Since the time they were little girls, women have been conditioned to pet the male ego and never dare threaten or bruise it. So as some of these girls become young women, enter college–ambitious to excel in the academia, then go off to the profession of their dreams, they might want to be careful. Especially if they have a longing for a hubby someday, because he might not be interested in a woman who earns more than him. Via Feministing and this study.
Early starts, late nights and endless meetings may be good for the bank balance, but professional women beware. You could be making your husband sick.
Research will this week say that the more committed and successful a woman is at work, the worse her partner feels. The findings blame a syndrome called “unfulfilled husband hypothesis” for making men feel inadequate when women stray too far beyond their traditional roles. The man of the house, it seems, is still not cut out for domesticity.
But never mind the “unfulfilled wife hypothesis,” because if she dares to express nothing but joy over her role as the traditional never male-threatening wife, then she’s a bitch. So unless you’re making less than him, you’re crushing his ego and dooming your relationship to failure. Though, never take into account how you feel about the whole higher-lower income situation because you’re always supposed to be the constant self-sacrificer, not him. He just has to give up having sex with other people.
…Men’s physical and mental health is “significantly poorer when their wives work full-time”, say the authors of the study.
And there’s nothing wrong with wives who have husbands who work full time? Tell that to my sister-in-law and other women. But that’s right, just don’t complain ladies. It’s okay for you to feel inadequate and unfulfilled, but never your hubby.
The report also contends that men are healthier when they earn more than their wives. Wow.
Is men’s health so fragile that it’s dependent on feeling superior to women? If that is the case, it seems to me that the problem isn’t that women work, but that men are massively insecure. Not to mention, I don’t know that feeling inadequate counts as a serious health problem.
Neither do I. But it sounds like a classic case of a guy feeling the sense of lose for his privileges. And the whole emasculation thing which is practically a crime in this culture. So put aside your aspirations for a high-profile career, ladies! Think about that possible Mister Right and his feelings about a woman’s place and proper amount of income. Spinsterhood here I come, because I could care less about some insecure guy’s feelings and ego about how much I make.
wow, it must suck to be a gay man, since you have no hope of having a wife to keep you healthy in the first place.
I wonder if they controlled for SES and all, but I can’t imagine that would make a big difference nowadays . . .
Some of this may be that the men are getting slightly less coddling, so their health represents the efforts of only 1.8 people instead of 2 . . . but yeah.
Men have nothing to contribute to the growth of society except their ability to provide security. All other postive aspects of the community survival can only be provided by women. Sure medicine and science can allow men to provide more, but that is only a recent development in the million or so years of our existence. Evolution takes time. Once men can contribute more positively to the growth of society the feelings of inadequacy will dwindle.
The ironic thing is that men’s only contribution to a community’s well-being is security — from other men.
Back in 1997, I got a higher paying job at the same time my husband was laid off, so he started staying home with our daughter. He did have some problems at first, overcoming the programming that told him he wasn’t a “real man” because he was staying home with a toddler. But he got over it. :D
Human beings have the power of labor. That’s the essence of humanity, and it precedes gender. Gender norms are a blight on humanity.
I have long hated that “frail male ego” thing, because it always seemed to be saying that men’s feelings count more. I mean, my ego has been pretty fricking frail at times too! Not to say that some men won’t have trouble with a woman earning more, but I have a word for them: fools. I have always made more dough than my husband, and we’re going strong and healthy for 14 years.
I’ve always hated the frail male ego thing too. Yes, my ego gets bruised occassionally, but it is not frail. In fact it could be a little less robust.
FWIW, my fiance makes more than me. I think it’s great. More money for us. I like what I do & she likes what she does, so there is not problem there. Also, she is a wonderful cook who make nutrious meals, so I’m also heathier since she came into my life.
Any other guys interested in starting a movement to dump these stupid notions of masculinity?
Besides the frail male ego thing let’s not forget that we don’t know how to clean and cook.
My all-time favorite, so far, is babysitting our kids.
We can go along way in stopping this shit. And I don’t mean just blogging about it either.
Awww, poor unfulfilled husbands whose wives make more money, it breaks my achy breaky heart.
But no worry, I hear Bob Geldof is organising a Live Aid 2 to collect money for this terrible, terrible tragedy of our times.
Actually, the single most ridiculous claim in there has to be this:
But the latest research, published in the journal Patient Education and Counselling, claims that the longer men work, the happier they are.
Riiiight… I must have met only the lazy anticapitalists then.
And did you see the examples they make? Ultra rich executives and financiers, for pete’s sake. Like that’s supposed to be representative of “work”.
I think it’s a spoof. Well, the independent piece at least seemed a little tongue in cheek to me.
Where’s the study on the stress on women who have more housework duties due to husbands with long hours? Bet that doesn’t make us feel great, either. Or does women’s health count?
Yeah, I’m pretty suspiscious of that study. I don’t think most men have a problem with it. I think it would take the pressure off them having to be the main provider.
Put me in the “extremely skeptical” camp. I suspect this is an example of a journalist who has mangled and exagerated a narrow study with limited findings. I might be wrong, but that is my tentative guess.
“Successful wives ‘damage men’s health'”
That says it all, doesn’t it. It’s our fault. Again. Didn’t we get told this garbage enough in the 80’s? 70’s? Every decade? I’m tired of these “new” studies that repeat the same tired old results. People have gender related hang-ups, and they need to get over them. Don’t they have anything better to research?
Maushart’s “Wifework“, published in 2001, investigates this issue quite thoroughly and does indeed reveal that men (as a whole, individuals will vary) are less happy when their wives earn more. Men are also, as a whole, healthier and live longer if they are married. However married women are more depressed and less healthy than single women. Hm, perhaps because they’re consistently earning less than their husbands?
“…making men feel inadequate when women stray too far beyond their traditional roles”
But those “traditional” roles are barely two couple centuries old, and only applied to upper, and later middle, classes. Nothing traditional about the male breadwinner/female homemaker roles. If society could adjust to the radical change to “separate spheres”, they can adjust back to the way things were for centuries before.
Heh. I for one am eating better now thanks to my S/O (he prepares, shops for, and plans most of our dinners, and has been successful in changing my pizza-for-breakfast habit ;-) OTOH, I work with far too many women who are with non-feminist guys who can’t (won’t?) lift a finger around the house or pay attention to their children. These women crab all the time about it, but they always end by tossing up their hands and saying it’s because ‘they’re men‘, as if to say that ALL men are like theirs (hey! mine isn’t!) and that’s what you should expect. They’re also the mothers who are the quickest to stamp out any behavior in their sons that might be ‘sissy’. Mm, could there be a connection?
Good for you guys ^_^
Wish I could say the same, but since my BF began making significantly more than I do (even though I am far better educated), I’ve felt like the traditional ‘little woman’ who relies on her husband/’daddy’ to pay for things. Finding oneself unexpectedly placed in a gender role stereotype like that, thru no one’s fault, can be really bad for one’s self-esteem. Where are the studies investigating that? It feels good being able to pay half – feminists have known this for decades. And since far more women than men are likely to make less than their partners, they should really be doing these studies from the female POV.
“According to the EOC, a growing number of men are complaining about Britain’s long-hours culture.”
Now, this long-hours culture is a serious problem, for both men and women. Americans also suffer from a long-standing disease which is the Puritan work ethic.
I’m tired of these “new”? studies that repeat the same tired old results.
Damn reality for contradicting my comfortable ideology, anyway!
The feelings exist, quite broadly through the species. Should they? I dunno. As long as they do, however, the deeper levels of the feminist project are doomed.
ah-HA! so my plan to rope in a working woman is destined to succeed!!! I would rather my partner, the woman go to work while i cook, clean, do the laundry and write insane rants on my blog. i find those activities relaxing and dont have an ego at all, so no stoking required. it was the result of many many hours of penance and meditation at the himalayas, before you ask.
The feelings exist, quite broadly through the species. Should they? I dunno. As long as they do, however, the deeper levels of the feminist project are doomed.
curious i am as to two (2) questions, Mr. Robert –
question numero uno: wherefore do you come by such “broadly” knowledge anyway?
question numero dos: well, not so much a question (i lied, so sue me) as a passionate & tickled request for you to expand on just how the feminist project has doomed itself by ignoring the hurt feelings of the wubbins (as in: the poooooor wubbins!)
I think there are other possible explanations of the study’s results besides the “fragile male ego” hypothesis. Perhaps when the female works more, the couple has less intimate time together. That means more stress, and consequently reduced health (I wonder if the study measured the health of the women also?). Perhaps when one partner of either sex works more, there will be a negative impact on the health of the other partner.
