What seems so often missed – while telling young women to back up, is the possibility – that backing simply may not be on common offer. If it has been concluded that work is not privilege for her – do we not need to also need to ask why was it presumed privilege for him? If it is- why so much focus on things like “freedom 55” and retirement otherwise? When son asks- did dad ever see it that way? Does this not also set him up for a family court destruction?
Young men – how deep is the pool – ready to accept?
Given the reality of the feminism, and othering pushed for so long – what should be expected? It may be time to slow up and ask, given the reality of who was given the inside track in terms of early education, scholarships, first crack at jobs etc.: If it truly is to be a partnership, would that not make her especially obligated to earn?
Consider – that boys have been graded more harshly, had less access to books that actually appealed to them in the early years, punished more harshly for the same things, and given good reason to believe they were not welcome in places like schools. Time to consider- work is burden and duty to him as well. Time to consider he was the primary audience of feminist hate – not the splash one – regardless of intention. Time to consider- actual partnership would not make work be “her choice” but “their choice” where her reversing herself – should be taken as a terrible burden even betrayal, not her right by default.
Time to consider- even as women leave feminism – this sort of thing – insane expectations shows up for him…. reinforcing the message feminism sent so powerfully that men are not loved, by women. It feeds a Vilar narrative – he is so ready to hear in the wake of feminism. The impressions are radically reinforced by a demand for a return to traditionalism, where it is her happiness that is THE point of discussion.
Consider a reality – where family courts have pushed this- based on law – advanced and defended – by NOW. Where she is defined as the victim, the best parent, and the one in need of support – based solely upon her gender. Where young men – know of many cases that seem dangerously close to the below.
Where now they hear the cause of so much harm – is fatherlessness, and then it is “men need to step up” and such of fathers being absent – being blamed on men – and they were cast as deadbeats.
This is a narrative fed so marvelously by the interplay of feminism and tradcons like Venker. If it is about her happiness, and his choices can always be assumed to represent his preferences, the notion of choice forced by her can never be considered, it is hard to avoid the impression he is seen as a beast of burden, not a partner. Venker’s assertion that men work harder to provide, when she stays home with child, because that is just what they do, as opposed to forced choice to keep the family afloat, where questioned leaves a potent impression, especially when the assertion is made without real consultation, based on the observation of choices men made in the wake of a wife staying home. This is to say, it manifests only a preference for not having the family go broke, not about other preferences for his own life, or desire for time with said child. This approach, in turn, when questioned – sends potent messages with regards to deeper care.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=175647545166575&set=a.101664619231535
There is a great price to pay – for silencing men, and allowing only women to give real voice to their issues. This is especially and issue when it has been allowed for decades. The reality an assertion of a self-interested patriarchy, serving the interests of all men, also means that this seems all the more malicious, when that assertion falls under questioning. There is a price to pay – for having long asserted that a suggestion that things were complex – was misogyny. The impression above, which is increasingly hard to argue against – when — the shortage of marriageable men – is defined in terms of their incomes and education, where that is presented as injury to women, when the harm was done by design – by a feminism – that painted men as enemy other.
Young men – feminism – raised questions…
We now may well be in a space – where a lot of young men – will need to believe she is exceptional before they even begin to trust. Others will feel they will never be able to live up to insane requirements. Others will be done – after very few negative experiences, that are involved with women turning the corner themselves… a process that will be far longer than it should have been – and may end in their own unhappiness
Perhaps if there was space to discuss – his happiness. Perhaps if the harm to boys education – could have been given weight – before the leap to “shortage of marriageable men” became a focus. Perhaps – if the reasons men were not marrying could have been discussed – between the assertions of marriage being oppressive to women, and men being selfish and lazy being the cause of them not marrying. Perhaps – if we could have noticed that fathers were removed – not willingly absent – before we shamed fathers for being absent, and blamed men for the fall-out. Perhaps – if we had noticed the masses of suicides in those removed men – before we blamed them for the outcomes of fatherlessness.. .
Perhaps it is time to understand – the impressions that women being hurt by a shortage of economically attractive men, makes in a world, where drugging 20% of boys – with drugs that do long term harm – was not enough to create serious concern. Perhaps it is time to examine the impressions made, from the reactions to – even suggesting some women could be abusers, or sexual predators – was loud cries of misogyny, and rape apology – and this in a world, where the evidence that this was true – was clear and readily available. Perhaps it is time to consider the impact of using “rape” to define the prevalence of such things, and the limits of discussion, where it required only a brief look, to understand – as defined rape excluded the male victims of female predators.
Perhaps it is time to appreciate- that a generation of young men – has been working down these roads for a good number of years. We should be concerned that the treatment of Earl Silverman – comes to define much- demonized using the “rape” numbers from a report – where the “forced to penetrate” listed in the very next table – somehow could not be seen.
