This is a comment by soullite on the post “The Single Biggest Obstacle Facing Boys and Men Today“.
Some of this I agree with, some of I don’t. However, the underlying truth is clear: every change in this society has come at the expense of men.
The answer, more or less, has been to blame video-games and pornography as if they were the problem. They are not. The problem is an elite – in both parties – that shipped all of the good jobs overseas and pocketed the resulting profits. The problem is that this same elite have cheered while the girls and women of my generation focused all of their attentions on sleeping with (and bearing children by) boys and men who wouldn’t even return their phone calls once the act was done, leaving the actual SES equals of those women (a large majority of men) both mateless and sexless.
The problem is an elite that’s decided that male sexuality is evil—that men shouldn’t “need” sex to be happy, even if we do, and that any complaint to the contrary was an announcement that we have a right to rape, or some other such nonsense. The problem is an elite that passed so many laws that if a man so much as steps out of line, they will find something—some minor act such as spitting on a sidewalk or slamming a door too loudly—to have them beaten and arrested, then sent to prison to be raped and tortured while the guards look on and laugh. The problem, in short, is that there is no hope and no future. No amount of complaining about “men today,” or their habits, will change that.
You want men to be good men? Then give them a reason to be good men. Give them a future—families, jobs and the purpose that comes with those things. Because if you don’t—if you really let a whole generation of men fester with no attachments to this society—then it won’t end well. We don’t have an economy that can paper over these resentments. We don’t have a respect for the rule of law strong enough to hold people in line. It’s considered an axiom of political science that the most dangerous thing to any society is an unmarried, unemployed young man. Well, look at the marriage rates among Millenials. Look at the unemployment rate among men under 35. Either we give these folks a place in our society, or we twiddle our thumbs until one of them lights a spark that’ll burn this whole thing down.
Photo credit: Flickr / abherrero
About the Editors
Indeed. The ability to provide for ones-self is fundamental to happiness I think, take that away and don’t be surprised when the riots start because people are desperate for work.
“The problem is that this same elite have cheered while the girls and women of my generation focused all of their attentions on sleeping with (and bearing children by) boys and men who wouldn’t even return their phone calls once the act was done, leaving the actual SES equals of those women (a large majority of men) both mateless and sexless.”
I’m sorry, it’s a woman’s responsibility and duty to have a long term relationship, now is it?
“The problem is an elite that passed so many laws that if a man so much as steps out of line, they will find something—some minor act such as spitting on a sidewalk or slamming a door too loudly—to have them beaten and arrested, then sent to prison to be raped and tortured while the guards look on and laugh.”
I can’t speak for other states, but in California if you are convicted of a “sex crime” you are sent to a protective ward that is separated from the general population. They created these special wards precisely to protect people convicted of these types of crimes from what you’re talking about. Also, the suggestion that you can be imprisoned for “spitting on a sidewalk” is absolute hyperbole. There aren’t groups of people or cops roaming just looking to put more men in prisons. For crying out loud, most parts of the U.S. are wicked focused on reducing their prison population precisely because it’s so flipping impacted.
“Give them a future—families, jobs and the purpose that comes with those things.”
Give them families? Give them jobs? Wonderful…give me a family and a job too then, while you’re at it. I feel entitled to those things. Give them to me, or I will lose my will to live and be productive. For crying out loud.
(Yeah, I am annoyed).
I would say to this that all human beings should have the opportunities to have jobs and meaning in their life. Not having jobs and/or meaning does cause harm not just to men but women too.
As for relationships…it would be wonderful if we could all find our match. None of us are entitled to sex, love or families. We believe we all are, women too! We all are fed stories about prince charmings or princess buttercups and some kind of perfect match based on a weird combination of looks or money, but all of us should get over that.
We all, given the circumstances of how the economy has change and yes, how the elite have shifted power and jobs and opportunities, should reevaluate what our criteria are for a “good” mate. If family and sex and love are important, can we find meaning in them in a new way? Because barring an apocalypse, I can’t see us going back to some 1880′s way of being. Many people chose mates not on work, but on interest or commonalities, I know that was true for me. $$alpha status wasn’t my bag.
