It's come to this: beyond the de-masculinization of boys, now we have to have a conference on whether boys are in crisis...
Mixed feelings.
WSJ had a scary Op Ed piece yesterday on abortion. [ed. note: I am generally agnostic with regard to Roe v. Wade; while I personally find abortion abhorrent under most circumstances, other individuals are free to wrestle with their consciences or take it up with their Creator or What Powers That Be; abortion is killing, but the world justifies killing under many scenarios... We must each live with our own decisions, and I am not your judge.] The WSJ piece links abortion to the current state of affairs, but most signficantly (I think) to the rise of single-parent households, the single most corrosive aspect acting on society today.
According to the WSJ, it seems that, once again, the realization of certain Marxist/Feminist aims had unintended consequences that ended up hurting more women (and children) than it helped. Males, knowing that any unintended offspring could simply be aborted, are free to say "hey, it's her CHOICE to keep the baby; I'm outta here!" So, men are free to deny their responsibilities under the rubric of FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Oi.
This ties in with the other factors undermining boys. Top-down analysis: boys are no longer required to mature into men (the Nintendo-in-the-basement option); bottom-up analysis: no father in the home = no fatherly role model. So, no man to say "Son, that Axe body spray is pretty quee-, uh, smelly"; "Son, at 10, you do not need three showers a day--go get dirty!" That is, no one to point out the absurdity of modern marketing and the queering of basic boyhood.
That there is a market for a book explaining how to SKIP STONES (and engage in other DANGEROUS activities) is a cryin' shame.
Indeed, while I am deeply proud and satisfied to be the progenitor of a gaggle of girls, the one aspect of regret I suffer in not having a boy is that some boy is bereft of a stable family unafraid of proper role modeling (whether you, dear reader, agree with my outlook or not, at least I have an opinion on the matter... Children thrive on black and white--grey is confusing--and they are free, later and upon analysis, to make up their own minds, n'est ce pas?)
---
One other random thought about being a man: the other day, a certain men's organization to which I belong held its annual end-of-season bash. While discussing my desire for an RV, one of the Fellows said he had a friend who was selling one. The next day I got a call--the Fellow from the dinner said "my buddy wanted to get about $10k for the camper, but seeing as you're a Fellow, he's willing to take $7k..."
"Seeing as you're a Fellow..."
[The above was only one example--and a fairly lame one--better examples flow to places you would likely disbelieve...]
You see, men take this stuff seriously.
My wife asks "why don't you allow women?" My reply is that "then we would feel silly--becaus it IS silly, but it is also deadly serious; women, being generally smarter and more sensible than men, would not take it...seriously."
Random anecdotal support: my girls LOVE Mythbusters. I have noticed that when the team are exploding something (or starting some process), there must be a countdown: "3...2...1...". The men take this VERY seriously (even when the countdown is essentially meaningless), always using the same cadence and tone. The women, recognizing the non-essential nature of the countdown (because lawyers, producers, and safety examiners are likely surrounding them, just off camera), apply to it a cavalier manner, just doing it because it must be done, not because (as it is for men) WITHOUT THIS COUNTDOWN THE WORLD MIGHT END.
Hey, I said it was random and anecdotal... but pay attention next time you are watching Mythbusters.
Where was I going with this? Oh, the need for men to GROW UP, accept the yoke of responsibility (really, it's okay, you'll learn to love it), and teach your children well.
Showing posts with label men and women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label men and women. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Post-Nuptial Shutoff
One of the longest, funniest, and saddest threads on Let's Run:
Post-Nuptial Shut-Off
And, gents, I am proud to report I had nothing to say, that is, Life need NOT be that way...
Have I mentioned how freakin' LUCKY I am?
I. am. DAMN. lucky!
Post-Nuptial Shut-Off
And, gents, I am proud to report I had nothing to say, that is, Life need NOT be that way...
Have I mentioned how freakin' LUCKY I am?
I. am. DAMN. lucky!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Things I Did as a Boy (and Shudder to Recall)
Got boys?
