Sara Bernhardt as Hamlet courtesy of wikipedia.org
When Senator Cory Booker announced he would filibuster to protest Donald Trump’s policies, a woman on Facebook wondered if his actions would have an impact. She was trawling for opinions, not data, as the filibuster had yet to occur. At best, any reply would have to be grounded in political bias.
Her curiosity might have been an idle one. Or, to avoid accountability, she could have been making a statement in the guise of a question. Because this individual had used this ruse before, I suspected the latter. A day or two after the filibuster, she tipped her hand. This time she ondered if Booker’s speech had struck anyone as being performative—meaning theatrical rather than sincere.
Recently, I encountered another question that performed as a statement. “Are Men Okay?” The words served as the title for an interview with Richard Reeves, author of the book, Of Boys and Men. Knowing Reeves was on a quest to prove that males are not okay but floundering, I guessed the answer. (“Are Men Okay?” by Eamon Whalen, Nation, April 2025, pgs. 26-31, 41,51)
A scant 50 years had elapsed since the passage of Roe v. Wade, and I despair to see green shoots of revisionism flourishing without justification. As Reeves admits, feminists are far removed from their goal of equality. Men earn 20% more than women in the workplace. They hold three-quarters of the seats in the federal legislature and two-thirds of the seats in state legislatures. The names on the Fortune 500 CEO list are almost exclusively male. (Ibid, pg 28.)
Patriarchy has shaped human societies for thousands of years and is far from dead. “Are Men Okay?” The question has no meaning in places like Afghanistan, Sudan, or Yemen and is of small relevance in the rest of the world.
I find the question, “Are Men Okay?” objectionable because it casts a gimlet eyet on women’s progress. It implies life is a zero-sum game where if a woman wins a man loses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Industrial and technological innovations have wrought changes for which women can’t be blamed. For example, physical strength is no longer a premium in the workplace. Women can operate computers without brawn. But no one should conclude that a woman’s presence in an office or factory sets limitations upon men. Quite the reverse, their presence has expanded the economy and created more jobs. If wages have dropped, blame the patriarchy. Women’s work has always been undervalued, a prejudice that employers exploit to improve their bottom line.
Nor is feminism to blame for a decrease in the number of male students on college campuses. Until recently, education for a woman was a novelty, not a birthright. If they are enthusiastic about their new freedom, in no way does that lessen opportunities for men.
Historically, a female’s role has been tied to her biology. Being a wife and mother may be fulfilling, but because women can grasp art and science as easily as men, for some the role is too narrow.
If any bias exists between the sexes, we find it in nature. On average, women live longer, as we know. What’s more, evolution shows a preference for females. In 10,000 years, the Y chromosome will disappear.
Arguably, 10,000 years is enough time for masculinity to reimagine itself. And, I wish my brethren well in their pursuit. But a woman’s timeline is different. We have enjoyed the right to control our bodies for less than 50 years and already that right has been snatched away. Today, we face the dystopian future proposed by Project 2025. So, I hope that men will understand that as a female, I have problems of my own. While men struggle for a new role, my sisters and I struggle to be free. While they ponder the question of HOW to be, women ponder if they have a right to be.
BOYCOTT TESLA
