Did Feminism Ruin it for Guys?

[SpeedoGuy]

. One problem I've noticed is that people don't eat well, because they don't have the time to prepare proper meals. Hence we have the growing problem of obeisity, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.

There's one of the consequences for families: too many hours spent at work by parents.

.
To get benefits, one must work full-time, and more and more employers consider full-time to be a minimum of 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, and prefer employees to work 45 hours a week or more.

And that's why too many hours are spent at work.

You'll be judged on an adlib preformance in this life.

There's another biggy for men.

Both good posts.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I think that was a brilliant post, Jason.

I was going to say that everyone should watch the movie "The Hours," particularly the middle segment with Julianne Moore, for a sense of what life must have been like for one of these lonely suburban middle-class housewives. I think you gave an equally powerful portrait of what it was like for the men.

 

[2322]

I think that was a brilliant post, Jason.

I was going to say that everyone should watch the movie "The Hours," particularly the middle segment with Julianne Moore, for a sense of what life must have been like for one of these lonely suburban middle-class housewives. I think you gave an equally powerful portrait of what it was like for the men.

YES!! Best sequence in the entire film.

I'm a sucker for women in full shirtwaist skirts. I think it's very hot.

Thanks for the compliment!

 

[whatireallywant]

My professor theorized that the crushing boredom of these women's lives subconsciously rubbed off on their kids, who would become the hippies and rebels of the '60s.

Very true. I grew up in a community that was behind the times (and still is, as far as I can tell) on all this, and I had non-traditional interests since before I can even remember (I know this from looking at some pictures of me taken when I was two years old). If I had to live like a 50s housewife, it would be a prison to me.

I'm sure I could go on at length about the problems pre-feminism women faced, but that's not the topic. Thing is, I also happen to think that the men didn't have so good either. Those men had no choice but to go get a job and keep that job (no matter what) so the family would be provided for.I wouldn't want to be a 50's housewife - but I'm not 100% sure I'd rather be the 50's 'man of the house' either, given the choice.

These days both men and women have far more choice in how they live their lives. There are so many ways of being now - not just one accepted model from which one deviates only if one is a bit eccentric or damaged. I think that is better for men and women.

I've thought about this too. While I think that it would be boring and prison-like to be a 50s housewife, I also think that being a traditional man in the 50s, and having a wife and kids be TOTALLY dependent on you economically, would be very scary! I know which one I'd prefer to be - I'd prefer to be the man in that role, but only because I hate domestic drudgery and don't like screaming kids, plus I'd like a little more choice in what I do for a living, like I could've chosen to go into a scientific field like physics or astronomy, be an engineer, or go into a skilled trade like being an electrician. All of these fields of employment appeal to me. But even with all that having a family being completely dependent on me economically would be very scary. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if jobs were secure though. I don't think there were quite as many layoffs and firings back then, for some reason.

I don't really have much of a choice as far as whether or not to work, since I'm single, but I'm ok with that - if I could find a job, that is! What I really DO like about the changes brought along by feminism is that I can seek employment in traditionally male fields of work, which I generally prefer. I was always interested in science and technology. Ironically, I'm now also seeking employment in one traditionally female field as well, since I need a job, and my time online and computer skills have made me able to type fast enough for a lot of the clerical/secretarial jobs. I don't think I'd like them as much as I liked being a programmer, but I need work, and all I see in the job listings for programmers these days is for the LEAD programmer! I'm not there yet.

Did feminism ruin it for guys? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

First, who wants to live in an unequal society? The 50's sound awful to me.

And then, guys need to learn from feminism. Find out what it is that you really want out of life and get empowered to go and get it.

Now the part that some may object to. If I was leaving college now, I wouldn't consider a serious relationship until I was thirty or thirty two. I would have ten years free of any responsibility for anyone apart from me. I would work my butt off to find the right career and establish myself, I would get my student loans paid off, I would get a house sorted that I enjoyed living in, I would get some good vacations in and screw around till my knob fell off.

Only then might I consider the "family" relationship. I would be able to afford it more comfortably, I would have grown up (maybe), I would know what I wanted from it and what I would have to give to it. Not only that but the available pool of partners would have gone from women of my own age then to let's say 21 to 32 year olds. Unless you really have found your soulmate when you are a kid, there are plenty of fish n the sea, and we don't have that clock ticking.

