The Supermyth of Supermom
Women often lament the state of their modern identity. Every woman is expected to be Wonder Woman; the successful professional, harlot and homemaker for their husbands; the perfect mom, heroine to the children they bear. They are victims of dichotomous demands that pull them in different directions and that sometimes threaten to pull them apart.
It’s a sympathetic and unfortunate reality, and one that society imposed on women, despite their complaints, at the behest and literal insistence of women themselves. At least enough of them to effect sweeping change.
Modern feminism is the feminism of choices, is it not? And haven’t women by and large demanded compliance with that agenda? Women, most of them, understandably want the freedom to choose their path in life, whether that path is of financial pursuit or the path of family or some frequently complicated combination of both. And society, as it always does with women, accommodates these demands. But while we succeeded in opening doors, we cannot and never will be able to provide an out for the responsibilities and pressures that come with such a menu of options.
Indeed, the only way to reduce the pressure on women is to reduce the number of options they have, and we aren’t going to squeeze that particular glob of toothpaste back into the tube.
The great writer/philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote:
Much of your pain is self-chosen. It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self. Therefore trust the physician and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility.
A hundred million other people put it even more succinctly.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
And so now women have gotten what they wanted, or claimed to want. And as in so many other areas it brings them a step closer to the world of men, but only in the abstract; only on the surface.
Men, too, are becoming like stressed rope in the tug-o-war of gender identity, though they never collectively asked for it. Today’s man is called on to be, as much as any woman, all things at once. He is expected to be the warrior standing in harms way, ready to kill and die for our protection and often for less noble causes. He’s also the empathetic counselor with the unending patience to listen and accept; the provider for a home but not it’s leader; the teacher of ideas and ideals, but only those that pass feminine muster.
He is the savior, the pin cushion, the straining back of labor and the sponge for our social scorn. He is the powerless servant reviled for having too much power; the identified problem and the secret solution. And he is always, always the one we induce to act when the Ultimate Sacrifice is required.
These splintered expectations of men were not a result of choices, but of obligations; not an escape from their gender role, but proof of men being inextricably chained to it.
And as laudable as are any efforts toward equalitarianism, the seemingly mirrored struggle of men and women with identity is not evidence of progress to that end, but an indicator that we are going in the wrong direction.
For in the final analysis, women are complaining about the stresses that come with freedom and men are remaining silent about the burdens that come with servitude and expectation.
Equality is an impossible yet noble objective. It is something we strive for knowing it can’t be accomplished. It would behoove us to pursue such unobtainable objectives with at least some measure of thoughtfulness. To date, we haven’t done so well in that department.
But we will come perhaps a small step closer to that unreachable finish line when men are routinely encouraged to voice their frustrations with the twisting, often clashing demands of social pressure.
Or, when women are routinely encouraged to stop.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s news Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
Possibly related posts...
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
“Equality is an impossible yet noble objective. It is something we strive for knowing it can’t be accomplished. It would behoove us to pursue such unobtainable objectives with at least some measure of thoughtfulness.”
I’m in agreeance with Jon on this subject. But first…let me quantify.
Men and women ARE NOT equal, will never be equal, and any attempt to make them otherwise is not only irrational, but it is irresponsible and damaging to both men and women.
Men and women view the world, experience and influence the world in completely different ways. This is not inherently a bad thing at all. Men and women ARE and SHOULD BE different, but complementary. It is the masculine strength meeting the feminine temperment that makes the dance so interesting.
Trying to force men and women to be equal (IE the same, as feminists trying to act more ‘manly’ and men trying to be more ’sensitive’) completely smashes the strengths of each side, and makes the whole thing a lot less appealing.
Now, again, let me be clear. Men and women are not Equal. They never will be, nor should they be.
Equality under the law, however, I am a firm supporter of.
Men and women should both have the right to vote and all the protections afforded by our (once great) society. They both should suffer and be held accountable for their actions at the same level. If a man murders someone, he should go to jail for X years. And if a woman commits a crime on the same level, she should go to jail for X years, not X-25%. No one side, men or women, should have unilateral powers over the other. There is a name for that, and it is called tyranny.
Much like racism, this whole hullabaloo about sexism and discrimination will die the very instant everyone simply stops talking about it and begins to treat others with basic human decency, courtesy, and respect.
I won’t hold my breath waiting on that one, though.
