pull down to refresh

no email/paywall: https://archive.is/g4qdV
With the unnecessary Trump tie-in aside, which implies men are to blame for "our messed-up dating culture," the author concludes the culprit is our culture's double-standard.
Over the past 60 years, as girls and women have fought their way into classrooms and boardrooms, society has expanded its idea of womanhood accordingly, yet our definition of manhood has failed to evolve alongside it.
This is a conclusion that I reached recently. Women have redefined what expectations men should have of women (well and good), but men haven't redefined what expectations women should have of men.
Throughout the piece the author waffles on the source of the double standard. They begin by implicating culture heritage through fairy tales, appearing to stare past the fact that fairy tales persist because they dramatize something deeply true:
Hundreds of years after the Brothers Grimm published their version of that classic rags-to-riches story, our cultural narratives still reflect the idea that a woman’s status can be elevated by marrying a more successful man — and a man’s diminished by pairing with a more successful woman.
Then acknowledges the context such fairy tales were crafted in:
Throughout much of Western literature, this alone qualified as a happy ending, given that a woman’s security and sometimes her survival were dependent on marrying a man who could materially support her.
Yet returns to claiming the male provider is mostly a social construct:
While so-called female gold diggers are an obsession of the manosphere, much of its content reinforces the male-breadwinner norm — tying money to manliness and women’s preference for providers to biology.
As far as I can tell, modernity hasn't just surprised our myths. Modernity has surprised what our biology expects. The male provider isn't a myth of culture or a coincidence of history. I don't think we can fix the double standard by changing women's expectations of men. I don't think men can, as easily as women have, change their expectations of themselves.
It's becoming clear that NYT writers such as this are increasingly speaking to a smaller and smaller bubble that includes only themselves.
By defining a morality that sees progress only in terms of career and material success, they have ignored biological and social realities that have shaped human relationships for millennia. They have cut an entire realm of human psychology--love, family, community, responsibility, sacrifice--out of their moral framework. As such, they have made themselves increasingly irrelevant.
I am glad that women have made strides in terms of what they are and aren't able to do in the workplace, but rather than count their wins and broaden their perspective, the modern feminists continue to harp on issues that many have long since moved on from.
It's clear as day from the election results and from the direction of social media that people are getting tired of their moral framework and are looking for something fresh, something that speaks more deeply into all areas of the human psyche.
reply
180 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 2 Dec
I am glad that women have made strides in terms of what they are and aren't able to do in the workplace, but rather than count their wins and broaden their perspective, the modern feminists continue to harp on issues that many have long since moved on from
I think its important to recognize that the push for "women in the workplace" was not some completely organic social-justice movement. It was instead a direct response to fiat inflation - the average family simply demanded 2 earners.
I'm willing to bet if you overlaid "women in the workplace" chart over an M2 money supply chart there would be a very strong correlation. (ie. its another WTF happen in 1971 data series).
Completely anecdotal: However in my professional / friends / family circle, I would guesstimate that 60+% of all the "women with careers" that I know would drop those careers if their husbands suddenly got a 2x or 3x increase in salary.
reply
guess I should have read comments before I wrote one myself. Yes, this is PRECISELY what I'm getting at (admittedly through snark, whereas @SimpleStacker got there through eloquence) #791257
reply
OK, it wasn't clickbaity. NYT is exactly this bad.
Really dislike this conviction that gender is stereotyped, that behavior patterns are merely "cultural narratives," that "a male partner must always be more successful" is merely outdated "belief":
Throughout much of Western literature, this alone qualified as a happy ending, given that a woman’s security and sometimes her survival were dependent on marrying a man who could materially support her.
It never occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe, there's a biological foundation or stable sociological equilibrium for some sex-specific roles and behaviors humans have adapted.
Perfect example of the intellectual pretzel here:
Straight men may not be taking their cues from old Sandra Bullock movies, but their preferred relationships also mirror the rom-com ideal
Translation: There is no pathway/mechanism for my argument, but I conclude that it is nonetheless correct. That, right there, should suggest a different pathway. (Biology, anyone?!)
Also, fuck this: "...selling a retrograde version of masculinity" -- you mean, actual masculinity that isn't preceded by "toxic" and treated as a synonym for evil...?
Plenty food for thought in the article, though. Thanks for sharing
reply
There's so much to say on this.
In brief, I think our culture is way out of equilibrium and we're going to need a bunch of new norms to emerge that will help people navigate our hyper-novel society.
reply
reply
Lots of twists and turns before coming to the more familiar finale: Orange Man Bad
reply
A safe bet would be to expect another 4 years of similar psycho-sexual cultural analysis, where hack "journalists" attempt to explain how on earth Trump could have won the election, blaming everything imaginable, even fairy-tales, besides the Democratic party. The kumbayah ending to this one (...in work and in love etc.) is especially good.
reply
Orange man is a symptom of a desire for revenge. There is no denying it, is there.
reply
Its so wild how Trump (any politician) is at the center of so many things in people's minds. Sad really.
reply
The coming wars and turmoil will fix this.
reply
Yep. I've said this for years.
reply
Women are to blame for our messed up dating culture because women define the rules of dating culture.
reply
Feminism completely confuses women and men alike. Feminism is a materialistic dogma based on deliberate and overt deviation from natural roles. Men and women are fundamentally different in very important ways and yet Feminism pretends this is not the case- confusing equality with sameness. Men and woman are not the same - they have evolved to compliment each other. Feminism in contradicting millions of years of evolutionary truths is a toxic death cult that has destroyed families and traumatised children, if not murdered them.
reply
Ah, the two genders...
reply
wow, whaaaaat! GOTTA be clickbait title eh
reply
🤡
reply