Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Men have a legitimate complaint

NPR is not a usual source for a post, but Camila Domonoske had an interesting take on adults living with their parents.

From Camila Domonoske:
Male prosperity rose steadily, and more and more men left the nest — until the '60s and '70s, when wages started to drop and more men stayed home.
And women? For decades women who worked were more likely to live with their parents than with a partner or spouse — because wives were discouraged from having jobs, per Pew's straightforward interpretation.
But now more and more young women have jobs, and it's unemployed women who are more likely to live with their parents. And yet, even as female prosperity rose, so did the number of young women living at home.
Pew speculated it might because of men's lower earnings keeping women from marrying and moving out. Seem plausible? The question might make for a fruitful conversation in households across America tonight ... just ask Mom to pass the peas and the theories.
The timing is interesting. The decline began in the 1970s. Within a decade of the creation of  feminism in the 1960s, the economic decline of men began. That meant a man could no longer take care of a family. As prosperity fell for men, marriage dropped. There were other reasons, of course. But feminism helped in the decline of the American family. "Anti-poverty" programs did as well, rewarding women for having babies without a husband.

For the most part, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the benefits of opening opportunities to women and racial and ethnic minorities outweigh the costs to white men, and as a white man, I agree that we should given equal chances. However, tipping the scales in favor of women and other aggrieved groups to make up for the past is immoral and unconstitutional. Sadly, no one in America has had the gumption to make this case.

About 10 years ago, as a second generation of affirmative action babies entered college, retro-Civil Rights began to take hold. People who were given special treatment due to their sex, skin color, or ethnicity began complaining of white privilege and male privilege, which was odd since both were hindrances to employment.

This came after decades of efforts to instill girl power. We encourage girls to be engineers and computer scientists, but ridicule boys who do as nerds.

The Girl Scouts get plenty of props from the press. The Boy Scouts are smeared as homophobic and Islamophobic. Girl Scout cookies are the sacramental cookie of a secular society. How many readers know the Boy Scouts sell Trail's End Popcorn to raise money? When was the last time anyone in the press did a story on the popcorn?

So yes, men have a grievance or two. We need to talk, but that's mansplainin', right?

6 comments:

  1. Our government's benighted policies and feminism have targeted white males for extinction, but I'm not going to go quietly. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Surber,

    I say this with the utmost respect for you and your work and with no animosity toward women or people with an ethnicity that differs from mine: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the inflection point that put this country into decline.

    The concept of a "Protected Class," once enshrined in law, poisoned our courts and spread to destroy every institution of our society. That one mistake could not have led anywhere else except to the bizarro world we find ourselves in today. With benefit of hindsight, it is a wonder it took half a century to get this bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dialectic we are facing is whether this nation wants to take the universalist sentiments of its founding seriously,and if so, how it is to be interpreted, or whether it is OK to favor groups, and then decide what groups are going to be favored (the situation we find ourselves in, which actually means that the choice is between the founding, or what direction we go in handing out privileges. I think the alt right is preparing for a future in which raw power is used to gain ascendency for whatever group one identifies with. They are simply responding in kind to the situation created by liberal-progressive policies. A return to the founding principles would have us recognize not only the Declaration of independence, but part of George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights where he says,"That no man, or set of men, are entitled to any separate or exclusive emoluments or privileges from the community." This is actually a radical statement if you take it seriously. To me it excludes anyone from receiving any favors from the government whatsoever regardless of whatever special qualifications or rights people may think they have to the goods and labor of others. To me this even means no special licenses regardless of skill level. No accreditation. No welfare, no nothing. The dialectic is then between minimal government or pure power and will. One abstract and idealistic, the other tangible, real, and palpable to us in the present. I think the ball has been placed in the court of the left by the alt right. Either those in positions of influence on the left begin making radical concessions and lifting the burdens of regulation off of the middle and working classes, or they can eventually experience what it means to be eclipsed and quite literally exterminated, like the nobility in France. I live in a university town populated by professors who spend practically their entire lives virtue signalling to each other while driving around in Lexuses and BMW's. When I get to work I take care of the people these pieces of shit make fun of to each other. I can't wait for those lower class rubes to decide that the nobles are ready to go.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely right, sir. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only created "protected classes," but destroyed property rights and the right of free association.

      As far as I'm concerned, the "civil rights movement" ended up being about nothing more than access to other people's stuff, and that's as contrary to the founding as it gets.

      Delete
  3. If you essentially double the size of the labor pool, real wages must drop. However, the economic disruption resulting from women entering the work force in large numbers will pale in comparison to the coming revolution in automation as robot workers replace human workers in many low paying, low skill-level jobs. The economic advances gained by minorities and women over the past 4-5 decades are to a large extent about to be swept away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Stoic philosophers thought all virtues originated in the courage gained by having a family and caring for children. In their time this was the exclusive duty of men as it was in this country until recently. Of the three candidates running two are for less courage among men and one for more.
    And I hope he wins. Socialism is all about promoting cowardice as the smart way to live. It is true that this has become the mantra of the universities TeaDoc is forced to slave in and will be made worse by the metallic future forseen by Iapetus,but that does not mean we cannot save some of our young men now from the lash of perpetual subservience wielded by Bernie and The Liar. We should all support their only enemy, knobby with warts as he is, and not apologize for it.

    ReplyDelete