The consequences are here and now. Loss of equal protection under the law for males; Acceptance of unconstitutional laws and behavior by the givernment at all levels and in all branches against males; The End of Fatherhood;The End of Two-Parent Families (male + female) as the majority and norm. Economic power shifting to females-fast approaching economic dominance; Continued political dominance of females; Alienation of males in all spheres of society. Demonization of all things male/masculine. More of the same on all of these.
@24
It’ll be interesting to see what the results of the last few generations of weak men are. It is easy to predict that there will be consequences but hard to predict when they’ll come.
BTW, I agree that men of my, and my father’s, generation are also responsible for the current state of affairs as a result of our passivity, our naive gullibility, our reflexive chivalry, our lust, and our arrogance in thinking things could never get this bad.
Late to this discussion …
Another great effort, Paul.
And, as usual, some thoughtful comments.
Even as a true backlash among ordinary, non-MRA men is growing like a lava dome (Susan Faludi, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!), I sense that many women are growing desperate to find a way back off the shaky limb on which they now find themselves thanks to feminism — which continues to saw away at the limb like mad! At the bottom of the coming fall will be TRUE, and tragic, equality, for women. For all of our sakes, I do wish women luck in trying to find a path to reconciliation before all of the proverbial chickens come home to roost.
It has been said that “you can’t go home again.” Women may very well find that this is true. And then where will they be? Out in the cold, cruel world — just one of the guys, but with a vagina. Nirvana, according to the power-suited feminists. For most women? Not so much … .
Julie is right to be frightened of what is happening, and what is still to come. But telling young MEN not to be angry and resentful at this point is not the solution. The check for women’s “free lunch” is coming, and will have to be paid. Much unhappiness and suffering cannot be avoided at this point, and young women will be left to wonder what in the hell the feminists were thinking.
Women are purportedly adept at nurturing and fostering personal relationships. They are going to need these skills if things are to start turning around.
Julie’s appropriate humilty is welcome.
Whether she can remain consistent awaits to be seen.
@Mr K,
***”Both of you have made me aware how naive and gullible we can be as readers. I don’t know who to believe.”***
I didn’t realise readers would have to make a choice. But if they do I insist they believe Skeptik over me.
Skeptic was a Men’s Rights Advocate before he left NZ and before I came on the scene. He knows feminism well because he was there and he knows the women who have been in charge of things for decades personally.
I am just a ground MRA supporter. Just an Indian who chooses what chiefs to listen to carefully. Ok, so I get into politics and more, but any group can do that.
@ Skeptik v. juile
Both of you have made me aware how naive and gullible we can be as readers. I don’t know who to believe. But perhaps it does not really matter since more dialog there is, readers can make their own judgments.
Skeptik.
I didn’t even know about Gallipoli and joint NZ and Aussie force during the “War to End All Wars” The link at Wikpedia is long, but it has interesting side comments icnluding that Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch’s father was a carrier of secret messengers for the forces.. Link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
@Skeptik, I am surprised to see you writing what you are. But it is an open forum and you can say what you like.
Anyhoo, SAD. I don’t want to defend or attack. I’ll just take it as this is how you think and feel.
Julie says – “NZ not being involved in wars like America: that NZ doesn’t get involved in combat any more. We are a peacekeeping defence force”.
That’s true, but what she’s not telling you is that NZ gives logistic, intelligence information, engineering and medical support so that America and other countries can do the combat role. In other words NZ is complicit.
Also further to what I was saying earlier it should be noted that Julie knows full well that NZ men recieve MUCH less than NZ women from the state, whilst they work in more stressful occupations etc and die some 6-7 years earlier than women. It’s a crystal clear case of men getting taxation without representation. Indeed it is NZ men’s hard earned tax money which goes to fund many feminist programs that oppress men there.
it seems she, like other feminist women there choose to have selective memory about such matters.
I fully expect her to now suddenly ‘remember’ such details which she has been told over and over in forums in NZ.
A case of wanting one’s cake and eating it too – say nice soothing things in favor of men’s rights movement when caught out, then returning to churning out falsehoods about men.
She’s done this scores of times.
And look out for the other female wiles too – the ‘well you’ve caught me out so I’ll disappear and stop meddling in men’s issues – boo hoo line’.
Like other feminist women in NZ its a case of trying to sound supportive of men’s rights whilst recieving all the overprivelige of being female in a feminist country.
