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.
Provide some evidence that the media hasn't always provided a spectrum of models.
The media will naturally present a spectrum of models. In the past it didn't. Movies from the 60's and 70's gave us the ideal of the amazing male that save lives; slaughters animals, comes to the assistance of the damsel in distress, knows how to stop a plane crash with a piece of string and a paperclip and kills the spy with a shoe gun.
Yes, that's the Hollywood version which must be very difficult to live up to for the average suburban male with a limp, a lisp and a ****ty job. Who set the standard? Hollywood.
Everyone must find purpose i.e. career or way to live; this is no longer unique to men (as perhaps it may have been decades ago). I agree most of us do not embrace the idea of being a ‘stay-at-home’ Dad (including myself, if I had a child), but am I wrong in suggesting neither do most women (in today’s world)? Some men (myself included) are perhaps more likely to see themselves as a ‘provider’, but I’m not married (so it’s rather irrelevant lol) - and many women (especially on this forum) consider it to be a ‘controlling’ maneuver, which is nonsense in and of itself. It’s simply taking responsibility and enjoying success (and women should as well). As far as stress, it’s a part of life for everyone; is it really a ‘male issue’ if a guy is unsuccessful in his life or career (or didn’t sufficiently prepare himself or return to college when needed)? Wouldn’t a female feel the same stress (or isolation) if she had not sufficiently prepared for a career - and later found herself struggling to make ends meet? That’s not a male or female problem, even if it could be argued men handle stress differently. At the end of the day, however, that is highly individualized as well; it all falls back to psychological health (or lack thereof). Some men are not psychologically healthy, absolutely!
I certainly don’t see it as a ‘new’ problem; the world has changed. There are some who are simply angry, whether they feel slighted or cheated in some way (or perhaps a result of how they were raised); but there are always going to be some psychologically unhealthy men (and women). I’m not the type to whine ‘whoa is me’ for being a man; so when people start discussing ‘male hardships’ or suggest we are somehow ‘broken’ as a gender (per the thread), I’m more inclined to roll my eyes than take much of it seriously.
Wanting to be a provider is not a controlling maneuver. It is controlling the meaning of provider. If the male is the sole provider, what is the female? Simply a beneficiary.
Wanting to be a provider is not a controlling maneuver. It is controlling the meaning of provider. If the male is the sole provider, what is the female? Simply a beneficiary.
‘Provider’ meaning ‘sole financial provider’ or even ‘primary financial provider’ in terms of raising a family; and it’s a decision/choice which every couple must face out of necessity (due to affordability) or preference.
‘Provider’ meaning ‘sole financial provider’ or even ‘primary financial provider’ in terms of raising a family; and it’s a decision/choice which every couple must face out of necessity (due to affordability) or preference.
That still doesn't address that the woman remains the beneficiary.
That still doesn't address that the woman remains the beneficiary.
It's not as though there weren't other essential things needing to be done by the family. So "beneficiary" isn't the correct word, unless she spends all day sitting on her ass watching "The Young and the Restless" and eating bon-bons.
Let's say there was a manufacturing partnership in which one partner was in charge of production and the other was in charge of sales. The fact that the partner in charge of sales is the one who actually brings all the money into the company does not make the other partner a "beneficiary."
It's not as though there weren't other essential things needing to be done by the family. So "beneficiary" isn't the correct word, unless she spends all day sitting on her ass watching "The Young and the Restless" and eating bon-bons.
Let's say there was a manufacturing partnership in which one partner was in charge of production and the other was in charge of sales. The fact that the partner in charge of sales is the one who actually brings all the money into the company does not make the other partner a "beneficiary."
So both the man and the woman are providers, unless she is sitting on her bum eating bon-bons, as you say.
That still doesn't address that the woman remains the beneficiary.
There is more involved in raising a family than who is the primary financial provider; it’s assumed both parents are contributing. That said, isn’t the point that it is the child who would benefit from a stay-at-home parent, at least initially?
The media will naturally present a spectrum of models. In the past it didn't. Movies from the 60's and 70's gave us the ideal of the amazing male that save lives; slaughters animals, comes to the assistance of the damsel in distress, knows how to stop a plane crash with a piece of string and a paperclip and kills the spy with a shoe gun.
No, there certainly was a spectrum of models that we watched as kids. For sure, good guys were always good guys and heroes, but not all were violent strong men. My own primary model during those years was Sidney Portier, who consistently played the "Magic Negro."
