There is an identity evolution going on around the world. Economic necessity has spurred women to be more self-sufficient and confident both at work and at home. This reality has put a dent in male dominance. However, the result is not the "End of Men" as many writers would have you believe. As the definition of "what it means to be a woman" changes, so does the definition of "what it means to be a man."
The problem is the lack of support for this evolution.
The truth is that many women are proving to be good at traditionally "male" tasks, such as running businesses, fixing gadgets and even drinking. Men are also proving to be good at traditionally female tasks, such as listening, caretaking, doing household tasks well and managing family relationships.
Women are not becoming less feminine; they are learning to speak up, take charge and more easily make decisions while still possessing more "feminine" qualities at varying degrees. Men are not becoming wimps; they have been given the freedom to express their "softer" emotions, find joy in less "manly" tasks, and choose careers based on meaning and fulfillment instead of taking a path based solely on money.
We are all evolving. It's the labels and judgments we place on each other that are not evolving.
I don't think there is a role-reversal going on. I think there is a blending of roles and possibly the wonderful disintegration of roles that limit who we are as we try to succeed and be happy on this planet.
Whenever I write about the new relationship dynamics where women are breadwinners and men offer more emotional support than financial assistance, I get a slew of emails telling me I am naïve. Women tell me few men tolerate female dominance in any fashion. Men scream that women marry for the alimony.
I question whether we are doomed to play out this scenario -- we have free will. I believe the more educated and experienced we are, the more we can change this story.
How do you judge what is right for women and men? Do you define masculine and feminine in conventional or contemporary terms? Are you open to a new conversation?
The leadership conversations don't help either. There is talk that our postindustrial, knowledge-based economy is more congenial to women with their strengths in social intelligence and collaboration. These are learned behaviors that many men display as well. We should focus more on defining the strengths of leaders in today's global marketplace instead of focusing on gender. I believe this focus will open doors for both women and men.
The idea that men and boys are at risk because of the rise of women only harms our social evolution. We need women to keep evolving. Poverty rates for women compared to men and the numbers of women in leadership roles are still dismal. We need to keep celebrating the rise of women in business, politics and family life around the world.
And we need to publicly acknowledge, respect and honor men who don't push to be a hard-driving professional or CEO if they don't want to and follow their passion instead, who seek an emotional bond with those close to them, who don't let their egos and sex life get bruised if their partners make more money than they do, who honor skills of listening and empathy as well as focus and accomplishment.
It is possible that the "child-rearing brain" creates a conflict with what I suggest. It is also possible that we, as humans with self-awareness and free will, have the ability to choose how we judge others and react to their choices.
The evolution is happening anyway. Will you support it or resist it? What will you tell your children? It's up to us to accelerate or delay the identity evolution of men and women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marcia Reynolds, PsyD is a leadership trainer and executive coach who writes for smart, strong goal-driven women. Her book, Wander Woman: How High-Achieving Women Find Contentment and Direction, is full of exercises and real stories designed to help you face your challenges and realize your potential in this crazy, busy world.
Follow Marcia Reynolds on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarciaReynolds
Let a woman be a woman. Let a man be a man.
But women have developed and shifted out from under such a rigidly defined role, and now have a much wider range of options in which they can still fit comfortably and happily within society.
Likewise, the pressure has been lessened on men, as women have stepped up to assume more responsibility, to act so prematurely mature and to be so tough and serious. Men can now act more playfully, like grown-up boys instead of stiff adult men, and not feel social pressure for expressing some of the charming aspects of their younger selves, including their emotions.
So neither women nor men are as defined and constrained by rigid, gender-based rules imposed by society. That seems like a good thing to me.
For those who confront such realities as having enough money to keep a roof over head and such necessities for their children, having certain females show up and try to twist the conversation around the some men do not "enjoy" caring for their children is not only assanine but a nice way to walk around the issues faced by men who are in the role of care givers.
I try to make a point of being reasonable and make viable contributions to the dialogue but when certain people show up and vomit on the conversation, men as well as women, and esp. women who are neither parents or any where close to the situaion, it is an effort to say what needs to be said in an appropriate manor to get on it the page.
Speaking of the "dark side" there is a little book called Venus-the dark side-of a female behavior that some might find interesting. It is listed on Amazon and some would find it content of interest to the female behavior exhibited by some on this post.
Prior to the industrial revolution the home was the economic place to be. The phrase you are looking for is "cottage industry". As in manufacturing that takes place inside homes.
