Feminists are coasting on their (false) assumption of female moral superiority.
This is why we need a "masculism" to balance feminism: to point out excesses and keep feminism honest. However, this complementary movement is discouraged by, among other things, feminism's assertion that they stand for equality.
One of the major consequences of this "blank check" for feminism, is the failure to acknowledge the extent to which male behavior is influenced (maybe even determined) by women. And vice versa. Despite that the actions of men and women are very dependent upon each other, feminism is very quick to try to get men to change their behavior, while ignoring the behaviors of women that contribute to the undesirable behaviors of men. This puts men in a frustrating bind: women tell them to change a certain behavior, while at the same time women's choices encourage that behavior. (Sexual objectification of women, for example, and how it is encouraged by the millions of women who treat men like status objects.) Consequently, men's behavior is often taken out of context.
Because men have always held the more easily seen political and economic powers, we have always assumed that women were relatively powerless. However, women have always held a more subtle but still potent power: sexual power. Biologists tell us that this power is based on reproductive differences: women have few eggs, while men have millions of sperm. Women had to be much more careful with their sexual choices. Even though reliable contraception has eliminated most of the need for this sexual power, and even though women have demanded that men give up their political and economic power, women have done little to give up their sexual power.
Sexual power is based on the laws of supply and demand. By keeping the supply of sex low and the demand high, women can write their own ticket.
Women increase sexual demand mostly with their sexual appearance. Many aspects of women's appearance are directly sexual: Lipstick imitates aroused vaginal lips, and blush (rouge) imitates sexual flush. Also, women generally expose more skin. Even in formal situations, they expose breasts and cleavage, legs, arms, and\or back, while men only show head and hands. They also wear tighter fitting, clinging clothing -- men don't show panty lines. Panty hose makes women's skin look soft and smooth, high heels put a swivel in their walk and a curve in their calves, and they also do many other things which I would argue are sexual: hair coloring and styling, brightly colored clothing, eye makeup, perfume, and jewelry are some of the things in this category. (If you doubt these things are sexual, ask yourself this question: why don't we allow young girls to wear these things?)
Society in general, and women in particular (as the sexual gatekeepers), keep the supply of sex low. Traditionally, a man had to give a woman marriage before he could obtain sex. The situation is not that extreme now, but men still need to give women some form of commitment before sex will occur. The commitment can vary: buying her dinner or diamonds (financial commitment), saying "I love you" or giving assurances of exclusivity (going steady), are a few examples. Here, we will emphasize the financial aspect of "Commitment."
The amount of the commitment is often proportional to the sexual attractiveness of the women - attractive women have more sexual power and can therefore obtain more commitment.
This arrangement sets up a quid pro quo. First, men give women some form of commitment, then they "receive" sex. The order is significant because it highlights that women are in control. In a sense, this is a form of prostitution. Men must "pay" for sex. For proof, just consider how a woman reacts to the saying, "Why buy a cow when the milk is free?" Her ire indicates that she feels sex should never be free.
What are the sexual options for men who do not want to play this "prostitution" game? Celibacy, cheating (e.g., say "I love you" when he doesn't mean it), actual prostitution ... even rape? Celibacy is the only one which is not immoral, illegal or both. Not much of an option, is it?
A consequence of this system is that most women are sexually passive. All they have to do is be sexually attractive (as most younger women are to most men), and men will do all the work - approach, ask her out, first kiss, etc. Her only job beyond her appearance is to accept or refuse his offers. This places him in the frustrating position of being responsible for the relationship (nothing will really happen unless he offers), while she is in control (she decides whether the offer is good enough). This makes men constantly vulnerable to rejection - hence, the idea that men's egos are very fragile. However, women generally refuse any exposure to rejection at all. So who really has the fragile ego, here?
Another consequence of this is that, sexually, women are generally subtle, indirect, aimed no where and at all men. If Sue is trying to impress Tom and puts on a very sexy appearance, Bill, Fred, and every other man who sees her will also see the sexual appearance. (Notice that I replaced "sexy" with "sexual." They mean the same thing.) Certainly this is frustrating for Bill and Fred. (Are Bill and Fred being sexually harassed by Sue, here?) Another example of this is women's preoccupation with romance. Romance by definition involves mystery, fantasy, non reality. A man learns quickly that to succeed with women, he must avoid clear communication -- he must be mysterious. For example, which is more likely to succeed: "Would you like to come in and look at my etchings?", or "Want to come in and neck?" This is women avoiding sexual responsibility. (In government, this is called "deniability.")
As feminism has often pointed out, the standards of the dominant group become the standards of society. We can use this principle to again show how women are in charge in this area. Commitment is held in high esteem by our society - it is a lofty, noble value. Sex, with the exception of committed sex, is seen as sleazy, dirty, undignified. In short: commitment good, sex bad. Of course, sex is actually just as "good" as commitment. Both can be abused, or both can be enriching.
These ideas have serious consequences for social relationships in general and marriage in particular. It appears the "goal" for men is sex, while the goals for women are things like financial security, status, and romance. Love seems to have little to do with it. Consider, for example, that women usually marry up. If women were marrying for love, this wouldn't happen. It's financial/status objectification. Or consider the phrase, "she got him." The meaning of the phrase is marriage, commitment. Now consider, "he got her." The meaning of this phrase is sex. No wonder the myth of female moral superiority is so prevalent!
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want your email to be considered for publication in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so.