities,lol. As far as sex goes, in nature its the common bond that ties men and women. Sex is the innate, instinctual thing that brings the sexes together. This is why men place so much emphasis on sex in society, especially in regards to a woman's place in society. Not all men are this way, but alot of them are. This is why I think its important for women to be united on all fronts, especially when it comes to dealing with men. United we stand, divided we fall. We can't turn on each other all for the sake of having a man or being viewed favorably in their eyes. When male views attack one of us, we should all be offended if only for the sake of unity. Indeed, men don't tear each other to shreds to the point that it divides them on the whole.

Rita:

I don't see it as an Us vs. Them proposition.

The problem with radical feminism is that it threw the baby out with the bathwater. Decent men like my husband who were raised to defer to ladies say, "Hey - fine. If you want to be equal, why should I put you on a pedestal?"

Which is just fine with me. But then feminists like Nancy Hopkins demand not equality, but special treatment for women! Major double standard, and this creates justified resentment in men. There are situations - pregnancy is one of them, many sexual situations are another - that leave a woman vulnerable and in need of protection. If men aren't trained to take responsibility and shelter women, who will?

Men can be wonderful and noble and fine and they can be predatory and somewhat bestial. If we shame them when they try to be noble, should we be surprised when they revert to less desireable behaviors?

If we tell women its OK celebrate their inner slut, how on earth can we blame men for mistaking them for whores? After you've layered on the low-cut blouse, Miracle Bra, the Pheremones parfum, and the rhinestone thong, it's just a tad disingenuous to go all virginal and white picket fence on the poor guy and say "No means No, you big brute!". :)

Cassandra:

First of all, I was applying the theory of social darwinism to gender relations as it pertained to the women's liberation movement or as you simplistically put it,"Us vs. Them". Its a sociological competition theory. I used this theory as a way to address the author's question of,"Have we finally transcended sexism and if so, why aren't men jumping on the same bandwagon?". I only said that it was what I THOUGHT. I didn't say it was the gospel truth or couldn't be disproved. I was really only asking the author if my interpretation of what she said was correct. Then, I also stated my thoughts in addition, which is where I applied the sociological theory.

You have a husband. You say he's good. FINE. I did not attack marriage. I attacked the idiocy of the subservient role that women HAD traditionally been expected to take in society. Nobody attacked your husband. In fact, I said, "all men are not like this" - meaning all men aren't chauvinists or control freaks. I was saying that a woman shouldn't need a man, as in need a man in order to survive period. People need people regardless of gender at some point. However, a woman shouldn't think any less of herself or her goodness or success as a woman if she doesn't have a man. Its okay to have a man or want one. I never said anything was wrong with that. However, thinking less of yourself and your capabilities as a woman, because you don't have a man is emotionally unhealthy. Indeed, suppose you have a husband and he dies on you and you never meet anyone else or no one else wants to marry you - then what? All you'd have is you. Why would you not be good enough for you?

I wish you had read what I said a little better, or maybe you just want someone to know that you have a husband. If you would have actually read my post, you'd have seen that I ALSO don't believe in special treatment for women at all. However it sounds to me like you do since you actually said, "There are situations - pregnancy is one of them, many sexual situations are another - that leave a woman vulnerable and in need of protection. If men aren't trained to take responsibility and shelter women, who will?" How about other capable women who aren't pregnant, lol? Do you think we're too stupid to know how to help one another? Suppose your husband is at work or out of town and you go into labor early - what would you do? Since the beginning of time, there have been women who have had babies all on their own. During slavery here in the U.S., the pregnant slaves often gave birth right there in the field while working. They just squatted and pushed then went back to work. This was a horrible practice, but it happened. The only thing I can see a pregnant woman may need a man to protect her from is another man. He should also drive her to the hospital when she's in labor. However, she could just call 911 or a cab. We shouldn't have to train a man to do anything unless he's our son. Men are adults. Many of them actually think they know more than us. Many of us think they know more than us. Remember, they are the ones who define what a lady and a woman is. They have told us what we should be like and how we should look. Since they know so well about what a woman should be and how she should think and feel,there's no need to train a man anything about his role as a man, because he should already know that too. My biggest problem issue is the control factor. I am a full grown Adult. No spouse or partner, regardless of sex, has any business trying to control me in any capacity. I'm glad that I have enough respect for myself to stand up for me. You damn right, I do have an issue about how much control a man should have in a relationship. It wasn't long ago (1990s) that a man could get away with raping his wife, because it was legal. In the 1970s and prior, a man could legally beat his wife as if she was his child. She was viewed as his property. There women that died from severe beatings from their husbands. Even though there were laws against spousal abuse, many jurisdictions did not recognize and enforce them.

MY point about the whole celebrating our sexuality is that a woman should never be ashamed of her sexuality. In case you didn't know, there's a difference between sexual pride/freedom and being a whore. First, a whore is a prostitute. I said that a woman's sexuality was equated with whoredom, because of scrutiny that sex endured as a result of the puritanical ideologies that once dominated this society, especially in regards to a woman's role and place in society. A woman should not let what a man would think of her affect her mind to the degree that she alters her whole entire personality, goals, aspirations and needs. She shouldn't become an altruistic asexual, simply because of a fear that a man would think she's a whore or nasty slut if she enjoys sex. Now you may not know this, but there was a point in society where a woman's sexual needs in her marriage were considered unimportant and indecent. There was a time when men expected their wives to just lay there, because anything else would have been considered indecent. Matter of fact, during the Victorian era for example, whenever a woman was anything less than a quiet mouth and smiling face she was deemed to be suffering with hysteria. The treatment was that she had to go to the doctor who'd then stimulate her sexual organs manually until he felt she was calm. Doctors considered this job to be beneath them and tiring, so they'd get a nurse to sexually stimulate the woman. The vibrator was invented as a relief aid for the doctor or nurse to use when they had to perform this "daunting" task. If the woman's episodes of malaise and discontent didn't improve, she got sent to an insane asylum.

My last point is this - there are women who do not dress sexually provacative or give ANY sexual innuendos to a man about anything that still get raped. Further, there are women who do not dress sexually provacative or give ANY sexual innuendos to a man about anything that still get put down and demeaned when they didn't freely have casual sex with a guy just because he asked - they are called prudes, ugly b*tches and feminazis. Thats your whole "training a man" theory out of the window right, because I KNOW society trains a man not to rape a woman. With some - maybe even most men - you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't as far as sex is concerned, so why care about what they think? It makes more sense to make the decisions that you are going to feel good and comfortable with at the end of the day or night, rather than be overly altruistic towards a man or male ideology and sacrifice one's sanity and identity in the process. In other words, if you want to have sex, do it with caution(be fully aware of the potential outcomes of the situation) - if you don't want to have sex, don't have sex. You should care about what you think first and foremost, especially if that man isn't your husband.

Kudos to the man that posted above me. He's a good man! He's wise.