Monday, January 09, 2017
What common mistakes do people make when choosing a life partner?
The above question occurred on Quora and the answer below by a "liberal" New York woman seems very clear-eyed. She focuses on "creative" men who readily accept the idea of an "equal" relationship with women. She is very clear that "having it all" is a crock and points out that there is no equality if both parties do not have an equal and lifetime-long engagement with the workforce. I have myself observed how "sensitive", "creative", "spiritual" men seem to appeal to a lot of women. As the woman below argues, that will in time not work well
I am in my late 30s and see women my age getting divorced for ONE reason only: the men they married were not as ambitious as they are and they lost respect for them. And it’s always the woman who wants the divorce, not the man.
It’s not just money, it’s the fact a lot of men don’t actually want to be out there necessarily working to make money that is enough to pay off their student loans or paying for college for their kid one day. They like life “as is” and don’t like to think of the future. If you really want to be with a man who is more of an “equal partner” “just like you”, then, sorry to say, he will more likely be less driven. And a less driven partner means *YOU* are going to be the one stuck with the male role whether you like it or not - someone has to do it.
What I have *seen* is that “equal marriages” with “best friends” end up thrusting women into masculine roles that women end up resenting. The world is NOT fair to women and yet we are educated to believe we can act in the same carefree manner as men when, if we want families, we really can’t. By the time we figure this out, it’s often too late.
My friends who married men like that (with “creative” backgrounds) were hypocritical in the sense that they wanted “equality” but became resentful once the consequences of “equality” presented themselves. They began to yearn for and fantasize about traditional men who made enough money to let them be stay-at-home moms. I told this my friend who is divorcing her laid-back husband:
“you KNEW who he is. You can’t expect him to make lots of money, that’s not who he is!!! He studied art, not finance!!!”.
The expectation that men MUST be the breadwinners and go-getters of the family is not reasonable or fair. Yet it is common among women I know. There is an irrational, instinctive distaste for men with low ambition among many women who have had children, once they realize the burden of providing for the child’s future is on them.
[Update: many people have commented on what I may have meant by “equality”. In the context I wrote I mean “equality” in the sense of relationships where we’re equal partners and men and women are expected to do the same jobs at home and work. Also, I am NOT A JOURNALIST and this is a *personal observation* , NOT a scientific study.
In terms of social equality, OBVIOUSLY I mean women should have the exact same rights and privileges as men in life and in the workplace. However if you look at REALITY not theory or the law, that is not what happens, generally. In life, women have fewer rights in the workplace and in dating life, women also a smaller window of time to start families. When women work outside of the home and at home, they are just “mom” while men get lots of praise for being good, modern dads. REALITY is not something you read in Gwyneth’s Paltrow’s books about kale salads, or Sheryl Sandberg “struggle” as a Harvard undergrad and HBS alumni as she traveled through the slums of McKinsey, White House, Google and Facebook. REALITY is what happens to people whose names you will never know, who don’t get pats in the back at the end of the day, who can’t do 5:30 everyday because they’ll get fired if they do.
Meanwhile, interestingly enough, it has never been harder to “marry up” for women in the USA since all women are now better educated than men and according to this study, people marry within their class and background. While divorce is down, marriage is now among class equals. In other words, Evidence suggest that women *will* avoid men who are lesser educated and poor. This is DATA folks.]
In the example I mentioned, when faced with financial hardships, women would rather leave than support the husband. Some people who wrote that they are equals and they both have good jobs that’s of course possible and normal. I just refer to women who may not be making a lot of money and yet need to work just to pay for their basic lifestyle or have a basic vacation.
Again I ask that women are HONEST. WE DO JUDGE MEN BASED ON THEIR CAREER SO PLEASE DON’T GET ME STARTED ON THE HYPOCRISY WE ENGAGE IN WHEN ACTUAL “EQUALITY” MATERIALIZES IN RELATIONSHIPS AND WE ARE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE as a man would and we fucking hate it.
