man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapaciouswolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this "men's society", men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.So I hadn't imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book.Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life -
violent threats have not ceased to this date
. A woman who defended the arch-enemy - who didn't equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described thecompany of young children as a pleasure, not a burden - necessarily had to become a"misogynist", even a "reactionary" and "fascist" in the eyes of the public.Had not Karl Marx determined once and for all that in an industrial society it is us, the women,who are the most oppressed? It goes without saying, doesn't it, that someone who did not want totake part in the canonisation of her own sex is also opposed to equal wages and equalopportunities? In other words, if I had known then what I know today, I probably wouldn't havewritten this book. And that is precisely the reason why I am so glad to have written it. I would liketo take this opportunity to thank the handful of people who have stood up for me and my work.Typically, most of them were women.The second question I am often asked is about the topicality of the opinions I expressed then. Towhat extend is what I described over twenty-five years ago still relevant to the "new woman" andthe "new man"?Here is a list of issues which I recognised in the original book to be men's most significantdisadvantages compared to women.1. Men are conscripted; women are not.2. Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.3. Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should havethe right to retire earlier).4. Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion - they can only get the children women want them to have).5. Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.6. Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.7. Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, onaverage, men are poorer than women.8. Men only "borrow" their children; woman can keep them (as men work all their lives and womendo not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation - with the reasoningthat they have to work).As one can see, if anything, the female position of power has only consolidated. Today a career inthe military is also open to women in many countries - but without conscription for all.Many achieved for themselves the right to practice their job for the same number of years as their male colleagues - however, the retirement age was not increased for all of us. And now as before,it does not occur to the underprivileged to fight against this grotesque state of affairs. Only as far as the sixth point is concerned, has there been a significant change. In the more entertainingspheres of work, there are more and more women who happily and willingly work and still keeptheir jobs despite having the children they nevertheless desire. But only a few of these womenwould be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the children'sfathers, supported by their often substantial salaries; and fewer would further be prepared, incase of a separation, to give up their home and offspring and support the next admirer with whatis left of her income.Also, men would not like it: emancipation may be fine, but to be "kept" by a woman is still notacceptable - housekeeping and raising children is not worthy of a "real" man. Sadly, women'smanipulation of men is as topical today in the UK as it was back then, but so are the measureswhich could be used to end it - to the benefit of both sexes.
Leave a Comment