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? [Devil]
 
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. [Biased] 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 [Two face] )
 
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 [Two face] )

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.


[Razz]
 
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.

H'mmm that's my cover blown . Even though I am reasonably useless at doing quite a few things compared to a woman , I do get quite annoyed if I'm told so.
I understand this is known as being a "man's head".

If the technological age continues to make the necessity of hard labour all but redundant,
then the role of men will be increasingly diminished . And without the grace and tolerance of a woman many of us will indeed be left out in the cold.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I was going to contribute something about the importance of father figures in the bringing up of children. But then I remembered that I'd read about this in context of bringing up boys. Which argument rather equates male-ness to the study of Geography, a degree in which, as any fule no, qualifies one to...teach Geography.

Are Geographers useless?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Only if they don't do what is helpful.
 
Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :
 
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? [Devil]

The real question should be are women useless? After all the attribute of usefulness is really rather useless without someone to be useful to. Now useful people are far too busy being useful to allow others to be useful to them. Thus it follows without men to be useful to, women’s usefulness would be utterly useless, so to speak.
Therefore we can say with authority that:

A) Women are usefully unless.
B) Men are uselessly useful.
C) Cats are ambiguous.
D) Generalisations are generally generated from the genitalia,
or to put it another way more often than not they are a load of old bollocks.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
If this had been written about women we would hear howls of outrage . Saying either men or women are useless is sexist and has no place on this site.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Some context would probably be helpful, but I"m too lazy to chase down some links for someone else's OP. The fact is, regardless of how incorrect it sounds/is, pragmatically, quite a few humanitarian organizations have come to that conclusion-- bypassing men to focus their aid directly to women, and finding much better return for their investment. I think that is a worthy area of discussion for this board. What do we do with that? How far are we willing to go to undermine patriarchal cultures for the good of the family? Or, conversely, how long are we willing to let a family linger in poverty, often at starvation level, out of respect for an indigenous culture? I find these deeply troubling, but vital, questions for us to grapple with.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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...

Lazy, incompetent, etc. men certainly exist everywhere. If you want to criticize them, then have at it. And it is certainly true that in certain societies, men can be lazy and obstructive generally. In those cases, matters need to be dealt with appropriately, no doubt about that.

But extending a criterion to cover all members of any group, anywhere, is called essentialism. And then using a negative criterion to criticize everyone, whether guilty or not, is called demonization. As Rosa Winkel pointed out, by the time you find yourself doing this, you stopped talking about other people a way back. You are, however, giving away a lot about yourself. Just take a look at the roll-call of historical figures famous for doing it.

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.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
What a ghastly thread.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Let's see how it goes first, Cod.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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...

Maybe I was reading too much into the OP, but I didn't read it as universal. All three of the links provided fit the paradigm I'm talking about. None were articulating an "all men everywhere are useless" pov, but they did all seem to be suggesting something quite close: "all men in this place are useless". The places in question were all specific, patriarchal cultures in the developing world.

It IS sexist, no doubt about it. If it were articulated in the reverse I'd be mad as hell. Yet it fits all too well the experiences many of us have had in the developing world. I'm not quite sure what to do with that.


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.

Yes, I quite agree. But the only way you can get to that step is by taking this first step of identifying the problem, or at least raising the question. Which means, however problematic it may be, saying something quite close to "are men (at least in this place/culture useless?"
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Well, that's certainly starting to follow a more fruitful line of enquiry, so I wouldn't want to inhibit anyone from doing that. I'm far from sure though that it was an approach implicit at the start.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Going back to Chill's comment: It is clear from the examples linked in the OP that many (not all, admittedly) of the men in those circumstances are not particularly useful beyond the stage of impregnation. The mothers and grandmothers do most of the work in keeping the families (including the boys) going. Hence the women are "useful" to others, while the men may actually be negatively useful - i.e. their activitiea actually get in the way.

As are the men in many church hierarchies and
the men in many of the money-manipulation entities.

Obviously, the blanket statement about "all men" being useless is silly, hence the Satanic smiley. But the activities of a very large number of men can be seen as not helpful at all. The statement "Youth is fleeting but immaturity can last a lifetime" will almost certainly be taken as referring to a particular sort of male, for instance.

The tribal cultures sorted out the problem of too many males by having incessant warfare. The Brits did the same sort of thing up to 1945, and now have the problem of a "yob" cultural group which doesn't fit the needs of a "modern" society. And I'm sure the Chinese are becoming anxious about the imbalance of gender numbers relating to the one-child policy that is now being eased.

As Bunker Roy said, and as I have seen in my teaching career, too many men are untrainable, while the women have had to cope with looking after those men as well as their children.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The trouble is, that when you have a useless male (or female!) it generally took members of both sexes to train him/her that way. I have a particular family in mind.

There's also the question of whether what looks "useless" to us is really "useful" (in some way) to the family the person comes from. Male X may be a playboy because the family wants a conspicuous consumer to demonstrate its wealth to the rest of the neighborhood. Female Y may be an uneducated, unskilled but pretty doll for the same reason. Drones of both genders are a statement that "we have so much that we can afford to waste, even people."

Similarly the abusive, hard-drinking, hard-gambling and unfaithful father. By decent standards he's a waste of space; but in a perverted way he may be a family signpost and advertisement as well: "Look what we put up with, and are even proud of, in a perverted way. We are TOUGH sons-of-fuckers. You people with your soft, responsible fathers and husbands don't know you're born. So DON'T MESS WITH US or you'll be sorry!"

