This is a response to the following article in Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-1,00.html
First of all I hate the title because it’s reminiscent of a question that I have to ask all the time, why is it so unimportant what men want?
But anyway, here we go.
“It’s expected that by the end of the year, for the first time in history the majority of workers in the U.S. will be women”
Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that when middle management, who is usually a guy is forced to choose who to lay off he chooses to keep the cute girl around.
And who can blame him? Everything about our media makes that choice easy for men. Indeed we regularly ridicule people for not choosing sexy.
Anyone who’s ever been unemployed for a long period of time and has gone to businesses with signs in the window saying help-wanted knows that especially at the entry-level you are very likely to return to find the job filled by an attractive young woman because women who are attractive sell product and they provide hope for their immediate managers who are often just a step above the typical guy trying to make his way.
“Their buying power has never been greater — and their choices have seldom been harder.”
Only in the corporate context of profit maximization, the non-choices facing men are a million times more difficult.
“In terms of real power — economic and political — we are still just beginning…”
Women have a huge advantage genetically, they carry offspring, they choose the mate, is a well known and established biological fact that females are the engine that drives speciation. That being said equal economic and political power coupled with its built-in advantage would equal female supremacy. this in addition to the princess-victim tendencies in our legal system and in our thinking about what constitutes abuse is leading to an era as oppressive to men culturally as past decades were to women.
“In 1972 only 7% of students playing high school sports were girls; now the number is six times as high.”
And yet they still play separately I don’t see any women in the New York Giants.
“The female dropout rate has fallen in half. College campuses used to be almost 60-40 male; now the ratio has reversed, and close to half of law and medical degrees go to women, up from fewer than 10% in 1970.”
That’s because there are a million aid groups that are only open to women not to mention the fact that the same system that drives managers to choose pretty girls when hiring also aids women in educational situations, such as when a limited number of slots are available for a given degree program.
There is also the fact that when it becomes clear that finding a mate of sufficient earning power is going to be a factor in your future happiness college is not a bad place to go looking. Oh but of course I’m a woman hating sexist for saying that, since surely only misogyny could lead one to conclude that attractive young women think ahead and will be willing to exploit an obvious and socially encouraged opportunity.
“three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women”
Yeah and Sarah Palin got into politics because of her intelligence right? Almost everything in America now is easier for women than it is for men.
“There are more than 145 foundations designed to empower women around the world, in the belief that this is the greatest possible weapon against poverty and disease; there was only one major foundation (the Ms. Foundation) for women in 1972.”
And how many are there for men? But I’ll bet you instantly found some way to make that not count, right? Big tough strong men don’t need any kind of defense or help, right?
“and they still earn 77 cents on the dollar compared with men”
Yet there’s no way to calculate how much of that dollar that went to a man a woman in turn gets to spend or is spent on women without their asking. Go survey men and find out why they try and make money in the 1st place. Go ask them what’s the first perk of success.
With society shouting at the top of its breath to every man that family is the most important thing in the universe is it really so shocking to think that around half of the money that men spend goes towards a woman and what is in effect her children since when it comes time for her to leave she can in most cases take them with her thanks to custody victory trends?
In a culture dominated by marriage and asset sharing its unfair to simply break it down by who makes the most per hour. Ironically when it comes time to hand out money the system is well aware of the disparity of which I speak. For example my mother who went blind in one eye is unable to get disability despite the fact that she lost her career as a result of a disability, because her husband makes too much money. Why does society say she doesn’t need it because her man has some? Why does society assume his money even applies to her? Because its obvious. If a man has money and the woman he loves needs it, she’ll get it. And yet when it comes time to calculate who makes more for purposes of the gender debate, suddenly their assets are perfectly separate divided along gender lines. This is intellectually dishonest and paints a warped picture of reality.
“Poll after poll finds women even more anxious than men about their family’s financial security.”
That’s because men on a fundamental psychological level thanks to constant training understand that money is a means to an end and regardless of what happens unless they cut throats and become brutal rich they’re going work for their whole lives.
Indeed part of the definition of being a man is hard work and in all areas self denial outside Orwellian social activities.
Emotional equality among teens has led to a whole new classification for men who break this rule and decide to accept themselves and their emotional position, “emo”.
