ONTD Political

How to write a trend piece on gender relations for Fox News

8:43 pm - 11/26/2012

Illustrate your article with a stock image of a couple of annoyed young white people.

Suzanne Venker, niece of Phyllis Schlafly and one of my personal favorite anti-feminists, shows us how it’s done…

1) Give your article a “provocative” headline. “The war on men” should do the trick.

2) Pretend all gay, lesbian, and trans people do not exist.

3) Cherry-pick a single statistic that supports your argument. For example, point to a poll released recently last spring that found that the share of young women who say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose from 28 to 37 percent since 1997, while among young men it dropped from 35 to 29 percent. Ignore all other recent studies that show that men are just as eager as women to fall in love, settle down, and have a family–if not more so. Instead, based on your interviews with “hundreds, if not thousands” of people, conclude that men are “retreating from marriage en masse.”

4) Talk about “good men” and “marriageable men” as if these are concepts that mean anything. Ignore the fact that the institution of marriage has evolved (gasp!) from being a social and economic necessity to a voluntary relationship based on love that seems increasingly obsolete to many people of both genders.

5) Pretend feminism is just about blaming men for everything. Accuse feminists of “browbeating the American male,” of blaming men “when love goes awry,” of raising women to “think of men as the enemy,” and pushing both men and women off their respective “pedestals.” Do not acknowledge that sexism exists. Note that women make up a majority of the workforce, but do not mention the pay gap. Say that “women are angry.” Hope nobody wonders if they might have some good reasons to be.

6) Make sweeping essentialist generalizations about men’s and women’s “natures.” Write lines like, “Women aren’t women anymore.” Vaguely allude to some evolutionary psychology bullshit to justify doing so. “Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA.” Act like this is real science.

7) Pretend that it’s even possible for most women to “let” men provide for them. To do so, ignore a lot of historical and economic facts. Do not acknowledge that–even before feminism was invented in the 1970s–many women have always worked out of financial necessity. Make references to “picking up the slack at the office” and “a balanced life” to gloss over the fact that you are calling for families to rely on a single salary when the minimum wage in this country isn’t even enough to make rent. Keep pretending this isn’t a joke.

8) Throw in some hand-wringing about hookup culture and cohabitation for good measure. You have plenty of examples to guide you on this part. Most importantly, remember to assume that women do not like sex at all and that marriage magically turns men from “slackers” into responsible adults. Write lines like, “Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.”

9) Tell women to “surrender” to traditional gender roles for their own good. Remind them that they can’t have it all and urge them to stop trying. “All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.” Ignore the fact that the very same poll you cited at the beginning of your piece found that—in another significant shift since 1997–66 percent of young women now rate career high on their list of life priorities, compared to 59 percent of young men. Maintain that women can get what they really want only by giving up on what they think they want.

10) Find some way to justify to yourself the hypocrisy of being a woman who makes a living telling other women not to work.

Source: http://feministing.com/2012/11/26/how-to-write-a-trend-piece-on-gender-relations-for-fox-news/

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
dixiedolphin 27th-Nov-2012 04:29 am (UTC)
Ugh, seriously. Imagine that? A woman can be happy and content on her own? Inconceivable!
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
bnmc2005 27th-Nov-2012 03:32 am (UTC)
zinnia_rose 27th-Nov-2012 05:06 am (UTC)
I wish this were satire.
muppetfromhell 27th-Nov-2012 05:07 am (UTC)
So... 63% of women don't say a successful marriage is a key goal?

kaizopp 27th-Nov-2012 05:46 am (UTC)
Holy fucking this.
shhh_its_s3cr3t 27th-Nov-2012 05:49 am (UTC)
Yeah ... the religious nuts are going to point out how feminism is DESTROYING the family unit!!!

I hate dumb articles. I really do.