Beware.
@ Skeptik,
***Julie says ‘I have never seen a body bag of a soldier and thus far I have lived in a country that hasn’t gone to war as America does’.
Skeptik says, “That’s false – indeed every year kiwis remember Gallipolli and Vietnam where LOTS of Kiwi men got slaughtered. Indeed Julie overlooks conscription of males only in NZ is still on the NZ statute books – 1951 military act hasn’t been repealed, only not used recently.***
I know NZ has been involved in wars in the past and and I also partake in Anzac day events because it does mean a big deal to me.
I should have been clearer in my comment and I apologise if I offended by what I said.
What I meant when I wrote about NZ not being involved in wars like America is that NZ doesn’t get involved in combat any more. We are a peacekeeping defence force.
But even in saying that, I am aware NZ men and women who are part of the NZ defence force are serving their country.
Thanks for your comment Skeptik.
I am just in the process of giving more thought to what I said.
I was thinking about alimony and how I said NZ doesn’t pay alimony … and so asked over at syg what alimony was as a percentage. Now that I realise alimony doesn’t work that way I am wondering if NZ child support includes alimony.
If by chance it does and other countries pay less child support, I could use that in a submission.
@6
Julie says ‘I am at a loss for not being American. We don’t have alimony over here’.
That’s true in NZ alimony doesn’t exist. Instead men usually get stripped of parental contact with their kids and forced to pay child support. It amounts t male servitude as well,
Julie says ‘I have never seen a body bag of a soldier and thus far I have lived in a country that hasn’t gone to war as America does’.
That’s false – indeed every year kiwis remember Gallipolli and Vietnam where LOTS of Kiwi men got slaughtered. Indeed Julie overlooks conscription of males only in NZ is still on the NZ statute books – 1951 military act hasn’t been repealed, only not used recently.
It’s a shame Julie spouts such nonesense as many other feminists in NZ do.
One other point which Julie knows full well because she’s been told it often and agreed (as it suited her at the time) – men in NZ work MANY more hours in paid employment, in more stressful occupations than women, commuting further and transfering location more often than women in order to earn more money if necessary hence pay much more income tax than women. They die some 6-7 years earlier than women there. Kiwi women feed off the tax money with MANY more women than men using the social welfare system (taxpayer funded).
It amounts to servitude.
This Kiwi flew away from NZ and escaped being demonised and used subtly and not so subtly, by females there.
Great work Paul.
@jon
“On the other hand, the older generations of men, by allowing women a destructive amount of influence, have made it very difficult for a guy to do anything about bad female behavior anywhere. It is also true that many women have become pretty unmanageable.”
The unfortunate reality is that not much will change as long as the baby boomers are in charge-the men and women. Many of these do not even acknowledge the reality of today that you aptly describe. Some even believe women should be in charge of everything-and that any man who is complaining must be a chauvinist. They’ve pretty much thrown succeeding generations of men under the bus. Maybe those death panels aren’t such a bad idea afterall.
@Paul
I agree that equality would be a step down for most women and a step up for most men.
“But what I do take real issue with is your failure to even mention the complicity and enabling from men in what you assert is the naturally emotional state of women.”
It seems you are saying that men are responsible for women’s behavior because some women will behave as badly as they are allowed to. I think we agree for the most part. I think men should be in charge at home and at work and not tolerate chicks acting crazy either place. In my experience most office bullies are women and they get away with it because some male manager is too fragile and lazy to stand up to them. These managers are usually older divorced guys who are lonely and just want the ladies to like them. The legion of manipulative, opportunistic females take full advantage of this. Pathetic. I tend to focus more on women because they have been directly responsible for a lot of my misery.
Men certainly are a big part of the problem, though. I could rant and rave about pathetic weak men who let themselves be bossed and manipulated by women. I guess I consider conceding equality with women to be a sign of this problem to some degree. It is irresponsible to pretend that people who are clearly subject to their emotions far more than men should be treated equally.
On the other hand, the older generations of men, by allowing women a destructive amount of influence, have made it very difficult for a guy to do anything about bad female behavior anywhere. It is also true that many women have become pretty unmanageable. I’ve found that I basically avoid contact with women that have had the typical “college experience” because they are infinitely more trouble than they are worth. The sense of entitlement and mental problems make them useless. I’m not sure what causes it. I’m sure promiscuity is a big factor in the insanity. Women’s studies and the presence of feminism on campus contribute a lot to the warped sense of reality. Whatever the factors are, I don’t know a single one that I’d want to be friends with, let alone date or marry.
