‘The War on Men’ Author Suzanne Venker: I’m Misunderstood!

[DonViejo]

by David Freedlander Nov 27, 2012 12:39 PM EST

Author Suzanne Venker didn’t mean to write that women can’t compete with men in the workforce. She tells David Freedlander she really meant to write about husbands and wives.

The target of all this vitriol is Suzanne Venker, a 44-year-old author and social critic who over the weekend penned a piece on the Fox News website titled “The War on Men,” in which she took issue with commentators on the left who have called the coming era “the end of men,” and described a dearth of marriageable men—the kind with good jobs who want to settle down—not due to a declining manufacturing economy that has rendered their skills less useful—but to the rise of feminism.

“The so-called rise of women has not threatened men,” she wrote. “It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families—it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”

Reached by phone last night, Venker said that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. When she wrote about women and men, she meant to write about wives and husbands.

“I didn’t mean that women can’t compete with men in the workforce. I meant that men don’t want to compete with their wives in marriage. Husband and wife would have been better than men and women,” she said.

-snip-

more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/27/the-war-on-men-author-suzanne-venker-i-m-misunderstood.html

[Kber]

1. Out of sense of fairness, I read the whole article

and, as a mother, wife and corporate executive, she doesn't do herself any favors in her "explaination". Is marriage a partnership - yes of course. Does it need to be a partnership along the lines of a 1950's sitcom to be "successful" - no.

We'll be celebrating our 19th year anniversary tomorrow and our marriage isn't even remotely build along the lines she's advocating. I asked my DH to read both her original article and this "explaination" and his response reminded me of why I fell in love and married him in the first place. (Which I will leave to the imagination - but it worked for me!)

[John2]

2. I

see people as individuals and don't think she can talk for all women. Women go through different experiences just like everybody. I think women should be allowed to do what is right for them freely, and not depend on a man. If she wants to depend on a man in the traditional way, that is her individual right, and I have nothing against her, but I believe in the freedom of choice. So, I think her reasoning is flawed, if she thinks that she can speak for all women. She is also influenced by Phyllis Schaffley, whom I assume that she thinks very much of. There is nothing wrong with it, but don't assume everybody has your conservative values of traditional marriage.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Suzanne is the niece of Phyllis Schaffley.

[DonViejo]

4. Thanks for the info! 'Nuff said. n/t

[Squinch]

6. I thought I was in some kind of time warp. Her words are exactly the same as Schaffley's were

way back in the dark ages. Thank you for that information. It explains a lot.

Can't believe someone still is spouting this nonsense.

[davidn3600]

5. I think our society is still quite confused when it comes to gender roles

Society still looks at the man, even subconsciously, as being the chief provider, protector, and head of household of a family.

Women have done quite well advancing in the workplace. But society today still does not view a marriage as an equal partnership. Society does not view marriage as a team. Old traditions die hard. Society keeps wanting to revert back to the old model. And we still maintain many of the traditions. Women still change their last names to match their husband's. Many men still ask their girlfriend's father for permission to marry their daughter. When you look at our movies and TV shows, it promotes the patriarchy dynamic to family life.

I dont think its a "war" on either gender. I think it is simply confusion. Vast majority of people support equal rights but no one seems to know exactly what that means. What is the man's role in the relationship? What is the woman's role? What if he makes more money? What if she makes more money? etc, etc...

And then throw religion in the mix and it gets even more complicated.

[melody]

7. Of the Camille Paglia ilk

Women who suck-up to daddy (namely men) in order to gain favor with the power-wielders.

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. I guess she hasn't heard about income inequality

Yes, there are married women who work outside the home just because they want to but most working moms have to work or their families would struggle financially. When the median HOUSEHOLD income is less than $60K and the median price for a house on the east or west coast is around $250K, women don't have the luxury of "cushy writing life". Furthermore, when half the marriages end in divorce, I would have to question the wisdom of staying out of the workforce for too long. When you go out looking for a job, gaps in your work experience work against you, even when they are for the noble reason of raising a family.