Professor, author, and breadwinning wife Andrea Doucet is startled by the portrayal of men in Hanna Rosin’s recent Slate story.
I belong to one of the couple types that Hanna Rosin described in her recent piece on breadwinner wives in Slate—the one where the “woman is a born workaholic and the man lives at a slower pace.” Although it is more complex than those labels, I have nevertheless lived a version of that story for about 20 years.
I’m a professor, researcher, and author; my husband is a naturopathic doctor/acupuncturist whose work schedule goes up and down depending on the economy. We have raised three children together (one is now 20, and the twins are 16 years old).
I have also spent 20 years researching and writing about the changing stories of breadwinning mothers and primary caregiving fathers.
♦◊♦
I share Rosin’s interest in understanding the current social and emotional geography of breadwinning wives. I like the way she points to asymmetries between statistics on women’s rising earning power and some evidence of their preference for part-time work. Our approaches are different: hers is more on power dynamics between breadwinning wives and men; mine on the constantly shifting relations around work and care for breadwinning mothers and caregiving fathers.
But beyond this, I have two main criticisms of Rosin’s piece: a concern about the story’s accompanying relationship survey and surprise at her depiction of men.
Surveys, which are instruments used to measure changing social life or what Rosin calls the “emotional landscape,” are difficult to construct well. But they matter greatly to the knowledge that comes out the other end.
Look at the way the survey defines and measures housework contributions—Rosin’s survey includes only two items on housework: First, “Which of you does more housework—tidying up, doing laundry, making beds, etc.?” And, second, “Which of you does more cooking?” She also has one item on child care: “Who does most of the child-care duties in your relationship?”
There are two problems here. First, only women are asked questions about a topic that is deeply relational, as well as taken for granted, invisible, and highly contested. Getting an accurate picture of housework is more complex than getting people to talk about their sexual relationship.
Second, Rosin is doing what many other writers and researchers do: using a “maternal lens” to assess the lives of men. The work that men typically do, either in housework or childcare, is left largely invisible when one uses this lens. My guess is that men are going to end up looking pretty bad.
The best example I can give of the problem with underestimating what men do is found in Scott Coltrane’s book Family Man. He notes that throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, researchers continually cited a statistic that stated that women did an extra month of housework ever year.
Coltrane, an astute sociologist, looked more closely at the studies and found that they excluded what fathers did on weekends, as well as tasks such as shopping, household repair, painting, and even driving children to activities and playing with them. (There are some weeks when my husband spends about 20 hours a week driving our children; with teenagers, a lot of parenting happens on those drives.) It matters how we define and measure these things. And in today’s multi-tasking world, it is even harder to define work time and family time.
What we do know, based on successive waves of rich data on this topic is that, in most countries, the participation of fathers in household life has increased with each passing year. Yes, fathers still do less routine housework than women, although it continues to rise toward a point of gender convergence. What is important to note: Fathers’ contributions to childcare have seen dramatic change.
♦◊♦
The portrayal of men in Rosin’s piece is startling.
There are only four kinds of men mentioned. There is that slow-moving man I mentioned above. There is also the stay-at-home dad who gets startled looks when he is in the classroom. (There have already been some excellent reactions by men who were startled by that).
There are only two other men in this story: the part-time mechanic whose wife calls him a loser; and the man who spends “all her money on dress socks” while also subscribing “to every damned sports channel.” She wonders, “Why will he never clean up after himself?”
While Rosin points to some stereotypes that may bear truth in some households, there is also a subtle belittling of men who are trying to adjust to their new roles.
Just as the changes in women’s roles have been difficult, so have men’s. We need to acknowledge and respect—not belittle—the impact these changes have had on both genders.
Men’s voices on this issue of breadwinning wives are crucial. It matters, for example, how this situation of shifting gender roles has come about.
Is it a long-term situation where the woman is passionate about her career and a man works for a paycheck, which then leads to him being the stay-at-home dad (or sustained secondary earner) when the kids come along?
Or are they both working in jobs they hate and she actually wants to be the one at home? Or did he suddenly lose his job? If it’s the latter, it can be tough. As one laid off factory worker recently told me: “It’s almost like you’re on ice that’s breaking up. You don’t really know what or where your role is.”
What I know from my research on breadwinning mothers and caregiving fathers over the past two decades is that, while a small revolution in gender roles has occurred, men and women continue to be in a process of transition around issues of breadwinning and care.
