|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a science yearbook that came with my family's encyclopedia set, I read a similar article which referred to a study showing that chronically ill people experience positive shifts in well-being when in the regular company of women, but experience no shifts when in the company of men. The implication is fairly obvious.
From personal experience, though, I can certainly attest that women (in general) seem prone to make it their business to give unsolicited self-care advice. In fact, I have learned to do the best I can to avoid sneezing, coughing or even looking tired when in the company of certain women, lest I be avalanched with interrogations about my physical well-being, and given the "You better go home and..." lecture.
Still, there could be another reason why people experience greater feelings of well-being in the company of women, which has nothing to do with women doing or saying anything. If we, as a culture, project certain warm and fuzzy qualities onto women, then simply being in their presence is going to make us feel better. For example, take the finding that watching fish swim in an aquarium eases stress. The fish certainly aren't doing anything to make you feel better. Rather, it is the way you respond to the fish that makes you feel better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, take the finding that watching fish swim in an aquarium eases stress. The fish certainly aren't doing anything to make you feel better. Rather, it is the way you respond to the fish that makes you feel better!
Good point, Hawth. And I agree with you, mainly because I know of reverse situations. I know women who feel better when a man is the one who repairs their car, or television set, or computer. It's a projection of individual prejudices going on there, and in the case of the well-being of people not in the company of women. Men aren't thought to be capable of nurturing, so ill people aren't going to feel better around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightmist: "Men aren't thought to be capable of nurturing, so ill people aren't going to feel better around them."
I think it's clear that, in general, women are just better at the sort of hand-holding, forehead-mopping, and chicken-soup-feeding that tends to make people feel better. After all, girls are generally taught these skills, either implicitly or explicitly, by their mothers. Boys are certainly not taught such skills by mom; and, in our society, dad is less likely to have -- or at least, to practice -- them. Not to be contrary, but I don't know why anyone would want to mess with this particular form of division of labor, which seems to work pretty well overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
essex9999, you wrote: "Not to be contrary, but I don't know why anyone would want to mess with this particular form of division of labor, which seems to work pretty well overall."
While I would never advocate that anyone be forced into a role or job that they don't like or feel comfortable with, I do think that stereotypes about men and women are unfair to those that want to choose their own destiny and be true to who they are, when who they are is not in line with the stereotypes.
I agree that stereotypes often have a grain of truth to them, but at the same time that we shouldn't make use of stereotypes to pass judgment on people, since *any individual* person is in no way guaranteed to be in line with the stereotype. Ie, not all mothers are good caretakers, and not all men are best suited to working full time rather than brining up their children full time.
If we have a society where people are not prejudged according to stereotypes, we can allow people to be more free to do what they really want to do, and the "kernel of truth" in the stereotypes would probably keep the mean roles that men and women have the same as they are, without marginalizing or attacking the people who don't follow the mean. Do you agree?
Also, I think the second problem with this particular stereotype is that it justifies sexism which is often harming fathers. If women are assumed by default to be more nuturing, caring, and better able to foster the health of their children, then judges are entirely justified in giving sole custody to mothers in an overwhelming majority of cases, are they not?
So, while it may be true that, on average, women and men may behave in certain ways, we are being unfair to others and to the idea of justice itself if we allow stereotypes to have a strong influence in our lives. I also doubt that any individual is accurately described by their stereotypes, and that everyone is some degree apart from their stereotypical expectations. Thus everyone has some interest in not being prejudged from all the stereotypes one can have about them.
This is, again, my humble opinion.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 09, @09:19PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely put, Scott! Your "humble opinion" is worth being expressed with pride, not humility, IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion).
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightmist: "If we have a society where people are not prejudged according to stereotypes, we can allow people to be more free to do what they really want to do, and the "kernel of truth" in the stereotypes would probably keep the mean roles that men and women have the same as they are, without marginalizing or attacking the people who don't follow the mean. Do you agree?"
Yes, I agree completely. I don't think people should be forced to conform to any particular stereotype. However, I do think stereotypes -- this one in particular -- do have, as you put it, a "kernel of truth" that it is foolish to deny.
The problem comes when men are expected to be nurturers (in the maternal sense), however much that may be against their nature; and when women are expected to be career-driven, even when they really want to be home-oriented. It seems to me that this kind of role-reversal is now celebrated, while conforming to gender stereotypes is demeaned. I think that's just as wrong as insisting that every man must be a warrior and every woman a doting mother.
