Thread: Are Men Useless? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022938

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
This train of thought started when I watched this TED lecture, in which Bunker Roy describes how to teach illiterate women about running solar power installations for their villages. He mentions that men are "unteachable" for this purpose, since all they want is a piece of paper that will let them leave the village. Grandmothers, OTOH, have commitment.

Then I came upon this India.blog article in today's NYT, entitled "Are Men Useless?"

The main point in this was that men tend to spend their time and income on hanging around with other men, usually also drinking alcohol, while women look after their (extended) families. This seems to be true of many underdeveloped countries. One such mention is shown in video here by Nicholas Kristof although I'm sure many shipmates can offer their own examples.

The same could be said of church hierarchies, of business leaders (particularly the gang that spent all of our money to get us the Recession) and various other organisations.

Do men have much use in our organisations and leadership, or should they be kept as pets and incidental workers?
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
So what have been your experiences of using men? Positive?
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Maybe another way of looking at this is to suggest that any society failing to engage (I'm unwilling to say "use") 50% of it's members - whether they are men or women - is a society that will rapidly be outclassed by those who do so.
 

---

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
my father was far from useless.
my first husband was completely useless.
my second (and current) husband is somewhere inbetween.. and has had pereiods when he's been worse than useless, and other times when he's been quite useful.
:-)

But on the actual topic, I think there is some truth to it.. but in a cultural rather than biological sense. in some cultures, it seems, men have indeed become uesless for most purposes. these cultures seem to have developed such that men had a very useful role in warfare/physical defense of their families, and perhaps some other roles, but those roles are mostly no longer necessary. these cultures haven't adapted to find new "uses" for men.

but I'm sure even in these cultures there are many men who really step up to the plate and take on a lot of responsibility/jobs. I've heard of cases in Afrida, say, where a boy is left orphaned taking care of his younger siblings, being both a father and mother to them. I'm sure that male is far from useless. I'm sure he's not alone.

I was at a conference yesterday where someone was quoted: "if you want things said, ask a man, if you want things done, ask a woman". that may be true in some ways. we (as groups) have different strengths and weaknesses. the trick is making the best use of both. some societies do this better than others.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
With all the usual caveats about humans and generalizations, I think men are "useful" for their propensity for risk-taking. The drive that leads stupid boys to kill themselves making a YouTube video also creates criminals and geniuses. In general, though, I do like balance, both individual and collective. Buy life insurance before going skydiving. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Clearly, the honeybees know how to live. The workers are all female, as is, of course, the queen. The drones (males) have one purpose only: very competitively to pursue a queen when she takes a mating flight. The winner is rewarded with a death penalty.

The worker bees control the number of drones to be grown by means of the size of the honeycomb cells they build. Drones are a summertime luxury, ornaments of prosperity. They are defenseless (lacking stings), and when the flowers stop blooming and weather turns chilly, the workers push them out of the hive and leave them to die.

There has been an upsurge of interest in amateur beekeeping recently, notably from women who freely admit their admiration of this social structure.
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
So people are to be measured as to whether they are "useful" or not? If no evidence is found, discrimination should be made against them?

Anyone with any ounce of intelligence will know something about the nature of how we perceive other people, how we simplify behaviours in order to manage the sheer quantity of people and what they do. That such simplified perceptions lead to self-fulfilling prophesies, whereby we see what we want to see, means that such a measurement of "usefulness" will be biased towards our own prejudices.

Whichever group of people the question is about (say, women, disabled people, gays, Muslims), the question says more about the one who asked the question than anything else.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
But the point made in the "Are Men Useless" article is that too many of the men are actively unhelpful to their families, and that those men are too likely to be vindictive about the perceived loss of power to notice that they are at fault.

The same could be said about the guys who move from relationship to relationship without consideration far any children they may have, particularly those who refuse to pay any child care costs. Would you prefer to lay the blame solely on the single mums for not suffering the abuse that is offered? I know there are abusive women as well, BTW, but not on the scale of abandonment implied by the number of single mums.

One thing history has shown is that men are expendable, whether as cannon-fodder, monastics/church hierarchialists or suicidal risk-takers, and that women have always had to cope despite the obstacles set up by men.

Isn't this the basis of the need for International Woman's Day?
 

---

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
Some men are useless. Some women are pretty useless too, but on average they're better at looking reasonably useful by pottering about doing odd things.
It does seem very odd to me to divide men and women in discussion as though they were different species with totally different characteristics. This limits everyone.

(Note: Aravis is currently messing around on the Ship while Touchstone is washing up and peeling potatoes )
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aravis:
Some men are useless. Some women are pretty useless too, but on average they're better at looking reasonably useful by pottering about doing odd things.
It does seem very odd to me to divide men and women in discussion as though they were different species with totally different characteristics. This limits everyone.

(Note: Aravis is currently messing around on the Ship while Touchstone is washing up and peeling potatoes )

---

The fact remains, however, that humanitarian aid agencies in many countries in the developing world, have found these generalizations however uncomfortable they might make us, to be quite helpful in pragmatic terms. Shifting our developmental aid to empowering women rather than men has yielded tremendous results, at least in Africa. However, that differential is related, I'm sure, to cultural factors rather than innate gender-related ones. The same would not be true in every culture/place.

Which leads to troubling and possibly dead-horse discussions about the role of culture in humanitarian aid. To what degree do we attempt to fiddle with indigenous culture (encourage men to be more "useful") for (what we perceive to be) the "good of the whole"? What sort of unintended consequences might that sort of intervention yield?

[ 09. March 2012, 17:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Some men are very good at pretending to be useless, when they don't want to do something. They hope that a woman will bustle in and take over.

But of course in other contexts, women sometimes do the same.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Hey, hey, now. Men are fun in bed, so long as they aren't one of those guys who won't perform oral sex, and I think it's sweet how some of them even want careers. Also, they're good at lifting heavy things.



 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Some men are very good at pretending to be useless, when they don't want to do something. They hope that a woman will bustle in and take over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Do men have much use in our organisations and leadership, or should they be kept as pets and incidental workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
They are important points, cliffdweller. But the OP posits a universal. The evidence hardly supports this. Is the guy who is worried sick about losing his job "useless" for worrying about how his family will survive? The guy who came to clear the blocked drain outside my house this morning (unpleasant job) is "useless?"? And so on and so on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So how about some kind of analysis of the societies where these problem manifestions seem to have entrenched themselves? What sorts of places are they? Why is it persistent? Honestly, if you don't do this, however much money you fling at the problem, the chances are that some reaction will take place and the old ways will establish themselves. If you can understand some of the reasons then you are at least in a position to lock any improvements in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

If you see the same pattern pop up again and again and again, it's not an accident. There's generally a need being met somewhere.

---

• Pee standing up which is a Really Good Thing outside in the winter.
• Follow instructions.
• Try to be tidier than I am by nature.
• Be a father and try to follow the children's instructions particularly now that they are grown

 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
How timely. My son has just informed me of his vast pity for those who can't do the truly useful things in life, like shooting things with their willies....
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How timely. My son has just informed me of his vast pity for those who can't do the truly useful things in life, like shooting things with their willies....

---

Just wait. He'll end up peeing with friends, and they inevitably pee on each other. I know this from personal experience. I remember how it all happened at kindergarten. The one who did it is a university professor today.

Writing words in the snow is also Very Much Fun. Little boys coming in and out of the house after drinking all the water they can hold so as to write long Deep Thoughts etc. There are certainly worse things!
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Personally, I read the OP as provocative - slightly overstating the case in order to get the discussion going.