It's perverse. But it does meet a certain standard of usefulness.

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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

When it's a cultural problem like the examples in the OP, though, I think often the need that was met was somewhere in the past. Those paradigms that might have "worked' in some way in pre-colonial period or even under colonization are not "working" today-- that's really what the OP links are complaining about. The problem then becomes, do you work on changing cultures to create a more meaningful/ purposeful role for men (a very long process) or do you simply empower women (much quicker as we've seen, but one wonders what impact that will have on the overall culture, particularly boys).

Lots of possible unintended consequences here. But too much at stake to let that keep us passive. How best to proceed?

[ 10. March 2012, 00:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
Whilst as Cod said, the thread could become ghastly, there is a really important point here - many cultures develop gender roles, and if they fit the circumstances, that culture (and its gender roles) survive or even thrive. When those circumstances change, the gender role may become "useless".

For example: in Melanesia, before colonialism, there were many small groups, often in a state of hostility. When people went to tend their gardens, the physically stronger people (males, usually) would defend the less physically stronger (females and children). Which meant of course that men were on their guard, and women did the gardening! When walking home, the men would carry a weapon and have his hands otherwise free for fighting and defending his family, and the women would carry the children and vegetables. (I'll try and avoid a tangent as to the morality of this position, which would be anachronistic anyway - please just accept it as a description)

Now, transpose that same pattern to the colonial period, in which the colonial authorities have imposed peace. The men are no longer allowed to carry weapons (and in any event have no use for them) and appear to straggle along doing nothing, while the women appear (are) doing all the work.

Sometimes the culture adjusts fairly well - for example, in Melanesia the energies of many of the young men were put into work in the cash economy (though this then led into urban drift); fighting for others (for example, thousands of Fijian soldiers serve in the British Army); or becoming religious evangelists (for example, the Melanesian Brothers). But sometimes the culture does not adjust well - for example, the raskals of Papua New Guinea, who are young men, cut adrift from village life, and now form criminal gangs that are doing significant damage to the country.

No culture is immune from these challenges - and whilst Melanesia and Africa provide a clear examples, I am sure the same thing - poor adjustment of gender roles in a time of significant cultural stress - affects many other cultures, including our own. So before we take the mote out of the eyes of others ...
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
I recall a story of two mothers waiting outside school for their offspring. "Of course" says one "my husband makes all the important decisions in our household". "Oh" says t'other "what decisions do you make?" "Things like where we'll go on holiday, should we change the car, can we afford to redo the kitchen". "So what does your husband decide". "How to stop global warming, how to end famine, how to bring about world peace..............".

I have a use. My partner is petite, and I'm not. I can safely be berated for the foulups of the world and she knows that I (and maybe only I and the dog) won't deliberately hurt her even when the pain makes her unreasonable. That's me - half of a double act with a nine-year-old multi-coloured, undecipherably crossbred terrier - life's good, and probably much better than I deserve.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
As for me, the Really Useful Things I can do are:


 
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.... [Snigger]
 
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.... [Snigger]

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)

[Smile]

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! [Eek!] 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.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.
 
Posted by Pardoner (# 15043) on :
 
Are men useless?

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

I did it all.

Useless?

Not me.
 
Posted by frin (# 9) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
frin, you actually talked about the topic of the opening post! [Eek!] No one else has done that on this mildly ghastly cliche-ridden thread!

I tried reading the other responses, saw how disappointing the gender politics was, then closed my eyes and thought of Purgatory. It helped. Later I shall see if I can think of a cliched anecdote in order to be down with the other kids.
'frin
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
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

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?

If you had an argument, I would say that for all of the examples of useless men, you could find examples of useless women if you looked for them, for all the examples of useful women, you could counter with examples of useful men. But the mere act of looking for these examples and trying to prove the point means that you've already lost the argument.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
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?"
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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

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.

[ 12. March 2012, 16:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Today we hear that the biggest killer of men in the UK ,under the age of 32, is suicide.

This is a terrible thing . It seems many of us men have great difficulty in identifying our usefulness in ways other than working or warfare.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
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.

You don't even have to go to developing countries for that move. 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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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.

In the Irish Republic in the 1960s, child allowances were paid to the father. Many of the checks were cashed in pubs which were not normally frequented by women.

There was a problem with a small number of fathers who left their families and continued to receive the checks. If there were many children in the family, the father could live in comfort while his children suffered want. It took about a year to have the checks sent to the mother. At that point, sometimes, the father would return to his family and the checks would again be sent to him. Sometimes he took off again.

Attempts were made to shorten the period of time when the father received the checks even though he was not with the children. The Catholic church opposed this because it would undermine the authority of the father.

Moo

[ 12. March 2012, 21:32: Message edited by: Moo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.

And indeed the brother of one of the shipmates brought up his son after his wife died 8 years ago. The other parents at school reckon he did a good job of it. He holds a senior government appointment as well.

As to Moo's post - traditionally child endowment here used be paid to the mothers, primarily to avoid the sort of problem you refer to. As far as I recall, there was no opposition from any church.

Finally, back to the OP - the article seems very silly, all academic but with no real learning; the work of a sociologist. As others have noted, imagine the scream if the genders had been reversed.
 
