Have women... in the West at least... "Flipped the Script?"

[fashion frank]

You Better Be Careful !

I think the 70s feminists sold them a bill of goods and laughed all the way to the bank. Now they are wondering what the hell happened, and why the Disneyland of "I can have it all" never came true. But they never question whether what they were taught to believe was even possible.

I have to agree 100% with you Stanley Doble , I stated something to that effect and WWIII started , but none the less you are correct and on target .
I notice that women today want to have a career first then maybe get married and then last but not least have a baby and then return to that career that they started and stick the kid in daycare or have someone else pretty much raise the kid.

All the Best ,Fashion Frank

 

[Stanley Doble]

Feminism was hijacked by the Boys From Marketing the moment the Boys realized that more women making more money meant more crap for them to sell. The kind of "upscale" suburban "empower every woman except my Guatamalan nanny" feminism that Sandra Tsing-Loh bleats about in the Atlantic has nothing in common with real street-marching/blackjack-swinging/overthrow-the-whole-damn-system feminism, and never did.

The twenty-something girls I know have a very refreshing view of all this. They aren't looking to "have it all," they just want to find someone who respects them as human beings, not as ambulatory sex toys, and who isn't drunk/high/stupid/playing video games 90 percent of the time.

You mean they want a man who is a man and not a product of political correctness and mass marketing?

 

[Fastuni]

What kind of "political correctness" demands young men to be disrespectful, fornicating, drunk, high, stupid video-game addicts?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, I kind of don't see the connection there myself. Most of the jackass-types so described are about as far from "politically correct" as possible -- quite frankly, most of them are repulsive sexist pigs along with the rest of their sterling characteristics.

It isn't political correctness to realize that a woman doesn't exist for the sole purpose of one's sexual gratification, and that a woman is perfectly entitled to make decisions about her own life, body, employment, and all other aspects of her life without being expected to defer to somebody who thinks the chance posession of a Y chromosome entitles them to be "dominant." It's just common sense and human decency.

A real man, in my view, is someone who doesn't spend all his time whining about how the mean girls won't let him be a real man.

 

[Big J]

I second that, and want to add that a real man doesn't complain that he has 'been friend-zoned', when a gal wises up to the fact he hasn't been straight with her, and he was only trying to get in her panties.

 

[Stanley Doble]

What kind of "political correctness" demands young men to be disrespectful, fornicating, drunk, high, stupid video-game addicts?

That is the mass marketing part.

 

[LizzieMaine]

On that we fully agree. The idea of "manhood" promoted by modern popular culture is beyond repulsive, and is the sign of a society thoroughly marinated in its own utter degeneracy. We're a society with too much leisure time, too much material prosperity, and too little sense.

I have just as much contempt for the women who fall into that mess, by the way, the botox-faced nipped-and-tucked three-hundred-dollar-shoe wearing mall-hoppers. That may be the world, but it ain't my world.

 

[Two Types]

I I'd like to see global population cut about in half, and I'm convinced if we don't do it ourselves by cutting down on reproduction, nature will take care of the situation for us -- probably thru some kind of fast-moving pestilence that won't be particular in who it takes.

A colleague once worked out that if 90% of the UK's population was wiped out, the UK would still have the population density of the state of Montana. Yes, I think some of us could benefit from a reduction in population (it's just that I don't want me or my family to be part of it.)

 

[Two Types]

Some of us would rather see a man who actually does hard work with his hands than one who has to dress up to look like he does.

Damn it, and I've just spent £1000 on my new trashed French workwear outfit to wear to the office!!!!

 

[sheeplady]

The evidence is mounting as we speak. Girls and women doing better in college all across the boards. Doing better in business than many of their male compatriots... Inching ever closer to the true seats of power in this country and the western world. I believe that in my son's lifetime for sure, women will supplant men as primary breadwinner in a majority of American families and men will be relegated to the roles of providing semen, taking care of the kids and cars and mowing the lawn.