I believe myself, these days, to be a relatively upstanding fellow--never been arrested, always seen as a "good kid," fairly respectful of 'da man.' Let me tell you about my youth...
Age...9? My friends and I found some cars (probably '50s vintage). We liked the "diamonds" on the front seat (you know, shattered safety glass). We decided to make more. In the end, we had smashed all avaible glass... This theme returns, later.
Age...10? My friends and I spent the afternoon throwing rocks through the windows of a greenhouse (the old-fasioned kind, many-paned in wooden frames). I am horrified, now, by this memory.
Age...11? My friends and I found a whole parking lot of what seemed, to us, abandoned cars. Our response? More diamonds! LOTS more diamonds. Then for good measure we broke into (literally--we broke the door down) the adjoining garage. Stuff in there seemed a lot...newer. And, in retrospect, that backhoe we ransacked, maybe that wasn't as abandoned as we thought.
Age...11? My father caught me in my fort (under a trash heap), having just put out the fire I had been building. This turned out to be my final pyromaniacal exploit. You see, after the firedrips, the brush fire episode, the burn marks on my bedroom floor, the call from my friends' parents regarding the burn marks in their closet, and now, the trash heap, well, my father had had enough. For my own safety, he beat me with a stick. A big stick.
I never lit a fire again.
Which turned out to be a good thing, because my firebug friends were arrested the next week after having set an entire field on fire. (BTW, one of those friends is now a local newscaster in the MidWest; I wonder if he, too, is horrified by his boyhood vigor.)
My pals and I regularly broke into people's garages, barns, and other outbuildings, sometimes doing mischief (what we, today, call "vandalism"), sometimes not.
One of my friends recalls when he and his sister broke into someone's summer home and spent the afternoon gluing down all movable items: the phone, the dishes, canned goods, furniture. He shudders in the telling.
I have never, however, tipped a cow.
None of these acts were done maliciously per se (indeed, I would argue that "right" and "wrong" were as of yet a bit grey for me); all were done sober (indeed, alcohol and drugs have never played any part of my life or activities).
Believe it or not, there are other items that I simply cannot type (no harm to small animals, but difficult to relay nonetheless).
Sometimes, it is good to grow up.
Got boys?
I believe myself, these days, to be a relatively upstanding fellow--never been arrested, always seen as a "good kid," fairly respectful of 'da man.' Let me tell you about my youth...
Age...9? My friends and I found some cars (probably '50s vintage). We liked the "diamonds" on the front seat (you know, shattered safety glass). We decided to make more. In the end, we had smashed all avaible glass... This theme returns, later.
Age...10? My friends and I spent the afternoon throwing rocks through the windows of a greenhouse (the old-fasioned kind, many-paned in wooden frames). I am horrified, now, by this memory.
Age...11? My friends and I found a whole parking lot of what seemed, to us, abandoned cars. Our response? More diamonds! LOTS more diamonds. Then for good measure we broke into (literally--we broke the door down) the adjoining garage. Stuff in there seemed a lot...newer. And, in retrospect, that backhoe we ransacked, maybe that wasn't as abandoned as we thought.
Age...11? My father caught me in my fort (under a trash heap), having just put out the fire I had been building. This turned out to be my final pyromaniacal exploit. You see, after the firedrips, the brush fire episode, the burn marks on my bedroom floor, the call from my friends' parents regarding the burn marks in their closet, and now, the trash heap, well, my father had had enough. For my own safety, he beat me with a stick. A big stick.
I never lit a fire again.
Which turned out to be a good thing, because my firebug friends were arrested the next week after having set an entire field on fire. (BTW, one of those friends is now a local newscaster in the MidWest; I wonder if he, too, is horrified by his boyhood vigor.)
My pals and I regularly broke into people's garages, barns, and other outbuildings, sometimes doing mischief (what we, today, call "vandalism"), sometimes not.
One of my friends recalls when he and his sister broke into someone's summer home and spent the afternoon gluing down all movable items: the phone, the dishes, canned goods, furniture. He shudders in the telling.
