This is a comment by Peter von Maidenberg on the post “Society wants dads to ‘step up’, but they are literally stomped down when they do.”
“Men in particular have been tasked with accepting, embodying, living contradiction. It seems to go along with our assigned role as Atlases who hold up the real world and keep it running. We have to reconcile not just contradictory roles and responsibilities, but negotiate between explicit expectations and those society will not own up to.
“We have to switch between opposite roles quickly and flawlessly—worker to husband and father, or in extremes, disciplined killer in wartime to nurturing provider in peace. Any hesitancy or incapacity is punished severely; there is no understanding, no forgiveness. But there should be. Society is just not ready to get it straight what it wants from us—or from anybody.”
More Comments of the Day
Photo credit: Flickr / expertinfantry
About the Editors
Peter. Society wants all those things you point out because society needs all those things. If guys don’t do it, who will?
Only one choice; Fewer men means more women have to step up.
Your kidding Richard? Women will have to step up? What is you think women aren’t doing that they should take on as well as all the other stuff society demands of us. As the other of sons I totally accept Peter’s points but your simplistic blaming of women for the evils experienced by men astonishes!
I know how hard it is for men. I’m trying to understand why you think women did this to them? Women are complicit, as are men. Only by identifying the bull that both genders experience can we hope to emancipate ourselves through being each others allies in our own gender specific struggles. Stop blaming women for the ruthless policing of masculinity by men and women. The devouring of men as raw materials by capitalism and the violence that men inflict upon each other and society.
It’s called patriarchy. Do yourself a favour. Know your enemy. Google it.
You lost me with that last line. Women and men are complicit but its “patriarchy” that is the enemy?
I’m trying to understand why you think women did this to them?
Where did Richard say that women did this to men? From what I can tell he was only saying that women need to be part of the solution. Sure you can disagree with that of course (and I sort of disagree with that a bit myself) but I think you are stretching to accuse him of saying the women are the ones that “did this to men”.
Stop blaming women for the ruthless policing of masculinity by men and women.
Again I don’t think he is trying to say women started the ruthless policing of masculinity by men and women. They just have a hand in maintaining it.
The devouring of men as raw materials by capitalism and the violence that men inflict upon each other and society.
Only partially correct.
It’s called patriarchy. Do yourself a favour. Know your enemy. Google it.
Based on the other things you have said in this comment you seem to be using patriarchy to mean, “It’s all men’s fault, women had nothing to do with it.”. I hope that’s not what you mean.
It’s probably not a bad idea to actually read and re – read a comment before responding to it. What’s the point of reacting indignantly to something that was absolutely, categorically not blaming women, or anyone else, for anything in any way shape or form?
Keevo.
It’s a reflex.
Sara.
Settle down and read the article. It says that certain things are demanded of men by society. Okay so far?
Now, if those things are not done, society is going to have to do without them. So if men quit doing them, and society needs them done, who’s left? Far as I can tell, it’s women.
As it happens, most of the talk about the modern guy tells us he shouldn’t have to do this stuff. It’s patriarchal and what not. In fact, you can read all about that here on GMP. See the talk about the heroes of the Aurora shooting. Guilting survivors and on and on….
So, supposing a significant number of guys decide to take that advice and bail…those things are not going to be done.
So. Either women fill in or they don’t get done.
Seems simple enough. And no blaming that I can see.
Men in particular have been tasked with accepting, embodying, living contradiction.
I wouldn’t say that its men “in particular”. It looks to me like men and women both have their own sets of contradictions and roles that we must navigate in order to avoid punishment.
Society is just not ready to get it straight what it wants from us—or from anybody
Oh I think society is straight on what it wants from us. Simply put it wants everything and it doesn’t care what kind of damage it does to us to get it. That’s why there is no concern for men that are trained to kill, sent off to war and (the lucky ones) returned injured, and left to obscurity for their trouble. (I’m betting someone can think of a similar situation for women.
