U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,402 posts, read 6,813,802 times
Reputation: 14466

Advertisements

Let me say at the outset that I don't want this thread to turn into an orgy of gender-bashing. For whatever it's worth, the majority of close friendships I've made since the age of roughly thirty have been with the opposite sex.

But primarily because of simple demographic and societal trends -- most notably, that women now outnumber men (and for the first time) in the advanced, Westernized societies, new imbalances continue to develop, and new pressures build up, and in a limited number of instances, traditional "safety valves" are "tied down" for politically-rooted reasons.

The greatest driving forces are economic, and will remain so. Back during World War II, "Rosie the Riveter" decided she liked the independence (and the money) that came along with the responsibility of a "mainstream" job -- but the path upward from there was too often blocked by an Old Boys Network. And structures tended to develop within those career fields such as teaching and nursing which kept the motivated few from getting too far.

But the free play of human interaction, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and the development and growth of alternative means of communication opened more doors. So far ... so good. But the pressures of the job now began to spill over into the home, with consequences for the stability of many marriages. And since both education and communication/entertainment are fields with a strong female presence, the overall view of societal organization changed greatly.

Principal point being: Men born after roughly 1970 have been conditioned toward a different approach to both rights and responsibilities -- particularly if many of their formative years are spent in a single-parent female-headed household. I'm posting a link to some personal experience with one of the many casualties of that imbalance,

What Should We Do About "Justin"?

and I'm sure many of us can think of instances, if only from headlines, where the consequences were far worse.

The one point I do want to stress is that I don't believe very many of these concerns can be addressed with a broad-brush ideological approach -- something that too many of the partisans on both sides of the current election-season circus and the national polarization underlying it seem determined to do. In my own experience I've met people who've struggled and adapted, mostly via their own efforts -- and their stories are seldom told. Divisive action pays far better for those without a conscience.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-22-2016 at 11:53 AM..

 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:53 AM
 
Location: colorado springs, CO
4,028 posts, read 1,790,475 times
Reputation: 13857
None of this was accidental; it was intentional due to concerns regarding world population (translation: the US ability to access natural rescources). http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab500.pdf
 
Old 09-22-2016, 02:18 PM
 
3,706 posts, read 3,034,186 times
Reputation: 10040
The old saying of the societal pendulum swinging to an opposite side, but ultimately landing in a centered position, holds true for most of our societal ills brought on by the imbalances in class differences and now gender inequality. The normal tendency for most of us is to confront the fact of that pendulum's remaining on one or the other side of its path, all the while refusing to consider it's eventual centering, although most likely, not in our lifetime.. Give it a few hundred years..

Women will continue to struggle with all that which bonded them to a male dominated view of the world. I have three sisters, a daughter, a wife, three granddaughters, and a stepdaughter, I can't relate to those who feel a need to react conclusively to the changes we've seen with regard to a women's right to pursue a life different from the old social paradigm that excluded them for centuries.

As a side note, I'd like to point out the fact of many children ending up as failures, regardless of whether they were raised in a one or two parent home. And, as one who is over seventy I'd also point out that during my formative years of the fifties most dads were simply "not there" with regard to providing any real direction, they were in our homes, but unfortunately not in our lives. The "Justins" of our nation come from every kind of socio/economic background imaginable. Everyone, is, at some level, responsible for what they bring to the table, outside influences aside, we will always have our "Justins". Times are changing, and it's a bit early to assume the outcomes of that change.


One positive I see today is the presence of fathers in the lives of their children, I see them shopping, at kid's school functions, at parks with the kids, and that alone tells me something positive has happened simply for the fact that my father and my friend's fathers would never do any of that. To see the positives of change requires more than a bit of foresight, I'm guessing that it also requires the knowledge and understanding of our historical resilience as a species.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 03:03 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,932 posts, read 64,373,343 times
Reputation: 68820
OP, it's not clear to me what your topic is about. You provided a link to another thread you started on a related topic (or a topic you feel is related), that's about unwed motherhood and poverty, and the effects this can have on a child. (Never mind the generations of Black mothers going back in history who raised high-achieving sons who were upstanding citizens). Are we to rehash your previous topic, or is this new thread about something else? Please clarify.