If we were taught that life is hard and it is not fair to women I think many of us, myself included, would have been more aware of the choices we make in dating and relationships. Instead we buy into the “we can have it all-slash-find the one” Romantic Comedy Starring Jennifer Anniston scenario that creates a lot of disappointment.
This is the challenge all of us women have to deal with. I have seen this only in couples after they have a child, and the woman realizes she really does have to deal with the future and how to give the child a decent life. Men don’t seem to think about this quite as much. This creates a serious problem. The woman sees the stagnation, wants change, and the man wants to remain where he is in life. She realizes right at that moment, ONCE she has a child, that if she had married a more traditional man she could have been a stay-at-home mom at least for a while.
Women are penalized in the business world for being moms (i.e. she HAS to take time off to take care of sick child, she HAS to leave early to pick up the children, etc… and not working 24 hrs a day leads to less senior roles “…Hmmm did she have to miss that important meeting…? ” ) and this adds to the tension. Don’t get me started with Sheryl Sandberg and her whole “I’m home by 5:30 everyday” BS. That only works if you are a billionaire and have an army of assistants to take care of the nitty gritty for you [ or if you live in some European countries but that is a tiny percentage of the world’s population]. Everyday women, and I’d guess even well-paid female executives at large corporations don’t have that luxury. In the real world if you want to leave at 5:30 you either own your business or you will get fired sooner or later.
Meanwhile, the man expects the wife to take on a more motherly “supportive” role where she listens empathetically to his dreams and offers unconditional support (“you’re gonna make it!!!”) that works to shield him from the harsh realities of life, just so he can feel special, as if he were her child; she becomes the main breadwinner and “takes care of him” while he pursues a creative career. Once a child is born, the woman begins to resent this and boom there comes the therapist and then the divorce papers. I can empathize with both sides and I honestly wonder if the divorce is worth it.
My friend’s arguments were not reasonable. Since she was the one who wanted to move to slightly bigger apartment (they were nowhere near buying a house) and to pay off their outstanding debt asap, couldn’t SHE support him instead? Couldn’t SHE go back to work, just part-time? “No, I am the mom, THAT is my job already. The dad’s job is to provide”. Nope, there was no intention to compromise. If he didn’t manage to “become driven” like asap, and she had to go back to work, she was probably going to have to leave. Either the man grows up and gets a “real career” or she will most likely leave.
From her perspective, it is preferable to get divorced and have control over your destiny than to have a partner that drags you down by expecting you to support them instead of getting a “provider” type of job (the catch here is that the husband’s identity is attached to what he does, he’d have to give up on his artistic dreams and personal identity in the process). Although this had never been an issue before, once the child was born, the husband’s job prospects became *the issue*.
[This just reminded me of an incident I’d had with an ex-boyfriend’s mother. I was in my early 20s and dating an older man who didn’t have a lot of money (I did not follow my own advice-:) and we visited the apartment of a female friend of his who was a lawyer. She lived in a lovely apartment that was small but perfectly located, in Manhattan, in the West Village. I forgot what we were doing there, but his mother came along. When I innocently mentioned something like “wow can you imagine living in a place like this!”, she said, very curtly, “his apartment is good enough”.
I thought wow how rude; That was just a spontaneous comment I made as we entered *this* apartment, I had not mentioned or even thought of my then boyfriend’s apartment (a 4th floor studio walk-up in Brooklyn). Now I understand why she was upset - she could tell that if a woman has higher lifestyle expectations, or even if she just actively admires material things that cost more than what the man can provide, this is an indicator that she probably going to leave, eventually, and get what she wants on her own.]
I have seen this in several couples I know directly and indirectly, the moment the woman realizes the man won’t be able to “improve their station in life” and she’ll have to take on the go-getter role, she stops being attracted to him and starts considering a divorce.
The advice out there says you can have it all!!! No you can’t. But this is something women only learn after children come along. That’s when practicality kicks in. Human behavior is not math.