I've also heard of many agencies in developing countries finding it more worthwhile focusing on women. But I don't think this means we have to say men are useless.

I think whenever people are shoehorned into gender roles, we risk them feeling or becoming useless as individuals, because they may be forced into a role that isn't fulfilling for them or that they may not be any good at.

But as far as whole groups of men seeming useless - I would say it's the same sort of disorientation any group finds when their familiar/traditional role becomes redundant or irrelevant. When men have been socialized to fill certain roles and then aren't needed for those roles, they're going to feel, and in turn act, useless. Women would do the same thing - and in fact, many women have felt that way when their kids left home, back in the day when women were defined as homemakers and had their whole identities invested in being mothers.

So the real question should be, what forces are making men seem or feel useless, and what can be done about it? How can men be re-engaged in their families and communities? How can they reclaim their identities?
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I don't for a moment think that men are 'useless', just that both men and women tend to be at their best in mixed-gender enviroments and where gender equality is the norm. As a woman I've always found female only enviroments a pain in the arse (too bitchy and cliquey, way too many inane conversations about shoes). Likewise my husband doesn't particularly warm to male only enviroments. I also love having close male friends, as men tend to be quite easy and straightforward in their friendships (women are more angsty). Both genders have natural tendencies which balance each other out nicely in the right enviroment. Separating them or privileging one over the other destroys that balance.
 

---

Posted by frin (# 9) on :
 
The TED network example in the OP is not about uselessness at all but social cohesion. In the rural context of poverty described, a younger man who is educated in a saleable skill is likely to take that skill and travel to places of work. He is likely to move from a rural life to an urban one. This is not useless by almost any measure - his economic wellbeing, the literacy of the population as a whole. However, for a funder with limited resources trying to seed a particular piece of knowledge into a particular community, that mobility is a threat. Notice that it isn't young women that they wish to teach either - it is grandmothers, women so integrated into the care structures of a local community that they will not easily take their new found skills and relocate.

One of the first cohorts of international students through Leeds University that an elderly friend recalls was a group of teachers from a developing country. Again, all were grandmothers, to ensure that the money sunk into their education would return to the local communities from which they had been drawn.

The misdirection in the TED speech was the idea that all the man wants is a 'piece of paper'. What he wants is paying work, and that is what the men who got 'pieces of paper' in the early years of such projects left to find.

'frin
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Well said that Yerevan .
I have worked quite a few all-male environments and am not overly keen on them . Whilst there is comradery, there is also silliness and a tendency to put women down in their absence. Should a woman turn up on the scene their demur changes instantly, usually for the better.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The converse is also true.

I find all women workplaces can get a bit stifling too. They can become overly serious and competitive. With a balance of men/women the atmosphere lightens and there's much more laughter, in my experience.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
(Sorry Yerevan - I didn't read your post before I replied to Rolyn, then I said pretty much the same)



On the subject of 'Use' - I think we ALL need to feel useful and wanted. It's a deep seated human need.

Finding the place which best uses our talents and interests is something well worth striving for, male or female imo.
 

---

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
I think one of the problems that aid groups encountered in the past was lack of understanding of the traditional division of labour. I remember reading of one example: a charity was installing little engines to help draw water from very deep wells. Being white men, they naturally instructed the men of the village in how to maintain and repair the engines.

Coming back a year later, they found most of the engines had broken down due to lack of maintenance. When they asked why this had been allowed to happen, the reply (from the men) would be that drawing water was women's work, and nothing to do with them. From then on they took care to instruct the women (no doubt having to overcome a certain amount of their own prejudice in the process).

You can easily turn this into, 'men are useless'.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Any human females have this problem? (Pubs at chucking out time, perhaps?)
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
frin, you actually talked about the topic of the opening post! No one else has done that on this mildly ghastly cliche-ridden thread!
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Are men useless? Not at all.

Mine keeps me in the manner I am accustomed to very well.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Hi,

My name is Tortuf and I am a man.

I first started being a man about seven years ago and it has been downhill ever since.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Hi,

My name is Tortuf and I am a man.

I first started being a man about seven years ago and it has been downhill ever since.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
frin, you actually talked about the topic of the opening post! No one else has done that on this mildly ghastly cliche-ridden thread!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One thing history has shown is that men are expendable, whether as cannon-fodder, monastics/church hierarchialists or suicidal risk-takers, and that women have always had to cope despite the obstacles set up by men...the activities of a very large number of men can be seen as not helpful at all...The tribal cultures sorted out the problem of too many males by having incessant warfare

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
So you're saying that sexism is ok now? Derogatory generalisations about members of the opposite sex and saying that too many of them is a problem, that should be remedied by slaughter- this is your idea of a helpful discussion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
So you're saying that sexism is ok now? Derogatory generalisations about members of the opposite sex and saying that too many of them is a problem, that should be remedied by slaughter- this is your idea of a helpful discussion?

---

Indeed. There is no point in engaging with the op. It's on the level with "are blondes stupid?" or "do Roma steal?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if you read the actual links, you will find some real meat to the question that is worthy of discussion IMHO if we can just get past the initial shock value of the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if you read the actual links, you will find some real meat to the question that is worthy of discussion IMHO if we can just get past the initial shock value of the question.

---

If that is true, it has failed to be reflected in the content of this thread AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, I'm repeating myself here, so maybe I'm the crazy guy on the bus muttering to himself that no one wants to sit by. But I still believe the questions related to the links-- the move among many humanitarian aid organizations in the developing world to bypass men and focus specifically on empowering women-- while uncomfortable, are important. I think I identified a number of useful questions upthread related to those issues that I, for one (perhaps the only one) would appreciate discussing-- in part because they dovetail with my own work in east Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inger:
Many years ago, when the child allowance was first introduced here in Britain, it was decided (against all traditional beliefs about the relations of the sexes in marriage) that it should be paid to women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pardoner:
Are men useless?

Well, I was a single dad for 7 years, after my wife left.

I did it all.

Useless?

Not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How timely. My son has just informed me of his vast pity for those who can't do the truly useful things in life, like shooting things with their willies....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
So you're saying that sexism is ok now? Derogatory generalisations about members of the opposite sex and saying that too many of them is a problem, that should be remedied by slaughter- this is your idea of a helpful discussion?

---

Indeed. There is no point in engaging with the op. It's on the level with "are blondes stupid?" or "do Roma steal?"

---

The OP is worded provocatively for whatever reason. But if you read the actual links, you will find some real meat to the question that is worthy of discussion IMHO if we can just get past the initial shock value of the question.

---

Provocation has it's uses. Outright sexism doesn't. The OP crossed the line and then crossed it again even harder in later posts. There is no excuse for that kind of hate speech.

And I could see no meat at all in the newspaper link (can't listen to the videos). Just a sensationalist headline and a 'well d'uh' story that reports that the government of India has finally realised that women generally are the caregivers to their families in their society, while the men do other things. And that empowering women in this is a good thing. In other news men and women in traditionalist cultures generally have different roles. And understanding local culture is important.

Well d'uh!

To get from that to 'Men are useless' is both ridiculous and derogatory. I'd call Horseman Bree to Hell if I could be bothered to do any more than at prejudice on the internet.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
So you're saying that it is the job of men to spend the money that comes in on booze, leaving their families in worse shape?

Yes, that's a sexist statement, although I'd say things in the same tone about women who leave their families in the lurch as well.

Were you so uncomfortable that you couldn't listen to someone make the same sort of comment?

I did look after my children when they were in diapers and my wife, the MD, was on call, and I continued to share in household work, including child-rearing, until the kids grew up, and still do my share.