And we need to, more than ever in my opinion, need to eradicate roles associated with meaning so that if a man can be at home and a woman work, that’s not somehow a deathknell to his meaning and masculinity. There is amazing meaning in childrearing. And if then she loses her job and he gains one, no harm to her identity either.
We can’t exist in these poles, we have to look outside them.
Also I’d say every change in society has come at the expense of those in the poorer classes, for they don’t have the resources to push back against the changes demanded by the elites.
Thanks, Julie, for saying what I was thinking in a much more collected and rational way.
No, noone is entitled to sex with any given person. But everyone is entitled to not be deemed incapable of deserving of sex with anyone (non specific plural, not a random singular) (a notion that is often expressed when a man is called a creep) .
What does creep have to do with it?
I mentioned one use of “creep” as an example since it is sometimes used to imply that that person is not worthy of sex with anyone at all. Often when it’s directed at what a person is rather than at a persons actions. I believe that particular usage of the word creep was a point raised by some commenters on at least one of the articles published on GMP which talked about the word creep and it’s usage. If you really are interested I can try to locate that thread and point you there, but I’d rather not rehash that discussion here.
Tamen, I’m aware of the articles, the use of the word in current vernacular and it’s problems. I didn’t understand why you used that phrase in context of the comment of the day.
@ Julie
Taking a statement out of context and then beating it with irrelevant arguments is not a good habit.
This comment was made on a article focusing on problems of men and boys. The commenter has hit the proverbial head of the nail by pointing out that the power elites are responsible for the present mess.
Lets analyze his comment point by point:
He says “The problem is that this same elite have cheered while the girls and women of my generation focused all of their attentions on sleeping with (and bearing children by) boys and men who wouldn’t even return their phone calls once the act was done, leaving the actual SES equals of those women (a large majority of men) both mateless and sexless.”
As per my understanding, it means that the power elites have encouraged wrong social values which has increased promiscuity in the society leading to social problems like increasing out-of-wedlock child population in the U.S. These children with no father figure form a real vulnerable group. This devaluation of the social status of father has created disincentive for men to take responsibility for marriage.
Note: The commenter has not asked for any dating service from government that would guarantee him sex and family. So the question of him asking for entitlement is totally bogus.
He says “The problem is an elite that passed so many laws that if a man so much as steps out of line, they will find something—some minor act such as spitting on a sidewalk or slamming a door too loudly—to have them beaten and arrested, then sent to prison to be raped and tortured while the guards look on and laugh.”
May be getting beaten and arrested for those minor acts is hyperbole, but the main argument about troublesome laws stand on solid ground. Ritalin is administered to the boys to make them more compliant. Men are sent to prison for being unable to pay child support. Men have been convicted on false rape charges. Family courts are really hostile to men and so forth.
He says “Then give them a reason to be good men. Give them a future—families, jobs and the purpose that comes with those things. Because if you don’t—if you really let a whole generation of men fester with no attachments to this society—then it won’t end well.”
Self preservation is the first law of nature. How can a person be expected to be good and noble if his very existence is threatened. It would be dishonest to imply that commenter has asked that somebody else should get him goodies in life. The government has the solemn responsibility for providing everyone with equal opportunities, but it has failed to do so, instead focusing on bailing out bankers and corporations that are too big to fail.
I’m looking to get a historical handle on the argument that every change in American society has come at the expense of men. Is this referring to changes since the 1990′s? Since the 1950′s? Twentieth century? Going back to the war of independence? Since 1492?
I think if we can examine what specifically changed and when we can get a better understanding of what the other, better possibilities are.
(I’d say a lot of the developments North American men have faced post-Columbus have been really, really awful for a lot of us….)
Not sure I buy the idea that an omnipotent elite are manipulating all of us for their sadistic pleasure. Sounds like we’re excusing the individual choices, responsibilities and influence each and all of us exercise on the society in which we live.
I tend to think cultural forces as strong, deep and ubiquitous as gender norms are collectively imposed on us by us. Even if, as individuals we wish to exempt ourselves from the gender binary, we might still subconsciously impose the standard on others because we benefit if only subtly.