NM: "Also, I think the second problem with this particular stereotype is that it justifies sexism which is often harming fathers. If women are assumed by default to be more nuturing, caring, and better able to foster the health of their children, then judges are entirely justified in giving sole custody to mothers in an overwhelming majority of cases, are they not?"
Custody decisions should always be individualized to the family. Stereotypes have no place in legal decisions affecting individual cases. I happen to believe that, in most cases, the mother would end up with custody anyway (most often with the father's consent -- not every divorce is bitter), but that fact should never be used to penalize a father who sincerely wants and is qualified to assume partial or full custody of his children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no! I just realized that I was responding to Scott, not nightmist. Sorry to both of you for the confusion! Must be because you look so much alike. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi essex9999, in your last comment you quoted me but referenced it to Nightmist accidentally.
I agree that women, in particular, are being unfairly pushed to be career driven, and those who work in the home are sometimes stigmatized by feminists for "not taking advantage" of their recently won rights. I think this is wrong, as it would be for men to be "expected" to take on traditionally female roles by default.
You said, "Custody decisions should always be individualized to the family. Stereotypes have no place in legal decisions affecting individual cases."
I would extend that by saying that stereotypes have no place in *any* decisions affecting individuals.
Thanks for your response.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @03:02PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the demonization of traditional roles is blamed on feminists, but I've seen some anti-feminists viciously tear into stay at home mothers and the husbands who support them. They say that the mothers are golddigging leeches, worse than prostitutes, and their husbands are pussy chumps who are being taken advantage of. I don't even come close to following traditional gender roles, and I think this is very wrong. It's the demonization of individuals for making choices that are very personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen some anti-feminists viciously tear into stay at home mothers and the husbands who support them.
So, are you saying you think there's some hypocrisy going on here? I'm not challenging you. I just want to be clear on what you're saying so I can respond to it.
In advance, I will say that the abolition of enforced sex roles for all people is one area where men's activists and feminists agree (sort of). The difference is that feminists focus on how traditional sex roles harm women, whereas men's activists focus on how traditional sex roles harm men. While I don't believe that either the traditional male or female gender role is universally harmful, I do know that it can be harmful to many individual men and women when their opposite-sex partner chooses to abuse their gender role (i.e., the male breadwinner who thinks he's free to beat or rape his wife, or the housewife who knowingly sponges off her husband).
I don't know if you're the same Anonymous who stated disbelief that any man would seek or desire the breadwinner role. What I have to say to that is - different strokes for different folks! A believe that a lot of men eagerly embrace that role (just as a lot of women eagerly embrace the traditional housewife role), while others say, "No, thanks." It's because of the latter type that both the men's and women's movements have sought to eliminate the enforcement of gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, boy, did I actually type: "A believe" instead of "I believe?" I always said it would be time to quit when I started taking on a faux southern accent! :-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 13, @11:05PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I fully agree that a partner who uses strict adherence to gender roles as a form of abuse is doing something very harmful.
More and more, I find it very difficult to believe that men really do eagerly embrace the role as breadwinner. It seems like most men who are breadwinners are miserable. They hate their jobs, they hate their lives, they deeply resent the burden of supporting a family, and they'd quit their jobs to be househusbands without hesitation if the opportunity arose. They know childcare isn't anywhere near as difficult as being a breadwinner. Being a stay at home mother is like being a mall cop on the graveyard shift. Someone has to be on site just in case an issue arises, but 90% of the time they have nothing to do. Who wouldn't want to do that over working in a boiler room where too many trips to the bathroom could get you written up for slacking?
I don't see this as a bad thing, so much as a human thing. Who wouldn't want to stay at home and not do anything all day, or at least be able to do what you want, like arts and crafts or woodworking? Who wouldn't grow resentful having to hand over your money to someone else, and not be able to do what you want with it?
The only way I can see a marriage being happy is if both the husband and wife work an equal amount of hours at equally rotten jobs, and split the bills exactly 50-50. They can hire a nanny to live in and raise the kids and be the mall cop.
As to why men choose to be providers if they know it sucks, well, why do people smoke even though they know they'll get lung cancer from it? Humans don't always do what's good for themselves. If you could explain why that is, I'd love to hear it! I'm wondering about it too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question of why people voluntarily do things that are not good for them is beyond the scope of this forum. What we're talking about is people doing things they might not otherwise do because they are forced or pressured into it.