Either the study is horribly designed and did not control for confounding variables, or the reporting of the study was pitiful.
This doesn’t surprise me. I think I may have Irritable Male Syndrome (IMS) which means I’m cranky a lot lately (I’m being serious). I see my doc about it next week. We really are the more “high maintenance” sex when it comes down to the final analysis. Ugh
question numero uno: wherefore do you come by such “broadly”? knowledge anyway?
Observation of and membership in the human species.
question numero dos: well, not so much a question (i lied, so sue me) as a passionate & tickled request for you to expand on just how the feminist project has doomed itself by ignoring the hurt feelings of the wubbins (as in: the poooooor wubbins!)
I didn’t say “doomed itself”. I said its deeper levels (the radically egalitarian parts) “are doomed”. As for why, it seems simple enough. A movement asking people to fundamentally reorient the way they deal with one another in the interest of fairness and justice has an hard climb ahead of it, but can hope to succeed, proportional to both the justice of its claims and the moral integrity of its audience. When that movement asks people to discard emotional positions that are perceived as strongly positive by their possessors – regardless of how outsiders classify them – then its hopes for progress will be dashed. It may be possible to guilt someone out of their feelings of protectiveness for another person, but the feelings will be replaced by resentment and anger, not egalitarian camaraderie.
I could be wrong, of course, but I suspect that this is why the non-threatening egalitarian parts of feminism (“of COURSE she can be a doctor if that’s what she wants”) have had an uphill, but productive, fight. Because damnit, she ought to be able to be a doctor if that’s what she wants to be, and it’s very difficult to make any kind of case against that. Whereas the don’t-feel-protective-of-women part has gone nowhere fast, as evinced by the decade-after-decade pattern of studies showing that men don’t like it when the women in their lives outperform them, or that high-performing women become less attractive to big chunks of the mating pool.
Well, one thought occurs to me from this study:
Is this study confusing correlation and causation? Wouldn’t an unhealthy man have a tendency to earn less, either because of increased sick leave, or perhaps do to his unhealthiness reducing his ability to do the job well?
It is possible that what is really being detected here is that unhealthy men are more likely to earn less than their wives, or are more likely to have their wives do more work outside the home than they do. There are a lot of reasons why a less healthy man might earn less or work less than a healthy one, and in addition, the wife of such a man might have to have a larger workload because he can’t do as large a share of the work (e.g. a healthy couple might each have 40 hours a week, if one partner can only do 30, the other might have to do 50 to make up for the lost income).
If this is the case, then the study does not actually show that there are any negative effects on male health from a working wife.
The Independent has a habit of bending studies to fit its ideals of men and women as opposites, so I”m not sure we can judge what the study actually says from it.
Hmm. I dont think feminism is doomed as you say it is, Robert. It seems that your position is that is doomed because it yet hasn’t been able to change the old-fashioned views about gender roles (man as a protector, provider and if necessary, a warrior vs. woman as nurturer, caretaker and birthgiver) with more egalitarian, invidualistic view. In effect you are saying “The fight is doomed because you haven’t won yet” (and feminism is so new that only time will tell).
I don’t think thats necessarily true. Maybe in some cases, but you are giving an absolute here.
Also, (this isn’t related to your post but more like my 2 cents) I have a feeling that the rampant deliberate misconceptions about feminism are a big issue in its, well, apparent unpopularity (surprisingly many women and some men who say things that basically are completely feministic need to add “I’m no feminist, but…” in the front). Feminism descibed by its opponents is usually “Andrea Dworkin said all sex is rape!!!?” or “Feminists hate men and want to castrate all of them!!”. It is telling that the opposition feminism faces is so prone to straw-men and other dishonest tactics (as feminism actually is quite reasonable, if sometimes very provocative). But I suppose politics is like that pretty much always, and I am not an expert of feminism…
The original study is a bit dubious too in correlation/causation part (good point Glaivester)and in plenty of other thigs too, but it is consistent with the cultural norms, as people who stray from their traditional roles often feel alienated and inadequate. But there are many other factors to be considered.
And I wouldn’t have a problem with a wife who earns more. I don’t much care who has the bigger paycheck, but more about one or both of us getting a big paycheck ;).
it always seemed to be saying that men’s feelings count more
Wow. How incredibly obtuse. The premise of this comment, along with that of the original study and most of the subsequent comments, are nearly laughable to anyone who actually observes our society. Women have for so long held the right to be irrational, unrelenting, and “quirky” because of their “feelings”. As a gay man, I’ll still point out that men in our society have a great number of expectations placed on them that women simply do not endure. Women have an entire set of expectations placed on them that men don’t suffer. But it would seem that women have far less tolerance for discussion of men’s hardships – and far less respect for men who overcome them – than men must have for their female counterparts. Whatever happened to mutual respect?
And let us not forget: it isn’t just a man’s notion that women have a traditional role to fulfill. Just ask the darling (female) Phyllis Schlafly.
I think the study sounds like a load. But the comments that it precipitated here reflect a bitter bigotry that would be nearly criminal if turned around. So much for equality in society.
Besides, women can wear pants whenever they want. Far be it from a (straight or unambiguously-gendered) man to wear a skirt to a professional meeting without consequence.
…p.s., gay men have no problem with “fragile egos” or “bitches” – we embody both with unencumbered style ;-)
Well, I have a happy, healthy, equal partner for a husband. One of the big ones that we do that seems to gain some awe and shock over is that my husband gets to change about 90% of all of the dirty diapers, while I do – well 100% of the nursing. We joke that I take care of what goes in, he takes care of what goes out. Sure he doesn’t like it, but he values the sacrafices I’ve made with regards to pain, loss of sleep, loss of self at times for the sake of our child, and has no problem helping me do this by taking on his fair share of the grunt work.
It doesn’t take a genious to figure out that the stress that these men feel is based on cultural roles that tell them they need to feel bad, so I don’t feel bad at all in saying ‘piss on it, fuck ’em’ and watching (and hopefully mirroring) my own husband shine brightly as a man among men and women to be proud of. He takes on previously touted female tasks without any concern over whether his ‘masculinity’ will be damaged, and lemme tell ya, he’s one amazing, smart, masculine, feminine, kind, sexy muthah fuckah – well, at least when least when we get the opportunity – but that’s a whole other issue that comes along with childrearing. He’s a stress-free guy when it comes to that sort of crap, which lets him stress over important things that really matter.
Um, Court, this isn’t a “right”. It’s a stereotype foisted on women since time immemorial. “Your opinions don’t count because you are irrational and you are a woman. You are emotional therefore we shall ignore you because emotion doesn’t count.”
This study is bunk because it suggests that WOMEN need to fulfil stereotypical gender stereotypes to keep men healthy. What we’re saying is that this is B.S.
Yes, men have problems too. Real problems. But this study is suggesting that these are women’s problem. Because women aren’t being nurturing enough now they’ve gone to work. Unpack all the assumptions in that story and you’ll start to see it’s all about what’s wrong with women who don’t conform to a certain gender stereotype.
Wouldn’t it behoove all of us to work fewer hours and pay more attention to our loved ones? Aren’t women who’s partner works long hours equally liable to feel lonely and unhappy, and possibly sick? Shoudln’t any relationship be based around feelings of equality and respect rather than jealousy and competitiveness, who earns more etc etc.
Why does it have to be a woman’s job to “support” her man while he brings home the bacon? Haven’t we moved on from this yet?
But it would seem that women have far less tolerance for discussion of men’s hardships – and far less respect for men who overcome them – than men must have for their female counterparts.
Did you ever stop to wonder why that might be, other than the girls being big ol’ meanies?
Kate:
You’re absolutely right about all of us centering more about the things that really matter in life: our loved ones. There’s no doubt about that, and I agree with you completely that this study seems to place causality where none can be legitimately found. I just want to make sure that somebody is standing up for the men here, because they’re (really) not as bad as they’re made out to be…
mythago:
Yes, but my conclusion wasn’t that women are necessarily mean. I just think our culture embraces the notion that men haven’t any social pressures or concerns or insecurities or -even- feelings. For some reason, men – almost to a man – put up with such tripe. I don’t feel particularly persecuted by it, but on behalf of all the excellent men in this world, I’m standing up :-)
The study is located here, but you have to have a membership to the American Journal of Sociology to access it.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/323151
I thought this sentence in the abstract was telling:
“Empirical analyses are based on 1986 and 1989 longitudinal U.S. data.”
The data is nearly 20 years old.