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) 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.... [Snigger]

No envy please! We need to do this in order to master the high art of hand-eye coordination which comes in helpful when you want to become a longbow archer, say. And the even higher art of hand-eye-willie co-ordination is often much appreciated later in life, not least by women.

As to the OP I recommend this article which answers the question.

On a more serious note, let us not forget how useful men are at snoring loudly to keep the wild animals away by night. We are also good at getting rid of poisonous stuff in the house (like alcohol). Only some of us bring in noisy stuff instead (like children).
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
As to the OP, I'm reminded of experiences from charity workers and church colleagues who have links - long-term links - in parts of Tanzania and Uganda.

The importance of the male elders of the villages is still considerable. To encourage villagers to take part in clean water and malaria net schemes, or vaccination schemes often needed the agreement of the head - always male - of the village.

Additionally, many villages ran on a system where the women did the growing of crops, the family care, including the water and health responsibilities, while the men, largely, travelled to the cities to ostensibly get well-paid work. In some cases this would be go back to a wife and her children. Though this was complicated where the husband had moved on to his second or third wife, as previous wives and families were not then provided for.

But how wide-spread this is, I don't know. And undoubtedly there are regions where the men are very actively engaged in the well-building work, and encouraging their families to take part in vital health-care and agricultural projects.

There is no doubt that in many cases, it is the women who are the key to getting practical things achieved, and as the women naturally are the chief carers of the children, that follows as a matter of course; but how much of this is because the village men are 'useless', or it's a cultural thing, or a genuine attempt to enrich their villages back home, because liveable incomes cannot be made locally, I couldn't say.

I think it's worth noting, too, that the Mother's Union do amazing work often precisely because they have established MU groups within villages where the women are very motivated to improve things. And a lot of this MU work would also be in line with trying to improve women's rights. There are bound to be some local men who also get involved with this kind of thing, including church pastors and again the elders, but to what extent I don't know.

More frivolously, I do wish our church gentlemen were as organized and motivated as our church ladies! We have no problems with the (all female) flower rotas and cleaning rotas and catering rotas; these happen smoothly without any need for harping on or nagging, 52 weeks of the year. But trying to get a handful of men (remembering most of our guys are hands-on farmers) to share a fortnightly task of keeping the churchyard grass strimmed between March and October, takes a miracle!

But I certainly wouldn't say our lovely men are useless! They contribute tremendously in many ways to church and community life. And anyway - life without men? No thanks!
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
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 [Roll Eyes] 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 [Smile]
 
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.

Same here.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
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.

You do know we have women in the financial sector as well don't you?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) 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?

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.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
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. [Frown]

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.

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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.

I don't know which particular aid agency you might have in mind. 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.

Some work certainly is focussed on women's needs eg, women's rights and certain aspects of life relevant particularly to women. But even men have been known to be interested in those things!
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
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.

Perhaps not- but the OP *did* extrapolate to our context:

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? [Devil]

Which is what I (and I suspect a fair number of others) was responding to. On its face, as written, it's a load of misandrist bull.

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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
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:
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.

Exactly.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
< Stands up on soap box>

Men need to take a more active role in raising their children. Especially teenage boys

Ye old model of mum raising kids and dad making the money sucks.

Ye new model of mum and dad working and the kids being raised in childcare sucks even more.

< Gets off soapbox >
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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? [Roll Eyes]

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.

Agreed. But declaring "men are useless" isn't going to help anything- it just perpetuates the problem.

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. [Biased]
 
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.

Yes, that point has already been well established. otoh, there is some value in stating plainly what everyone sees (in a more nuanced way). To cease pretending that what large numbers of men are doing in some places is OK.


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.

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." If you look at how female empowerment progressed in the West, you see a similar pattern. We now need to apply the lessons learned from that societal experiment to the changing role of men in both the West and the developing world.


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

yes, I agree.

[ 15. March 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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. [Smile]
 
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.

Yes, that's kind of what I was saying. The agency goes in with its own agenda - any one or more of those things you mention - and finds that the people who are most interested are women.

All I'm saying is the fact that the men aren't interested doesn't make them useless.

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.
If the men are absent then it's a moot point. You can't include someone who isn't there.

[qute]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?[/quote]

It's more like I'm saying it's not for us to decide what their problems are. If we want to help them we should start by asking them - all of them - what it is they want.

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.
You might not, but a lot of people do.

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?
Certainly.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
hence the word "absent". But, as I go on to point out-- there are positive role models-- most of them (in these particular communities) are women.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
Yes. I said that. Read first, then respond.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If I may be so bold, I think you guys are in agreement.

We in the West are rapidly moving to to a position where the role of the male will be best described as "helper", (female helper to be more specific).

As opposed to the Centuries old male role being pretty much 'help yourself', with the female role being essentially subservient.

This is a seismic shift , and one way or another males must adapt . For as is the law of nature --'adapt or die'.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Nerds: who they are and why we need more of them points out that the association of intelligence and studiousness (particularly in math and science) with being too ugly to get laid is an essentially American trait, and recent at that; but our cultural imperialism might spread it. Although many adults can see that it is foolish, middle-schoolers feel that they can't afford not to take it seriously. Hence a dramatic fall-off in interest in academics, and particularly these subjects, in that age group. By the time these kids outgrow their determination to avoid a "nerdy" image at all costs, the damage to their education is done.