I have never, however, tipped a cow.
None of these acts were done maliciously per se (indeed, I would argue that "right" and "wrong" were as of yet a bit grey for me); all were done sober (indeed, alcohol and drugs have never played any part of my life or activities).
Believe it or not, there are other items that I simply cannot type (no harm to small animals, but difficult to relay nonetheless).
Sometimes, it is good to grow up.
Got boys?
Monday, May 7, 2007
More on Lawyers (Yes, I meant it to be read aloud)
From http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=64&nav=messages&webtag=bc-general&tid=1019,
ExiledbyHVMA wrote:
Men have for centuries (if not millenia) relied on a dedicated and hardworking wife to raise a family while they competed to succeed in their professional careers. Even a strictly 40-hour-per-week job gives little time or flexibility to raise children, especially in a day and age when young children cannot safely play on their own after school at a neighbourhood park.
For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.
But how many women are willing to commit themselves to being primary, or sole, breadwinner? How many professional women are actually looking to marry, and start a family with, a man "on the daddy track," someone for whom money and work is less important than raising children and keeping house.
These men exist, by the thousands. But what professional women wants--let alone seeks out--such a partner? How many would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?
Let's also not forget how hard it would be for such a women to "explain" what her husband does. Would this situation perhaps even cloud her chances for promotion?
We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."We may have to wait another century (or perhaps millenium) before our society can make this leap.- a former, stay-at-home father of two boys
Reply
Posted by anonymous_bosh on 10:41
For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.
While your argument makes sense on the face of it, you answer yourself the begged question of why this does not happen (i.e., professional women want professional men). Let me put the question another way: For family-oriented men to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, childbirth, they need the exact same support that women have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the other parent of their children."
My point? Demand and expect all you want, but men will not bear children. Similarly--and for whatever reason--women want their offspring to be competitive among children (even if "competitive" is not defined along, e.g., sports or academic lines); in other words, they are seeking competitive genetic material.
How many [professional women] would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?
Belittled? Belittled by WHOM? Are MEN going around belittling the mothers of their children? Their own mothers? Please direct me to this belittling, for I haven't seen it. So far as I can tell, the stereotypical male view of motherhood is emedded in such phrases as "my mother was a saint." Belittled you say?
We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."
Trapped? Funny, I do not FEEL trapped--nor, apparently, does my full-time wife and mother of and to our children. I asked her last night whether I had "forced her out of the workplace" (as some feminists contend) and whether I was "oppressing her freedom of choice." When she stopped laughing she reminded me to stop reading online boards and to focus on furthering my career in order that she could better provide for the family. She also reminded me that, as a former lawyer, she had written all contracts to her benefit, that I was not getting out of our marriage alive, and that I was darn lucky to be allowed in her very presence, not to mention her bed. Funny thing is, I agree completely.
But before I go looking around for my next promotion and pay increase, I must ask: you, O Tantalus, state "there is a way out," but then fail to elaborate. Perhaps you could rectify the oversight?
Signed,
A proud and grateful contributing member of a successful family unit with a consciously applied but ultimately traditional division of labor enjoying all the current and (so far as one can project) long-term familial and financial satisfaction enabled by such a structure (and who would like to be considered among acquaintances by my stage-name, Nada Weiner).
ExiledbyHVMA wrote:
Men have for centuries (if not millenia) relied on a dedicated and hardworking wife to raise a family while they competed to succeed in their professional careers. Even a strictly 40-hour-per-week job gives little time or flexibility to raise children, especially in a day and age when young children cannot safely play on their own after school at a neighbourhood park.
For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.
But how many women are willing to commit themselves to being primary, or sole, breadwinner? How many professional women are actually looking to marry, and start a family with, a man "on the daddy track," someone for whom money and work is less important than raising children and keeping house.
These men exist, by the thousands. But what professional women wants--let alone seeks out--such a partner? How many would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?
Let's also not forget how hard it would be for such a women to "explain" what her husband does. Would this situation perhaps even cloud her chances for promotion?