The hard thing some of my married friends who are contemplating divorce don’t realize is that at the end of the day, here just aren’t that many men who are “Alpha” AND willing to commit AND willing to date women close to their age. [“Alpha” here means he can offer commitment and financial security: enough cash in the bank to pay for kids’ college and grad school, owning your home, no debt, prioritizes stability over luxury, and he is not an “employee” who is easily replaceable]. Just because men look at you on the street and flirt with you, that does not mean they will want to MARRY you. Male attention and a ring on your finger are very different things.
Women out there, think really deeply about your levels of ambition and how compatible your partner’s and yours’ are.
No you can’t have it all. If you want to “have it all” you have to start your own business.
*REALLY* think about what equality means and if you are ok with taking on the traditionally “masculine” provider role.
If you (live in the USA and) *REALLY* want a family and especially, more than one child…marry a “traditional” provider-type man.
“Equality” has consequences that are hard to deal with (like having to spend a lot of time away from your children when they are little if you both work), so think of the lifestyle you *are* going to have in an “equal” marriage. “Marriages of equals” often means the woman takes on the traditionally male role outside of the home, becomes a sympathetic “mom” to the Man-Child husband AND does the bulk of the work in terms of child-rearing.
If you are looking to get divorced, remember that there are only so many high-earning CEO types to go around.
If you’re out there looking: Forget about online dating. It was created to give women the illusion that acting like an escort and not being paid for it will lead you to a “relationship” one day.
If you’re out there looking: Men who offer sex don’t have anything to offer. Casual sex has never led to relationships and it never will. Men who believe they are doing you some kind of favor by having sex with you with “no strings attached” are equivalent to people who expect to eat at the best restaurants and not pay the bill. Avoid them at all costs.
There is a reason prostitution has always been a *job*. That’s because there are lots of downsides and life-long consequences to sex (pregnancy, STDs, heartbreak, double standards) for women.
For these reasons, women see sex as a means to an end, not an end unto itself. That means you should only sleep with someone who acknowledges your greater needs minimally and makes it understood, over time, through actions that he is willing to meet them.
It’s your job to spell out your needs: Don’t be afraid to spell out what you are looking for before you sleep with anyone. If you don’t you’ll be stuck with the emotional bill. However, MEN CAN ONLY FIND OUT WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE IF YOU SPELL THEM OUT USING DIRECT STATEMENTS AND SIMPLE WORDS. That way if they are not met, you can leave knowing that you’d rather pass than take a bad deal you will have to pay for later on.
If you’re out there looking: The only thing that really matters is commitment and showing up in person. Everything else is bullshit men say to get laid. This includes lots of texting without meeting. And impersonal, generic texts that ask “how’s your day going” and skip anything remotely personal. When men like you, they want to see you in person. When men only want to get laid, there is always an excuse.
[Important note: this expectation, that men *must* be breadwinners only came up after women have had kids. Before kids, the ones I mentioned were happy in their “equal” partnerships. After kids it was as if a switch had turned on, and they blamed the inability to be stay-at-home mothers on their husbands, which I think is not fair. But the sentiment was VERY strong. They took it personally, as if the husband had conspired to not “let them” be moms.
As an outsider, I was surprised at the irrational expectation that the men they married - who were exactly the same as before - had to somehow become a completely different person overnight. It is completely unrealistic and irrational to expect anyone to change overnight.
I observed this argument as an attempt to rationalize something that is irrational by definition. I realized there must be a deep-seated, instinctive pain women feel when they can’t be full-time moms, or at least spend more time with their kids when they are little, and this must be the reason for this change.
Of course not all women are like this, some do genuinely love their careers, but I suspect once children come along many realize there is more to life than the corner office. They feel a terrible wave of panic once they realize they are forever trapped in a role that does not fulfill them as deeply as motherhood does.
