Having recently done my first radio interview and scheduled several more, a girlfriend of mine suggested I check out Tom Leykis. She did say he’s outrageous.

I couldn’t sleep last night. So in the wee hours I went to Tom’s website and read a rant he wrote about Tiger Woods. Or rather, about how marriage is for losers. He writes that most men would leave their wives if they struck it rich and that men live with “the best woman they can afford”.

It always astounds me when some seemingly intelligent men can’t discern the difference between a gender issue and a socio-economic one. But then again, men are missing 30% of their connective brain tissue*. In some men this seems to be associated with an overall lack of empathy, and men certainly aren’t culturally encouraged to have empathy for women. Obviously, many of them don’t even try. (Just to be fair, if women were in charge, I’m sure there would be women like that too.) So in a way it’s not their fault. A combination of nature and nurture has condemned them to gender ignorance. This is where I come in: I’d like to help.

First of all, check out this link on Celebrity Single Moms. Anyone who hasn’t noticed that the wealthier and more attractive a woman is, the less inclined she is to marry (as Tiger probably should have been at 29, I agree with Tom Leykis there) simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Someone might also suggest that Tom veer from his anecdotal data and try googling some actual studies (heavily footnoted in my DFFP Chapter 13) on marital happiness; if he did, he would find that on every continent married men are the happiest of people. They are much happier than the average single guy. Conversely, married women are always unhappier than their single sisters. This tells us marriage serves men better than women. And finally…well, there was this comment following a long string of the same following Tom’s Tiger rant:

“Marriage in America is like Communism. It works well in theory but falls apart when practiced. Marriage is about money and just another way for women to transfer our wealth to them. If you really don’t think marriage is based on money, try getting a divorce without a prenup. If marriage is really as you would like it to be then women wouldn’t expect an exhobitant pay off to leave our lives but they do. Until this changes and until divorce laws change I agree with Mr. Levkis and I’m going to boycott marriage until it becomes an amicable thing for men (but we both know that will never happen).”

Unbelievable. See my point about lack of brain matter above. I submitted: “Why don’t you date a career woman for a change? 33% of women in American now earn more than their husbands you Neanderthal. When divorce happens in that circumstance, women pay alimony too. It’s not women’s fault that they were constrained from education and jobs. Remember the brilliant plan the US government had to make Rosie the Riveter give her job up so a man could have it after WWII? Women’s depression rates skyrocketed over the next twenty years (and counting). And women pilots who kicked ass in the war were also forced to quit post-war so more men could fly. You think they wanted that? You think any one wants to be demoted from such a fantastic job to cleaning toilets and scrubbing grout? If so, you’re insane. Let us work, pay us fairly and watch the old system change. EVERYONE prefers financial freedom and independence. It’s not gender specific, numb nut.” In retrospect, I could have avoided the name calling. But a girl can only take so much.

best,

cj

* note: while it’s true that women have 30% more connective tissue between brain hemispheres (not to mention more “gray matter” over all) than men, I don’t actually believe this makes men inferior. But since there are so many men who still seem to believe that women’s differences equal inferiority, I thought, just for fun, someone ought to state this brain difference the same way. Plus, why doesn’t anyone ever mention what that girls start talking before boys developmentally? If that were reversed, misogynists & chauvanists would have used it as evidence for male superiority years milleniums ago.

Tiger Wood’s mom sat in the front row when he made his apology. The “experts” said she was clearly angry, and I agree that her body language makes it look that way. However, it makes no sense that at this late date she would still be upset by the facts at hand. If we factor in her culture, here are some more likely reasons for her to be angry:

a.) Mom is pissed that Tiger hasn’t earned the prerogative to behave anyway he wants. After all, Tiger’s a star, he’s her star, and he shouldn’t have to apologize for anything. Ever.

b.) Mom also doesn’t want to acknowledge that she might be to blame in any way. Did she raise him wrong? (If she had left his father when his father was unfaithful, would that have sent Tiger a different message?)

c.) She’s angry about being included in what she considers a silly charade (the apology).

d.) She’s furious at Elin for not “standing by her man” and showing up at Tiger’s conference (a decision apparently made only the evening before).