We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."We may have to wait another century (or perhaps millenium) before our society can make this leap.- a former, stay-at-home father of two boys
Reply
Posted by anonymous_bosh on 10:41
For family-oriented women to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, the professions, they need the exact same support at home that men have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the father of their children.
While your argument makes sense on the face of it, you answer yourself the begged question of why this does not happen (i.e., professional women want professional men). Let me put the question another way: For family-oriented men to dedicate themselves to, and succeed in, childbirth, they need the exact same support that women have so long had. They need to demand and expect this from the other parent of their children."
My point? Demand and expect all you want, but men will not bear children. Similarly--and for whatever reason--women want their offspring to be competitive among children (even if "competitive" is not defined along, e.g., sports or academic lines); in other words, they are seeking competitive genetic material.
How many [professional women] would genuinely respect a husband willing to take on such a critical--but so long belittled--societal role?
Belittled? Belittled by WHOM? Are MEN going around belittling the mothers of their children? Their own mothers? Please direct me to this belittling, for I haven't seen it. So far as I can tell, the stereotypical male view of motherhood is emedded in such phrases as "my mother was a saint." Belittled you say?
We are trapped in our past by a market-driven workplace that rewards singular dedication. There is a way out, but it requires both men and women to reassess and reward the role of "home-maker."
Trapped? Funny, I do not FEEL trapped--nor, apparently, does my full-time wife and mother of and to our children. I asked her last night whether I had "forced her out of the workplace" (as some feminists contend) and whether I was "oppressing her freedom of choice." When she stopped laughing she reminded me to stop reading online boards and to focus on furthering my career in order that she could better provide for the family. She also reminded me that, as a former lawyer, she had written all contracts to her benefit, that I was not getting out of our marriage alive, and that I was darn lucky to be allowed in her very presence, not to mention her bed. Funny thing is, I agree completely.
But before I go looking around for my next promotion and pay increase, I must ask: you, O Tantalus, state "there is a way out," but then fail to elaborate. Perhaps you could rectify the oversight?
Signed,
A proud and grateful contributing member of a successful family unit with a consciously applied but ultimately traditional division of labor enjoying all the current and (so far as one can project) long-term familial and financial satisfaction enabled by such a structure (and who would like to be considered among acquaintances by my stage-name, Nada Weiner).
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Young Lawyers in Love
Pursuant to a Boston Globe (oh how I despise that rag) article decrying the percentage of female lawyers leaving the industry http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/05/02/many_female_lawyers_dropping_off_path_to_partnership
I will get around to commenting on the summary eventually:
http://www.womensbar.org/images/WBA/EC report summary.htm
In the meantime, in resonponse to another's post on the Boston Globe boards, I wrote:
A thoughtful and incisive post:
"...[T]he absence of female [leaders]...is all about the billible hour. ...Neither my husband nor I wanted the children to be raised by their nanny, so we ... decided that I would stay home.
There are a limited number of hours in the day, and most of the moms I know cho[o]se to spend as many of them as possible taking care of their families... [M]others will be unable to [commit fully to a career] without putting their families second."
Why do men prefer (i.e., derive greater satisfaction and choose) to provide via income (which translates, e.g., to mortgage and tuition payments), while women prefer direct caregiving?
The answer is irrelevant. Apparently, the fact is that in a significant percentage of two-earner families with children, wives prefer that their husbands remain in the workforce. For most families with children (even non-traditional or same-sex arrangements), AT LEAST ONE head-of-household must work, and oftentimes--if the opportunity is there--the person in the role of wife decides that the person in the role of husband is the one that must work. Oftentimes, the husband is DEEPLY GRATEFUL for the sacrifices made by the wife, and sometimes even REDOUBLES his efforts to prove that the wife made the right choice.
What do G-d, gut, Darwin, and other The Powers That Be indicate? Wives, when you see a stay-at-home Dad lounging around on the park bench sipping Starbucks while his offspring play nearby, what is your gut reaction? Is it ever "GET TO WORK, LAZYBONES?" (It is for me, I am surprised to admit.)