It also says that husband’s long work hours don’t affect their wives. I don’t think so. Many men complain that their long work hours cut into their enjoyment of their families and lives. I would love to read that study, but I have a feeling I have to have a paid subscription to that Journal to read it. The study not only promotes negative stereotypes about women, it reinforces negative stereotypes about men.
A “syndrome” called “unfulfilled husband hypothesis”? More junk science not recognized by the reputable sociological or psychological community. Sometimes I think researchers just make this shit up.
You know, this sort of attitude is about the clearest illustration I can find of how ridiculous the whole evo-devo bullshit theories on society and human behaviour are.
The above is clearly a hyper-male fantasy about how society really works, based entirely on theorising about what evolution *ought* to produce rather than getting off your ass, getting out onto the streets, and using eyes, ears and brain to actually SEE what happens between and amongst human beings.
My husband is not my husband in order to “protect” me, not even from “other males”. He’s my husband because he’s my best friend. Full fucking stop. If he weren’t here, I’d likely be living alone quite happily, as I was before we met.
As much as I hate being the one to trumpet the fact that man can and do quite frequently serve as valuable members of society for no other reason than that they are lovely people who are nice to have around, I have to….even if that means I’m pandering to their frail egos ;)
To say any different is to live in the sort of silly, adolescent fantasy world that a whole raft of psychologists and other “scientists” currently vomiting out their silly-ass theories on society apparently do.
Whereas the don’t-feel-protective-of-women part has gone nowhere fast, as evinced by the decade-after-decade pattern of studies showing that men don’t like it when the women in their lives outperform them, or that high-performing women become less attractive to big chunks of the mating pool.
How does “feeling proective of women” exactly connect to “being so bothered that women can outperform men”, and how do they both relate to “they become less attractive mates”?
Only if “protective” is taken to mean something else than what it actually means.
ah, I wholly second what Crys T said. I had a good laugh when I read that ‘men are only contributing security’. The pop-psychology industry has a lot to answer for indeed.
What Crys T said.
Like I told someone else on a different thread, please read any of the paleoanthropological literature to support the claim that men’s only role is to provide security.
Or, read any the linguistic, neurolinguistic or biochemical literature.
Recorded human history is 10,000 years old. While that is a fraction that homo sapiens have been on the earth, it is enough time to evolve. And we humans are evolving in ever more complex ways, including, gasp!, men.
My wife expects me to present 100% of the time in our marriage. That means all the time, for everything. I expect the same from her.
She makes more money than I do. All the housework gets done one way or the other. We do not have kids. If we did, the situation would be such that I would take on the majority of housework and diaper changing, since she would be responsible for 100% of the nursing. (Thanks Kim, for that post!)
Perhaps this is the type of security men have evolved too. Or is it the money kind? In which case I’m a failure I suppose.
I’m happy to contribute. My wife is a female human being. While biologically different from me, she, and all women, are all men’s moral and social equals.
Stop using some pseudoscientific crap to justify laziness and deliberate indifference.
That’s my rant. Thanks.
Also the thing about men being less healthy when their wives work full time is surely more likely to be about wealth and social class than directly caused by the wife’s working. It’s the richest couples who are most likely to have a wife who can afford to stay home or work only part time, and richer men are more likely to be in good health.
And I agree (in part) with Court that traditional gender roles and stereotypes are often harmful to men as well. It’s true that feminism is mostly focused on issues that concern women, but I don’t think you can really complain about that, as feminism is essentially a women’s movement. But few feminists would deny that working towards equality has many benefits for men too.
About men wearing skirts – I agree that this seems very unfair, and of course men should have the same choices of clothing that we do. But remember that not all that long ago women-in-pants was a social and professional taboo, and this was only changed by the efforts of women and girls who were determined to buck the trend and dress as they chose, in the face of harrassment and discrimination and mockery.
Maybe that isn’t an exact parallel, and men feel they would suffer more severe consequences or fear for their safety? I don’t know how the harmful ideas about masculinity can be changed, but I feel very much that the push for change will have to come from men themselves, in order for anything to really change.
You can’t request something that has never existed in the first place. You might fantasize that women are (and have been?) on a level playing field, but so far men’s ideas of “mutual” really means “what benefits men in society.”
It does ?
Maybe you should go read the beginning of the thread again. P-A’s whole point was that even a woman’s achievements in the business world are meaningless (to the peddlers of this study) if she can’t get a man, or perhaps even dangerous, if her man is unhappy over her achievements being somehow better than his. It’s actually an old, old, argument. Men have used it from time immemorial to try and deny women a place in the work world, college education, the vote, athletics, and so on. Men’s FEELINGS are the whole point here;Back off, you amazon freak, lest you hurt a man’s FEELINGS !!
You want to argue that this POV is a distortion/limitation of the range of feelings men are capable of ? Go for it. Just please don’t try and turn it into some groan-fest in which women ought to contendedly play the moon to man’s sun on into eternity– all so he can keep his own opinions and the legitimacy of his FEELINGS unchallenged. That b.s. was old when the Victorians were prattling about it over a hundred years ago. It doesn’t smell any better right now, either.
Oh, and the skirt bit is a nice touch. Just who do you think created the executive dress code ? Here’s a hint: It wasn’t me. Hell, you can come to the next board meeting dressed up as the 1940’s version of Betty Crocker for all I care, Court. Just don’t nod off during my report. I hate that.
I stay home (by choice) and we are certainly not rich, but at least I now know that I am contributing to his overall well-being by not earning any money. I guess I should let my husband know that he is lucky because I am here to help keep him healthy and his ego puffed. Surely, this is a joke.
I largely agree with Crys T, but I think “evo-psych” is the correct target for criticism here, not “evo-devo.” Though I think evo-psych is a potentially productive science (though many here undoubtedly disagree), it’s pretty sketchy in its current state. Evo-devo, though young, is more grounded, though I’m no biologist. (if you’re a biologist, and you know what you’re talking about more than I do, Crys T, my apologies :^))
LOL!! That was just me being sarky & silly: I had no idea that “evo-devo” could really refer to any real school of thought.
And also, I’d like to say that this:
freaking rocks.
And I especially like the line, “Back off, you amazon freak, lest you hurt a man’s FEELINGS !!” because that is what I’ve been getting from the whiny-arse contingent of men for offering a feminist perspective every since I can remember. Which is why not only the damn article that prompted Pseudo-Adrienne’s post, but Court’s post #24 get straight up my nose. Women spend our entire *lives* being made to feel that nothing, but NOTHING should be more important to us than men’s feelings.
And not just the feelings of the men in our lives, oh, no: we’re supposed to consider and measure every move we make taking into account the feelings of men we “might just” “maybe” come into some sort of oblique contact with.
So please, never, ever come at me with the line, “But we men are all supposed to be made of granite” blah, blah, blah, because I know better.
I hate it when people try to paint “men” or “women” as one thing. Generalities about a complex group are essentially meaningless. If I had a wife who made 200 grand a year — I would keep that house spotless. And come the weekend — helloooo jet boat. I know some troglodyte rednecks who wouldn’t like that kind of existence, but that does not make them the quintessential “man” type.
And by “not all that long ago,” read “1998.” That was the year that female attorneys at my firm in New York were allowed by the unwritten dress code to wear pants. And only because we realized female associates far outnumbered male associates and they couldn’t fire us all.
I still didn’t feel right about wearing pants to court, however, until 2000, when I had a preliminary-injunction hearing in front of Kimba Wood and my coworker and I noticed that she was wearing pants under her robe.
In comment #20, Robert said:
Yes. A woman ought to be able to be a doctor if she wants to be, but men have argued that the success of a woman makes them feel uncomfortable for a long time. For decade after decade, as he pointed out. Seems to me that the main reason for this is because many men feel that anything someone else (a woman, a black man, a Jew, u.s.w.) gets is something that’s been taken away from them. Any gain for women, blacks, gays, or whoever is a loss for straight white Christian men.
And it’s bullshit. Life is not necessarily a competition, the opinions of ‘social Darwinists’ aside. Cooperation is a plenty good way to ensure that your genes get passed on to the next generation. Lots of species use it. Similarly, human society doesn’t have to be a big-ass fight of everyone against everyone else.