There's a scene in "Orange is the New Black" second season, where Piper's ex-fiance gets set up on a blind date by his parents. The woman is in her early 30's, a neuro-surgeon and drop dead gorgeous. She's remarks on how much she likes Piper's ex because "he has nothing going on", he's worthless. She's tired of talking to men who think their blogs constitute real work. She made it plain that she wanted to marry him so they could have pretty children which he would take care of while she did the heavy lifting..

Part of the reason why women are becoming breadwinners is because the culture of work is fundamentally changing in the U.S. Most of the work that is available is in the service industry and women have always dominated service industry jobs. One of the fastest growing fields is healthcare because we are an aging population (particularly true in Europe, less so in the U.S.). Mid and lower level healthcare positions have always been dominated by women. So when your healthcare field increases dramatically, your number of nurses being hired goes up, hence you have more female nurses. Nursing, secretarial work, etc. are known as the "pink collared" job industry.

At the same time, the number of manufacturing jobs (particularly union jobs with benefits) has decreased dramatically. These positions were dominated by men (although it differed by industry and was not as gender segregated as nursing was). With the loss of these good positions, many males have fallen back on their wives to be the "breadwinner." The last recession (or are we still in it?) gutted white collar work too.

We're basically a service economy now. Service jobs tend to be dominated by women. They also tend to be lower paid than non-service jobs, with fewer benefits (with some exceptions). Since people still need to eat, get sick, etc. service people have stayed employed when others haven't. So many families have found that the wife has stayed employed in her pink collared job while the husband has lost his white or blue collared job. Men will eventually catch up as more train for pink collared work in industries like healthcare, but overall this is a loss because service jobs don't tend to pay as much as other areas of work.

This isn't a victory for women, it's a loss for us as a society to lose those good blue collared and white collared jobs.

As far as the college education trend- that has been happening in the U.S. since the 1980s. I believe that more men enter college than women, but women are more likely to graduate. This is particularly true if you look at first-generation college students, of which there is an alarming rate of college drop-out among men.

If you look at certain fields (such as science and engineering) they are still dominated by men, and are more dominated by men the higher the position and the more education gained. There's a sad study out there that many male professors in the hard sciences rarely have a female doctoral student in their labs even in long careers (although there's many different reasons for that).

Looking at my son's feeble attempts at gaining an education and more than minimum wage employment (and he's had every advantage I NEVER had trust me) I believe that the woman writing the series is quite prophetic. I keep using the term "western world" because in the remainder of the world, particularly in the middle east, men are attempting to maintain what shred of dominance they have by force and terror alone. You know the empire is dead when it is only held together by force.

Women don't need men anymore. They don't need us to feed them, clothe them, protect them. They don't need us to marry them or father their children science has handled that quite nicely. Companionship, arm candy and an occasional romp in the hay is about all men in America will be good for if things keep going the way their going. Men will have to keep themselves in shape, learn how to cook, clean and take care of the children lest they wind up working or under achieving at some middling job with no hope for advancement or fulfillment. No I believe the writer Ms. Kenji Kohan is definately on to somthing here... I just wish I knew where it will lead.

Worf

I think to a large extent the idea of men needing women and women needing men in the past is a misnomer. My grandmothers both certainly ruled the roost in their homes, although it was subtle. My father's mother, born in 1908 was the breadwinner for my father's family their entire lives- she even went back to work when her children were one year old- something unusual for a teacher in the 1940s. Remember that you had war widows and dead beats and all sorts of situations.

The phrase "Behind every good man is a good woman pushing him" isn't new either.

Back when many of the people in this country lived on farms (over 30% in the Depression), I can guarantee you that those women worked on the farm every bit as much as the men. My parents have a print in their living room "Before the Storm" (I believe that is what it is called). It is a picture of a farm family- men, women, children- frantically pitching hay into a wagon as a storm approaches. That is what farm life is like.

