"In Praise of Idleness", revisited

Submitted by redwoodwriter on Tue, 2011-11-22 22:07

From In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell:

"If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization. This idea shocks the well-to-do, because they are convinced that the poor would not know how to use so much leisure. In America men often work long hours even when they are well off; such men, naturally, are indignant at the idea of leisure for wage-earners, except as the grim punishment of unemployment; in fact, they dislike leisure even for their sons. Oddly enough, while they wish their sons to work so hard as to have no time to be civilized, they do not mind their wives and daughters having no work at all. the snobbish admiration of uselessness, which, in an aristocratic society, extends to both sexes, is, under a plutocracy, confined to women; this, however, does not make it any more in agreement with common sense.

This quote from Lord Bertrand Russell's famous essay, entitled "In Praise Of Idleness," highlights the fact that American men are indoctrinated with the "work ethic". These American men find it very difficult to be idle, to enjoy their leisure, to feel deserving of their time off. They must work, work, work, or else starve, or so they think. This is the mentality and the morality of a slave, and the modern world has no need for slaves.

It is time that American men confronted the disparity in work expectations between the sexes. For example, if a young couple has children, and the wife stays home with small children while the husband earns the money, perhaps there is some semblance of equality there. But as such a couple gets older, and the children grow up and leave the house, and the man continues to work full time while the wife has a life of leisure. Where is the equity in that?

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I think it's up to men to refuse to be involved in a "traditional model". If a man does agree to it, he has to go into it with eyes open as to the risks and what he is setting himself up for.

At this point it can be hard to make sweeping generalizations since even in the US there are large variances in expectations in sub-societies around the country. More traditional communities still expect their young adults to head to the altar with a more traditional model of marriage in mind at the traditional time people generally got married: in their young twenties or even late teens. However, head to the "big city", and it's a very different story. Being single is fine-- more than fine-- for people of any age.

But one point to make about this essay is that Mr. Russell was a very well-to-do man. Of course he need not have, if he so desired, worked that much. It's easy for someone born with one of the silverest of spoons in his mouth to "praise idleness". The average man, perhaps he wasn't realizing as consciously as he might have wanted, really did have little choice but to work hard to provide for himself, and given the gender roles and expectations at the time, also for a woman and children. Men who went unmarried either were clergymen or were "talked about" in ways most unflattering. So the typical man at the time had no choice but to marry and have kids. So yes, he had to work.

Average men now, both in the UK and US (and Canada, and indeed most all the rest of Europe, or so I conjecture), have a level of discretionary power in what kind of lives they will live that they have not had in a long time. For the typical man, we can say "no" to marriage and while we may get pestered with questions from mothers or well-meaning married female (or male) friends, we can simply say "Hey, it just isn't my thing." In the case of moms, well, not much you can do about that but keep saying you just aren't going there-- and perhaps even explain why. (Women who had kids back in earlier times may just not be really cognizant of what men today face in terms of risks and so on, so it may behoove a single man to take the time to explain in no uncertain terms that he may not want the risks associated with marriage. If dear old mom baits him with accusations of cowardice, etc., well, not much you can do about that except chalk it up to how she was raised to view men. Don't be surprised if she also insists she's a feminist, too! But ultimately, it's your life, not hers. Can't let dear old mom rule you.)

Like any adult who is not living off a trust fund, men have to work, and it's a real travesty so many today cannot find decent work. I think if I were to try to interpret this essay for today's times, I would simply say that it was about telling men that they need not work quite so hard, nor sacrifice health or sanity or the enjoyment of leisure time on the Altar of Productivity, and to bear in mind that really, if he knows what are the right choices to make in his life about what he wants, a man need never get into such a situation where he is stuck busting tail for others who probably don't appreciate him all that much for it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2011-11-23 01:54

This essay was written in the 1930s, and has long been viewed as a classic. Russell is basically asking men "why the hell are you working so hard?" and "why do you believe that you are a slave to others, particularly to women?" As Matt suggests above, there are options like ghosting, reducing your standard of living, moving to the country, etc.

From the standpoint of the men's rights movement, even back then Russell was commenting on how unfair the gender expectations were for men. Of course, as an aristocrat, Russell didn't personally pay the price paid by most American men. But he had the balls to publicly comment on it, and say that it made no sense. From a historical standpoint, I believe it is important for MRAs to note that gender inequities are long-standing, and not simply the result of the aggressive American anti-male feminism that we have suffered through in the last fifty years or so.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Wed, 2011-11-23 03:13