The End of Men~Mamas Don't let Your Baby Girls Grow Up to Be Housewives~

[Wildiris]

The End of Men

The Atlantic Magazine

 

Gender rules are changing. The evidence is in the workforce and management positions now dominated by women; the evidence is in our schools where more young women pursue degrees than young men, and the evidence is in the fundamental structure of our family relationships. This is an excellent article, albeit long, that deserves reading.

 

Cheers,

Iris

[Nicole M]

Interesting. I'm only about a third of the way through the article, but I suddenly remembered the recent Economist's cover article/s: "Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls." I can't link the article itself, but here's a piece about it: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/the-scandal-of-gendercide-war-on-baby-girls/index.html

 

So I'm guessing that although the Atlantic article hasn't specifically stated it, this is a western phenomenon, not worldwide. Curious that this rise of the dominance of women could be happening at exactly the same time as this gendercide.

[melissel]

Oh my gosh, the comments for that article are freaking me out. Thanks for linking; it was indeed a thought-provoking read--in more ways than one!

[Wildiris]

Interesting. I'm only about a third of the way through the article, but I suddenly remembered the recent Economist's cover article/s: "Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls." I can't link the article itself, but here's a piece about it: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/the-scandal-of-gendercide-war-on-baby-girls/index.html

 

So I'm guessing that although the Atlantic article hasn't specifically stated it, this is a western phenomenon, not worldwide. Curious that this rise of the dominance of women could be happening at exactly the same time as this gendercide.

 

According to this article the emerging female dominance is global.

 

"Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls." occurs in China and India for cultural reasons. It is the son's duty to honor the parents and give them a proper burial.

[dragons in the flower bed]

According to this article the emerging female dominance is global.

 

There was that bit about the herbivore men in Japan, wasn't there?

[dragons in the flower bed]

I was struck particularly by the idea that we are now paying individuals to do the jobs that women used to do at home for free. Women are naturally more inclined to do these, so women take these jobs. The desire for this work to become paid work is a theme in Peggy Seeger's songs. Her most famous song, "Gonna Be An Engineer," goes like this --

 

I'd do the lovely things that a lady's s'posed to do

I wouldn't even mind if only they would pay me

Then I could be a person too.

 

What price for a woman?

You can buy her for a ring of gold,

To love and obey, without any pay,

You get a cook and a nurse for better or worse

You don't need a purse when a lady is sold.

[Catherine]

As a mom of three boys, I read with attention. But the hand-wringing over men who can't get over themselves is a little overwrought. If caregiving for no pay was so wonderful for women, why isn't a little of that wonderful for men? I don't get why SAHDs are subtly mocked in the article. Some men are wonderful caregivers to kids and I fail to see what is wrong with that.

 

What was most striking for me to read about was the absolute failure of men and boys to adapt to a changing economic landscape. Why would that be?? I wonder if it has to do with their fixed ideas about roles. The article makes it sound like men were in many cases stuck in beliefs about gender roles and work that kept them from making choices that would be in their best social and economic interest. I think it is true that some men have absorbed ideas about appropriate work for men that have hurt them economically and superceded their perceived role as breadwinners.

 

In my workplace (a hospital), I've observed very interesting phenomenon in nursing. Our hospital suffered a very severe shortage of nurses 10-20 years ago. In its efforts to fill positions, it recruited filipino people, paying for their nursing education, bringing them to the US, helping with citizenship, and then employing them. Filipino men clearly did not have the same disdain for nursing work that american men had and have become excellent nurses, well paid for their efforts.

 

But back to the personal-my own boys. I do think that school settings are not always comfortable places for boys. But I also think that developing self-control is a very important part of growth for any young man and my dh and I have worked hard on this with our boys. Failing to do that, as IMO some parents do, is leaving the kids with a severe handicap. By the same token, I hope we are teaching that hard work, sacrifice, adaptibility, and family ties are far more important than fulfilling some macho ideal.

[Murphy101]

 

I'll go one further and say that IS the macho ideal, imnsho.

[Murphy101]

Overe all I didn't like the articles. I felt they failed to be objective and may have crossed to questionable morals.

 

It has a basic vibe of the men are to blame for not having jobs and who cares bc yea women are going to rule the world.

 

I think the only thing that article got right was saying that men are being reduced to nothing more than a paycheck.

[Renee in NC]

I was struck by the fact that of the "fastest growing jobs available" not only were they typically more female-oriented jobs, but they were all low-paying jobs!

 

*That* to me is the worst part of all of this - that the fastest growing industries are going to create an even bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.

[Renee in NC]

It has a basic vibe of the men are to blame for not having jobs and who cares bc yea women are going to rule the world.

 

I think the only thing that article got right was saying that men are being reduced to nothing more than a paycheck.

 

I agree.

[Nicole M]

Overe all I didn't like the articles. I felt they failed to be objective and may have crossed to questionable morals.

 

It has a basic vibe of the men are to blame for not having jobs and who cares bc yea women are going to rule the world.

