Men's lib

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What do you guys think about this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/opinion/sunday/mens-lib.html

I can't excerpt it due to some weird issue with my computer that is preventing me from copying and pasting, but it's worth a read, IMO.

It's a really weird article; it started with an oddly combative tone, with the phrasing that women are "competing" with men and men have to "adapt". It also came across with a heavy dose of "ugh, I guess men will be forced to to women's work" . It managed to almost completely avoid addressing the fact that many men WANT to take more nurturing roles, or that men love being engaged and loving fathers and caregivers. The suggestion that "nurse" be changed to "health attendant" for gender neutrality is absurd, because "nurse" is already a gender-neutral word and any gender associations it has, we are imposing on it due to our own tendency to associate "nursing" with "women" and our social stigmatization of traditional women's jobs. The interesting thing about this article, though, is that after the oddly combative beginning and shortly after the suggestion to change "nurse" to "health attendant", the tone shifted, and the entire latter half of the article is, IMO, quite good and very valid.

I think the premise of the entire article is quite sound, it's really just the creepy, MRA-like "war of the sexes" wording of the first half that I have a problem with. Perhaps that was a deliberate attempt to pander to men who resist the idea of role parity.

[Cain]

Reeves is a bit of a weirdo.  I can't speak for Sawhill, but Reeves was the strategic "genius" and top political advisor to Nick Clegg...  That could account for a lot of the weird tone, because basically Reeves is a weird guy.

As you say, the overall point isn't necessarily a bad one, but the way they approach it is...well, I can only assume it was done in order for it to act as clickbait.  Neither Reeves or Sawhill is stupid and both appear to have some policy background in this area.   Whether they, the Times or the Brookings Institute which both of them work for decided that approach was the best one is harder to say.

[LMNO]

As a partial aside, isn't "secretary" as gender neutral as "nurse"?  Because it seems the same argument was made back in the 80s/90s.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As a partial aside, isn't "secretary" as gender neutral as "nurse"?  Because it seems the same argument was made back in the 80s/90s.

Yes, "secretary" is an ungendered term. In fact, most secretaries were male until the 1930's. Interestingly, at some point in the 1980's the job was redubbed "administration", but it is still dominated by women.

[rong]

isn't "nursing" another word for "breast-feeding?"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

isn't "nursing" another word for "breast-feeding?"

It's one of those remarkable words that actually has more than one meaning, depending on context.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nurse

[Meunster]

There's an argument to be made that because it came from nurse as in "a woman who suckles an infant not her own" then the modern nurse who helps at a hospital is  a more women centered word.

But for fucks sake, if you want your job to be called health attendant, nurse, or faygokammaker who cares? it just makes you have to say "I'm a nurse, but I don't like that word cause I'm not secure in my masculinity" or some other feely bullshit. When the person has never heard of your special snowflake job name before.

So really it doesn't matter and it's a waste of time to pursue change in something as small as that. Unless you're someone in the field and have some autistic reasoning for why your feelings are more important than the norms.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's an argument to be made that because it came from nurse as in "a woman who suckles an infant not her own" then the modern nurse who helps at a hospital is  a more women centered word.

But for fucks sake, if you want your job to be called health attendant, nurse, or faygokammaker who cares? it just makes you have to say "I'm a nurse, but I don't like that word cause I'm not secure in my masculinity" or some other feely bullshit. When the person has never heard of your special snowflake job name before.

So really it doesn't matter and it's a waste of time to pursue change in something as small as that. Unless you're someone in the field and have some autistic reasoning for why your feelings are more important than the norms.

Right, and even though the word has its etymology in something gendered, all changing it does is reinforce that women's work = icky and shameful for men.

[Pergamos]

The concept is sound and the wording is better than I had expected.  What I would like to have seen from it is support for men in traditionally female unpaid roles.  Stay at home parent or home maker.  As someone who has filled both those roles I know very well that there is a strong social stigma against it, including in progressive areas of the country.  The two worker model has become the norm for couples, but there are definite arguements to be made that having one partner stay home can be a very positive thing, assuming that the family can be supported with one income. There is no reason the stay at home partner should be a woman rather than a man but currently a stay at home woman is accepted, at least in more conservative areas, while a stay at home man is generally considered to be a leech.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The concept is sound and the wording is better than I had expected.  What I would like to have seen from it is support for men in traditionally female unpaid roles.  Stay at home parent or home maker.  As someone who has filled both those roles I know very well that there is a strong social stigma against it, including in progressive areas of the country.  The two worker model has become the norm for couples, but there are definite arguements to be made that having one partner stay home can be a very positive thing, assuming that the family can be supported with one income. There is no reason the stay at home partner should be a woman rather than a man but currently a stay at home woman is accepted, at least in more conservative areas, while a stay at home man is generally considered to be a leech.

Yes! Exactly.

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

I liked the article for the most part. I think it says a lot of things i'e been trying to say about masculinity for a while now, which is that the male gender role should open up and allow for a less emotionally restrictive expectation . However, I don't   really like how combative the language seems. It shouldn't be framed as men and women "competing" with each other for resources and educations and jobs. It should be about addressing the question that was never answered after second wave feminism, which is, "okay, well what do we do with all these traditionally masculine guys and how do we change the way we bring up guys going forward?" The ideal goal should be that people of any gender should be able to do whatever life makes them happy, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, therefore gender roles should be wide enough to provide that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I liked the article for the most part. I think it says a lot of things i'e been trying to say about masculinity for a while now, which is that the male gender role should open up and allow for a less emotionally restrictive expectation . However, I don't   really like how combative the language seems. It shouldn't be framed as men and women "competing" with each other for resources and educations and jobs. It should be about addressing the question that was never answered after second wave feminism, which is, "okay, well what do we do with all these traditionally masculine guys and how do we change the way we bring up guys going forward?" The ideal goal should be that people of any gender should be able to do whatever life makes them happy, provided it doesn't hurt anyone, therefore gender roles should be wide enough to provide that.

Bingo.