I don't see anything wrong with delaying a relationship until you are more established in your career/more financially secure, for men or women. That's a smart move, as far as I'm concerned. And not all women have a "biological clock". I don't have one. Of course if you want kids, I'm not your woman anyway, since I've never wanted them.

Well - that's feminism as an organised movement / political philosphy, and yes, it is still happening. Though if you actually read that article you linked to you'll see it is more about dispelling myths / assumptions about binary gender roles. It is far more about equality of people than it is about bettering the position of women in society (which was the main aim of ealier feminism).

This is where I am. My main activist point, I suppose, is to dispel the gender myths and to promote equality, while acknowledging individual differences. I call myself an "equality feminist" which is an egalitarian, basically, after reading this, which describes my view on all of this...

Equality feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rbkwp]

Yes&No'
Gave the women pretty much = rights altho sometimes you wonder re that
overall i think it has been a Good thing
It appears it has now placed the Male at a slight Disadvantage..
but
in saying that, i do think its justly deserved..either way'

I wonder if their standard of living was much higher with this division of labor. I wonder if men and women were happier back then.

I think some Men are REAL BASTARDS (and Women no doubt) ..Some Men with there Suppressive nature towards Women.
I also feel to a large degree its been a GREAT thing the Feminism move,ment
enz

 

[whatireallywant]

I've had similar wonderings, but truth be told, those wonderings emerge out of my own unhappiness with my current situation, and I suspect your question is coming from the same place.

For me, I'm single and I work about 45 hours a week. I don't leave work until 6 or 6:30 most nights, and if I run errands after work, I sometims don't get home until 7 or 8, and then I can't rest because at the very least I have to cook dinner and do this dishes, and some nights I have to clean, do laundry, wash the car, etc. If I get sick or have a headache or my back hurts, that's just too bad because things still have to get done and there's no one else to do it but me. If I don't go shopping, I have no food. If I don't cook, I don't eat. If I don't do laundry, I don't have clothes to wear, and so on. I'm completely on my own.

But my observation is that today's couples (gay or straight) don't have it much better, because usually they're both working full time. One problem I've noticed is that people don't eat well, because they don't have the time to prepare proper meals. Hence we have the growing problem of obeisity, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. I sometimes worry that home-cooking is becoming a lost art. I don't know how people are able to find the time to raise children. I don't even have enough time for a pet.

Getting back to the original question, I'm sure there were some women who did not want to work, who did not want the pressure of going into a job every day, of having to perform assigned tasks and being answerable to a superior. I'm sure some women preferred to be the queen of her own castle, setting her own tasks for the day, working at her own pace, and taking breaks when she wanted (to read, eat, watch TV, play with the kids, have coffee with a neighbor, etc.) I'm sure some women found it more rewarding to work for he wellfare of their families than for a stranger or an impersonal corporation. I imagine some single women who did work may have been looking forward to the day when they could get married and stop working.

This is not to say that these women necessarily liked cooking and cleaning, but it may have seemed a reasonable price to pay to be free from having to work.

But some women were extremely bored and deeply unsatisfied with life as a housewife. I think what feminism was rejected was the lack of choices, the rigid gender roles, the notion that "biology is destiny," i.e., if you are born female your role in life is to be a housewife and that's all you can ever be. If you are born male you must work to earn money.

I'm also sure there were men who would liked to have worked less, to have had more time for their families, to have been able to spend more time at home. And, as ManlyBanisters pointed out, I imagine some men would have liked to have been relieved of the burden of being the sole breadwinner.

So our society has slowly been transitioning to one that is more egalitarian, and that is good.

What is not good is that the cost of living is so high that for many couples to make ends meet, both have to work full-time, and one or both of them may even have to take a second job. To get benefits, one must work full-time, and more and more employers consider full-time to be a minimum of 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, and prefer employees to work 45 hours a week or more. It's often impossible to get a raise or promotion without putting extra hours in.

So while women have gained the ability to have careers, for men nothing has changed, except when a man gets home from work, instead of having dinner waiting for him, as often as not his wife won't be home from work yet, and it will be his responsibility to cook dinner. He still needs to take out the trash, shovel snow, and do yardwork, but he also has to shop for groceries, cook, clean, vacuum, do laundry, change diapers, get up in the middle of the night to take care of a crying baby, etc., etc.

