The demise of Men?

Post Reply New Topic

It is called the Pussywhipped Men's Society, or PMS.

because no man is honorable enough to do his share of the work unless he's harassed into it. (/sarcasm)
Thankfully, I know that's not true because I've had male housemates who have done their share of the communal work without being nagged into it, and even one who was tidier than I am (and not gay, either - not that they, or I, would have had a problem with that).

Fixed that for you.

PMS and MOMMY are two opposing groups.

I don't.

We have had less than a century of a clearly defined "women's lib" movement and a single generation of "feminism".

In that time the birth rate in the cultures that have eagerly embraced feminism has plummeted to far below replacement levels which has led to the massive importation of nonfeminist cultures to shore up the workforce.

It appears that given the choice of being baby factories or not, women choose not to be...

That's an interesting point, in viewing the world demographics. Obviously those that continue to reproduce and survive are going to be the one's left standing. And on average it is obviously the patriarchal societies that champion that cause, regardless of living conditions.

I guess the question is where is the eventual balance of influence going to be from developing countries where egalitarianism is growing stronger or from countries where patriarchy remains strong as well as rates of reproduction.

That conflict of immigration seems to be a potential mitigating factor as to where the balance of influence per egalitarianism and patriarchy may eventually go on average in the world.

We often view our world in terms of developed countries, however it is not reflective of the reality of the world's larger populations.

At the end of the day, it is those that are left standing, that are the champions in survival.

If that was a "straw feminist" then this a strawman. I don't know a single man, not one, who doesn't do any of the housework. Yes, in our culture, women still do the majority of the housework. But men also still do the majority of work outside the home. Even in relationships where both partners work outside the home, on average the men work longer hours and have jobs that are more physically demanding. It's oversimplifying matters to say "women work too now, so men need to do half of what women used to."

If both partners work 40 hours outside of the home, both partners should do half of the housework - and that includes things like re-hanging doors, cooking on the barbecue, etc. that usually falls to men. If the woman is only working half-time, then yes: it makes sense that she will do most of the housework.
Housework isn't bad or belittling, but it is work and it should be split evenly so that one partner isn't the slave of the other.

Sometimes we get old (or even middle-aged) men brought in by ambulance who have completely gone to seed - haven't been eating, barely drinking, haven't been showering or cleaning the house at all - becuase their wife has either died or left them. They feel totally sorry for themselves, as if they're entitled to have a woman wiping their butt for them. Likewise, I have heard of little old women (including my grandmother) who, once their husband was either demented or dead and couldn't handle the money anymore, get taken in by transparent scam artists because they have no idea of how to handle money; before social security, it wasn't unusual for them to be completely financially destitute when they became a widdow. It's ok for one partner or the other to the lion's share of any one task, but work overall should be balanced and neither partner should be completely helpless in any one aspect of life.

the countries with the lowest birthrates (think Japan) also tend to have a combination of crowding, entrenched patriarchal culture, and true female access to birth control and education.

That's an exception, but it is not reflective of what is evidenced on average per this issue with a glance of all the countries of the world. One has to go to 126 on the list of countries with the highest birthrates to find a European country with anything close to an egalitarian way of life. And in Ireland, religion obviously plays a role.

Issues addressed in japan in the linked article are that people in urban areas cannot afford to have children in a country that offers little support to those that make a decision to have children, and women are making the decision not to have children. They have enough rights to keep the economy strong, but not enough of a social safety net to have children.

The issue in developed countries is there is already a standard of living, that some people are evidenced to refuse to give up, over the potential of not having children. That won't likely work in the long run in countries like Japan, that do not have the boarders to expand, the potential for a significant social safety net, or the same potential for immigration, land locked by water. Sooner or later it will likely become a social crisis, as it is already approaching one. The one solution that may work there is a financial incentive to have children, if the government can afford it, before it is too late.



http://timeinmoments.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/why-is-the-birth-rate-in-japan-declining/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

^I don't think that egalitarianism is the only, or even the most, important factor in whether women choose to have children; looking back, I worded that poorly. I should have said something like, 'where women are supposed to do all of the work raising the children by themselves, with no help whatsoever by society or by their husbands/family/friends, they will choose to have fewer or no children if they have access to birth control and the education to use it.'

Would the ladies rather marry a guy like Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, or Prince William, so that there would be plenty of domestic servants to perform the housework?

In quite a lot of countries, even people of modest means employ household help.

I'm sure that is a significant influencing factor, in two income families wherever they exist, and where access to birth control is almost universally provided, but where there are two income families that phenomenon in itself at least provides evidence that women have gained rights for the freedom of choice to work and to not have children, per a partial move toward egalitarianism.

Coming back full circle to the topic article, I'm glad you brought up the Japanese, because that culture and way of life, seem to be the best example of what the topic author is trying to explain per virtual reality and priorities in life.

The Japanese culture lends some credence to the topic of the demise of guys as many young guys in Japan have lost interest in having sex with a human being and some focus instead on virtual girlfriends.

But, it gets more interesting, as the line between gender roles in that country are becoming more difficult to define, per an extreme version of metro-sexual in the US, referred to as "herbivore men in Japan".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/japan-men-sexless-love

Japan has been measured as the most sexless country in the world, right behind Singapore.





These comments associated with Japan seem to reflect much of what was said in the 1500 comments generated by the topic article.

There is another link in that article that focuses deeper into issues with virtual reality and relationships, reflecting what the topic article author evidences, in Japan several years ago,in 2009.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/86/private-worlds.html



There is no doubt that broadband access to the internet is changing the way the world interacts with others, and this phenomenon is really only about a decade old, per widely available access by the masses in technologically advanced countries. It provides an option that wasn't available before, with alternate avenues for many different activities, beyond the organic world.

But, speaking of options, the article linked below is also interesting, as the pet industry in Japan is booming, as an alternate means of human connection, as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/08/why-japan-prefers-pets-to-parenthood

It is easier to maintain a pet(s) than children. If you screw up raising a pet, it isn't the end of the world. You can also lock your pets in cages and leave the house and not have to worry about being arrested.

Pets are much more convenient than children.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

fascinating set of articles. thanks for the links.