Another effect of this preoccupation is that vanity is sometimes becoming just as desperate in boys as girls. This typically takes the form of bodybuilding and similar concern with ornamental masculinity. That physicians now encounter cases of anorexia in boys is heartbreaking.

I see the author of the above book from 2007 published a follow-up on the same subject in 2011. It will be curious if he has gotten around to re-examining the ubiquity of coeducation in this country, which is contributing to these problems.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
It's a pity (that in the UK at least) some of the more in your face male role models are cut in the Jeremy Clarkson beer, football and girlies mode. [Perhaps I should start a movement for those men who hate football and its associated tribalism. We won! No: YOU didn't the 11 on the pitch scored more bladder kicks].

Ladies we are not all like that! Some of us can change nappies - our own and others - and I don't just mean these fancy disposable jobs either.

It's true that male roles have changed and are changing but who really wants to go back to the repressive days of old? Yes there were distinct roles but they were bound within conventions and restrictions that governed much of life.

It was virtually impossible to improve your circumstances as they were (in the UK at least) checks and controls that stopped people from the "wrong" schools or without the "right"
accent moving on. Male roles were built into that system with vast swathes of heavy manual work and the odd war to keep the lower orders in control, thrown in. Discipline in war inculcates societal values of deference and control.

I'd rather not have a male role model based on prejudice, homophobia, misogny, a class system etc etc. For that read the UK until the 1980's.

Far better to think on what uses people have as opposed to emphasising their uselessness. Better still to recognise the inherent worth of every human being and seek to understand how that worth can be valued, as well as expressing it for the good of everyone.

If it's a case of being "useless"cause you're not able or gifted or physically limited then that's one thing. It's different if you just can't be bothered.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
So men only had roles at the expense of limiting women's roles? Boy, was their house built on sand!

Hey, I've got an idea: why doesn't everyone concentrate on being the best version of themselves that they can manage? How many "roles" does one person need? And why should half of humanity be limited by one role or another? Choose a few paths for oneself and launch a life.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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?

There is much that is true here.

But the implication seems to be that it is incumbent upon women to hand men a "role". It's not.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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?

I'm willing to give men the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll be able to figure it out without needing mommy to tell them what to do.
 
Posted by berjangles (# 17000) on :
 
I had just posted a new thread about the role of men in today's society. Seems quite relevant to this question now...
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=016858
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Thinking that there are "male" or "female" work in life presumes that one can (a) ascribe a sex to work done and (b) that one cannot change that presumed sex.

I am still to be convinced that any "male" or "female" way of doing things are anything other than self-fulfilling prophecies. It's like a group mania, whereby that which is assumed becomes "truth", something repeated by many and held to be true because so many people believe it. That one (as in the op) takes a negative view of men leads one to see what one wants to see.

There are some things which men or women are more likely to do because of that group perception/truth thing, whereby culture is formed. Therefore it is entirely possible that things get attributed to men or women, but it doesn't mean that they can determine what that person does or how they behave. In any case, these gender roles are flexible.

I largely work (as a trainer leading seminars) in a team of two and my colleague is nearly always a woman. Sometimes I'm more of the leader, sometimes she is. Sometimes I'm the touchyfeely guy, sometimes I'm more distant and my colleague does all that. Here at home I tend to be the one cooking and cleaning, while my wife works full-time outside. In each case it's not about me being male or female. It is impossible for me to be female. I can only do what which I do, as a man.

In any case, our sex is only one part of our make-up. It is my class and family situation that has much more influenced my life than anything else. Of course, some men and some women get discriminated about that one part of our identities. I wonder, though, whether playing so much attention on one part of our identity actually strengthens stereotypes and the related prejudice and discrimination.

I'm not saying that we should ignore our sexes or sex-based discrimination, but I believe that we should look at every situation from the perspective of a variety of identities that we have.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
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.

I cannot imagine what role (other than reproductive ) could be assigned exclusively to one gender or the other.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I can't help but draw a parallel between this discussion and other endless (possibly DH) ones. Perhaps someone can explain this mentality because I simply don't get it. Seems like:

1. (some) men find roles like parenting or breadwinning important/significant only if it is to the exclusion of women.

2. (some) straights find marriage meaningful or beneficial, but only if it's to the exclusion of GLBT.

3. (some) Christians find the hope of heaven a powerful promise, but only if it's to the exclusion of non-Christians.

What is it about something we find to be a "good thing" in our lives that it loses its "goodness" if others are invited to share in it's benefits???
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Some people feel like they are only "winning" if someone is "losing".
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I guess I've lived in L.A. long enough to know that once you get behind the velvet rope into the exclusive nightclub, you find out the martinis there are really not any different than the ones they serve at the neighborhood bar down the street that takes all comers.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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. [Roll Eyes] 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.

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)
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Parents in my community have never had the priviledge of being stay as home parents. Both work and so I am probably not one to comment on white, bourgeois disputes.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
How nice that they can both find jobs at all these days. Not everyone is so fortunate.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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)

But of course. Being a stay-at-home parent is still very much considered to be a female role, and there's naturally going to be a massive hostility towards any men who try to "invade" it.

But that's fine, because female-only roles are still considered a good thing. It's only male-only roles that are to be eliminated.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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 ( [Smile] ) 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 ( [Smile] ) 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.