None of these things would be so bad if men could work fewer hours and had more quality time at home. The fact that things didn't work out that way probably has more to do with a changing economy, not feminism.

Honestly, economics was never my strong point, so I don't pretend to understand why one income isn't enough anymore.

On the plus side, as MB points out men are no longer have to bear the burden of providing for the family finanically, and they no longer stuck working for the same employer for their entire working life, nor do they have to stick with one career. The advantage of having a working partner is that you can afford to take a break and be out of work for a while.

Even more importantly, equality of the sexes is inherently better than having a second sex that is essentially the servant and caregiver of the first.

I do think there needs to be some changes in the workplace, but instead, we are all working MORE hours per week, not less. Some of the people I know put in 60-hour weeks at work, every week! I've worked 60-hour weeks before in the short term, both at a single job and with two jobs, and it's tough! I like to work outside of the home and there's no way I'd want to stay at home and cook and clean (now if I won the lottery and didn't have to work, but could hire a private chef and a maid, that'd be another story.. :biggrin1: But even then I think I'd get bored and I'd eventually look for work). But that's because I really dislike doing anything domestic! There needs to be a middle ground between working 60-hour weeks and not having any time for your family, and one person being stuck in domestic drudgery and not earning income at all. (Yes I realize that some people actually LIKE domestic drudgery... hey, if that's what they like that's fine as long as they don't expect ALL women to be that way!)

 

[Penis Aficionado]

Yes, my biggest objection to "Feminism," at least the official, 60s-70s version, is that it did tend to suggest that women could best find fulfillment by going out into the "working world" rather than making a home and raising kids.

I think it's fine if women want to do that -- or do the other. That's up to them and ther families and it's not anyone else's place to judge.

But inadvertently, feminism contributed to the corporatization of our society by encouraging women to buy into the workaholic values of '50s-era men. And that helped lead to the situation described above, where a full-time job in corporate America *really* means 45-60 hours a week, and literally tens of millions of vacation hours go unused in America because people feel their bosses will think badly of them if they use all the vacation time to which they are entitled.

I used to be the kind of person who would get in a fighting mood if I heard someone say this, but ... we need to become more like the countries of Western Europe. At least in how they keep work and the rest of life in proper proportion, give people time off to care for newborn babies and sick relatives, and just get away from the grind long enough to develop other aspects of themselves.

Personally, I would much rather work on my house and yard all day than go sit in an office and shuffle paper. And if I had the opportunity to do that by marrying a decent person who enjoyed "work" more than I do, in exchange for keeping his home neat, cooking his meals and raising his kids, I would seriously consider it.

 

[Supersized]

It's hard to imagine a life where you come home to a wife, clean house, and have dinner waiting for you on the table and have it be the norm. I wonder if I was a straight guy if that would be the ideal set up for marriage. Have a wife stayed at home in charge of the house while I earned the money enough to support the whole family.

I wonder if their standard of living was much higher with this division of labor. I wonder if men and women were happier back then.

I take it the men were happy. Not the women.

 

[B_Jaunet]

no

masculinism ruined it for women

 

[naughty]

I dont think we can clearly say that Feminism as a whole ruined "it" for men. When I finally decided to read Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique years ago it struck me that this poor woman was merely trying to get people to act right and think about the position of women in the society as it was structured at the time. There were those male and female who took this to extremes. Women who had been burned and were very angry created the legion of stories that many men use as an excuse today as to why they dont open doors or behave in a manner previously just seen as good manners. On the flip side there were men who angered by the militance and threat to the status quo decided to just let the women go ahead and have it their way and do it all. I never recall that being the desired effect of Feminism. Just as in the case of the Civil rights movement , legislation can not enforce a heart change. If someone has the desire to behave in a cooperative , unselfish manner be they male or female they will do so. If not we will continue to have the type of problems that we all still face in communication.
For many women, not working has never been an option so the 50's "Father knows best" ideal has never been part of their experience.What has been a problem has been the continued expectation on the part of the male partner that she would be a working woman carrying the same type of hours and workload as her husband but still expected to perform like Donna Reed. It works if one is making enough to afford childcare or other household help but for millions of women from the middle class down they continue to find that "A man's work is from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done"

 

[whatireallywant]

Yes, my biggest objection to "Feminism," at least the official, 60s-70s version, is that it did tend to suggest that women could best find fulfillment by going out into the "working world" rather than making a home and raising kids.

