When you only get 600 words, you're bound to be misunderstood

I always hope my Washington Times column will garner some attention, but not necessarily the kind I got today! The current column on the new White House Council on Women and Girls has been quoted and posted on several blogs, along with choice words about my intellect (or lack thereof) by people who variously think I am a typical manbasher and a woman-hater, all at once.

I suppose if I had more than 600 words for a column, I’d have been able to make myself more clear, but I don’t suppose I’d have received a different sort of response. I guess the reality is that mine is just an unpopular opinion, at least in certain circles.

When the president announced his new council on women and girls, I basically rolled my eyes. I think this new advisory group is only meant to placate the far left feminist movement – not to be confused with people like me who ardently support full equality for women, but not the cultural neutering of men. My point was that the agenda of this new council is tired and predictable, largely because the issues it seeks to address can and should be the concern of both women and men.

In fact, my point was that many of the issues could be resolved with the resurgence of manhood. Real manhood. Responsible manhood.

Which brings me to the snarky emails I received today from men who think I’m a manbasher. I’m not! And I don’t think men are the root cause of all women’s problems (I give radical feminism a fare share of the blame!). Whining aside (not a great way to argue your manhood, btw), I wasn’t even addressing the guys who mean well and work hard to do the right things, but are unfairly treated by a “biased system.” (Those emails were obviously from guys who went through nasty divorces, so I get their sensitivity).

No, those aren’t the men I was talking about in my column.

Rather, I was referring, for example, to at least some of the men responsible for today’s startling new statistic: Fully 40 percent of America’s babies now are born to unwed mothers. Subtract the women in their 30’s and 40’s with money and maternal instincts but no prospects for marriage who choose to build a family on their own, and you still have a whole lot of women who must bear the burden of responsibility for young families without the benefits of marriage (and yes, there are benefits – countless!).

I was also referring to the men who make scads of money selling porn to other men and boys, as well as the men who exploit children by hyper-sexualizing our public airwaves with commercials, TV shows, and song lyrics that objectify and disrespect women.

Generally, I was referring to men who conveniently use and abuse women, or at least fail to live responsibily, because the culture permits it, even though the culture that permits it includes women who’ve a. convinced them they’re useless to women and b. participate willfully in their own abuse.

Ah, but now I’m getting defensive, and in so doing, I’m breaking the cardinal rule of column-writing: Quit explaining yourself and have a glass of wine.

I said what I said and that’s that. If I had more space, perhaps I’d have been more convincing. Or maybe not. And I’m a lot of things, but I’d like to think I’m not an idiot. So there.