 

I think the only thing that article got right was saying that men are being reduced to nothing more than a paycheck.

 

That was the vibe I got. Right now I'm reading Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, and it speaks to some of what I found uncomfortable about the article. Great book.

 

As for China & India and gendercide, the actual Economist articles were better than the one I linked, and quite shocking. China & India account for 40% of the global population, so it's not a small, "isolated" issue.

 

ETA: I guess what I'm thinking is that the commodification of women's work + gendercide means that on a large, global scale, there are still gender wars, still a struggle for dominance, and that overall, these do not bode well for the human population.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Nicole M

[Michelle in AL]

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

[Murphy101]

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

 

 

:001_huh:

 

Why do you assume that?

 

My dh takes our kids to nearly all their appointments if possible. It's just easier than me taking all the kids.

 

And when I worked outside the home, we worked opposite shifts to reduce or eliminate daycare.

[stripe]

I found this article by Sandra Tsing Loh, which is really a book review, to be a good read. The book she references (A Mother's Work: How Feminism, the Market, and Policy Shape Family Life) is a good one and covers a lot of fascinating ground. Especially with regard to the view that work is somehow liberating, except no one ever stops to ask what kind of work we're talking about. Loh's "riff" on this is funny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/i-choose-my-choice/6847/

[Michelle in AL]

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

 

True, as I said, it's just something I assumed, since it's been an abrupt change. It doesn't mean it's true or what is actually happening.

[emubird]

Here is another opinion piece on that Atlantic article:

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/36605/women-top

[Geek]

I think the author's assumptions about the reasons behind this are incomplete. She mentions that this trend is caused by choice and post-industrial society favoring women, but she does not mention what recent British studies have found re: birth control pills.

 

Birth control pills cause women to favor more effeminate men. Also, being on the pill affects release of fertility signals to men. A lot of women use the Pill, and its hormones have been shown to be in our water supply now. Just think of all the urine from millions of women....

[Mama Lynx]

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

 

My husband takes off work to take the boys in for me whenever possible. It's often a better arrangement for us, especially when the kids were younger, and I didn't want to drag all four into an office filled with sick kids when only one of mine needed to be seen.

 

Now that I have a teen boy and an almost-teen, I want to be sensitive to the fact that they may prefer to have Dad along for physicals, than mom.

 

Also, he is better at handling some issues with the doctors than I am, because I am a big, fat chicken; but also because we have noticed that doctors respond to moms and dads very differently. We don't do a great deal of traditional medicine. When we do see a mainstream doc, we have found that they are more likely to scold and lecture me, but they are willing to write him off as the "clueless dad."

 

My dh also often takes them to the dentist. Again, often because I'm chicken :lol:

[Nicole M]

Here is another opinion piece on that Atlantic article:

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/36605/women-top

 

Awesome! Thank you. Loved this bit: "It takes a clever picker of statistical and anecdotal cherries, though, to make plausible Rosin's claim that we are on the verge of becoming a matriarchy."

[Renee in NC]

Wow. My dh has never *been* to a doctor or dentist appointment with any child, much less taken them.

[Murphy101]

Wow. My dh has never *been* to a doctor or dentist appointment with any child, much less taken them.

 

Which of course is just fine if that works for your family. No moral imperative involved on this one.;)

 

I'll take them if I need to, but it's a far easier to have dh help whe he can by either watch the kids or taking them.

[Nicole M]

I found this article by Sandra Tsing Loh, which is really a book review, to be a good read. The book she references (A Mother's Work: How Feminism, the Market, and Policy Shape Family Life) is a good one and covers a lot of fascinating ground. Especially with regard to the view that work is somehow liberating, except no one ever stops to ask what kind of work we're talking about. Loh's "riff" on this is funny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/i-choose-my-choice/6847/

 

Great article, fantastic writing. Thank you for this.

[Wildiris]

Here is another opinion piece on that Atlantic article:

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/36605/women-top

 

Thanks for the link.

 

I think the author's assumptions about the reasons behind this are incomplete. She mentions that this trend is caused by choice and post-industrial society favoring women, but she does not mention what recent British studies have found re: birth control pills.

 

Birth control pills cause women to favor more effeminate men. Also, being on the pill affects release of fertility signals to men. A lot of women use the Pill, and its hormones have been shown to be in our water supply now. Just think of all the urine from millions of women....

 

 

I read this too.

 

 

Even with all of its flaws, the Atlantic article does point to a change in how traditional roles are perceived. IMO boys, I have two young adult sons, have a rough time finding their place in the world and figuring out what is expected of them. The testosterone driven male is not in high demand these days.

 

The rules of the game are changing and the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" for both sexes is growing wider. If a college educated man could not carry the burden of providing a home and family life on a single income, how are college educated women going to do this? I do not think women will dominate the workplace. Modern living demands that both men and women work to support a family even at a minimal level of existence-food and shelter. Where does this leave children? Are they shuffled into the flex-time of two working parents? Or do we hand them electronic devices to occupy them, keeping them out of trouble but a bit pudgy?

