Does 'up with men' have to mean 'down with women'?

In case you had started thinking that America was getting just a little too socially evolved - with a black candidate for president and all that - along comes someone to restore the old cockeyed landscape.

In the Sunday Times today Kathleen Parker, a respected American columnist, writes about the sorry state of manhood and the need to Save the Males, which is the title of her new book.

Certainly we should consider men's place in society and honour the roles they play. Yet Parker says that our female-friendly world has created an ecosystem hostile toward the male of the species. Apparently all those liberated single mothers out there are making men redundant.

Take for example these bits from her article:

"The shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time. While we have happily retired the word 'bastard' and the attendant emotional pain for mother and child, acceptance of childbearing outside marriage represents not just a huge shift in attitudes but, potentially, a restructuring of the future human family...
By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we have helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce but in which men are also superfluous."

And:

"Lots of women can, do and always will raise children without fathers, whether out of necessity, tragedy or other circumstance. But that fact can't logically be construed to mean that children don't need a father."

She makes loads of sweeping assumptions that don't hold up to the light: that it's "rare" for men to be portrayed positively in popular culture, that we no longer have a male-dominated society as a whole.

Even this assertion that fathers are being written out of the picture is less than watertight.

Who is saying that children don't need a father, or at least a father figure? Experts and studies agree that children function best in a two-parent household. Kids benefit from close relationships with parents of both genders (after all, they live in a world with both boys and girls, men and women).

Yet even while Parker exalts of the role of dad, she tuts that men are now too "domesticated" - "attending Lamaze classes, counting contractions, bottling expressed milk for nighttime feeds". Fathers taking an active role in day-to-day parenting that doesn't involve kicking a football? What sissies!

Parker's thesis is nothing new. Freud theorised that mothers damage their sons and that it takes a father to make a man out of his son. And men are important in shaping boys. In her book Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, Peggy Drexler, found that while male role models were important for healthy boys, the men didn't have to be "dad"€  - they could be uncles, teachers, pastors and others.

"'Boys need relationships with men to understand how to sustain relationships in the world,' the assistant professor of psychology at Cornell University and a former gender scholar at Stanford University, said in a Guardian interview. "'But it does not have to be the one man in the mother's bedroom.' The boys she encountered actually had more male influence in their lives than boys from traditional families where the father was often the only man they knew. On average the American man sees his children for 11 minutes a day."

Parker, to support her theory, talked to men who were conceived with donor sperm and their ache for identity and to know their natural fathers. I'm sure these people feel the need deeply, yet it speaks to a much wider issue of the needs of babies born from donated egg and sperm (do girls not seek their natural fathers as well?) rather than a boy's need for a dad.

The second example supporting her thesis is her experience with another mother acting as Cub Scout leaders for her son's 7-year-old troupe. The two just couldn't relate to the needs of boys who wanted to shoot bows and arrows rather than make lanterns from coffee tins. "Here's how one memorable meeting began. 'Boys, thank you for taking your seats and being quiet while we explain our women's history month project,'" she writes. Excuse me while the 7-year-old girl in me gags, alongside the boys.

Parker does make some valid points, such as that the damaging effect of the culture of sexual availability has on young men. Yet she links this "pornified" culture to feminism, since feminism, of course, presumes men are without honour and integrity.€

Feminism has moved on from the time when we debated whether every instance of sexual intercourse constitutes rape. These days the pendulum has swung the other direction, with society celebrating the traditional roles of women - childrearing, homemaking - and decrying every pregnant teen girl as selfish.

Parker wants to pat herself on the back for noting that boys need qualities like honour, courage and loyalty, and that we must teach boys how to be men. "We need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes. Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less."

One might dismiss the book as headline-grabbing grandstanding. Yet Parker also asserts that that a woman's ability to get an abortion without the father's consent hurts men by making their "vote"€ irrelevant. It's one thing to argue "up with men's liberation", quite another to suggest the way to get that is to wind back the clock on women's rights. Is it really so wise to go back to the days when the husband had control of his wife's body, like property?

After all, what does that teach boys not only about men but also about women?

Comments

[Bob]

Reading the comments here I think most people are missing the biggest point brought up by the author which is not how parents of both sexes raise their children, but rather how the state acts, with a heavily feminist influenced agenda.

When we read of situations in the US where boys are put on drugs at school for basically behaving like boys (loud, mischievous ), and where 3 and 6 year old boys are labeled sexual predators for hugging or kissing female classmates something has gone seriously wrong.

Men now shy away from cub and youth group leadership as now a virtually automatic "suspected pedophile" aura is attached to their application, and on top of this there's the whole "health and safety" culture, no more building tree houses that's way too dangerous, build a camp fire?, are you out of your mind?