It’s a relational dance, it changes each day, each week, each year.
And an approach that pits women against men cannot get at the rich relational processes that underpin these 21st century stories and our understanding of them.
♦◊♦
What do I know from 20 years of living this? Yes, sometimes there are tensions between this woman who works too hard and the man I share my life with, who “lives at a slower pace.”
Yet, the differences and tensions in what, and how much, we each do are eclipsed by the fact that he has supported me at the critical moments in my career where I have needed unwavering and full-on emotional and practical support in order to achieve my goals. Lately there have been some pretty big things on my plate. And I have said to him, “This is what I need.” And he has done that and more. His more laid-back approach, meanwhile, translates into fun and balance in a household where I work too hard and stress about too many things.
And the relationship he has with our three daughters, especially in facilitating their evolution as tough, athletic, independent young women, makes all those slow moving moments seem, well, not that important.
—image via Slate.com
About Andrea Doucet
Great piece Andrea. Thank you!
Finally some sanity. Thanks Andrea!
@Dr. Doucet,
I usually have few kind words for people who trumpet the “victory of women over men” song. However, your article demonstrates that on some level you have understood the problem.
Rosin’s thesis of inevitable female economic and political dominance is troubling primarily because men are legally and socially unprotected in nurturing/supporting roles:
1) SOCIALLY: The financially vulnerable group has always been protected via two mechanisms, (a) being a socially sympathetic victim, and (b) the expectation that the financially powerful group can/should provide support and protection to the vulnerable group. Are women ready to volunteer to drown on tomorrow’s Titanic, so that men may live? Are women ready to become invisible when they fail, and to trade the social protection of “victim” for the social stigma of “failure”? Are women ready to be the vast majority of the homeless, workplace fatalities, suicide victims, murder victims, high school drop-outs, prison inmates, and so forth? ?!?Are women willing to become invisible when they fail, in order to become more visible when they succeed?!?
2) RELATIONSHIPS: There is no social stigma associated with a successful woman who tires of and then leaves her nurturing husband. If a man does this, there is a social expectation that he is financially responsible for his ex-wife, and a legal mechanism (alimony) to accomplish this.
3) LEGALLY: Are women ready to be openly discriminated against in child custody after divorce? Are women ready to be reduced to the status of wage-slaves, required to pay crippling alimony, if their husbands choose to leave them — with the certainty that 95% of all custody will be awarded to the man? Are women ready to see law enforcement as their enemy, bullies who are looking for any excuse to crack their heads and haul them into jail if a man cries “distress!”? Are women ready to see the courtroom as a hostile place where all perceptions, and many laws, are stacked against them?
In other words, if women want to hold the baton of power, they are going to have to relinquish the baton of protection. You cannot have both. Every person must have at least a chance of enjoying the support of the state.
Well duh…
This picture of current/future gender relations seems a little too polarized. Yes, there has been some reverse discrimination in the process of transitioning away from a patriarchal system that has existed since time immemorial, but a rise in women’s ability to contribute financially to the household doesn’t mean that the current, flawed system needs to be inverted against them. Not all women will choose to be the “breadwinner.” The changes that need to be made to our current system should acknowledge the equality of the genders, and do away with the silly assumptions of the past.
1. How long ago was the Titanic event? I think MRA’s need to get some more current stats. I could just as easily say “are men willing to be burned at the stake,” “are men willing to be the legal property of their wives,” and “are men willing to have rape used against them as a ubiquitous part of war.” Really—all of those issues, such as homelessness, suicides, conscription, prisons—those are problems of CAPITALIST STATE SOCIETIES post-1800. Try reading Michel Foucault and the idea of “Biopower,” and you will understand that those issues exist because of modern governmental structures and the idea of “the social,” even Hannah Arendt is a great political theorist on the topic (ie. “The Death of the Legal Subject”). Blaming women or asserting that women need to be victimised by these forces too isn’t going to change them. CHANGING these institutions is going to change them.