 

I never thought I would say it, but it is a luxury that I can be a stay-at-home mother and homeschooling mother. My own mother didn't think staying home was a luxury. She couldn't wait to get out into the workforce. I do not think my two daughters will have the luxury to stay home and raise their children. Like their husbands/partners, my daughters will need to work so they can afford to live.

[Renee in NC]

Which of course is just fine if that works for your family. No moral imperative involved on this one.;)

 

I'll take them if I need to, but it's a far easier to have dh help whe he can by either watch the kids or taking them.

 

I wasn't thinking morality, either. My dh doesn't watch them, either - he's generally at work when dc have appts. I can be thankful he has a job, though, since so many others are unemployed.

[Renee in NC]

Thanks for the link.

 

 

 

 

I read this too.

 

 

Even with all of its flaws, the Atlantic article does point to a change in how traditional roles are perceived. IMO boys, I have two young adult sons, have a rough time finding their place in the world and figuring out what is expected of them. The testosterone driven male is not in high demand these days.

 

The rules of the game are changing and the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" for both sexes is growing wider. If a college educated man could not carry the burden of providing a home and family life on a single income, how are college educated women going to do this? I do not think women will dominate the workplace. Modern living demands that both men and women work to support a family even at a minimal level of existence-food and shelter. Where does this leave children? Are they shuffled into the flex-time of two working parents? Or do we hand them electronic devices to occupy them, keeping them out of trouble but a bit pudgy?

 

I never thought I would say it, but it is a luxury that I can be a stay-at-home mother and homeschooling mother. My own mother didn't think staying home was a luxury. She couldn't wait to get out into the workforce. I do not think my two daughters will have the luxury to stay home and raise their children. Like their husbands/partners, my daughters will need to work so they can afford to live.

 

You are right from a middle class perspective. That minimal level of existence is going to be determined by what you expect and that will determine what you consider a "luxury." I think that we need to reconsider what is "minimal" and make our decisions from that. We all have to prioritize and decide sometimes what is the lesser of the evils. I have to make decisions now based on what is best for my dc, espcecially my two with special needs. "Luxury" doesn't even come into the equation.

[Mom0012]

I was really struck by the comment that Americans are starting to prefer to have girls over boys. I wonder if it is because so many boys these days are having learning disabilities and other disorders. Something is happening to our boys and I don't believe for a second it's ust a higher diagnosis or labelling rate. It's almost rare to come across a "normal" boy. My husband is my son's cub scout leader and almost every child in the group is either ADHD, mild autism, learning disabled, gifted with social problems, etc. I don't see that among the girls in my daughter's brownie troop.

 

Lisa

[Murphy101]

I was really struck by the comment that Americans are starting to prefer to have girls over boys. I wonder if it is because so many boys these days are having learning disabilities and other disorders. Something is happening to our boys and I don't believe for a second it's ust a higher diagnosis or labelling rate. It's almost rare to come across a "normal" boy. My husband is my son's cub scout leader and almost every child in the group is either ADHD, mild autism, learning disabled, gifted with social problems, etc. I don't see that among the girls in my daughter's brownie troop.

 

Lisa

 

I don't know.

 

I'm torn between thinking it's a combination of over labeling and a general attitude that simply being male is defective in and of itself. There's a heck of a lot that was absolutely normal for boys/ men 50 years ago that is viewed has needing some kind of intervention these days.

[Murphy101]

My dh says more people want girls bc they think life is easier for women these days. They get more scholarships, govt assistance, affirmative action, and so forth. Really for all the hype women DO have it easier as long as they don't want to stay married or be SAHMs.

 

My dh was unemployed for a year and qualified for nearly nothing.

 

However if I had gone job hunting. I would have received child care subsides, housing assistance, several outfits for professional work including shoes and hair cuts, I would have fit the bill for affirmative action quotas, I would qualify for education assistance and many many other things. Married white guy in his mid-30s though? Nothing anywhere near that.

 

Dh says he doesn't worry much about our girls unless they marry an ogre. Girls will get help in various forms. But boys? It's sink or swim with sharks.

[melissel]

I don't get why SAHDs are subtly mocked in the article. Some men are wonderful caregivers to kids and I fail to see what is wrong with that.

 

It has a basic vibe of the men are to blame for not having jobs and who cares bc yea women are going to rule the world.

 

Interesting. I didn't get either of these from the article (or author) itself, but I did get that impression from some of the interviewees--the young women they interviewed. That is disappointing, but I'm not surprised. The pendulum was swung from the far reaches of one direction and is coming to the far reaches of the other direction. Hopefully paying some attention to these issues will push us back toward the middle!

 

I was struck by the fact that of the "fastest growing jobs available" not only were they typically more female-oriented jobs, but they were all low-paying jobs!

 

*That* to me is the worst part of all of this - that the fastest growing industries are going to create an even bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.

