Interesting story about male (!!) post-partum depression. I guess part of the depression stems from the gap that society (modern, politically correct) expects of new dads and what men are actually equipped and capable of doing from evolutionary perspective. Modern politically-correct society pretends that men and women are exactly the same, yet when it comes to parenting, traditional nurturing mother model is a gold standard and the society judges both new moms and new dads on that basis.
This puts men in distinct disadvantage, of course, as men are men after all, whether they take paternity leaves that are as long as wives’ maternity leaves, bottle feed or change diapers as often as their wives. For thousands and millions of years men’s primary tasks were to protect family from outside threats, provide food, etc., not feeding baby or taking care of crying babies. Men who are brain-washed by feminists think that men OUGHT to behave like moms, and SHOULD be able to perform like moms, yet evolutionary psychology tells us that men are not equipped as well as women in these departments.
At the same time, traditional roles played by fathers, such as teaching and enforcing rules, and strict, solemn father type is becoming obsolete. New dads are simply expected to be the “second” mom, a substitute mom who can take over feeding, diaper-changing and other baby and home-related chores for moms, so that the “real” moms will be freed from baby-related chores and return to work and office where they are expected to take over men.
This gap between what men are actually capable of doing from evolutionary perspective and what society expects the “substitute” mom to do, as well as the feeling being belittled by society of their traditional male role, fatherhood and general societal disregard of males, are contributing to the increasing number of depression among new dads.
Showing posts with label gender role. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender role. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Feminists' animation
Congratulations to all gender-feminists, now finally your dream come true - children watching animation movie featuring a female who conforms to gender-feminists ideology (minus big boobs and ultra-skinny thing) I understand that's what you've all been fighting for since the 60's when your elder sisters were burning bras and storming beauty contests.
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
You guys can continue discusing how the movie could have been even better, (or have better influence for girls and boys) by analyzing why the heroine has to have big boobs and be skinny and young and has a pretty face, rather than be a middle-aged, "curvy", cosmetically challenged women, or in other words, a "real" women. if you don't have appetite for this, then go back to home and wash dishes!!
Friday, March 20, 2009
On laid-off (high income) males
No so subtle attempt to further stigmatize the stay-at-home-moms.... To feminists like her, current economic crisis is just another opporunity to advance their agenda of gender role reversal and social engineering. All the stuff about pretending to show concern for middle to low income families are just so bogus, and beneath its thin veneer you can see her gleeful smile....
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.
What’s her motives here?
Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;
-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.
-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.
So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)
By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Male-bashing in the era of recession
Liberal news media these days simply cannot stop belittling men and hounding them into doing more housework, or to be more like “housewives”. In addition to a piece by New York Times, the Newsweeks also jumped on the use-economic-downturn-as-means-to-realize-feminist-utopia bandwagon. I don’t know exactly what kind of benefits it will bring to national economy as a whole if laid-off men do more housework rather than watch TV (do they?) or look for the next job, but it doesn’t matter to feminists. They would rather have more men permanently stay at home to be stay-at-home-dads than seeing economic recovery. It’s in a way understandable since the economic recession seems to be taking toll much more on men (and especially high-paid men in financial sector, etc.) than on women, so feminists would lose nothing by seeing this recessions going even deeper. Just wait to see more men, especially in high-paid position, get pink slips, and see the proportion of women in workforce rise higher (and to break the historic 50% mark). They know they are inching towards a feminist utopia. Now that’s a “silver lining” or what?
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Feminists don’t need to worry much about recession anyway because as they can thrive on government entitlements and giveaways. So when most people are worried about how to pay the next mortgage or rent, instead feminists’ minds are preoccupied with how to make more men to do more housework, how to change people’s perception of men from breadwinner to stay at home caretaker!
Continuing economic downturn is a cause of great concern for all of us except feminists, but it is even worse to see the degree to which this country is poisened with man-hating brand of feminism - which can only see current economic downturn as "opportunity" to further their social engineering agenda.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Women overtaking men in workforce - NYTimes
For feminist warriors and social engineers, anything that help or propel their agenda is good. Anything. Even one of the worst recession in the country’s history that is costing people millions of jobs. Especially that millions of job used to belong mostly to men.
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Just like World War II is being remembered by feminists mostly not as a catastrophe that took millions of lives, or associated with holocaust, or atomic bomb, but a turning point or a historic opportunity in which women took over men's jobs at homefront which were usually dominated by men, such as factory assembly line, etc.
So this on-going large scale recession looked to those feminists as just another opportunity to push their agenda and gender role reversal. Their central focus is men to do more of cooking, cleaning, diaper-changing and free up women's time so that she can concentrate more on work and be more effective, so that she can outdo those few remaining men in workforce - so that more women in senior position, more women in workforce, more pay for women, less men in workforce, especially senior position and lower pay for men.
It's a bit scandalous to think that there are people who welcome and embrace this recession as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further their agenda, isn't it?
Does anyone wants to talk about how the current recession is “discriminatory” against men given that men were disproportionately high among those laid off recently? Anyone? Hello?
If it was women, not men, who were hit hardest by the recession, NYT will be running full-page article bemoaning gender discrimination and how society is stacked against women every single day, but since it is men who are getting the pink slips, it’s just the matter of how to utilize this opportunity to promote gender role reversal.
If you look at this recession from another angle, you can perhaps say that economy in which women share proportion of workforce is a slow and sluggish one. It is important to remember here that no country or society in history has achieved high growth and economic development by relying mostly on “women” jobs, such as teaching, nursing, providing health care, etc. If such “women” jobs are to represent higher portion of country’s economy in the coming days, then it is a bad news, since economy is simply not going to grow just by relying on people providing service to other people. It would naturally mean that country as a whole will become poorer, since those jobs aren’t high-paying job anyway, but this is nothing to do with the supposed gender discrimination. You would need people to “create” things, be it products or buildings or infrastructure, in order for economy to grow and society to develop.
The countries who are rapidly expanding and developing are the ones that value and utilize the talents of male workers, such as in hi-tech industry, manufacturing, construction, as you can see most clearly in countries like China and India. If you devalue or belittle male talents, the country’s economy will shrink
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Neanderthals and gender roles
The most interesting part of this new book "Logic of Life", written by Tim Hartford, a bestselling author of "Undercover Economist", is the theory on the reason why Neanderthals died out, losing competition to Homo sapiens. Neanderthals did not have division of labor, while Homo sapiens did. And the division of labor here specifically means division of labor between MEN and WOMEN. Division of labor, come to think of it, is such a basic social arrangement which improves work efficiency dramatically and has been employed since the earliest time in history.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
But in the 21st century, in the name of gender equality, Western societies are trying feverishly to do away with any division of labor between men and women. They argue that division of labor between men and women, a.k.a. traditional gender roles, is what kept women at home and hindered their fuller actualization / realization as a human being. But just ask why would anyone want to force clumsy, smelly, hairy men to take care of newborn babies? Their skin is coarse, unsanitary, and their voices low – not something that babies usually like. And why would anyone want to put women in military special forces, when they can't lift heavy weapons by themselves? Their maybe some valid biological reasons, why across all societies and all ages, women are the ones who take care of babies, and men are the ones who went to fighting. Maybe, just like Neanderthals were, 21st century Western countries are on its way to extinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)