That is the title of this article.
The article makes the following point:
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.
And this:
In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
Female anger is driving men away.
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. 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.
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
The solution, says the female author, is for women to become more feminine.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.
My wife, an ardent feminist in her own way, agrees with this article’s perspective. She has noticed a problem that most women have, which is that society says they should want metrosexual, sensitive men, but women really in their hearts want (somewhat) macho men. In effect, modern-day society has told women they should want Ashley Wilkes, but, like Scarlett O’Hara, when they actually can have Ashley Wilkes they realize they really want Rhett Butler.
Meanwhile, men are confused, not sure if they should act like Ashley or Rhett or something else entirely. This article makes the point that many of them are avoiding marriage precisely because of this confusion.
Another point: how does the “Proclamation on the Family” deal with these issues if at all:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
It appears to me that the Proclamation is making another, more nuanced point: men and women are different, but in God’s eyes, there is room for individualism among both men and women. The key point the Proclamation seems to make is that both sexes have responsibilities to support and sustain each other. Rhett Butler is far from the ideal man, the Proclamation says. Instead, our model should be the humble, hard-working men who support and love their families and honor their wives.
What is the ideal model for women? Well, that appears to be much more controversial and open to discussion.
Please feel free to discuss, but please be nice.