As I've said before, I don't believe that the breadwinner role is universally miserable for all men. However, I do believe that there is enough dissatisfaction (and misery) among men in our society to warrant a movement which eliminates the arbitrary enforcement of gender roles.
However - again, it's not for the men's movement to say that all men should be miserable doing such and such a thing - and why - simply because some of us don't understand that lifestyle. That would put us in the same league as the feminists in the 60's and 70's who tried to persuade all women that they were miserable being housewives. Today, women have the freedom not to be housewives, and yet many of them willingly (and happily) conform to that role anyway. I fully expect that, 30 years from now, if the men's movement has been successful, you will still see many men choosing the breadwinner role.
That's fine - so long as they're doing so because they want to and not because they have to. And, frankly, it's none of my business why they would want to. So long as I can live the way I want to live, and they can as well - then that would be the ultimate success of the men's movement.
Of course - just as an aside - I will admit, too, that the reason some people may be unhappy with enforced gender roles is because they are enforced. It's a reverse psychology effect. Tell someone they have to do something, and they may suddenly feel averse to doing it, even if they would otherwise have gladly done it by choice. Or, sometimes people may suddenly contradict their original views if someone presents them with a negatively exaggerated version of what those views are.
Sinister thing, reverse psychology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yer an eloquent writer, Hawth.
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to be contrary, but I don't know why anyone would want to mess with this particular form of division of labor, which seems to work pretty well overall.
Why not? Because of the fact that men are perceived as being incapable of nurturing, we have British Airways refusing to seat men next to small children; fathers being denied custody of their children, even in the face of maternal abuse; fathers not being given paternity leave from work in order to be with their newborn children, because father's don't matter, right? Caring for a child is mother's work.
Essex, you've got to understand that just because women have been taught to nurture for centuries doesn't mean men are incapable of it. I refuse to cling to the stereotypes and pigeonholes in a time when they are no longer necessary.
And, FWIW, my father took care of me just as well as my mother when I was sick as a child and both of them worked. They took turns staying at home/in the hospital with me when I was severely dehydrated, and I felt just as comfortable with either of them there.
Don't let those old stereotypes tell you what you are/are not supposed to think, feel, and do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Scot and Nightmist! Stereotypes which harp on diffences between men and women are often used to justify mandating certain roles (or even outcomes) for individuals.
The impact goes farther than just preventing people from realizing their potential. Even if a person does go ahead and buck the stereotype, often their sexual identity or orientation is questioned, quite openly.
I didn't know British Airways had such a policy. I wonder why that was put in place?
Confession time: Once when my daughter was an infant I flew with her and happened to book a popular commuter business flight, around 8 am. I got on babe in arms and was the only woman passenger on the plane! I walked very s-l-o-w-l-y down the aisle looking at my ticket and the seat numbers while I watched men in business suits and laptops cringe and squirm in their seats, each of them praying silently "Not me, please God, not me." They all had this deer in the headlights look on their faces.
Now I didn't blame them one bit. I've been in the same situation. Having a baby shrieking on take off and landing and bursting your eardrums before a big presentation ..... or having a toddler reach over with a sticky snotty hand to grip your expensive business suit.... now THAT is fear!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know British Airways had such a policy. I wonder why that was put in place?
It's out of fear that the man will sexually assault the child.
Ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightmist (got it right this time, I hope): "Essex, you've got to understand that just because women have been taught to nurture for centuries doesn't mean men are incapable of it. I refuse to cling to the stereotypes and pigeonholes in a time when they are no longer necessary."
Ah, there's the rub. Who says they're no longer necessary? And why "no longer"? Were they once necessary but now no longer are, or have they always been a crock of crap? If the former, what has changed? If the latter, how did they manage to endure, in one form or another, for so long?
I certainly don't believe that men are INCAPABLE of nurturing in the maternalistic sense of the word, just that most men are not inclined that way by nature, at least not as much as women are. Individuals should do whatever works best for them and their families, but trying to force people away from stereotypes that work for them (for example, by demeaning the stereotyped role, or by implying that there is something wrong with them if they don't exhibit (or want to exhibit) the stereotyped traits of the opposite sex) is just as wrong as trying to force them to conform to the traditional model.
I don't mean to imply that you are trying to do that ... just explaining why I react the way I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny. I just typed in that "Fish gotta swim" subject line as an afterthought, because I made a reference to fish in my original post. But, as the thread continued down the line, it took on a whole new meaning!