Unfortunately, I know too many "deadbeat dads" among my former students (and some "deadbeat mums", too) With schools in this area having about 25% kids in single-mum homes, I am aware of the problem.

No, I don't think all men are useless. But too many operate on the principle that "youth may be fleeting, but immaturity can last a lifetime". Some even wear the T-shirt.

This works all the way up the scale to the financial guys who created the mess, and expect to be bailed out.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So you're saying that it is the job of men to spend the money that comes in on booze, leaving their families in worse shape?

Yes, that's a sexist statement, although I'd say things in the same tone about women who leave their families in the lurch as well.

Were you so uncomfortable that you couldn't listen to someone make the same sort of comment?

I did look after my children when they were in diapers and my wife, the MD, was on call, and I continued to share in household work, including child-rearing, until the kids grew up, and still do my share.

Unfortunately, I know too many "deadbeat dads" among my former students (and some "deadbeat mums", too) With schools in this area having about 25% kids in single-mum homes, I am aware of the problem.

No, I don't think all men are useless. But too many operate on the principle that "youth may be fleeting, but immaturity can last a lifetime". Some even wear the T-shirt.

This works all the way up the scale to the financial guys who created the mess, and expect to be bailed out.

---

I know of plenty of women who operate on the same principle. The number of students I encounter being raised by grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings, etc. because both mother and father are in and out of jail, strung out on <drug of choice>, on the lam, or dead from one of the previous conditions is staggering.

The number of mothers I see in the grocery store buying non-essential items with food stamps/EBT is also staggering.

The amazingly sexist premise of the OP is obnoxious, at best- and further attempts to rationalize it are just so much BS.

Some people -regardless of their gender, ethnic group, religion, sexual preference, et. al.- are useless assholes.
Full stop.

Next?
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I am rubbish at cooking except for steaks and the odd slow-cooked pot roast. I can occasionally tidy up a bit about the house; I run and empty the dishwasher plus I empty the bin. I also make sure that the cars are serviced regularly. Frequently, I go to work.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I have my uses
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I am rubbish at cooking except for steaks and the odd slow-cooked pot roast. I can occasionally tidy up a bit about the house; I run and empty the dishwasher plus I empty the bin. I also make sure that the cars are serviced regularly. Frequently, I go to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This works all the way up the scale to the financial guys who created the mess, and expect to be bailed out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So you're saying that it is the job of men to spend the money that comes in on booze, leaving their families in worse shape?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
jbohn: i can live with that.

But I do think that our post-industrial, post-Imperial, post-church society has been arranged to leave a lot of men with no particular purpose, now that the options of cannon fodder and repetitive production-line/agricultural jobs have disappeared.

---

Have they disappeared? I suppose (speaking from my own U.S.-based perspective) that the Iraq war has, mercifully, come to a more-or-less end, and we're gearing down in Afghanistan. But I think we're a long way from a world that doesn't need cannon fodder.

In all seriousness, though, you're correct that the role(s) of men in society is/are changing; manufacturing and agriculture are much more manpower-efficient than they were even 20 years ago, and much manufacturing has moved overseas. All that said, I know plenty of men who still go work every morning to support their families, and come home at night and clean/cook/fix the plumbing, etc. They're just in different lines of work than they might have been a generation ago- computer programming, marketing, working on wind turbines and solar panels, that sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
I should have added there that I know several stay at home dads as well; their role in raising their families shouldn't be discounted in this discussion.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I should have added there that I know several stay at home dads as well; their role in raising their families shouldn't be discounted in this discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So you're saying that it is the job of men to spend the money that comes in on booze, leaving their families in worse shape?

---

The point is that the men just have different priorities to the women, that's all. And for an aid agency with priorities that happen to be exactly the same as those of the women, that will inevitably mean the agency focuses its aid on the women.

But that doesn't make the men useless. It may look that way if you assume that the women's priorities are the only ones that really matter, but that's a very different thing.

To the people who sell the booze, it's the women who are completely useless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I should have added there that I know several stay at home dads as well; their role in raising their families shouldn't be discounted in this discussion.

---

I agree. My husband is one of them.

Again, the links in the OP (as opposed to the OP itself) really pose the question in a particular cultural context. Extrapolating from that cultural context to ours is really not warranted by the data on hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The same could be said of church hierarchies, of business leaders (particularly the gang that spent all of our money to get us the Recession) and various other organisations.

Do men have much use in our organisations and leadership, or should they be kept as pets and incidental workers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
[QUOTE]
Further, the links in the OP, while illustrating a particular cultural context, do nothing to sort out *why* these things might be the case. Is it possible that there are factors well outside men's "uselessness" that create these conditions? Loss of traditional role(s) without suitable education or training to allow taking on new roles? Religious/cultural/societal expectations that men are expected to live up to and cannot, for whatever reason? A good example here may be what happens when men are expected to work and support their families, and no jobs are available- this can easily lead to anxiety and depression; I've seen it in close friends here in the U.S., to say nothing of places where unemployment and poverty are far more widespread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't know which particular aid agency you might have in mind.

---

quote:

---

From my last post, the agencies I'm aware of are about health, clean water, education and self-sufficiency in agriculture. It could be argued that these are 'women's priorities' - but I don't see it myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

Further, the links in the OP, while illustrating a particular cultural context, do nothing to sort out *why* these things might be the case....<snip>

---

This is absolutely the case-- and the aid agencies know/ appreciate that. But aid agencies are pragmatic. They may be sympathetic to the plight of men in a particular place, but also know that money given to them will not impact the entire family or community the same way aid given to empower women (usually in the form of microloans to start small businesses) will. In the end, those utilitarian objectives often win the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I didn't say "women's", I said "the women's". As in, the women referred to in the OP. The ones looking after their families while the men drink beer and look for a ticket out of the village.

To an aid agency that is concerned only with it's own goals for the village, those men may well be useless. But if that agency was coming in with a brief to help the people of that village achieve their goals, it might not feel the same way. It's the age-old problem of whether you should help people to be how you want them to be, or how they want to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

Further, the links in the OP, while illustrating a particular cultural context, do nothing to sort out *why* these things might be the case....<snip>

---

This is absolutely the case-- and the aid agencies know/ appreciate that. But aid agencies are pragmatic. They may be sympathetic to the plight of men in a particular place, but also know that money given to them will not impact the entire family or community the same way aid given to empower women (usually in the form of microloans to start small businesses) will. In the end, those utilitarian objectives often win the day.

---

I don't doubt that, and I'm well aware their budgets are limited. It just seems that they might have a better long-term impact by addressing the needs of men, women, and children, as opposed to ignoring the men and focusing on the women to meet short-term goals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't know which particular aid agency you might have in mind.

---

The one(s) in the OP.

quote:

---

From my last post, the agencies I'm aware of are about health, clean water, education and self-sufficiency in agriculture. It could be argued that these are 'women's priorities' - but I don't see it myself.

---

I didn't say "women's", I said "the women's". As in, the women referred to in the OP. The ones looking after their families while the men drink beer and look for a ticket out of the village.

To an aid agency that is concerned only with it's own goals for the village, those men may well be useless. But if that agency was coming in with a brief to help the people of that village achieve their goals, it might not feel the same way. It's the age-old problem of whether you should help people to be how you want them to be, or how they want to be.

---

*Sigh*. I didn't know you were assuming I was talking about aid agencies who only want to make themselves feel good.

I'm talking about any agency that goes into an area - whether to fix cleft palates, dig wells, teach sustainable agriculture, prevent malaria, offer medicine for HIV/Aids patients etc, who find that the core constituency of the 'doers' in that area is women. That's a real enough issue to begin with, so why don't we just concentrate on that for a start.