Social Services, schools and areas of government that impact family life are now pretty well exclusively dominated by these ideals, and the underlying mantra is Women are long suffering saints and Men are untrustworthy potential sex fiends, who should have no say in their child's upbringing.

Most women understand balance is required, but when you deal with these civil servants they live in a completely different la la land of feminist clap trap.

[Judy]

Kevin please say how she was patronising or "getting even?" You are clearly angry, but what about? No, the world is not perfect for men, but is it the fault of women? Look up the word feminist before you hurl it around as an insult. It never ceases to amaze me how loaded that word is in our culture. But all it means is that a person believes that women should have equal rights to men. What is so bad about that? Shouldn't everyone believe that? Equal pay is getting even? Women are people. Men are people too. The problem is that it's women (and children) who need the scales to tip in their favor today. That's why there's no male counterpart word for feminist. It is moot.

I am so very grateful that I had such a great dad, otherwise I would have lost hope with the way a lot men seem to really hate, use and abuse women without a thought. It seems to me that while the vast majority of women see men as people, for better or worse, many men still see women as servants and sexual objects. They don't wonder about it; they don't even necessarily mean to be that way. It's just the way it is and how we're taught. Like the title of the article says, why not up with women and men? The day that we can retire the word 'feminist' in favor of 'humanist' will be a happy day indeed. Unfortunately, we are not nearly there. Thank you so much for writing this article! The other was too depressing.

[Travis]

This is why I'm no longer interested in women. Its is simply ghastly what the blog and commentors here have said against men,fathers and boys. Fortunately there are consequences as men realize they are under assault and dont have to remain quiet about. Thank you JENNIFER HOWZE for confirming my disillusionment.

[Jo]

SM - I think once you have been with some one a few years there wont be any 'puppy dog infatuation' so if you still feel that you want to spend the rest of your life with them then, then that is pobably the most reliable indicator.
Everyone in marriages seems to be saying what I have always thought about marriage that it takes a lot of work and compromise but it sounds like it is worth it to all of you:-)
Has anyone seen the articles about the pill affecting peoples partner choices and the effects on divorce:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4516566.ece
Very interesting.

[j]

Ad-Mum, it is always hard when an employee becomes like one of the family. but she does work for you.

I guess I would suggest an annual review, to discuss pay, how the kids are growing up, etc. As part of that, say, her sick days are making your life very difficult and is there anything you can do- such as arranging for her not to work Mondays in future? after all, being close ought to work both ways. She needs to see you as a person she is letting down.

[LM]

Ad-Mum,

Had a similar situation with our current nanny during her first few months with us. I figured out it was probably related to her periods (because of the timing & she's not a big drinker). She's in mid-20s & this was first full-time post-graduate job. Also didn't know how to approach it, but one day in conversation (we'd all been ill with some bug) she was talking about how hard it is to be under the weather and get up for work (or something) & I said something like, yes, but imagine doing it on 4 hours sleep a night like we parents do. And since then, somehow, we've had fewer issues (to be fair, though, we are flexible when she's ill/needs time for personal errands etc).

[LM]

Thanks J - it was a statement that was just begging to be disproved.

I agree about divorcees understanding a lot about marriage/relationships. I think anyone who's been in a relationship for a reasonable length of time develops that understanding (unless their EQ is incredibly low - I know there are some people out there who would always blame everything on the other person no matter what). My husband's $0.2s worth was "patience" (speaks volumes about us, probably).

I definitely fail SM's criteria. Gave up my career/life to move to the other side of the world for my husband and was supported financially by him when I emigrated. Then fell into an industry I'd never have contemplated back home in the UK - technology - and since, have consequently generally earned more despite having lower qualifications.

I remember the man who married us telling us marriage is hard work and the most important thing is listening, compromising and keeping working at it. All have proved to be true for us over the last 13 years.

[Ad-Mum]

On the whole illness thing, I have found that my colleagues are generally very understanding if I have a sick child who I need/want to look after, and I do the whole telecon/blackberry thing. On one notable occassion I remember negotiating an annual budget with my finance director while cleaning poo off a small bottom and the walls etc. He (thankfully) had no idea....

Actually, the biggest problem that I have (and advice most welcome), is the pretty regular sick days that my nanny takes. It probably equates to at least one day a month, and she only works 4 days a week.

I've had to take more time off work for a sick nanny (food poisoning, migraine, bugs, kidney infections etc) than I've taken off sick myself in 15 years. To be honest, I'm sure that a fair amount of them are down to overdoing it at the weekend (often they're Mondays), or similar. I don't feel able to confront my nanny on this one just in case they are all real. I also don't want to lose her as she's one of the family now and the children love her. I'm pretty sure that she loves her job, so don't think that it's down to lack of motivation. But the fact that I am so fond of her makes the feeling of being taken for a ride all the more unpaletable.

