"Some recent news about men who are chucking their own careers to support the dreams and hopes of the women they love..."
The signs are a big law firm partner who quits to become "a supportive husband and do all I can to help [his new wife] achieve her mission to improve the world through music" and a new magazine — "Kindling Quarterly" — for stay-at-home fathers.
February 24, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
I hope he made the bi money first, because it doesn't sound like she will be.
My brother (financial analyst) married a classical pianist. We made him a bumper sticker:
SUPPORT THE ARTS
Marry a musician
*big money...sorry for the typo
I don't think there is such a thing as bi money.
Yet.
What BS. The guy's a fifty something law partner with chronic health issues who needs to quit to keep up with his twentysomething wifey. But the spin is he's the poster boy of the new masculine. Sheesh...
I am debuting my new profile pic. I got tired of the Gaga gun bra pic. I am done celebrating joining the NRA.
Two marmots.
Agree with rehajm.
The guy sounded like he was getting out, rather than moving to something better.
"This is the dawning of the age of the new masculinity"
Too many syllables...you have to sing it really fast.
The unintended consequence for power women- you may believe you've convinced yourself, but you are not attracted to stay at home man. This will end badly for all of you.
The top professions for women:
1. Secretary
2. Teacher
3. Nurse
4. Retail sales clerks
5. Home health care workers
6. Cooks
7. Waitresses
8. Maids
9. Childcare workers
To quote Judgy Bitch:
So, let’s see. Women found being a housewife so terribly dull and dreary and oppressive that they flocked to the labor market to teach children their alphabet, tend to the sick, fold clothes, care for the elderly, cook food, fetch food, clean house and take care of small children. And that’s just all the ladies who couldn’t find a cushy job organizing a man’s professional life.
I'm glad that today's young fathers are as good as mothers at basic child care and household chores, but gender roles have a purpose.
We are so arrogant in thinking we can do better by undoing the wisdom of history. What works for some doesn't work for all. But, by all means find a few outliers and make them the pattern for the rest of us. It's only fair.
There is nothing new about this. The pack community has had this for decades. They are called Mac Daddies. White people have just been more blunt and called them bums. There is nothing new or masculine a out sponging off of women.
There is nothing new about this. The pack community has had this for decades. They are called Mac Daddies. White people have just been more blunt and called them bums. There is nothing new or masculine a out sponging off of women.
Better Than Metrosexual
Hahahaha!! What isn't better than metrosexual? A turd in the road? Vivia Chen seems to be cynical enough to satisfy my cynicism.
It may be new, but it isn't masculinity.
There are signs that this is the dawn of the new masculinity.
"Let the sunshine in!"
Per the 50-something big law firm partner-quitter, whose new wife is in her 20s: "He said that he met his current wife, TaQuita (left), online "after my ex-wife fell in love with her personal trainer."
Ha ha ha.
I'll believe this is really a trend when I start seeing women pursuing underemployed men. I've done online dating in Manhattan and successful women want men with equal or superior careers and incomes.
"Sackless Fags Try to Pretend they have Testosterone."
---Alternative Title.
kentuckyliz said...
*big money...sorry for the typo
I don't think there is such a thing as bi money.
Yet.
I'm sure hookers into threesomes make it all the time.
Oh my god. This is not the "new masculinity". This is men learning that way being a stay at home is still attractive for women. Now for men. Now that we apparently can - you know - get away with it...
My solution to fix society is simple, and even makes sense biologically:
Men enter the workforce at age 20 or so, and work for 45-50 years before normal retirement. There will be outliers, but this should be the norm.
Women, on the other hand, should not enter the workforce until the are age 30 or so.
They should marry an older, established man in his late 20s or early 30s and spend a decade having and raising children.
When the youngest child turns 2, she can start her online Liberal arts degree; when the youngest enters school, if she still wants to, she can enter the workforce and work for 40-45 years until normal retirement. She will have the same career. No need to take off,to have kids, so much less of a glass ceiling. If she puts in the same years, she gets the same retirement.
Most societal problems are fixed with this plan, no?
Most societal problems are fixed with this plan, no?
Yes, it works perfectly!
Amazing!
How did you think that up?????
The Limeys in the 19th century waited until they were about 40, but it's the same idea.
The sweet young (and, hopefully, innocent) thing marries the man who's already established rather than having to fight the Sepoys alongside him.
Here aren't be issues I think that plan helps solve:
- birth rate will naturally rise. The cost of each additional child in terms time, money, energy, etc diminishes with each child...so I predict 3-4 children per family would become more common, and "only child" would become a little strange again.
- once women started working, they would have uninterrupted career history. That makes it easier t be promoted, and to be entrusted with the types of projects and duties that groom you for higher positions, because they don't have to worry the investment is wasted should the woman decide to drop out for 2 years to have a child: the childbearing period would already be over.
- women live longer than men, but tend to work fewer hours, and significantly fewer years in the workforce. As such, they contribute less to Medicare and SS, but draw out far more. If they would be given legal, financial, and societal incentives to shift their career time path by 10 years, it would significantly mitigate that financial imbalance.
