A protest is planned because identifying men as providers is allegedly a denial of equality and anti-women.
This message is anti-women, according to a protest organizer: “Real Men Provide; Real Women Appreciate It.”
From the Charlotte Observer:
Trending: Islam: America’s Clearest Present Danger
A billboard on Interstate 40 West near Winston-Salem is angering many who say its message is offensive to women.
The board reads: “Real men provide. Real women appreciate it.” The owner of a Winston-Salem women’s boutique called Kleur has organized a demonstration against the billboard’s message for Sunday at 11 a.m.
“We are NOT protesting that the sign is capable of existing, or the people who put it up, or the ad agency, or the right to put it up. We are protesting patriarchy and sexism, and that this antiquated way of thinking about women exists at all,” the group’s Facebook page said.
The Facebook description also says:
We are protesting the implied demand that women be silent and appreciate, regardless of whatever circumstances, their role as non-providers.
I appreciate the protesters’ affirmation of the First Amendment. On the other hand, despite the acknowledgment that an organization has a right to put a message on a billboard, I can’t say that the protesters are tolerant. They want the idea on the billboard to cease to exist.
But what are they objecting to?
Part of the answer is that they are opposing “the implied demand that women be silent.” How does the billboard imply that? I can read and I don’t see anything that implies that a woman should not speak.
It seems to me that the protesters are objecting to something than isn’t there. They are adding a grievance that isn’t real but makes the billboard seem worse than it is.
Also, where does the claim that the billboard makes demands “regardless of circumstances”? Why assume that? Maybe the billboard is affirming an ideal that is worth valuing but does change due to circumstances. Again, the protesters seem to be making the message of the billboard worse than it really is.
They also say the billboard is anti-women because it insists that they be “non-providers.” Non-providers of the main family income, perhaps. That doesn’t mean they don’t provide anything.
Clearly, this billboard is referring the men and women as husband and wives. If they are going to have children, there is going to have to be some understanding that the husband and the wife are going to both have to contribute as best they can. Since a man’s biological contribution to having a child takes only a few minutes, and it takes a woman nine months, it will typically be easier for the husband to provide for his wife and children than for the wife to do so.
Yet we live in an age where such a division of labor is considered anti-women.
Does such a knee-jerk reaction do anything for women or men?
What is weird is that it encourages men to be losers that women complain about. Many women don’t like men who are sexually promiscuous and won’t settle down. The billboard is trying to get men to be responsible despite the feminist voices telling them that they don’t have to be.
We live in a culture that is facing demographic winter. If men and women don’t get a lot more interested in starting families and having many children, they both are going to suffer.