I married my husband for companionship. I didn't need him to take care of me. He also didn't need me to take care of him. However, we both take care of each other. He is perfectly capable of taking care of our child, cleaning the house, doing laundry, etc. This doesn't make him "less of a man" it simply makes him a capable human being.

 

[F. J.]

You said it!

Mrs. sheeplady,

I think you just hit the nail squarely on its head! That was quite a well thought-out post.


I also agree with:—

[...]
This isn't a victory for women, it's a loss for us as a society to lose those good blue collared and white collared jobs.
[...]

and

[...]
He is perfectly capable of taking care of our child, cleaning the house, doing laundry, etc. This doesn't make him "less of a man" it simply makes him a capable human being.
[...]

 

[DecoDame]

Yes, Sheeplady. Good post.

And thanks, Lizzie, for mentioning Stephanie Coontz again. I remember you're bringing up "The Way We Never Were" before, but hadn't looked further into it. I just watched this speech of hers, and I like her historical context and perspective on what "traditional marriage" really was. She's also an animated and entertaining speaker. I'll definitely seek out her books to read.

I suppose even when we think we know better, we can't help but absorb and make a part of our psyche the market driven messages and images of earlier TV that most of us grew up with, that showed us a very idealized and somewhat aspirational idea of family life, until we think that was not only the norm (or even real?), far further back than it actually was.

Also, when perceived top status is lost and there's anxiety, I believe sometimes the anxiety comes from a fear of being treated as badly as the previously "lower status" peoples have sometimes been. Yet another reason to treat everyone better and respectfully to begin with, no matter what rung of the social ladder they happen to grip? Or gee, get rid of arbitrary status altogether... (For some reason I have the song "Pick me up on your way down" in my head now). (Necessary Net Disclaimer: I am not accusing any man in this thread of that. I don't know you and wouldn't assume to know your heart or head. I'm talking in general terms beyond the scope of, but also possibly including, modern worries of women somehow supplanting men. Also, I don't myself believe that the Era housewife was actually "lower" in any way.)

 

[sheeplady]

I just have never understood the idea that a man who can't change his own child's diaper, cook himself a balanced meal that doesn't come out of a box, do a load of laundry, or clean his bathroom could be considered "manly." While I know that not every man or woman has this perspective, I've heard it enough to know its out there. I have heard men brag that they have never changed a diaper on a single one of their kids.

Really? That's a source of pride?

To me the image of a man with a screaming child in a dirty diaper who can't boil an egg and lets the house get in squalor is the exact opposite of being manly. It's actually pretty revolting to me. None of those things are hard to do or learn if you put in a tiny amount of effort. They can be difficult to do *well* but a capable person can get the basics pretty easily.

I don't know where this image of "manliness" came from, but it appears to be a code word for laziness. My golden era grandfathers weren't incapable of cooking, cleaning, laundry, and childcare; despite having rather "traditional marriages" when it came to many household chores. I know that my one grandfather was able to keep a clean house, not die of starvation, and have clean clothes and linens for the 20 years after my grandmother passed away, despite the fact that my grandmother had done most of these tasks while she was married to him for 54 years.

Somehow I can't imagine a veteran who survived the Battle of the Bulge being befuddled by a dirty diaper and unclean socks.

 

[Fastuni]

I don't know where this image of "manliness" came from, but it appears to be a code word for laziness.

Maybe a merging of the post-modern "man-child" who cannot do basic tasks, with the imaginary pre-feminist "he-man" who refuses to do basic tasks, because there is a woman around.
The result conjures an image of a toddler commanding adults around to feed and clean him.

 

[Big J]

Maybe a merging of the post-modern "man-child" who cannot do basic tasks, with the imaginary pre-feminist "he-man" who refuses to do basic tasks, because there is a woman around.
The result conjures an image of a toddler commanding adults around to feed and clean him.

