| Yet, with few exceptions, men are not the persons who cause me to fume. At times, a male in defense of a scorned spouse will use define another fellow as a woman-hater. However, it seems to me, a gent will offer this proclamation when the lady he appreciates is not acknowledged in the manner that he thinks just. I realize, more often than not, when my fellow females use the term, and I am exasperated. In all of my life, I have never felt as though a person whose gender differs from my own treated me, feminine as I may be, with disdain.
Indubitably, many a man I have meet openly proclaims an undying devotion to women. Countless chaps cherish those of the opposite sex, in word and in deed. Men, I associate with admire what they consider the stronger sex, females. Still, women scorned, shriek "misogyny," and I inquire where.
I am well aware of income inequities. I abhor the practice that devastates millions of women, particularly those without a man in their lives. However, as I read the research it seems to me, those without a legal life partner no matter the gender, are shown greater contempt than persons of one sex or another might be.
The Lake Research Partners study, commissioned by Women's Voices Women Vote, found unmarried women earn only 56 cents for every dollar a married man earns. In terms of personal earnings, unmarried women live on only $37,264 per year, which is nearly $6,000 less than unmarried men ($42,843) and nearly $30,000 less than married men ($66,646) earn.
Bachelors bring in 64 cents for every hundred pennies a conjugal chap nets. Perhaps, we are marriage misanthropes or is it the reverse? Men or women without a band, or a state sanctioned bond, do not garner the greenbacks they might. Possibly, singles struggle regardless of their identity. Matrimony may move millions to the good life, or money may move people to wed.
Wages, as reported, may best explain the adage "wedded bliss." The statistics may indicate Americans accept a legal union. The data, I believe does not validate that misogyny is alive and well.
A man of means may realize, the woman behind him helped him to secure a substantial salary. Perchance, the phrase was coined for few misogynists walk down the aisle. I know not. I do not recall a time when misogyny was listed as a reason for divorce. Might we ask whether nuptials necessitate bliss or benefits? I struggle to understand how a man who says, "I do" does not like women.
Even single males seem to search for the one. Each year 2.2 million males exchange vows with females. Yet, stereotypical standards have been sustained. Conventional wisdom claims women suffer in the workplace; although, many women are extremely successful. Only tonight, I spoke with one, a stranger to me before today.
Mary mentioned, "superiors" in the business world did not wish to stop her rise. None tried. The woman now in her fifties mused, she excelled and was esteemed. Mary stated she never felt pressure to perform less well. Nor was she stifled by those in the corporate hierarchy were thought to be above her. Indeed, this highly educated scholar soared without hindrance.
The Miss I met this evening expressed her surprise when a peer told her others looked upon her as the "person to beat." Mary marveled, apparently she was a threat to those akin to her. Misogyny was not her experience. Competitiveness amongst colleagues was the only source of sorrow that affected her climb. Mary consistently reminded me, the subtle antagonism did not have an effect on her career at all. She revealed she never felt she must marry. I was startled. I had not considered the connection. For Mary, women have long been free to be. Perhaps that is true. I ponder.
Too successful for a mate?
By Kris Frieswick
MSN Money
The majority of my most successful, good-looking, educated, talented girlfriends are still single.
If they had Y-chromosomes, they would have been married a decade ago. Instead, like successful single women all over the country, they trek into their mid- to late 30s on their own - experiencing fabulous professional success, buying real estate and making savvy investments for the future, without much going on in the relationship department.
What gives?
Carolyn Kaufman, 33, has a doctorate in clinical psychology and teaches college in Columbus, Ohio. She is a perfect example of a woman who has everything except a date. "I have this crazy belief that I have the right to expect my potential partner to be at least as successful as I am, and to have as many things to offer as I do," she says.
Good luck, Carolyn. With more women than men earning advanced degrees -- 61% of master's degrees conferred in 2007 will be to women - those kinds of men are going to become harder and harder to find . . .
Then there's the issue of time. Most highly successful people work crazy hours, which makes it even more difficult to meet a suitable match. Christine Mohr, director of marketing and community relations for the YMCA in Washington, D.C., is out nearly every night of the week at fund-raisers, benefits, and business dinners. "The person I'm trying to find is just as busy as I am," says Mohr, 29. "If we're both that busy, when is the time when we're going to meet?" She says the men she does meet at these events are usually married.
Of course, you have heard all these excuses before, from women both successful and not - I'm too busy, there are no good men left, they're all married or gay, etc. But there's another factor at work for women at the top of their game: They're intimidating to men. No matter how enlightened most men claim they are, few are ready to pair up with a woman who is more successful, better paid and better educated -- not to mention better traveled, more connected and more socially savvy than they are.
Women are not weak. They are strong. That may trouble a man, or another Eve. Who we are as a unique being breeds contempt or compassion, a connection or a crack. Fissures and fractures in a relationship with a female are not indicative of the organs within. Nor do men generally define all those of the "fairer sex" by the mannerisms and makeup of one, at least no more than a woman might when she declares with disregard, "Men!"