Any ideas?

[j]

he he LM as always SM is very confident in her pronouncements but not so hot on accuracy...

Mind you I dont buy the theory that a divorcee knows nothing about marriage. I think divorce forces people to develop a lot of wisdom about relationships.

Me, 18 years into the mission, I wold bang my usual drum- things change over time. We started with a pattern to gladden SM's heart- me, homeowner, company car, big salary, etc, he trailing spouse. Then I upped and betrayed the sisterhood by spending 7 years at home, shock horror. So he earned the money. Now we are on phase 4 where we are both FT. Come Phase 5 I will outearn him again.

I was advised by the man who married us- dont ask, what can you get from the other person, ask, what can you give them. At the time I thought, typical man. Now I am not so sure. Seen as a question of creativity, rather than dormatness, its quite a good rule.

[Weaselwords]

As an aside - of possible interest to dog owners - I have not once, but several times had the experience of having both my children and the dog ill with norovirus-type d & v bugs - all at the same time. I mentioned this once to a GP, but he dismissed it out of hand as coincidence. But I see that research is being carried out into norovirus in domestic and wild animals and there is a strong possibility that there is "zoonotic potential". Every time I have experienced this "coincidence", the children get the bug first - and then the dog, a day or two later. And the only one who has ever required medical attention was the dog. I now keep the dog away from the children if they are ill - for his sake:-)

[KM]

What do I think is mutual compability?

I think it's a mixture of things, and class cultural outlook etc etc can definitely be part of that. My parents came from VERY different cultures but both considered themselves middle class, I think that was part of their shared heritage. They spoke often of "shared values in parenting," saying that you needed to know how your partner would respond in a crisis, that that was a gut instinct thing and nothing to do with culture or race.

Myself, I think that the most important thing is that you genuinely look at this person and think, "I need to spend the rest of my life with you." Not "I could" or even "It would be nice" but "I cannot imagine my future without marrying you."
That;s different from puppy-love infatuation, at least I think so.

[KM]

What do I think is mutual compability?

I think it's a mixture of things, and class cultural outlook etc etc can definitely be part of that. My parents came from VERY different cultures but both considered themselves middle class, I think that was part of their shared heritage. They spoke often of "shared values in parenting," saying that you needed to know how your partner would respond in a crisis, that that was a gut instinct thing and nothing to do with culture or race.

Myself, I think that the most important thing is that you genuinely look at this person and think, "I need to spend the rest of my life with you." Not "I could" or even "It would be nice" but "I cannot imagine my future without marrying you."
That;s different from puppy-love infatuation, at least I think so.

[Carlos]

Nice one LM, thanks for saving me the time.

Not to mention that toddlers have less hygiene sense than most animals...

Wait 'til you have more than one though (child that is) - the colds/bugs bounce from one to the other mutate along the way and then come back. ;-)

[LM]

Hm. Well, even though I have lots of other things to do today, I thought it would be interesting to find out when we are contagious with certain bugs. Thanks to those nice people at Mayoclinic.com, I learned:

Stomach bugs:

Norovirus - 1-3 day incubation period; contagious at onset of symptoms, until 3 days after symptoms subside.

Rotavirus - 1-2 days incubation period; contagious prior to being symptomatic, up to 2 weeks after symptoms subside. (They say this is the leading cause of gastroenteritis in young children).

Colds - 1-3 days incubation; contagious from 1 day prior to onset until 5 days after onset (some other sources say longer).

Flu - the CDC website states contagious period is 1 day prior to symptoms until 5 days after for a healthy adult; longer for children/those with weakened immune systems.

So now we know. Probably of more concern to those of us with younger children than those with older ones like SM, as they have more immunity by then. I'm sure by the time mine is 10, I'll have forgotten the year she had 3 stomach bugs and 7 colds (despite eating a more healthy diet than most children her age and exercising regularly) and will just say she was always healthy.

[Carlos]

SM: "conveniently wife just happened to fall in love" - hmmm, well that's a nice thing to say. You come across as a very bitter person. Do you actually know my wife to allow you to make such a dismissive statement?

Regarding vomiting when ill not being contagious, do you know much about bacterial illnesses? Given your lack of experience in this area (i.e. your children never being ill) and your general views on illness I would suggest not... "not contagious" indeed!

[Jane2]

I agree with LM about commitment. Long-term marrieds show this quality above all others, even above compromise. Seeing the bad times through (and EVERYONE has them, if not they're a robot).