The issue of nurturance is a touchy one, I think, for those of us who are not as casually "Viva le difference!" as our friend, Essex9999 (who also stirred up some debate with his/her remark that men generally want sex more than women).
First of all, to say that women are generally more nurturing than men is no small compliment. One of the things that separates humans from most animals is, I think, our compassion. Nurturing behavior, ultimately, requires compassion, as well as patience and humility. To say, then, that women are better nurturers is to say that they are higher in all those qualities - which is only a short step away from saying that women are better human beings than men. At the very least, it implies that women might actually be more important than men on a daily basis, which is only a short step from saying that women are superior.
Now, perhaps I'm over-interpreting, and perhaps I'm simply the victim of a feminized society that puts feminine virtues on a higher pedestal than masculine ones. But, if you want my honest opinion, I believe that nurturance is the greatest human virtue. I really think it is. And so, this is the reason why I can't just blithely hand it over to women on a silver platter with my head bowed and say, "Of course, we all know this is yours."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been waiting for the opportunity to cry "Vive la difference!" Thanks! :-)
Hawth: "First of all, to say that women are generally more nurturing than men is no small compliment. One of the things that separates humans from most animals is, I think, our compassion."
We are also separated from other animals by our valor, loyalty, and willingness to sacrifice self for an abstract principle. These are qualities classically (though not exclusively, of course) associated with men.
"Nurturing behavior, ultimately, requires compassion, as well as patience and humility. To say, then, that women are better nurturers is to say that they are higher in all those qualities - which is only a short step away from saying that women are better human beings than men."
Not necessarily. Only that they are "better" at some human qualities, while men are "better" at others.
"At the very least, it implies that women might actually be more important than men on a daily basis, which is only a short step from saying that women are superior."
Not at all. Women and men -- in society at large, not every individual man and woman -- complement one another. Each is part of the essential whole.
Hawth: "Now, perhaps I'm over-interpreting, and perhaps I'm simply the victim of a feminized society that puts feminine virtues on a higher pedestal than masculine ones. But, if you want my honest opinion, I believe that nurturance is the greatest human virtue. I really think it is."
Perhaps this does explain our different points of view, since I think of nurturance as only one of many essential human virtues. No offense to you, Hawth, but I also think our society has become "feminized" to the extent of exalting virtues like nurturance, derisively but often accurately described as "the touchy-feely stuff," over virtues like courage, rationalism, and honor.
Hawth again: "And so, this is the reason why I can't just blithely hand it over to women on a silver platter with my head bowed and say, "Of course, we all know this is yours.""
Well, it isn't entirely theirs. As individuals we all vary in the degree to which we express human virtues and vices, and in real-life interactions, that's what matters, not the general traits of either sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with all your points, Essex. Ultimately, I know these things to be true. However, I felt it was important to (finally) call attention to what this particular "stereotype" implies, to me - because, so often, people with similar views as yours just blithely toss off that observation as if they didn't appreciate what it truly implies, and how deeply that implication can hurt certain types of people.
People like me, for example. In addition to being a "victim of a feminized society", I also, in my life, have had the personal misfortune of being abused by many people (male and female). One of the net effects of that is that you learn to really appreciate the value of having kind and compassionate people in your life. Perhaps I prioritize kindness and caring in my relationships with people more than is normal, because of my experiences, and so it bothers me more when I'm told that this element which I place such a high importance on will mostly be found in women and only rarely in other men. That's pretty depressing, when you naturally want to have a balance of men and women in your life whom you'll value as close friends.
I could have been a feminist or a misandrist, very easily. I think many feminists and misandrists arrive at their views because they, too, were abused - and, even if they were abused by women as much as men, the common belief that men are more prone to abuse and women are more prone to kindness and compassion leads them to the conclusion that the masculine must be stomped down so that the gentle feminine can rule...and they no longer will have to feel frightened of the world, because the gentle feminine will perfectly accommodate their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and let them cry, and let them lick their wounds, and will never yell at them to stop crying and stand up and get on with their lives. Again - I know how these people think. I was almost one of them.
And I can tell you, then, how they would interpret the masculine virtues you listed:
Valor = Men riding on horses with swords and killing people.
Loyalty = Men going to war and killing foreigners in droves because of "loyalty" to their own country.
