Are Men in Trouble?

I better ring my mum and tell her I'm never visiting again then. I hate to think of how long the 7 hour car trip will take in a cart

 

You should live closer to your mom. I guess family just isn't that important anymore in today's fast-paced world.

 

Everything that's wrong with society is feminism's fault? I think that most of these problems are problems of unregulated capitalism. It isn't feminism's fault that both parents have to work 40 hours a week to make the same inflation-adjust amount of money that one parent did in the 60s. Debt and poverty were around long before feminism, hello great depression? And holy shit, feminism is a risk factor for obesity, ADHD, suicide and depression? Have you informed NIH? They're currently throwing money down the toilet studying these things when you've got it all figured out already.

 

Ah, the old "we can't make it unless we both work" excuse. Listen, if Americans weren't such materialistic, shallow consumers only one parent would have to work while the other takes care of the children and the home. But noooo. We just have to have that house that's too big, cars that are too expensive, iPhones, flat screen tv's, brand name clothes for the kids, xbox, countless plastic toys, expensive vacations, etc. Forget the days of getting by with exactly what you need and putting family first...we gotta get those women out there workin'. It's their right, and by God, they're gonna do it.

 

I'm 41 - I don't really need to be tied to living within an hour of my mum, tied to the small number of relatively dead end jobs that come with living in such a small community. I still talk to my parents every week and see them 4 or 5 times a year. Plus I have a car to make the distance smaller
--- merged: Oct 27, 2011 2:35 AM ---

I'm with you on this one, though have no real reason for it being the woman who is left to be a home maker. I know at least two stay at home dads. My wife and I manage to survive on a single income - it is not mission impossible.

 

Oh come on. Are you serious or are you just trying to maintain your cred with the women around here? Women are clearly the ones naturally equipped to care for and nurture children. There's a reason they produce breast milk, ya know...among other things women naturally do better than men in regards to caring for children. But of course feminism has programmed us all to believe that women are the same as men.

 

I never said men couldn't be nurturers, did I? I simply reminded people that women are naturally, physically better equipped to care for and nurture children. Women on average have a larger limbic system which allows them to better empathize and relate to the feelings of others. There are many more differences in the female brain that allow them exceptional abilities in nurturing...

http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69

 

I'm not drawing moral conclusions. I'm stating scientifically proven facts about the physical differences between men and women and how those differences determine our roles. Look at any dual gender mammalian species. Their natural roles fit the distinct differences of the sexes.

 

Actually, from an economic perspective, the Feminist emancipation is the primary reason both parents ended up having to work to make ends meet. When you add an amount equal or greater of the existing labour force into an economy without a minimum corresponding 70% growth in nominal GDP and with the existence of >3% annual inflation, average labour wages decrease dramatically, ipso facto forcing both parents of a working-class to lower middle-class household to work as one source of income will often prove to be insufficient.

From that basis onwards, it is fairly easy to blame women on all the social implications that resulted from the status quo of both parents not being home.

 

How can you prove this? It's a correlation. Many things have changed over the last century.

 

While the economic reasons are by far not the sole grounds the aforementioned status quo was established, they are the primary reason for it. The financial household of a family has a tremendous influence on the average person's decision-making.

If you're asking about the social implications, I don't really care for them. I do see a connection between the two, but I wouldn't blame the general Feminist movement and the emancipation of women. I blame feminist extremists on some of the negative social implications that resulted for men.

 

But women entering the workforce was a gradual phenomenon that took place over the better part of a century. At which time the industrial revolution waxed and waned, several wars took place and the process of 'globalization' was first instigated and then exploded. All of these factors and more also had a direct impact on the household finances of american lower-middle class families. Not to mention the drastic changes that were made in public education, health care, business, social work and countless other purviews that practically mandated the need for women to work outside of the home. Its a 24-hour world and a superpower cannot subsist on the labors of its men alone. Everyone has a share in the current state of affairs and only the ignorant would think that 'america' could have ever been what it is/was without the thoughts and labor of its women. I think your view is narrow and wistful. Women didn't create this machine. We've just been sucked into it like everyone else.
--- merged: Oct 27, 2011 7:48 AM ---
As for 'feminist extremists,' I say suck it up. Any man who can't suffer a 'feminist extremist' without his balls intact wasn't much of a man to begin with.

 

More sourceless assertions dressed up as facts? Quick, Eddie, what's the cost of living for a family of four in ________? Here's a hint: its quite possibly more than the median income in the United States. And what about the fact that both parents have to work to have the same purchasing power as one parent working did 50 years ago? There weren't iphones then. There weren't video games then. People weren't less materialistic then. We have families working more for the same amount of money, and you assume that it's their fault because they're spending all that extra money that they aren't actually making on stuff? I don't think that that makes sense.

While I understand the basic idea of what you're saying, I'm curious as to how you arrived at your fairly specific numbers. Why wouldn't an increase in the number or people in the workforce, over time, have resulted in an increase in the purchasing power of the average family resulting in economic production and growth? I think I saw a chart once that showed that productivity has been increasing reliably over the past several decades while wages have not. What does that imply?

Is it also equally valid, from an economic perspective, to blame black people, since the civil rights movement ultimately gave them access to more jobs? I know that sounds like a loaded question, but I'm honestly curious. Is the economic perspective you presented a consensus perspective, or are there alternative explanations favored by other economists?