@ Paul and julie.
Mea culpa. I once explored julie’s link to New Zealand newspaper It may have led to a confusion. But another poster defended julie as a fellow Tasmanian. ( Not to be confused with Tasmanian Devil) Link to Tasmania, Wikipedia. Perhap it clarifies/adds to the confusion. Best wishes to julie wherever you are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania
@ jon
Well, we certainly are in a difference of opinion. The struggle for equal treatment makes sense to me, even as I know it is mission impossible in any scientifically measurable sense.
But I say this with a distinct clarification that I didn’t apparently state literally enough in the essay. Equality for women would be a step down. Not a step up. And so efforts toward equality in this culture serve to improve the lives of men, not women. For that reason we should strive for it, even as we know it is not going to be 100% realized.
But what I do take real issue with is your failure to even mention the complicity and enabling from men in what you assert is the naturally emotional state of women.
While I agree that there are behavioral problems with many women related to emotions, my experience is that those problems are a matter of environment and rely heavily on men’s enabling. For example, most women that I have known are able to contain their emotions as the situation dictates. They can spend eight hours in a high pressure office and function effectively because that situation demands it. Then, many of the same women can go home and be absolute emotional tyrants at home. And the difference is clear. Their work won’t tolerate it and their men will.
And that sheds a very different light on your point about women needing strong male leadership. There may be some truth to that, but the problem is the utter lack of that leadership in the home is the primary problem.
People, as a rule, get what they tolerate. This doesn’t magically go away just because we are talking about men.
“Equality is an impossible yet noble objective. It is something we strive for knowing it can’t be accomplished. It would behoove us to pursue such unobtainable objectives with at least some measure of thoughtfulness.”
I believe this is completely wrong. Equality between men and women is neither achievable nor desirable. I have a really hard time understanding how a guy who has been around women can think that equality of the sexes is anything but irresponsible. Women are just not suited for equality with men. They are almost always slaves to their emotions and this makes them easy to manipulate. They place little value on fairness or function but place tremendous importance on feelings. These characteristics mean that the vast majority of them need sane male leadership.
If there is an objective for the relationship between the sexes it should include functionality and sanity.
@3
There is going to be a substantial backlash regardless of whether one is encouraged. In the states a high percentage of women are truly vile people. I am guilty of being single and this has gotten me endless nagging, ridicule and slander. Many of the women that I am in contact with on a daily basis are absolutely trying to break me down. They don’t hesitate to try to manipulate and badger me into filling the role in my personal life that they think I should. These same women instantly and thoughtlessly reject any criticism from me of their behavior or any explanation of why I don’t want anything to do with them. Female hypocrisy is intense. There is no male busybody army that is a counterpart to this.
As far as servitude goes, there is no end to the expectations women have of men. They expect that since I’m a guy I’ll always be the one to work the long hours because they have to go home. They can’t keep a regular schedule so guys always get the tedious low-level work that requires one to show up every day. They don’t expect that I should have any say in the matter and they don’t think I should make any more than them. That is pretty much the definition of servitude. Of course, I find out here and there that they are just using their kids as an excuse to get out of work. Big surprise.
@Paul, thanks for giving the link #7. I am amazed at how much NZ does. I think I better look up Australia also.
@ Julie
Aren’t you from NZ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand#The_Middle_East_1982.E2.80.93present
Thanks for sharing the link Mr K #5. It sure is sad.
Thanks Paul for your comment. I wanted to come back to clarify that I think you a terrific men’s advocate and that what I wrote was on my mind and it was by sheer coincidence you wrote something that allowed me to say what I wanted. And so….
***” But I think the reason you don’t see the servitude is because you are conditioned not to. Every time an soldier comes home in a body bag it is emblematic of that servitude.”****
I have never seen a body bag of a soldier and thus far I have lived in a country that hasn’t gone to war as America does.
***Every time the courts strip a man of his assets and force him to work in order to support his ex wife, it is servitude.****
And again, … I am at a loss for not being American. We don’t have alimony over here.