 

The fastest-growing jobs are the jobs that are indispensable in a modern society--nurses, teachers, etc. They've been dominated by women because women were seen as the "natural nurturers" for so long. That's why they're the lower-paying jobs, of course. If we could move more men into them, maybe the wages would rise. But yes, ITA with your second point :(

 

I think the author's assumptions about the reasons behind this are incomplete. She mentions that this trend is caused by choice and post-industrial society favoring women, but she does not mention what recent British studies have found re: birth control pills.

 

No disrespect, Geek, but I don't buy this at all. I'd need a lot more than the CNN snippet and one vague-sounding study to convince me. I very strongly believe that this phenomenon is far more deeply connected to the increased social acceptance of more "effeminate" men, and the increased focus over the past many years on men getting more in touch with their own emotions, etc. I don't believe it's impossible, but I think there are many more cultural factors to point to rather than physical ones.

 

That was the vibe I got. Right now I'm reading Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture, and it speaks to some of what I found uncomfortable about the article. Great book.

 

Oooh, sounds so interesting (and I speak as a feminist who's found profound happiness in my current domestic role :D) I'm going to look for it ASAP!

 

I think what struck me most about the article was what Catherine mentioned. Why have men failed to adapt to these changing roles? The author made a great point about how our economy has been set up and how it benefited the educational late-bloomers:

 

Clearly, some percentage of boys are just temperamentally unsuited to college, at least at age 18 or 20, but without it, they have a harder time finding their place these days. “Forty years ago, 30 years ago, if you were one of the fairly constant fraction of boys who wasn’t ready to learn in high school, there were ways for you to enter the mainstream economy,†says Henry Farber, an economist at Princeton. “When you woke up, there were jobs. There were good industrial jobs, so you could have a good industrial, blue-collar career. Now those jobs are gone.â€

 

This burns me up too:

 

"What’s clear is that schools, like the economy, now value the self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude that seem to come more easily to young girls."

 

It seems to me that the acceptance of this assumption for most men/boys is a more modern thing, no? I mean, I think of the billions of men and boys who were well-educated in excellent schools all over the world. Did most of them not develop self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude? Or do I have an idealized view of what schools used to demand from their students? (Hopefully I'm making sense--I was up until 6 a.m. working on our new schoolroom!)

[JenC3]

I don't know.

 

I'm torn between thinking it's a combination of over labeling and a general attitude that simply being male is defective in and of itself. There's a heck of a lot that was absolutely normal for boys/ men 50 years ago that is viewed has needing some kind of intervention these days.

 

Our men have been emasculated. They're stuck in cubicles all day slaving away so that on the weekend they can be saddled with keeping the perfect lawn and completing the honey-do list. They lack the ability to express their maleness. We suppress natural urges in boys calling them unruly and lacking attention. I do this with my own son and am working to stop it. Watch your son play and see what he is interested in:

 

Adventure

Bravery

War

Protecting

Good vs. Evil

Conquering

Understanding the world around him

Taking things apart

Fixing them

Changing them into something else.

Physicality- because biological he is supposed to learn to run fast jump high tackle and be a warrior.

 

My dh and I take about this at length and although I do want my son to respect women, know how to do "menial" work, and be a partner to his spouse, I also want him to be a protector so his maleness must be cultivated for this to happen.

 

I want my gender to revel in their gender as I do mine. I have always loved being a women, but enjoyed identifying with men as well-adventure part;) I want them to glorify each gender, but yet not neglect their own.

[TXMary2]

I was really struck by the comment that Americans are starting to prefer to have girls over boys. I wonder if it is because so many boys these days are having learning disabilities and other disorders. Something is happening to our boys and I don't believe for a second it's ust a higher diagnosis or labelling rate. It's almost rare to come across a "normal" boy. My husband is my son's cub scout leader and almost every child in the group is either ADHD, mild autism, learning disabled, gifted with social problems, etc. I don't see that among the girls in my daughter's brownie troop.

 

Lisa

 

IMNSHO the labeling and diagnosis of boys is out of control. The War Against Boys is an excellent book and discusses this "epidemic" with boys.

 

Recently I attended a workshop where the main speaker was a former Director of an ADHD clinic. He was a medical doctor and he said that 70% of the boy that came through his clinic were misdiagnosed as ADHD simply because they they had different ideas about life than their mothers and teachers (who were mostly female). Before homeschooling, one of my middle son's teachers at his private school told me she was certain my son was ADHD so I took him to our pediatrician who said he was a normal boy. Thank you very much!

