Part II

The Mutual Oppression of the Male As The Primary Economic Unit

Social Reinforcement of Economic Roles

It could be argued that men are free not to become the primary economic units, that if they found the situation so intolerable, they could change or avoid it. (Thankfully, some men are in fact refusing to fulfill traditional roles.) This is, though, a simple argument and it avoids the action/reaction of social intercourse. Men are motivated to become the primary economic unit because, in the main, women will not be attracted to them unless they are making good salaries [greater than that of their partners].

Just look at the advertisements in this singles magazine if one is in doubt: the vast majority of female advertisers stress the “financial stability” of the male respondents, but rarely mention their own financial situation or even hint that they would be willing to equally support the economic needs of the relationship. This is not to ignore the women who behave differently, who are willing to pay their own way, who adequately support themselves, quite independently while single, and plan to continue to do so in a relationship. Sadly, though, in spite of the feminist movement of the last 20 years, these women are in the minority. Equally regrettable is that, although many of them are quite financially independent while single, they tend to only be attracted to men who make more money than themselves, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the male economic role.

Should anyone doubt that men are financial fantasy objects of women, let me make a striking point. Warren Farrell, in his book Why Men Are The Way They Are, pointed out that if Playboy, Penthouse, and other ‘men’s magazines’ are pornography because they objectify women’s bodies sexually, then magazines like Ladies Home Journal, Family Circle and other ‘women’s magazines’ are also pornography, because these publications objectify men, by assuming that men, as the primary economic unit, will satisfy these economic fantasies of women.

There has been a great emphasis in recent years on women wanting men to have more feelings, to be more sensitive emotionally. This is an admirable objective, but there have been some enormous drawbacks to its implementation in the social behavior of women. Women who say they “want it all” – by which they mean a man who is both emotionally sensitive and who makes a good salary - are asking for what amounts to a mutually exclusive arrangement. They want a man who is sensitive, caring, nurturing, and who does not view women as sexual objects. At the same time, though, they want a man who makes a good salary, thereby treating men as financial objects. In other words, they don’t wish to be sexually objectified by a man whom they can objectify financially.

Many middle-class, professional women are often heard saying there are not a sufficient number of “eligible/good/etc.” men available with whom to have relationships; that men cannot express feelings; that men who are sensitive, caring, nurturing individuals are in short supply. But as Warren Farrell notes, there are in fact an increasingly large amount of men who are sensitive, caring, nurturing people – they are just not making enough money to satisfy the financial fantasies of these women. As he notes, the attributes that make one a sensitive person tend to be very different than those that make one successful at making money. The business world is rough and tumble, and showing one’s feelings is not held in high esteem. As Irma Kutz points out in her book Mantalk, “it...confuses any thoughtful man that women advertise loudly for mates who are considerate, gentle, full of foreplay and respect, and then they fantasize and fall for men who are bold, overbearing, “firmly-shaped”, self-assured, wicked, and real f—kers.”

Unfortunately for men, there exist far too few women who will mainly value them for the authenticity of their humanity, rather than the expectation that the men will fulfill the economic fantasies of their female partners. It is quite unfortunate for men that, when the issue comes ‘push to shove’, women for all their loud cries for sensitive men will go for the guy who makes more money far quicker than the man who has concentrated on the authenticity of his selfhood.

Men As The Primary Economic Supporters Of Family Units

Then there is the argument that men are the primary economic unit because women are the child-bearers and the caregivers. I will not concentrate on the fact that, with 5 billion people in the world presently and with 80 million humans being born every year, and with an estimated world population of 6 billion by the year 2000, there is little need, nay little rationality, in almost every woman in America having more children. Instead, I will concentrate on how this emphasis on traditional role structures operates to the oppression of both sexes.

Although the anatomical fact of women’s sole ability to bear children is quite obvious, there is increasing evidence that men, when given the chance, are quite nurturing toward their children. The evidence of parental leave in the Scandinavian countries shows that as the social acceptance of this leave increases, many men enjoy taking time off from work to be with their children in the first months of life. There is some evidence that a small, but growing, number of men would enjoy continuing that primary interaction, were the economic realities quite different. Namely, that their spouses could make pay equal to the men, and therefore could be the primary economic units in support of the family.

The point is that if the myth of men as the primary economic unit was discarded, each partner in a relationship could become the kind of person they naturally were, rather than fulfilling the strictly defined social/sexual role that presently exists. Whichever spouse was more successful at making money or who found the work world more satisfying could be the primary wage earner, and whoever was the best at being nurturing with children could be with them the greater amount of time. In this manner, roles would be attained regardless of one’s sexual anatomy.

Men as the primary economic units also forces women into an alternate role as necessarily being baby-making factories in order to validate their role in a marriage. This undermines the authenticity of women as humans who have natures other than as procreation machines. Choosing to have children, and being allowed [via pay equity] to bear equal financial responsibility in child-raising is a quite different position than being forced to bear children because only in this manner will the women have existence-validity in a relationship where their role is reflexive to an economic-wage producing machine.

Pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001

to help men become emotionally healthy.