There's so much focus on letting women have balance in their lives, but almost never men.
Women complain that they can't keep up with men because they can't reconcile 80-hour workweeks with raising children.
The solution is not healthier, more balanced workweeks for women. The solution is healther, more balanced workweeks for everyone.
The solution is creating a cultural expectation where CEO's work 50 hours a week, not 90, regardless of gender or children.
After all, male CEO's would love this just as much as female CEO's with children. But they can't ask for it, because it's seen as weak and uncommitted, and another male CEO will take their place.
There's a truth behind the clichéed businessman dying in his bed, saying he wishes he had spent less time working and more with his wife and children. But as a society, we refuse to let our male CEO's work less. Why?
If I might turn this around, some men don't. What makes them different than those who do? I think the answer is "they are willing to be seen as less than manly."
We can not both live balanced lives and keep the prestige and power we are used to. We, as individuals, must give up our illusions that we are better than others because we manage more people or make more money or get more funding. Instead, we much know we are good enough and choose for ourselves how to distribute our short time on earth.
Men can't have it all: we must give up "man" as our primary identity in order to find our more-satisfying "self".
"We can not both live balanced lives and keep the prestige and power we are used to."
Isn't that a double edged sword? That prestige and power is an attraction and sometimes necessity for men to court women. While I know it does happen, it's rare to find women who marry 'down' in the status ladder (be it race, income, or position). And as a marginalized male minority in the U.S., I know for certain that even good well-adjusted women wouldn't have given me the time of day if I wasn't earning a certain amount or at a high level or at a great company.
Actually I remember reading [1] that since the recent economic downturn, because it affected men much more than women, more women are marrying "down" than are marrying "up".
I agree that our societal norms haven't caught up with the fact that there are no longer enough high status men and low status women for all the women to marry up anymore, so the social pressure is still there but it seems to be changing fairly quickly.
Had to google roissyshere, so no. Hard to find anything specific about him as his blog has disapeared but in general I find the PUA community to be creepy.
I think your generalizations are ridiculously broad here. Some women are golddiggers, but those relationships are, IMHO, not worth having anyway. Why do you think such a relationship is going to contribute more to your life than spending time on things that actually make you happy?
Even if all women wanted was power, we are playing a zero-sum, I-got-mine, race-to-the-bottom, everyone-loses game if we demand total devotion to status, and I don't think most women want that either. Already 25% of stay-at-home parents are men. The majority of women are now in the work force. Egalitarian marriages last longer. Things are changing, and we can help them change faster by opting out of that self-destructive game.
That doesn't mean giving up on being able to find a romantic relationship, however. There is a difference between being a bum and not seeking to dominate the people around us to get ahead at all cost. I'd recommend reading http://postmasculine.com/ for the dating advice that worked best for me. Much like weight loss, there are no short cuts to becoming capable of having satisfying relationships. It is hard work to move from desperation to a place where relationships are one possible way your life could be a bit nicer, but certainly not the only one. On the other hand, I found it worth the energy.
I'm not insinuating that women are generally gold-diggers. I'm saying that ultimately status and income are considerations that come into play when it comes to the mating game. Physical attractiveness aside, a male doctor or male CEO is going to attract more interest than a male barista by virtue of his occupation and income. Income and wealth for men is a sometimes a consideration not different from height.
Let's put it another way: A minority male in the U.S. like an Asian male who earns a certain amount above the average is going to have significantly a lot more choices in interracial pairings than if he were at a low paying job. Statistics show that Caucasians females rarely marry Asians in the United States, but when they do, that pairing has the highest median income level compared to every other pairing in the U.S., including Caucasian/Caucasian and Asian/Asian. Anecdotally, all the Asian men I know who married Caucasian female are well-paid relative to the average Asian American male.
> Physical attractiveness aside, a male doctor or male CEO is going to attract more interest than a male barista by virtue of his occupation and income.
My argument is this: so what? You say these things like marriage, and in your case interracial marriage, is the be-all and end-all of happiness. I argue that it isn't, and all research directly correlating income and happiness finds that it tops out around $67k.
If you sacrifice happiness for marriage, and get a crappier marriage than you would otherwise have in the bargin, what is the point?
Some women are golddiggers, but more importantly, all women, as a rule, have golddigging tendency. (There are exceptions, but I am talking of a rule.) This is very well established by now.
