The Purloined Household

So I'm watching this PBS documentary the other night on the role of men in relation to their household status in television. The show Primetime in America is one of my favorites because I've worked on some of these shows and I'm a media junkie in this regard. Anyway, it got me thinking because it wasn't too long ago that I was struggling with the whole "what does it mean to be a real man" thing.

As I look across the scope of television, movies and social structures as a whole, I see this odd shift in America. Men have always been conditioned to be the hunters and gatherers and are conditioned to sack up and do whatever it takes to provide and protect. It used to be that the man went to work, the woman stayed home and was basically a servant. Then it shifted towards both sexes working side by side in full time jobs. Now, I have zero problems with women working and the impact on family life is another discussion completely, so let's not drag this through some weird sexist rabbit trail. It seems to me, in America at least, that I'm seeing more and more stay at home dads while the woman takes on the role of hunting and gathering. Naturally, based on the conditioning of men and what we are told through our entire lives, this is something that must be a struggle.

My point of contention here is, does this really matter in the end? Should a man fall victim to the societal pressures based on pre-conceived notions of what he's supposed to be? I think that if a man is forced to be a stay at home dad for financial, physical or mental reasons, then that man should still understand that he's providing a service to his family and should therefore continue to see himself in a hunter and gatherer light. I'm not in that situation so I could be glossing over the situation, but it just seems like it shouldn't be that difficult of a transition once you get your head wrapped around it.

Television and movies often showcase the structures in America, which this particular documentary was great at showing in this case, but I felt that it sort of made it too much of a struggle in the end. It took on more of a "It has to suck to be a man these days because it's too damn confusing" role. While it's certainly no easy task to be a man, the same can be said for the "fairer" sex. It's just not easy being any human being.

Ok, fuck. I'm not entirely sure where I was going with this..

So, what say ye? Has the household been stolen by women or is this just some vain attempt for man to feel vindicated in his quest to control a household?

If you're interested in the documentary which may help.. here ya go:

http://video.pbs.org/video/2163770656

 

I know a few couples where this works very well. I do think it really is dependant upon how accepting of this the man is. Not sure that I could do it, but I was never put in that position so I'll never know for sure.

And is this type of an arrangement all that different than when the wife dies young leaving a family behind to be raised by the husband? I am very familiar with a situation like that. It worked out OK.

 

The man still has to 'sack up' and do what is necessary to keep his family going. If that's dishes and soccer games, then so be it. I think women have also always done this, but haven't had to prove so much that they were 'real' women, as the men had to prove they were 'real' men. We do what we have to do, if we care.

 

Not to sound snooty or anything but this topic is discussed at length here. Do we really need 2 "what are the roles of men and women" threads?

 

Really? Because from about page 2-7 the thread discusses almost exclusively the evolving roles of men and women in the home and outside of it. Everything I have to say about the OP here, is in the thread I linked to.

 

Ok...

 

This thread is not just about the roles in the household, but also to shed light on if television and movies accurately portray this perceived shift and/or direct a shift in thinking/changes.

So yeah, you sound snooty Eddie . The mods are quite capable of merging/deleting/moving as they see fit. Based on the fact that it hasn't been done, try responding to the actual thread in a little detail instead of pointing out a similar but altogether different thread. Perhaps I should have placed it in Entertainment..maybe that would have been black and white enough for you to understand the difference.

Anyway, Baraka_Guru - I agree that sacking up is going to require a person to do whatever is necessary for the success of the household. Based on current television and movies however, there is a unique new ideal that a man is no longer a rock or macho figure, but is supposed to be sensitive, gainfully employed, educated and often times obese. While there certainly isn't anything wrong with being sensitive to the needs of your partner and/or family, it seems (to me at least) that is an area where a man could certainly struggle because of the bravo heroism ideal that is constantly beaten into our brains. Granted, men accomplish the task of merging the two ideals on a consistent basis..and on a daily basis, but television seems to be pointing to the extreme end of the spectrum. Maybe I only see it because that's what I do all day. :shrug:

I certainly don't believe women are stealing households, but I can see how it would be a unique shift and a hard pill to swallow for those who relish the 50's ideals. I think any time a time honored stereotype is 'dismantled', there is bound to be confusion and rebellion..especially when it concerns the prideful but easily bruised gender.

 

Ok, I'll rehash some of what I wrote in the other thread.

Since the beginning of mankind, up until the feminist movement took hold in western society, the roles of men and women had been clear. The reason that the roles of men and women had been the same since the dawn of man is because, up until the feminist movement, humans lived according to their natural, inherent strengths. Men are physically stronger and women are better nurtures and naturally equipped with the ability to feed their children.

In order to justify the unnatural shift that the feminist movement demands, you started seeing tv shows portray the man as weak and the woman as strong. You started seeing the man as the more emotional sex and woman as the more objective one. And slowly and surely the liberal entertainment industry started shoving the reversed man/woman roles in our faces until it seems normal.

 

Eddie

So, let me make sure I understand you correctly- you're blaming liberals for the perceived shift of genders correct? Are you also implying that conservative media such as Faux News et all are still accurately portraying American life in where the man is a beer swigging, hard working, over-zealous patriot who forces his wife to only talk when spoken to and demands dinner on the table when he walks through the door? Even further, are you implying that by liberal entertainment portraying women as being strong, that is somehow has forced the man into a weak role and that women aren't strong and shouldn't be strong in order for the conservative movement to thrive?

