Sunday, November 25, 2012

A Response to: Suzanne Venker's "The War on Men"


Suzanne Venker, in the article The War on Men published on Fox News, details how it is “so unfortunate” that the modern woman is entering the workforce and beginning to provide for herself by not relying on a man for her well-being.  She suggests that women must “surrender… their femininity” so that marriageable men will come about since statistics show that as time progresses more women and less men have a desire marry.  This article is sexist toward women by commanding that women submit to domestic roles so that men can provide for their families since it’s “in their DNA.”

Today’s modern woman – an independent, self-confident individual – is described as “unknowingly… angry” and “defensive” since she “think[s] of men as the enemy.”  When did a woman striving for personal success have anything to do with looking down upon men as competition?  A woman strives for personal success because of her personal motivation and desire to be successful – just like men.  Although it is no longer taboo for women to enter the workforce, their motives are still questioned because they supposedly “push men off their pedestal.”  The fact that Venker believes it is a woman’s fault that a man feels less ‘manly’ since they are becoming more equal in the workforce is degrading to the female sex. 

Venker urges that women change in order to “live the balanced life they seek.”  There is nothing balanced about a woman being confined to domestic duties while the man provides for the family simply for the sake of the man’s self-assurance that he is the one in power.  She is right about one thing though, “Women have changed drastically.”  Just because women have achieved suffrage, have gained a voice in politics, started to influence government policies, and secured the rights to their body, it does not mean that “Women aren’t women anymore.”  Women have changed for the better and women will continue to change until universal equality is reached.

That is what feminism is all about – creating and protecting equality for people of all sexes, of all races, of all countries – not pressing for backward ideas that reverse the progression of women.  Instead of viewing the feminist movement as a necessary step to the progression of humanity, she views it as an advantage to men since they can “have sex at hello and… live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities.”  It is twisted that Venker tries to empower women into gaining financial security by marrying or having sex with a man.

If a woman chooses to not work, that’s great.  But if a woman chooses to pursue a career and achieve her dreams, she should not be shunned as foolish for limiting a man’s opportunity and not taking advantage of staying at home to care for the house and children.    

4 comments:

  1. This woman has been brain washed by her aunt, Phyllis Schlafly. She comes off as a bit jealous, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Suzanne Venker also spilled the beans about her Aunt Phyllis Schlafly having "domestic help" in taking care of her husband, home, and six kids.

    I still say she's jealous of successful single career women.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was hoping someone would reply to this woman's ridiculous article. I almost feel threatened by her because she just proved that there are women who still think that a woman's only place is in the home, despite the fact that Venker herself is a successful woman (if you can call being on Fox News 'successful', that is). I absolutely understand if there are women who would rather be a housewife, that's fine. What I won't tolerate is their insistence for other women to do the same thing. As a feminist, I believe that a woman's life is her choice and not encoded in her DNA. A woman can do as she please and she can either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. A man really has nothing to do with it. They can be there for support, but a man has no power to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her life, and vice versa. Thank you so much for your eloquent response to Venker's article.

    ReplyDelete