Willingness to Sacrifice Oneself for Abstract Principle = Again, men going to war and killing people because they believe in an abstract principle (or, for example, the Bin Laden disciples who suicide bombed the WTC).
See what I mean? The problem is that masculine virtues have highly visible shadow sides to them, whereas feminine virtues (as yet) do not. Both the masculine and feminine are blessings, but the masculine - I feel - is often a blessing in disguise, whereas the feminine tends to manifest its "goodness" very blatantly. There is no mistaking the benevolence of giving birth, or nursing a child, or soothing a sick person. However, it is very easy to look at the things men more commonly do - such as working long hours, or going to war - and completely overlooking the inherent goodness of these acts and only seeing the unpleasantness of them (i.e., not being available at home, or killing people, etc.), thus leading to the conclusion that men are unpleasant creatures who do what we do only for unpleasant reasons.
This is a problem that I think we would have even without misandrist feminism. But misandrist feminism has clearly exacerbated the problem, and that's why it needs to be stopped. I thank God that I had the sense not to become a feminist even though certain personal issues made it seem inviting. However, I can see where too many other weak people have succombed to feminism's siren song.
Silencing that song is what being in the men's movement is all about, for me. And one of the ways of accomplishing this is to show the world that men are equal to women in kindness and compassion, and that the shadow sides of masculine virtues are not the only sides - and, that feminine virtues have shadow sides of their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great post Hawth and many others. Good thread.
My own $.02 is that men have their own way of nurturing that is completely missed. It varies dramatically from the woman's manner but it is nurturing all the same. A man will often nurture with his "eyes" or his presence. Women will often nurture with their "words." Remember as a boy how important it was for you to be watched, to be seen? Loving dads made themselves available to watch and see their sons and daughters. As an adult male my male friends continue to nurture me but rarely do they do it like a woman might....their do it with their presence. By knowing that they are there for me I feel "nurtured."
I think a part of the problem is that we are defining what nurturing is based on how women do it. If men don't do it like women then they are somehow lacking. BS! Let's find and honor our own ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Hawth. I understand your points. A few comments ...
Hawth: "I think many feminists and misandrists arrive at their views because they, too, were abused - and, even if they were abused by women as much as men, the common belief that men are more prone to abuse and women are more prone to kindness and compassion leads them to the conclusion that the masculine must be stomped down so that the gentle feminine can rule."
I know what you mean, although I think it depends on the kind of abuse one has suffered. While we tend to think of "abuse" as physical, in fact psychological abuse can do as much or more damage. Women are at least as guilty, if not more so, of psychological and emotional abuse as men. Little boys may hit and bully with their fists, but little girls can be even crueler with their tongues. Ask any girl who was a misfit.
Hawth: "And I can tell you, then, how they would interpret the masculine virtues you listed:
Valor = Men riding on horses with swords and killing people.
Loyalty = Men going to war and killing foreigners in droves because of "loyalty" to their own country.
Willingness to Sacrifice Oneself for Abstract Principle = Again, men going to war and killing people because they believe in an abstract principle (or, for example, the Bin Laden disciples who suicide bombed the WTC).
See what I mean?"
Yes, but when it's your country those men are defending, the importance of these virtues is evident. The other side of valor, loyalty and sacrifice is represented by the men who died trying to save lives in the WTC or the men who died in their millions defending the Allied cause in WWII. (I know you know this; just making the opposing point for balance.)
There is a wonderful quote that is attributed to George Orwell, although no one seems to know if he actually said it:
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Not a cuddly image, I agree ... unless you're the one who is sleeping safe in his bed.
Hawth: "The problem is that masculine virtues have highly visible shadow sides to them, whereas feminine virtues (as yet) do not. Both the masculine and feminine are blessings, but the masculine - I feel - is often a blessing in disguise,"
Only during times of relative peace and order, such as we enjoyed in the US for decades until September 11, 2001.
"whereas the feminine tends to manifest its "goodness" very blatantly. There is no mistaking the benevolence of giving birth, or nursing a child, or soothing a sick person."
I know exactly what you mean, and indeed these things are pretty much unarguably good if they are done right. The "dark side" to nurturing is psychological and emotional abuse of one kind or another, and I agree with you 100% that women don't get stuck with that label, while men have gotten stuck with the blame for the "dark side" of masculine virtues.