Aside from the data being 20 years old, there is a definite generation gap in men’s attitudes toward working wives. In general, men who came of age before the 1960s seem to have more problems adjusting to situations where they are not the primary breadwinner and/or their wives are working outside the home, than do men who grew up during the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
My husband became a father relatively late in life, but plunged wholeheartedly into sharing child-rearing duties. His male coworkers who are his age and older are (still!) almost exclusively astounded that he is the one who gets the kids up and out the door in the morning, that he takes them to the doctor, that he stays home when they are sick, etc. etc. His male coworkers who are younger think it’s cool and are coming to him for advice on how to integrate parenting with work. His female coworkers cheer him on and give him lots of encouragement. I think it’s terrific that he’s able and willing to do all of this stuff, but I also think it’s sad that most of his male coworkers think it’s unusual.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, a lot of the recent stereotypes in terms of the man being the primary breadwinner and the woman staying at home were deliberately shaped and promulgated by the government and big business at the end of WWII, BTW. The government was very worried that the discharged soldiers wouldn’t have jobs to step into when they got home – since so many women entered the workforce during the war – so pushed a media campaign to convince women to go home and stay there. Big Business didn’t want to deal with having married women with children in the workplace – they found out during the war this was a pain – and joined in. Just take a look at articles and advertisements in magazines from the late 40s and early 50s, especially Campus Life and other publications for young women. Almost every issue had at least one interview with an outstanding young woman, whose major accomplishments included being engaged to a young man who was “going places”.
Not that this was a new view, just that the means of getting it across was a lot more concerted than ever before.
And I totally agree with Crys T:
“As much as I hate being the one to trumpet the fact that man can and do quite frequently serve as valuable members of society for no other reason than that they are lovely people who are nice to have around, I have to….even if that means I’m pandering to their frail egos ;)
To say any different is to live in the sort of silly, adolescent fantasy world that a whole raft of psychologists and other “scientists”? currently vomiting out their silly-ass theories on society apparently do. ”
It’s like these educational theorists who extrapolate small samples to large populations in order to support their POV. Most of the time, their theory only holds as long as they are the ones in the classroom!
If you had a spouse that made 200 grand a year, you’d leave the cleaning to the maids. No one who makes that much money ever even sees the hoover.
My spouse doesn’t make 200 grand per annum, nor does our joint income approach that rarefied level, but neither of us does much cleaning. We decided a long time ago that a cleaning service was the only sane thing to do if we were both working full-time. But check out this article in the Washington Post for a peek at the lives of the upper crust.
Trish, are you certain that’s the study we’re talking about? It’s several years old, whereas the article seems to suggest it’s talking about a new study. Several of the other claims attributed to the study in the article also don’t seem to be in the study you linked to.
just wanted to say that Alsis38.9 rocks! i wish i was Alsis38.9!
or a reasonable facsimile thereabouts
but i wish she’d stop teasing us with fake websites…
I, too, have observed the generation gap in men’s attitudes that Lee mentions. It’s been interesting listening to my husband’s male friends asking him for parenting and home-making advice. At one party at our house, at one point the men were in the kitchen discussing baking and the women were in the living talking computers. It gives me a bit of hope for the future (an alien feeling which I’m sure will soon pass).
Lee, that was a very amusing article, thanks for the link.
Reminds me of an episode of Wife Swap with the rednecks on the one hand and the mega rich young couple from NY with 3 nannies on the other. The redneck husband was such an obnoxious asshole. Went berserk when the NY wife didn’t cook dinner or chop the wood for him. I couldn’t believe it, but for the first time in my life, I actually sympathised with the rich and spoilt.
Wait, exactly which evolutionary psychologists do anything like this? I think when criticizing any discipline, it is best to be specific and back up one’s claims, rather than just making blanket statements. Like with feminism, there is a wide range of quality in evo-psych theorists. Most of them are not the Social Darwinists they are made out to be. The problem is that a lot of their results are reported in a skewed fashion in the press (who often want to use any excuse to portray men and women as different). The whole field often gets judged on such press reports, and the work of a few popular science authors or theories that have since been scrapped and revised. That is like the way that feminism is often judged by a few 20-30 year-old inflammatory quotes from Dworkin/MacKinnon/Robin Morgan/Marilyn French. Like with feminism, a straw man of evolutionary psychology often gets set up and knocked down by people who don’t really know anything about it or haven’t bothered to read anything by its better or more recent theorists.
I have to agree with Aegis this time. Some evo-psych is actually quite good and interesting. I highly recommend Matt Ridley’s Origins of Virtue. (I read the finnish translation couple of years ago and liked it a lot). Of course scientific souding language and terms like “evolutionary fact” “biologically determined” etc. are quite often thrown around by folks who have no interest in science but great interest in proving some political point.
I think my analogy about skirts and pants may have been a distraction from my point instead of the wry illustration it was intended to be. I was merely trying to demonstrate that men are born into stereotypical gender roles that at least as strict as those in which women find themselves, and often the consequences of stepping out of them are more severe and less tolerated. I note that only a couple of commenters here conceded this, in roughly the same proportions I see in other forums as well, dating back to the 2000 NGLTF conference in Atlanta. (Long story…)
Look, I don’t doubt the service of the feminist movement and its positive effects for both men and women in our society over the past several decades. It just seems to me that an implicit belief among modern feminists is that men are at somehow “inducted” at some age into a conspiratorial brotherhood designed to thwart feminine equality. Men are born into the same society as women, complete with all its historical baggage and restrictive gender roles. They, too, exist in the only way they can: as they’ve been taught and as their intuition guides them…and without a nearly-unassailable institution protecting their “-ism”.
another wry illustration alert
How often are women’s hormones given as an excuse for irrational behavior? (Not fight-picking here…it’s rhetorical.) Just don’t forget that men have hormones, too, and their behaviors are just as subject to manipulation by them. “Evo-psych” be damned, some things nonetheless take place on a fundamentally biological level. No amount of political equality will afford me the right to have my boyfriend’s babies…
It just seems to me that an implicit belief among modern feminists is that men are at somehow “inducted”? at some age into a conspiratorial brotherhood designed to thwart feminine equality.
I guess making this assumption goes a long way to clinging to the No, I’m The REAL Victim Here mindset.
Nobody disagrees that men are affected by sexism, or rigid gender roles. Quite the opposite–if you bother to dip into any of the discussions of GLBT rights you’ll get an eyeful. That’s quite different from the assertion that sexism is just as bad for men, if not worse.
Just don’t forget that men have hormones, too, and their behaviors are just as subject to manipulation by them.
Yet men are not held to be unfit for, oh, the Presidency, or combat, or CEO-ship, because of their unpredictable hormones. “Testosterone poisoning” or “thinking with the little head” may be good for jabs and eye-rolling, but nobody suggests that Bill Clinton is the proof that we should think twice about putting those hormonal men in office.
The only evo-psych I’ve read was A Natural History of Rape , which was simply dreadful. Everything from ignoring contrary data to trying to prove their thesis with an extensive discussion on the habits of insects (I kept wondering how various insects with highly aggressive females fit into the theory, but alas, they never dealt with that…). Their argument that males rape to pass on their genes completely ignore all the research on how the trauma of rape impacts on the mother – a woman traumatized by rape is not going to make the ideal mother; she’s less likely to bond to the child, she’s more likely to mistreat or abandon or neglect it.
About the only thing I remember them saying about women is that rape is more traumatizing for women in the child bearing years, because it robs her of the ability to choose her child’s genes. So why is a serious sexual assault (where reproduction is not an issue) often as traumatizing as rape? And how do you determine that children and post-menopausal women are less traumatized by rape? And how do you factor in the fact that in most cultures fertile women are more likely to be considered the cause of their own rape than children and post menopausal women are? That alone could add to the trauma, if their trauma study is accurate (which it is not, so far as I can tell).
If that book’s a typical example, I’m not sold on evo-psych. And the press was much too kind – the book was far worse than the articles I’d read led me to expect.
Court wrote:
I’ll sort of agree with that. Since I was a kid it’s gotten much easier for women to step out of their assigned roles without being socially condemned, and only slightly easier for men. But OTOH, I think women’s sterotypical gender roles are more harmful to them in general than the roles assigned to men. And women are more likely to face physical harm (sexual assault) by not conforming to “stay home at night/don’t go anywhere alone with a man” sorts of rules – guys don’t face those sorts of consequences, as a rule. Gay guys, maybe, and I suppose it could be argued that gay bashing is an extreme form of trying to force males back into conformity, but as far as I can tell the rest of the guys who’re ignoring their assigned roles aren’t likely to face physical attack; just social condemnation.
I would argue that feminists who blame men for being indoctrinated by society are a distinct minority – OTOH, I can understand feminists who’ve discussed the issues with guys who defend this indoctrination in the face of mounting evidence that it’s harmful can get pretty frustrated with men as a whole. Common human response – many a male I’ve known blames all women for the faults of a few….