I wish the writers would fall off the flat end of the earth. Thanks!
girlwonderrobin 27th-Nov-2012 08:53 am (UTC)
I just love how they have to keep pushing "family values". Uh, what about those of us who don't want families? How do your "values" apply then? Oh wait, I guess every woman needs to be forcibly impregnated to realize how much she really "wants" that "family".
scolaro 27th-Nov-2012 06:18 am (UTC)
Excellent reply to that vile piece of writing...
squee4242 27th-Nov-2012 06:31 am (UTC)
There was another good response to this on The Awl: http://www.theawl.com/2012/11/two-cartoon-interpretations-of-fox-news-the-war-on-men-article
romp 27th-Nov-2012 06:40 am (UTC)
this is like a badly-needed palate cleanser, thanks

and I'm glad more people know this is Schlafly's and not just some random self-hating marketer
papasha_mueller 27th-Nov-2012 07:26 am (UTC)

bmh4d0k3n 27th-Nov-2012 07:31 am (UTC)
girlwonderrobin 27th-Nov-2012 07:31 am (UTC)
I said this on the first article covering this. And I'll post it here again because it still applies.

So, lemme get this straight. Basically, what the author of this article is saying is that by *gasp* daring to have a life that doesn't revolve around my fiance, daring to have a career of my own, daring to say "I'm not ready for a kid yet", and daring to call him out on his bullshit when he tries to be an asshole, I am emasculating him. Please, tell me more about how you are practicing what you preach, Ms. I-Advocate-For-Traditional-Gender-Roles.

Here's an idea. You want a man to put a rock on it? Share at least a few of his interests, be his equal, and for the love of all that's traditionally pale and fanged, do not call him pookie pie or something equally embarrassing in public. Because that, ladies, is TRUE emasculation, you can practically feel the poor man's balls retreating back into his stomach, and everyone else cringes in sympathy.

See? Simple.

Hey, maybe I should write an article! The Liberal Woman's Guide To Landing An Egalitarian (Yes, They DO Exist!).
shhh_its_s3cr3t 27th-Nov-2012 02:12 pm (UTC)
papasha_mueller Beats me...27th-Nov-2012 09:05 am (UTC)
Whe men are encouraged to have a pee seated, while feminist groups are furiously fighting for women's right to urinate standing?
Can anybody explain?

meran_flash Re: Beats me...27th-Nov-2012 09:18 am (UTC)
You are baffling.
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
blackjedii 27th-Nov-2012 12:02 pm (UTC)

Did you know in recent years, eating healthier food like shrimp and crab is up by roughly 24%? In itself this is not surprising, but when you take a closer look an alarming trend starts to show up. Men, especially those between the ages of 18 - 32 with steady incomes, only account for 2% of this. Women, especially unmarried ones between the ages of 18 - 32 with no history of steady employment, rose 22%!

What does this all mean? When asked, many women state they prefer to go out and eat with their girlfriends instead of creating a home-cooked meal. They also didn't realize that shrimp is explicitly forbidden by the Bible, and at least 78% answered they would not change their eating habits based on what is and is not a step for them to get into heaven.

Men, by comparison, showed more willingness to come home and eat a home-cooked meal, especially if and when it would be cooked by a loving wife. They were aware of the biblical statistic and 89% say they would support less shellfish eating should it make them closer to Christ.

So why the large gender gap? Is it because men are more willing to lead an upright lifestyle while women are bucking against cultural norms? It is important to note that back in 1950, shrimp and lobster eating accounted for only around 15% of all meat consumption. It rose sharply in the 1960s, just around the same time as the feminist revolution. There is also a sharp decline in family meals - in fact, there is a higher correlation between beef eating and functional marriages than in family homes that tend to eat seafood!

Perhaps women should be more willing to make a beef stew for a potential suitor than to frivolously fritter their money away going to Red Lobster or Long John Silver every night

P. S. Sur, AP News, 2012

this article acknowledges that people who live on the coast are hellbound, regardless
mutive 27th-Nov-2012 01:12 pm (UTC)
This has to be satire, right? (Since if it's not, I'm just going to cry for a while. I mean, this reads like something out of The Onion.)
mutive 27th-Nov-2012 01:17 pm (UTC)
Pretend feminism is just about blaming men for everything.