So how about those issues I adverted to, where the aid agencies are trying to do things with villages where it is very much what the village people want to happen, and where men are, for the reasons I've already stated and you haven't yet engaged with, absent. Presumably you don't think because it is the women in some areas who are left with these problems, somehow that is a reason not to address the problem, because somehow - arse about face - it excludes the men?

I don't know why it should be at all difficult to admit the facts of issues raised by the OP - which I hope debaters can agree is actually larger than the OP. I don't think necessarily the men who leave their families, or villages and go off to seek more lucrative pastures are at fault. I come from a nation of emigrants, where it's common to move to different continents and countries to work.

I think it is a fact, however, for whatever reason; and this of course has an impact on those people left behind - women, children, the elderly. I think it naturally follows that in the areas where this is the custom, of course, it's going to be mainly women who are active in the building up of village life.

I conclude there must be some kind of challenge somewhere in such a situation, where it exists. I don't think 'men are useless' is a helpful way to meet the challenge. But the challenge is there. Yes?
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're talking about something beyond the scope of even the most comprehensive aid agency. If men are feeling disenfranchised because their role in the family and society has been effectively "downsized" due to global market changes, the "solution" is going to be far more complex-- involving psychology, sociology, and spirituality as well as economic and political realities-- than any aid agency is able to address. And, if they did, they would be rightly accused of cultural imperialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The long term solution will come from the next generation-- today's young boys. It certainly is unfortunate that in many places of the developing world there is a dearth of positive male role models, and that will have an impact. As we have seen in the West, where we have a very similar problem in many areas. But there are, of course, some role models-- just not as many as we'd like. And the aid agencies, by empowering women, are also elevating that model and demonstrating what can be done. It's not just little girls who are noticing, little boys are observing that as well. It's really to them-- today's little boys, being raised by a new generation of empowered women (and, because of that, having food security and access to education)-- to determine what the future of men in the developing world will look like.

---

See above. I don't doubt that little boys (and girls!) are observing it; what concerns me is that they're observing a system where men are systematically devalued, as the OP suggests. That's just as bad as a patriarchal system where women are devalued, or the elderly, or whoever.

Let me be clear- I'm a firm believer in empowering women (my wife and my mother, among others, have seen to that). More than that, however, I'm a firm believer in empowering *everyone*- men, women, children, etc. to take responsibility for and control of their own lives. I've spent my entire adult life working in inner-city schools (and my youth growing up in them), and I've seen what devaluing any members of society does to a community. That's why I'm so passionate on this topic.

I agree that the solution will come from the next generation; isn't that always how the world works? I'm just concerned about what we're teaching them, and how it might lead to perpetuating problems as opposed to progressing to a better world.

I think you and I are arguing the same side of the issue, from different perspectives.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
But declaring "men are useless" isn't going to help anything- it just perpetuates the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The long term solution will come from the next generation-- today's young boys. It certainly is unfortunate that in many places of the developing world there is a dearth of positive male role models, and that will have an impact. As we have seen in the West, where we have a very similar problem in many areas. But there are, of course, some role models-- just not as many as we'd like. And the aid agencies, by empowering women, are also elevating that model and demonstrating what can be done. It's not just little girls who are noticing, little boys are observing that as well. It's really to them-- today's little boys, being raised by a new generation of empowered women (and, because of that, having food security and access to education)-- to determine what the future of men in the developing world will look like.

---

See above. I don't doubt that little boys (and girls!) are observing it; what concerns me is that they're observing a system where men are systematically devalued, as the OP suggests. That's just as bad as a patriarchal system where women are devalued, or the elderly, or whoever.

...I agree that the solution will come from the next generation; isn't that always how the world works? I'm just concerned about what we're teaching them, and how it might lead to perpetuating problems as opposed to progressing to a better world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I think you and I are arguing the same side of the issue, from different perspectives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's not just little girls who are noticing, little boys are observing that as well. It's really to them-- today's little boys, being raised by a new generation of empowered women (and, because of that, having food security and access to education)-- to determine what the future of men in the developing world will look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's nuanced-- more nuanced again than the OP suggests. It's important that young boys not be given the message that "men are useless". But it's also important that they know that what they are seeing of the men in their lives is not OK, even if we have some sympathy to why the men are behaving the way they are. That will be a complicated process, and will entail some tough truth-telling. In some cases it will mean elevating women and saying "you can do this too". In some cases it will mean elevating those men who are positive role models in the community and saying "you can do this." And, again, in some cases it may even entail the harder task at pointing to negative role models and saying "that's not OK. You can do better."

---

Let me add/clarify here that it isn't really up to aid agencies or us in the West to do that assessment. That's part of empowering women, too-- to give them, the mothers and grandmothers of young boys-- the power to do that. They-- moms and grandmas-- will shape the next generation of men in the developing world. They are better equipped than we are to wisely decide what that role will look like in a new global age.

I've seen that in my work with young college students. Many of our inner-city young men come from homes with similar challenges-- absent men, poverty, no positive role models. It was their empowered moms and grandmas who became their role models-- demonstrating perseverance, wisdom, discipline, integrity-- in ways that shape them and have allowed them to move forward. That speaks much more powerfully to them than anything an outsider might say about "what you need to do/become".

[ 15. March 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
cliffdweller,

I can't argue with any of that.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm talking about any agency that goes into an area - whether to fix cleft palates, dig wells, teach sustainable agriculture, prevent malaria, offer medicine for HIV/Aids patients etc, who find that the core constituency of the 'doers' in that area is women. That's a real enough issue to begin with, so why don't we just concentrate on that for a start.

---

quote:

---

So how about those issues I adverted to, where the aid agencies are trying to do things with villages where it is very much what the village people want to happen, and where men are, for the reasons I've already stated and you haven't yet engaged with, absent.

---

quote:

---

I don't think necessarily the men who leave their families, or villages and go off to seek more lucrative pastures are at fault.

---

quote:

---

I conclude there must be some kind of challenge somewhere in such a situation, where it exists. I don't think 'men are useless' is a helpful way to meet the challenge. But the challenge is there. Yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many of our inner-city young men come from homes with similar challenges-- absent men, poverty, no positive role models.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Many of our inner-city young men come from homes with similar challenges-- absent men, poverty, no positive role models.

---

There aren't any male role models because there aren't any male roles left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hence the word "absent".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hence the word "absent".

---

The men aren't there because there's nothing there for them to do. There aren't any roles for men left - it's all either unisex or women-only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's true that male roles have changed and are changing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's true that male roles have changed and are changing

---

No, that's not it. They're not changing, they're disappearing. The old system may not have been great, but at least it gave boys something to aim for and aspire to. Something that they would be needed for.

These days, boys and men just aren't needed. Women can do everything for themselves, and if they can't then most Western governments provide for them. The role of men has been reduced to the occasional donation of genetic material. Is it any wonder so many don't stick around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, the traditional roles for men are disappearing. So now you are faced with a challenge: allow that to define you as a mere biological footnote, and slink away to the margins to pout. Or make a new role. Find a new place, a new purpose. Define for yourselves who and what you want to be in this new era. As women have been doing for the last 100 yrs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, the traditional roles for men are disappearing. So now you are faced with a challenge: allow that to define you as a mere biological footnote, and slink away to the margins to pout. Or make a new role. Find a new place, a new purpose. Define for yourselves who and what you want to be in this new era. As women have been doing for the last 100 yrs.

---

I find it difficult to escape the notion that if men ever were to create a new, legitimate and important men-only role or purpose in society the very first thing that would happen would be women demanding to be allowed to fill it as well.