Court asked:
No idea. How often are women’s hormones given as an excuse for not paying any attention to her statements or suggestions? In some groups, with depressing frequency. I agree that men are as subject to hormonal moods as women are – but in my experience society generally excuses male moods while condemning female.
Humans — including women and men — are rational beings, and not controlled by their hormones. Only reactionary troglodytes claim otherwise.
Apart from what Sarah said in comment # 34, I think there’s another correlation/causation thing going on here. Married men in poor health are more likely to have wives who work full time, simply because the men’s poor health can prevent them from working, so their wives become the breadwinners.
mythago:
Not in this instance, no. As I said, I don’t feel particularly constrained either by traditional (read: straight) male gender roles, and certainly not by female gender roles. As a gay man, I think there’s an entirely different set of social “norms” to which I’m expected to adhere. Per the classic theory, I won’t try to define these norms objectively, as living within/around them probably taints my perspective. On the other hand, I tend to observe other social phenomena as objectively as I can. No horn-tooting, just an explanation of my perspective.
Do you mean by this any particular context? In general, I’ve been swimming in discussions of GLBT rights for the past 8 years and I don’t see an overwhelming concession of this premise. I might certainly stand to be corrected if I’m categorically missing some body of literature. I alluded to a past NGLTF conference earlier, at which I participated in quite a few discussions on this topic. I enjoyed a debate with Kerry Lobel (an incredibly gracious and intelligent woman) from which this thread of comments might almost be taken word-for-word. I’m not foreign to the discussion of GLBT rights, nor to the discussion of feminism, but I’ll admit that we of the GLBT stripe are a talkative lot and I’m sure I’ve missed much of the popular discussion ;-)
Hopefully because the suggestion would be met with the far more reasonable argument that bj’s had obviously very little to do with being an effective President, as Bill Clinton did a passing job. Contrast that with our current President, whose experience with the same is questionable in our opinion. Perhaps it’s the missing influence…
shiloh:
I agree with the tenor of your entire post, but I’d like to point out that more harmful is arguably an assessment from the perspective of satisfying the stereotypical male gender role. It’s valid to say that a woman who (if she desires) satisfies the stereotypical female gender role is just as successful. Raising children and maintaining a home is challenging – and certainly just as important – as being a medical doctor. A woman should not feel obligated to execute this role, but she shouldn’t feel diminished for doing so.
The part about increased experience of violence is unfortunately true, but I don’t think it’s valid to say it is just because of gender. As you mentioned, gay men also experience a higher threat of violence. However, as a 6’1 220# man with a large build, I don’t feel this as much as my much smaller (gay male) roommate. It’s generally true that the average woman – as a physically smaller creature – is less prepared to defend herself physically. A can of pepper spray can go a long way to mitigate this threat, and I don’t really think it’s a product of social conditioning. Certainly the violence more often visited upon women is not an element of traditional social gender roles.
On the matter of hormones, I’ll just say two more things: First, don’t take the anecdote too seriously. It was a little cheeky. Second, I don’t think it is troglodytic to recognize that ultimately behaviors correspond to chemical interactions on a biological level. To deny this would be to deny the reality of, for instance, mood-altering drugs. I’ll just leave it at that.
Sheena:
Bingo! I agree with your indictment of the study completely.
BTW:
You guys (no gender attached) are great :-) I’m personally enjoying this discussion a great deal and I’m glad so many intelligent, articulate people are participating. Sometimes a good debate is just healthy! Hopefully our host agrees and doesn’t mind an extensive comments feed…
correction: above I notice I used the phrase “…our opinion…” in reference to the sexual activities of our current President. This was the product of a poorly executed rewording. My mind is home to a great number of opinions, but they belong solely to me ;-)
I think Court is correct that women are often excused from being irrational or even seen as entitled to behave that way. The idea seems to be that when a woman is being irrational, it is a manifestation of her womanly nature, so she can’t help it (and isn’t responsible for it). Of course, this attitude is obviously sexist, because it assumes that women are naturally irrational. It obviously disadvantages them in areas where rationality is prized. Nevertheless, in other areas, this stereotype allows them to get away with being unreasonable in ways that a man could never get away with (because he would be seen as “not a real man”). I think the stereotype of female irrationality is definitely a disadvantage for women overall, but females who enjoy acting for it to completely go away, some females will have to stop acting as if they have the “privilege” to be irrational without consequences.
this attitude is obviously sexist, because it assumes that women are naturally irrational
What if the attitude observes it, rather than assumes it?
Some women are irrational. Some men are irrational. Nearly everyone is irrational at some time or another; really the individual difference is in frequency and degree of irrationality. Do women have higher or lower values than men, speaking broadly, in either measure? I don’t know.
But I do know that the average value for both those numbers is greater than zero, for both men and women.
I suspect that there are sometimes false negatives pinging peoples’ sexism detectors. It is entirely possible for someone to think the worst of someone for reasons other than their gender. Maybe Frank isn’t a misogynist; Elaine really is a rude moron. Jane is not a misandrist; Guillaum really is the biggest leering selfish dolt in creation.
And certainly in our daily lives, we each generally have a reasonably fair shot at perceiving how more or less irrational our friends, lovers, coworkers, etc. each tend to be. “Stay away from Larry until he gets his coffee. He’s crazy before his coffee.”
Where you can really detect sexism, or most other bigotries, is in people’s treatment of strangers.
Court:
I have yet to try to blame any bad behaviour on my part on hormones, and all of the times I’ve heard a woman blame a woman’s bad behaviour on hormones, whether theirs or another’s, it’s either in regard to the teenage years or extreme cases in which hormone imbalance creates or exacerbates a legitimate mental illness (see: Andrea Yates).
My actions have, however, often been dismissed by men, jokingly and otherwise, as simply being the product of female hormones. In my experience this most often happens when I’m telling a him something he doesn’t like, or I’m not fulfilling my womanly duty to always be full of sunshine and light, not when I’m actually doing anything illegal or inappropriate. So, please forgive me if I don’t see the “women are more influenced by hormones than men” myth as being used to excuse women for bad behaviour, when its obvious it really amounts to labeling us as inheirently irrational.
And Aegis, men get away with this too. “My male sex drive/Testosterone made me do it” is a popular variation of “boys will be boys.” The difference is, of course, that its seen as proof that the behaviour in question couldn’t really be all that bad rather than being used to dismiss the validity of their words and actions. But if you do know women try to blame their bad behaviour on having female hormones, you don’t need to wait for them to sudddenly have an epiphany and realise that this is crap all on their own, calling them on it tends to help – eventually.
‘ve been following this discussion with interest and can’t help feeling that some of those posting above are missing a trick.
Let’s start with the idea that now, in 2005, a significant number of women – by no means all as it takes a degree of education, economic independence, time to think – but, anyway, some women can and do step out of an assigned gender role if it holds them back or they find it oppressive. This is a change which has come about relatively slowly and over more than a century.
But it did not happen by magic. It did not happen while those women watched from a distance or hid behind the sofa. It happened because they made it happen – through exposing some of the barriers they faced as entirely irrational, by analysis and description of what was going on, by mutual support, by learning all those little techniques which allow us to be assertive to some effect, rather than simply being slapped down in the private sphere or locked up “for our own good”? in the public sphere.
I have no sympathy with Mr I’m-Really-the-Victim or his little brother Master I’d-Like-It-To-Be-Better-But-It-Is-So-Hard, Sob. Why? Because the same option is open to them if they make that choice.
Where to start? A piece of paper on which men can write in one column how the present system benefits them and in the other how it is not of benefit. For a start, just to them personally. If they survive that test then, perhaps, they can compare lists with two men whom they trust and who have done the same exercise.
Of course that will not change the world overnight but might be worth the effort if it helps a few men engage their brain cells rather than their emotions – albeit unexpressed emotions – and if it stops just a few of them engaging in romantic fantasises about how it used to be – which it never really was.
Come on, guys, what do you think?
I was going to initially respond to Aegis’s comments about women and irrationality, but Robert answered mostly what I was going to say, sans a few points. Indeed, men and women can be irrational – it’s not a trait that is exclusive to either sex.
What I would say though, is that men are the ones that get ‘away’ with being irrational, instead of the transverse. Women get pegged as irrational for any sign of emotion what so ever, regardless of how rational it is. This ‘pegging’ is used to dismiss women and their thoughts. “She’s not being rational” is far too common a phrase in our culture. It is a way of winning through cheating in the work place, on the Internet – you name it really, when emotes, and if opposition is anywhere to be found, the ‘She’s not rational’ card comes in to play.
