Are women just not women anymore?

I love lucy Author Suzanne Venker sparked a firestorm recently, when she published an article on the Fox News opinion page saying that “women aren’t women anymore, and now the men have nowhere to go.”

Explaining her views about the new battle of the sexes as it relates to marriage and modern relationships, Venker began the piece by citing a recent Pew Research study that found:

The share of women aged 18 to 34 who count a successful marriage as one of the most important priorities in their lives has risen 9 percent since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred, dropping from 35 percent to 29 percent.

“But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?” Venker, who has written about feminism influences on American society, wrote.

At the heart of Venker‘s research is her belief that today’s men have lost their desire to get married because they believe women aren’t women anymore.

Under Venker’s theory, women are angry and defensive, and they have been raised to think of men as the enemy.

Men, on the other hand, have become resentful and fed up, Venker said. Men don’t want to compete with women; they want to take care of them. It’s in their DNA to want to provide, but the modern woman has been taught by feminists not to let them, Venker’s theory goes.

The author’s assertions have caused a predictable stir, even among the staff of the Fox News network, known for its attractive, smart, sexy – and leggy – women.

Read Venker’s article, The war on men. Take our poll below.

See her make her case in the following video and watch the women of the Fox News network respond.

Women of Fox News respond

Take our poll and tell us what you think.

[poll id="11"]

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
From Around The Web
About Michele Kirk

Michele Kirk is a writer, editor, and field reporter for BizPac Review. Michele can be reached at michele@bizpacreview.com & @michelekirkbpr

  • Jeff Johnson

    The evidence is all around us that society is breaking-down, in fact, it has been breaking-down for the past several decades. I guess the creative-destructionists among us would claim the break-down is necessary to build a stronger and better society, but to me this philosophy is laced with hubris and vanity. Venker's statement, "It's in their (men) DNA to want to provide" seems to grasp the underlying meaning of what is happening, although I doubt that she or anyone else has done the requisite science to prove this assertion, it does imply that by 'design' men are programmed to provide for women or other dependents such as children. If it is true that men (and women) are designed to respond to each other in a certain way, not just pro-creating but also relationally and socially, then this begs the question: how were men and women designed and/or by whom?

  • John

    Women believing that hey have something to prove has become a real issue for this country. I don't believe that we have seen the full effect of their search for independence as yet.

  • Ellie

    I love the article, however I disagree with her remark that feminist have taught women to resent men and don't let men take care of them. I am a strong woman with a strong character and able to do a lot for myself, I really do not need a man help as far as I know except for procreation, but I am not a feminist, I am feminine women highly educated, and in my marriage even though I can take care of myself very good, in all aspects my husband feels comfortable with my strong character. I think that the woman who is a feminist and firmly adhere to the feminist movement ideals is the one who had been learned to hate men, but femininity does not have anything to do with feminist. A woman can be have a strong character yet still be feminine and that's the reason I have to disagree with the writer on this matter!

  • CB

    It is time to grow up and mature. I like headstrong women. They can make a decision. I have given up on relationships where I have to make all the decisions. If you are not able to take care of yourself how can you "be there" for someone else. Marriage sounds great while exchanging vows. When the love is gone you discover from the lawyers that marriage is a financial contract with multiple obligations. Those financial obligations can also benefit the couple. Now add children and the equation changes. Not interested in marriage can represent a mature decision on a lifetime commitment. If you want to be succesfully married make yourself marriage material.

  • http://michaeldorstewitz@comcast.net Michael Dorstewitz

    I don't have a problem with women working outside the home — it's a part of that "partnership" thing, working together toward a common goal. I feel both insulted and resentful, however, when I'm told "I can do that!" every time I attempt to open a door or carry a package for a woman. I know she is perfectly capable, but I do it out of respect and yes, even love.

  • Shirley

    As a single women, I have witnessed many missteps out there. Beware: I am about to unload a bit of a rant.

    Like many things, they start off with a good idea to protect the few percent that feel disenfranchised, and years later, we reap the repercussions.

    I agree with the writer in most points. And, also agree with Ellie, where the feminism has overpowered the feminine attributes. The difference between feminism and being feminine has become fuzzy for no good reason other than to push an agenda. The media, example Sandra Fluke, portrays that all women are feminists and a clear display of this is "choice." We all have choices, and we live by those choices. Being "strong" in the media vs. "strong" in the household holds a large disparity in meaning. If a hurricane comes and you are able to prepare, that doesn't mean we're Sandra Flukes. It means we are contributing to the family unit by not sitting around all day waiting for our Husband to do everything for us. THAT is a partnership. We forget we made those promises at the alter so many moons ago. Our daily contribution to a marriage is a choice we committed to the day our family and friends watched us marry.