The pertinent question is: what does it mean to be a man in this modern age?
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.

Correct.

quote:
If not then what are you suggesting? That officially make some jobs men only?
I'm suggesting that we need a definition of what it means to be a man (as distinct from a woman) in modern society.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Well, Marvin, define it then - what does it mean to be a man in society? What is your definition, or the definition which you think men are striving for and which you're virtually stating is being denied them? 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.

The specifics that spring naturally to my mind, eg, include where male strength is of advantage, including directed aggression eg, warfare, which in no way do I mean derogatorily. The sacrifice of generations of men at the frontlines through war is something I respect, as well as grieve over.

Right or wrong, my own definitions involve what it is to be a 'member' of society, or a useful 'person'. But defining what it is to be a 'man' or a 'woman', which is not about biology, would be very interesting to hear. Genuinelly. I might well find your answer really helpful in my own feeble attempts to help the guys here.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Marvin -

Do you not think that such matters emerge through custom and practice (assuming they emerge at all that is)? Honestly, I don't see that any one is going to give you a definition of what it means to be a man (or indeed a woman) in today's world.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

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

Again, all of us are expendable. However much contribution I may feel I'm making to "society", there is nothing I do that cannot be done by someone else, of either gender. We can learn something from that about humility.

I don't need to define myself in "exclusion" to someone else. I'm not defined by someone else's deficiency. I bring what I bring to the table-- my own quirky, limited bits of strengths and weaknesses. Some people bring similar things, some people bring different things. That's OK.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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.

It's presumably because much of the discussion here has centred around work, and male identification with being the primary breadwinner.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Marvin wrote
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.
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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 Honest Ron Bacardi:

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

That would make sense if it were a more recent question, since the recession, which has hit men disproportionately. But the question seems older than that.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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.

That's not a lot to work with! And it doesn't seem that different from the questions *everyone* asks themselves, regardless of sex: Who am I? What is my purpose? How am I doing?

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.

I think I see the problem: men used to have "default" roles that answered those questions for them - "I'm a soldier" or "I'm a doctor" or whatever. Now that women can be soldiers or doctors, those aren't "male" roles anymore. Whereas it seems that women will always have the mom role to fall back on. Am I getting it?

If so, I still don't have an answer for a man that would be any different from what I would give to a woman asking the same questions. What are you good at? Who needs you? What do you need to do to take care of yourself? OliviaG
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.

Once upon a time, when the ratio was presumably in the other direction, the diagnosis was that teaching in the elementary and secondary schools favored boys and had to change to be more sensitive to girls' needs. But now the schools are set up just fine: it's the boys who have to change if they want to get with the program. Or if they don't, that's fine too. NPR broadcast an interesting segment a few years ago called "opting out of college," with approximately seven case studies: all male. They should have called it "opting boys out of college."

Now I'll sit back and watch the various rationalizations for this state of affairs start rolling in.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
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(ed) from childhood. Maybe it's a rural mindset, or a class difference or a cultural divide but this idea is foreign to me. There are many people who become educated now and then they work too, male and female.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Alogon

Plenty of jobs if you'll do the work.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
But the total percentage of males attending college has remained constant. What has happened is that greater numbers of females have entered colleges, and that those institutions have been able (until recently anyway) to open up additional spaces. So the advances of women in higher education really, really have not come at the expense of men. In a changing marketplace we might want to find ways to encourage more boys to consider higher education. What we've learned from what worked for encouraging women to enter college may provide some helpful models there. But the problem is decidedly not that women are displacing men in higher ed.

Another example of how zero-sum thinking often gets it wrong.


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

What would we need to rationalize?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Alogon

Plenty of jobs if you'll do the work.

In other words, raising children is not a real job?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.

What "deafening silence"? People go on about it all the time.

And we don't need "rationalisations" because the reason is obvious. 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.

So if you have an educational system based on passing exams, girls will on average do better than boys unless you deliberately bias the results against them - as was done until the 1970s or 1980s.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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...
Everybody works for money, and in the working class everybody always did. The idea that women don't go out to work was a luxury few could afford a century ago. It's simply not true that women didn't work for money (It is true that married women with young children avoided working outside the home if they could - but then it still is)

But it *is* still true that there is a cultural expectation that men work to provide for women and children and a man who doesn't or can't is seen as useless, and made to feel useless, in a way that doesn't quite apply to women, even now. Maybe its more a working-class thing than a middle-class thing but it does exist.

Also - and this is more a middle-class thing that a working-class thing - women seem to be more likely to talk or think about work in terms of self-fulfilment or self-development. Men are much more likely to admit that they just work for money. Other benefits are all well and good, but they are not the point of it, and many men will say they would give up work if they didn't need to earn money.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Apologies to those who responded to my last post - just a quick note to say I've got a family reunion on the go here, but will try to respond tomorrow evening.

Meanwhile - what ken just said - the point was identification.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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? [Biased]

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? [Biased]

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.
[Overused]
 
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
Actually, I suspect it's a lot closer than you think (link). But to be honest, I only really pointed the matter out in response to Marvin's previous post. The article is worth a look, though some of the scenarios at the end appear to be more related to eating too much runny cheese last thing at night. It does provide a parallel opportunity to think about some future scenario that would likely impact women's sense of identity more than men's. It's a fairly low-risk activity as we are not there yet, and it might help thinking about such identity questions in general, if some people are blocked from this one for some reason.