Men on the other hand get the benefit of the doubt that they are inherently rational, ie: not ruled by emotions, hence incapable of being swayed one way or the other so the natural ‘winner’ of arguments. This, of course, is horseshit. But it happens all the time.
Maureen, the difference is that women across the world who challenged and still challenge those fixed gender roles have been doing so because they affect their private, public, political, economic life very directly, their work, their civil rights, their legal rights, etc. Because of a disadvantage that was/is tangible in many areas.
Men NEVER had any of the same political, economic, and legal disadvantage from fixed gender roles. Never in history, in any society or culture of this world. The men who genuinely challenge the stereotypes are those who do genuinely feel uncomfortable with them and limited by them at a personal and cultural level. But there’s no pressure at wider social level because those fixed roles serve quite well for other bigger fixed patterns of social relations and political power.
It depends on the type of society we live in as a whole.
“But there’s no pressure at wider etc.” should read “no pressure TO CHANGE”
I t is too bad that men can’t live with the fact that their smart wives earn more than they do. However these social disparities must be dealt with. Now with more women doctors and lawyers and with more women are rising higher on the seniority charts this problem will get worse and the welfare of men must be protected.
I propose that we change the law so that the name man of the house will be embossed on the largest paycheck that comes in monthly. The women, who run the financial department of most companies, could coordinate this secretly. That way the poor schmuck wouldn’t even know he was really getting his wife’s check. Thus his mental health would be restored.
As for men with no jobs, a special tax on high earning women could be used to construct basketball courts and gyms with attached daycare centers and changing tables for unemployed men. That would keep them happy and healthy while their wives worked.
Aegis said:
I was actually referring to this part of Crys T’s comment:
“To say any different is to live in the sort of silly, adolescent fantasy world that a whole raft of psychologists and other “scientists”? currently vomiting out their silly-ass theories on society apparently do. “?
What I was thinking at the time and obviously didn’t express very clearly was that the pressure to publish in professional journals pushes a lot of academics into extrapolating data that really would stand alone in a poster session much better. The best example I could think of at the time was educational theorists. When you add these tenuously supported conclusions to the media hopper, you unfortunately do get a lot of nonsense, and that is tremendously unfair to the serious thinkers who have very interesting and important things to say.
In principle, noodles, I’d agree with you except for one thing. The men who are uncomfortable with the present – and we know they exist – seem always to be harking back to some point in the recent past where everyone knew exactly what to do, everyone knew exactly how to respond and everyone was happy.
Sure, men have tended to have the better deal for much of the time but the detail has varied with economics, politics, organisation of production, geography, climate and anything else we can think of adding. There was no time when everything was fine and nothing changed for generations. Men have tended to pride themselves on how well they have coped with all those changes, how they have made them happen.
So why not this one? Why are a few of them completely zapped by a transitional point in yet another change? Why is the answer to the discomfort experienced by both men and women to be met by going backwards when the answer at a similar stage in every other change has been to press on and, together, make it work a bit better?
No rational person would want to go back to chattel status for women. It ain’t going to happen. Can we move on, please?
Ah, you’re right, Amp. That study was from 2001. Someone in comments here sent the study to me in e-mail. Even in the new study, the data was 10 to 20 years old. It also cited Arlie Hochschild’s “The Second Shift.”
Interestingly, that older study came to the same stereotypical conclusions as the new study: “Fewer than 40 hours of work per week by wives has no effect on husbands’ health, but more than 40 hours has substantial negative effect. Long work hours by husbands are not detrimental to wives’ health. Wives’ work hours shows no effect on their own health, but husbands’ work hours show strong positive effect on their own health. Methodological issues are considered.”
Those same gender stereotypes were being reinforced in 2001.
I’ve been trying to get to the original study, but since I don’t have a Medline subscription any more, I’m having an extremely difficult time accessing even an abstract.
However, the journal in which this paper was published is “Patient Education and Counseling,” which is the official journal for the European Association for Communication in Healthcare and the American Academy on Physicians and Patients. It is published by Elsevier, which is why it’s so hard to take a look at online. According to the Elsevier website, this is the scope of the journal:
“Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers, physicians, nurses and other health care providers. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of the delivery of patient education, counseling, and health promotion services, including training models and organizational issues in improving communication between providers and patients.The journal welcomes unsolicited manuscripts related to the field of patient education, counseling, clinical health promotion and communication in health care.”
So I suspect that the media coverage of the study has a completely different slant than the original paper.
But now that I’ve seen Trish’s comments, I’m probably wrong. (I really need to get broadband!)
Trish, can you tell if this study was written about American men or European men?
I’m reading a book now, “Too Good for Her Own Good,” that is sort of a mix of self-help/feminist critique of social training. Anyway, I, too, had always assumed that women are given more freedom than men in terms of having and expressing emotions, but I’m starting to think that’s not true. We’re allowed only a small number of emotions and to express them in only certain ways. I feel this is true in myself. In contrast, while stoicism is kind of romanticised in men, in fact, men’s emotions are considered of central importance and great validity. Women are expected to be super empathetic, so to be able to percieve and respond to men’s emotional needs even without the man having to express them. And then we’re cold or selfish if we don’t. Someone already made the point in this thread, so I’m just repeating, and also, I suppose, recommending this book.
Court wrote:
Oh, I agree! I’m a homemaker myself. But if you’re arguing that feminists make it harder for women to make that choice, I’m not sure I agree (not sure that’s your argument, either). I tend to agree with those who say that the reason feminists were so successful in the 1970’s is that the homemaker was already disdained. It is indisputable that some feminists said very unkind things about homemakers, calling them parasites and etc., but it’s also pretty clear that they were not alone in that. If the culture as a whole had valued homemaking and child rearing as it did out-of-home careers, feminists wouldn’t have gotten anywhere on that front.
Feminists were different in that they argued women could do more than that, and in trying to separate the disdain for homemakers from the disdain for women. I’m not saying they took the best route in condemning homemakers (those who did), but I don’t think they can be held responsible for the current lack of respect for homemakers, either. That was part of the culture before feminists came along.
When I said women are more handicapped by gender roles, I was thinking more of the fact that women are usually held responsible for all the homemaking and child rearing, even when they work. This may be an accident of what generation you’re in, but my mom had to deal with that and I’ve had to deal with that. My husband considered himself a feminist when we met, but he hadn’t a clue how to approach homemaking or cooking – he is, however, pretty good with the kids, so he’s “picked up the slack” there far more than my dad ever did. My husband is the one who takes the kids to their various classes and things (he signs them up for stuff, not me), and he’s generally the one to put them to bed.
But I know a lot of women who get no help whatsoever from their husbands in these areas, even when the wife is working, and some of these are women ten or fifteen years younger than I am, so while I don’t know how prevalent the problem is, it’s still a problem. The popular image of women went from pathetic peabrains who sat home and watched soap operas to overorganized amazons who can not only hold down a job but also keep the house spotless and serve homemade meals. Very few women managed to accomplish all this, but a fair number of husbands seem to think they ought to – and the women think they ought to as well. They look at the few women who manage this sort of thing and condemn themselves, instead of recognizing that they’re pretty normal.
Court wrote:
I agree that the problem is mostly bullies, and that bullies tend to pick on those who’re smaller or physically weaker, but there is still enough legal protection for guys bullying women that I think it’s valid to connect a fair percentage of that bullying to gender. I’ve got a friend who has been fighting for a divorce for years – it is established, as a matter of court record, that the guy she’s trying to shed herself of raped her repeatedly, but since marital rape is not illegal in that state it’s considered immaterial.
He has been hauling her over the rocks for years, using the courts, in ways men have long practiced. Feminists have been trying to get protection for women (and men, although I haven’t seen much evidence that men are suffering from this) from this sort of thing for longer than my friend has been in court, with little result. Again, marital rape is legal in many states, even though feminists have been trying to get it outlawed since the 1970’s. This is definitely gender-based and socially sanctioned bullying.
Robert wrote:
I still think women get pegged with the “irrational” thing as a way of trying to discredit their position. I rarely get called overemotional (my nickname in sixth grade was “Spock”), but I’ve certainly seen that accusation used on other women, and all the cases I remember, I remember because I thought the woman in question was perfectly rational and the accusation irked me. Nearly every case, it was a woman I knew as well as the man accusing her of being crazed (work or school situation).
Shiloh, sad but true. I think the changes are very gradual, and there will probably always be a proportion of the population that falls into the outdated stereotypes.
