I've only read the first part of that article but already I'm wondering (for the billionth time in my life) how conservatives can be such hypocrites and not realize it. According to Kathleen Parker, you can tell how devalued men have become by watching movies and t.v., but I would bet you a million dollars that if you used the exact same argument to show how our society devalues women, Parker would deny it.

Also, I was raised by my father and three step-mothers (the fourth came after I'd left the house) and older brother. I basically raised my younger brother and my closest friends have all been male for the past 10 years, but I can still recognize that Parker's argument is basically bullshit, and so is her excuse for why she believes it.

Ok well I had to create a new user to say this, but what is up with the article equating "3rd wave feminists" to "people wearing pushup bras"??? That made me want to spit fire. It's annoying, because even through the horrible biased writing it still seems like there may be common ground between these two groups- real feminism doesn't want to devalue the role of men in the family, it just doesn't want to essentialize it and put it on a pedestal as the best and only way a family can be.

The pushup bra comments stood out to me too. Gotta love that false construct that 3rd wave feminist = someone who must wear pushup bras constantly to attract men = slutty = probably not to be taken seriously.

Just once, just once, I would like someone to bring up Murphy Brown and point out that the father of her child walked out. She didn't get pregnant on purpose, she didn't hide her pregnancy from the father: she told him, and he responded that he wasn't ready to change his life. Just once I would like someone to mention that.

Sadly, the review doesn't really do Jessica--or feminism--justice, and by equating the two books, gives Save the Males waaaay too much cred. Perhaps because it's in "Fashion" (where feminism belongs, per the NYT, as usual) the author felt that acutally, you know, exploring ideas like women's oppression, the backlash, the use of women as sock puppets to attack other women, etc., was too "weighty". Better to just go "oh those wacky gals--the scolds vs. the sexies!"

Ugh. Glad Jessica got the mention, sorry it was in such a brainless and trivial way.

Urg, what's with the long explanation given to Parker's book, and none to Jessica's? There's not even a mention of the feminist book until paragraphs in, and is anyone surprised?

I'm in a similar boat to you, Waxghost. I had a lot of "boyish" interests growing up, and have always had a lot of male friends. But that doesn't make me go, "Ohhh, the poor menz, we mustn't be too liberated or else we'll damage their delicate egos!"

Hmm. Why couldn't they just give Jessica her own space on the page, instead of having to put it next this hateful garbage masquerading as legitimate work? Why can't Jessica's voice stand on its own without needing to be "countered" by this anti-feminist faux research? Why do newspaper editors think feminist writing cannot be left to stand on its own merits without an idiotic conservative counterattack? Hello? New York Times? I hate you?

Seriously. Annoying.

/snark on/

Ok, so let me test my understanding of Ms. Parker's position.

"...an entire generation of men have lost their moral compass because women decided to flash skin instead of flashing behavioral cue cards that say: Respect. Protect. Marry. Provide,"

because: "empowered women choose to look out for themselves, she asks, what are men to do?" because "society discounts the importance of men as fathers and husbands, and does too little to make men feel self-assured in schools, in the workplace, the family and even the military."

resulting in: men being “weary of being used as sperm donors and human A.T.M.’s”

BUT! given that: "women are “biologically” programmed to like housework more than men do." meaning: "There’s no way to make men into women.”

Women should get back behing those brooms, allowing men to "...being used as sperm donors and human A.T.M.’s!”

This seems oddly circular, am I missing something here?

/snark off

(all quotes from NTY review.)

NYT reviewer wrote:

She makes the charge that our society discounts the importance of men as fathers and husbands, and does too little to make men feel self-assured in schools, in the workplace, the family and even the military.

1) OMFG, what about the MEN??? Someone call the Waahmbulance! Send 'em a box of tissues!

2) Bullshit, complete and utter.

NYT reviewer wrote:

If empowered women choose to look out for themselves, she asks, what are men to do?

And this is a problem for empowered women who look out for themselves because...????? More tissues, please, and hurry! Oh! What are they to do???

Let 'em get a fake womb. They could hire a real one pretty easily these days, but I don't see stories of lots of single guys hiring surrogates to carry their seed. I wonder why that is.

"If empowered women choose to look out for themselves, she asks, what are men to do?"

It's all so contradictory. I thought traditionally men were the independent ones yet they need women to look out for them? I thought men were thought of less sensitive but they're the ones whose egos we have to worry about?