Even so, it is interesting that the some feminists see this as an appalling thing, whereas others don't. And in a way that echoes the fact that some men seem to have a real identity problem such as Marvin has been trying to articulate. Others of us don't see it that way.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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.


To confirm what you say there, I have a son who didn't perform well at school . He then had a taste of the workplace and wasn't overly keen on that either.

Having interest in modern music he decided to ditch everything and enroll on a university course in his early 20s and, by all accounts, is doing very well at it.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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?

I think you have taken my quote beyond the meaning I intended, though I should try to unpack that a bit.

I not entirely sure why either men or women seem to define themselves as distinct from each other. Putting aside obvious sex differences, we are in the realm of constructed gender identities. We could discuss that I guess, but it seems to me that the two competing views in town at present are the sociological and the anthropological. They disagree. Nevertheless it seems true to me that people continue to do this. Why won't men do more flower-arranging for the church? Why won't more women join our wine-tasting and dining group? There's no valid reason I can think of, but people go on doing it.

The question of power is a rather different one, as I think there's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that power cliques tend to try to hold on to power irrespective of whether they are predominantly one sex, or mixed. Power cliques or groups don't stay as power cliques without excluding someone or some class of people. The noun patriarchy - the form of power group we are mostly talking about here - was originally intended to describe a particular situation, but if reified, it's going to run into all sorts of problems, eliding power with agency and of course gender which at the extreme will verge on conspiracy theories. In any event, I think that the issue of gender identity precedes the issue of power chronologically at least, and in that respect it likely to be more fruitful if dealt with separately (or in parallel if you like).
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I don't think men are "useless" by a long shot. (especially when I need my roof shoveled or my car fixed!)

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. men moved the village seasonally, now we stay put.

the economy has become one of money, but the year-round jobs in our rural areas are more traditionally filled by women - teachers, health care workers, administrators. so the women bring in the money, and pay for the food, and the fuel, and the boats. men have a hope of seasonal work, but it means spending the whole winter unemployed, and, well, useless.

the jobs that would work well for traditional male roles that ARE year round require relocating to urban areas - something which happens too much already. it means leaving your home and sometimes leaving your family behind; and when you get there, there may be race, education, or culture based bias against a rural man getting those jobs anyway.

I don't blame the men for this situation, but it is here and is probably here to stay. We, as a society, need to make sure than when we take away the traditional role of someone, there is something to replace it. and we need to be patient in developing places while the men discover their new roles and while the culture evolves enough to re-enfranchise the men. it takes generations to deal with changes that have come upon so much of the world very, very fast.
 
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
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!)

Then I would have answered the thread title's question: "No - but in my case, yes."
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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.

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
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The OP, like much of this thread, is misandrist because it has based it's definition of "useful" on how well that gender helps out with the focus of these particular aid groups. The women of the village are already, per tradition, spending their days finding food, water and medical care for the family -- just like the aid groups.

If the US military was in the village looking for soldiers to organize against an oppressor, they might conclude that women were useless.

Many women, worldwide, will have the primary care of raising the children as their job as long as the baby grows inside her body and "bonds," her from before birth. I don't see us ever getting away from this.

In the western world the government has taken over the role of providing the most basic financial support for many of those babies. When parents knew that only the labor of the father would feed the family while the mother and children were most vulnerable, the men were seen as quite "useful," and the women were far more likely to make sure that they had a man legally locked and loaded before giving birth.

Worldwide, I think the men need jobs. I have no idea how to create them.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
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

That all makes a lot of sense Moo.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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. [Devil]

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?

Our numbers are somewhat different, but the sentiment is exactly the same.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just to add another opinion: "What if women don't need guys any longer?"

HB - maybe it could be helpful if you could venture an opinion yourself. Why exactly do you find this particular collection of cuttings worthy of consideration together? Do you feel there is some sort of underlying issue that we haven't addressed yet? Do you have an issue with the standard of journalism today? Or what exactly?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.

Why do I never meet those women? Or if I do why don't they count me as one of the men they want 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]

Trivially. Especially if she makes enough money so the bloke doesn't have to work. Have you read Proverbs 31 recently?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.

Quite. For Christians, it should be entirely about being all that we can be as partners with God in extending his kingdom and not at all about how we measure up against our partner (or anyone else). Of course, back in the real world we we all actually live...
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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.

Blokes can say whatever they want if they can back it up. How did you determine this? What exactly do you mean by "most women", "deep emotional need", and having 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 ?

[Mad] 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.

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.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Horseman Bree posted: Not to mention the case that many schools have no male staff, which doesn't help the role-model thing.
Men do not teach in primary school largely because it is low paying and has the stigma of being women's work. More men teach in high school here although not enough.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
and writing about emotional reactions to things, which guys don't do well.

That's a pretty big claim. Can you back it up?
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
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.
Probably some of both messages- they're equally toxic, IMHO.

Speaking anecdotally, the most well-adjusted kids I see regularly are my nieces and nephews- who have dads who work on cars, go camping, and all that sort of stuff people often think of as "guy stuff" with them.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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?

As a male who writes stuff (okay, I'm not a teenager, but I do write stuff), I genuinely try to put the emotion in, just in the same way that many of my colleagues do.