I think it's fine if women want to do that -- or do the other. That's up to them and ther families and it's not anyone else's place to judge.

But inadvertently, feminism contributed to the corporatization of our society by encouraging women to buy into the workaholic values of '50s-era men. And that helped lead to the situation described above, where a full-time job in corporate America *really* means 45-60 hours a week, and literally tens of millions of vacation hours go unused in America because people feel their bosses will think badly of them if they use all the vacation time to which they are entitled.

I used to be the kind of person who would get in a fighting mood if I heard someone say this, but ... we need to become more like the countries of Western Europe. At least in how they keep work and the rest of life in proper proportion, give people time off to care for newborn babies and sick relatives, and just get away from the grind long enough to develop other aspects of themselves.

Personally, I would much rather work on my house and yard all day than go sit in an office and shuffle paper. And if I had the opportunity to do that by marrying a decent person who enjoyed "work" more than I do, in exchange for keeping his home neat, cooking his meals and raising his kids, I would seriously consider it.

I used to be that way. However, I think for me it was a reaction to having "A woman's place is in the home" shoved down my throat growing up, and that wasn't what I wanted for myself, indeed, I'd think of that as a prison! I think the 60s-70s feminists were also reacting against having traditionalism shoved down their throats, and as such can't really be blamed for that.

What made me change to "Do what feels right for YOU" is that I had a life-threatening illness. After that I felt that I needed to stop sweating the small stuff so much. :smile: However, I will STILL go ballistic if I hear people say that a woman's PLACE is in the home and that women who work outside of the home are to blame for everything that is wrong with society. (Many of my relatives do this! I mean, there was a news story about a girl who was tortured and killed by some of her classmates and they said "Well, if her mother had been at home instead of out working, that kind of stuff wouldn't have happened" THAT kind of stuff was why I was like a 60s-70s feminist for a long time, and yes, I will still go ballistic if people say stuff like that!)

When I finally decided to read Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique years ago it struck me that this poor woman was merely trying to get people to act right and think about the position of women in the society as it was structured at the time. There were those male and female who took this to extremes. Women who had been burned and were very angry created the legion of stories that many men use as an excuse today as to why they dont open doors or behave in a manner previously just seen as good manners. On the flip side there were men who angered by the militance and threat to the status quo decided to just let the women go ahead and have it their way and do it all. I never recall that being the desired effect of Feminism. Just as in the case of the Civil rights movement , legislation can not enforce a heart change. If someone has the desire to behave in a cooperative , unselfish manner be they male or female they will do so. If not we will continue to have the type of problems that we all still face in communication.
For many women, not working has never been an option so the 50's "Father knows best" ideal has never been part of their experience.What has been a problem has been the continued expectation on the part of the male partner that she would be a working woman carrying the same type of hours and workload as her husband but still expected to perform like Donna Reed. It works if one is making enough to afford childcare or other household help but for millions of women from the middle class down they continue to find that "A man's work is from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done"

Exactly...

As for opening doors for a woman, I've never objected to that, even in my more militant days as I stated above. However, I'm just as likely to hold a door open for a man. :smile:

 

[earllogjam]

Women have always worked outside the home. The only difference with feminism was that they could now pursue professions once exclusive to men.

Women before the 1960's and 70's were relegated into two primary professions outside the home - nursing, and teaching. These two institutions suffered immeasurably as a result of Feminism and had very grave social consequences that we are still dealing with today.

The education system in America attracted the very best most capable educated women in the country since it was one of the few career paths open to women at the time so consequently the very best and brightest women educated American youth. The schools were able to keep cheap and very if not overly qualified teachers and administrators. This was the hey day of American primary education. Feminism opened up other opportunities for women - great for women but our public education system is reeling from that loss and the after effects are all too evident today. We have some of the worst schools in the developed world.