Danny. It’s a matter of the laws of physics and of human nature. It’s human nature to want to sleep warm and dry. That means houses which means timber and plastics from petroleum feedstocks, and iron and aluminum. Those require mines and mills and refineries and transportation. Which require somebody, mostly men, to do them.
So if people quit demanding houses, we wouldn’t have this problem.
Or if people didn’t mind being pestered by bad guys, we wouldn’t need cops and soldiers.
So it’s a matter of human nature.
Sara should step right up and quit demanding that stuff.
Or, if she wants it but thinks some men will quit doing it, she’s going to have to find substitutes. I’ll take a break and try to think of who that might be.
Richard.
You’re falling back on tradition big-time here. Yes, civilizations have needs that don’t change much. But the way we meet those needs could change. Sometimes, it has to change.
Imagine if fossil fuels gave out. Would everyone just stop traveling in cars and trucks and planes, because of course no alternative fuels could ever work profitably? The idea that we need tacit, contradictory, STFU/GBTW male work ethics to defend and build and trade is IMO even less intrinsic to the needs of civilization.
Buddhists say, “before enlightenment we chop the wood and carry the water – and after enlightenment we chop the wood and carry the water.” No one ever said we should treat each other decently and then just sit around on our asses. The work must go on. The work will go on. Hell, men may well keep doing all the heavy lifting. But they don’t have to be the same kind of men.
. The work must go on. The work will go on. Hell, men may well keep doing all the heavy lifting. But they don’t have to be the same kind of men.
True. A part of the changing of the kind of men that do this work would be the motivations behind them doing it. Are they doing it because that is what they want to do or some monetary necessity or are they doing it because its “man’s work”.
Danny.
So men will keep on doing it for some reason. If they need money, and if money’s available by doing this work, now what?
TANSTAAFL. How do we provide sufficient resources from this kind of work along with paying guys who don’t want to do it not to do it?
I mentioned the laws of physics: No object can be in two places at the same time. That applies to any physical object, and to any unit of energy. Strictly speaking, that means somebody’s going to have to do this work and do enough of it. And if we can’t get enough guys to do it just because mining’s just, darn it, so much fun, we have a problem, haven’t we? Sara does without.
As to fossil fuels, see Eagle Ford, fracking, Bakken, Alberta oil sands….
Plenty of time for current work on fusion to become useful.
Hoot. Saw a large Buick yesterday, one person in it, with a bumper sticker. “How long can we demand things from our planet”
If I’m getting you you are pointing out that if men come around to seeing that they don’t have to do the coal mining out of some obligation of doing “men’s work” or fulfilling the role of “the provider” then some of these jobs will come up short in the way of having people to do them.
In that regard yeah Sara (and others like her) will either have to do it themselves or go without I’ll agree with that because it’s not right to badger anyone into doing something just because “it needs to be done”. For example I’m pretty sure that most of us here would agree that trying to get women to forgo abortion and have babies because “humans must reproduce” is bull on the grounds that it’s not right to try to make women do something they don’t want to do with their bodies. Well to me the same applies to those men in the coal mines you’re talking about.
In short society will have to just deal with it.
(But on a side not Sara was just trying to redirect this into making it all men’s fault and notice she fired one comment at you and when others responded she disappeared.)
Oh dang it. You mean green is just another flavor of hypocrisy? O my my my, the scales have fallen from my eyes. We must all want Buicks.
(Personally I’d prefer a Oldsmobile or a small block Chevy. But hey, I’m weird.)
Peter. Green has a particularly large share of the h-word. On the other hand, misrepresenting somebody’s words is not restricted to green.
Anyway, if a significant number of men now doing men stuff quit doing men stuff, society would be doing a paddleless riparian expedition most expeditiously. Which, of course, would surprise Sara and her like more than any other like.
TANSTAAFL. Fascist. Or laws of physics. If you argue with math, math wins. Every time.
Whoa there big fella. So what is or isn’t men stuff isn’t just up to biology? Now it’s got math backing it up?