*talking* about it, arrgh, no. Writing about it, fine.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.
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). And yes, I am aware that the term "unwed mothers" is an old-fashioned one with pejorative connotations. But how did those ever happen? The term looks like a completely objective description to me. If the shoe fits, put it on.
If there are pejorative vestiges, I'm sure the New Woman can live them down.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
George S.: Have you ever tried to read anything by a male teenager?

Enough fan fiction to last a lifetime.

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Come to that, how often have you actually talked about feelings or emotional ideas with another male? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Almost every day.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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.

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
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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."

Which in no way disputes what I just said.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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

And yet these women thought it would be a good idea to have unprotected sex with these men. It seems like a close race here as to who is most childish, irresponsible and brain damaged.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.

And I said explicitly that I believe it is the former. You of course are free to offer evidence to the contrary.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
and remember "outside marriage" also includes those who ARE in a committed relationship with the father, but have no interest in the formalities of "marriage".

My aunt and "uncle" lives this way their entire lives. they had the "betrothal" ceremony (Orthodox) to appease my Grandmother, but otherwise rejected the whole idea of "marriage" as a legal definition. they nevertheless stuck together and raised an amazing child (my cousin), even staying together through some pretty tough times, when many "traditional marriages" break up. That is just one example, and I bring it up not only because this is within my family, but also because they "got married" back in the late 50s early 60s, a time when "traditional marriage" was definitely the norm. so even then, not all "unwed mothers" didn't have dad at home (my uncle was the primary childcare. my aunt is an actress).

I also know many couples who consciously and deliberately choose not to "get married" but still have children and live a typical family life.. no one would guess they were not married if they didn't know. Of course, these (the ones I know) are all upper middle class, well educated folks. I don't know how many of the lower income "unwed mothers" fall into the same category, but I'm guessing it's not a negligible number.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
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.)
It is known to pay significantly less than other jobs that require an equal amount of education and so many men do not pursue a degree in education in the first place. As far as taking what you can get you cannot teach without a degree and accreditation and so it's not a field open to those just looking for something to do.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.

And it couldn't be a mixture of both could it?

In the olden days - before contraception of the kind we're now used to - I guess the main options were: marriage, whether it was the right thing to do or not; unmarried mums ciphoned off into loony bins and other institutions; abandoned and killed babies; home-made abortions and so on.

Is this really an appropriate issue which shows how much more difficult life is for men now, than then?
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
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. [Confused]

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.


Yes, I think you must have.


M.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I think male ego fragility must be fairly widespread...

Anecdote, of course, but I know several single, high-achieving women, and more-than-several single, non-achieving men. In conversation, it seems the majority have not chosen a life alone.

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.

But for all that, my friends at the bottom are not useless - they sure know how to work the system, and how to exploit my (voluntary, adult ed) efforts in making their lives a little more pleasant and interesting. Some days the bedsit in Gorton option starts to look quite inviting...
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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 [Confused] . 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.

Yes.

It has been observed that the children of widows are usually responsible and well-behaved. (Obviously not all.) I knew a boy whose father died when he was seven. He was one of the finest boys I have ever known. I think the important factor is that the child knows that his father did not choose to leave him. If the parents had a loving relationship with each other and with the child, the child willingly takes on more responsibility than most children.

My younger daughter was sixteen when her father died. In the six months after his death, she matured six years' worth.

It's quite likely that what I have just said applies to the children of widowers also, but I have no first-hand information about that.

Moo
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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 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.

That is statistically almost certain. Or at least it was twenty or thirty years ago - the evidence is harder to gather now that a larger proportion of long-term sexual relationships aren't officially registered as marriages. The best evidence comes, or came, from comparing the never-married in each age cohort. Among people in their late teens and twenties those who had never married were on average pretty much the same as those who had married, in things like earnings, education, health, and so on.

But in each successive age group getting older, on average never-married women men gradually began to fall behind. By the time you get (or got) to people in their forties and fifties, the (very small) number of women who had never married on average earned more and were better educated than those who had. The opposite is true of men. The (rather larger) group of never-married men were on average poorer, less educated, and in worse health than men who had married.

As far as I remember this is true - or was true thirty years ago - for both the UK and USA. Its statisticaly very robuist as information comes from census data, so there are huge samples.

Its not clear which way the causality goes of course. The most common explanation is, as said above, that women on average choose to "marry up" - they prefer men who are slightly better-off and slightly better-educated than they are, And slightly older, and slightly taller of course. Again there is good statistical evidence for that, and it seems to happen in pretty much all human societies.

But it is also possible that the health benefits of marriage are greater for men than for women. It certainly seems that men (on average) suffer more from both divorce and widowhood than women do - more likely to lose their jobs, more likely to get seriously depressed, more likely to increase the amount they drink, more likely to die young. Marriage seems on the whole to benefit everybody but it seems to benefit men more.

So it might be that, rather than women rejecting a population of undesirable men who never get the chance to marry, what's actually going on is that those men who for whatever reason never get married become progressively less healthy, and less attractive, as they get older. Of course the two mechanisms aren't mutually exclusive - in fact there might be a positive feedback between them.


