By way of a friendly suggestion of a reading, I came across an article one could call controversial but a bit on the disgusting side as well. I’ve thought a lot about linking back to the article, only to reach the conclusion that if I do link back to it, or quote it, I would be granting a sexist supreme more exposure than he probably ever deserved. Therefore I will not link to or quote this individual.
What seems to be the point of the article, other than the author stressing that he is being a “man” by ignoring women’s emotions and cheating on his wife then allowing her some rough sex, is to affirm that women secretly crave tough cave men who could walk out on them any minute while publicly sustaining that they want the Hugh Grant sensitive type.
The only point I could agree with is that some movies sell the ultra-sensitive always-there-for-you man image that rarely if ever exists in straight men who are not declared hardcore submissive. I’ll give the author of the article that, and the rest of his alleged affirmations about “what women want” are baseless since, I hope, he’s a man. At least that’s what he likes us to believe.
This brings me to the use of words and the representation of his views. The style in which he expresses himself is as if he is stating undisputed facts, he seldom uses the words “I think” or any that demonstrate that he is expressing his own opinions and views. He rather says “women want this and that”, and “women don’t want this and that”. How do you know what women want? Is it because your wife lets you cheat on her and then make rough love to her and ask her “Who’s the boss” while you’re at it and force her to say YOU? (He said this in his article). Really, who are you to know what women want when what you have at home is a doormat, not a wife?
Calling a man of that type a “man’s man” is a horrible distortion of men’s images. Sincerely speaking, no man should approve of this lest all men be branded utterly sexist and inconsiderate. What is wrong with this person, I reckon, is that he thinks he’s God’s gift to women and that he knows what’s best for them, (walking out in the middle of a conversation, telling them to “shut up” when they’re talking, dominating them in bed, making them feel inferior, making them feel they cannot do without his presence in their lives- to name but a few examples from the article) while what he’s missing is the big picture. God would not send men as gifts to women; we would appreciate a gift certificate much, much better.
What’s most amusing, and I am using the term quite loosely here, about this person is that he affirms in two separate occasions that his wife is a strong and intelligent woman and that he loves her. It’s as if he’s dismissing any ideas we the readers may have of her as being “submissive, stupid and unloved”. Well I am sorry but that is a hard case to win. If a woman is smart enough to run her own life she should know her worth and not stay in a relationship that runs in “his” favour all the time, if she is capable of carrying herself as a modern woman she should not submit to the desires of a sadistic male who could not care less about being faithful or considerate, and if he loves her he would treat her like a human being and not like an object he owns.
At one point of his article this person admits that his wife is more successful than he is, and older than he is. I’m leaning towards the possibility that his dominance in the bedroom may relate to those two facts. Momma’s boy? Jealous of her success and sex is the way you assert your own self and your own success? You need professional help. Just don’t go around telling women what they want. You are clueless as to what women are. ( We do have souls, by the way).
I must admit I am infuriated by this person’s article (note the absence of the word “man”). It saddens me to think that in many relationships the man rules and the woman only obeys, and the man thinks it his birth right to run the show from A to Z and the woman just takes it as if this was true. What ever happened to a relationship being a mutual effort, a mutual passion, a mutual experience? What this person is trying to sell is the old fashioned outdated “I’m tha man” scenario that we have come to discover totally useless.
A word to the wise, Hugh Grant may play too sensitive roles but he’s in demand more than this bigot. Trust me on this one, and get me dinner, boy.
"A<span id="printableVersion">t one point of his article this person admits that his wife is more successful than he is, and older than he is."<br /><br />Paging Dr. Freud. This man-boy’s assertiveness is likely needed to compensate his ego for his wife’s success.<br /><br />I question though whether he is an actual member of this "man first" tribe & not just a wannabe. Men of this ilk rarely tolerate a woman’s successes. One women who I know was once married to such a throwback. She said that he made her quit her job since he could not tolerate her making more money than he was.<br /><br />This is another example of simplistic dichtomies when it comes to gender roles. Men obviously<b>have</B> to be overbearingly aggressive or they risk becoming emasculated "sensitive" types. Apparently there is no room for a man who is genuinely respectful, empathetic, but maintains a healthy assertiveness (i.e., doesn’t let people walk all over him).<br /><br />This is the flip side of the "whore/madonna" roles which women are told they must choose between. In this view, a woman who likes sex and has a healthy regard for her sexuality must be a prostitute, Conversely a "moral" woman is one who submits to sex only to have children and gratify her husband ("Just lay back my dear daughters," said Queen Victoria, "and think of England."). Absurd.<br /><br />BTW–why is Hugh Grant a model for sensitive males? Didn’t you see "About a Boy" and "Bridget Jones’s Diary"? He specializes in playing jerks these days.<br /></span>
see now we all want to know who wrote this article :-D<br /><br />and hugh grant? wasnt he busted for soliciting a prostitute a few years back?<br /><br />anyways men dont know what women want and i think we men are easier to figure out. every women requires something different, some do like to be dominated and some like to dominate. some women want their man to "be a man" and some women struggle to be on top (bala gafyeh). its a matter of personality and preference. the problem arises when the choice is absent, when men feel they have the inherent right to dominate and women become submissive or even the other way around. <br /><br />in my opinion relationships that last are more about push and pull from either end, like a tug of war but in an infinte timeline of detant. it doesnt work if one person pulls or one person pushes…because the other will fall.<br />
<p>Well this person who wrote the article used Hugh Grant as an example for the sensitive male. I would not know where he got that idea from!<br />For what it’s worth, I think his views are pathetic, repulsive, and strange to human rights in general. I am sure this stand of mine was clear in what I wrote. </p>
<p>It’s one thing to be dominant and to have a submissive partner who enjoys this, and another to be dominant and generalize that every woman would respect/crave your "masculine" attributes <em>because</em> you’re dominant (and consequently more of a man every time you tell her to shut up and every time you emotionally abuse her) and to go so far as to solemnly preach that. This person needs professional help, and his wife could use some self respect.</p>
<p>The article was published in the Daily Mail on August 4th,2006. You may wish to look it up if you desire, but it will not get a link from me.</p>
Tololy thanks i just read it. <br /><br />well suffice to say every husband and wife has a dynamic that works for them. the dominant male does not constitute a submissive wife. nor does a dominant male dominate through sex or abuse. i dont agree with anything he’s said but for sure feminism has changed things and many western societies are in a state of flux or confusion about defing these neo-male-female roles. <br /><br />in jordan the man is always dominant but its different from one marriage to another. ive seen marriages where the male excercises dominance through abuse and ive seen dominance excercise by "being a man": one who treats his wife with the ultimate respect but remains protective of her.<br /><br />everyone has their roles to play.<br /><br />our side of the world is still dominated by tradition and religion, the former more prevailing whislt the latter misapplied. when the west looks in on our world they fail to differentiate between the two, but come to think of it so do many of our own people.<br />
Why you’re most welcome, Nas .
So, you are attacking the guy’s point of view without giving him the chance to explain himself (through his documented article)… Do I smell cheating?!
<p>No, it’s not quite like that Devil’s Mind. I refuted his points as you can very well see above, deprived him of a link on my blog because he does not merit it, but clued you to where you may find the article. </p>