The crux of this editorial? "Women aren’t women anymore."
What does that even mean? Well she goes on to explain that the sexual revolution has changed the way men and women interact and women have changed dramatically.
"In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs."
So the writer believes since women's liberation, women have changed their way of thinking and basically warding off the eligible bachelors.
The writer goes on to say that feminism actually benefits men and disadvantages women. You can read the rest of the article, it's very short. But the author goes out with a bang.
The writer's solution:
"Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork."
What did I just read?
So I completely disagreed with the writer. I also thought the writer didn't support any of their claims so the article wasn't remotely credible. When I finished reading every word, I thought, "wow, how uninformed can this man be?" I thought a man wrote the article.
I looked at the byline: Suzanne Venker.
I was extremely shocked to find that a woman wrote this lovely piece of literature.
I was angry that Suzanne wrote this because I feel it just enforces what she's stating in her article even more, especially coming from a woman. Men and women could potentially agree or believe with her opinions and perpetuate this thought that women are at fault for being independent thinkers, not dependent on a man.
No comments:
Post a Comment