Yet because of the husband’s inability to be the sole provider (in all fairness, very few men can afford to be sole providers, the cost of living is very high and salaries are relatively low), they have to become the “man” of the house and work long hours to pay their bills, staying away from the kid(s) as a result.
This creates a huge amount of resentment and I think that’s why women prefer divorce over staying married to someone who, from their perspective, forced them to “sacrifice” their true nature, while the husband thrived in his Peter Pan Man role, getting kudos from friends and strangers for being the “cool dad” so involved in the kid’s life as she is now perceived as the “nagging selfish woman” who only cares about details and practical things.
At the same time, culture (in New York anyway) reinforces the idea that men never have to grow up, if they get fed up with the nagging wife who might pay for rent on their East Village apartment on the down low, all they have to do is sign up to the latest dating site and find a new person the next day. And everyday you have women signing up to dating websites, looking for…the mythical provider man, only to find it populated by men-children who want to “text” about nothing, ask for naked pictures and randomly brag on their profiles they are not looking for “demands”. ]
[Update: wow thanks for all the views and comments. This answer has curiously attracted a number of angry comments from some women who mention I don’t understand “equality” and that I can’t speak for all women. I have also received angry comments from men who are on the creative spectrum and believe I am advocating for “marrying for money”, and Europeans [who don’t realize outside of their countries women don’t get very long maternity leave benefits, (in New York I think it’s up to 12 weeks), and men, if they have paternity leave usually don’t take it].
Guess what, I am “anonymous” because I know I would be judged - my answer is not politically correct. Humans are not always politically correct. And many things that are truthful can’t be said in public because they are not politically correct.
Ironically as a woman who is very “liberal” and now works in technology I can’t say anything that might paint men in a positive light or suggest that we women can be hypocritical when it comes to dating and marriage. I guess we can only be Opressed By Patriarchy™ and never shallow assholes ourselves. The Everything is Men’s Fault ™ kool-aid flavor is more convenient than looking at our own attitudes a bit more critically.]
Any woman who claim her son's better off without a dad needs her head examined
By KAREN GLASER
Chatting to my teenage daughter over a family dinner the other evening, I paused to reprimand my nine-year-old son for slurping his spaghetti and making a terrible mess in the process.
‘You can’t tell me off,’ he spat back. ‘I’m the man of the house.’
Of course I was cross with Charlie for being so impudent, and told him so in no uncertain terms. But at the same time I felt terribly sorry for my confused little boy, growing up, as he is, in a home without a father, and a much-needed role model.
I was, therefore, appalled yesterday to read that the actress January Jones, of Mad Men fame, believes that her five-year-old son is better off fatherless.
Speaking about her son, Xander, the 39-year-old actress told Red magazine: ‘He doesn’t have a male person saying “Don’t cry” or “You throw like a girl”. All those s***** things dads accidentally do.’
However, as a fellow single mum, I couldn’t disagree more. Of course, many mothers raise children well without fathers after death, divorce or as a result of lifestyle choices. But I have never heard of a mother celebrating the fact that her son has no one to call ‘Dad’.
It was not long after Lucy, now 15, started at primary school that my relationship with my long-term partner Francesco began straining at the seams. Arguments about housework, childcare and bringing home enough money started eating away at the love we once shared.
In the end, the rows became so nasty, frequent and personal that, in November 2009, I asked for a separation. Francesco agreed, and by May 2010 we were officially separated. The biggest casualty of our failed relationship is, of course, our beloved children.
When she was younger, Lucy, like many little girls, was very pro-marriage, now she’s not so sure she ever wants to walk down the aisle.
As for my son Charlie — like the millions of boys who are being raised in homes without their dads — I fear he is missing out and can’t help but worry about what that will mean for him in the future.
Consequently, although I haven’t cohabited since leaving his dad, I go out of my way to ensure that Charlie has other male role models in his life, including my father and platonic male friends. And, while Lucy has never seemed to crave it, Charlie relishes the company of men.