If you read that Washington Post article I linked to earlier in this thread, you’ll see concrete evidence of this. Why is it the woman who calls up the nanny broker in dire need of childcare most of the time? Because even nowadays, even among power couples, it’s mostly the woman’s responsibility to make sure the kids are being taken care of. Bleagh.
However, I was talking about this thread with my son’s preschool director, who has been in the early childhood education field for over forty years now, and she says she has seen a definite increase in the number of involved fathers over the last few years. She told me that she used to see maybe only one or two fathers a year, and now she knows well over half of the fathers by sight, because more of them are dropping the kids off or picking them up and showing up for parent-teacher conferences. This is a fairly large preschool – approximately 150 kids in the 2-5 age range – so I think this shows a hopeful trend!
From reading these posts, I think I’m beginning to see a common thread of differing perceptions. Perhaps it’s because we no doubt enjoy different backgrounds and environments, but my observations (in Texas) simply cannot support the assertion that women are less forgiven their emotional transgressions that their male counterparts. There may well be a disparity between these observations and those others have had in different subcultures around the country/world. Here, however, overt displays of just about any emotion (save aggressive anger) are socially forbidden of men. Judging from pop culture coming from other areas (i.e., movies), this would not be a unique experience. Again, there could be a disparity in the realities faced by men (or women) in different areas. At the very least I think we can conclude there is a disparity of perception.
Several posts have suggested that men should stand up for themselves if they perceive injustices. This thought is nicely libertarian and all, but it’s not as easy as that. Merely pointing out injustices or disparate expectations of men quite often meets with angry denial by those responsible. This thread has been one of the most reasonable conversations I’ve seen on the matter in the past three years, and even here there’s an element of disdain toward the notion that men endure unrealistic social expectations not of their own making.
Too often I see straight men made out to be “the enemy” in fights for social equality. Sometimes, even the benchmark for gain in these movements has been to what degree straight men were “gotten”. It’s always important to remember that the well-established social expectations against which women, GLBT’ers, racial minorities and others rail were just as well-established when these men were born. I’m not saying “men are victims too”… I don’t think anyone should be considered the “victim” here. We’re all just seeking to adjust our social conventions to fit a different paradigm.
Court, I’m gonna’ try this one more time before I give up: It’s not a question of whether or not men DISPLAY their emotions. The interpretation of the survey that P-A kicked off this thread with scarcely deals at all with whether or not men can, or should, DISPLAY their emotions. That question is pretty much irrelevant if one uses the interpreters’ outmoded and insulting notion of Woman’s proper place in the world. Women, according to these outmoded stereotypes, must KNOW –without being informed by men or seeing any outward signs– that “their” men are unhappy and displeased. In the case of an unattached (and by implication, incomplete and unhappy) woman, the whole twisted goal is to pre-emptively consider the feelings of any passing man and to prepare for a lifetime of living in the future “catch’s” reflected glory. Again, it doesn’t matter what emotion the man is displaying for public view. The whole point is for the woman to have superhuman powers of divination, self-effacement, and compassion.
The interpreters thus function as a sort of fake “friendly aside” or “word to the wise” for all those over-achieving, money and success-hungry females, whether bonded to some man or not.
I can’t think of any way to make clearer that I don’t find your continued points about what emotions men can or cannot display relevant to the original point.
Sorry, jam. Here’s a real website for you. Too bad it’s not mine. But it is cute beyond words:
http://www.kakiking.com/
Lee, from what I could tell, it looks like the study covered Americans.
Also it’s not that women are “less forgiven” for their emotions, but that they’re expected to be emotional and when they are they are merely confirming an assumption that many people have that women are incapable of being rational (read, unemotional).
There is a greater consequence because it confirms what people already believe. An emotional outburst from a woman will be remembered and held against her longer than a man who has an emotional outburst simply because it is also assumed that when a man has an emotional outburst that there are extraordinary circumstances that cause the outburst rather than being seen as a deeper look into how that particular person thinks and feels.
To state it a little more plainly: A man who has an emotional outburst has it for a reason, but a woman who has an emotional outburst is just a “silly, emotional, and irrational woman” no matter what the circumstances.
Several posts have suggested that men should stand up for themselves if they perceive injustices. This thought is nicely libertarian and all, but it’s not as easy as that. Merely pointing out injustices or disparate expectations of men quite often meets with angry denial by those responsible.
Um…don’t you think that women encountered the same things when we started fighting these norms? I still face the same reactions on a daily basis over my outside-the-norm decisions. The whole point is that to get anywhere you need to challenge the norms that you don’t like and face these angry denials. You’ll never change anything if you never challange the norms because someone might be mad at you. Women took the initiative and stood up dispite the anger that it caused and we continue to fight for equality, but there is only so much that women can do for men in this area. At some point the men need to get out there and fight their own battles.
there have been studies that show that women have a higher tolerance for pain than men. perhaps it’s related.
WookieMonster:
I was trying to avoid saying it outright, but here it is. My contention is that any sort of “masculinist movement” would not be welcome by at least some significant portion of the feminist movement. Can you honestly tell me that feminists would embrace the notion of a “masculinst movement”? I’m sorry, I just can’t see it happening on broad scale. Perhaps in theory, but I doubt it’d work.
Life’s tough. Get over it, guys. Isn’t that what you tell women?
If you stand up for justice or your rights, you get burned. It’s just something you have to deal with. Of course, it’s not an area most White men, in particular, have to deal with, given that they’re treated
What can I say, except that’s life? Just keep on fighting, keep on going…
If men want their lives to suck less, they should support struggles for women’s liberation, because the ways men suffer from sexism are derived from the oppression of women.
Arguing for a “masculinist movement” is simply arguing for yet another bunch of sexist assholes to come together and complain about people opposed to sexism.
Can you honestly tell me that feminists would embrace the notion of a “masculinst movement”??
Some feminists do embrace the current men’s rights movement, but most do not. You are right about that.
Then again, that’s how it is when a movement starts. Nearly everyone is against it, and that’s why the movement is needed. That’s how it was with feminism, and that’s how it still is in socially conservative areas.
Oh, dear. [fans self] I do believe that I’m being snubbed. And here I am running all my posts through a special “Civilizator 10.0” program I picked up last week from some computer nerd in a Linux T-Shirt. I should never have traded her that fresh-baked loaf of Swedish Rye before I knew for sure that it’d work right.
[waves at radfem]
Just to clarify, I believe it’s Court that snubbing me. Ah, well. I’ll get over it. :/
alsis:
Not snubbing you ;-) I think we might just disagree. See, I think the emotions men can and cannot display are a very good illustration of the problem, and therefore quite relevant. Much discussion on this thread has centered around the expectations placed on women and the unfairness of that. My *entire* reason for posting has been to point out that expectations are placed on men as well, but that’s often overlooked.
Here’s what I’m talking about:
The sheer irony wrapped around this sentence would stop a herd of buffalo, but I think it’s obvious to those who see what I’m getting at and invisible to the rest ;-)
Court wrote:
Well, define said “masculinist movement.” Feminists are against the current “Men’s Rights Activists” because most MRAs are trying to undo all that feminism has accomplished, and more. Obviously, if a men’s group has goals in complete opposition to those of most feminists, the feminist movement isn’t going to welcome that group with open arms.
If there was a “masculinist movement” that argued we should view others as individuals and treat them as individuals and allow men to find sports boring and cars mere transporation devices and home decorating really quite fun (without those males being labeled “gay”), then I’d hazard a guess most feminists would approve. But if the guys in that masculinist movement started going on about how they had it rougher than. or even as rough as, women, I don’t doubt most feminists will laugh at them.
Which isn’t a handicap, IMHO, because most of the barriers that that sort of masculinist movement would face are social ones, not legal ones. And as others here have said, social barriers must be tackled one by one, by individuals. I’d hazard a guess that every female feminist here over… I dunno, 18? has had to deal with sexism in their every day life – on the job, while dating, at school. I’ve gotten grief for being the only female in the class or group a number of times, and dealt with hazing and sexual harrassment even more often.
In advanced computer class I was regularly accused of being a “token”, an incompetent who used the law to force her way in, even though my programs ran more efficiently than those of the guy who regularly insulted and harrassed me. Did any of the other guys speak up in my defense? Not on your life, pal. Should a “masculinist” expect women to defend him? Probably not. But going on my brother’s experience fighting stereotypes (he took “home ec” in 1974!), the women in the group probably won’t haze him, either.