An individual woman, or man, might threaten the ego strength of a mate, or a person of the opposite gender. The men that might not choose a particular woman do not hate the sex. They fear intimidation, just as a women might. I believe love or loathing is reserved for individuals of one gender or another, not for the inherent sex of a person.
Sex may not stimulate revulsion. However, I experience race and religion give rise to repulsion. There are those who hate a particular "clan," or rage against a creed. I have yet to meet a misogynist.
Might we ask, were women hung from trees for beauty that was skin deep? Do men burn crosses on the lawns of females whose pious beliefs or practices they despise? Has any chap said, "I do not want one of them to live in my neighborhood" as he looked at the females that grace every enclave. When fathers fondly envision a family, do they forbid their sons to engage with a feminine friend? Has Papa pledged never to allow his male offspring to associate with one of them, women? I do not recall such scenarios.
Men and women differ biologically, they may disagree on occasion. Still, organically the genders are equivalent. I am an advocate of equal rights. I have been for as long as I remember. Glass ceilings, when or if they exist, I believe, must be broken. As I study, I understand as Mary states; many have been shattered. I trust any obstructions can and will continue to crumble. I wonder how many limits were placed in a desire to love, not destroy.
I understand; there are women who feel as though they are less valued. However, I often reflect upon what I observe. The "gentler sex" is more esteemed. We need only consider the contrast; Mother's Day is observed with lack of restraint. Dad does not fare as well. Perchance, the women in the world are revered. Females are given grand respect and hence the most significant responsibility. Moms, misses, matriarchs are afforded an honor that few imagine. They are frequently cared for and given the opportunity to teach the children. Many a mother, a mentor, a nursemaid, holds mankind's future in her hands.
Cross-sectional studies usually have supported the idea that the higher the husband's income, the lower is the labor force participation rate of his wife. This relationship is just what the theory of the backward-bending supply curve would predict-a strong inverse relationship, other things being equal, between husbands' income and women's participation rate. A wife's freedom from the labor market is looked at as a normal good. So, accordingly, only "poor" women work out of economic necessity.
Husbands with higher incomes would tend to have a smaller proportion of wives in the labor force, because they could afford the luxury of stay-at-home wives and the wives could be relieved of the stress of contributing to the family income. However, considering the rise in real income that, in general, has taken place over time, the increase in labor force participation of wives in recent years generates some doubt about the presumptive relationship.
The need for money to help make ends meet seems to be one of the most popular explanations of wives working, but that can hardly be the reason for the rapid rise in married women's participation rate, because wives stayed home in earlier decades, when their husbands were earning less. Needing money seems to be a universal and constant factor and thus cannot explain the increasing labor force participation of women.
Illumination may be found in freedom. Women have much liberty to think, say, do, feel, and be as they think best. This may be more true now or less. As a society, we cannot be certain. Have the times changed or do the predominate preferences of the past no longer prevail?
Many of us have heard, "When Mama Ain't Happy, Ain't Nobody Happy." Might it be that Mom, a Miss, or a Madame no longer loves what she once did. Have women wandered into a world they did not imagine decades ago, or has the opportunity to choose evolved over the centuries. Is there more or less misogyny or is there more to consider?
I am intensely cognizant of my desire to be me! I have no interest in being similar to the males of my species. I do not wish to be approached as though I am identical to a mister. I believe gents are not gals, and a guy does not receive greater gratification. Nor does a man hate a woman simply because she is a female.
Granted, at times, monetarily there may be a modicum of difference. Yes, that does need to change. Nonetheless, for me, the hatred of women is not the reason for the discrepancy. Men who despise a woman do not detest her sex; they disdain an individual for whatever reason. She may be a menace, a martyr, a manipulator, or just like the men he has met, who also are a source of misery.
I experience women as people are not hated. Misogyny does not mar an existence. Females who feel slighted might wish to wonder why is he [or she] not fond of me. Might the lovelies look at the image that appears in the mirror and meditate. Ponder the beauty that is reflected back and sense what is not seen. The love or hate others express is not as easily explained as misogyny.
Annals for Misogyny or Misology . . .
- Unmarried Women and Income Disparity, By Page Gardner. The Lake Research Partners . April 2008
- Valentines Day: February 14. U.S. Census Bureau.
- Unmarried Women Hardest Hit by Pay Inequity. Women's Voices. Women Vote. April 22, 2008
- Married women, work, and values, By Mahshid Jalilvand. Monthly Labor Review Online. August, 2000, Vol. 123, No.8
- Mom to Enjoy Royal Treatment This Year According to NRF, Contact Kathy Grannis or Scott Krugman. National Retail Federation.
- Father's day bounty lags behind mom's. Cable News Network, Money. May 17, 2005
|
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
