Posted on 09/09/2012 6:17:29 AM PDT by blam
Why Men Will Never Fully Recover From The Great Recession
Ashley Lutz
Sep. 8, 2012, 9:46 PM
The recession affected men's careers the most, and the workplace will never be the same.
But men will never fully recover because the bad economy simply expedited something that had been happening for years, according to Hanna Rosin's new book The End of Men: And the Rise of Women.
Rosin explains in her book:
In the Great Recession, three-quarters of the 7.5 million jobs were lost by men. The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: contruction, manufacturing, high finance. Some of these jobs have come back, but the dislocation is neither random nor temporary. The recession merely revealed--and accelerated--a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years, and in some respects even longer."
The movement from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based one is what's really at work, Rosin said.
"The manufacturing economy will never operate how it used to, and men are accustomed to operating in a very narrow space," Rosin said in an interview. "The quality the workplace most values right now, flexibility, is something that women have, and men need to catch up to succeed."
The August jobs report revealed men's participation in the workforce to be at the lowest level since 1948, the Atlantic reported. The number of men in the workplace began declining in the 1950s, when women entered the workforce in droves.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
As if manufacturing decline is a given and can never be changed. Well, we still use stuff, it is just made elsewhere. The movement of manufacturing was a recent political decision and can be reversed.
Men are unemployed because men make things.
The abandoned Warner & Swasey machine tool plant in Ohio. Great wealth is being built in Asia on former US manufacturing jobs.
Marriage and family is a driver for men to succeed. My husband was never a slacker, but not as driven before he had a wife and child. He doubled his income in a matter of years taking risks he probably would not have been driven to take before he was a husband and dad. He became aggressive in pursuit of sucess.
This is all western-based cultural; it was the way he was raised and passed on to him by the need to survive and thrive. Liberals have done all they can to dismantle and confound this social structure and mentality of males manipulating women and children. Ultimately, it is not going to work. Liberalism will melt down our society which will give the ruler wannabes what they want - total power via dependence and poverty. Liberalism is learned helplessness and welcoming of oppression.
AFTER female workers who provided cheaper labor than males became more expensive than the illegals and the outsourced foreign labor.
The intangible effects of this lowering of standards has been masked by government transfer payments.
That fig leaf is about to wither and die now that the US government is, practically speaking, bankrupt.
The feminist vs. evil white man struggle was simply a diversion to mask the reality that all Americans have been under economic assault in their turn.
Feminists have been used as political tools; useful idiots. They've allowed themselves to be manipulated into providing distraction and cover for the crony capitalists who, along with their purchased government operatives, effectively call the shots on illegal immigration and other policies that negatively impact ALL Americans who want jobs.
Fixed.
Brilliant!
I work in manufacturing, I put in 60 to 70 hours a week 6 days a week. I have been doing that for almost 2 years straight, only time off is for a 10 day vacation every year.
I do mechanical testing, some heat treating, some NDT work and documentation review.
Flexible is what I and the folks that I work with are.
The Ladies that we work with are not flexible, and they do not WANT to work more than 9 hours a day, when they have to the hollering goes on for hours.
So, if the nice lady who wrote this wants to come down to Texas and explain to me what flexibility is all about, come on down sweetheart you might learn something.
You’re lucky. I dated one woman who divorced a real loser (sabotaged her career, was a psycho). I was working at a good career (engineering), fit (bicyle racing, a common interset). Then what must have happened was she thought it was “too perfect”, so she entered my name into one of the early internet search engines. One of the hits (similar name) was a white supremacist about 1500 miles away and 10 years older (and now residing in a federal prison). Facts did not matter, in her mind I was him. “The facts are irrelevant, the nature of the accusation demands action!” W/o going into details, it was hell. I refuse to date after that incident.
No more to it than that.
There are excellent alternatives available. Save your money and take a trip to Asia. You will be astounded. :)
A fairly common theme of Home Depot commercials, too.
Truthfully, this is happening around the world for much the same reasons.
To start with, most organizational patterns around the world are hierarchical-”masculine”, but as an organizational pattern it has become vitiated and weak through overuse. However, it is not the only organizational pattern that exists.
The decentralized-”feminine” organizational pattern only exists in a few isolated societies around the world. However, when it is working well, it works better than a mediocre h-m organizational pattern.
Thus, with the real, as opposed to imaginary, empowerment of women around the world, d-f patterns of organization are starting to emerge and supplant less efficient h-m organizations. Importantly, not the efficient and well functioning patterns, but those that are not working well.
There is no great conspiracy behind this, just adaptation to a more efficient process for given organizations.
Today, a version of this happens a lot in business, basically if a business becomes too centralized, it increases its efficiency by decentralizing somewhat; and if too decentralized, it increases efficiency by streamlining some operations through a central order.
So how does this apply to men today?
Some men and women are totally committed to the h-m way of doing things, inefficient or not. But there might be much better opportunities for them in a d-f system, but only if they can get over the h-m rigidity of structure.
The hard part is explaining how a d-f system works, because compared to the h-m system it seems chaotic. But the same logic applies to free enterprise vs. centralized government control of business. Free enterprise seems very chaotic, but it is much more efficient than central government control.
I know 2-3 older men who went to China and married women and brought them back here. They cite 'American woman' as their reason.
The biggest factor in the decline of male employment has not been women, or affirmative action, or anything else that might have been mentioned on this thread ... it's automation.