He loves to wrestle with them, engaging in the kind of horseplay boys enjoy with their dads, and it’s incredibly important that he gets these opportunities.
I remember reading a psychologist’s account of how beneficial play fighting is in teaching boys about boundaries and developing awareness of their physical strength.
This is essential stuff and, likewise, when it comes to Charlie learning about respect for women, observing it in action will have a far greater impact than me simply reminding him that it’s important.
I think there’s undoubtedly a link between absent fathers and defiant, disrespectful behaviour in boys towards their mums.
Charlie will often refuse to get ready for bed when I tell him, and say: ‘I’ll do that when I’m ready.’ Or when I tell him to come off the iPad, he’ll say: ‘Why should I, you’re always on your phone?’
So I welcome it when male friends say, ‘Don’t speak to your mum like that’ or tell him ‘Be good for your mother’ as they’re leaving. And he definitely responds to male authority, while sometimes ignoring my boundaries.
I work as a freelance writer and my parents, who live nearby, do a lot of childcare.
When I return to our North London home in the evening, Charlie will start jumping on me and demand my attention and my dad will say: ‘Karen, he has been as good as gold all afternoon and you come in and his behaviour changes in a flash.’
Of course this makes me feel sad because I really am doing my best.
But disciplining lively boys is tough for single mums — maybe the guilt, or exhaustion, of being a lone parent makes us less inclined to enforce boundaries — but I can see it’s so much easier for mums with husbands.
Being from a broken home undoubtedly led to behaviour problems at school when Charlie was younger.
He would act up a lot in the classroom. He would refuse to get on with his work, talk when he wasn’t meant to, answer the teacher back and generally behave like the class clown.
Following one of his bi-annual visits to Italy to see his dad, his behaviour would always be worse.
I would warn the school that Charlie would be unsettled for a while, no doubt because, after spending a week with his dad, he was more acutely aware than ever of what he’s missing the rest of the year.
And I know that part of his anger towards me is because he thinks I’m to blame. More than once he has said: ‘You dumped Dad, didn’t you?’
I’ve tried to protect him and his sister from the adult themes surrounding our relationship but he knows that I was the one who left, taking the children with me.
I’m not sorry I did that, because the relationship made both of us unhappy, but I do regret the emotional impact our separation has had on our son.
The other day, he asked me, hopefully: ‘Mummy, do parents get back together when they’re older? When I have my children will you and Daddy be their grandparents?’
The world is confusing because, to him, grandparents live under the same roof, as my parents do, not hundreds of miles apart.
As for January Jones’s comments about boys growing up without fathers being spared the misery of being told not to cry, or throw like a girl, where has she been for the past 40 years? Most of the men I know, including my father, are highly emotionally intelligent and would never speak to Charlie like that.
I’m also very careful about what I say to him and, while I know some divorcees are critical of their exes, I make a determined effort never to be.
His father is an architect and I’ll often tell Charlie that he is a ‘great little artist, just like Daddy’.
It’s also important for him to be able to identify with his father physically, so I’ll remind him: ‘You’re a handsome boy, tall and strong with a good head of hair, like your daddy.’
However, that doesn’t make him any more of a regular presence in Charlie’s life and I’m acutely aware of how distant a figure he must seem.
When he goes on play dates, he always comes home full of tales about his friends’ fathers. He will say so-and-so’s dad likes gardening, as does Charlie, or Xbox games, or tell me how much fun they are.
Of course, there are some single mums who denigrate all men — if people are disappointed in love they can get bitter and tar all men with the same brush — but I’m not like that. In fact, I do the opposite because I know it would be harmful to my son.
In the absence of a father on hand to do that for him, I try to see the world through Charlie’s eyes.
For example, the other day my old banger of a car broke down and a male friend helped me fix it. Afterwards I said to Charlie: ‘Isn’t Simon clever?’
I say these things in a way I probably wouldn’t have to if his dad were on the scene and actively demonstrating it.