Apart from prisons and public toilets, nothing is allowed to be men-only these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So the only significance you can find is in exclusion? If a role isn't exclusively yours, it's not important or significant?

Grow up. All of us, men and women, are expendable. That's part of the cycle of life. Part of being a mature adult is recognizing that, and finding a way to make a difference anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So the only significance you can find is in exclusion? If a role isn't exclusively yours, it's not important or significant?

Grow up. All of us, men and women, are expendable. That's part of the cycle of life. Part of being a mature adult is recognizing that, and finding a way to make a difference anyway.

---

Or to put it another way, face it like a woman.

Can you not see that our minds genuinely do work differently?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it difficult to escape the notion that if men ever were to create a new, legitimate and important men-only role or purpose in society the very first thing that would happen would be women demanding to be allowed to fill it as well.

Apart from prisons and public toilets, nothing is allowed to be men-only these days.

---

I find it difficult to see this as anything but bemoaning the loss of male privilege. Perhaps the men bewailing their loss of "roles" can step up and, yes, share the work of the women in their lives, many of whom are juggling two, three or even more roles these days.

Yeah, yeah, it's really sad that feminism, post-industrialization and globalism have all conspired to eliminate traditional male "roles", but that doesn't mean there isn't anything for men to do. Oh, it's not what you like to do? And you can't do it with just your buds? Poor diddums. You can start by hauling water. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I'm sorry to hear that life in Caprica City is so hard for you OliviaG.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
As the mother of a son and a daughter I'm glad that roles are disappearing. Both deserve the opportunity to define for themselves who/what they wish to be and not be forced to comply with a manufactured role based in a world view that had become obsolete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Isn't it interesting, then... that in the experience of stay-at-home dads, the greatest hostility they encounter is from stay-at-home moms. (Voices in the Family, March 12)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, the traditional roles for men are disappearing. So now you are faced with a challenge: allow that to define you as a mere biological footnote, and slink away to the margins to pout. Or make a new role. Find a new place, a new purpose. Define for yourselves who and what you want to be in this new era. As women have been doing for the last 100 yrs.

---

I find it difficult to escape the notion that if men ever were to create a new, legitimate and important men-only role or purpose in society the very first thing that would happen would be women demanding to be allowed to fill it as well.

Apart from prisons and public toilets, nothing is allowed to be men-only these days.

---

You're seriously saying you're unaware that until the past century men had created such a world and such roles for themselves? That it took hundreds of years for women to be allowed to be taken seriously enough as human beings to take part in that world at a level even beginning to approach equality? Even now in the USA and the UK, at least, women's pay has still to be on a parity with men's in some areas. You really want to go backwards to the golden era of men-only universities, professions, politics etc?

Seriously, go and visit those countries where many men enjoy the privileges you so yearn after and the women 'know their place' and keep to the kitchen, or fields, or wherever else their menfolk tell them to be. If you want to do something 'manly' and useful go to those places and do some good for the many, many people, of both sexes, who haven't a fraction of the privilege, wealth, freedom and opportunities you possess simply by being born in the 'right' country.

Believe it or not, I believe very much in affirming how much needed all people are, male and female, in all areas of life. I'm trying, at the moment, to think of specific ways of developing something practical in ministry among certain categories of men, in this area, because of the suicide rate, and the isolation of the farming community. Something that those men will feel they can relate to and will hopefully offer support to them. These problems are largely driven by rising unemployment, the recession and the loneliness of farming, as well as personal circumstances.

And believe it or not ( ) I have a lot of sympathy for any man who feels that modern life has somehow disenfranchised him from taking part in a useful and fulfilling way. Even in this day and age, are there many women, especially of the older generations, who don't know how that feels?

But OTOH, there appears to be a crisis for some men in developed nations because we - in those nations - have undergone the difficult but necessary revolution of acknowledging that women's brains and characters can, in truth, handle the activities formerly denied them for millenia.

But instead of greeting this with remorse for the wasted lives and talents the golden era of men-only was responsible for, and, more importantly, rejoicing that at last we're moving on as a more fully developed species; we have to contend with the complaints of some men who don't like to share that privilege and who because it is no longer their's alone, somehow misconstrue that as saying it can't be their's at all.

Mary and Joseph, every time I want to soften up on the old feminist thing, I only have to check out a thread like this to make me wake up and smell the coffee (brewed by the underpaid illegal immigrant maid of course, in between her duties of cleaning the kitchen floor, doing the shopping and nursing the kids, before sending the money back to the Philippines, where she had to drop out of college in order to earn money to feed her elderly parents).
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
And believe it or not ( ) I have a lot of sympathy for any man who feels that modern life has somehow disenfranchised him from taking part in a useful and fulfilling way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'm going to assume that you don't want the clock turned back to the way things were.

---

quote:

---

If not then what are you suggesting? That officially make some jobs men only?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm suggesting that we need a definition of what it means to be a man (as distinct from a woman) in modern society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, Marvin, define it then - what does it mean to be a man in society?

---

quote:

---

As you clearly - and I'm sure sincerely - have an idea of what it is men are trying to 'be' or 'do' that is specifically particular to them, you must have a fairly clear idea of what that specific particular is.

---

quote:

---

Why do men need to define themselves as "distinct" from women?

---

quote:

---

Even when men and women are absolutely equal in all other respects, women will always have motherhood as that one thing that society absolutely needs them for. For men these days there's no comparable unique role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Cliffdweller wrote

quote:

---

Why do men need to define themselves as "distinct" from women?

---

An interesting question - though if you want to pursue it I would suggest it is better broadened out to include women too, who certainly do it in other contexts

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

It's presumably because much of the discussion here has centred around work, and male identification with being the primary breadwinner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not always - it's just a matter of time before we get to produce full ex-utero supports systems for the first 9 months of life. Think of all the advantages - no more mother-child incompatibilities, no more delivery pain, no more time off work, far easier access for monitoring and treating the baby.

Then women will have nothing unique to offer either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, Marvin, define it then - what does it mean to be a man in society?

---

I genuinely don't know.

quote:

---

As you clearly - and I'm sure sincerely - have an idea of what it is men are trying to 'be' or 'do' that is specifically particular to them, you must have a fairly clear idea of what that specific particular is.

---

I don't know what the specific particular is. I just know that it feels pretty important to have one, and that not having one leads to a certain feeling of, well, uselessness.

---

quote:

---

Even when men and women are absolutely equal in all other respects, women will always have motherhood as that one thing that society absolutely needs them for. For men these days there's no comparable unique role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Alogon and Marvin. I'm going to assume that you don't want the clock turned back to the way things were. I may be wrong of course if so let me know. If not then what are you suggesting? That officially make some jobs men only?

---

quote:

---

It's presumably because much of the discussion here has centred around work, and male identification with being the primary breadwinner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Alogon and Marvin. I'm going to assume that you don't want the clock turned back to the way things were. I may be wrong of course if so let me know. If not then what are you suggesting? That officially make some jobs men only?

---

Basically, I am amazed at the deafening silence over the fact that, while we're still focused on "equal" opportunity for women, they now outnumber men in college by a ratio of 3 to 2; and admissions offices are scrambling to keep the figures from becoming even more lopsided.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
[QUOTE]
Now I'll sit back and watch the various rationalizations for this state of affairs start rolling in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Alogon

Plenty of jobs if you'll do the work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Basically, I am amazed at the deafening silence over the fact that, while we're still focused on "equal" opportunity for women, they now outnumber men in college [...]
Now I'll sit back and watch the various rationalizations for this state of affairs start rolling in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

It's presumably because much of the discussion here has centred around work, and male identification with being the primary breadwinner.