What is your source for your statement that "women outnumber men in the advanced Western societies"? That is extraordinary! I've never heard this, and I don't know how it could be possible. Have Western societies somehow come to birth more women than men? Are male fetuses being aborted? How could such a population imbalance come about? You'd think it would be front-page news. Please explain.

How did "alternative means of communication" open more doors? What alternative means of communication? Are you aware of the great strides the women's movement made in opening career paths for women? What does that have to do with nature abhorring a vacuum, and with some mysterious alternative means of communication?

You've met people who have "struggled and adapted" to what? To your perceived demographic shift in the West to majority-female populations? There is no such phenomenon. What are people, in your view, struggling and adapting to? And what is this "sensitization" you mention in the thread title?

Sorry, I can't respond until the topic is clarified. I have no idea what you're trying to get at, here.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,402 posts, read 6,813,802 times
Reputation: 14466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
OP, it's not clear to me what your topic is about. You provided a link to another thread you started on a related topic (or a topic you feel is related), that's about unwed motherhood and poverty, and the effects this can have on a child. (Never mind the generations of Black mothers going back in history who raised high-achieving sons who were upstanding citizens). Are we to rehash your previous topic, or is this new thread about something else? Please clarify.

What is your source for your statement that "women outnumber men in the advanced Western societies"? That is extraordinary! I've never heard this, and I don't know how it could be possible. Have Western societies somehow come to birth more women than men? Are male fetuses being aborted? How could such a population imbalance come about? You'd think it would be front-page news. Please explain.
Live births of females have always outnumbered males by a small percentage, but until recently (in historic terms), deaths in childbirth quickly wiped out that disparity, and more -- simple historical fact, backed up by recent census figures.

Quote:
How did "alternative means of communication" open more doors? What alternative means of communication? Are you aware of the great strides the women's movement made in opening career paths for women? What does that have to do with nature abhorring a vacuum, and with some mysterious alternative means of communication.
As societies advanced from agrarianism, through industrialization. to the post-industrial service-oriented age, roles and opportunities for women multiplied -- albeit with limited opportunities, as admitted in the original post. That, in turn, led to, "niche" markets, which sometimes expanded substantially -- the "invisible hand" of capitalism and entrepreneurship at work. Or is the expansion of female-oriented literature and broadcasting, to cite one example, just a figment of my imagination?

Quote:
You've met people who have "struggled and adapted" to what? To your perceived demographic shift in the West to majority-female populations? There is no such phenomenon. What are people, in your view, struggling and adapting to? And what is this "sensitization" you mention in the thread title?

Sorry, I can't respond until the topic is clarified. I have no idea what you're trying to get at, here.
Sorry, but I'll have to tell a personal story here; In my late thirties, I was taking additional college credit, while struggling with a difficult dating scene in which I met too many discarded first wives looking for a replacement meal ticket at a station in life I couldn't ever hope to match. With the help of some Jesuit friends, I was introduced to a struggling immigrant single Mom. We did a great deal for each other, are still the best of friends, but her dreams revolved around a bigger family -- something that's the kiss of death for a man already operating under (and resisting) the regimentation and structure of "Korporate" demands which, BTW, are bound to intensify in a gutted, over-sensitized, post-industrial economy -- with an ever-expanding supply of "fresh meat".

"White male paranoia" is vastly overblown, but there is, regrettably, a modest-but-real underpinning of cold, hard fact which too many of the eternal optimists simply seek to dismiss.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-22-2016 at 04:19 PM..
 
Old 09-22-2016, 04:13 PM
 
4,022 posts, read 1,711,263 times
Reputation: 3947
Of course it is purposeful. Just look at virtually every TV sitcom out there today.

The dad is an idiot constantly causing the family one problem after the next and it is the wife and/or even the children who come to the rescue and save the day.

That isn't by accident.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 04:18 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,932 posts, read 64,373,343 times
Reputation: 68820
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates View Post
Of course it is purposeful. Just look at virtually every TV sitcom out there today.

The dad is an idiot constantly causing the family one problem after the next and it is the wife and/or even the children who come to the rescue and save the day.

That isn't by accident.
That's just comedy. That's always been around. Check out the early Jackie Gleason shows from the 50's, "The Honeymooners". It's the flip side to the ditzy housewife stereotype. It doesn't prove anything.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 04:28 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
72,932 posts, read 64,373,343 times
Reputation: 68820
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Live births of females have always outnumbered males by a small percentage, but until recently (in historic terms), deaths in childbirth quickly wiped out that disparity, and more -- simple historical fact, backed up by recent census figures.