Does the article actually end with, "just who are those push-up bras for?" That sounds like an opening sentence to a possibly interesting paragraph, not an ending. Now, who is actually going to think about that question and what the author means?

Oh, and it seems 80-90% of bras sold aren't push-up but have underwire. I hate that.

Congrads with your book and with your tenacity / stamina.

Waaaay back in highschool, I worked with an enlightened teacher and wrote a term paper on the use of language and the role of women in society. I particularly focused on jokes.

I became so unhappy as a result of this project and the gender distrimination was just everywhere, and it was so ingrained into the Dutch language.

It must have been one of the most important projects I have done in my life however as it has so changed my life. After a period of 'correcting' everyone/my own language and sheer depression, I had to change my tune or I would have gone under.

So, instead, I have always supported feminist causes. I purposely feature contemporary women artists at eArtfair, such as Kruger, and Pamela Z.

I proofread my own work & catch myself. (Oh, gender distrimination through language is so pervasive.)

My daughter is allowed 0% name calling or labelling jokes, no matter how 'funny'. With that simple rule, I'm teaching both her, her friends plus their parents to power of language.

So, with all this understanding, good for you, and good for us ALL, to get your work PUBLISHED. THANK YOU!!!! That is a great step forward.

(Re. whatshername, Parke, oh.... don't give it any energy. It's not important at all.)

Just talk about what does matter: equal respect for all. Thank you for STANDING TALL.

Namaste!

Wow, way to phone it in NYT. Even for the fashion section, because women don't read the *real* parts of the paper.

Is "book 1 is different than book 2 here are examples" an acceptable article? It wasn't really a "review" of either.

lyndorr commented at July 13, 2008 10:04 AM: "'If empowered women choose to look out for themselves, she asks, what are men to do?'

"It's all so contradictory. I thought traditionally men were the independent ones yet they need women to look out for them?"

I got the impression that it's less directly contradictory than assuming "yet they need women to look out for."

Some people seem to think men are worthless when women aren't helpless, and want us to stay helpless for the sake of keeping men in traditional-masculine roles (as if men don't have plenty of other stuff to do, like look out for themselves, when empowered women look out for themselves!).

"Allow me again to translate. There's no way to make men into women."

Hormone therapy and surgery?

Anyhoo, it's nice to see the book got a mention, but to me this article is crap. It read like a love letter to that "Save the Males" b.s. with a few quick mentions of Jessica's book thrown in. And each time it was mentioned, it was immediately refuted by a point from the other book. Yet Parker had already had the entire first half of the article devoted to her.

NYT, if you're going to do a compare-and-contrast book review, at least make it balanced. Either give each book half of the article, or compare points side by side. Don't give one book half an article then toss the other a bone and immediately contradict it with by going back to the first. Or, try actually reviewing each book. How's about separate articles that can be run side by side?

Instead of contrasting where each author stands on various issues, how about we discuss the writing style, creativity, how well thought-out and argued the points are? I'm pretty sure that would actually be a review.

hmmm...after I said "Hormone therapy and surgery?" I had made a fake HTML "end snark" tag. I guess the comment thing thought it was just bad HTML and ate it.

Try again?

DAMMIT!

open tag backslash "snark" close tag

(sorry for multiple posting)

"If empowered women choose to look out for themselves, [Kathleen Parker] asks, what are men to do?"

Um. Clean up their own messes, carry their own emotional baggage, and look for relationships between equals?

weary of being used as sperm donors and human A.T.M.’s

Yes, because we all know men never raised those kinds of complaints against their wives/girlfriends back in the Good Old Days.

@Jane Awl: You said "Waahmbulance." I think you just made my day. Srsly.

Yesterday I saw a woman in Harlem wearing a shirt that said "I make my own money." I want one!

This whole thing about men needing to have someone to look after and protect intrigues me. Lots of people have said that men like to do things for their partners, fix their cars etc.
My feminist (male) partner certainly likes to do these kinds of things for me. He is more than happy to fix my dvd player, or open the lid on the jam jar.
HOWEVER, it goes both ways. It made me happy and it made me feel useful to recock the bathtub for him, or to fix the toilet.
Wanting to look out for your partner, as well as feel useful and validated, isn't a "man" thing OR a "liberated woman" thing....I think its just a human thing, and it is certainly a feminist thing :)

My father was a neat freak and was very good at letting us wimmens know when we missed a spot, but he never managed to clean anything himself.

This is the same Kathleen Parker who used her column to call for the assassination of John Kerry. To juxtapose that Nazi with Jessica Valenti is insulting.