---

Other than on television/movies etc I have no experience with this mindset. In my upbringing and my community now everyone works...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know what the specific particular is. I just know that it feels pretty important to have one, and that not having one leads to a certain feeling of, well, uselessness.

Even when men and women are absolutely equal in all other respects, women will always have motherhood as that one thing that society absolutely needs them for. For men these days there's no comparable unique role.

---

'Full womb envy', eh, Marvin?

Marvin, women do not 'always have motherhood'. Can you imagine what it must be like to live in a society where one's unique sellling point is defined as having babies, and you aren't doing it? If I - and countless, countless other women like me - thought like that and accepted it, we'd be mental cases in a month.

Think like this. A man's uniqueness is in being the man that only he can be, as best he can. And it's the same for a woman to be the best she can be, as a woman, which may or may not involve reproduction.

We must set ourselves and each other free from narrow definitions which end up defining not who we really are, or are capable of being, but where we have failed to live up to a particular definition.

We need men to be teachers, clergy, politicans, lawyers, judges, soldiers, office and factory workers of integrity, judgement, wisdom, courage, humour and ability. We need men to be uncles, brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, friends and colleagues of compassion, humanity, loyalty and virtue.

You, yourself, are already a role-model for any boy who observes you. And, in an equally important way, you are a formative influence for the girl who observes you. Three of the most important and formative influences of my life were my father, my uncle and brother (and remain so). I thank God for them and who they are (were) and for the way they uniquely had of being the men they were. No-one else could have been to me, what they were and being a man, was a big and indispensable part of that.

Are men uniquely 'needed' for these things because they are better at them than women. I don't know. Just be the best man you can be, Marvin. No-one else can do that bit for you - and that's where your uniqueness really matters.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know what the specific particular is. I just know that it feels pretty important to have one, and that not having one leads to a certain feeling of, well, uselessness.

Even when men and women are absolutely equal in all other respects, women will always have motherhood as that one thing that society absolutely needs them for. For men these days there's no comparable unique role.

---

'Full womb envy', eh, Marvin?

Marvin, women do not 'always have motherhood'. Can you imagine what it must be like to live in a society where one's unique sellling point is defined as having babies, and you aren't doing it? If I - and countless, countless other women like me - thought like that and accepted it, we'd be mental cases in a month.

Think like this. A man's uniqueness is in being the man that only he can be, as best he can. And it's the same for a woman to be the best she can be, as a woman, which may or may not involve reproduction.

We must set ourselves and each other free from narrow definitions which end up defining not who we really are, or are capable of being, but where we have failed to live up to a particular definition.

We need men to be teachers, clergy, politicans, lawyers, judges, soldiers, office and factory workers of integrity, judgement, wisdom, courage, humour and ability. We need men to be uncles, brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, friends and colleagues of compassion, humanity, loyalty and virtue.

You, yourself, are already a role-model for any boy who observes you. And, in an equally important way, you are a formative influence for the girl who observes you. Three of the most important and formative influences of my life were my father, my uncle and brother (and remain so). I thank God for them and who they are (were) and for the way they uniquely had of being the men they were. No-one else could have been to me, what they were and being a man, was a big and indispensable part of that.

Are men uniquely 'needed' for these things because they are better at them than women. I don't know. Just be the best man you can be, Marvin. No-one else can do that bit for you - and that's where your uniqueness really matters.

---

this says it all.

 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
Nicely put, Anselmina.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not always - it's just a matter of time before we get to produce full ex-utero supports systems for the first 9 months of life. Think of all the advantages - no more mother-child incompatibilities, no more delivery pain, no more time off work, far easier access for monitoring and treating the baby.

Then women will have nothing unique to offer either.

---

In theory a good idea, in practice probably incredibly difficult, and unlikely to be economically viable when there are millions of desperately impoverished girls and women in the world. Remember wet-nurses? Today we have lots of nannies and yes, surrogate mothers. Contracting out the icky bits of parenthood has always been one of the perks of wealth. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

Teenage girls do better at exams because they are actually clever than boys of the same age because they develop faster. A fourteen-year-old girl is on average the equal of a sixteen-year-old boy. As you can see walking down any street at the time school comes out. The men catch up by the early twenties but by then most exams are past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Cliffdweller wrote

quote:

---

Why do men need to define themselves as "distinct" from women?

---

An interesting question - though if you want to pursue it I would suggest it is better broadened out to include women too, who certainly do it in other contexts

---

Really? Can you say more? I can't really think of a time when women have asked the question being asked here-- "who am I to the exclusion of men>?" Perhaps that's due to our biological distinctive as child-bearers. otoh, perhaps it's due to the long experience of learning to read "men" and "he" as including us. Perhaps when you have to negotiate and struggle t receive equal ground, having exclusive ground is not a priority.

What are the contexts you were thinking of where women are asking this sort of question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
I don't think men are "useless" by a long shot. (especially when I need my roof shoveled or my car fixed!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet
However, I do think than in many cultures men have been disenfranchised. Here, only a few generations back, men hunted and provided all the protein for a family. Now, that comes from a store. Men cut down the wood for heat; now, that comes from a thermostatically controlled heater that is fueled from a tank that someone autofills. men protected their family and village from raids that are now illegal and the cops enforce this peace. men built boats; now they can buy them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
This fascinates me because it echoes what Dorothy Sayers said about the role of women. In the Middle Ages a wife had about the same degree of responsibility as her husband. If she were married to the lord of the castle, she was responsible for arranging and supervising the preparation of food, the making of clothing and everything else involving textiles (starting with the fleece or flax), the making of candles and all other necessary domestic items.

Gradually many of these jobs were removed from the home. Women were still responsible for cooking, but they bought the food they cooked. They still made clothing, but they bought the fabric. There was far less work involved, but also far less responsibility and the satisfaction of meeting responsibility. Work outside the home was more interesting.

What comet said makes me think that men are now experiencing what women did a few centuries ago. I don't blame them for being uncomfortable with the situation.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

In the western world the government has taken over the role of providing the most basic financial support for many of those babies.

---

Your government, maybe. Certainly not mine.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Just to add another opinion: "What if women don't need guys any longer?"
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I may be speaking out of turn here being a bloke, yet I happen to think most women still retain a deep emotional need to have a man around.

Question is can your average male learn to bend his ego nearly 180 degrees so as to be completely happy living in the shade of a highly successful woman ?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
As long as they think of it as shade, no.

This is a sore spot for me, as it took me a bloody long time to find a man who was comfortable enough in his own skin not to be doing constant comparisons between my grades and his, my achievements and his, my salary and his. And to do it, I had to marry someone a) of a totally different culture and b) twenty years older than I. It was such a relief when I asked him if he had trouble with me making more than he did, and he responded that Vietnamese families considered a high paid wife to be even MORE desirable.

Thanks for adding another item to the list of things I need to teach my son!
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I earn somewhere between a half and a tenth of what my wife earns, depending on when I get paid.

Meh. It's household income. Why should either of us worry?
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I earn somewhere between a half and a tenth of what my wife earns, depending on when I get paid.

Meh. It's household income. Why should either of us worry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just to add another opinion: "What if women don't need guys any longer?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
I may be speaking out of turn here being a bloke, yet I happen to think most women still retain a deep emotional need to have a man around.

---

quote:

---

Question is can your average male learn to bend his ego nearly 180 degrees so as to be completely happy living in the shade of a highly successful woman ? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Question is can your average male learn to bend his ego nearly 180 degrees so as to be completely happy living in the shade of a highly successful woman ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As long as they think of it as shade, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
I may be speaking out of turn here being a bloke, yet I happen to think most women still retain a deep emotional need to have a man around.

