Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! A man after midnight.

with 22 comments

Well you’d be shit out of luck  in Sweden now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?emc=eta1

A couple of quotes from the article:

” His 2-year-old twin sons, Julian and Mateo, call him Mama. He and his now former wife shared parental leave by alternating days at work and at home.”

“The ponytailed center-right finance minister calls himself a feminist…”

Ugh.

Advertisements

Written by gipperfan

June 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Posted in depressing

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Seems to be working well.

    jackshaftoe

    June 18, 2010 at 8:16 am

  2. Maybe, if you like the idea of men being feminised.
    The headline itself annoys the piss out of me. Men will not have if all if they become like women. It’s all arse backwards, women have been sold the same lie for years now. It is bullshit.
    I don’t get it. Celebrate diversity!
    Why is being female held up as some kind of virtue men should emulate?
    Let us women be women (although that’s not something we are supposed to want these days) and you lot be the men.
    We are different, why do we want to be some homogenous, sexless lump?

    gipperfan

    June 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm

  3. Strange – I didn’t read it like that at all.
    First, of course you edit it of all the sensationalist journalistic style that is meant to keep the average reader reading.
    Then, it seems to be about fair wages in the workplace. Nothing to do with all the extra bits you have read into it.

    jackshaftoe

    June 21, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    • I liked the story and what they’ve done. When I have kids I’d love to take a few months off to help raise them.

      I do think that men and women are different, but within men and women there are also differences, and that is what a blanket expectation of all women and all men can erase. So why can’t a woman choose a career rather than kids? Or a man choose kids rather than a career? It’s quite artificial to say that because they are one thing or another they can’t.

      The suggestion that women can work and men can raise children has no real impact and the fact that men and women are different generally. And that general difference will mean that men and women choose different career paths, approach challenges in different ways, and interact with their children differently. But those differences aren’t inherently bad.

      I didn’t agree with Maggie Thatcher, but I think she was a good powerful Prime Minister, I don’t think she became a man to do it.

      So I do celebrate the difference between men and women, but I also appreciate that the world has changed from the day that we required a heavy and strict division of labour just to survive. We can now pick and choose how we interact with each other and the world around us.

      I believe my wife is a very talented woman, and she could have a successful career, but she prefers to raise a family. I’m happy with that, I think she will have part time jobs to keep herself active mentally and raise a little extra money. But I’d still like some time off to spend it properly with any children we have. Life is short, and work days are long…. 9 extra months of quality time would be precious.

      rexinfinite

      June 22, 2010 at 8:06 am

  4. One gripe is with the forced aspect of it. That is artificial. I don’t care what arrangement anyone else’s family comes to, but how are we able to “pick and choose our roles” if these “choices” are mandatory. If a man wants to stay at home with his children, then he should plan his life accordingly – just like women should too.

    My main issue is with the headline and the two quotes I picked out. Men don’t need to become like women to be good parents. In fact just the bloody opposite.
    I said this in my first comment, being female/being a mother is not a supreme virtue that men should need or want to emulate.
    We each bring unique perspectives and styles to our parenting, and men have some things to offer their children that women don’t generally have and vice versa.
    A man showing pride at being called Mama by his children completely undermines fatherhood and that is what makes me cross.

    As for the wages aspect, women tend to earn less because they choose jobs that pay less and not just to fit in around child rearing, but because we are not men. Total parity is an unrealistic goal and actually damaging to employment and the economy and to society.

    Nothing has changed intrinsically about the divisions of labour – we have just been told that we must change because you haven’t got it all unless you have a career and a family at the same time. This is bullshit. A fulfilled life is one you choose for yourself.

    Women are told that to succeed in the workplace we need to act more like men. Men are told that to be good parents they need to act more like women.
    The lines are blurring everywhere else too. Femininity is disappearing, as is manhood. Women are losing their decorum and men their balls and this makes me sad.

    gipperfan

    June 22, 2010 at 10:56 am

  5. The headline and quotes are as good as irrelevant – the headline was written by someone who wants to sell papers and the quotes may or may not have been true.

    How far would you like to see the situation changed back?
    Many would argue that a man has a god-given right to beat his wife. So we made a law recognising abuse as grounds for divorce.
    Would you allow employers to be able fire a woman for getting married?