I recommend reading David Buss's textbook, Evolutionary Psychology, 4th edition. In particular, Women's Long Term Mating Strategies, where the first heading is Preference for Economic Resources. Women consistently rate importance of economic resources in partner twice(!) higher than men. This is consistent from 1930 to today, and does not change whether most women are in the work force or not. As a textbook, it has lots of references you can check yourself.
There's a difference between gold digging and being attracted to more successful men, in that gold digging is motivated by a conscious incentive to expend the man's economic resources. Unemployed men living in their mother's basements are unattractive compared to, say, machinists, who are in turn less attractive than doctors, but it's less a matter of golddigging and more a matter of social status and respectability. There's probably diminishing returns in the range between machinist and doctor, with a step function down for unemployed slackers and a step function up for multimillionaires.
Not everyone thinks it's human nature. In fact, there's no real reason why we should think that it's human nature rather than (say) a purely social phenomenon that's entirely learnt, and can therefore be changed.
Actually, there are reasons, and lots. Go read the literature. Really.
One of the best study is International Preferences in Selecting Mates. This is a large study (N=9474) with samples from six continents, from cultures with monogamy and polygyny, etc.
there's no real reason why we should think that it's human nature rather than (say) a purely social phenomenon
No reasons except that we already know from separated twin studies that genetics plays a strong role in behavioral traits. Then also as you look at other places in the animal kingdom where learned behavior takes a greatly reduced role to wired/instinctive behavior we see many analogues. Birds provide many examples whereby the male must demonstrate his ability to provide an environment, sustenance, and protection for potential mates. Some male birds build their nests that the females examine before choosing a mate. Other birds demonstrate athletic abilities through dance.
Saying that it's just as likely that male/female behaviors are learnt as they are inborn is akin to saying that it's just as likely that having a womb to give birth with is just as likely learnt as inborn.
Male birds also wear and display decorative plumage in order to attract mates, whereas female birds tend to be more drap. Obviously it's natural for men to look and dress prettily in order to demonstrate their attractiveness to women, who as the ones being wooed don't need to put in the same kind of effort.
It's funny how selective our analogies to nature are sometimes.
You completely missed the point. The point is that there are many examples of similar behaviors that aren't learned in lower animals that don't have the ability to learn much of anything the way humans do.
Thinking up an example of a different trait attributed to the opposite sex in humans is completely irrelevant.
If you want to address this subject in a meaningful way -- rather than find a nit-pick over an analogy while obtusely missing the point, maybe you should look into refuting the mountain of twin study evidence that shows that nurture lost in the nature vs nurture debate.
A social behavior that's been around in nearly all societies in the world? Human nature came first and shaped our society, not the other way around. Anything that goes against human nature usually ends up in failure and/or many deaths (Communism, extreme socialism, etc). We need to learn to embrace it and use it to our advantage.
There was a study done sometime back at a Swedish university (I can't find the link at the moment) where they had the same mindset as you. A family raised a son and totally removed all male-oriented things from his life. They even gave him dolls to play with. He ended up gravitating towards male-centric things and they stopped the study.
Citations provided below. While I've seen no causal evidence, the best hypothesis is that it is the result of perceived fairness, social connection to the partner or a side effect of people with egalitarian beliefs only get married when they really want to, rather than out of a sense of necessity.
I'm not convinced that the best CEOs have to work such crazy hours.
It comes down to efficiency. We should all focus on being as effective as possible in the shortest amount of time. Prioritization is another way to look at it - spend time on the most important things.
This reminds me of Colman Mockler - longtime CEO of Gillette. He thwarted corporate takeovers throughout the 80's and led Gillette to massive growth and share price increases, up until his death in '91. He did all this while adamantly not working past 5pm. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much information him online but the book, Good to Great, covers him in detail.
"We should all focus on being as effective as possible in the shortest amount of time."
Obviously, flogging a dead horse there. The point is that when everybody does that already, the next differentiating factor becomes the amount of hours put in. Which brings us to the current situation; which is, I might add, the natural order of things, and I'm continuously flummoxed by the total lack of, or even the slightest insight into human nature, emerging behavior or the ability to take fundamental processes or drivers and lead them to their conclusions, by the authors of pieces and posts like the GP and the article under consideration. Much like, let's say, socialism, I suppose, but I digress.