---

quote:

---

Question is can your average male learn to bend his ego nearly 180 degrees so as to be completely happy living in the shade of a highly successful woman ?

---

If a man considers his partner's success "shade", he doesn't deserve her/him. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Hey, I'm married to an MD who has always made considerablty more money than me and who is better at her job than I was/am at mine. But we get along, our kids came out alright, etc.

But I see the present generation of males having significant difficulties finding their roles in society. The Wente article I linked to was one of the first times in years that I have actually agreed with the lady - that's why I linked it.

I am dealing with several young males, trying to help them work out what they can do in a society that has gone out of its way to make males feel irrelevant. Boys don't see their fathers doing stuff that the boys can learn about (except for looking at monitors). Too many boys don't have a father at home in the first place, so they get the message that males are expendable.

And the schools demand more sitting looking at monitors and writing about emotional reactions to things, which guys don't do well. And they expect boys, who develop about a year, if not two, later than girls at school-entry age to perform as well as the girls or be classified as uneducable or nuisances. So they give up, even before they hit puberty. Not to mention the case that many schools have no male staff, which doesn't help the role-model thing.

The media try to portray men as bumbling buffoons, drunks or car-crashing crazies.

Third-world countries solve the problem by putting lots of men into armies, which the governments use to oppress their minorities. But this solution is no longer available to Britain and never was for Canada. Both countries have thrown away their manufacturing base, which offered, at least, stable employment.

So what is left for men, outside the privileged few who had the right parents to force them to move ahead? The societies we have created don't really want the rest of them.

Yes, dammit! Too many men have become have become useless in our societies.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Too many boys don't have a father at home in the first place, so they get the message that males are expendable.

---

quote:

---

Horseman Bree posted: Not to mention the case that many schools have no male staff, which doesn't help the role-model thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
and writing about emotional reactions to things, which guys don't do well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Too many boys don't have a father at home in the first place, so they get the message that males are expendable.

---

I don't think that's the message they get. I think they get more of a message that it's okay for dads to leave when the going gets tough - also a crappy message. Men aren't absent in homes because black widow women somehow make them disappear - they leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
George S.: Have you ever tried to read anything by a male teenager?

Come to that, how often have you actually talked about feelings or emotional ideas with another male?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Too many boys don't have a father at home in the first place, so they get the message that males are expendable.

---

I don't think that's the message they get. I think they get more of a message that it's okay for dads to leave when the going gets tough - also a crappy message. Men aren't absent in homes because black widow women somehow make them disappear - they leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
George S.: Have you ever tried to read anything by a male teenager?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I think by "boys don't have a father at home in the first place" Horseman Bree meant the sons of unwed mothers. This has become a very common situation, and nowadays is often fully intentional (on the woman's part, anyway).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
B***. Yes, there are certainly women who intentionally have children outside of a committed relationship, intending to raise the child alone. But "often"?

I'm fairly certain the majority of "unwed mothers" are unwed because when the stick turned blue the dad took a powder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
To quote the article cited by Horseman Bree above:

"The New York Times reported last month that, in the U.S., having children outside of marriage is the new normal. More than half of births to American women under 30 now occur outside marriage."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
There are also women - I know several - who, when the stick turned blue, realized, "I can't take care of TWO kids." They believe (and often have good reason to) they can take better care of the child without the father. Two examples of baby daddies I've met: an illegal immigrant from Hungary living out of his pickup truck; and a head-injured (GSW) American who cannot live independently. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Cliffdweller,

Either we have unfortunate young women (increasingly predictably) getting stiffed and left in the lurch by irresponsible men; or we have young women freely deciding not to marry the men with whom, for whatever reason, they have had intimacies-- but attempting to raise the child anyway.

---

quote:

---

Because of the stigma, maybe. But low pay as a reason? Don't think so. Because in such an economy you take whatever you can get, and "I won't work there because the pay is too low" would apply equally to men and women. (May yet apply to me, if a call to teach ever comes through from our church system. I can't afford to leave my current work for something that would pay less, even for the sake of having a traditional call.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Cliffdweller,

Either we have unfortunate young women (increasingly predictably) getting stiffed and left in the lurch by irresponsible men; or we have young women freely deciding not to marry the men with whom, for whatever reason, they have had intimacies-- but attempting to raise the child anyway. Have I failed to imagine a third scenario (other than in vitro, which is an even clearer case of the latter intention)?

Today's ready availability and high use of contraceptives imply that the latter situation is becoming more common.

---

quote:

---

Two examples of baby daddies I've met: an illegal immigrant from Hungary living out of his pickup truck

---

I may be missing some context here...does poverty necessarily denote arrested development?

I was interested in the points made in the linked article about women down-grading their qualifications and abilities in order to make a better first impression with men. I've seen this; makes sense to me, but perhaps I and the men I know have unusually fragile egos.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Anselmina,

Don't worry about me: I'm a happy hermit who can scarcely imagine trying to live again with either man or woman. But my heart goes out to struggling children, especially if they're in danger of being denied the civilized Western life that has been our happy lot. I don't think it would be difficult to cite evidence that boys raised by mothers alone have poor prospects in various ways.

Looking for material to answer Cliffdweller's challange took me to this page. I will not try to use the column, because the author is "biased" and the study it references dates from 2005 and covers only poor women. Her position is conservative Roman Catholic across the board.

But what do you make of the novel argument of Kristine Kruszelnicki's reply?

BECAUSE we have adhered to that moral code of respecting premarital sexual boundaries... some of us must [sic] now contemplate single-parenthood... there are 11 to 13 million more Christian women worldwide than Christian men (Burma study), and the surplus are no more called to a life of childless celibacy for lack of men, than the third world is called to a life of fasting for lack of food...when I can finally afford to adopt a surplus embryo and experience birth by rescuing a human being from cold-storage, I hope you will paint my single parenthood in slightly more flattering light.

I've long realized that a simple "conservative - liberal" axis is at least an oversimplification and and often downright deceptive, but my mind
boggles at fitting her thinking into any existing model. She is such a good Christian that no non-Christian man will do for her, in fact she's never even had sex, and she worries about the one-cell human beings locked in cold storage. Hence she just has no choice left but to subject one of them to those very risks that underlie 95% of traditional sexual morality, Christian and otherwise.

Whatever else this writer may be, one can't say that she's not determined.
 

---

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

I was interested in the points made in the linked article about women down-grading their qualifications and abilities in order to make a better first impression with men. I've seen this; makes sense to me, but perhaps I and the men I know have unusually fragile egos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Anselmina,

Don't worry about me: I'm a happy hermit who can scarcely imagine trying to live again with either man or woman. But my heart goes out to struggling children, especially if they're in danger of being denied the civilized Western life that has been our happy lot. I don't think it would be difficult to cite evidence that boys raised by mothers alone have poor prospects in various ways.

---

I don't, as yet, see any reason to worry about you, Alogon . Though I'm always interested in what you post. I was referring to how things were in the West (at least UK and Ireland) until quite recently.

I agree - as I've said before on this thread, I think - that male role models are vitally important for boys, and also as formative influences for girls. Men and women need each other; and the fullness of each other's contribution to community.

But, referring to some of the general arguments above (not necessarily yours, Alogon) it strikes me as a little ironic to bang on about how women have their unique child-bearing status to make them indispensable, and then to complain when they use it - in some cases - in order to apparently avoid earning a living in order to keep themselves. Or who see themselves as mothers but not wives or partners.