    Let us not forget that it's the WOMEN that are doing most of the extramarital affairs today. Is that a peacock display of "feminism?" I'm confused. If our Men are trusting us to be the glue in the family, as we always have been since the beginning of time, we return the trust by cheating?

    In regards to the portrayed "hatred" towards men – well, that's truly unfortunate. I have always, and will continue to, admire men for their many traits. We both have much to bring to the table. There are some that refuse to let a man open a door, etc., and rather than seeing it as a test of their independence, perhaps some women can just accept that he enjoys doing those things for you.

    I've witnessed women often resenting their Husband when he comes home and unloading on him the moment he walks in the door and forgetting he was out earning to keep the family stable. Rather than being grateful, they nag about the things that aren't done THEIR way. Ladies – not everyone will vacuum or do the dishes like you do. Big deal. At least he is helping. Anyone with common sense knows that men often define themselves by their work. Has anyone seen a man out of work? Even the strongest will can break him down when he is not out providing, even if just for himself and his family whether single or married. Let him be who is is. If you want him to do something for you, ask him and remind him that you love that about him rather than nagging about it to the nearest willing ear to listen.

    I know if I came home and someone unloaded on me and I haven't even set down my keys on the mantle yet — it can certainly bring the mood down a notch — or twelve — in the household. Women do have power and should use it in the right way. Not to bring the family unit down — rather to strengthen the survival of the family. If you complain about your Husband/Boyfriend — remember he IS your partner. If you are putting him down, what does that say about you?

    I had a friend who had purchased a third home which would add another 8,000/m mortgage. All unnecessary and with one child. Her Husband was a police officer. I asked her "what happens if he were to become disabled? The pressure you are putting on him to provide outlandish things is too much, yet you complain he works 80+ hours a week." I would spend all my time at the office too if I were unappreciated, nagged all the time, and felt like my only comfort was at my job. Not surprisingly, they split up for two years. When she finally came to her senses, they got back together and they downsized to one beautiful simple home for three while spending more quality time together. She had to realize that she was losing the foundation of what created a solid marriage in the first place — appreciating him for who he really was — a provider. Even if she brings in 90k — he is still a provider. Per Venker's "DNA" of men.

    You can be feminine without being a feminist. Let the men be men and women be women. Be your best. If you have to redefine that, within your own household — get to it. Men are simple. Food, sex, being needed, and a sweet little man cave somewhere on the property you share. Nothing feminist or difficult about THAT.

  • Michele Kirk

    @shirley – WOW , You nailed it sister. Everything you said may not be popular but I am with you :) Thank you for contributing to the dialogue here. PS – don't forget we have a "Letters to the Editor" section now. You are quite good at expressing yourself. I'd love to see more!

  • Shirley

    Thanks. Pardon the typo – I meant as a "single WOMAN" not Women. =) I still stand by every word though.

  • http://www.dlaudatisalon.com Marianne Laudati

    It's the Sex and the City Syndrome. No man is good enough for any woman; and if she doesn't see his flaws, her girlfriends will be quick to point it out to her, over and over again, until she sees them, too, and the relationship is destroyed. God forbid someone should be in a happy, loving relationship when so many unhappy, jealous women are still single.

  • http://www.clear-info.com Paul Olivier

    Michele Kirk, thank you for you practical approach to the modern marriage conundrum. To recognize the male DNA as a not to be ignored factor is a good step in the right direction. The female – male relation has naturally developed to what we now experiencing, over a longer period than the last several decades. But that is all most all of you have lived and took notice, right?

    Some 160 years ago two misguided philosophers crafted a plan for a better society that included the need for the destruction of the family. Their names Marx and Engels.

    For the USA the process really started to take off 100 – 110 years ago. The Progressive Movement. Your laudable advice is to the 20 – 30% of young people who still still believe in marriage. And for them it may work to follow your advice. However they live in a society that is so degenerated, to the level of Sandra Fluke, that I write about the tramp e fication of womanhood if not scank e fication. This may not be recognizable for the decent people, but even their perception is as the frog in warm water. And how can those good young people be protected from these influences? Start by dismantling the public (Gov.) school system.