Also, an anecdote does not data make. The article covers that, too, by the way - some people are just almost 'super-human' (comes naturally with normal distributions), so measuring everybody against them just sets those others up for failure. You're basically saying 'yeah if you'd just all be as good as this Gilette guy here, you wouldn't have a problem! Can't combine parenthood and a top career? It's just because you're not good enough!'.
I would argue the path to syzygy isn't "giving up" anything but "integrating". Instead of giving up "man" as an identity (complex in the psyche) why are we not "integrating woman" as an identity to be a stabilized, whole, pairing with "man"?
Our western society is very out-of-touch (IMHO) with how people's inner landscape is configured (through years of cultural stimulation, parents, western symbols, etc...).
The quick reaction is to "give up" or "repress" what you are in the present to be able to "see your true self" (ie, enlightenment); this process can work, but it is a distinctly Eastern way and their psychological configuration is very different from the Western one. The answer for the Western psyche is "integration".
How many men in our society have embraced both their masculine and feminine aspects without giving up or compromising either? Very few (I've only met one or two). The same is said for women, I have never met a single woman that has actually embraced BOTH their masculine and feminine aspects - feminists and lesbians are short circuiting it, they aren't actually integrating; gay men and metros are also short circuiting it, they aren't actually integrating.
Once the Mother and Father within are recognized and "given light" (enlightenment) will the true Self be evident and present.
The solution is healther, more balanced workweeks for everyone.
Why do some even feel the need to have such a strong opinion on what "balance" means to different people and where they draw that line?
If you want more money and financial success, focus on your work. If you want more attention to your parenting and to devote more time to parental interaction, then focus more time on your family life.
The idea that we're going to decide as a society what a "balanced workweek" is and what that balance means between parents is alien to me. It's a topic that's so subjective and so based upon individual goals, situations, and preferences that to discuss it in the aggregate is meaningless. Worse, once people start talking about having a "balanced workweek" or a "living wage", the next step always seems to be, "Well now we need to legislate a lowest-common-denominator norm."
That's simply not true. In some hourly paid positions in some locales, there are mandated overtime pay rates, but salaried employees have no per-day hour maximums.
The fact is that employers don't work their employees 16 hours per day because it's counterproductive and employees would go find employers who didn't work them so hard if they tried.
Well, history says different, and how things actually happened tends to have more weight than theoretical speculation about a perfect employment market.
On the other hand unhealthy unproductive competition to work the longest doesn't do anybody any good at all.
Sometimes individual incentives don't lead to the best societal outcome and it can be beneficial to try to change the situation by setting examples, incentives or even sometimes with rules.
On the other hand unhealthy unproductive competition to work the longest doesn't do anybody any good at all.
It's normally preferable to let the market sort out what is unproductive and what isn't.
If you're running a company and overworking your employees, then you leave yourself open to a competitor who better optimizes worker productivity by being smarter about hours worked. You'll also risk having your employees leave if they don't like the working conditions.
Rather than have a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats make a bunch of rules based upon their normal levels of incompetence and lack of knowledge, I'd rather let smaller groups of people and companies determine what works for them.
Why? Because as a society we're not interested in confronting the problems with male gender roles when they affect men, only when they affect women. So you'll occasionally see someone poking at the edge of the problem when they realise (for instance) that men being pressured into 80-hour workweeks means women are forced to look after kids, or that women can't rise as high in the ranks as men, but that's it. Often they'll just end up trying to patch the symptoms whilst ignoring the underlying problem, for instance by trying to lower demands on female executives and employees compared to their male counterparts.
Gender roles are a problem because they mean that anyone who doesn't fit into them nicely gets screwed over. This affects, oooh, probably pretty much everyone because the odds of someone matching up with them exactly in every possible regard are pretty damn low.
>Gender roles are a problem because they mean that anyone who doesn't fit into them nicely gets screwed over. This affects, oooh, probably pretty much everyone because the odds of someone matching up with them exactly in every possible regard are pretty damn low.
Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"
How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."
Sure, and that's the point-- you can't even do something as unimportant as wear a particular kind of clothing without subjecting yourself to serious social pressure, but we're being asked to believe that gender roles don't really affect people's choices.
