At the risk of sounding contrary, I think women's identity crisis is more profound than men's. Men only have to look to the UN to understand their role (he for she). We constantly remind men of their obligation to serve society, provide resources and protection to women... and lay down their lives when necessary in dangerous jobs or on t…
At the risk of sounding contrary, I think women's identity crisis is more profound than men's. Men only have to look to the UN to understand their role (he for she). We constantly remind men of their obligation to serve society, provide resources and protection to women... and lay down their lives when necessary in dangerous jobs or on the battlefield. Men are acutely aware of their role every time they are taxed and the money is spent on endless programs to help and support women.
Men's role has always been adaptable - from hunting wild boar to building canals to programming software....... it's all the same basic role, to create and maintain the infrastructure and ensure women and children are provided for and protected from the harshness of nature.
Women's role used to be managing the household, and having and raising the children. The home/ garden/ allotment/ farm was itself a business enterprise and she was the boss. Her role was to manage the day to day running of this enterprise, with children by her side.
Feminism's clever trick was to reframe women's BOREDOM at home resulting from new labour saving technology (mod cons) as OPPRESSION. Had 20th century women stayed true to their identity and used their imagination they could have reinvented themselves as homemakers to the whole community, organising parks, home schooling, social projects (housing the homeless, feeding the poor etc). This would have reduced the role of government until it effectively disappeared, and this would have kept the relationship (partnership) between men and women healthy and productive as a BINARY relationship without state interference (they say three's a crowd).
I would argue that it's because of women's diminished role (essentially caricaturing men in the office 9-5) that so many women cannot assert their unique value as women, and so have to assert themselves through eternal victimhood instead.
The lie of feminism was that women's traditional (ie natural) role as mother and homemaker was (a) demeaning (b) oppression (c) unnecessary. The equivalent of women abandoning children to 'daycare' and pursuing 9-5 jobs would be men abandoning the power stations and construction sites.
Sure things would tick along for a while, but eventually the bridges would all rust and collapse, the roads would be full of potholes and the gas and oil stocks would run out. This is what we are now seeing with children's mental health in state schools and day care.
While not every woman needs to have children (just as not every man needs to maintain the infrastructure) those that do need to take care of them properly. That means stay at home motherhood and home schooling at the very least. But to point out women's unique and important (vital) role in raising children and passing on cultural/ moral values from one generation to the next is now regarded as backward, far right, misogyny.
So women cannot have an identity or a unique sense of value, because that is a violation of progressive ideology. Women's only permissible identity is to keep pushing for perpetual revolution, liberation and empowerment.. which will come in the form of artificial wombs (only 10-20 years away) which will be the new fridges and vacuum cleaners. This will further diminish women's role and induce even more depression and lack of self worth..... prompting more feminism... and on and on it goes.
I think men are not suffering an identity crisis, so much as a 'what's the point?' crisis. We demand just as much from men as we always have but without any gratitude or respect or support. Even making men a lousy sandwich for their efforts is regarded as too much gratitude. Men are expected to provide for women and children (as always) but without necessarily benefitting from having a loving wife and children as a reward and a motivation.
I think that a debate over comparative suffering would be a mistake, Corona. That's what both academic victimology and its fallout in ideologies that rely on identity politics boil down to: competing for the grand prize of who suffers most. Whether you intended to play that game or not, I refuse to do so. It's unnecessary and counterproductive from my perspective as someone who wants to replace inter-sexual debate (in which one side loses and other wins) with inter-sexual dialogue (in which both sides win by acknowledging a complementarity that is rooted in nature). In short, I'd say that BOTH sexes are succumbing to identity crises for similar but not identical reasons.
It's true that men can still do the heavy lifting, but that has for many centuries been characteristic of the lower classes, first as serfs and then as proletarians. Upper class men--aristocrats, say, and gentlemen--were precisely those who did NOT have to rely for identity on their brute strength or to earn money in any other way. On the contrary, men with the highest status were those who relied on their physical strength. Even in ancient times, though, middle-class men brought something else to the table: skills that could be learned. It was culture, not nature, that assigned and taught these skills to men instead of women and consequently conferred masculine identity. These skills allowed men to earn money as merchants, traders, artisans, scribes, priests, professionals and so on.
In our time, none of these jobs confers a desirable masculine identity. Society does ascribe masculinity to men who work by the sweat of their brow--men who work in the fields, let's say, or on factory loading docks--but not in a good way. Sports figures do gain masculine identity, sure, along with fame and fortune in some cases. But what they do is vestigial and ornamental, not necessary. And women have their own sports figures (or would if it weren't for transgender women).
That leaves us with two possibilities. One confers masculine identity on soldiers. It's true that society now allows women to enter combat, but forcing them by law to do so, as it forces men, is another matter entirely at least in the United States. So, yes, soldiers still gain masculine identity and even public respect. But combat is a lethal activity and not all men, by any means, believe that the risk of being maimed or killed is worthwhile--certainly not without the promise of privileges over women (and other non-combatants) that earlier generations of men could assume.