- women's hypergamous urge would be satisfied by this method, because their husbands would already be more established. Getting married would then be an automatic improvement in their standard of living. Women would have multiple reasons to look up to and respect their husbands, and I predict the divorce rate would drop significantly.
- correspondingly, 20 something men wouldn't be able to sit around and do little/nothing and still get laid. They would be under the gun to accomplish something in the 10 year head start so they can attract a prettier woman at age 30.
- 30 year old men would appreciate the youth and beauty of a 20 year old woman more than a 20 year old man does. And that appreciation gap would continue throughout life.
What have I missed?
Aren't be = are the
Stupid iPad
That plan sounds suspiciously like tossing out feminism and returning to the traditional ways of doing things.
With a few refinements.
We can't do that, can we? Everything has to be done in accordance with ideological ideals, doesn't it?
It would also allow men to spend at least a portion of their 20s trying out more risky ways of making money. It is easier to start a business if you don't have to worry about a wife complaining about how old the drapes are, or a child that needs diapers even when you have a cash flow slowdown.
Could we apply the same logic to gays?
Do gays really have to be "identical to" heteros in order to be equal, or could it just be that the traditional position of gays in society developed according to, you know, real human needs?
Will we just have to undo the great "identical rights" thing for gays in the future when our lovely ideals don't pan out?
Well, that's the cool thing about it. It his plan doesn't ask/require women to give up their career at all. Just delay it by a few years, with the promise that the delay won't make any difference, because all women will be doing it (once the incentives are in place). And they aren't delaying for the patriarchy, but so that they can have as many children as they want.
This is their best shot at truly having it all.
But I call all my borfriends Daddy!
It his = this.
Stupid iPad.
The great dawn of the new masculinity has been announced with remarkable frequency throughout my lifetime.
The old masculinity seems pretty good to me.
Good for TaQuita. She'll take him for all he's worth in the divorce proceedings in a few years. Stupid man.
Seriously, established men need to protect their assets the way women protected their virtue in the olden days. "Don't Give me no lines and keep your hands to yourself."
My favorite animal at the zoo is the male lion. He sits up there on his hill little hill in his enclosure, his eyes at half-mast, lazily surveiling his kingdom. The rest of the pride are female, and they do all the hunting and gathering and the first-line defense. But they know, and he knows, that he's there as the important last line of defense, and as the final arbiter of all disputes. In fact, that's all he does.
There it is.
My favorite animal at the zoo is the male lion. He sits up there on his hill little hill in his enclosure, his eyes at half-mast, lazily surveiling his kingdom.
Actually, probably a lot of that look is that he is exhausted from having sex. Apparently lions need to have a lot of sex to impregnate the lionesses. And, his goal is to have as many offspring before he (and often his brothers who share his pride) is/are replaced by bigger, stronger, younger, males.
DADvocate said...
"Better Than Metrosexual"
Uh, methinks the author made a categorical error...judging by the looks of the dude's haircut, I think he punched the "Metrosexual" card a decade or so ago
They're working too hard to manipulate perception in order to realize their preferred reality. The rarefied air in the ivory towers is taking a toll on their cognitive capacity.
It seems that men and women are generally more reasonable, and act with greater reason, than the intellectual dilettantes of our modern society are capable of conceiving.
Well, that, or the intellectual dilettantes possess unstated ulterior motives.
Are these the same intellectuals who reason that premeditated murder for reason of convenience is a human right? That dissociation of risk does not cause corruption? That redistributive and retributive change represent positive progress? That "diversity" does not denigrate individual dignity? That evolutionary dysfunction is a desirable outcome? That devaluing capital and labor through trillion dollar account deficits does not represent theft? That presumption of guilt violates civil rights? That technology which shifts environmental and human damage is good for the Earth, animals, and people? That excessive legal immigration, and unmeasured illegal immigration, does not displace native men, women, and children, while offering protection to the violence and corruption which motivated their departure?
Yes, let's submit to this enlightened paternalism. These mortal men and women demonstrate such great respect for the fellow men and women, and a superior grasp of reality. At least so far as it serves to advance their political, economic, and social standing.
G Joubert:
And not so lazily he may have killed another male lion's cubs when he took over the pride, and he'll soon be challenged and bested (killed) by younger rivals.
Zoo life ain't as bad, probably.
I'd like to see the divorce statistics for first marriages (both parties) where the groom is ten or so years older, broken down by socio-economic class and perhaps race.
That might offer some confirmation or non-confirmation of the neo-traditionalist theory being bandied about on this thread.
"Kindling Quarterly"
Is this for real? Really?
In my home I've had cats and kittens, and I've had (human) kids, and (hold on to your hats, folks) there's no overlap in the required skills.
Or is it supposed to be some cute metaphor about keeping the home fires burning?
Gah, perhaps my tolerance for this kind of BS has been lowered by the quantity of funerals I've attended lately.
It's child rearing.
It's not something you celebrate.
It's something you get on with.
Jeesh.
Being subservient to woman, in a way that is considered sexist patriarchy when a woman does it for a man = New Masculinity.
Post a Comment