2. You know that men get paid alimony and spousal support too right? It is not a girls-only club?
3. I would love to see more dads who actually wanted custody of their kids. My mom was abusive, and I really wanted to live with my dad, but he didn’t want us or try for custody. I don’t really blame him either–it is easier to opt in to paying child support, have your own bachelor apartment, and be the cool dad who gets to take the kids on outings and have a dating life again. It would be really great if more dads wanted to stay at home, or spend more time with their kids, or have emotional connections with their kids, and it would be great if women would do their part in making this more socially acceptable. It is a two-way street here. If men want to see more fairness in the family courts, women have to see more fairness in the home, the housework, the emotional labour of raising kids, and desire for custody.
How is this for current — in 95% of all cases, the mother has custody of the children after a divorce. The father is reduced to the role of a living ATM machine, subject to crippling and unpayable child support, to finance the lifestyle of his ex-wife. If he fails to pay, he goes to jail. If the ex-wife denies him visitation … nothing happens. Ever.
There has never been a case of a Unites States judge imposing a financial penalty to a mother who denied visitation.
This is the state of America today. A woman’s desire is the most urgent call to national action. A man’s desperate cry for help is an inaudible voice in the maelstrom of feminist inspired anti-male hatred.
That may be how you have been treated, but it is unfair to assert that all divorces that somehow:
A bit melodramatic if you ask me. I have already stated that the family courts are unfair–I agree with you on that point, but for you to project those experiences as the norm is really astounding. I ask again, what about me, my siblings, and a lot of my friends who were not wanted by our fathers when they left?
“but for you to project those experiences as the norm is really astounding. ”
Be astounded all you want. These are matters of law in many states – systematic and institutional. That’s about as normal as it gets.
You really could stand to check your privilege. It is making you blind to other people’s suffering. Your dismissals of people’s lived experiences is pretty disgusting, frankly.
Dude, I have a lived experience of this. I have told you and others–my dad had the option and the legal basis to pursue custody, and like a lot of dads, he didn’t. I was objecting to this:
being presented as the absolute norm… in the words of AntZ, this is apparently all that happens. Ever. I don’t think it is unreasonable to state that the reality is more complicated than that simple vindictive statement, and I don’t see how asking for facts, evidence, and peer review is bigotry.
“I could just as easily say “are men willing to be burned at the stake,”
Far more men were burnt at the stake and executed in other ways for heresy than womenwere ever burnt for witchcraft. ddi you not get that part of the sotory in your woemns’ Studies courses? So oyu fell for that lie?
“are men willing to be the legal property of their wives,”
As AntZ points out above, men are basically the legal property of their wives when it comes to lifelong alimony in thnose states that have it, or toalimony in the form of child support in all other states, where no accounting at all or any fiduciary responsibility is legally required.
and “are men willing to have rape used against them as a ubiquitous part of war.”
Oh waaaaah. I was raped! You were butchered or burnt to death, but I was RAPED! And to fill in the gaps in your understanding of war, and of rape, men are raped in war all the time. Men are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the victiims of war.
It’s funny that you think I am in Women’s Studies–I actually did Anthropology, and Sexual Diversity Studies, and now I work in disability and public health–so no, I didn’t “fall for that lie.”
If you want a citation, check out “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddle of Culture” by non-feminist anthropologist Marvin Harris. It is a seminal work in anthropological theory.
Also, alimony goes to the partner who earns more, not just the woman. On an article about breadwinning women you would expect someone to understand that.
Nowhere did I say that men weren’t victims of war.
Also, I used those examples to point out the absurdity of using an historical example like the Titanic in reference to a current issue.
” I think MRA’s need to get some more current stats.”
> As the evacuation began, with the plane beginning to sink slowly into the water, it was women and children first, with the three flight stewards on board carrying out the evacuation drill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4250637/New-York-plane-crash-Pilot-told-passengers-to-brace-for-heavy-landing.html
“are men willing to be burned at the stake,”
Heretics(overwhelmingly men) were burned at the stake. Or had hot lead poured up their intestines. Or were split apart on racks.
“are men willing to have rape used against them as a ubiquitous part of war.””
They already do have rape used against them as a ubiquitous part of war. The reason why you don’t know that is that not only do men have rape used against them as a ubiquitous part of war, the NGOs who help victims of war rape are engaged in a conspiracy of silence about male victims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
Thank you for giving this topic respect, and for representing the individuality of each family’s solutions. Feminism has helped free women from roles that may not have fit them, but at the same time it freed men as well. I have real respect for both single dads and stay-at-home fathers.