I’m not one to blame a mother for what her kids do once they’ve grown up. But that doesn’t change the fact that we moms still often feel responsible. The conflict for a Thai mom is that so many Thai women are forced to endure infidelity from men. They have no acceptable (social or economic) alternative. Which probably means that his mother can’t understand why Tiger is in trouble in the first place.

And, if we’re to believe that Tiger’s father cheated on her (Tiger’s apparent words, not mine) his mother won’t understand why Elin is making such a fuss. The answer of course is: because she can. In every country where women have enough power, money and social status to leave philandering husbands they do. Sometimes they stay legally married while conducting their own affairs (as Jackie Kennedy did), but they do assert their right to freedom. What’s nice is to see that society is finally catching on to the fact that this is an issue of empowerment and values – not gender. Where and when women have the ability to also philander without serious consequence, and their value system doesn’t prohibit it (or he broke the vows first, so the fidelity pact is broken) they are just as likely as men are to do it.

Every business person and parent knows that it’s impossible to negotiate from a position of perceived powerlessness. So it’s not that I applaud female infidelity, but in order to be fair (and healthy), the power should be at least as balanced in a relationship as it is in nature. We all know that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The way I read it, Tiger’s mom is angry that with all his talent, hard work and success he doesn’t have that absolute power. Because after all, that’s what society teaches us that boys are entitled to. And as the mother tigress, who can blame her?

cj

I remember, as a teen, falling for Alan Alda. I was watching a TV interview where he was asked, “Why are you a feminist?” (I think by Barbara Walters – a great woman’s role model in her own right – but it was so many years ago I can’t recall.) His answer was, “The question should be, why aren’t we all.” He was quite clear on the point that it only meant presuming women to be of equal intelligence and wishing for equality of opportunity and protection. And he’s right; here’s what Webster says about the definition:

“ the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”

Of course there have been less reasonable advocates than Alan. Like at least one insanely radical group called The Feminists. Although I can’t imagine giving up men, much less as if they were some toxic addiction, I can muster up some sympathy for the basis of these women’s convictions. I suspect they were each more grievously wronged by men than most of us, leaving radical rage as the only acceptable path left. Maybe a bit like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X; at some point, when the injustice runs too long and too deep, the rage has to boil over. It’s understandable. But darn it, those broads, chicks, girls, radical “feminists” – they did ruin an otherwise excellent word.

The few times I’ve read about their “male conspiracy theory” I’ve wanted to point out that by the way, we women would never had won the vote back (we certainly had lots of voting power in Gatherer-Hunter societies) if half the American men hadn’t agreed to it. So you know, it’s not like they’re ALL bad.

At the same time, too many men have benefitted for too long from women’s virtual enslavement (globally) to make it change very fast. I’d like to think I’d be more kind if I were in their place – this mass of men – but honestly it would be nice to have someone always put me first, cook for me, keep things picked up and raise my kids. Especially if all I had to do was work from nine to five.

I might even get a little lazy, and allow it to continue. I might even tell my daughters to hold onto it as long as possible (“keep your husband in his place, honey”) before it slipped away. I might tell my sons that serving women was the key to their happiness too, and remind them that God is after all a woman. I really hate to think I’d be that awful of a parent, but I’m just saying: it’s possible.

But I digress. And now I’ve run out of time – if I don’t start the laundry soon the kids will have nothing to wear tomorrow. Back to finish this thought another time.

best,

cj

Alas. As much as I’d like to do this, I’m afraid it’s too late. Or too early; maybe in another generation or two the sting will have been leached entirely from the word “feminist”. Then women can claim it once more without men protecting their privates as they run for the nearest exit.

The other day I asked a twenty-nine year old sales woman if she considers herself a feminist. She said, “Oh, no.”

I was surprised. I said, “But you do believe women should have equal pay, education, protection and the vote, right?” She concurred, “of course.”

Pause.

I added, “But…you mean you’re not exactly going to go out and march in the streets until we get it?”

She nodded. “Exactly.”