I’m totally impractical, with no DIY or repair skills — unlike my son. But while I can’t nurture these skills in him, I want him to grow up valuing them.
He’s already begun taking an interest in clothes and when his grandad, or uncle, compliment him on the way he looks, I watch him puff out his chest and smile proudly.
It can seem at times as though their words seem to carry more weight than mine, presumably, I guess, because he identifies with them as fellow males of the species.
We have the teenage years to get through yet and, while I have no qualms talking to Charlie about the birds and the bees, and even helping him learn to shave, I’ll never be able to truly show him what it is to be a man.
And no matter how much January Jones loves her son, nor, in the end, will she.
'Progressives' Wage the Real War on Women
Stars like Beyoncé and Grande are the consummate hypocrites.
In preparation for Inauguration Day, the Left is resurrecting its “war on women” propaganda. Not that it’s been dormant long, mind you. But they’ve scheduled a demonstration in Washington the day after Donald Trump’s swearing in with the message that “women’s rights are human rights.”
It’s an ironic approach, really. For years, Democrats have claimed the mantle of the “party of women,” culminating in the nomination of the Most Accomplished Woman in History™ for president. Yet it’s beyond hypocritical for the party to claim such “pro-women” bona fides when it supports coercing women into killing their unborn babies while denying them all the facts, tells women they should vote based on their sex not their brains, and pushes a candidate who attempted to break that phantom “glass ceiling” only by standing on the desk her husband used for different ends.
Still, they do, despite continued evidence from leftist leaders and supporters alike that respecting and advancing women is merely a front for objectifying them.
Consider, for example, leftist pop star Ariana Grande’s recent complaint over a fan’s sexist comments. Apparently recovered from crying at Trump’s election, Grande was out with her boyfriend, rapper Mac Miller, when a male fan allegedly told Miller, “Ariana is sexy as hell, man. … I see you hitting that!” (That’s a euphemism for sexual conquest.) USA Today reports Grande said the encounter left her feeling “sick and objectified.”
As any such ungentlemanly behavior should.
Yet Grande’s own music and music videos invite men to “hit that,” and then some. What’s more, Miller — whom we would imagine Grande thinks “respects” her — raps lyrics so sexually explicit and obscene it’s amazing anything said on the street would faze Grande at all.
As the always erudite Thomas Sowell put it in his final “Random Thoughts” column, “The word ‘risqué’ would be almost impossible to explain to young people, in a world where gross vulgarity is widespread and widely accepted.”
Still, Grande is one of many on the Left who scream foul at the “objectification” of women while perpetrating the very injustice she supposedly rejects.
Barack Obama is another.
Remember, when he said, “Beyoncé could not be a better role model for my girls because she carries herself with such class and poise and has so much talent.” Surely he wasn’t referring to her song lyrics that are far too graphic to reprint here. And the way Beyoncé conducts herself on stage should not be what any father wants for his daughter.
Yet, the Black Panthers wanna-be herself once wrote, “We have to teach our boys the rules of equality and respect.” Yup, respect Bill Clinton style. Obama seemed to agree.
The Left’s abhorrent treatment of women goes beyond just exploitation by powerful men like Clinton and the Kennedy clan, or even the raunchy behavior and performance and shameless attire of Beyoncé and Grande. Leftist policies and tactics do as much if not more to objectify women.
After Hillary Clinton’s loss, rabid feminist Lena Dunham, who recently confessed she’s never had an abortion but wishes she had, dried her tears (yes, she also cried) then lashed out that “white women, so unable to see the unity of the female identity, so unable to look past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves, showed up to the polls for [Trump].”
To the Left, women aren’t independent, thoughtful human beings free to choose Trump, Clinton, or any other candidate. They’re mere objects — vote tallies — who by nature of the “unity of the female identity” must toe the XX chromosome line.