The same scenario could be said of America's healthcare system. We have a terribly inefficient poorly run health care system in America rife with nursing shortages and overpaid workers and astronomical costs gone unchecked and unchallenged. It has reached a point where 20% of Americans can no longer afford healthcare. It was just bound to happen when the best and brightest American women nurses who ran and oversaw hospitals left that industry in droves to more lucrative professions which feminism opened up for them.

The two most vital institutions of our country - health and education once dominated by the very best and brightest women in America - have not recovered from the change in women's role in society. I think Feminism was great for individual women but few think of the over reaching consequences it had on our society as a whole. I don't think having a discriminated and low paid class of workers is very "American" but it did have some very beneficial consequences whether intended or not. I am not sure whether these women in the 40's and 50's thought of themselves as the lessor sex either as they were making definite and tangible contributions to society.

 

[whatireallywant]

Women have always worked outside the home. The only difference with feminism was that they could now pursue professions once exclusive to men.

Women before the 1960's and 70's were relegated into two primary professions outside the home - nursing, and teaching. These two institutions suffered immeasurably as a result of Feminism and had very grave social consequences that we are still dealing with today.

The education system in America attracted the very best most capable educated women in the country since it was one of the few career paths open to women at the time so consequently the very best and brightest women educated American youth. The schools were able to keep cheap and very if not overly qualified teachers and administrators. This was the hey day of American primary education. Feminism opened up other opportunities for women - great for women but our public education system is reeling from that loss and the after effects are all too evident today. We have some of the worst schools in the developed world.

The same scenario could be said of America's healthcare system. We have a terribly inefficient poorly run health care system in America rife with nursing shortages and overpaid workers and astronomical costs gone unchecked and unchallenged. It has reached a point where 20% of Americans can no longer afford healthcare. It was just bound to happen when the best and brightest American women nurses who ran and oversaw hospitals left that industry in droves to more lucrative professions which feminism opened up for them.

The two most vital institutions of our country - health and education once dominated by the very best and brightest women in America - have not recovered from the change in women's role in society. I think Feminism was great for individual women but few think of the over reaching consequences it had on our society as a whole. I don't think having a discriminated and low paid class of workers is very "American" but it did have some very beneficial consequences whether intended or not. I am not sure whether these women in the 40's and 50's thought of themselves as the lessor sex either as they were making definite and tangible contributions to society.

I would encourage people (both women and men) now to go into teaching or nursing if they can do those jobs, because they're recession-proof and unlikely to be outsourced overseas.

However, what about women like me, who are completely unsuited for teaching or nursing? I've always said that I don't want any job where I have to deal with children or sick people. I stand by that too. I've been a nurse's aide before and I quit before I slugged a patient - seriously! I'm WAY too impatient for that job. And I've never liked children, and would have the same problem - struggling to keep from slugging them when they act up.

For me, the jobs that always appealed to me were scientific and technological jobs, and some skilled trades (The first "What do you want to be when you grow up?" I can remember was that if you'd asked me at the age of 4, I would've said I wanted to be an electrician.).

So really, people should be able to go into the career fields that interest them and that they're good at, regardless of gender. Sticking someone into a job they're totally unsuited for is not good. I know that if I'd HAD to work traditionally female jobs, I would soon be unemployable, if not in prison! (There are exceptions to this I suppose. I could be a librarian with probably no problem, and MAYBE a secretary, although before computers maybe not. I can type fairly well but I do much better with word processing than I ever did with typewriters. I make too many mistakes and they're more easily undone with a computer. However, I don't think I'd enjoy those jobs as much as I would being a scientist, engineer, electrician, or the field I want to get back into, computer programming).

 

[WellHung83]

I think it has really screwed up the lines in terms on what is right and what is wrong in the ways of treating women and men now, when before a man knew the right way to act and say and treat a woman and a woman vice versa. It may seem conforming and limiting for women, but in a way I can see how knowing your place can be comforting and having a life of normality easier to handle than stepping outside of that and wanting to see what is there in the outside world.

Now, I am not saying that feminism is wrong by any means as it gave women a voice and let them know they could go after the same things men have always taken for granted and gain access to jobs in areas that were only till then taken by men. The downside may be though is that women now feel more and more out of place with things in this modern era as although feminism gave them a doorway to step out and break through and gain something different than what their mothers and their grandmothers had, they were still basically flying blind and to a large extent till are today.

