Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever

Found this today while cleaning up my hard drive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever
By James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

Traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity have been battered and
ridiculed for more than 20 years, creating confusion for both men and women.
These revisions of age-old behavior patterns have produced awkwardness in
the relationships between the sexes. Should a man stand when a woman enters
the room? Will he please her by opening the door for her? Should he give her
his seat on a crowded bus or subway? Have all the rules changed? Is there
anything predictable and certain in the new order?

While these questions of social etiquette may seem superficial at first,
they are hardly trivial. They reflect much deeper attitudes that have
far-reaching implications. We are, after all, sexual beings. Everything we
do is influenced by our gender assignment. The first element of
self-identity as toddlers comes from our identification as boys and girls.
Any confusion at that point-or in the relationship between the sexes-must be
seen as threatening to the stability of society itself.

Dr. Charles Winick at City University of New York studied more than 2,000
cultures that have existed in world history. He found only 55 where
masculinity and femininity blurred. Not one of those unisexual societies
survived for more than a few years.

Why not? Because a society can be no stronger than the vitality of its
families, and its families are a function of the way the sexes relate to
each other. Maleness and femaleness are not merely social niceties that have
evolved through time. While customs vary from one culture to another, the
linkage between the sexes is a function of powerful forces deep within the
human spirit. That attraction must not be tampered with by social engineers
with an agenda of their own.

Social engineers love to tamper, however, and they've been tinkering with
sex-role definitions since at least 1968. Everything understood to identify
womanhood for thousands of years has been held up to ridicule and disdain.

It was remarkable, in fact, how effectively a very small number of radical
feminists (remember the early bra burners?) were able to redefine the role
of women and reorder the relationship between the sexes. These firebrands
have long since been discredited, but never underestimate the changes in
social attitude that they inspired. In a single decade, for example, the
term housewife became a symbol of exploitation, oppression, and-pardon the
insult-stupidity. How strange!

No Apology Needed
Since the beginning of human existence, women in most cultures have
identified themselves with child-rearing responsibilities. It was an
honorable occupation that required no apology. How has it happened, then,
that homemaking has fallen on such lean times in the Western world? Why do
women who remain at home in the company of little children feel such
disrespect from the society in which they live?

A partial answer can be found in the incessant bombardment by the media on
all traditional Judeo-Christian values. Radio, television, the press and the
entertainment industry have literally (and deliberately) changed the way
America thinks.

Many years have passed since Barbara Walters and Tom Snyder hosted a
three-hour television special on the subject of women. I refer to it now
because the program was so typical of the fare served up to the public in
that day. The broadcast was aired on NBC in prime time and captured the
attention of the country for one full evening. (What fantastic power for
social change has been wrought by the tube!)

I watched Walters and Synder carefully on that occasion, and, in fact, taped
the program for future reference. Their stated purpose was to evaluate the
world of women at that time, examining the many activities and involvement
of the feminine gender. What resulted, however, was a powerful propaganda
piece for what was then the new way of thinking.

Women were depicted in numerous work situations, from business ownership to
blue-collar jobs. Not once in the three-hour program, however, was the role
of the homemaker mentioned, except to refer indirectly to this outmoded
responsibility in vaguely derogatory terms. Perhaps 14 million homemakers
lived and breathed in this country at that time, yet they were not
referenced once in a program dedicated to the world of women. I'm sure the
viewers got the message.

The effort to reorder the role of women proceeded on a broad scale, touching
every dimension of society. For example, I received a letter about that time
from a mother who was curious to learn why her local library had removed
hundreds of books from its shelves.

Upon investigation, she was shocked to discover that each volume depicting
males and females in a traditional context was eliminated. If a woman was
shown cooking dinner and a father was working in a factory, the book had to
go. Obviously, no stone was left unturned in the campaign to revolutionize
our ideas, though none dare call it censorship.

The courts also played a major role during that era. I remember receiving a
call from a physician who was consulting with a major law firm. He asked if
I would serve as an expert witness on behalf of Sav-On Drug Company in
California. I learned that a suit had been brought against the
pharmaceutical chain by a feminist attorney who represented the family of a
young girl. The suit charged Sav-On with inflicting great psychological
damage on the child because-are you ready for this?-toys in their stores
were separated by probable gender interest. Ten feet above the floor were
signs identifying "Toys for Girls," and in another place, "Toys for Boys."

The attorney claimed, apparently with a straight face, that the girl had
been emotionally damaged by being "denied access" to toys designated for
males. A psychiatrist actually submitted a statement to the court,
indicating the great degree to which the child had been wounded by Sav-On
Drug Company. That's how far the nonsense went.

This campaign to revolutionize our thinking has lost most of its fire today,
and the world has moved on. But make no mistake. The case against
traditional womanhood has been heard, and it will never be the same.