We all have to deal with contradictions. Somehow its seems not very male to moan about it. Our fathers also had to deal with them, and with more pronounced gender roles. We all expect fathers to be tough and caring, why should expectations of our behaviour be different? Its the male condition.
It’s a simple argument made by simple minds. That makes it very hard to argue against, because simple minds are not gonna tolerate it.
The human condition, not just the male one, is to have one arm pulled one way, the other another way. To deal sensitively, capably and constructively with that is to be more fully human.
What our fathers had to do was NOT deal with it – just accept it without question. Let it pull them apart. Let it run, and if need be ruin, their lives.
Moaning is not constructive for any human. Discussion and questioning are not moaning. They are vital responsibilities, as vital as getting the coal and timber to market.
What our fathers had to do was NOT deal with it – just accept it without question. Let it pull them apart. Let it run, and if need be ruin, their lives.
Exactly Peter.
If today’s men are to have a life better than past men (don’t most parents wish for their children to have better lives than they themselves had?) then having these discussions are vital or else “better life” will continue to be simply defined as “more money and better education” (not that those things aren’t important but as we can see those are not the only things that make life good).
[devilsadvocate]
What if having a better life is something you only wish for children, not men?
What if having a better life is something you only wish for yours, not humanity?
[/devilsadvocate]
I see a double standard in some folks’ reasoning, or better yet – to some folks, this is something that transcends reasoning.
What if having a better life is something you only wish for children, not men?
Considering that some of those children will one day become men I’d like to believe that (future) men are included in that wish.
What if having a better life is something you only wish for yours, not humanity?
I can understand the idea that parents only wish for their child’s well being, or at least put their own child’s well being above that of other children. But at the same time I’d like to think that such parents would recognize that the world itself needs to become a better place for their children as well.
You underestimate our fathers by several orders of magnitude. It takes balls to put your life at risk on behalf of ideas. That is a choice, not acceptance, and its something a whole generations did so that we may ‘discuss’. As to the rest, responsibility is the flip side of emancipation. Women still have a privileged position in western societies, this is obviously wrong.
Peter. I know you were told there’d be no math. Sorry about that.
Let me see how to put this: If x is necessary…and x is not done. Then, x, which is necessary, will not be.
Now what?
Yeah. I think we need discussions about this. Make x appear by discussing.
I’m not sure we have any empirical evidence that our fathers and back did not discuss such things. What if it’s a construct of the everybody-talk-about-everything industry? Clearly, if everybody was already talking sufficiently, there’d be no market.
And then there’s the economic issue. If nothing’s to be done–laws of physics, etc.–then there’s not much use in complaining. Get’re done, grab a beer.
Was a book some time ago by a lesbian writer who made herself into a pretty good imitation of a man and infiltrated men in their deepest haunts. Apparently men talk about such things. But, and here is the issue, they don’t then go and tell everybody they talked about such things.
Absolutely fantastic, profound, and touching review of the book on Amazon. Some guy.
Norah Vincent
Self-Made Man.
Then you can youtube “Roger Moore” “Thomas Atkins” He cut it, some, from the full poem, but it’s still clear.
Suppose Tommy goes on strike? As, I sometimes think, Tommy should.
Richard. Richard, Richard, Richard.
1a) Of course you don’t make x appear by discussing. You make x discoverable, creatable, pursuable.
1b) Men not saying that they discuss things is a quiet vote against a greater discourse. You know and I know most guys will be at least shy about putting certain of their issues in the public spotlight, if not downright angry and feeling clubhouse secrets have been ratted out.
What you’re missing is that a greater conversation would benefit all men, not just archetypal wimpy new-age watercress-eating academic twerps.
2) How about we arrange it so the U.S. armed forces only defend the interests of citizens willing to be taxed to promote the common good. The Tommys that go on strike can join some private army that fights to defend a more rigid set of values (and perhaps inevitably, must charge a bundle to each household under its protection, due to lesser economies of scale).