And young girls are fair game for leftist objectification too. That’s why Planned Parenthood, which gets half a billion in taxpayer dollars each year, has repeatedly ignored reporting statutory rape. After all, women — and young teenage girls — are mere objects, good only for the abortion income they generate.
And yet, Planned Parenthood reps will be at the “war on women” Washington demonstration, along with other leftists who fly the flag of women’s rights but routinely strip women of dignity, choice and even basic legal protection against sexual predators.
To be sure, the Left doesn’t hold a monopoly on exploiting women, but they take the prize for hypocrisy on this front. So the next time you hear liberals whine about the objectification of women, remember, the loudest critic is oftentimes the chief offender.
Masculinity: Being a Man in a 'Pajama Boy' Age
Our culture has dumbed down and feminized men for decades.
One of the enduring symbols of the Obama years may be that of the “pajama boy.” In an effort to get younger people to sign up for health insurance, in December 2013 Organizing for Action tweeted out the now-infamous photo of a young hipster with the caption, “Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting health insurance.” Whether it was a present-day indication or a sign of things to come, college-age men are now told about “toxic masculinity” and warned that “the ‘three most destructive’ words a boy can hear growing up are ‘be a man.’” In terms of biology, boys have little choice but to become men, but their behavior as such is influenced by their culture and role models.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, we were told that it was time for the first female president to break the “glass ceiling” men had created. Hillary Clinton was even set up with a heel suitable for a WWE event: an opponent in Donald Trump who made headlines from decade-old remarks about his prowess in grabbing women he desired as sexual objects — remarks that were kept on ice by the Leftmedia until they could be released to devastating effect as an October surprise.
Intentionally or not, Trump has fit himself into one of the primary stereotypes Hollywood has created for male characters — that of the boorish, bigoted cad with little redeeming social value. He’s an even less sympathetic version of Archie Bunker. When leftist Norman Lear created spinoff shows from the popular “All in the Family,” he also created similar male characters like Walter Findlay (husband of “Maude”) and George Jefferson. “Seinfeld” had a different take on this with Frank Costanza, George’s dad.
From that style of behavior, we go to another Hollywood favorite: the incompetent dad who screws everything up, leaving the female lead to solve the problems. (Think Ray Barone of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” Homer Simpson or “Family Guy” Peter Griffin.) Another variation of this: the complete loser. (Think Al Bundy of the ‘80s sitcom “Married With Children.”)
A second media creation about how to “be a man” comes from the hardcore rappers who endlessly work out rhymes that call women some equivalent of the b-word or another that rhymes with “so.” (Some raunchy female artists do this, too, and then richly complain about objectification of women.) Over the years that mentality has led to millions of children born to unwed mothers who have no father in their life — meanwhile, the “baby daddy” may have several other children by multiple women. It’s the virility of being “macho” but without the virtues of decency, maturity or responsibility.
With these portrayals of fatherhood, it’s obvious our mass media celebrates an era of “girl power” that leaves younger boys as afterthoughts bereft of good role models. They can’t even pretend to be a good male Disney character anymore — the media giant hardly crafts such male role models any more.
To be an acceptable man in our culture is to have those elements as a beta male, allowing yourself to get in touch with your feelings. Being a strong male — not necessarily the John Wayne caricature, but simply a man with the mental and physical strength to be a provider, husband, family leader and thoughtful Patriot — is now frowned upon, to the lament of those who recall a time when men weren’t so “vulnerable.”
Good male role models are a requirement, though, for a boy to have the best chance at leading a happy, fulfilling life. Yes, boys can have a strong single mother and succeed — and millions have done so despite the odds being against them. But in our worldly base of knowledge that shakes its fist at tradition and insists that an enlightened few know better, we’ve devolved to living like the pajama boy.
Changing that requires much more than a new president. It requires looking past those emasculating “experts” who would tell our boys how to be men and finding good role models and mentors who do it the right way every day. Fortunately, such role models are still out there — if we would only look for them.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.