A great article on men in a "women's world"

Shared with me by one of the strongest feminists I know- a 50 year veteran of the feminist movement.

Time Magazine- 2013 The Year Men Became Obsolete

And kudos to the author Camille Paglia. It takes balls for a woman to write an article like that!

A feminist that makes me feel good to be a man? That is something.

she gets it... too bad she will be demonized and marginalized by the rest of the feminists...

Sorry in advance for my deliberate filter dodge, but what a condescending, elitist piece of $hi+.

Men are only good to have around to do the dirty, dangerous work so that women can enjoy their preference to be safe and clean in their (imagined) new service economy?

The end of men is "premature" because we might need them to do the heavy lifting post-apocalypse?

What exactly do men get credit for in that article except for perhaps inventing the washing machine ("labor saving devices"). What defense is offered against "Men’s faults, failings and foibles" other than men do the physical work that the author finds distasteful?

The whole thing reads a lot like what supposedly benevolent plantation owners might have said about the field hands.

Sorry. I have great respect for women and I'm on the same page with most feminists, but that author can kiss... (stopping now).

^Me thinks you should re-read the article.

She was discussing that with a load of satire regarding "modern feminist" teachings.

Droptop- I couldn't disagree more. You completely missed the point of the article.

Big words get you?

SVreX wrote: Droptop- I couldn't disagree more. You completely missed the point of the article. Big words get you?

Nice. I didn't insult you.

"Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall."

I've read it 10 times to make sure I didn't miss some meaning, and I assure you that I'm edumakated enough to recognize every berkeleying word in the narrative.

So answer my question - other than "invention of labor saving devices" at the peril of capitalism - what exactly to men get credit for, other than being compliant mules?

In reply to bludroptop:

You're a grown man, you should be able to take a little good natured ribbing.

If we are to stick to the article then I can only quote it: " The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!"

I think that quote speaks for itself. But if you are only choosing to see meanings that fit a persecution complex then I don't know what to tell you.

No insult intended. The smiley face was supposed to indicate it was just fun. My apologies.

Ok, to answer your question...

The article credits men with 1) no hatred of women, with 2) being inventors, and 3) builders of the capitalist economy, with 4) broad employment skills instead of the narrow clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite, with 5) an ability to function in the industrial sector as well as the service sector, for 5) being better providers and defenders, 6) indispensable for the entire infrastructure that makes us function, with 7) a wide range of skilled trades (listed, many of which are intellectual as well as physical), and 8) instrumental to the movement of every product that moves worldwide (again, many roles intellectual)and 9) authors of the modern economy.

Those are all lifted directly from the article.

Seriously, Droptop... How are you missing all that? Compliant mule my a$$. The article is crediting MEN with having authored and created the "epic that is the modern economy" and virtually everything we count on for infrastructure in every detail of our live. It's a pretty high praise.

bludroptop wrote: Sorry in advance for my deliberate filter dodge, but what a condescending, elitist piece of $hi+. Men are only good to have around to do the dirty, dangerous work so that women can enjoy their preference to be safe and clean in their (imagined) new service economy? The end of men is "premature" because we might need them to do the heavy lifting post-apocalypse? What exactly do men get credit for in that article except for perhaps inventing the washing machine ("labor saving devices"). What defense is offered against "Men’s faults, failings and foibles" other than men do the physical work that the author finds distasteful? The whole thing reads a lot like what supposedly benevolent plantation owners might have said about the field hands. Sorry. I have great respect for women and I'm on the same page with most feminists, but that author can kiss... (stopping now).

you're one of those people that gets offended on behalf of other people that are part of a group that you aren't a part of even if no one in that group is offended, aren't you?

SVreX wrote: No insult intended. The smiley face was supposed to indicate it was just fun. My apologies. Ok, to answer your question... The article credits men with 1) no hatred of women, with 2) being inventors, and 3) builders of the capitalist economy, with 4) broad employment skills instead of the narrow clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite, with 5) an ability to function in the industrial sector as well as the service sector, for 5) being better providers and defenders, 6) indispensable for the entire infrastructure that makes us function, with 7) a wide range of skilled trades (listed, many of which are intellectual as well as physical), and 8) instrumental to the movement of every product that moves worldwide (again, many roles intellectual)and 9) authors of the modern economy. Those are all lifted directly from the article. Seriously, Droptop... How are you missing all that? Compliant mule my a$$. The article is crediting MEN with having authored and created the "epic that is the modern economy" and virtually everything we count on for infrastructure in every detail of our live. It's a pretty high praise.