I think that the idea that society was somehow nearly perfect, or that there weren't a whole host of existing social problems prior to the feminist movement isn't accurate. I seem to recall reading that teenage pregnancy was higher in the 50s than it was in the 90s (though I'm too lazy to hunt for a supporting citation).

Depression has likely always existed, and it I find it plausible that any perceived increases in prevalence of depression in the latter half of the 20th century are the result of the general acceptance of the existence of depression as a diagnosable illness and not some feminist-inflicted malady.

Do we have accurate figures for abortions pre-Roe v Wade? I doubt it. The way my mom tells it, abortions were something those with means could easily have done by taking a vacation to an abortion-friendly foreign country while poorer folk had to make do with ad-hoc methods - neither of these routes are subject to adequate epidemiological surveillance.

What about divorce rates? Well, I'd be hard pressed to not give at least some credit to the feminist movement for an increase in those. However, I also think that each divorce represents a decision by consenting adults about who they want to be in a relationship with. As such, an increase in the divorce rate likely just means that fewer people are staying in shitty relationships out of fealty to the superficial expectations of an overly-religious society. I think that this is a good thing.

Obesity? Ha! Is the argument on this that obesity has nothing to do with all the cheap shitty food we eat and everything to do with the fact that women aren't stuck at home as the member of the household whose responsibility it is to cook the cheap shitty food for everyone to eat?

School shootings? I don't know. Were children less shitty to each other when mom was stuck at home? I doubt it. Perhaps there were fewer shootings prior to the feminist movement, but again, why would having mom at home affect whether junior decides to bring a gun to school?

I think blaming feminism for things like this is at best a gross oversimplification and at worst a self-serving rationalization.

 

Complain and blame feminism and the rise of women in the workplace for all the social ills all you want. It won't change the fact that this is what it is now and we've got to make the best of it. (In case some of you are stuck on the notion that women will ever consent to going back to the way things used to be)

It would seem that, when there's complaining to be done about it, it is usually men complaining.

 

Thank God I'm tutoring right now. Otherwise I couldn't find time to respond to any of this.

mixedmedia

1. WW2 was fundamental in causing the Feminist movement to take off. While gender discrimination has existed throughout European history and migrated with the early colonists to North America, when WW2 (and to some degree WW1) required women to work in factories as the men were fighting the war(s), women were put in a position of active strength for the first time in their lives. This marked a very significant turning point in the collective mentality of women, many of whom found it unreasonable to go back to their old lifestyle of being housewives and being denied career opportunities.

2. The decision to improve the quality and access to public education for women was a mix of economics and a politics. Economically, a higher average education level in an economy's population has a plethora of benefits.

3. I wouldn't agree with your statement that women did not create the changed configuration of the machine. Yes, the machine existed, and yes the machine needed women to work outside of their household during the wars, but once the men returned from active duty and whatnot associated with WW2, the marginal necessity for women to work decreased. The mentioned collective change in mentality mentioned in Point 1 had a large influence on the expansion of the Feminist movement and the subsequent lobbying for women to be enabled to work, should they wish to.

4. I'm not talking about the situation you mentioned. I'm talking about the effect feminist extremists had/have on all men in Western society. I tried to find the relevant thread where I discussed this with Zen, but wasn't able to. The main gist of it all is that feminist extremists did not stop at the notion of equality, but instead aimed for and caused inequality to the detriment of men. I cited social stigma put on young boys in Germany and a ridiculously biased Family Law code in Australia.

Bodkin van Horn

1. On this one, I'll skip the first third of your reply and address the remaining two-thirds: As I mentioned to mixedmedia before, I see a connection between the economic implications and the social implications, but I wouldn't blame the Feminist movement or the social and financial emancipation of women.

2. The 70% figure is a guesstimate of mine. I went with the rough assumption that households could take a income decrease of up to 30% before becoming unable to pay their bills.

2. It is accepted economic theorem that an inflationary situation above >3% is one to be avoided as the price-rises start to become uncontrollable, if appropriate fiscal policy is not implemented hinder inflationary build-up. Most Western countries experienced said situation during the rough periods of 1950 - 1980 and 1990-2007.

3. Regarding purchasing power: When you have twice the original labor force but not a proportionate increase in an economy's nominal GDP, labor wages decrease significantly. When productivity increases (which a higher amount of labor usually does until we enter Diminishing Marginal Returns or Diseconomies of scale) but stagnant labor wages, it points to three possibilities.
A. Unions are weak and cannot successfully lobby employer (for wage increases) and the Government (for implementing policies such as Minimum wage)
B. Marginal revenue per unit produced has decreased
C. Average fixed costs (land/capital) have increased

4. The issue of reduced workplace discrimination of black people may have been another economic factor, but I doubt it. Unless all black men were not allowed to work, or did not receive compensation for their work, the effect of black men officially entering the workforce should be negligible. They were likely back then what the illegal Mexian aliens are to the US now: underpaid and no official recognition, but still contributed in a meaningful manner to the nation's GDP. This whole point here is conjecture, though.

5. There are always alternative economic views. What I present to you here is part of the orthodox paradigm of Economics, though.

All I can write on this so far, will have to pick it up later.

 

Bordering on misogyny.

Speak for yourself and while you're at it, read the OP.

 

Remixer

I think you are ignoring the entire economic history of america post WWII. or are you suggesting that we would be a 'smaller' world today if women had stayed at home. I would:
1. beg to differ
2. wonder if that would be what most men want

 

Yes, men are trouble.