Perhaps it is time – to ask – the other question – that Venker does not ask – in fact seems to assiduously avoids asking. Seems to refuse to allow herself to consider… what do men WANT. She approaches the why women must explain – wanting to stay home-
“And yet she must—because all men have heard their entire lives is how women want to live their lives the way men live theirs. All men have heard is that it takes two incomes to survive. All men have heard is that women lose their identities if and when they stay home with their babies.”
While she does deal finally with the notion that it is up to the wife – to lay out and consider the finances (new) and this is a huge step towards acknowledging the other side. She fails to allow for the next question – the one feminism – hid. Consider the reality and nature of men – prior to mass urbanization, industrialization and electrification – were right there – in the field, or in the barn, or somewhere close – available to their children. Is not the rise of dad away at work – not directly tied to the rise of feminism? Was he following his wants when he went away to work, or his families needs? Often defined by his wife? So – the question of what men actually want, or would prefer – has not really been asked, let alone answered. The answer – given elsewhere by Venker seems that men’s nature is defined by the choice to work – ignoring that this could just as easily be a question of forced choice. It was on the farm, and early in industrialization – that jobs required a strength – that generally men had – that most women did not. The division of farm labor – with the heavier tasks being his – in effect simply continued… and this is asserted a choice made by him. We can assert it is a choice men accepted – but even if that is true – do young men today – share the assumptions that were made then?
Did not the rise of feminism – and the choices to assert men were oppressors, and to allow harm to his education, and to demand her right to work – not also unseat the previous? So – women alone have a right to demand a return to a specific time, and mode? She alone is permitted to change the deal, to her benefit? Does that not define the very feminism that women like Venker assert is what is making women unhappy?
Again – lots of young men – already have a myriad questions, and their issues with feminism very likely anchor around the choices to undermine their choice, undermine their education, undermine their opportunity, all in favor of hers. Having done that – we are going to assert his obligations are defined by a time before this was done?
He likely noted how the wage gap was created by the choices women had – that men were denied, while men were blamed for those outcomes… https://evenhandedblog.wordpress.com/2022/05/12/thought-experiments-that-we-have-never-been-allowed-to-examine/
Likely noted that women extended themselves choices around reproduction and obligation – that were not extended men – and how that is still not really allowed to be part of the discussion. When the notion of exit for men – is discussed – why do so many women seem to never have considered the notion of a double standard here – and seem so confused by it? Why is informed consent – only seen as something he needs? Why in that space – does her lie – where he is foolish enough to believe merely become his obligation – where in the inverse he is deemed to have committed sexual assault? Why – when we know such a large portions of “happy accidents” are anything but accidents – based on her choices- is there not the suspicion he would face, celebrating a pregnancy – he claimed to be trying to avoid? Why is she – not she seen with suspicion – when the question is raised? Why is her ability to exit – demanded – where even suggesting one for him – is so often seen as monstrous?
Why is it the “patriarchy” or “men” is so quickly rolled out in terms of having accepted this – where the values are created in spaces nearly entirely controlled by women? Why is what men accepted 100 years ago – binding on men today – where we need but only examine that feminism already made clear that such deals were not binding on women.
Perhaps it is time to notice – that today – by the end of high school -about 1/4 of boys have already concluded they never want family. Perhaps it is time to understand – that women demanding a return to traditionalism, because that is what makes women happy, does not stem that tide. Perhaps we should consider that constantly telling young men they are enemy oppressor – leaves an impression, regardless of what conclusions young women come to quietly and privately later. Perhaps it is time to consider that young men, whose education and opportunities were damaged – will examine the demands for a return to traditionalism – as something they simply can’t support, or see as a risk they are simply not willing to take.
Where is the question – with regards to dad’s time with children? Where is the understanding of the impressions already made – having made it clear fathers are disposable? The impressions made – from blaming those men for being absent – where they were so often and so clearly removed? Where he is blamed for giving up – in a situation where she was so clearly getting pleasure from hurting him – because of a contentious divorce- where it was her use of the “silver bullet” that so often made it contentious? Where her demand for full custody and the child support that was so clearly a priority – not balance. Sure – lots of women are seeing the flaws here and speaking against that… but what anchors the impressions of a 20, 25 or 30 year old today? Could it be their own parents divorce? We need to ask- that young man – examining dating long before even approaching marriage – is he not reading all this? What questions will he have- if he grew up in a household defined by feminism and/or divorce? Will he want his children raised to see men – as always the problem?
Rejecting feminism – and demanding a return to a society that looks just like the one in which gave rise to a feminism that defined men – as enemy other, would be hard enough, but when it is being asked of the young men – who saw dad destroyed as a result of just such views?
evenhandedblog 