But there was also James Stewart who frequently played the peaceful man (even as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"...he wasn't the man who shot Liberty Valance). There was Atticus Finch of "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Kids watched much more television that movies back in those days. On television there was Marcus Welby, Ozzie Nelson, and Ward Cleaver. There was certainly Sheriff Andy Taylor and Jed Clampett. And there was also Steve Douglass, the single parent of three sons. Also Gomez Addams and Herman Munster.
Also Porter Ricks, another single parent who had two sons and a dolphin. Then Mike Brady, the widower who married the widow and had the huge blended family.
Another of my favorites was Tom Corbett, another single father of a boy named Eddie.
So it's not at all true that we kids in the 60s and 70s were fed an exclusive diet of tough guys.
No, there certainly was a spectrum of models that we watched as kids. For sure, good guys were always good guys and heroes, but not all were violent strong men. My own primary model during those years was Sidney Portier, who consistently played the "Magic Negro."
But there was also James Stewart who frequently played the peaceful man (even as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"...he wasn't the man who shot Liberty Valance). There was Atticus Finch of "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Kids watched much more television that movies back in those days. On television there was Marcus Welby, Ozzie Nelson, and Ward Cleaver. There was certainly Sheriff Andy Taylor and Jed Clampett. And there was also Steve Douglass, the single parent of three sons. Also Gomez Addams and Herman Munster.
Also Porter Ricks, another single parent who had two sons and a dolphin. Then Mike Brady, the widower who married the widow and had the huge blended family.
Another of my favorites was Tom Corbett, another single father of a boy named Eddie.
So it's not at all true that we kids in the 60s and 70s were fed an exclusive diet of tough guys.
I’m not familiar with Tom Corbett, Marcus Welby, Andy Taylor or Ozzie Nelson, etc. - but, I don’t think anyone is claiming kids in the 60’s were fed an exclusive diet of tough guys. That said, I think it was ‘standard’ behavior to not be as ‘involved’ with parenting as a man - and it was more ‘expected’ he be the financial provider of the home. Men didn’t discuss ‘feelings’ as much; and while things have certainly changed in recent decades, I know personally I’ve learned over the years to ‘open up emotionally’ in the context of serious relationships with women so the intimacy could go above and beyond the physical aspect (and be more ‘meaningful’). Maturity is part of it, of course (as well as finding the ‘right’ woman) - but there are still remnants carried over from old stereotypes as to what constitutes a ‘strong male’.
I’m not familiar with Tom Corbett, Marcus Welby, Andy Taylor or Ozzie Nelson, etc. - but, I don’t think anyone is claiming kids in the 60’s were fed an exclusive diet of tough guys. That said, I think it was ‘standard’ behavior to not be as ‘involved’ with parenting as a man - and it was more ‘expected’ he be the financial provider of the home. Men didn’t discuss ‘feelings’ as much; and while things have certainly changed in recent decades, I know personally I’ve learned over the years to ‘open up emotionally’ in the context of serious relationships with women so the intimacy could go above and beyond the physical aspect (and be more ‘meaningful’). Maturity is part of it, of course (as well as finding the ‘right’ woman) - but there are still remnants carried over from old stereotypes as to what constitutes a ‘strong male’.
You keep saying that, but you're unable to demonstrate how it was happening.
I contend that it didn't happen at all--it's a modern feminist myth. That's why you aren't aware of Tom Corbett, Marcus Welby, Andy Taylor or Ozzie Nelson, etc. You aren't aware of what we were really watching, you're only aware of the examples cherry-picked by people driving an agenda.
Or if it did happen, it happened to the X-generation, not Boomers.
Here is the hypocrisy: Television in the 60s and 70s was mild in its masculine violence, and we didn't actually get that much of it. Television literally went off at midnight and didn't come on until 6 am. During the viewing day, there was no more than two hours of whatever could be called "man-tough" programming. We didn't go to movies that often in those days either, and most of what any of us saw was children's programming like "Lady and the Tramp."
People will protest wildly against the idea that violent video games are having any negative emotional effect on boys, even though youth since the 80s have been immersed in video games than we were ever immersed in television and movies...and video games are far more violent and "man-tough" than any of the fare we were fed as children.
So which is true? If we were guided by the tame "man-tough" media of the 60s and 70s, how can it possibly be that males since the 80s have not been a hundred times more affected by violent video games?
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.
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.