The men I know who stay at home are strong men who are willing to step out in a new direction. Many are following a dream that seldom have cared to pursue: child-rearing. They deserve the thoughtful and respectful treatment you give.
The only treatment that matters is the treatment that these men will receive in family court, should the marriage fail.
As long as family courts always or almost always award child custody to the female, regardless of circumstances, a man who defines himself as a nurturer/care giver operates without the protection of the law. Given that 50% of all marriages do fail, the anti-male bias of family courts is a de-facto mandate barring men from nurturing/care-giving roles.
I can support the sentiment that it is not always fair, but part of the problem is that a lot of men don’t even seek custody. I would have much rather lived with my father than my abusive mother, but he went off to start a new life with a new girlfriend, and didn’t even seek custody; he also wasn’t around a lot when I was younger (possibly because he was having other relationships), and so we didn’t know him as well even though both parents worked. This is unfortunately the case in a lot of divorces, and I think it factors heavily into court decisions.
So yes, as someone who would have rather had a father take custody, and would have testified to that effect, I can agree that a neutral system would be better. However, I think this would require that more men step up to the plate and be engaged fathers throughout their kids’ childhoods, and also that more men sought to stay in touch with their children.
A man cannot seek custody when (1) custody is virtually impossible to get and (2) his ex–wife will be free to punish him for challenging her divine right to profit from their children by denying visitation.
There has never been an American judge who has imposed a financial sanction on a woman for denying visitation. Every. Hundreds of millions of people in this nation, and not a single judge could find it within his/her heart to support a father’s right to see his children.
Fathers have no rights. Feminism is an unspeakable evil that seeks to commodify children into property that women can use for their gain, and to subdue men into a state of perpetual servitude.
Once again, I think I would need citations for all of those claims. That, and I am Canadian.
Also, I have seen those same statistic controlled for when men actually actively seek custody, and when they actually want custody they are awarded it 25-33% of the time in Canada.
My father had the right and the legal basis to take custody of us. He didn’t want us. He chose to pay child support so he could have an apartment and date again. Not all children are wanted by their fathers.
>My father had the right and the legal basis to take custody of us.
Explain what you mean by this? What ‘legal basis’ did he have to take custody of you?
That all being said, I love my father dearly and we are still in touch today–I am not in touch with my mother. I just wish he had taken on the responsibility of custody, but it didn’t fit in to his plans to start a new life.
>This is unfortunately the case in a lot of divorces, and I think it factors heavily into court decisions.
Have you considered that it may be the case because dads are unlikely to get custody unless they can prove the mother unfit somehow? Therefore they don’t try unless they’re dealing with an extremely unfit mother?
I’ve also seen and read about men who nearly kill themselves trying to get custody. And some who congratulate themselves on wresting custody from incredibly abusive mothers. (There’s something wrong with the system when a man is elated and amazed that he won custody from a woman who, for example, puts her cigarettes out on her child’s body.)
“And an approach that pits women against men cannot get at the rich relational processes that underpin these 21st century stories and our understanding of them.”
YES. I could not agree more. Thank you.
Ditto. It’s not a zero-sum game. You can improve women’s lot and have consequential positive outcomes for men too, and vice versa.
I would like to agree with Matt whole-heartedly. I will just add that because women are powerless (especially moms) to influence our systems, the fastest way for change is for men to take on this work. Fortunately and unfortunately, that is the reality. Ours is still a very patriarchal society but these changing roles pose opportunities to fix our systems.
Our good men deserve praise for being wonderful, involved parents! I see it more and more. It beautiful, sexy and it gives me hope!
There is one politician in Britain who panders to men. His name is Dominic Raab.
Every other politician in every branch of government in every Western nation panders to women.
There has probably never been representation as lop-sided as current pro-feminist governments.
Citation?
Citation? Type his name into Google. He became an instant celebrity. Dominic Raab is the first person in the History of History to utter the words “men need help.” Being the first has its virtues. He was front page news all over the world. Feminists, of course, went on the attack immediately. The female monopoly on the title of “victim” must be guarded above all else.
If you insist, here are the first of Googles 1.3 million citations about Dominic Raab:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8279200/Dominic-Raab-men-should-burn-their-briefs-in-protest-at-obnoxious-feminist-bigots.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab
http://www.politicshome.com/dominic_raab_we_must_end_feminist_bigotry.html
Raab said “we need to end feminist bigotry,” which is what pissed off feminists. Helping men doesn’t piss off feminists.