Now that's opened up a special can of worms.
I do agree that men who are lazy and can't/won't cook and clean for (at least themselves, although preferably for their wife and kids too more than every once in a while) are hardly worthy of the title of 'man', and whilst most women at least publicly protest against such misogynistic men, I have to say that I do think there are certainly some women who are taken in by it as a show of neanderthal 'manliness' that makes them think that as a woman they can not only enjoy this opportunity to 'mother' him and see his 'soft, inner side that the outside world doesn't get to see', whilst also thinking that they are really the ones pulling the strings and calling the shots.

I have friends like this. Despite all the best attempts to tell them this man or that man was an abusive bum taking advantage of them, they all thought we didn't understand because the person was so nice in private...
...right up until they were slapped into ER, or they came home and they guy had cleaned out her bank account.

Some men, and women, are just plain dumb, and won't be helped. Every victim meets their assailant half-way, whilst the rest of us are paying attention to what's going on around us.

 

[Fastuni]

Some men, and women, are just plain dumb, and won't be helped. Every victim meets their assailant half-way.

Quite so. There certainly are enough women who are naive or complex-ridden enough to put up with immature, bratty "men". Dependency usually needs two.

I get what you mean with the appeal of "Neanderthals" to some women, but doesn't this "type" at least offer a sense of protection and brings food to the table, although he may be rough around the edges? There may be overlap with the immature, helpless "man child", but I don't think it's one and the same thing.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It's all part of the general letting down of standards.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I just have never understood the idea that a man who can't change his own child's diaper, cook himself a balanced meal that doesn't come out of a box, do a load of laundry, or clean his bathroom could be considered "manly." While I know that not every man or woman has this perspective, I've heard it enough to know its out there. I have heard men brag that they have never changed a diaper on a single one of their kids.

Really? That's a source of pride?

Where are these men of whom you speak? I've certainly never met one. I've met my share of deadbeats, but none that anyone thinks of as "manly" in any way.

 

[sheeplady]

I think women are raised to be nurturers- one of the reasons why girls are given dolls is to foster that nurturing instinct. (I think we could get into a whole debate as to if women are more nurturing than men, why that is, etc. but I'd rather not.) I think that someone who has been raised to be a nurturer needs to have a nurturing outlet. Some people find that in work, some find it in volunteering/ community, some find it in their child/ren, some people find that in a partner.

I think that the "man-boy" appeals to a woman who needs that nurturing outlet fulfilled in some sort of way. They see the "man-boy" as a project, as someone they can "nurture" to become whole. Taking care of the man-boy appeals to this nurturing side. However, I think that this level of nurturing tends to get old with a lot of women rather quickly when they realize that their nurturing isn't turning their project into a more responsible adult (the man-boy is not becoming a man despite her hard work). I think that in the case of a woman who is a serial "man-boy" dater, what she is doing is dating a man-boy, becomes tired of doing 100% of the heavy lifting, and then dumps the man-boy. Then, because she hasn't developed other avenues for her nurturing, she becomes enamored with another man-boy nurturing project and the cycle repeats itself.

Eventually she may even marry a man-boy- which will result eventually in either a divorce or a stressed marriage. Sometimes she expects the marriage itself- their vows- to transform the man-boy into a man- to make him buy into the marriage or to her. I think this especially breaks down once kids are brought into the relationship and the household work doubles or triples, and the man-boy becomes an additional burden who not only doesn't pull his own weight but adds to the mess. In addition, the children are then fulfilling the nurturing need so the man-boy becomes less appealing from that aspect.

I think these women who are attracted to the man-boy type may have had poor examples of relationships growing up or weren't taught how to find outlets for their need to nurture. Everybody likes to take care of other people, but patience grows thin.

 

[sheeplady]

Where are these men of whom you speak? I've certainly never met one. I've met my share of deadbeats, but none that anyone thinks of as "manly" in any way.

I met a guy the other day who complimented me on how great it was that I was a stay-at-home-mom because "married men shouldn't have to change diapers, cook, or clean." This guy (by which I mean a male) certainly thought it made him less manly to change a diaper.

Obviously the men who act like this think it is "manly" behavior or they wouldn't act that way and brag about it.