 

I allow my boys to play with toy guns, they use real guns (and have been very schooled in gun safety) and they have normal healthy attitudes regarding guns. Purely anecdotal here, but my nephew recently visited us from California......his mother (my SIL) is rabidly anti-gun but allows him to do paintball shooting (figure that one out). He has very unhealthy ideas about guns, is clueless about safety yet my husband took him to the shooting range. I warned my husband that he needed to have a very serious discussion with the nephew before handing him the shot gun because the only guns he handles get pointed at people and fired. My husband blew me off. Turns out I was right and apparently my nephew moved a loaded shotgun (with safety on) across my 14 yo ds body while out at the range. My husband went ballistic on him and took the gun from him. All this to say that when boys are taught not to act like boys, it isn't healthy, smart or safe. Boys are wired (dare I say designed) to work a certain way. There are exceptions that are natural, but I believe boys that aren't "normal" boys are conditioned by their living environment to be that way. OT, rant off.

 

:rant:

[JenC3]

"What’s clear is that schools, like the economy, now value the self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude that seem to come more easily to young girls."

 

It seems to me that the acceptance of this assumption for most men/boys is a more modern thing, no? I mean, I think of the billions of men and boys who were well-educated in excellent schools all over the world. Did most of them not develop self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude? Or do I have an idealized view of what schools used to demand from their students? (Hopefully I'm making sense--I was up until 6 a.m. working on our new schoolroom!)

 

Melissa I think there used to be more physical discipline that keep boys in line. Let's not forgot corporal punishment ceased in the past 25 yrs or so in schools and the diagnosis' have increased. I'm NOT advocating corporal punishment AT ALL, but it occured to me since boys used to be the gender majority of students.

[Renee in NC]

I don't know.

 

I'm torn between thinking it's a combination of over labeling and a general attitude that simply being male is defective in and of itself. There's a heck of a lot that was absolutely normal for boys/ men 50 years ago that is viewed has needing some kind of intervention these days.

 

50 years ago there was a place for these boys. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had to worry as much about the futures of my sons. "Manual labor" jobs still provided an acceptable standard of living. There were tons of options - agriculture and manufacturing being the biggies. Neither of these things are readily available in our current economy. Two of my boys aren't likely to *ever* go to college because they just won't be able to. They may never be able to learn one of the better paying trades.

 

So, the intervention isn't because what was normal 50 years ago isn't anymore - it's because there isn't a place for them in society as an adult who can support a family. They would make great factory workers. One of them is strong as an ox - there were lots of opportunities for him 50 years ago. Now? Search the job listings and see where they could make more than $8-10 an hour.

[Nicole M]

"What’s clear is that schools, like the economy, now value the self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude that seem to come more easily to young girls."

 

It seems to me that the acceptance of this assumption for most men/boys is a more modern thing, no? I mean, I think of the billions of men and boys who were well-educated in excellent schools all over the world. Did most of them not develop self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude? Or do I have an idealized view of what schools used to demand from their students? (Hopefully I'm making sense--I was up until 6 a.m. working on our new schoolroom!)

 

Melissa I think there used to be more physical discipline that keep boys in line. Let's not forgot corporal punishment ceased in the past 25 yrs or so in schools and the diagnosis' have increased. I'm NOT advocating corporal punishment AT ALL, but it occured to me since boys used to be the gender majority of students.

 

This is an excellent point. Until about a hundred or so years ago, boys were seen as wild animals to be tamed. I will try to find where I read about that -- perhaps in the introduction to The American Boys' Handy Book?

[melissel]

Modern living demands that both men and women work to support a family even at a minimal level of existence-food and shelter. Where does this leave children? Are they shuffled into the flex-time of two working parents? Or do we hand them electronic devices to occupy them, keeping them out of trouble but a bit pudgy?

 

I never thought I would say it, but it is a luxury that I can be a stay-at-home mother and homeschooling mother.

 

Yes, and yes, and yes, and yes.

 

I was really struck by the comment that Americans are starting to prefer to have girls over boys.

 

I think, in addition to all the things you listed, boys generally get a bad rap as being a handful. Also, I suspect it's because moms may have a stronger preference in play, and if they can choose, they may choose the gender they relate to more. (I know I did. I was so afraid I'd have boys, because I'd have had no clue how to raise a boy. I was an only child, raised mainly among the women in my extended family, with mainly female friends.)

 

Really for all the hype women DO have it easier as long as they don't want to stay married or be SAHMs.

 

Really? I'm curious as to why you think single men are worse off than single women. I don't see it. I guess, for that matter, I don't see why married men would have it easier than married women. The issues are just different, IMO. Can you expand?

 

However if I had gone job hunting. I would have received child care subsides, housing assistance, several outfits for professional work including shoes and hair cuts, I would have fit the bill for affirmative action quotas, I would qualify for education assistance and many many other things.

 

The assumption is that it's harder for women with children to find jobs that pay a living wage than it is for men with children to do so, for many of the reasons already discussed (women tend to congregate in lower-paying fields, etc.) I believe those disadvantages still exist for women, though they are growing for men too, especially in the current economy.

[JenC3]

Renee- I wouldn't worry. I think the next 10-20 yrs you will see a resurgence in manual labor. Our economy will absolutely require it. I'm already urging my 4 yr old son to be an organic farmer.