People who have split up have told me "Well in your case, you just haven't reached the point yet where you're not prepared to keep going on". SM has made a similar point.

Me, stubborn and rebellious sixties child that I was, I thought, well, I'll show them..I'll just keep going! (Some people, particularly split-ees, make no secret of the fact that they think your marriage is just as c*** as theirs was).

But I take nothing for granted.

[supermother]

Carlos' relationship is the traditional way around - husband earns a huge load more and conveniently wife just happened to fall in love with husband and it's all lvoe, never a subsconscious women prefer men who earn more but of course 4 /5 women do end up with higher earning men even if they do not deliberately prefer them.

Then the lower earner of whatever sex gets saddled with child issues because it doesn't make sense for the higher to rush home early from work to collect from nursery or let the nanny go home.

(ON sickness my children have hardly ever been sick so I doubt I have been infecting the whole of NW London and do remember people are most infectious before any symptoms show - by the time they're vomiting it's too late - the whole class has been infected already so I don't agree with those points being made)

[Jo]

What would you consider mutual compatibility anyway - is it social/political beliefs, ideas about how to raise children/ do you want them, interests. This is just a general question to everyone as I was chatting witha friend in a pub about why we choose our partners and he was saying he preferred people to really challenge him with very different interests/beliefs.

[Jo]

Very true KM and I am very sorry for you friend it must have been awful to have everyone you love around you saying how lucky you are whn they don't know the truth. I also agree that having a list of specifications for a soul mate is not the best way to go about it as no one may ever live up to them. However, I think it might also be upsetting to find out that you have completely different ideas about what is going to happen after marriage. I am not so naieve as to think that things always turn out the way you plan them but nor do I think that if something is hugely important to you, you shouldn't try to find someone whoose ideas about things match yours. Turn it on its head, you want to stay home, your husband wants you to work - that actually happened to my parents when we were small and put a lot of strain on thetheir marriage. I think that this woiuld be part of the mutual compatibility of a couple.

[KM]

Jo, I agree that if one could sit down with a checklist and tick boxes, "suitably compatible careers to fit in with my aspirations" would be nice. We'd all tick it. Unfortunately I think a lot of heartache is caused by people unfairly pigeonholing their expectations. If you say "I will only marry a man who is...xyz" I think you are in danger of choosing the wrong bloke, who maybe fits your criteria on paper but isn't actually a soulmate.

I am reminded, extreme example I know, of someone who was engaged to this fabulous guy, they were so well-suited, perfectly matching careers, etc etc. Only trouble was, he used to beat her. The externals were all so "right" that she was terrified of telling anyone else because everyone, especially her family, was so invested in this supposedly perfect partner.

Now I'm not saying that SM's example leads us there or anywhere close, but I think when you insist on ANYTHING other than quality of character and mutual compatibility, then actually, you're setting yourself up for a fall, because life ain't ever the way we want or expect it, and why should our marital partner be any different?

[Jo]

Mercenary - sorry

[Jo]

LM- I agree with you about sending sick children to school - it is very selfish. I also don't think sick adults should 'struggle' into work and kindly pass around their germs to everyone else. Far better to rest for a day or so and go in well enough to actually do your job/school work.
I think the other idea though is something to think about. If you do it in a mercennary way - looking for someone to be your stay at home slave (man or woman)/ someone for you to lord over then shame on you. However, if you want a family but also a good career, and some careers are not compatible with being the parent who drops everything to be at home with the kids, then it makes sense to go for people who are happier to take the back seat. Just because someone earns less doesn’t mean you will have less respect for them but may mean that they can be the one who stays at home with the sick child.
I am afraid I am not married nor do I have children so this is me thinking about things logically rather than in reality. I bow to other peoples greater knowledge and experience.

[LM]

KM - on your question of best/worst things to bring, I do think admiration/respect is one of the best things. Another one has to be generosity/flexibility - not so much that one gets walked all over of course, but when you're both willing to do the other's share if necessary, it makes things much smoother. And the third is commitment - the ability to stick things out, even when they're tough. And the fourth is emotional literacy.

Worst things? Apart from the obvious ones - violence, abusiveness, etc. - the need to be always right rather than to compromise. Feeling superior is up there too.

[LM]

I'd say over 10 counts as having some longevity. Though we realised when we hit the 5-year mark that we'd passed the average length of marriage for our generation (this was a few years ago, mind you).

Jo - I don't disagree with SM's premise that you juggle responsibilities; I do disagree with her notion that sending sick, contagious children to school is acceptable, and I also think the concept of marrying someone with a poorer-paying job/career than your own just so you have the upper hand is dubious.

[Carlos]

KM: what defines long term marriage in this day and age? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years?
;-)