Hugo Schwyzer, a proud father and a committed feminist calls out a particularly vicious principle of antifeminism: that men are actually weak, sniveling, useless, worthless bags of dirt for whom, as Hugo nicely summarizes it, “male responsibility is contingent on female vulnerability.”
In the strange math of social conservatives, it’s all a zero-sum game: the greater the freedom of women to divorce, exercise reproductive sovereignty, and earn money outside the home, the less self-worth their male partners will invariably feel.
... Only when women defer to men, submit to men, allow men to take the proverbial reins — only then will men “feel” valued, feel needed. According to this tired bit of wisdom, men get confused and alienated when they are denied the opportunity to shoehorn themselves into a traditional masculine role. The notion that gender identity is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, the notion that men and women can possess different plumbing but the same skill set — all this is too much for the be-penised to grasp. Fathers have abandoned their families, the lie goes, because they no longer feel needed or valued as men.
Sweet mother of pearl! And these are the folks who say feminists hate men!
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a two way street. The whole “Second Shift” phenomena suggests that many women, no matter how productive their work or how high their financial contribution, feel valued or needed as women only to the extent they also cook or clean or nurture when they “finally” get home. We all need to deal with that, but at the moment I want to deal with this.
Listen gang, if men are abandoning their families because they’re feeling “unneeded” they’re men who… sorry… have already abandoned their families the “traditional conservative” way by… working outside the home, by staying out late with friend or overtime, by abdicating domestic responsibility, by – in other words – already providing no more than they would with post-divorce “visiting rights.” Because there’s a heck of a difference between “bringing home the bacon” and “dropping the bacon off before heading back out again.” And there’s a heck of a lot more to fathering than ballgame, park excursions, and being the “wait till your father gets home” backup in an otherwise completely autonomous household.
You want to feel needed? You be there at o-dark o’clock when the baby needs changing. You be there, same time, a few years later when she or he or they are feverish, or restless, or fearful. You be there, and I mean right there with no video or camera between your face and them, when they take their first steps. You be there feeding them and talking baby talk to them. You be the one with spoonful after spoonful (after spoonful!) of strained carrots or rehydrated rice pablum saying “say ‘aah’ for Daddy” and smiling and giggling and engaging with them. And you know what? You do that and you wanna know what? Their first word is going to be “da-da.” And when they’re said they’ll call for Daddy. And when it’s bedtime they’ll want Daddy to read to them, or snuggle them. And later when you and your partner take them to daycare they’ll ask their teachers very hopefully, and equally happily, whether it’ll be mommy or daddy who’s going to pick them up today. And they’ll do that not because they’re scared of you. Not because you’re “the man of the house” Not because Mommy approves or told them they should “respect” you. But because you were there. And they won’t just want you, they’ll need you, like nobody’s ever needed you before and like nobody else ever will.
And how do you then balance that with the friends and work and outside interests you think you’re going to have to give up to have it all? The same way everybody should be able to, Samson: you share work and home life, you share parenting and partying, you share the cribs and the cabinets and the clubs with your partner, not your property!
Antifeminists are assholes. Stay as far away from those assholes as you can humanly get. You want to be a real man? A needed, and necessary, and wanted man at home, at work, and in bed? Pull your weight. Share the weight. Don’t just love your partner and home and family, don’t just be there for them — be there with them. You want that for yourself, and your family, and if you’re not a man then for the men in your life.
Just following up on my earlier post, Domestic Experience and Being Taken for Granted: It’s Not a Gender Thing, It’s Situational, the other, obvious thing is that it’s all my side of the story.*
Because if I would say the floor is not a closet my partner would say the dining room table (where I work) is not a recycling bin. And if I groused out loud to my children about them not liking the lunches I make them to take to school, my children would suggest they’d make lunches for themselves if I didn’t crab so much about the mess. And so on. And my children and partner would all probably say that when I’m not cooking, cleaning, shopping, managing their homework and/or computer time, or snuggling them at bedtime I’m nose-deep in a book, or laptop, or a musical instrument.
The point here is that we all have visions of how our lives are supposed to be, and part of that vision includes the roles we take on, the tasks we see as needed, and our understanding of how people around us to perceive what we do.**
In other words we don’t just stereotype other people we stereotype ourselves.
There’s nothing specifically wrong with stereotyping, by the way — our brains would slow to a crawl if we had to look at every instance of every thing as completely unique and previously unencountered. What is wrong, though, or at least unproductive, is to mistake our stereotypes for reality and either forget to examine and update them when reality conflicts with them… or, worse, to ask reality to adjust to our stereotypes. Including, our stereotypes of ourselves.
* By the way, no, I wasn’t prompted to mention this. :-)
** The Two Rules of Desire and the whole no-sex class thing work this way. Our expectations of how the world works condition us to miss cues that are given, and see cues that are not. Hilarity rarely ensues.
Sadie of Jezebel says
n the last 20 years, household roles have shifted: whereas the supermarket used to be the woman’s domain, today “almost one-third of men are now the principal shoppers in the household.”
This isn’t exactly breaking news to the principal shoppers in households. This is good news though.
The sooner we can get to really, serious equal divisions of labor the sooner we’ll get away from that egregious “there’s nothing sexier than a man doing [some item of housework].” And towards, oh, say, “there’s nothing sexier than having lots of spare time for each other because all domestic tasks done in half the time because we split the work.”
If you’re an adult you can click here to see a not-very-work-safe housekeeping image.

Photo by Flickr user misterbisson. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Meghan O’Rourke of Slate’s XX-Factor blog says
Three cheers for Stephanie Coontz’s piece in the New York Times today in defense of taking marriage private. She asks:
Why do peopleâ€â€gay or straightâ€â€need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.
She offers a persuasive case that in today’s climateâ€â€with divorce rates still highâ€â€we need to rethink the state’s involvement in marriage. And she points out the logical peculiarity of the fact that unmarried couples who’ve cohabited for 19 years might have no hospital visitation rightsâ€â€while two kids who get married on a whim automatically do.
All well and good in an abstract “right on / all wrong” sea of opinions left and right. But O’Rourke brings the point down to cold, hard brass tacks when she adds
These are all questions I’ve had on my mind, because I got married this summer after a six-year relationship. I’m happy to be marriedâ€â€in fact, this week, I’m particularly glad, because I’m scheduled to have surgery, and if I weren’t married, my partner might have met with far more resistance from Oxford Health Plans when he called on my behalf to investigate the fine points of the claims process. Being able to say the words my husband to doctors and nurses has made bureaucratic matters far easier to manage than the words my boyfriend ever did.
In the face of that it really isn’t ok that an unmarried couple of 19 years (or nearly 30) should face very real legal discrimination that a couple who’s marriage lasts less than 55 hours wouldn’t have to.
Knowuddamean?