You can look at any industry where large numbers of people (mainly men, but it's no different for women) were employed as recently as a few decades ago, and you'll find that the total output for that industry has been stable (or grown dramatically) even as the number of people employed in that industry declined considerably.
Back before the 60's, young black men had high rates of employment, got married to their women, and stayed as fathers to their children.
Then the Welfare State rolled in, and many black women discovered that they could survive without having to put up with living with a man.
Without a woman needing them, low-income black men turned to drugs, and running around with gangs.
We may be seeing a similar phenomenon starting to affect young white men. If you are handsome and witty, then you will have a harem of women dating you. The rest will hang out in mom's basement until some woman hitting 30 decides she needs a stable supplemental income source. They will have little incentive to strive. This will end badly for our civilization.
This is also why Obama is at war against small businesses, and the white males who (mostly) run them: they are too small to have their hiring and promotion decisions controlled by PC HR depts.
Theoretically it can be reversed, but would require that you repeal all the labor law passed in the 20s through 50s that gave unions their incredible monopoly powers, repeal most of the environmental and energy regulations that make it impossible to manufacture here, and seriously reduce taxes to make the US attractive once again to foreign investment. In a nutshell, won't happen, even with Republican administrations. People in Asia are smart, hard working, and their management is trained in US universities.
“This will end badly for our civilization.”
FRiend, you are ON FIRE!!!
Here is my advice to other men: Do what ever the hell you see fit to do and to hell with whomever doesn’t like it. Served me well for all of my life.
Does Patriarchy Benefit Women? Much has been said in feminist circles about how women are oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making. An important characteristic of patriarchal systems is that they are generally also patrilineal (a child’s descent is described by who his father, and father’s father were, rather than through the mother’s line).
The question I’m putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy? My assertion is that patriarchal society creates an incentive structure that enables women to harness male energy and initiative for the benefit of women and their children.
In patrilineal societies, men tend to be confident that the children of their household are theirs, and take an active role in their upbringing. The men also tend to perform long-range planning, and invest time and effort into making life better for their offspring.
Matrilineal societies have been recorded in early history, and still exist in sections of Africa. The matrilineal societies of ancient times did not leave much in the way of historical record. In modern times, where they exist, they are generally poor and technologically primitive. To some extent, the welfare enclaves of our inner cities are increasingly matrilineal. In the developing matrilineal societies in our inner cities, the defining characteristic is that males have no permanent attachment to the children they father, nor to the women who are the mothers of their children. In such an environment, males tend not to make long-range plans for the well-being of their children, nor do they make much effort to create the institutions that would be needed for long-term stability and prosperity.
In classic patriarchal cultures, men are motivated to amass wealth through the acquisition and enhancement of productive facilities: land, ships, businesses – things that will produce revenue to support a family, and which will provide an inheritance to pass along to their children. Part of the motivation is from love and emotional attachment. A large part of it is also pride and self-image -- the desire to leave a legacy, to be remembered as a great person after he's gone.
Having children who are emotionally attached to you has mutual benefits: the children can rely on support during their vulnerable years, and parents can have the expectation of support in their declining years. This can be very important in societies where survival is not assured unless you have a committed provider looking out for you.
Once someone has property, he has a strong incentive to promote institutions to protect and preserve his property. He bands together with his neighbors, in mutual protection. He has an incentive to cooperate with his neighbors to create improvements for their mutual benefit: roads, irrigation systems, etc. The incentive system promotes the institutions needed to preserve itself
Now let’s consider the incentive system for males in a matrilineal environment. When a man cohabits with a woman, he has no assurance of any of the children being his. He is less likely to experience any emotional bonding with them, and may consider them an interference with his relationship with the woman. He will have no expectation that the children will take care of him in his old age, and will be much less likely to make any investment in the children’s well-being.
In such an environment, the male won’t expect to survive much past the point where he’s no longer strong enough to obtain food and resources through his own strength. He’s likely to be invited to share the bed of a woman as long as he provides for her and protects her, and invited to leave when she acquires a better provider. The incentive will be to acquire wealth the fastest and easiest way he can: by getting together into a strong gang and taking it from somebody else. In matrilineal societies, whether in Somalia or South Central LA, the men tend to band together into warring gangs rather than engage in productive work.
In a competition between a patriarchal society and a matrilineal society, the patriarchal society will tend to prevail. The men of the patriarchal society are more likely to stand and fight off encroachments to territory they consider their property, while the men of the matrilineal society will be more likely to seek easier targets in another direction. A man will fight for his wife, his children, and his property – they are HIS, and part of his self-identity. A man is less likely to endure long-term conflict to protect the property of a woman he considers to be just a temporary girlfriend – it’s simpler to just find another girlfriend in an area with less conflict.
Comparing a patriarchal culture with a matrilineal culture, the advantages for women become apparent. By channeling male energy and imagination into long-term planning, patriarchy creates an environment where women and children are better provided for and better protected, thus better assuring long-term survival for all concerned.
You can guess the reason...’American women’. Apologies to the (few) quality ones out there, but you're terribly, terribly outnumbered. The dregs, with their babbydaddies, tattoos, classlessness, drug addictions (both prescribed and not) trashiness, diseases, etc. are the (super)majority.
FWIW, the last two women I've been “serious” with were both born and raised in Europe...and that's not a coincidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.