[Nicole M]

50 years ago there was a place for these boys. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had to worry as much about the futures of my sons. "Manual labor" jobs still provided an acceptable standard of living. There were tons of options - agriculture and manufacturing being the biggies. Neither of these things are readily available in our current economy. Two of my boys aren't likely to *ever* go to college because they just won't be able to. They may never be able to learn one of the better paying trades.

 

So, the intervention isn't because what was normal 50 years ago isn't anymore - it's because there isn't a place for them in society as an adult who can support a family. They would make great factory workers. One of them is strong as an ox - there were lots of opportunities for him 50 years ago. Now? Search the job listings and see where they could make more than $8-10 an hour.

 

I would say that there is a swing back to this, though, a rebellion against the cubicle office life (which is not just emasculating to men, but dehumanizing to men and women in general). The NYT article comes to mind, The Case for Working with your Hands: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html. There was another article recently that addressed this as well, but I can't find it. I'll keep looking.

[Renee in NC]

The fastest-growing jobs are the jobs that are indispensable in a modern society--nurses, teachers, etc. They've been dominated by women because women were seen as the "natural nurturers" for so long. That's why they're the lower-paying jobs, of course. If we could move more men into them, maybe the wages would rise. But yes, ITA with your second point :(

 

 

I think what struck me most about the article was what Catherine mentioned. Why have men failed to adapt to these changing roles? The author made a great point about how our economy has been set up and how it benefited the educational late-bloomers:

 

Clearly, some percentage of boys are just temperamentally unsuited to college, at least at age 18 or 20, but without it, they have a harder time finding their place these days. “Forty years ago, 30 years ago, if you were one of the fairly constant fraction of boys who wasn’t ready to learn in high school, there were ways for you to enter the mainstream economy,†says Henry Farber, an economist at Princeton. “When you woke up, there were jobs. There were good industrial jobs, so you could have a good industrial, blue-collar career. Now those jobs are gone.â€

 

 

 

This is exactly it. My father got married and dropped out of high school in the 10th grade. He left school one day, had a full-time job the next. Not only that, but his wages were enough to give him a basic standard of living with which to start his family. It isn't possible to do that now!

 

I don't think the wages would rise if men moved into more of those jobs. The economy couldn't take it. Our economy (as one of these articles pointed out) is based on those with money paying others for services. There are only so many people that are creating wealth. The nurturing/caring jobs don't add to our economy, they support it.

[melissel]

"What’s clear is that schools, like the economy, now value the self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude that seem to come more easily to young girls."

 

It seems to me that the acceptance of this assumption for most men/boys is a more modern thing, no? I mean, I think of the billions of men and boys who were well-educated in excellent schools all over the world. Did most of them not develop self-control, focus, and verbal aptitude? Or do I have an idealized view of what schools used to demand from their students? (Hopefully I'm making sense--I was up until 6 a.m. working on our new schoolroom!)

 

Melissa I think there used to be more physical discipline that keep boys in line. Let's not forgot corporal punishment ceased in the past 25 yrs or so in schools and the diagnosis' have increased. I'm NOT advocating corporal punishment AT ALL, but it occured to me since boys used to be the gender majority of students.

 

Ah, you (and Nicole) are right. See, I do have an idealized view of the school days of yore :001_smile:

 

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely. I wish I didn't have to go clean up for our picnic; alas, I do. Can't wait to come back to this thread tonight. (I really, really hope it will still be here!)

Edited July 4, 2010 by melissel

[melissel]

I don't think the wages would rise if men moved into more of those jobs. The economy couldn't take it. Our economy (as one of these articles pointed out) is based on those with money paying others for services. There are only so many people that are creating wealth. The nurturing/caring jobs don't add to our economy, they support it.

 

True. I find our economy simply terrifying :( It feels like a carefully constructed house of cards that has nowhere to go but higher and higher. We all know the inevitable result of that.

 

And ETA: My dad did the same--graduated HS with a baby (:seeya:) on the way and walked right into a full-time job at a pharma plant. He's spent his whole career in that industry--no college.

Edited July 4, 2010 by melissel

[Renee in NC]

Renee- I wouldn't worry. I think the next 10-20 yrs you will see a resurgence in manual labor. Our economy will absolutely require it. I'm already urging my 4 yr old son to be an organic farmer.

 

That's what my sons want to be - farmers. They have been saying that as long as they could talk. We used to have a minifarm of sorts, and they were much happier (and much better off) there.

 

I would say that there is a swing back to this, though, a rebellion against the cubicle office life (which is not just emasculating to men, but dehumanizing to men and women in general). The NYT article comes to mind, The Case for Working with your Hands: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html. There was another article recently that addressed this as well, but I can't find it. I'll keep looking.

 

Great article! I think that one thing does stand out - those who are most successful at the trades are those who are self-employed. The days of being a plumber or electrician working for someone else and still making a good living have gone by the wayside. My father used to own a plumbing business where he paid his plumbers a decent wage, offered benefits, etc. He hung on for a long time, but eventually he had to stop. Most plumbing companies quit using licensed plumbers to do the work - they used "plumbing assistants" who didn't know plumbing, but could be directed to do the actual work. He couldn't compete, so he laid everyone off, reduced his business, and did the plumbing himself.