Peter. You assert without proof that more public discussion is a good idea and will make positive changes. Without proof, you assert this.
You don’t make x appear by talk. It is already discoverable, creatable, pursuable. It’s the stuff that keeps Sarah warm in winter, cool in summer, not hungry. Been doing so for millenia. Already there. If a significant number of men quit doing it, what will Sarah do? Love, love, love to find out, but I suspect Sarah would object. You know how Greens are.
Greater conversation will benefit people, all people. Right. Proof?
Unfortunately, Peter, your idea of defending only some of our citizens is untenable. Can’t defend a house on a street who’s paid taxes against, say, a missile strike while allowing the neighbor to be incinerated because he didn’t want to pay because he thought war was icky. But, and I say this with all the sincerity of a veteran: If you can figure out a way to do it, PLEASE make it public. Until then, we’re stuck with what is known as the free rider problem. Man, there are a lot of loudmough assholes I’d like to see–watching passively–while the barbarians come over the marches. I dream about it.
As to 1b. How do you know the stuff useful to be put out hasn’t been put out? Maybe the stuff that is private is kept private because there’s no benefit in ratting it out. The other stuff we’ve been dealing with.
Peter. You assert without proof that more public discussion is a good idea and will make positive changes. Without proof, you assert this.
It won’t make change. It will, however inform change. The better the discussion, the more likely change will be rational and considered and thought thru.
Besides, the alternative is sit down and shut up. We in the US, at any rate, are not a sit-down-and-shut-up society. We used to be. But that particular horse is out of the barn. I never did understand why some of us wanted it back.
You maintain discussion isn’t proven to work – I counter that sd&ss is demonstrably ineffective. If the founding fathers’ principle had been to sd&ss, for example, we’d still be a British colony with slaveowners.
You don’t make x appear by talk. It is already discoverable, creatable, pursuable. It’s the stuff that keeps Sarah warm in winter, cool in summer, not hungry. Been doing so for millenia. Already there. If a significant number of men quit doing it, what will Sarah do?
The Sarahs – at any rate the women – might, no, I’m certain would, do men’s work if men quit. Economic forces would open it up and make it more attractive, and where the dollar goes, hearts and minds tend to follow. The male work culture would cause a lot of resentment and friction early on, but that could be addressed (tho sadly, not thru sit-down-and-shut-up-ism).
Peter. Sarah doesn’t want to do men’s work. But if some of the more realistic of the sisterhood did, they’d face the same issues.
Stored energy. The sun grows trees way up in the air. Trees are a collection of energy moving against gravity. Held up by clever wood fibers and stuff. If you get them to come down as planned, it works. From time to time it does not. And then that energy is discharged most inconvenviently. Ditto climbing a ladder. You store energy up there by climbing. If you can discharge that energy smoothly by climbing back down, cool. If not, if you miss a step, if the ladder breaks, that energy is distributed most inconveniently. The same, in a more complicated fashion, could be said of the overhead of a coal mine. And electricty, and gas and oil and the kinetic energy of a truck.
I know this is simple. It’s so simple that discussing it will make it go away.
Then what?
Sd&ss isn’t the rule. It’s what seems to be the most useful. The important things–health,safety, efficiency, hours–are already discussed. The idea that men are emotionally tied up in knots because their jobs require difficult or dangerous stuff and THEY CAN’T TALK ABOUT IT is nuts. We talk about it all the time. It’s just that, having talked about it with our brothers, there’s no point in talking about it with Sarah who, if she gets the implication, is going to panic about not getting what she’s been getting all along from the work of the (mostly) men.
“inform” discussion. Yeah. We can explain to Sarah that we–men–find the inconvenient discharge of energy on our bodies a drag and we wish Sarah would quit demanding the fruits thereof. That’ll get a long way.
I suppose the talk-about-everything-with-everybody-all-the-time thingy is attractive. But, as with the Sons of Martha–see Kipling–somebody has to do the work.