The female students at Wellesley College in Massachusetts may not be
familiar with the history I have described, since some of them were not yet
born when the movement began. Nevertheless, they are recipients of its
legacy. When they voted not to invite the First Lady, Barbara Bush, to speak
at their commencement in 1990 because she hadn't done anything but raise a
family and support her husband, they demonstrated how effectively feminist
ideology has been ingrained in the attitudes of the young-especially those
under the influence of liberal professors on university campuses.

The Role of Men
Not only has there been a revolution in female sex-role identity, but
maleness has been turned upside down, too. Apart from the elements of social
etiquette mentioned earlier, much deeper questions have been raised. What
does it really mean to be a man today? We know it is unacceptable to be
"macho," whatever that is, but we're not sure how we're expected to perform.
Consider how a young husband might look upon his new role at the beginning
of married life. Is he supposed to earn a living for his wife? Well,
probably not. She may bring in more money than he. Is he expected to provide
benevolent leadership for his family in the major decisions?

Even raising that issue in some circles is a sure way to start an argument.
Is he supposed to be stoic and strong or tender, sensitive and emotional?
Alas, is there anything that distinguishes his role from that of his wife,
and where can he go to find out what is expected of him?

Historically, married men were not so uncertain; they understood intuitively
that two family responsibilities exceeded all others in significance. They
were expected to protect and provide for their wives and children. You can
be sure they felt strongly about that obligation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Goddamn it ....

The essay is included in a book called Growing a Healthy Marriage, edited by Mike Yorkey, published by Focus on the Family in 1993.

From the interior flap:

And the Table of Contents:

Part One: Focus on Marriage

1. Prescription for a Successful Marriage, Dr.James C. Dobson
2. "Why Can't My Spouse Understand What I Say?", Gary Smalley and John Trent, PhD
3. Working through Marital Conflict, Richard and Mary Strauss
4. Lonely Husbands, Lonely Wives, Dennis Rainey
5. Becoming One, Dr. James C. Dobson
6. It's Always Courting Time, Zig Ziglar
7. Date Your Mate, Doug Fields
8. Love for a Lifetime, Dr. James C. Dobson
9. "Traditional" Families: Fading or Flourishing? Gary Bauer
10. Keeping the Memories Alive, Dorothy Burshek​

Part Two: Focus on Husbands and Fathers

11. Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever, Dr. James C. Dobson
12. How to Keep from Being Robbed of Rest, Tim Kimmel
13. Hedges, Jerry Jenkins
14. Job vs. Family: Striking a Balance, Brian Knowles
15. Avoiding a Money Meltdown, Ron Blue​

Part Three: Focus on Wives and Mothers

16. Women of Beauty and the Essence of Mystique, Jean Lush
17. Why Women Need Other Women, Ruth Senter
18. How Women Can Stay Healthy, Joe McIlhaney, MD
19. How to Manage PMS, Sharon Sneed, PhD, and Joe McIlhaney, MD
20. Ways for Moms to Make Money at Home, Cheri Fuller
21. Home Is Where the Business Is, Donna Partow
22. Once-a-Month Cooking, Mimi Wilson and Mary Beth Lagerborg
23. A Woman's Guide to Financial Peace of Mind, Ron and Judy Blue​

Part Four: Focus on Difficult Family Problems

24. Married, No Children, Becky Foster Still
25. Adoption: The Possible Dream, Melanie Hemry
26. Learning to Live with Pain, Nancy Trout
27. More Than Inner Beauty, Candy Wood
28. When Couples Say "I Don't", Bob Welch
29. How to Enjoy Your Elderly Parents, Barbara Crosley
30. Keepsakes of Sorrow and Comfort, Becky Smith-Greer
31. When Hard Times Hit, Maria Haley Fields
32. Comeback, Dave Dravecky​

Part Five: Focus on Family Humor

33. God Can Even Use Cracked Pots, Patsy Clairmont
34. Childbirth 101, Phillip Wiebe
35. Why My Hubby Takes Lots of Pictures, Rosie B. Jones
36. Holding Down the Fort While Mom's Gone, Bob Welch​

There is also an excerpt, the first essay from the book. I'll spare us all. The three "tried-and-tested, back-to-basic recommendations with which no committed Christian would likely disagree" are the Christ-Centered Home, Commitment, and Communication. It includes one of those stories that Christians tell about the how the Lord protected the child on her first night driving alone when some criminal decided to hitch a ride on the undercarriage of the car, and how when Dobson and his wife checked the time later, it turned out that this happened exactly when they were on their knees, praying to the Lord, after having forgotten to do so earlier.

Dr. James C. Dobson is a moral offense against our society. Whenever I come across him on Larry King Live or some such, I give him a few minutes because I do like to know what the forces of evil are up to, and I've learned from considering whatever the current situation was that Dobson simply cannot be trusted.