[Danestress]

A son is your son till he takes a wife, a daughter is yours for the rest of her life.

 

Or however it is that goes. It defines how we think of adult children, and in our cultural, certainly not every culture, we think that boys will grow away from us in a profound way, but daughters will remain their mothers' "best friends." Wives in our culture rule the roost. If a woman doesn't like her inlaws ,she manages not to spend time with them and often convinces her husband that he never liked them anyway. That's how it goes in America.

 

So I think many people would rather have daughters because they believe that they will have a life long relationship with a daughter and will see more of her grandchildren. With a son, there is a general feeling that you will be lucky to see him once a year and having a passing familiarity with his children.

[cathmom]

I'm not so concerned about how birth control pills are affecting women, but how they are polluting our environment and causing changes to our boys. Of course, it makes sense that if you don't want to get pg, you would be more attracted to men who don't seem like really virile types.

 

I'm also really concerned with how the lower grades have gotten more academic. Boys are being labelled as failures and given medication at the very beginning of their school careers, and somehow we expect them to overcome that in an environment where they are not valued.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

My dh is a pediatrician, one striking thing I've noticed over the past yr is that the father brings in the child for the office visits at least 60% of the time.

 

To me this meant that the mom was working and the husband wasn't.

 

My DH often takes the kids to the doctor for sick visits because health and medicine is one of his interests. He is a scientist at heart and thinks of questions to ask that would never cross my mind. Also, like others have mentioned, it's easier than me taking all the kids to the doctor when only one needs to be seen. It gives me time at home to get some rest and get some things done that I haven't been able to get to while dealing with a sick child.

 

We usually both go to well child appointments. Our wonderful doctor will schedule all three of my kids to come at once and we both need to be there to help the whole production run smoothly! (And it is a production!)

 

Maybe the change your DH is seeing comes from more flexible work environments for the dads. My DH is able to take time off when he needs it because his boss knows that he'll still get his work done.

[Murphy101]

50 years ago there was a place for these boys. 50 years ago I wouldn't have had to worry as much about the futures of my sons. "Manual labor" jobs still provided an acceptable standard of living.

 

ETA: upon rereading this it sounds abrasive and I didn't intend that. My question is sincere bc I truly believe this is not just about rowdy boys/men needing more physical outlets. This is about men in general regardless of personality characteristics. :)

 

:confused: what do you mean by "these boys"?

 

As though they are only mentally fit for manual labor or what?

 

I've got nothing against manual labor but that is not what I was referring to at all.

 

A man can be a manly man and still be an intellectual. The two are not contradictory.

 

My dh is not suited to manual labor. It is very hard on his type 1 diabetes. He finds he has to eat constantly and constantly adjust his insulin if he does it for a very extended time on a daily basis. He is naturally very thin and has always had a high calorie burn rate.

 

My dh is very soft spoken, kind, and professional. He is very much not a good ol boy rough guy at all. But even that is not enough when working with women. Women constantly expect to have their feelings given consideration and men just don't work that way. A conference room of men is very different than a conference room with women in it. The women might cry if someone doesn't like their idea and says it just like that. Even if they don't in the room, they will later and remember it for weeks. The men shrug it off and move on much quicker. Ask any man and he'll likely tell you that her

feeling do not matter and she needs to get the heck over it, suck it up and do the job. He isn't being mean. He is being professional. But that's only professional if working with other men. Or if a woman is treating a man that way.:001_huh:

Edited July 4, 2010 by Martha

[FairProspects]

IMNSHO the labeling and diagnosis of boys is out of control. The War Against Boys is an excellent book and discusses this "epidemic" with boys.

 

Recently I attended a workshop where the main speaker was a former Director of an ADHD clinic. He was a medical doctor and he said that 70% of the boy that came through his clinic were misdiagnosed as ADHD simply because they they had different ideas about life than their mothers and teachers (who were mostly female). Before homeschooling, one of my middle son's teachers at his private school told me she was certain my son was ADHD so I took him to our pediatrician who said he was a normal boy. Thank you very much!

 

I allow my boys to play with toy guns, they use real guns (and have been very schooled in gun safety) and they have normal healthy attitudes regarding guns. Purely anecdotal here, but my nephew recently visited us from California......his mother (my SIL) is rabidly anti-gun but allows him to do paintball shooting (figure that one out). He has very unhealthy ideas about guns, is clueless about safety yet my husband took him to the shooting range. I warned my husband that he needed to have a very serious discussion with the nephew before handing him the shot gun because the only guns he handles get pointed at people and fired. My husband blew me off. Turns out I was right and apparently my nephew moved a loaded shotgun (with safety on) across my 14 yo ds body while out at the range. My husband went ballistic on him and took the gun from him. All this to say that when boys are taught not to act like boys, it isn't healthy, smart or safe. Boys are wired (dare I say designed) to work a certain way. There are exceptions that are natural, but I believe boys that aren't "normal" boys are conditioned by their living environment to be that way. OT, rant off.