The other possible source is fatherhood. To make the case--and it's no longer self-evident--I argue that fatherhood is (a) distinctively both male and masculine, not merely assistant motherhood; (b) necessary for both their children and society as a whole; and (c) should be, but often isn't, publicly valued.
I won't add much to what you say about women. For the time being, at least, women can still choose to be mothers and the identity that motherhood entails. It might be very hard to do so in this lamentable cultural climate, but they can make that choice and most do no matter what feminists tell them. Moreover, no man, by definition, can be a mother. There is a rough parallel, therefore, between mothers and fathers in our time. Both have distinctive functions. Both are necessary. But neither is assured of being publicly valued--and therefore of being a reliable source of identity.
Not being a fortune teller, I can't predict the future. Maybe artificial wombs will make women obsolete as mothers. Maybe drones will make men obsolete as soldiers. Maybe Western civilization will collapse due to a combination of ideological stupidity and self-loathing neuroticism. But I'm not ready to give up.
The reason why feminism has been so successful at defining every aspect of gender and running all our institutions is that men generally do not want to play the victim game (it doesn't suit the male temperament) PLUS men love to be chivalrous and gynocentric. This means men tend to spoil women rotten and indulge their naturally higher neuroticism. Which not only destroys society but also makes women miserable.
I would argue that it is men's MORAL DUTY to point out millions of ways they suffer and carry society on their backs... not to play the victim, but to deflate feminism's victim (and threat) narrative by pointing out how women actually have it pretty good and men are women's greatest allies (not oppressors) and always have been.
Most women cannot afford to be mothers, so no they don't get to choose (by mother I mean raising children and not just giving birth). To be a mother requires a man to provide the support - the unique role of a father, like you say.
All of this needs repairing ..... and it begins with dismantling patriarchy theory.
Oh, I agree enthusiastically about the need to end the patriarchy theory (and all of the other conspiracy theories of history that have become fashionable due to wokism).
And I agree enthusiastically about the MORAL duty of men to speak truth to power (to borrow an expression that has become so popular among feminists and their woke allies). Too many men either forget or ignore the fact that misandry is ultimately a moral problem, not only a psychological, sociological or economic one.
Whether women can "afford" to be mothers or not is another matter. Most women have always had to worry about poverty, and most women have always had to work in the fields (with men). Nonetheless, most women continued to want and have children. During the Depression and World War II, many women postponed motherhood, it's true, but later on, in better times, were very eager to start families (which led to the "baby boom").
I agree that mothering is not only about giving birth to children but also rearing them, just as fathering is not only about providing material resources for children but also about guiding them from the safety of home into the challenging world beyond home.
At the risk of sounding contrary, I think women's identity crisis is more profound than men's. Men only have to look to the UN to understand their role (he for she). We constantly remind men of their obligation to serve society, provide resources and protection to women... and lay down their lives when necessary in dangerous jobs or on the battlefield. Men are acutely aware of their role every time they are taxed and the money is spent on endless programs to help and support women.
Men's role has always been adaptable - from hunting wild boar to building canals to programming software....... it's all the same basic role, to create and maintain the infrastructure and ensure women and children are provided for and protected from the harshness of nature.
Women's role used to be managing the household, and having and raising the children. The home/ garden/ allotment/ farm was itself a business enterprise and she was the boss. Her role was to manage the day to day running of this enterprise, with children by her side.
Feminism's clever trick was to reframe women's BOREDOM at home resulting from new labour saving technology (mod cons) as OPPRESSION. Had 20th century women stayed true to their identity and used their imagination they could have reinvented themselves as homemakers to the whole community, organising parks, home schooling, social projects (housing the homeless, feeding the poor etc). This would have reduced the role of government until it effectively disappeared, and this would have kept the relationship (partnership) between men and women healthy and productive as a BINARY relationship without state interference (they say three's a crowd).
I would argue that it's because of women's diminished role (essentially caricaturing men in the office 9-5) that so many women cannot assert their unique value as women, and so have to assert themselves through eternal victimhood instead.
The lie of feminism was that women's traditional (ie natural) role as mother and homemaker was (a) demeaning (b) oppression (c) unnecessary. The equivalent of women abandoning children to 'daycare' and pursuing 9-5 jobs would be men abandoning the power stations and construction sites.
Sure things would tick along for a while, but eventually the bridges would all rust and collapse, the roads would be full of potholes and the gas and oil stocks would run out. This is what we are now seeing with children's mental health in state schools and day care.
While not every woman needs to have children (just as not every man needs to maintain the infrastructure) those that do need to take care of them properly. That means stay at home motherhood and home schooling at the very least. But to point out women's unique and important (vital) role in raising children and passing on cultural/ moral values from one generation to the next is now regarded as backward, far right, misogyny.
So women cannot have an identity or a unique sense of value, because that is a violation of progressive ideology. Women's only permissible identity is to keep pushing for perpetual revolution, liberation and empowerment.. which will come in the form of artificial wombs (only 10-20 years away) which will be the new fridges and vacuum cleaners. This will further diminish women's role and induce even more depression and lack of self worth..... prompting more feminism... and on and on it goes.