Well, of course a majority of people seem to embrace traditional gender roles - that's what our society rewards people for! We look up to women who drop out of work to raise kids and look down on men who do the same as unmanly, tut-tut about how women who don't have kids will regret it later once their feminine instincts kick in, beat up people who wear the wrong kind of clothing for their gender (clothing, for fuck's sake!), ...
You've already stated why we don't do it. Many people (men and women) choose not to have children. So if you're a CEO and you say "I don't want to work 80 hour a week", they could easily replace you with someone who says "I'll do it!".
And do you know what? That's life. It's no different than any other choice. Plenty of people who don't have children don't want to put in 80 hrs per week at their job. Should we accomodate them as well?
Plenty of people who don't have children don't want to put in 80 hrs per week at their job. Should we accomodate them as well?
Yes, why not? "Think of the parents" arguments may just be a pretext for letting everyone work less. As productivity increases, the amount of available work decreases. We can either concentrate that work among a few, leaving many unemployed (e.g. the would-be 50hr/wk CEO), or have everyone work less.
The amount of available work doesn't decrease as productivity increases. Global productivity has increased by at least an order of magnitude since 1900. If available worked decreased, we'd have 90% unemployment now.
The biggest obstacle to "spreading out the work" is payroll taxes. It's much cheaper for an employer to hire 1 person who works 100 hr/week than is it to hire 3 people at 33 hr/week.
But my point remains, there are people out there who do nothing but work, by choice. They want a job that requires 60,70,80 hrs per week. Are you suggesting we tell these people to find something else to do with their time?
With feminists like Hanna Rosin writing articles like "The End of Men" [1], perhaps men can be forgiven for a little skepticism as to whether the fight "is for everyone."
And you know that there are extremists everywhere in all groups?
Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? Should we be wary of all black people because some of them kill and are in gangs? Should we be wary of all Americans because some of them own lots of guns? Should we be wary of all police because some are corrupt? Should we be wary of all British government activity because they might want to invade and colonise us? Should we be wary of all germans because some are neo-nazis? Should we be wary of all irish because some set off car bombs? etc. etc. etc.
And you know that there are extremists everywhere in all groups?
I'm glad you think she's an extremist. I think she's an extremist. I start to wonder whether people on the whole share this view when people like Rosin get to speak at TED conferences and are invited to present at think-tanks like the New America Foundation. Is it just because these organizations are "open minded?" Well, take Rosin's "The End of Men" article and try replacing "men" with "black people" and "women" with "white people" throughout the article, and speculate on whether The Atlantic would have published it:
"What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to white people?"
"White people live longer than black people. They do better in this economy. More of ’em graduate from college. They go into space and do everything black people do, and sometimes they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out of the way—these white people are going to leave us black people in the dust."
I'm guessing that the author of such a piece wouldn't find an audience at TED (which bills itself as the curator of "ideas worth spreading"), or think-tanks like the New America Foundation. But apparently enough people find Rosin's ideas worth considering that she should get an audience at such venues.
Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? ...
These are all great questions. Here's another one: should women be wary when a birth control hearing on Capitol Hill has a predominately male panel? I would say yes.
For an alternative viewpoint on that article: http://feministing.com/2010/06/16/is-female-dominance-a-succ... Though come to think of it, that's just as bad too. If we deal with women doing worse in some areas through affirmative action and other schemes aimed at compensating for their disadvantages, but deal with men doing worse in others by just trying to do away with the idea that gender matters - which we never consider to be enough when women are worse off - the net result is effectively systematic discrimination in favour of women throughout society.
deal with men doing worse in others by just trying to do away with the idea that gender matters
No-one said we shouldn't have affirmative action for men in female dominated spaces. I think it's a great idea. For example, in Sweden (and some other countries) the father is legally required to take 2 months of the (paid) paternity leave after their child is born. This sort of affirmative action means that it will become much more common for fathers to get involved with child rearing, since, well "everyone is doing it".
The link I posted did actually say that we shouldn't have affirmative action for men in female dominated spaces and should instead try to get rid of the idea of gender roles full-stop in some vague and incompletely defined fashion. (The reason I linked that response in particular was because I read it at the time when the original Atlantic piece came out.)
