Are Men in Trouble?

mixedmedia

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing either point.

I'm simply stating a basis due to which social change has occurred in the West, which then led to the Feminist Movement taking off.

Men (and some women) who oppose the Feminist Movement's effects on Western society do have a reasonable basis to make the correlation and see "women" as one of the major causes.

Whether the opinions of either of the two sides (Pro vs Contra Feminism) are right, is none of my concern. I don't subscribe to this discussion, really.

 

...Huh?

What in the world do these things in particular have to do with feminism?

 

No. This is actually completely off the mark.
First of all, women for the most part started working more in different sectors of the economy. You can't blame wage stagnation in manufacturing because more women started working in education, for example.
Second of all, for the most part the main reason for the stagnation in real wages in the US is the reorganization of the world economy. Manufacturing jobs going overseas and the US becoming more of a service economy. The chasing of lower labor costs elsewhere is certainly not driven by female labor force participation in the US.

 

Well, perhaps I am misunderstanding you. But maybe not since you have admitted that your supposition is based on a correlation and not rooted in irrefutable economic realities. Correlations are very easy to make. One could just as easily say that post-civil war Emancipation or the Industrial Revolution or the advent of Globalization is to blame. Unless, of course, one preferred to blame women.

 

If I may, with respect to concern for either (or both) of the sexes being in trouble with all the changes at work in modern society, I propose the main takeaway for this thread can be summarized in either of the following statements:

Adapt or perish.

or, more to the point:

Put on your big girl panties and deal with it.

 

I'm not wearing any underwear.

 

Yes, well...that is quite a correlation. You've managed to come in the back door and find your way out the front without crossing any rooms to get there. Magical.

If recollection serves me, the feminist movement was and always has been, at it's core, about choices. Back in the 70's and 80's when the movement was in full swing and women were really starting to take advantage of such choices, women who chose the traditional route were still able to do so without the same economic pressures they have today. The choice some women made to seek a higher education and work at a career, they were able to make for the purely personal reason of self-fulfillment. The labor market, at that time, was well able to handle the influx. I would be interested in seeing evidence that it resulted in burdening the then existing labor market and decreased wages, overall.

Of course, the whole lovely idea of choice began to fade during the Reagan years and has continued to present day. Conservative economic policies were and are the catalyst for decreasing wages, floundering unions, higher costs of living, and a shrinking availability of one wage earner employment opportunities. Women, then and now, who would make the choice to stay home were/are being forced to go out and work to supplement a basic standard of living.

From that basis onward, who is to blame?

 

This is true. Large numbers of poor women, particularly young, unmarried poor women have always worked outside of the home.

 

I can't even count how many points I've scored in this thread.

 

don't be ashamed. it's only because you haven't scored any.

 

Women didn't take the manufacturing jobs from men. Women didn't orchestrate the downsizing or send tech jobs overseas. Unemployment is a major problem for the American male, but its prime cause is not women in the work force.

 

as if I need to "score cred points" with anonymous posters on an internet forum.

 

I like to think of it as a win for the people reading this thread who might have viewpoints sympathetic to yours who, in light of your apparent inability to defend your arguments, may reject those viewpoints entirely. Score one for discrediting your own perspective.

 

If you look back to war times - women built planes and ships - untill the men came back, then, even if they were working widows with children, women were laid off and jobs given back to the men . A sad but positive fact of ww11 - there were more places for women at Oxford and Cambridge, as there were not enough male bottoms left to fill the seats. Daughters took the places lost sons would have had. Standards of education in some women rose because of this. Many women were left to do cleaning and laundry - menial work to keep their children. My auntys dad died on the atlantic convoys. He was an engineer, and she tries not to think of him, trapped in the engine room as it filled with water and his ship went down into cold grey waters. Merchant Navy widows and children did not get the help and support that Navy widows got. Just the way it was. Her mum was the sole provider and breadwinner for two children, and she did the very best she was able, and she might not have had a lot, but she had pride that all that she had done, she had managed alone and been a decent, kind and honest person. Surely thats far more important than a penis or a vagina.
I think we are all in trouble. Outsourcing is certainly causing unemployment - but we buy the goods that have been built through outsourcing, we use companies where customer services is AAron or Adam (they have a name book for their western choice, and usualy dont flip through it much) and they can not understand your question, nor you their answer, but its cheaper, so you stick with the company that uses them. False sort of economy isnt it?