Its much harder to see these effects in things like census data now as there are so many peope who are in effect married but calling themselves single (at least when talking to the government)

As for women pretending to be stupider or less well educated than they are so as not to upset men, I can't say I've noticed it that much. And lots of men have no problem at all with intelligent or successful women - I strongly suspect the selection is mostly being the other way, in that successfully women are unlikely to consider (or even notice) men who appear to be socially inferior to them. On the whole, in the absence of arranged marriages, women thend to choose men, noit the other way round.

Also men do it to of course. Its rarely cool to be clever. Especially boys at school. Clever kids soon learn to pretend to know less than they do, as self-protection.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.



ken, the first quote isn't mine, but Alogon's, just to clarify. The second is mine, however.

I think 'role model' and 'formative influence' - at least to my mind - is about simply knowing how men, or women, behave in acceptably and ordinary ways. It doesn't necessarily follow, of course, but for example, I have an idea from observing how my father behaved towards my mother, how a happy marriage can be worked at and built; what compromise, humour, negotiation and patience is needed on both sides for a partnership to succeed.

My father modelled great father-ship and husband-ship - whether anyone noticed it or not. But his contribution was vital. As it happens, I also know that his example of life - as a man - was very important to a number of other young men, too; even if in some cases this influence was only ever fully realized at my father's funeral!

Also, on the other side, it taught me over the years about the kind of behaviour from men that I was not expected to put up with. By my father's modelling of 'manfulness' (or whatever!), I learnt the value of him, his marriage and the value of myself.

As you observed, it doesn't happen overnight. Nothing of permanant worth ever does, perhaps.
 
Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on :
 
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.


Neil LaBute made an iconic film on this very topic.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
There was an episode of "This American Life" in which guy talked about the time when he was a grad student in physics, and he and several other students began calculating the odds of meeting the perfect girl. Then their female professor walked in and joined the conversation, and began figuring the odds of her meeting the man who would suit her. She said she wanted him to be smarter than her. Since she was a Harvard Ph.D. in physics, she had just eliminated at least 99% of the men in the world (though being in the Boston area offsets that slightly, if she's willing to go slumming at MIT).

Another recent NPR piece on the fact that there are increasing numbers of women who earn more than their husbands included a quote from a woman who said that even though she didn't think it was right, she couldn't help respecting her husband less as a man for making less money than she did.

Until that sort of thinking changes, there's going to be a problem.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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!' [Big Grin]

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.

... 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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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 [Smile] . 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 ?

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.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
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.

Agreed. However, types of jobs, whether manual or cerebral, can sometimes end up predominantly one gender. What is specifically a male thing is getting more money for jobs with similar physical and/or cerebral requirements. Pay equity. OliviaG
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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!).

Yes , I did think that too . I mean pre- 1st World war women worked incredidbly hard in service, factory jobs and on farms . Then again were called on for manual labour in the 2nd World war.
My beliefs and values system must be based on 50s ideology (even though I wasn't born then), whereby physical work was the mainly the role of the male .

It shows how quickly attitudes evolve . We are in living in a time where men don't have the uses they had 50 years ago, whether that makes them use-less or not is a matter of opinion.
Here endeth a ramble .
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) 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. They seem to be under the impression that how they look is their only route to any kind of acceptance and success;

Yes, it's pathetic, but the concept is as old as the hills. Only the products aspired to are somewhat new.

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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Yes, that's true, Alogon. My 24 year old nephew can't live without his hair straighteners, fake tan and designer wardrobe. It's probably my age, but I really don't find the pretty-boy make-up look of guys with touseled-styled/gelled hair that attractive! But the fashion imperative when you're young is very strong; sadly including the dieting thing.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
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.

Isn't this simply a return to normality? Look at paintings of men in the Elizabethan age, or of the dandies of the Regency. Just as expensively and extravagantly dressed and made up as the women.

What is odd is that for several generations (Western) men have been confined to mainly very dull clothing.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:

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

We did have the brief period of Glam Rock in the 70s, where male pop stars dressed in a most flamboyant way.

I recall the some guys donning the full Bay City Rollers garb at our local discos , and they were sure to end the evening with a girl on their arm.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Just about the only purpose for Royal males is to dress up in flamboyant and rather weird costumes, even now.

And then, of course, there are the church guys, in their decadent versions of Imperial Roman civil service costumes.

Both of these groups continue to outnumber Glam Rock stars, even if you throw in a few Travoltas and ABBAs.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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.


Didn't Andrew have a 'real' job in the airforce? I thought William and Harry also did things in the coastguard and army?

Mind you, Prince Charles's de rigeur wide-lapel double-breasted older-than-Moses suit is pretty weird.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.

I think it depends on the culture. Not everywhere is likely to be the same.

It has been said that in certain Western, traditionally 'working class' communities men without education or serious employment prospects have become expendable to their womenfolk, because the state provides everything that these men might once have worked to give to their families. And marriage or cohabitation would make these families worse off in some cases, because there would be a reduction in the mothers' benefits. So really, these men can give their girlfriends babies, and that's it. But their girlfriends don't really expect much more from them anyway.

The decline of marriage among poor African American families is an example of the expendability of men, as is the declining rate of marriage in traditionally white, working class communities in the UK.

Of course, we could say that being poor doesn't mean a man can't contribute something positive to his children's life. True. And some of the fathers may not be far away. But when a community becomes demoralised, it must be very difficult for a more or less absent father to transmit positive values, especially if he's not convinced of them himself.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0