I appreciate your candor, and I think you’re on the right track.
I think it goes beyond what Suzanne Venker wrote here, and she may address more in some of her other writings. I would hope so.
When women left the home to seek a new life, they changed the workplace in ways they didn’t understand they would.
Before women entered the work force in a major way, we had one wage-earner families. The male went off to work, and he brought home the proverbial bacon. Mom stayed home and managed the home, and nurtured the children.
Now I’m not here to advocate for a woman left at home with no education, to be dominated by her spouse. I seriously have a problem with that. I’m sure you do too. But when women entered the work force, they doubled the presence of a commodity in the workplace. Labor.
If you have an over-supply of something, what happens? The value of that something goes down. If there are twice as many strawberries in the market-place, the cost of strawberries is going to be affected by downward pressure.
IMO, the two wage earner family allowed businesses to keep wages artificially low. We flooded the work-force with workers, and what happened? Wages came under downward pressure. If it was easier to replace workers, you didn’t have to pay a worker as much to keep them around.
I submit that if we returned to the one wage earner family, it would go a long way toward combating the downward pressure outsourcing has brought to the table.
There are other dynamics at play here as well.
In the 70s, the education folks got together and wept on each others shoulders, because women were under-represented in certain fields. It goes beyond this, but lets keep it rather simple.
Curricula was changed so that girls/young women would find these fields more enticing. It was actually quite successful. Teaching methods changed. And as those changes came into being, strangely enough, little boys began to lag behind just as the girls had.
Now we have little boys who aren’t interested in certain subjects. Whats more little boys who need to go outside to run and play and burn off energy so they can focus better, lost the only avenue they had to do this, as more and more schools eliminated recesses. Girls who didn’t need to burn off excess energy, did just fine. And sadly, nobody actually cared what this did to little boys.
In short, we have completely short-circuited the education experience for boys.
Society has also done it’s best to change what little boys should grow up to be. They are now expected to be sensitive, caring, and obsessed with going out of their way to please women. And this has gone so far as to irk women, who when the time comes want an actual man to pair off with.
The more feminine metro sexual male isn’t pleasing anyone. Men have angst over it. Women loath it. The popular culture now shows more male ass than it does female ass. I’m not trying to be crass here, but frankly it grosses me out to see so much male rump. What the hell?
And what’s all this kissing? I don’t kiss guys at all, let alone on the lips. There is a concerted effort to turn me into something in between a full male and a flaming flamingo dancer, if you catch my drift.
I sure wish women would speak up regarding this. I would think it would gross them out too.
At any rate, it does please me to see articles like this once in a while. We need to put the brakes on this roller coaster. It’s out of control.
Hope you don’t mind me picking you to talk to, because you exhibited a grasp of the material in the article.
I wanted to mention something to you.
When I read your post, I focused more on the reaction to the article than your age. As I was writing, I thought I was talking to a person older than you are.
I hope I didn’t offend you, and there was certainly no intent to.