Another important question in this "equality" debate: Ladies, would you hire a male babysitter? Would you drop your children off at an all-male-run daycare facility? How about a stay-at-home dad's home daycare? If not, then ask yourselves, why not?
Equality of outcome belies individual preferences. It is not just that some women CHOOSE to stay at home, clearly (given that some could hire nannies) some women PREFER (and prefer at great cost) to raise their own children. Why?
So, those women who read this law report (or the currently hyped "gender wage gap") and are outraged, please also explore your own honest reactions to the world around you.
In a world without men, we likely would have no gasoline (*I* am not going to work on a North Atlantic oil derrick, THAT'S fer shur!), no Alaskan crab legs, a lot less lobster, fewer diamonds, much less coal, and so forth (and, yes, I anticipate the "yes, but we'd have a cleaner/softer/fluffier world" comments...).
Why are their fewer law partners? Because 100-hour weeks SUCK (and I do not exaggerate the hours), and men are too macho (or stupid) to refuse them (or to refuse to go down the mine or onto the lobster boat or into battle or on the beat).
As others have posted, I would have liked the survery to include the smaller boutiques for a better sense of what women ARE doing outside the realm of big law or big biz.
I will get around to commenting on the summary eventually:
http://www.womensbar.org/images/WBA/EC report summary.htm
In the meantime, in resonponse to another's post on the Boston Globe boards, I wrote:
A thoughtful and incisive post:
"...[T]he absence of female [leaders]...is all about the billible hour. ...Neither my husband nor I wanted the children to be raised by their nanny, so we ... decided that I would stay home.
There are a limited number of hours in the day, and most of the moms I know cho[o]se to spend as many of them as possible taking care of their families... [M]others will be unable to [commit fully to a career] without putting their families second."
Why do men prefer (i.e., derive greater satisfaction and choose) to provide via income (which translates, e.g., to mortgage and tuition payments), while women prefer direct caregiving?
The answer is irrelevant. Apparently, the fact is that in a significant percentage of two-earner families with children, wives prefer that their husbands remain in the workforce. For most families with children (even non-traditional or same-sex arrangements), AT LEAST ONE head-of-household must work, and oftentimes--if the opportunity is there--the person in the role of wife decides that the person in the role of husband is the one that must work. Oftentimes, the husband is DEEPLY GRATEFUL for the sacrifices made by the wife, and sometimes even REDOUBLES his efforts to prove that the wife made the right choice.
What do G-d, gut, Darwin, and other The Powers That Be indicate? Wives, when you see a stay-at-home Dad lounging around on the park bench sipping Starbucks while his offspring play nearby, what is your gut reaction? Is it ever "GET TO WORK, LAZYBONES?" (It is for me, I am surprised to admit.)
Another important question in this "equality" debate: Ladies, would you hire a male babysitter? Would you drop your children off at an all-male-run daycare facility? How about a stay-at-home dad's home daycare? If not, then ask yourselves, why not?
Equality of outcome belies individual preferences. It is not just that some women CHOOSE to stay at home, clearly (given that some could hire nannies) some women PREFER (and prefer at great cost) to raise their own children. Why?
So, those women who read this law report (or the currently hyped "gender wage gap") and are outraged, please also explore your own honest reactions to the world around you.
In a world without men, we likely would have no gasoline (*I* am not going to work on a North Atlantic oil derrick, THAT'S fer shur!), no Alaskan crab legs, a lot less lobster, fewer diamonds, much less coal, and so forth (and, yes, I anticipate the "yes, but we'd have a cleaner/softer/fluffier world" comments...).
Why are their fewer law partners? Because 100-hour weeks SUCK (and I do not exaggerate the hours), and men are too macho (or stupid) to refuse them (or to refuse to go down the mine or onto the lobster boat or into battle or on the beat).
As others have posted, I would have liked the survery to include the smaller boutiques for a better sense of what women ARE doing outside the realm of big law or big biz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
