Your Thoughts of this Article?

[Ayar3569]

Came across this article and thought you guys might want to rant or rave about it. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-we-need-to-reimagine-masculinity.html?GT1=43002#

 

[FairShake]

Men have to absolutely embrace girly, sensitive, human-oriented jobs to survive in the current Western economic climate. It's better for our own pockets. That should not even be argued. It's common sense.

And men SHOULD share household and child-rearing duties IF their women are working too. It's better for the children after all.

It's called adaptation and the best men in the world have seen the world as it is and carved their own niche into it. In my opinion there's nothing more manly than success. And if working as a nurse or an elementary school teacher means economic success and being involved in your child's life means happy and successful sons and daughters then get your man on and adapt.

 

[DanelMadr]

Men’s share of the labor force has declined from 70 percent in 1945 to less than 50 percent today, and in the country’s biggest cities, young, single, childless women—that is, the next generation—earn 8 percent more than their male peers. Women have matched or overtaken men as a percentage of students in college and graduate school, while men have retained their lead in alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality.

70% of jobs in western society are totally void / unnecessary. Propserity just brings artificial job positions and bureaucracy which in turn creates more useless jobs. As you can see with companies firing people...50% fired and the company can still function. Almost all women and alarmingly high percentage of men have no real skills. They don't study it, they don't do it. They are bubble.
Will it improve? Possibly no. Eventually all manual labor will be done by robots and for the population of those who can't do robots, aren't doctors etc. the society will find more meaningless jobs.

Guys do not compete well because school system does not want to take the extra effort to channel and develop the masculine energy. Teachers simply prefer the easiest, submissive, disciplined girls who can learn any bs and tell it word by word without having a clue what they are talking about.
And guys in general need a meaning for their work. That's why most of them don't even consider a position in human resources or company's communication expert or shuffling papers in administrative jobs.

But suggesting that men should stick to some musty script of masculinity only perpetuates the problem. For starters, it encourages them to confront new challenges the same way they dealt with earlier upheavals: by blaming women, retreating into the woods, or burying their anxieties beneath machismo. And it does nothing to help them succeed in school, secure sustainable jobs, or be better fathers in an economy that’s rapidly outgrowing Marlboro Manliness.

This is called seriously f@cked up view of manliness. Those two f@gs who wrote it are judging by themselves I suppose. Ha ha. They are clueless and have issues as expected with two liberal f@ags.

There’s growing evidence, however, that they can be expanded. Consider contemporary family life in Sweden. In the past, new parents split 390 days of paid leave however they liked—monthly, weekly, daily, and even hourly. Women used far more of it than men. But today, new fathers no longer rush back to work, leaving the mother to raise little Sven all by herself. The reason for the change? Smart public policy.

In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it. A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80 percent of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child, up from 4 percent a decade ago. And a full 41 percent of companies now formally encourage fathers to go on parental leave, up from only 2 percent in 1993. Simply put, men are expected to work less and father more.

By altering the roles of the Swedish father and the Swedish worker, Sweden’s paternity-leave legislation has, in turn, rewritten the rules for Swedish men (and, by extension, women). “Swedish dads of my generation and younger have been raised to feel competent at child-rearing,” writes Slate’s Nathan Hegedus, an American who experienced the system firsthand. “They simply expect to do it, just as their wives and partners expect it of them.” If a man refuses time at home with the kids, he faces questions from friends, family, and, yes, other guys. Policy changes produced personal changes—and then, slowly but surely, society changed as well.

80% of women in Sweden work in public sector. Nuff said. And this legislation is so f@king expensive. The state (tax payers) are compensating the business who allow their employees to f@ck the work and stay home with the same income and their job secured.

Skeptics will argue that men are “designed” for some gigs and not for others. But while no one would claim that men and women don’t have their differences, women long ago proved that gender essentialism doesn’t determine what kind of work they can do. Today women still serve as teachers, nurses, and social workers. But they’re also CEOs, soldiers, and secretaries of state.

Yeah right. Plenty of those.
Women in general are not good in these jobs. And men in general are not good in being nurses. End of story. Yeah sure he could do that but he knows he will be much more successful as soldier.

Truth is men are unemployed because they can easily survive unemployed. They don't have to do construction to survive which they would if they were forced by circumstances. Prosperity. Do you see begging and dying hungry unemployed men on streets? No. They are at home, watching TV and getting drunk on booze (which is not cheap).

Until recently, the concept of masculinity had always bent to the demands of the day. Before 1776, according to the historical sociologist Michael Kimmel, the perfect man was still a genteel patriarch, a dandified landowner steeped in the codes of the Old World. By the early 19th century that ideal had given way to the image of the heroic artisan, the rugged individualist (a farmer, a cobbler, a carpenter) who might lead a caravan west. In time, the log-cabin model was replaced by a more modern ideal: the self-made man, a restless, competitive breadwinner whose masculinity depended on success in an industrial, materialistic society.

There is their agenda. Right there...

success in an industrial, materialistic society

Liberal/Socialistic limp d!cks hate success and materialistic society. They want all people do what is necessary and there share the money by even split. You can't do that, it does not work with humans in general. So you have to reprogram them...brake the spirit. Brake the instincts.
Authors are ejaculating on the idea that society needs to change helped by the wise government...which they will offer their services as advisers like they are doing in their article.

If men embraced parental leave, women would be spared the stigma of the “mommy track”—and the professional penalties (like lower pay) that come along with it. If men were involved fathers, more kids might stay in school, steer clear of crime, and avoid poverty as adults. And if the country achieved gender parity in the workplace—an optimal balance of fully employed men and women—the gross domestic product would grow by as much as 9 percent, according to a recent study by the World Economic Forum.

No, most women would commit suicide. Stuck up in their meaningless jobs which they attend only because they are bored at home. They would have to do difficult jobs with no room for office gossip to support the family. Unless it stays like it is and State (you and you too) will pays for that.

One of the parents should stay home until 4years of age minimum. Kibuc and kindergarden are favoured by socialists as they can help to form a loyal citizens.
And mother should stay at home at least for 2 yrs. A man can be perfect father but cannot pretend to be a mother.
If mother is forced out of job by having a child and nursing....it is stupid to force a guy to discontinue his career. If his wife earns more he can stay at home. Why not. But I'm strongly opposed to finance him from tax payers money as you will when he will have the "right" to stay at home by law. And state will have to compensate the employer for holding the job for him and hiring new guy.

Socialist f@gs.

Bottom line.

With prosperity rising more and more men will find themselves useless. Certainly not a marriage material. More single people and less kids. It will hopefully lead to less people on the planet having kids and giving them good genes and education. So there won't be so much useless men in middle class jobs.

But be aware. Prosperity is easily disturbed and 70% of the planet is occupied by very poor, totally useless and very angry people who would be very happy when western men forget how to throw a punch, so they could eat their food, drive their cars and rape their women.:woo: