5 ms·
>In particular, the dramatic rebalancing of power relations between men and women over the last few decades has rendered old modes of masculinity — especially m
by BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>In particular, the dramatic rebalancing of power relations between men and women over the last few decades has rendered old modes of masculinity — especially men's role as family breadwinner — obsolete.
They aren't obsolete. The mere notion of this is laughable to anyone spending a bit of time looking around.
What happened was the standards cranking up to 11 and either the rewards aren't visible, or they simply aren't there. In addition, there's far more entertainment available and children are no longer seen as an automatic achievement. Some might even say, having kids is actively discouraged in the upper circles.
>Feminist writer Susan Faludi has pointed out that many men are "clinging to a phantom status." She's right, of course.
Based on what? I don't necessarily see men clinging onto a "phantom status" as much as their (potential) lover, family, friends and business network not giving a hoot unless their status is deemed great. Men are still primarily judged on status, not the other way around.
>He is not the only one. A common thread running through many of the challenges facing men is the culture shock of women's economic independence.
The article really misses nuance on this whole "economic independence" thing. Yes, women got "more economically independent". No, they can't just start families on their own and get by. In many countries, they can't even get a decent home (dual income households say hello). Check the demands of typical college-educated women, and then compare with the available pool of men. Now compare to the current education system, the way society works and what is happening with starting wages. There simply aren't enough men for all those women, and it's evident most women aren't willing to drop their standards yet. Meanwhile, men aren't willing to "step up", as popular lingo would like to claim.
The author correctly identifies so many things, only to come to the most safe conclusion. The same conclusion which has yet to be proven correct.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago> There simply aren't enough men for all those women A man I know is attempting to add a new wife to his household every 5 years...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwawaysleep 4y agoYeah a lot of this was women assuming what happens with guys. A richer guy gets a hotter wife, so a richer woman should get a better guy right? Nope.
- onion2k 4y agoThat's not quite accurate. A rich man gets a hotter wife by most men's standards because most men's standards of "a hot woman" are very similar. The same is true for rich women, but women's standards for what "a hot man" is vary far more. Both are attaining what they think is hot though.
- phpisthebest 4y agoA few years ago OK Cupid released data that flies in the face of your narrative, and it showed based on their research that men have a far wider range of acceptable looks than women do, at least of the user of their app
- onion2k 4y agoMen on a dating site will message pretty much everyone. That doesn't mean those are the people they find hottest. In fact, men are often reluctant to approach really hot women because they think they'll be rejected.
- phpisthebest 4y ago>>That doesn't mean those are the people they find hottest. In fact, men are often reluctant to approach really hot women because they think they'll be rejected. Pretty sure that is a result of experience not just some miss placed belief >Men on a dating site will message pretty much everyone While true, the data was not just placed on messaging. Other data seems to back this result as well.
- cloudier 4y agoThat’s not the full context on the data OK Cupid released. Men tended to rate women in a normal distribution, but they also mostly messaged women in the uppermost range of attractiveness. Women tended to rate men more harshly, rating most men below average attractiveness, but they also tended to message those "below average" men regardless of their assessment.
- scythe 4y ago>The article really misses nuance on this whole "economic independence" thing. Yes, women got "more economically independent". No, they can't just start families on their own and get by. To be pithy, we went from men having economic independence and women not to a situation where neither (save the highest earners) has economic independence. Couples are now interdependent and single people often need roommates. If you're economically independent, by definition you don't have to concern yourself with your partner's income.
- rhino369 4y agoAgreed. In many ways the conclusion about outdated status is ass-backwards. The men being left behind are opting out--skipping a career and a (planned) family. Successful men are the ones still clinging to the "outdated" view that they are the breadwinner. If I didn't feel like I had to provide for a family, I'd get drunk at night and play video games all-day. Certainly better than working 60 hours a week.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]