I Am Clueless, Hear Me Roar.

In the pages of Wednesday's Daily Nebraskan, columnist Sarah Melecki made it clear that she's really ticked off at some guy named Mark Regnerus.

According to Melecki, Regnerus is the epitome of patriarchal evil:

Mark Regnerus, who published an opinion piece in the April 26 Washington Post, thinks it’s a tragedy that women are statistically choosing to get married at a later age now than they did in, say, 1890. His reasoning? According to Regnerus, as a woman ages her “market value” decreases, while a man’s increases.


...
This guy thinks that my value is wrapped up in my ability to produce fertile eggs. And apparently as I get closer to menopause, I get more and more worthless.
...
But whether or not I decide to have children, I am not worthless. I contribute to the good of society, and I challenge the ideas of closed-minded sexists like you, Mr. Regnerus.
...
Don’t let society pressure you into anything, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from people like Mark Regnerus, it’s that our world is full of people who are stuck in a black and white television set with a 1950’s idea of marriage. Let’s make sure we’re living in the digital era.


Because I happen to live in the digital era, I harnessed the magic of the interweb to find the opinion piece that scarred Melecki for life. Now, my only question is: Did Melecki actually read it? Any of it? A cursory glance at the article reveals a remarkably benign column arguing for the freedom to marry young -- a far cry from a sexist polemic:

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree."

...
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too.
...
It is is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. (emphasis added) Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion.

The focal point of Melecki's rant -- that Mark Regnerus believes women should be valued based on their ability to produce children -- is patently false. Regnerus makes no value judgements at all. He certainly doesn't say that society should discard women who can't make babies. He merely points out the bleak truth that, generally speaking, men consider younger women to be more desirable spouses. There's a difference between someone's "market value" on the dating scene and their worth as a human being -- a nuance that Melecki seems incapable of detecting.

Melecki's warning that "you shouldn't let society pressure you into anything" is rather ironic, considering that it happens to be the main thesis of Regnerus's article. Instead of commanding women to conform to a 1950s mold, he simply tries to make the point that women should feel free to get married young if they want to. He offers no condemnation for people who choose not to marry. His article never even touches on the larger feminist debate over whether a woman should be valued based on her family or her work.

But it doesn't take long to realize that Melecki is simply using Regnerus as a springboard to segue into a dull screed against the evils of our patriarchal society:

From an early age girls are taught that marriage and motherhood are key goals in life. Dress up wedding gowns, happy endings in fairy tales, baby dolls and Playschool kitchens are forced upon little girls from the time they can walk until they decide they’re too old for toys. Everything is pink and frilly and is in preparation for being an obedient wife.



Boys, on the other hand, get to play with a variety of toys, from race cars to G.I. Joe. There may be a few toys marketed toward boys that prepare them for being a husband and father, but more often they get to choose from a wide array of art, video games or basketball.

I have three younger sisters, so I've witnessed the horror of baby dolls being "forced upon" little girls on several occasions. When they unwrap those little bundles of oppression, it only looks like they're happy. Deep down inside, there must be a pain I can't even imagine. (If only they could choose from a wide array of basketball like the boys!)

Melecki's piece demonstrates that militant feminists are the only people stuck in the 1950s. With the number of American women working outside the home hovering near 80%, there just isn't enough to get mad about in the "digital age." Thus, they conveniently construct a frightening fantasy realm where male oppression lurks beneath every pebble to convince themselves that their stale talking points are still relevant. Anyone who dares to present an opinion that appears to slightly contradict feminist dogma is promptly crucified.

It looks like the patriarchal oppressors don't have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.