I think men are not suffering an identity crisis, so much as a 'what's the point?' crisis. We demand just as much from men as we always have but without any gratitude or respect or support. Even making men a lousy sandwich for their efforts is regarded as too much gratitude. Men are expected to provide for women and children (as always) but without necessarily benefitting from having a loving wife and children as a reward and a motivation.
I think that a debate over comparative suffering would be a mistake, Corona. That's what both academic victimology and its fallout in ideologies that rely on identity politics boil down to: competing for the grand prize of who suffers most. Whether you intended to play that game or not, I refuse to do so. It's unnecessary and counterproductive from my perspective as someone who wants to replace inter-sexual debate (in which one side loses and other wins) with inter-sexual dialogue (in which both sides win by acknowledging a complementarity that is rooted in nature). In short, I'd say that BOTH sexes are succumbing to identity crises for similar but not identical reasons.
It's true that men can still do the heavy lifting, but that has for many centuries been characteristic of the lower classes, first as serfs and then as proletarians. Upper class men--aristocrats, say, and gentlemen--were precisely those who did NOT have to rely for identity on their brute strength or to earn money in any other way. On the contrary, men with the highest status were those who relied on their physical strength. Even in ancient times, though, middle-class men brought something else to the table: skills that could be learned. It was culture, not nature, that assigned and taught these skills to men instead of women and consequently conferred masculine identity. These skills allowed men to earn money as merchants, traders, artisans, scribes, priests, professionals and so on.
In our time, none of these jobs confers a desirable masculine identity. Society does ascribe masculinity to men who work by the sweat of their brow--men who work in the fields, let's say, or on factory loading docks--but not in a good way. Sports figures do gain masculine identity, sure, along with fame and fortune in some cases. But what they do is vestigial and ornamental, not necessary. And women have their own sports figures (or would if it weren't for transgender women).
That leaves us with two possibilities. One confers masculine identity on soldiers. It's true that society now allows women to enter combat, but forcing them by law to do so, as it forces men, is another matter entirely at least in the United States. So, yes, soldiers still gain masculine identity and even public respect. But combat is a lethal activity and not all men, by any means, believe that the risk of being maimed or killed is worthwhile--certainly not without the promise of privileges over women (and other non-combatants) that earlier generations of men could assume.
The other possible source is fatherhood. To make the case--and it's no longer self-evident--I argue that fatherhood is (a) distinctively both male and masculine, not merely assistant motherhood; (b) necessary for both their children and society as a whole; and (c) should be, but often isn't, publicly valued.
I won't add much to what you say about women. For the time being, at least, women can still choose to be mothers and the identity that motherhood entails. It might be very hard to do so in this lamentable cultural climate, but they can make that choice and most do no matter what feminists tell them. Moreover, no man, by definition, can be a mother. There is a rough parallel, therefore, between mothers and fathers in our time. Both have distinctive functions. Both are necessary. But neither is assured of being publicly valued--and therefore of being a reliable source of identity.
Not being a fortune teller, I can't predict the future. Maybe artificial wombs will make women obsolete as mothers. Maybe drones will make men obsolete as soldiers. Maybe Western civilization will collapse due to a combination of ideological stupidity and self-loathing neuroticism. But I'm not ready to give up.
The reason why feminism has been so successful at defining every aspect of gender and running all our institutions is that men generally do not want to play the victim game (it doesn't suit the male temperament) PLUS men love to be chivalrous and gynocentric. This means men tend to spoil women rotten and indulge their naturally higher neuroticism. Which not only destroys society but also makes women miserable.
I would argue that it is men's MORAL DUTY to point out millions of ways they suffer and carry society on their backs... not to play the victim, but to deflate feminism's victim (and threat) narrative by pointing out how women actually have it pretty good and men are women's greatest allies (not oppressors) and always have been.
Most women cannot afford to be mothers, so no they don't get to choose (by mother I mean raising children and not just giving birth). To be a mother requires a man to provide the support - the unique role of a father, like you say.
All of this needs repairing ..... and it begins with dismantling patriarchy theory.
Oh, I agree enthusiastically about the need to end the patriarchy theory (and all of the other conspiracy theories of history that have become fashionable due to wokism).
And I agree enthusiastically about the MORAL duty of men to speak truth to power (to borrow an expression that has become so popular among feminists and their woke allies). Too many men either forget or ignore the fact that misandry is ultimately a moral problem, not only a psychological, sociological or economic one.
Whether women can "afford" to be mothers or not is another matter. Most women have always had to worry about poverty, and most women have always had to work in the fields (with men). Nonetheless, most women continued to want and have children. During the Depression and World War II, many women postponed motherhood, it's true, but later on, in better times, were very eager to start families (which led to the "baby boom").
I agree that mothering is not only about giving birth to children but also rearing them, just as fathering is not only about providing material resources for children but also about guiding them from the safety of home into the challenging world beyond home.