Also, what I need a citation for is this claim:
After years of political and social theory, I have never come across this idea! You are going to have to back up your ideas if you want to have a decent debate. Beginning with these baseless, ahistorical claims:
Hmmm, lopsided governments in history:
-Ancient Greece?
-Nazi Germany?
-Pre-abolition and suffrage America?
-Colonial Australia, Canada, and New Zealand?
-China’s rule over Tibet?
-Pol Pot?
Find a reputable feminist source who has said that women need to be perpetual victims.
Citation please?
The biggest enemies of men and their place in this world are twofold. The first is winner-take-all capitalism. The second is its bastard child, at-will employment. Men often do get the short end of the stick in family court, but to aver that this is the real bugbear is abysmal ignorance.
Agreed–
I think what the MRAs call ‘misandry’ is often just late-capitalism, consumerism, and neoliberalism.
What MRA’s call misandry is feminist anti-child, anti-boy, and anti-male hatred.
Switchintoglide, you frequently ask for citations. Citations mean nothing. Gender studies is just a vile branch of extremist feminist hatred. Gender superiority feminists have produced thousands of bogus publications on the tax payer dime, all to support their hegemonic crusade to transform men into a permanently enslaved under class.
I ask for citations because I work in social policy and global health dumbass. Statistics are how I do my work.
@Catullus,
You make an excellent point. Our economic system really limits what we can do for ourselves these days. Today’s “free market” has put tremendous strains on our freedom as parents and innovators. It’s a conformist’s wonderland.
In fact, I explore the oxymoronic concept I call “Mama Capitalism” on my web-site. Women can take home a better share of the pie but we really don’t understand how it works — and worse, how it works against us. If women had better understanding and political power in the U.S. I think we would have very different economic and employment policies.
The number of women or men in government is completely irrelevant. What matters is what they do – and what they do is pander to women in the vast majority of cases.
Our society and its legal systems have for many decades been favourable to women and discriminatory against men – yet still feminists demand more privileges for women and more punishments for men.
you aren’t really in to the whole idea of “evidence-based assertions” are you?
Why would you be “surprised” and “startled” by Rosin’s depiction of men? It’s simple misandry, and as such is mainstream in our misandrist society.
And here is the evidence of this pandering…?
http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/?rc=fb
I find this article patronizing and demeaning. We men need to grow a pair and when it comes to conflicts between our wives careers’ and our own we need to draw a line in the sand and make our wives choose (women like having a choice as I understand it) between their career and their family and if they choose their career they do so at the peril of their families and their children to whatever extent they may be in the picture (living or soon to be living, assuming they choose life). My bet is given that choice most women will choose to stay home with their children even if it means a reduction in their standard of living, unless women prove as a gender to be shallow materialists.
As a stay at home dad and spouse since our oldest was five months and the youngest was born, I have gained some interesting perspective on the motivation behind the Women’s suffrage movement. I find it interesting reading the countless accounts of males who have been treated as badly by women as the men who motivated the movement for women’s rights at the end of the last century. Having cared for an infant and then an infant and a toddler, I have earned the right to right to write this and if it upsets the author or any readers, such was not my intent just sharing a little reality.
The title of this post was skewed for a number of reasons but most definitely condescending towards men in a way that I believe the writer herself does not understand. As a man who moves as quick and slowly as needs be, what the writer needs to understand as well as some women, most men can go from sitting still to sitting on someone chest in a matter of moments. The manic movement of some women is not necessarily a reflection of “quickness” as mania. The hyper activity I have witnessed of more than one mother running around with a phone stuck in their ear, unable to go more than a few moments and not checking their phone, and a lot of unnecessary activities cause me to shake my head, slowly.
I am one of those men who believe that taking care of children is the greatest thing one can do, man or woman and that my time in the roles I have held has been a gift that has made me a better human being. Women who earn the household income need not to show “sensitivity” but respect to their husband and remind themselves every day he is still a man, perhaps remind yourself of the “reason” you wanted to get to know him in the first place. Being a stay at home dad is tough for any man and these sorts of articles and attitudes should be a heads up for men to consider when offered the opportunity to enter into such a situation.