It seems women cannot win! She is wrong for doing work that should be done by men who aren't feeling 'special' any more because nothing unique is left to them, in a world of equality. And she is wrong for having babies on terms which do not include the other parent.

What an inconvenient sex we are!
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Some women have to bring their children up alone because their husband has died. It can be very hurtful for widows to hear all lone parents being lumped together in a derogatory way as 'single mums' - they would have loved for their children to have two parents, but circumstances intervened.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Some women have to bring their children up alone because their husband has died. It can be very hurtful for widows to hear all lone parents being lumped together in a derogatory way as 'single mums' - they would have loved for their children to have two parents, but circumstances intervened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think it would be difficult to cite evidence that boys raised by mothers alone have poor prospects in various ways.

---

quote:

---

I agree - as I've said before on this thread, I think - that male role models are vitally important for boys, and also as formative influences for girls. Men and women need each other; and the fullness of each other's contribution to community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

One hypothesis (viz that article) would be that women are upwardly nubile (thanks, IngoB) and men like the security of a partner who won't out-perform them. Works for all except women at the top, and men at the bottom. Never the twain, etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I don't think it would be difficult to cite evidence that boys raised by mothers alone have poor prospects in various ways.

---

And with all the wars in the first half of the twentieth century tht was the lot of millions of children all over Europe. Including both my parents. Not that my grandfathers were killed int he second war - but, like lots of husbands at thte time, they were much older than their wives, because the generation of men of my grandmother's age had lost so many in the previous war. My grandmothers came from Tyneside and Glasgow, two of the largest areas of military recruitment in Britain. Probably about one in five of boys who went to school with them (or their older brothers) were killed.

And things were much worse in some other parts of Europe, especially Romania and Poland and the western parts of Russia.

quote:

---

I agree - as I've said before on this thread, I think - that male role models are vitally important for boys, and also as formative influences for girls. Men and women need each other; and the fullness of each other's contribution to community.

---

Everyone talks about role models, but I have to confess I have very little idea what they mean in practice. As far as I remember when I was in my childhood and early teens I never consciously modeled myself on, or imitated, or wanted to be like, any older person at all. I didn't have any heroes I wanted to emulate or be like. Nor I suspect did many other boys. After all boys are famously arrogant. Why would they want to be like their boring old dads or anyone else of an older generation? And as for teachers... Respect for an elders is something that sneaked up on me in my teens, probably even late teens. But not as a kid. And even then "role model" isn't the right phrase to describe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Clearly, the honeybees know how to live. The workers are all female, as is, of course, the queen. The drones (males) have one purpose only: very competitively to pursue a queen when she takes a mating flight. The winner is rewarded with a death penalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Until that sort of thinking changes, there's going to be a problem.

---

Yeah - 'Down with this sort of thing!'

So, taking into account the prejudices of some intellectually and financially privileged women in the rich West, are men - as a sex - noted for lowering their standards when choosing a mate?

I'm not saying those particular women are right. Just wondering if it's more a basically human trait to have unrealistic or unfair preferences?

You're quoting from an environment where intelligent and high-earning women want even more intelligent and high-earning men to partner with. Arguably, a very traditional, old-fashioned view in awarding the priority status of chief bread-earner to the male; a little bit as if feminism got far enough to give these ladies access to the education and income they have every right to, but not far enough to realize that it's okay if they're 'alpha' of their pack.

I look around me and see an environment of girls - not yet out of their teens - already planning and saving for their first boob-job or lipo or face-lift by the time they're 21. They seem to be under the impression that how they look is their only route to any kind of acceptance and success; their only hope for happiness in relationships. We've all got a long way to go by the sound of it before we learn how to just see people as people - and therefore valuable in their own right.

BTW, would it have been equally wrong of the PhD lady in your example to have wanted a more intelligent partner than herself if she had been a BA, or even thick as a brick? If she hadn't, in your opinion, cancelled out 99% of possibilities by being so well educated herself, would you have permitted her the choice of someone allegedly* better than herself in that respect.

*Now, I say 'allegedly' because I would say that if she wanted someone merely better qualified educationally for a partner, she was making the mistake of assuming that academic excellence is the same thing as the kind of emotional intelligence needed for a successful relationship. Which it isn't.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:


I look around me and see an environment of girls - not yet out of their teens - already planning and saving for their first boob-job or lipo or face-lift by the time they're 21.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:


I look around me and see an environment of girls - not yet out of their teens - already planning and saving for their first boob-job or lipo or face-lift by the time they're 21.

---

... who are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are , in some strange overly perfectionist way, making themselves look grotesque.

This being the observation of a useless male.

---

Well, I'm sure you're not useless!

But yes, that goes along with it, I suppose. That in seeking to look the way they - for whatever reason - think that part of society they value says they should look, aren't sufficiently aware that such surgery isn't an improvement.

I guess that also goes with the territory of being a teenager. You know - lack of maturity, vulnerable to peer pressure, strong outside influences etc? Unless things have moved on since I was a teen, I don't think that age group has ever been universally known for its reasoned and moderate response to things.

Though to be sure a fair few aspirational young ladies have their eyes set on snagging a footballer or celeb! Seems to be easier to do that if you have a huge rack and butt fat injected into your lips.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Nice of you to say so . Dropping my guard on a touch of low elf-esteem there, as well as trying to stay on topic.

I've been fortunate to be born in an era where I've had every opportunity to feel useful as a man . In the 60's I grew up helping with farm jobs, and have since spent my life doing a variety of manual labour.
I feel sorry for young males these days as most manual labour has been replaced by mechanization . Although it has to be asked-- do young men even want to do manual work now ?

It does seem most odd that young women see cosmetic surgery as such an essential tool for advancement, clearly the stage has never been set for women to succeed on their God-given merit.
 

---

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

I feel sorry for young males these days as most manual labour has been replaced by mechanization . Although it has to be asked-- do young men even want to do manual work now ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
I don't think manual work has ever been specifically a male thing. I thought traditionally it was more a class thing, with the lower classes (both male and female) doing manual work and the higher classes doing more 'cerebral' work (or indeed not working at all!). As a female, when I have done work in care homes (where the majority of workers are female), the work is very physical. And it is work that is considered on the lower end of the social scale - it is near to minimum wage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
[QUOTE]
I don't think manual work has ever been specifically a male thing. I thought traditionally it was more a class thing, with the lower classes (both male and female) doing manual work and the higher classes doing more 'cerebral' work (or indeed not working at all!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I look around me and see an environment of girls - not yet out of their teens - already planning and saving for their first boob-job or lipo or face-lift by the time they're 21. They seem to be under the impression that how they look is their only route to any kind of acceptance and success;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:


The change is that this obsession with appearance is no longer confined to young women.
Young men have become just as obsessed with it-- in their case, masculine ornamentation such as Rambo-like musculature, clothes, accessories, and vehicles-- perhaps for lack of any way to be less ornamentally masculine. Physicians are also seeing an unprecedented rate of anorexia in boys.

I used to think that girls were more frivolous than guys on average, but no more. Youtube has been an education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inger:

What is odd is that for several generations (Western) men have been confined to mainly very dull clothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just about the only purpose for Royal males is to dress up in flamboyant and rather weird costumes, even now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I think by "boys don't have a father at home in the first place" Horseman Bree meant the sons of unwed mothers. This has become a very common situation, and nowadays is often fully intentional (on the woman's part, anyway).

---

B***. Yes, there are certainly women who intentionally have children outside of a committed relationship, intending to raise the child alone. But "often"?

I'm fairly certain the majority of "unwed mothers" are unwed because when the stick turned blue the dad took a powder.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0