I got less grief in my male-dominated hobbies (comic collecting and lit s-f – media s-f is female dominated) than some of my female friends who were gamers. Logical, perhaps – comic and s-f fans get together and gab, while gamers get together and try to slaughter each other. Some guys get right testy when a female gamer outdoes them. Heh.
Outside of sexual harrassment on the job (which all men may face, whatever their belief system), most of the sexist grief a “masculinist” male would face would be on that level, I’d think. All the legal issues I can think of where men face the same sort of discrimination women do, feminists are already fighting for non-sexist laws. I know feminists have lobbied for non-sexist rape laws, where rape is defined to include the kind of rapes men face (anal and oral), and where it is not automatically assumed that only women are raped. I can’t think of any issues where men are at more risk than women with less legal protection except gay bashing sorts of things, where, again, feminists side with those who’re trying to change the laws to protect the non-conformists.
And, clearly, feminists can’t help masculinists who’re facing all-male groups, any more than a man could help a feminist who is facing an all-female group with more conformist values. Unless the masculinist movement is fighting for legal changes the feminist movement has no interest in, and thus needs the feminist movement for sheer numbers, I’m not sure why it would matter if the feminist movement embraced it or not.
Court,
While I’ll agree that alsis38’s comment is pretty sexist, she may be assuming you’re arguing for a masculinist movement that parallels the Men’s Rights movement, which unfortunately often does fit her “sexists complaining about those who are fighting sexism” defininition. Not surprising if that’s her assumption – “Masculinist” is a name more associated with MRAs than with men who argue that sexual discrimination is a problem best resolved by greater equality between the sexes and weaker sex role assignment.
Last I checked this was a blog centered on women’s issues and feminism. Yes, expectations are placed on men too, and no, they are not overlooked generally, they are not just discussed here as much as expectations on women. There is no need to get all “fair and balanced” everytime women are discussed and derail the conversation by yelling “What about the men?” I’ve seen a post about a damn gang-rape turn into a huge, huge argument about the premise: “Men feel powerless because of female beauty and passive sex role, which gives women greater sexual power, poor little men!” A god damn thread about a gang rape and the subsequent coverup turned into a discussion about men supposedly having harder time to get laid. Doh.
I think you are either uninformed about feminism or just trolling (altough you are a very happy troll if that’s what you are :-) )Here, a dictionary definition:
fem·i·nism
noun
1. belief in women’s rights: belief in the need to secure, or a commitment to securing, rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men
2. movement for women’s rights: the movement committed to securing and defending equal rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men
(emphasis mine). Notice the word equal there? Since men already have equal or better rights and opportunities, an opposite, masculinist movement would be silly in that definition.
But hey, I’m all for changing stupid stereotypes about men, and that’s why I generally support feminism (as breaking stereotypes is not a zero-sum game i.e. either have stereotypes about men or stereotypes about women). And indeed, quite many feminists are only happy to trash stereotypes about men (don’t show emotion etc.) They just focus on women’s issues more, and have every right to do so.
Not around here, it’s not. I can think of few mixed-gender feminist groups I’ve been to online where threads about women’s troubles don’t end up being crashed by men who want to do a constant diversion of “Yeah, buts…” as if pointing out that men have problems too somehow defeats the impact of the problems women were discussing in the first place;As if a man is hurting, of course the women ought to just drop everything else and start discussing that. Funny how that dynamic is similar to what P-A was talking about in the first place, isn’t it ?
It’s a constant sore point to me, and to other women here too, I’ll wager.
At any rate, I stand by my opinion that it doesn’t matter much to the average woman whether or not men are publically airing their feelings;The onus is still upon us to cater to those feelings, frequently at our own expense. Also (as several folk have pointed out clearly on this thread and on others) the toll this sort of catering takes on us is far heavier than the toll men might place on each other to restrain public displays of feelings in the first place.
Well, maybe you should ask Amp if he’d allow to post a piece about what a “masculinist” movement would do to alieviate this. Or if you have your own blog, write about it there and link to it. Something like that would go a long way toward persuading a number of feminists here who’ve heard variations of your tune many, many times that you’re serious about change– instead of just wanting to change the focus of the discussion so it’s all about you and other men.
Many, if not most social justice movements throughout history have been about securing social justice within the system of patriarchy, liberating oppressed men (from male oppressors). For example, the long struggle in Britain for universal male suffrage, wresting suffrage from the property-owning males and giving it to all males, or the early anti-imperialist attempts of colonial men to wrest power from imperialist men. I don’t really think there’s a need for a masculinist movement as a whole, but I do think men should oppose injustices which affect them as people. The thing is, I think that for many men, being men isn’t a particularly chafing issue. For black men, the status of blacks in America may be, and for poor men, the conditions of the poor in America may be, but the fact is that most men don’t really find the oppressiveness of male gender roles so stifling that that’s the injustice at which they feel most compelled to direct their energies. This isn’t to say that men who do feel that it’s particularly awful that they’re expected to be breadwinners, that they are considered freaks if they wear skirts, etc, shouldn’t oppose that, but if they have other things that they consider a higher priority from a social justice perspective, we shouldn’t ask, “why aren’t they putting their effort into liberating men from male gender roles?”
Can’t reply to all the comments directed toward my last post right now, but I wanted to check back and read them quickly. Let me be clear that I’m not advocating something as cynical and counter-productive as the “Men’s Rights” movement, and I’m certainly not here as a flamer. (As I said before, I very much enjoy this type of discussion.) I actually embrace feminism, despite suspicions here to the contrary, but I can’t accept what I see as a hypocritical minority in the movement. I also think there is an innate problem with defining a movement (as above) for women’s rights as seeking equality to men’s rights, but claiming that any discussion of such a movement has no place for analysis of men and the things they face. How, for Heaven’s sake, will you ever determine your mission has been complete – that equality has been accomplished – unless you know the target? I have to go now for the rest of the night but I’ll be back to the computer as soon as possible to reply to the thoughtful posts above, especially shiloh’s, which I loved.
One more clarification,: the snippet Court refers to in #92 and that Shiloh refers to in #94 is actually not from me. It’s from Brian (#88). Thanks.
My objection to the concept of a “masculinist movement” is twofold.
First, it presumes that the ways that sexism oppresses men isn’t being discussed. That’s not true. The ways that sexism oppresses men has always been part of the critique of sexism — how could it not be? The genders are defined in terms of their opposition to each other. You can’t critique the arbitrary limits placed on women without at least implying a critique of the arbitrary limits placed on men. And it’s rare that the connection isn’t made explicit. The main emphasis is on the oppression of women, but that’s because the main focus of sexism is the oppression of women. Men’s oppression as men is largely derivative of the oppression of women.
Second, calling it a masculinist movement implies that it’s to be a separate movement from the movement against women’s oppression. There’s no reason why men need to separate themselves from women in order to confront sexism — in fact, that’s as counterproductive a move as could be imagined. I can’t see any point to organizing on such a basis, unless it’s specifically in opposition to women’s liberation. If all you mean is that, sometimes, men should talk with each other about what they suffer as men, then that’s not really a separate and distinct movement, and calling it such is misleading at best. In no small part this is because overt sexists have called for movements for men, again and again, as something explicitly opposed to the movement for women’s liberation — the MRAs are only one example of this.
I believe sexism is best opposed by women and men together, with the understanding that while sexism hurts men and women, it hurts women most, and the core of the struggle against sexism is the struggle for women’s liberation. When women are free, men will also be free.
Here, however, overt displays of just about any emotion (save aggressive anger)
Interesting how you push that off into parenthesis when it’s actually pretty central. Anger, especially aggressive anger, is considered completely off-limits for women. And it’s not considered “emotional” for a man to display aggressive anger.
Well I was going to reply Court, but several others have beaten me to it (and far more eloquently than I could have manged). All I can add is that if a feminist man came to me wanting me to support him in his decisions to, say, wear a skirt, I’d be behind him 100% (and have been in the past on this same issue). But if he comes to me and tries to tell me that I’m being unfair to not actively struggle against the social expectation that he not wear a skirt, but he doesn’t want to be up there in front? Not going to put my ass on the line where he won’t and probably going to be pissed at the implication that I should be fighting for somehting for him that he’s not willing to fight for himself, it’s as simple as that.
On a side note, try going to a Grateful Dead show sometime (Yeah, I know Jerry’s dead, but they still tour). You’ll see plenty of guys wearing skirts and not a single person making an issue of it. I also had a straight male friend in high school who liked to wear skirts a lot, he did and nobody ever picked a serious fight with him, he did get asked about it a lot though and it was a great conversation starter most of the time as the people who didn’t approve just shook their heads and got the hell away from us.