 

:rant:

 

:iagree:completely. Lots of mislabeling because boys won't sit still. Ds was asked to leave an academic preschool at AGE 3 because of this. Preschool teacher wanted a diagnosis, years and multiple doctors and evaluations later - still no official diagnosis other than MALE.

 

I think, in addition to all the things you listed, boys generally get a bad rap as being a handful. Also, I suspect it's because moms may have a stronger preference in play, and if they can choose, they may choose the gender they relate to more. (I know I did. I was so afraid I'd have boys, because I'd have had no clue how to raise a boy. I was an only child, raised mainly among the women in my extended family, with mainly female friends.)

 

After growing up with a brother, and having two boys of my own, I really have to disagree here. Boys ARE a handful. Obviously, some boys are naturally studious and serious, but many, if not most are not. I can't even tell you the friendships I have lost, playdates I've been asked to leave, etc. not because the boys' behavior was so bad, but because the expectations were so inappropriate for boys.

 

My boys are not likely to sit still at a table and do your paint with water craft, without throwing it at one another. Nor are they likely to leave alone the glass frame/doo-dad you've left on the table at eye-level when they are 2, even though your girls never touch it. They are just far more active in general!!

[Murphy101]

Ug. I never fit the pegs.

 

I had 4 boys before I had a girl. Aside from potty training, boys are hands down easier for me. No drama.

 

I've always had the same expectations of behavior of my boys as my girls. The boys might be far more rough and tumble, but they are just as capable of doing the craft and leaving the picture frame alone.

 

In fact, I would be mildly annoyed if someone insinuated that they couldn't just because they are boys.

 

Now are my boys more likely to draw a battle scene and use lots of red and black or say the picture across from them is ugly? Yep.

 

Are my boys more likely to bop one another with missile legos? Yep.

 

However five minutes later they have moved on and are playing with the former enemy, but the next day my daughters are still fuming and might even cry when they remember it.:D

[Renee in NC]

ETA: upon rereading this it sounds abrasive and I didn't intend that. My question is sincere bc I truly believe this is not just about rowdy boys/men needing more physical outlets. This is about men in general regardless of personality characteristics. :)

 

:confused: what do you mean by "these boys"?

 

As though they are only mentally fit for manual labor or what?

 

Boys like mine, who are labeled and getting all kids of therapy. In the past there was no need to "label them" because there was a place for them in society just as they were born. There isn't a place like that for my boys anymore. Because of the huge reduction of manufacturing and agriculture, manual labor for other people is about the only place they'll fit.

 

I've got nothing against manual labor but that is not what I was referring to at all.

 

A man can be a manly man and still be an intellectual. The two are not contradictory.

 

My dh is not suited to manual labor. It is very hard on his type 1 diabetes. He finds he has to eat constantly and constantly adjust his insulin if he does it for a very extended time on a daily basis. He is naturally very thin and has always had a high calorie burn rate.

 

 

 

I am assuming that your dh does not have a low IQ, either. Would he be labeled with something if he were a child today? Is he able to hold a professional job without much trouble? Can he multi-task and think on the fly?

 

I was only responding to your comment about boys being labeled for things that would have been considered normal 50 years ago. I was responding from the perspective of someone who has 2 boys that are labeled.

[Murphy101]

Oic! See now this can be a very interesting conversation too!

 

I don't know that I view it as them only being able to do physical labor necessarily. I have a nephew with many labels who also has some unique abilities for example.

 

I think you do hit on a core problem though. There is basically ONE widely accepted path in our society. College to white collar desk job in a corporation setting. People rarely talk about the idea of their kid starting his own business or specializing in his personal interests or talents for the rest of their life. Maybe in sports or music this is somewhat less true, but even then it is mostly discussed in terms of helping them get college scholarships.

 

That's a terrible loss to our society IMHO. I think many many people are written off or tracked to a certain path from a very young age because it feels like a "safe" plan for their future. It likely IS, but I do think there is a cost to innovation in society and for individuals at least some of the time, possibly much of the time, that goes completely unrealized.

 

Not sure that made any sense whatsoever.:)

 

Boys like mine, who are labeled and getting all kids of therapy. In the past there was no need to "label them" because there was a place for them in society just as they were born. There isn't a place like that for my boys anymore. Because of the huge reduction of manufacturing and agriculture, manual labor for other people is about the only place they'll fit.

 

 

 

I am assuming that your dh does not have a low IQ, either. Would he be labeled with something if he were a child today? Is he able to hold a professional job without much trouble? Can he multi-task and think on the fly?

 

I was only responding to your comment about boys being labeled for things that would have been considered normal 50 years ago. I was responding from the perspective of someone who has 2 boys that are labeled.