If a man is capable of handling his household in a non-traditional role i.e. cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids, is he weaker than the man who goes to a job he hates, never sees his family and dies with nothing more than a few bucks in the bank? Or is that just the liberal media talking and making this abnormal? I'd venture that man is actually stronger because he doesn't feel the need to please the sheep and follow their ideals. He can balance his home life and his own convictions no matter who is making the money.

I think, if anything, the "liberal" media is accurately portraying the fact that men are starting to see that the ideals pounded into their heads as children was nothing more than a farce and their consequent struggles to adapt and change in order to not only hunt, but to gather as well. They no longer need to be the forceful and blunt object that resists change, but an instrument of change that helps them cope and take care of their families in other ways than purely financial.

Case in point, I have an extremely conservative father, he pounded this idea into my head on a daily basis (thank you United States Military) and guess what? He's nothing more than a father by title who has never spent time with me or my brother in any real sense of the word and often sees his grandchildren as a burden. He's never home, he has money in the bank, and he's aging rapidly. I however, have more money in the bank, spend more than adequate and acceptable time with my kids and wife and enjoy life to a much fuller extent than he has. However, he sees me as a mouthy liberal who doesn't understand the world around me and how it works. That seems like an awfully lonely concept does it not?

I'm not even going to pretend I lump every conservative into this category, but Eddie you aren't helping that cause with those comments in any way. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm independent and follow the ideals and concepts that fit me and mine the best. I just don't subscribe to some blanket concept and force it upon my family.

 

Eddie, if you see something that you think should be merged or has already been covered well elsewhere, report the post. It will get seen sooner and you won't send the thread off on a useless tangent. There are at least 3 posts now that could be deleted.

I completely disagree with the "traditional roles" argument, namely because different society treated men and women differently. There were some Southwestern Indian tribes (using the term they prefer for themselves) where leadership was split between men and women - with men deciding when to go to war and women decided pretty much everything else. There's significant evidence that both sexes do the "gathering" in hunter/gatherer societies and that most look at meat as a luxury, although not as much in places that are notoriously protein-deficient (e.g. the Amazon). There's also considerable evidence of female scholars in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

Men and women are essentially the same emotionally. Pretending that the entirity of human history up until the beginning of feminism (which began when, exactly) was a static split of gender roles ignores basic historical facts.

 

Nope. Try reading my post...then comment.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 6:20 PM ---

Nope. 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

Read more: http://www.thetfp.com/threads/are-men-in-trouble.1754/page-6#ixzz1d8hQJ5qt​

--- merged: Nov 8, 2011 6:22 PM ---

A useless tangent? You mean like the one the mods sent my 9/11 thread onto until I steered it back to the OP?

 

As a person of the male persuasion, I welcome all trends towards Increasingly flexible gender roles in the family. I know families where the man is in the more traditional role and it just seems to make everyone miserable- the man thinks he's doing everyone a favor by miserably working long hours away from the family to bring home the bacon, while the woman might prefer less bacon if it meant more time with the man home. Both folks are living up to someone else's expectations and can't seem to figure out how to make things work in a more satisfying way. Anecdotal, I know.

My experience has been that staying at home can be just as exhausting and stressful as going to work, and also as rewarding. I like work and I like my kids and I would gladly work less to have more family time if my quality of life was preserved. It has nothing to do with the obligations of having a penis.

 

Since I'm apparently completely dense.. expand on this if this statement isn't placing blame on liberal media for perceived gender role shifts. The word shove implies that the liberal media forced this change of ideal which would naturally lead to the blame argument by conservatives.

Now, I've read your post several times (even before my last post) and I'm still coming to the same conclusion. Again, you've missed the point and you insist on using blanket stereotypes to bolster the argument and then when asked to clarify, you resort to your now famous snooty ways. So perhaps it's you who should go back and read..and if you fail again, thanks for playing..all contests will receive a parting gift courtesy of MSNBC.

Anyway, I think most people relate heavily back to the "age" of feminism merely because of the time period it dominated the airwaves. If the documentary was watched --fancy that-- it would be apparent that it was linked in with the multitude of other issues that America was facing at the time and naturally, when all of these issues were being faced, movements will be remembered. Just like in today's America and around the world, movements and times will be remembered because a rebirth is going to happen one way or another. It could be a civil birth or it could be a bloody birth, but it will be remembered.

 

Firstly, I implied no perceived shift. The shift is real. Secondly, I didn't blame the liberal media for the shift, I blamed the feminist movement. The liberal media simply continues to reinforce the feminist, liberal agenda.

 

Methinks someone needs to read some anthropological studies of ancient cultures, especially the hunter/gatherers, and learn that gender roles are not static, and 'feminism' is nothing remotely new.

 

Name me 3 past cultures that promoted the woman leaving the children at home with the man while she goes to work.

 

Firstly, you would have to believe that every household was of the persuasion that you seem to hold close to the breast before the "liberal feminist" movement. If a media outlet enforces an idea and "shoves" it down the throat of America..is there no blame to be placed there? Considering both are labeled as liberal by you, then they kind of walk hand in hand, but it's cool. I wanna be just like Rush and pop mass quantities every day.

While I wasn't around in the 50's, I was never so naive to believe that shows such as Father Knows Best et al were an accurate portrayal of American society and the family structure. While there were certainly differences in that generation and this one, to be on either side of the extreme spectrum shows a complete lack of understanding of the subtleties of the family structure and the issues that arise out of it.