On Success Motivation

My main objective in writing this kind of article is to show how many men are oppressed by their traditional role and how women often do not benefit by it either, no matter how much they appear to support its continuation. Many feminist writers of the last 15 years have, rightly, pointed out how the role expectations of women were oppressive and have argued for the right of women to break out of those traditional roles. There has not, however, been the same zealotry [either from women or from men] for men to break out of their traditional roles. True, there have been calls for men to be more emotional and to show more “feminine” gentleness in their actions. (I put this in quotes since I think that there is very little behavior which is genetically based, the vast majority being socialized – in other words, I believe there is more ‘nurture’ than ‘nature’.) But there has been all too little written about men casting off their traditional economic role and becoming truly equal partners with women.

While many males feel comfortable with this [traditional economic] role, it is its very expectation that I would maintain is oppressive. In all too many situations, males cannot have [are not allowed to have] heterosexual relationships if they are unwilling to accept the role of MAPEU. Women may behave in an equal economic way during ‘dating’, but there is a great expectation that if marriage and definitely if children are part of the equation, that males will eventually have to play the myth to the limit. (There are, unfortunately, many men who expect women to play the mother-at-home, primary caregiver role in this situation, but I’m assured that much has already been written about the oppressiveness of that role-expectation, and therefore does not need to be addressed in this article.) It is this very expectation, this social demand of this-is-your-only-possible-role that stops many men nowadays from getting married or having a long-term relationship. As one of my friends puts it, it is simply too expensive to have a sexual relationship with women since there is such an unconditional demand to play that economic role.

Unfortunately, with far too many females, their “giving of sex” [as though sex were not a mutual act] comes at the price of economic support. While this is largely a prostitution arrangement [sex for money/financial obligation by men], it is supported socially as simply the ‘traditional’ method of interaction. And it continues, because there are far too many men who are willing to ‘pay the price’, who themselves have not questioned the relevant value of these social imperatives. This places men who wish to emphasize their authentic humanity clearly at odds with the rest of society and with many of its female members.

There are, thankfully, many women in the society who want to support themselves independently, who want pay equity, who want to rise into the havens of the professions, who want the power that men have traditionally had [whether or not they desired to have it]. Assuming that this movement will lead members of the opposite sexes to seek partners on the basis of humanity, instead of finances or sexuality, this writer lauds such a change in economics. The problem I see, though, is that women are seeking the raw, unrestricted power that men have traditionally had, while at the same time not allowing men to relinquish that power. The very fact that sustaining that primary economic unit myth leads males to die 8 – 10 years earlier than females should make women somewhat wary of wanting it so dearly.

I’m sure some readers will howl at this time, thinking that on one hand I talk about the economic oppression of the MAPEU myth and on the other hand seem to suggest that women are fools for being assertive; however, that is not my argument. I think that either party having to be the primary economic unit is oppressive to both of them. If women want the power of the boardroom, so be it, I’m completely in favor of it. If men want to be laid back, to take a passive role, to be househusbands, to take on the caregiver role, so be it. My point is that I’m not sure that the excessive desire for success motivation, for extravagant possessions that accentuate the facade of ones life, is positive for anybody.

Rather than having women engage in the drive for greater power, why not allow both sexes a non-oppressive environment whereby humanness is greatly valued, rather than the flashiness of one’s car or the extravagance of one’s house, or the overt sexual display of one’s body. My argument is that all too many persons in the society are heavily invested in the display of false edifices, men primarily into the greatness of their finances, women primarily into the greatness of their sexual endowments. Their edifices are based on the object-manifestation basis of interaction, not on authentic humanness. My question is whether the abrogation of the MAPEU myth and its reflexive woman-as-primary-sexual-unit would not in fact leave many people ‘high and dry’, as they have placed so very much effort into the sustaining and support of those myths.

But that’s my argument; many people are happy with overt success motivation. That’s fine – so long as men who wish to just be real and not rich and women who wish to be real and not sexual objects are valued just as greatly by the society and have just as great a chance at a reasonable and loving personal relationship.

Pages:   1  2  3  4  5  6

Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001

to help men become emotionally healthy.