That used to be virtually all the industry. And the definition of "home" was a bit looser encompassing not just the house itself but the productive land around it, barns, pens, fields, etc. All part of your home.
The home was where the looms were. From which every scrap of clothing every person owned was manufactured. The home was where medicines were mixed, food preserved, pots thrown, etc etc etc.
Work within the home became less valued as the industrial revolution made it less valuable. Now the means of production are centralized in factories and offices. So to be productive you must go to them.
That is simply the way of it now. The rest is childcare logistics.
Speaking of which, can we get universal childcare in place already? come on people ...
Don't you have a term paper due ?
It's as much his child as it is yours.
Breaking down the gender barriers has been a very positive experience for *most* people. And at the same time it has been a very negative and scary experience for *some* people. This is the case whenever a caste system is discarded regardless of how the various castes were defined.
A caste system, ultimately, is a protectionist affirmative/action economic system whereby jobs are parceled out to various groups based on some set of criteria other than their ability to do the job well or interest in the job. The people doing any given job will generally break down into one of three categories:
1) People who love the job and put their heart in it and would do it regardless.
2) People just getting by with the hands they were dealt.
3) People who desperately want to be doing something else and hate the job.
When you destroy a caste system groups 1 and 3 are happy. This is because group 1 is generally very good at their job and can still get work in their craft without the protectionist caste walls keeping competitors out. Group 3, meanwhile, is finally free to leave the job they inherited and go do what they actually want to do.
But group 2 ...
They were safe in the middle. Not as good as group 1 but better than the group 3 in terms of job performance because while their heart wasn't in their work neither was it yearning for something else.
When group 3 left they became the bottom instead of the middle. And they are intensely, intensely threatened by the flood of competition from people the caste walls used to keep out who are now jeopardizing their comfortable lives.
Group 1, meanwhile, welcomes the newcomers. Because group 1 was always impatient with group 2 and flat out annoyed at group 3. How could they not be? They loved their vocations. And group 3 despised it while group 2 just smiled and nodded. But now fresh new blood and energy is coming in. People who are as passionate about their work as they are.
People who understand them.
This is why I find edtastics assertions about male/female competition so funny. I'm not in competition with the good male programmers. I'm in collaboration with them. Our slightly different modes of thinking make us greater than the sum of our parts.
It is the bottom shelf coders that gnash their teeth at my presence.
The complexities of such situations for those outside of them are difficult to step into and have little patience with the negativity and nastiness directed towards the writer of this post and her effort to make a viable contribution to the situation. For most part, it has been a one sided conversation usually directed towards men, their need to accept and change while omitting the responsibilities and role women need to consider.
Perhaps the one dynamic that is too often overlooked, and even neglected in this conversation/subject is children. A generation of children and parents are facing new dynamics in family/marriage structure and doing what is necessary to support and provide for their children. Parents understand that sacrifice is one element of parenting that one really does not understand until they become a parent. More so than men and women, children are the center of this new dynamic and will be the ones that determine the success and/or failure as a result of the behavior/support/response to these changes.
-------
For most part, it has been a one sided conversation usually directed towards men, their need to accept and change ...
---------
Most of the Dad's I know *like* spending more time with their kids. It isn't a horrible punishment they are being forced to accept. Its what they would rather have been doing anyway but that societal expectations and demands prevented them from doing.
So my uncle, for example, gets up very early and gets to work before the kids are up so that he can be done with work before school is out to pick them up. Mom does breakfast and getting them to school, starts work later, and ends work later. He picks them up and cooks dinner. Everyone gets lunch at work/school. Each parent reads a bedtime story to one of the kids each night and they alternate who reads to whom.
If you imply that his paternal instincts are unmanly he'll happily kick your butt.
The reason I phrase it as I have is because that is the way it is-it is most usually a one sided conversation in regards to parenting and change yet women are left out of the conversation in such a way that the expectations upon them is minimal if at all-not nec. in parenting but in their behavior in such a situation.
I spent the first 18 years of my life living on military bases, a long time working with and for Unions, spent my time in Alaska-in no way did I imply being a care taker is "unmanly" but it is clear you were looking to be nasty. Interesting since most likely , so it seems, you don't even have children or you would not have used your uncle as an example ?
Smile and act nice ? Seriously. I just notice that.
Sad fact is, at least children have an excuse for acting childish since they are children and all but adults simply have no excuse for their antagonistic and rediculous behavior.