Consider Dobson's telling of an event:

Dobson omits a couple of facts in order to mold the incident to his necessity:

Perhaps Dobson should have taken notes from Mrs. Bush?

Look, it's not that second-rate religious morons like Dobson are the only ones who confused by gender roles, but the pretense that the misogyny of the past will solve our modern ills is just jealous spite.

And his story about the library? I would love to know where that library is. Would he tell us? No. One can only wonder why. Instead of raising an effort against what can only be called a crime, Dobson tucked away the information to use in calling for a return to misogynistic traditions.

The preachers are most powerful when the Devil is in the pulpit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, but despite the mean and obvious nastiness about anything christian and a few peripheral points of contention, do you have anything to venture on the topic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think he neatly demonstrated that your article is fucking wrong, so why don't you go hate women somewhere else, eh?

Oh wait -

Aww, you don't understand the difference between sex and gender. That's so cute.

 

sorry - didn't mean to waste your valuable porn browsing time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

its a strange notion of addressing the requirement of sex without gender

I mean is it no longer a question of "who" to have sex with but "what" to have sex with?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's unethical to "share" crap like that with other people ...?

I mean, if I had herpes, and "shared" it with you, would you be grateful?

Really, LG, I was in a good mood when I wrote that post. Why else would I transcribe the jacket copy and table of contents from a .pdf image? The only thing I couldn't figure was why you shared the article with EM&J. It would seem more appropriate for the Religion forum. So I took a chance and raised some ethical issues.

 

Read and be edified, my ignorant little flower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X0_sex-determination_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality#Intersex_people_in_society

 

I think you miss the point - I wasn't claiming that you hadn't put a bit of work in the reply - I was claiming that you were going off topic

 

lol - yes, certainly edifying

anyway, back to your browsing I guess ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps.

What is the topic, then?

 

I'm at work - while the temptation to download many horny asian sluts taking it up the (censored) to my boss' computer is there, it is not overpowering.

So, were you going to contribute to the topic?

 

I saw this book featured on Saturday Night Live, years ago - they had a forum based on Dobson's approach. IIRC it was called "Women's Problems", and Gary Busey was one of the experts on the panel.

They dealt with all the issues - PMS, Beauty, Cooking, Intimacy, all of them.

They clarified the sex roles expected by the Yorkeys and Dobsons of this world, thereby saving their society from the threat of women who confuse them.

 

the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)

 

regardless whether you are for or against Dobson's ideas of gender roles doesn't somehow make you exempt from "expectations" (perhaps you have liberal expectations to deal with)

 

Dobson is an ass. Christianity represents a patriarchal religion, which is why embracing feminine attributes is taboo. He fears change, but in order to survive we must change.

 

Once again, this is not really dealing with the topic

I mean even if you succeed in winning us around that anything christian is automatically unwholesome etc that still leaves us with the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)

 

Just maybe ....

Wanted?

If we put more thought into when and why we reproduce, the next generation will do okay. In the meantime, when I look at the traditional roles for men and women, I see a couple of things. First, there is a sort of justification that comes from necessity. Technologically and economically, American society, at least, has transcended that condition. Secondly, there is a history of misogyny and phallosupremacy infecting those traditions. It wasn't enough that men and women should have certain roles; men just had to go out of their way to make women miserable about it. Much of the transformation Dobson and his ilk despise so greatly is in fact a backlash against the excesses within the so-called traditional structure.

That men forfeit their obligations in relationships is not something that can be blamed on shifting gender roles. Part of the problem with the traditional structure is that it empowers "nonobligation".

Remember that men's roles have not changed so drastically since the sexual revolution (e.g., 1968; cf. Dobson, "Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever"). Promiscuity? Hell, males have been fucking around since before the advent of humanity. Dobson's whole tantrum about shifting gender roles is just part of the ongoing Christian effort to put women back in their places. Or, so to speak. (I'm not real enthusiastic about that idea of a woman's place.)

There is an upside to the shifting gender roles, and that is that more and more fathers are feeling greater obligations to their children than simply providing resources.

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endears

Oh dude, if you're going to claim the superiority of your superiority as a gender, you should try not to inadvertently demonstrate your own inferiority while doing so.

 

Tiassa

you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?

just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11

far from transcending the condition, american society relies on immigration, much like any other society with similar values

what is the alternative to necessity?
artificiality?

regardless of what the topic of discussion is, its a misconception that there exists only one extreme

(BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)

then its not clear why with the dissolution of the traditionalist structure has empowered a greater percentage to be nonobligated

I guess its just easier to encounter and more socially acceptable to get away with now

depends where necessity lies and one's attitude to necessity

given that a greater number are not even providing resources, its not clear how one can deem any other obligation as superior

 

(sigh)
so assuming that I can come to a level that is even half as brainy as you, do you have anything to propose on the topic?