Hawth: "However, it is very easy to look at the things men more commonly do - such as working long hours, or going to war - and completely overlooking the inherent goodness of these acts and only seeing the unpleasantness of them (i.e., not being available at home, or killing people, etc.), thus leading to the conclusion that men are unpleasant creatures who do what we do only for unpleasant reasons."
Right! But this failure to acknowledge masculine virtue is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is a terrible thing for men and for society in general and needs to be corrected.
Hawth: "Silencing that song is what being in the men's movement is all about, for me. And one of the ways of accomplishing this is to show the world that men are equal to women in kindness and compassion, and that the shadow sides of masculine virtues are not the only sides - and, that feminine virtues have shadow sides of their own."
Nicely put, although I would argue that men often have different ways of showing kindness and compassion, as Tom describes in his post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more, Tom. I tried to use the phrase "nurturing in the maternal sense" from time to time to make the distinction. The traditional paternal role is also nurturing in a different way. Not only the presence and support you describe, but also with loving protection. It's usually dad who goes to see what the mysterious noise is outside in the dark or looks in the closet to show that there's no boogeyman hiding. There's also the father as teacher and leader. This is nurturing, too, but there's no word to describe it separately, which is too bad because I think it's a distinction worth recognizing.
"Let's find and honor our own ways" is a great quote. I only wish it hadn't become necessary. There was a time when "our ways" were honored and celebrated throughout the culture. We need to see a return to that, which is why I "honor and celebrate" sex differences ... because men need to be recognized as having their own virtues, not just sharing women's virtues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're all pretty much on the same page here. Again, initiating the discussion was not something done, on my part, so much out of ignorance of or doubt in masculine virtues. There was a time when I was ignorant and doubtful, but I have since moved past that.
Of course, moving past that meant that I had to stop looking for feminine behavior in men as proof that men were not less caring than women. As you also have said, the problem is that we're not seeing it because we're only looking for it in a particular form. I'm happy to say that there are a lot of good men in my life today; none of them is inclined to the "touchy feely" stuff (thank God), but I can still see their benevolence in dealing with people, and it's greatly influenced my point of view for the better.
But, not everyone has been so enlightened. And those who are not enlightened are apt to interpret a casual comment that women are generally more nurturing as proof positive that feminists are right when they (implicitly) promise that female rule (and male subordination) will make the world a softer, more kind and caring place for all of us. I'm saying that we have to be careful not to unwittingly corroborate their dogma.
Of course - in saying that, I don't mean that we should lie and delude ourselves and others about the realities of masculine and feminine behavior, either. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Hawth and Essex, glad to see we are on the same page.
Thanka for bringing up the example of men caring for others through making them safe. Malidoma Some (author - Ritual: Power, Healing and Community) speaks of this as the masculine "Protective Mode." I have seen this over and over in men who want to protect their families and in doing so carry out what Robert Moore (author - King, Magician, Warrior, Lover) calls the "King" function of containing the space. This containment often goes unnoticed until it dissappears. When dad goes away on a business trip or when dad becomes vunlnerable in some way this "containment" dissappears and the family system reacts, often with fear and anxiety.
This is definitely nurturing behavior but I don't think most people see it as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @01:30PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"men's health tends to suffer when their wives work more than 40 hours/week, while women's does not when men work 40+ hours/week"
I don't believe this at all. If a woman isn't working, then the man is supporting her, which means he works more hours. There is no man in the world who is truly happy having to support a wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no man in the world who is truly happy having to support a wife.
I disagree with you there. We've heard from several men on this site alone who are quite happy with the old roles of husband, father, provider. I, personally, do not wish for those old roles, but there are men who enjoy them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @01:44PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
They may say that, but they don't really feel that way. Nobody wants a millstone hung around their neck. If they weren't spending all their money on their wives, they could be spending it on themselves, and they'd be happier doing that then spending it on someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They may say that, but they don't really feel that way. Nobody wants a millstone hung around their neck. If they weren't spending all their money on their wives, they could be spending it on themselves, and they'd be happier doing that then spending it on someone else.
Exactly why would they say it if they didn't feel it? Father, husband, provider is a choice some men willingly make. My dad made that choice when he first married and my mom became pregnant with me. When I grew old enough to stay at home on my own, my mom went to work, too.
Dad was a little upset by that. Mom wanted to work, but dad wanted to be provider. He grew to accept the new situation, but it wasn't the way he originally wanted things.
Some men want to be providers. I don't think you can accurately tell us what ALL men want, unless you have somehow developed the ability to read the minds of every man on this Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
