A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

To Man Up or Man Down



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 09, 03:46 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default To Man Up or Man Down

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/04/...p-or-man-down/

To Man Up or Man Down
Friday, September 4, 2009
By Paul Elam
Among the many emails I get that don't support men's rights or don't support
my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the
idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going
their own way.The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what
men are supposed to do; replete with
sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-real-man instructions. Most of them
are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud,
if grossly posthumous smile.And curiously, many of the concordant emails I
get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who
lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a
man "knew how to treat a lady."Apparently she thought my objection to
feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged
in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring
misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segway for the correct
question.What if a man doesn't want to?(pause for effect)When all is said
and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice,
not just in the world of Men's Rights Activists, but in the world of men
collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form
tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.Should men break with
tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the
financers and custodial protectors of women's lives? Should they quit
paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner?
Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically
indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed,
in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection from women, as
is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and
frequently their own homes.The answers to these questions, which are, like
it or not, relevant now, require some intellectual scrutiny that won't be
found in myopic edicts like "Be a real man." In fact, I'd argue that anyone
issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world they
live in.Women don't have roles any more, except as they choose to take them
on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they
are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the
dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others
company, so women don't really so much have roles as they have a choice as
to which role benefits them at the moment.Perhaps carte blanche for
opportunism is a better way to put it.It is the new, but no longer
sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now live in a world
of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted
equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial
opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door
wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw
sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men.It's the
net result of feminist doctrine and men's complicity in it; a paradigm not
of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are
bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women while often being
bled dry by them.This isn't to cast men as victims of women. All this is
enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their
traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By
practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not
doing same.In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of
collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least
thirty years ago.The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious.
The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as
the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless
generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our
society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused
metaphors, but a spot on description of reality.That, in and of itself,
might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel and
sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40
years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually
did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more
likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically
fruitless task.It is not that traditional roles can't work. They can for a
waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern
morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a
gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that
doesn't include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on
alternatives for those more survival minded.As long as we deny men choices
that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men
marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported, it is
possible that for the first time in history that in America women will
surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.It is a picture consistent
with men's drastically decreasing presence in higher education and
punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad
economy.And men are to continue to take care of women and protecting them?
There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think
Elvis is still alive.When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with
a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there
will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying:"Hey, wait a
minute."That would be one giant step in the right direction.Paul Elam is the
Editor-in-Chief for Men's News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for
Men.Among the many emails I get that don't support men's rights or don't
support my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue
with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and
going their own way.The common theme among those emails is a short lecture
on what men are supposed to do; replete with
sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-real-man instructions. Most of them
are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud,
if grossly posthumous smile.And curiously, many of the concordant emails I
get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who
lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a
man "knew how to treat a lady."Apparently she thought my objection to
feminism was because it kept me off a white horse. She assumed I am engaged
in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring
misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segway for the correct
question.What if a man doesn't want to?(pause for effect)When all is said
and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice,
not just in the world of Men's Rights Activists, but in the world of men
collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form
tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.Should men break with
tradition? And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the
financers and custodial protectors of women's lives? Should they quit
paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner?
Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically
indentured in a world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed,
in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection from women, as
is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities -think Duke- and
frequently their own homes.The answers to these questions, which are, like
it or not, relevant now, require some intellectual scrutiny that won't be
found in myopic edicts like "Be a real man." In fact, I'd argue that anyone
issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world they
live in.Women don't have roles any more, except as they choose to take them
on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they
are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the
dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others
company, so women don't really so much have roles as they have a choice as
to which role benefits them at the moment.Perhaps carte blanche for
opportunism is a better way to put it.It is the new, but no longer
sparklingly new social doctrine of equality-plus. Women now live in a world
of options that men could not possibly dream of. They have been granted
equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial
opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door
wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw
sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men.It's the
net result of feminist doctrine and men's complicity in it; a paradigm not
of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are
bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women while often being
bled dry by them.This isn't to cast men as victims of women. All this is
enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their
traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote. By
practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not
doing same.In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of
collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least
thirty years ago.The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious.
The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as
the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless
generations. It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our
society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused
metaphors, but a spot on description of reality.That, in and of itself,
might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel and
sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40
years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually
did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more
likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically
fruitless task.It is not that traditional roles can't work. They can for a
waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though the modern
morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a
gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that
doesn't include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on
alternatives for those more survival minded.As long as we deny men choices
that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men
marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported, it is
possible that for the first time in history that in America women will
surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.It is a picture consistent
with men's drastically decreasing presence in higher education and
punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad
economy.And men are to continue to take care of women and protecting them?
There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think
Elvis is still alive.When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with
a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there
will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying:"Hey, wait a
minute."That would be one giant step in the right direction.Paul Elam is the
Editor-in-Chief for Men's News Daily and the Publisher of A Voice for
Men.Among the many emails I get that don't support men's rights or don't
support my take on them, a hefty number of them are from men who take issue
with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and
going their own way.

The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are
supposed to do; replete with
sonny-lemme-tell-ya-what-it-means-to-be-real-man instructions. Most of them
are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud,
if grossly posthumous smile.

And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss
the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism
because she lamented the loss of days when a man "knew how to treat a lady."

Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a
white horse. She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to
sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide
an opportune segway for the correct question.

What if a man doesn't want to?

(pause for effect)

When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of
a growing voice, not just in the world of Men's Rights Activists, but in the
world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are
sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years.

Should men break with tradition? And in that should they quit expecting
themselves to be the financers and custodial protectors of women's lives?
Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the
role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially
and biologically indentured in a world where women no longer need such
protection? Indeed, we now live in a world where it is men that
increasingly need protection- from women, as is clear in family courts, the
workplace, universities -think Duke- and frequently their own homes.

The answers to these questions, which are, like it or not, relevant now,
require some intellectual scrutiny that won't be found in myopic edicts like
"Be a real man." In fact, I'd argue that anyone issuing such proclamations
needs to take a more lucid look at the world in which they live.

Women don't have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even
then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying
for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check
arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so
women don't really so much have roles as they have a choice as to which role
benefits them at the moment.

Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it.

It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of
equality-plus. Women now enjoy a range of options that men could not
possibly dream of. They have been granted equal and often preferential
entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while
social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they
have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from
the sweat and labor of men.

It's the net result of feminist doctrine and men's complicity in it; a
paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where
they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women, often while
being bled dry by them.

This isn't to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock,
stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving
women whatever they ask for by rote. By practicing chivalry like a crack
habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same.

In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective
patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years
ago. Real men would not have tolerated all this nonsense for a minute.

The catch-22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional
mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of
stable families and adjusted children for countless generations. It is
indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone
of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but spot on
descriptions of reality.

That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just
shut up, shovel and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as
though the last 40 years never happened. But that is the problem. The last
40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube,
and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and
pathetically fruitless task.

It is not that traditional roles can't work. They can for a waning few;
those willing to find their way to each other though the modern morass of
traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las
Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesn't include a
license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those
more survival minded.

As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted,
we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York
Times just reported, it is possible that for the first time in history that
in America women will surpass men in the workforce. And that right soon.

It is a picture consistent with men's drastically decreasing presence in
higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job
losses in the bad economy.

And men are to continue to sacrifice for women and protect them? There are
still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is
still alive.

When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed
woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot
more men, at the very least, saying:

"Hey, wait a minute."

That would be one giant step in the right direction.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief for Men's News Daily and the Publisher of A
Voice for Men.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.