On the flip side of that men have lost a great source of identity and in doing so self worth when this traditional role was no longer the alpha way of doing things, so they too were left out of the way of this tide and basically left to flounder. When you take away someone's source of identity and self worth like that it can be very difficult to find you feet and gain back that self confidence and get a new release of your life, as men up until feminism gained ground were pretty much stable and happy with the way things were.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I used to be that way. However, I think for me it was a reaction to having "A woman's place is in the home" shoved down my throat growing up, and that wasn't what I wanted for myself, indeed, I'd think of that as a prison! I think the 60s-70s feminists were also reacting against having traditionalism shoved down their throats, and as such can't really be blamed for that.

I didn't know anyone even said "a woman's place is in the home" anymore. Even if people thought it, the economy has mostly made it an impossibility, so why bother? But I can certainlly understand why you'd be offended if someone said it to you.

And despite my objection above I do think feminism overall has been a good thing. I will always remember an interview on TV I saw with the poet Gregory Corso. He was one of the Beat Generation, along with Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, et. al. -- guys who were real rebels and in the '40s and '50s, living just on the edge of the law and certainly outside polite society, at a time when that was much more difficult than it would be when the hippies came along in the '60s.

And the interviewer asked Corso why there were no prominent women members of the Beat movement. And he said that there were -- there were lots of brilliant, creative, daring women in their circle. But most of them had been put into mental asylums by their families, for engaging in the same kind of "experimental" behavior the guys had been doing.

He said that guys like Kerouac and himself could get away with pushing the limits of sexuality, intoxication and the standards of "acceptable behavior" -- because guys of a certain age were allowed to "sow their wild oats." But for a woman to do the same things was a disgrace to proper members of society, and they could not allow it. And back then a father or a husband could pretty much commit a daughter or wife to a mental institution on nothing more than his word that she was acting "crazy."

That really drove home to me that, not too long ago, we were very much like the Muslim extremists we are now fighting, with regards to treatment of women. So I have no doubt that the feminist movement was a good and necessary thing.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Accept women for what they are, not how you think they should be. Men who are attracted to gurlies are usually not really interested in women, they are looking for the status among their peers of having a gf or wife. Independent women may be hard work and hold you to account, but they are real women and not some ersatz creation of 1950s Hollywood.

 

[nudeyorker]

I'm about half finished with this book, it's a very interesting read.
When Everything Changed - Hachette Book Group

 

[Gisella]

I think it has really screwed up the lines in terms on what is right and what is wrong in the ways of treating women and men now, when before a man knew the right way to act and say and treat a woman and a woman vice versa. It may seem conforming and limiting for women, but in a way I can see how knowing your place can be comforting and having a life of normality easier to handle than stepping outside of that and wanting to see what is there in the outside world.

Now, I am not saying that feminism is wrong by any means as it gave women a voice and let them know they could go after the same things men have always taken for granted and gain access to jobs in areas that were only till then taken by men. The downside may be though is that women now feel more and more out of place with things in this modern era as although feminism gave them a doorway to step out and break through and gain something different than what their mothers and their grandmothers had, they were still basically flying blind and to a large extent till are today.

On the flip side of that men have lost a great source of identity and in doing so self worth when this traditional role was no longer the alpha way of doing things, so they too were left out of the way of this tide and basically left to flounder. When you take away someone's source of identity and self worth like that it can be very difficult to find you feet and gain back that self confidence and get a new release of your life, as men up until feminism gained ground were pretty much stable and happy with the way things were.

I agree with your acessment...and to me comming from macho culture of extremes..the other extreme of lost males vibes is just awful, much of masculine essence I used to love.. is nowhere to be found..very strange situation going on...many have no balls or must ask permission to manisfest it...not show off like baby peacock..but trully manisfest its strenght and full beauty of an "alpha" Y beast....

I love macho/masculine/bull/blueballs and all...natural leaders males men..warrior/militaristic structure and styles...I guess they are all Marines or alike professions nowdays...

Please...do wake me up when it' start raining MEN again ?!

YouTube - It's Raining Men

 

[vibrator]

Men rule the world, how can feminism ruin it for men. Only men can ruin it for themselves. If you pick the right person, you will have everything you want and more.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Did Feminism Ruin it for Guys?

The reverberations from feminism, and the inevitable backlash, continue to rock everyone off balance.