Smiley face accepted.

Look, I'll concede everything you just outlined and I'll stick by my comments. I've been a feminist since before it was a word and I'll go back to my original comment: condescending and elitist.

The fact that y'all are so happy to be house (n-word deleted)is just proving my point.

novaderrik wrote: you're one of those people that gets offended on behalf of other people that are part of a group that you aren't a part of even if no one in that group is offended, aren't you?

"on behalf of other people that are a part of a group that you aren't..."

Dude. Two groups: I'm a man, and even if I'm dead wrong I'm definitely not supporting the group that I aren't....

Reading is fundamental...

While I see no reason to compare credentials or resumes, I have been actively involved in both the feminist and civil rights movements since the '60's. Big deal.

I was raised in a mixed race household, and have an interracial marriage as well, so I patently reject your cavalier and careless implication of the "N" word as well.

Enjoy your persecution complex. I enjoyed the article.

SVreX wrote: While I see no reason to compare credentials or resumes, I have been actively involved in both the feminist and civil rights movements since the '60's. Big deal.

I've been around here long enough to understand and respect where you're coming from, even if I don't agree with it.

My credentials, such as they might be, were offered in contrast to - not in defense of - my position.

I think the article insults men. I think it does so in such a way that panders to what is best about men, and then trivializes or ignores any contribution other than muscle. The conclusion is that men have physical strength and little else.

I understand (or at least I think I understand) where the author was trying to get to - which was a back-handed compliment. But the truth is that a careful reader comes to the conclusion that men are good mostly for building bridges and hauling lumber and women enjoy some sort of preordained intrinsic superiority.

Sufficiently big enough words?

Are my balls under attack and I don't know it?

Poopy, your balls are fine. Tell them to calm down.

I didn't care for the article, which is a fact nobody needs to care about, but I'm a little puzzled nobody's mentioned the issues I have. With no expectation whatsoever of convincing anybody of anything, only spelling out what jumped to mind:

It congratulates men for doing everything, while ignoring anything women did, and also the fact that women who managed to make significant contributions (of which there are quite a few) did so while fighting all kinds of constraints on their "proper role".

I have no philosophical/social street cred, but I don't think many of the women (or men) I know and respect IRL would take that piece as more than an attempt to retrench stereotyped roles wrapped up in a semi-concession that men get credit for building today's world (if only because they tried to keep women from having a role, but that part's left unmentioned) [EDIT: I should say that society, including a lot of women, provided plenty of friction on that point; not just men].

There are valid points in there. Men and women are different (vive la difference!), and there's a grim joylessness to some segments of feminism, but given the history, I really can't blame them. Speaking from the shallowest part of my hetero dude brain, I'm bummed about all the women who are put off of having fun with attraction and allure because it's expected of them on top of whatever other roles they have in a way guys don't have to deal with (probably not the most important facet of the article to address, but we know more about what gets my attention...). We have to deal with other stuff, but the fact that I have to deal with macho asshat locker room bro-ism doesn't mean that it should be okay that women have to deal with the "do everything your male counterpart does, but backwards and in heels" thing. We should try to fix both things, not just call it even.

My two cents; no cash value.

I like boobies

In reply to bludroptop:

The article which, IMO, is poorly written and wordy for the sake of being so, has nothing to do with men and only condemns the shortsightedness of the feminist movement.

I feel like my balls are under attack by an anti feminist flounder.

I had no idea you could flounder your own thread if you weren't even a member of the website. Well done [golf clap] Ms. original author lady. Well done. I don't know whether to love myself or hate myself. Maybe more beer will help me find the answer.

more beer usually helps things become more clearly seen

I haven't read the article and judging from the posts here I'm not going to.

I'm probably not missing anything but a headache.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I like boobies

+1. And Bob Costas! And "the other" Bob Costas.

This thread is going places
One thing I can say from reading the article and replies here, is that as a species we have come so far, but as a people we are struggling to find unity across many boundaries, be it race, religion or gender. We are one, but we cannot see it.

That guy said balls. heh.