This is the one that drives me crazy.

The men's rights types seem to love this one particularly. In their minds, all these poor men are deprived of their children and their wages by these evil feminist harpies. What doesn't make sense about any of this is that feminism wants to break down gender roles, which (among other things) would a) have men do a higher percentage of child care, which would make them more likely to be granted joint (or even sole!) custody in the case of a divorce, and b) allow women to work at jobs that pay reasonably which *gasp* reduces the need for child support and alimony.

Really, guys. Feminism works for you too. It's not just about the ladies. It's about reducing gender barriers so that men can become stay at home dads if they want to, and do non-traditional-manly things that they enjoy without scorn, and have wives who earn decent incomes. This is good for virtually all men, including those who might prefer a wife who dreams of being a SAHM. (As feminism doesn't rule that it. It just makes it a choice rather than a mandate. Although admittedly a choice than an awful lot can't afford.) This is not that hard to understand. *sigh*

Feminism takes away nothing from anyone. It only gives people additional options. Options are *good*.
antique_faery 27th-Nov-2012 02:44 pm (UTC)
Honestly, as long as it's called "feminism," it won't be "for everyone" to insecure men.
ragnor144 27th-Nov-2012 03:14 pm (UTC)
I tried it their way. I married young, had children, and stayed home with them while my husband worked. I had a good deal of money coming into the marriage so that we could buy a house at 22 with 30% in cash. By 30, after he had blown through my money and had his bachelors and half way to a masters, he divorced me, remarried, and left the state. I became a single mother with no college degree, very little child support, and no alimony even though I spent all of my college money getting him a degree. To stay in the house that I bought, I had to take over his credit card debts. Mine may be just one story, but sadly it isn't unique. Why is it wise to never put all of your metaphorical eggs in one basket, but you only rely on the man to be the breadwinner?
evilnel 27th-Nov-2012 07:39 pm (UTC)
D: I'm sorry this happened to you.
poetic_pixie_13 27th-Nov-2012 03:54 pm (UTC)
In the original article there was actually a line that perfectly summarized the actual issue wrt to straight marriages and all that shit.

Men haven’t changed much

Straight dudes still expect to be waited on hand and foot by some combination of cook, maid, sex toy, ego boost, and confidante who doesn't have any needs, wants, flaws, expectations, desires, or dreams of her own. This isn't an actual partnership, it's not even actual love, it's a shallow fantasy that many women have grown out of when we realize that a Prince (or Princess) Charming isn't someone who actually exists.

And that they'd be pretty fucking boring if they did.

Love is about struggle and fighting and working together, compromises and sacrifice. A partner who truly love you, who respect you and cherishes your happiness sees you as a whole person. A human being who doesn't fall into this category or that because of their gender (or race, or sexuality, or ability, or or or). But recognizing the complexity of another person is difficult, it forces you to look as deeply into yourself and face your own weaknesses and flaws and fears and how you relate to the world around you.

It's, basically, what grown ups do. And until men aren't coddled and told that they don't have to be adults, that they are entitled to a partner that can never actually exist, it's not going to change. Sometimes, dude, it is you and not me. Because whoever you're with, if they're not being fulfilled by your relationship then they have every right to leave. It's not her being unwomanly, or unreasonable, or a bitch or anything that she's intrinsically lacking. It's the fact that she knows she deserves better.

And, in a lot of ways, so do you. Just as letting go of those ideas of an 'ideal wife' can open you up to the actual realities of love, and all the painful, heartbreak that can come with it, it also lets you see and feel all the wonders of really loving someone. Of seeing them for exactly who they are, warts and all, and having your heart stop, your breath taken away. In the end experiencing that isn't 'losing' any fabricated gender war, it's gaining the ability to truly live.
girlwonderrobin 27th-Nov-2012 04:31 pm (UTC)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Apr 24th 2018, 4:46 pm GMT.