As societies advanced from agrarianism, through industrialization. to the post-industrial service-oriented age, roles and opportunities for women multiplied -- albeit with limited opportunities, as admitted in the original post. That, in turn, led to, "niche" markets, which sometimes expanded substantially -- the "invisible hand" of capitalism and entrepreneurship at work. Or is the expansion of female-oriented literature and broadcasting, to cite one example, just a figment of my imagination?



Sorry, but I'll have to tell a personal story here; In my late thirties, I was taking additional college credit, while struggling with a difficult dating scene in which I met too many discarded first wives looking for a replacement meal ticket at a station in life I couldn't ever hope to match. With the help of some Jesuit friends, I was introduced to a struggling immigrant single Mom. We did a great deal for each other, are still the best of friends, but her dreams revolved around a bigger family -- something that's the kiss of death for a man already operating under (and resisting) the regimentation and structure of "Korporate" demands which, BTW, are bound to intensify in a gutted, over-sensitized, post-industrial economy -- with an ever-expanding supply of "fresh meat".

"White male paranoia" is vastly overblown, but there is, regrettably, a modest-but-real underpinning of cold, hard fact which too many of the eternal optimists simply seek to dismiss.
Thanks, OP; I know you're trying. I'm still not sure what the thread topic is.

If women have always outnumbered men in live births, then it means there's nothing new, demographically. If there's been a slight uptick in %-age of women to men in society, it hasn't been significant enough to cause a major cultural shift, IMO. (Could you offer a link to some comparative stats?) If you're talking about some kind of cultural shift, it's not due to there being a slight increase in women in the population. It's due to cultural changes: single motherhood becoming more accepted, divorces becoming more accepted, women in the workforce becoming a mass phenomenon (which some experts argue was due to wages becoming stagnant in the 80's), and premarital and casual sex becoming mainstream, to name a few cultural changes resulting in part from the counter-culture movement of the 60's into the 70's.

I still don't know what you're asking us to discuss. Is it about how the image of masculinity is changing, and men are more free to express a broader range of their personality, and not suppress their feminine side? Is it about the explosion of single motherhood? (The latter does not necessarily relate to the former, at all.) The expansion of literature and other consumer phenomena geared toward women? There's also been an expansion of that geared toward communities of color, too. There's been a diversification in business' product marketing, which has nothing to do with numbers of women.

I'm sorry, OP; I'm still not getting it.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 05:30 PM
 
465 posts, read 219,054 times
Reputation: 1182
I don't really know what the debate is all about, so I'll just share my thoughts.

The ultimate problem is the desire and EXPECTATION to "succeed", make more money, and achieve the highest social status possible. Men or women, masculine or feminine. This disproportionately affects males, because of their expectation to be the breadwinner.

Economic woes, ridiculous expectations aside, bring us ALL down. We're competing against each other, driving each other's wages down, causing educational inflation etc. Until that goes away, no amount of masculinity or de-wussification will alleviate the problems you describe.
 
Old 09-22-2016, 06:28 PM
 
8,801 posts, read 2,425,886 times
Reputation: 8262
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
a man already operating under (and resisting) the regimentation and structure of "Korporate" demands which, BTW, are bound to intensify in a gutted, over-sensitized, post-industrial economy -- with an ever-expanding supply of "fresh meat".

"White male paranoia" is vastly overblown, but there is, regrettably, a modest-but-real underpinning of cold, hard fact which too many of the eternal optimists simply seek to dismiss.
So are you saying that you are driven by selfishness in terms of having to do the least possible as the years go by?

I never had a job (over 60 now) and, obviously then, never did the corporate thing...but that's a completely different want than not having the desire for companionship or a family.

There are plenty of cold hard facts - the largest of which is that we are all going to pass away relatively soon. The only question of life is what you desire to do while you are waiting?

Having had 2 daughters, a female wife (gotta say these things these days!) and female dogs I suppose I appreciate the feminine in many ways. I don't play war games or drink beer and yell at the TV during football games. I don't pump my chest much.

Granted - the subject of discussion is probably a bit larger than the thread title - maybe it's "adjusting to modern life in civilized society on planet earth" - something which has been in play for centuries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top