Women can say what they want and men can believe what they want, but after all the diapers are changed, after all the wash done, yards cut, dishes done, and the rest of the domestic duties along with the support of the wives career, at the end of all the support and nurturing, all too often the female will step back and look at their husband in a different way and forget all he has done to support their career and new income. “WE” becomes me, “ours” becomes “mine, and in time, the primary income earner comes to the decision that she should be with someone of her own financial and career status. It happens all the time. Many times, such “career moms” are less “moms” and more careerists.
The stay at home spouse regardless of gender and a situation of dependency, disconnect, isolation, resentment, discontent, and a host of other issues come to surface over the long term if the situation goes on too long. Women who earn the money need to keep in mind how it would be if they were in their husbands shoe and although I said it before, remind yourself how and why you were originally attracted to your husband and show him the respect as a man he deserve. There have been a lot of primary income earners in the world who have reminded me why women at the turn of the century organized and said enough is enough.
That is a realiy interesting perspective, thanks!
Here is an example to help women understand what “presumption of guilt” means to men — and to women also.
Two months ago my 6 year old son Michael began swimming lessons. I took him on his first day. After swimming, I took him into the men’s bathroom to shower and dress him. Two women in Indian saris followed me in. The watched me the entire time as I bathed my son, and dressed him. As I was walking out with my boy, one of the women told me “Sorry, but we had to be sure.”
I wonder if any woman could possibly understand what it feels like to be seen by everyone, everywhere, as a menace? A depraved predator?
From that day forward, my wife had to take my son to swimming lessons. I never told her why. Maybe she thinks I don’t care about Michael’s swimming.
This, along with 1000 similar acts of hatred, also mean that no sane man can ever choose a life as a “home maker.”
Dude, that sucks, and that is a huge problem, but it takes trailblazers to make perceptions change. The fact that those women are so unfamiliar with the idea that a father could take his son to swimming lessons is really informative–if more men valued time with their kids, chose to stay at home, and fought for paternity leave, just like women fought for equal pay, the right to work, and maternity leave, then we could work to change these perceptions.
40 years a go a woman going to work in a nontraditional job was viewed with disgust and hatred, a non-married woman who was pregnant was tarred as a slut and sometimes put in an institution, forced to give up her baby to the state. These social movements for acceptance take time, effort, and a lot of pain. You have the power to channel that pain into something productive, and if yu would open your eyes you would see that feminists pretty unilaterally support paternal involvement and paternity leave.
http://news.change.org/stories/paternity-leave-is-a-feminist-issue
@William
My wife and I both have very high paying careers. When we had children, it might have made sense for me to stay at home with the children, and her to earn the bread. However, this option was never open to us. Only a crazy man would put his future in the hands of man-hating courts, man-hating law enforcement, and man-hating institutions.
50% of all marriages end in divorce. This means that the parent who chooses a “nurturning” role has to prepare for the eventuality of divorce.
A woman who chooses to nurture is protected in the event of divorce.
A father who chooses to nurture is vulnerable in the event of divorce.
In the end, it is pretty simple. Everyone suffers because of feminist hatred. Who knows how high my wife might have flown, if the wings did not have to go on my shoulders? The blind destructive power of feminist hatred is an awesome thing. The power to hurt men (the intended victims), but equally to hurt women and children.
The only question any woman has to ask about a man is, how can a man define himself as a nurturer, and devote his life to supporting his wife and family, when the state affords zero protection to men?
Your statement:
flies in the face of conventional feminist wisdom. As I have already stated, feminists have been some of the greatest proponents of fathers’ rights for paternity leave:
http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/swedish-men-take-parental-leave-%E2%80%93-what%E2%80%99s-the-situation-in-the-u-s/
NOW is opposed to shared parenting initiatives.
Ms Rosin’s article just demonstrates the level of feminist hubris prevalent in today’s society. They say pride comes before a fall.
Ms Rosin’s hatred of men (including her own son, judging by the video) has blinded her to the danger of alienating half the world’s population from her cause. After decades of claiming that the genders are identical, feminists like Rosin now claim it is female superiority that is getting women ahead, instead of the tilted playing field created by feminists over the past 50 years.
We men need to stop measuring ourselves by whether we receive the approval of sexists like Rosin. We need to carve our own destiny, preferably away from females who seek to drag us down and who would dance on our graves before we are even dead.
I know this is over a year later Andrea, but if you ever read this comment, could you expand on what you mean by “maternal lens”?