Men are used to being scolded for being human and having emotions and expressing them. Men are expected to put on a strong face. A statistic that is important here, among others that are ignored, is the rise of family annihilators. Men are under growing pressure with shrinking options for releasing that pressure.
Pressure so great it causes some of them to have a full-blown psychotic break.
“A new survey by GfK Roper for NBC Universal gives a whole new meaning to the power of the purse: 65% of women reported being their family’s chief financial planner, and 71% called themselves the family accountant.”
How would this not be decried as sexist if the roles were reversed? Honestly how would you react to the statement coming from a husband: “I control my wife’s check because I’m the family accountant?” Would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously? If so you’re in the minority.
“they make 75% of the buying decisions in American homes. Together, women control more wealth than ever in history.”
Remember what I just said about women getting to spend the money? Kind of makes the dollar per hour calculation meaningless doesn’t it.
“More than 8 in 10 say mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers are.”
Which is unfair to mothers because they still are required for the same traditional reasons that make men mow the lawn to handle domestic issues. Since I keep having to announce the obvious I’ll take this opportunity to say that I realize that women don’t live on easy street. I’m just saying they have a number of serious advantages and that maybe we should consider scrapping all this defend women because they’re women stuff, maybe we should just defend people because they’re people.
“more men than women identified marriage as “very important” to their happiness.”
This is simply a reflection of the fact that all society tells men they are utterly worthless if they have no wife or girlfriend. What is the one trait all society agrees on a loser by definition should have if not singularity? Society trains men to want to own a woman just like owning a car. Marriage is exactly how that’s done. Higher income, hotter mate.
Walk down the street and calculate how much a given hot chick you see costs per month, and no I’m not calling her a whore I’m just saying how much does the life to which she is accustomed cost her mate. Yes I recognize this expenditure is voluntary but then again does it matter? If her mate chooses not to spend she’ll choose a different mate which is entirely her right but that still changes nothing, the end result is that pretty girls cost per month or you do without.
And she doesn’t cost per month in dollars she’ll cost per month in labor, again voluntary, but again easily replaced.
The attitude of well if you don’t like it you can just quit or you can find someone different is what allows oppression to occur on its current massive scale. For example lets say I want a 3 foot mohawk and I want to be a successful trial lawyer as well and I apply to law school with my 3 foot purple mohawk and they tell me to piss off, who you gonna blame? Exactly.
Just as we have a de facto national dress code when it comes to success in the business world, we have a de facto code of conduct when it comes to gender relations.
“The percentage of children born to single women has leaped from 12% to 39%.”
It is so not that simple. For one how many of those are accidents? How many of those accidents are a result of bizarre religious beliefs?
“Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy. No tidy theory explains the trend”
I have a tidy theory to explain it but of course it’ll be immediately dismissed as sexism. The fact is being taken care of can be awesome. For full explanations of how that is and how that can work in the modern context one has to look no further than the DS community or your local church.
Willful submission bringing happiness is a common theme in patriotism and religion, being a part of something greater than oneself is rewarding but in order to accomplish that you must first find something or create something greater than yourself. For women for the bulk of human history that has been easy, look no farther than your nearest man.
Men in turn were expected to turn to God or government, or less commonly a cause or a pursuit. But when you talk about it as a general human fact especially in the context of gender relations oh all of the sudden the assumption is that equality is always better, well maybe not.
What does society think of a man who openly says I want to be stay at home, I want to be a house husband, I want to be kept?
The fact is women have pushed into a situation that totally sucks and they didn’t even contemplate that it could have sucked because the grass is always greener.
It’s not about man versus woman it’s about rich versus poor and women are now starting to be exploited directly in the same way that men have been for centuries.
The sad fact is moving often doesn’t make things suck less it makes things suck differently.
“What needs to be done to free American men to realize their full potential?”
Make discrimination even at an organizational level illegal. I mean not so much as a question Circle one, M or F. Unisex bathrooms. Make gender and defined scholarships illegal.
Truly level the playing field and don’t protest when trends emerge. Not everything left to its own devices is going to break down 1 to 1.
If you don’t want sex to be a factor don’t make it a factor its that simple.
Get the state out of the bedroom.