>There are people fighting traditional gender roles. But then you get called a feminazi by people who don't want change.
People who embrace our traditions get called "troglodytes" "fascists" "nazis" "sexists" and the like by cultural Marxists, moralistic activists, and other fanatics.
>Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize. You may be surprised to learn how little many people care about your 20th century social ideologies.
> No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize.
The whole point of feminism is to effect some changes in society. How do you propose to do that without, you know, talking about it?
Incidentally, I feel the same way about religions. I'm fine with being proselytized at, because I'm okay with people trying to persuade me of their opinions on any subject -- I don't consider religion special here. (And really, I'm not sure what to think about people who believe that their religion is the one true path to salvation, and don't try to convince others to join. It seems kind of... selfish, I guess? I don't believe any of that stuff, so I guess I should be happy about the peace and quiet, but it still irks me slightly.)
The people who believe their religion is he one true path to salvation _do_ tend to proselytize.
Thing is, many religions don't think they're the one true path to salvation (and in fact many don't even have a "salvation" going on). And people who hold to those rightfully get annoyed when they can't have lunch in peace because someone shows up on their doorstep trying to convince them that this someone's religion _is_ such a one true path.
The key problem with proselytizing isn't that it happens, it's _how_ it happens.
Except that feminism is a social movement that only works when it is widely understood and religion is a personal belief structure. The two are nothing alike.
>feminism is a social movement that only works when it is widely understood
Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
Our understanding of your ideology is precisely the reason we reject it.
Leftist ideology clearly has its roots in secularized Judeo-Christianity. We all have the "original sin" of racism/sexism/etc. we must be redeemed of, and the world is "torn" and must be tikkun-olamed to be "fixed" by a priest class of activists.
> Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
I think that this is the most concise summary of what's wrong with feminism as an ideology that I've ever seen. One thing to note is that this doesn't just apply to outsiders; feminists do this to other feminists that disagree with them , which is probably one reason why the grassroots of the movement is consistently a lot more reasonable than the career activists.
It is widely understood because people talk about it. Maybe it is over discussed; I obviously don't have a complete understanding of it because I thought that it was a movement for equality and you seem to disagree.
> Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
No, you're not.
For the most part, feminism is aimed at giving privileged women some of the same opportunities that privileged men have.
As a "not very privileged" man....
And, in many cases, the result of "same" has been (at best) marginal increases for women accompanied by huge decreases for men. It's unclear why that's an improvement.
And, we've yet to see feminists address female privileges, except, of course, to defend them.
> Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
The problem is feminism doesn't actually do a particularly good job at making it clear that is what they are fighting for, and perhaps because there is a particularly vocal minority that doesn't believe that to be the true and proper goal of feminism.
Society doesn't refuse anything. If a male CEO wants to work less, he can do so. If another male potential CEO can perform better by working more, he will probably replace him.
The only solution to this is to mandate working hours for CEOs, an idea that rather impractical to say the least.
>Society doesn't refuse anything. If a male CEO wants to work less, he can do so. If another male potential CEO can perform better by working more, he will probably replace him.
If another male potential CEO can perform worse by working more, he will probably replace him. And that's a societal/cultural problem; we need to get over the idea that someone who puts in longer hours must be contributing more.
I did, with some cofounders, went through an accelerator, rounded up investors. Sitting in our office right now. So yes, I am familiar with this path.
Now the answer is to create your own company? I thought the answer was not to play the game? If you think you don't have to play the game to start a company then you haven't done it before.
I would prefer that balance only apply to average people. Not maximizing unique and valuable contributions, in return for more of the grunt work that 3.5 billion couples are already covering, is not a win.
There's so much focus on letting women have balance in their lives, but almost never men.
Women complain that they can't keep up with men because they can't reconcile 80-hour workweeks with raising children.
The solution is not healthier, more balanced workweeks for women. The solution is healther, more balanced workweeks for everyone.
The solution is creating a cultural expectation where CEO's work 50 hours a week, not 90, regardless of gender or children.
After all, male CEO's would love this just as much as female CEO's with children. But they can't ask for it, because it's seen as weak and uncommitted, and another male CEO will take their place.
There's a truth behind the clichéed businessman dying in his bed, saying he wishes he had spent less time working and more with his wife and children. But as a society, we refuse to let our male CEO's work less. Why?