***”And there is the general social pressure for men to provide protection and provision for women. That is servitude. And I say all this with the understanding that men volunteer for some of this.”***
Yes, I see what you mean.
***It isn’t about a backlash against women at all,…. ***
That’s nice to know.
@ julie,
Sad story, but this is the third incident in the region in about a year. This time the three children were spared but became orphans.People who don’t see light at then end of the tunnel in marital problems do terrible things. Link The Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-soccer-mom-gun,0,4410552.story
Hi Julie,
No problem at all. But I think the reason you don’t see the servitude is because you are conditioned not to. Every time an soldier comes home in a body bag it is emblematic of that servitude.
Every time the courts strip a man of his assets and force him to work in order to support his ex wife, it is servitude.
And there is the general social pressure for men to provide protection and provision for women. That is servitude. And I say all this with the understanding that men volunteer for some of this.
It isn’t about a backlash against women at all, but just an open acknowledgment of the rules that we operate by in modern times. It isn’t at all to say that women don’t have hardships. I know full well they do, but I am also aware of the countless men and women I have talked to about these issues over the years who came to say “I never thought of it at all.”
We look at men in utilitarian terms, up to and including the use of their blood. The culture is not conditioned to seeing that as servitude, but just men doing what men do. And it used to actually be that way since women also did what women do.
But once that expectation was taken off women, it created an imbalance in the flow of responsibility. We have also come to be conditioned not to look at that.
That is why I am an MRA.
I am not sure how much of a backlash should be encouraged from men any more. I was talking to someone today who I think rather special and he said to me, “This is all real sad. Is this what we are passing down to the next generation?”
Gosh, I felt that as a mother of boys.
Sure, a backlash is inevitable from women who scam wealthy men like Paul McCarthy and it may be that there is a business opening up for hitmen in the UK but I don’t understand how women who don’t marry rich men need to pay the price. It is not as if the working class man is going to have to pay out millions of dollars. Halving a house isn’t that bad if the male and female worked together in the working class regardless of how much money the man earned and how much the woman earned. I personally think we are going over board when everything is measured in money terms but that’s a whole other comment.
Also I don’t know how much of this problem actually rests in women’s hands for men’s lack of support and how much rests in men’s hands.
What is going to be the backlash to women for men not having male services when you tell young men it is women’s fault a men’s movement hasn’t got off the ground?
And are women really free from responsibility and men are not? I am a woman and I don’t consider myself ever being free from any responsibilities. If one was to say I have a choice to have a baby or abort a baby, that doesn’t in my mind mean I am free of responsibility if I choose to have a baby.
I can’t see why a movement just can’t be built to help men instead of a movement being built to attack women. Rick men don’t need a movement but the working class man does. He needs equal parenting and he needs advocates for child support and domestic violence.
I like your balance Paul and I try myself to stay balanced even though I find myself often saying stuff just for the sake of making a point. But this below is not true.
“For in the final analysis, women are complaining about the stresses that come with freedom and men are remaining silent about the burdens that come with servitude and expectation.”
Women aren’t free. They may have entered the male area of the workforce but it didn’t mean freedom from their other expectations. It just added expectations. But it was necessary for them to be able to do this. IMHO.
Men aren’t serving women on the whole. I’d like for men to be honest about this servitude thing because I don’t see it in real life. Maybe men feel like they are serving when they manipulate to get laid but it isn’t a servitude to women but rather a servitude to their hormones.
I hope you don’t mind me pointing this all out Paul because I am worried for the lost boys in particular. They need help and I just feel building them as an army to attack females is not a good solution. It wasn’t a good solution for females to attack males either. But I guess if the end is for a men’s movement that isn’t affected by women then the end justifies the means.
Mr. K,
I read though about half of it but started losing my appetite. All it appears to amount to is an effort to demonstrate that in spite of women out pacing men in almost every positive aspect of life and still behind men on the negatives, we still need to go on witch hunts to root out any area where women don’t dominate.
A Woman’s Nation Indeed.
@ Pul Elam
NBC is promoting Maria Shriver’s program “A WOMANS NATION” apparenly a nulti-year project to study and make a recommendation to the Presiden of United States. There has been a multitude of studies, commissionsm prorams etc for women but very little for men.
Maybe you could take a look at this since it originates from USC. Link
USC. Annenberg
http://annenberg.usc.edu/AboutUs/News/090416Shriver.aspx