    It seems to me that gender roles have and always will change throughout history – why have such an issue with it? Most of the people you know including me, see things like this – are you suggesting I am not a man?!
    Coz if you are I’m a gonna come round and drag you into my cave! 🙂

    jackshaftoe

    June 22, 2010 at 5:05 pm

  6. Yeah they could have made up the quotes, but if they did need to then hallelujah there are some men still attached to their masculinity. (I wanted to use another term, but that wouldn’t have been very decorous).

    If the ‘men’ are so whipped that they aren’t staging any kind of protest about what is being foisted upon them and just relinquishing their manhood for honorary membership in the sisterhood, like that will grant them immunity from accusations of oppression, then that is still bloody depressing.
    Women in the West aren’t oppressed by men anymore, look at divorce and child custody laws and abortion rights.
    We don’t even have to put your name on a birth certificate, but if we choose to then you are on the hook for the next 18 years and without mandatory paternity testing men are basically at the mercy of legal system that allows theft.

    Feminism isn’t about equality it is about rendering you powerless.

    We however have it made in the shade yet still we demand special rights because supposedly we are victims if, for example, we choose to wear clothes
    that cause men to look at us. But there is a double standard, don’t you dare objectify us yet we are empowering ourselves if we slut it up. My FB page was unbearable when Sex and the City 2 came out. Have you listened to a group of women talking about men? It is sickening.

    We complain about men who whistle from building sites and yet we belittle them for being incapable and unnecessary at every opportunity, while out of the other side of our mouths we bemoan the lack of good ones. Good ones supposedly being those who will consent to being controlled by us and who will put up with us proudly behaving in the exact manner of the men we deride. A fifty year old man with a twenty year old girlfriend disgusts us, yet Samantha from SATC is revered.
    The pendulum, as it tends to do, has swung too far back the other way.

    So, no I don’t want a return to women being second class citizens, but that does not make it okay to treat men as if they were.

    What this article highlights for me is the belief that men need civilizing and that can only be achieved through coercing them to be more like women. But Germaine Greer wept, not women as they exist now.

    So to make men be better fathers they must be forced to give up work for a bit and stay home with their children.
    Why? Aren’t we told constantly that women are just as good mothers if they don’t stay at home? Having it all is not feeling guilty while you further your career and let someone else raise your kids. Women are told that it is oppressive for them to have to stay home.
    Why can’t family life be what we choose it to be? Why do these personal decisions have to be made for us? Instead the Swedes are, and I fear many more of us will soon be, told that they must follow these rules if they want to be good parents and that male sublimation will make marriages last longer, except
    unsurprisingly that man’s who was proud to be called Mama, and women will get to earn more while men earn less, but they are all getting taxed more so basically underneath the cloak of good intentions it’s just another power grab by a nanny state.

    It’s supremely irritating on so many levels and the real unsavoury little secret, that feminism, for all it’s squawking about equality, is actually attempting to deny is that women might say they want emasculated men, but biomechanically the cave is far more alluring than the pedestal.

    gipperfan

    June 23, 2010 at 5:31 pm

  7. You haven’t answered my questions and you are completely missing the point as to why these laws are introduced.
    No-one wants a homogenous gender.
    Men are a long way from being second class citizens.
    Do you really think they don’t still control things?

    jackshaftoe

    June 24, 2010 at 7:32 am

  8. How far would you like to see the situation changed back? and It seems to me that gender roles have and always will change throughout history – why have such an issue with it?

    I said I didn’t want to see a return to women as second class citizens.
    What I think is important though is not overcompensating for history.
    None of the men alive today are responsible for what happened in the past, why do they need to pay a price.
    These are the reasons that I have such an issue with it:

    “But laws reserving at least two months of the generously paid, 13-month parental leave exclusively for fathers — a quota that could well double after the September election — have set off profound social change.”

    “Sometimes politicians have to be ahead of public opinion,” she said, noting how controversial the initial daddy month was and how broadly it is now simply expected.

    It’s a forced change and an unnecessary one, by those who view themselves as the elite over the little folks who can’t be trusted to make the ‘right’ decisions on their own. Men and women both can take as much or as little time off as they want to raise their own children, they just have to plan for their own choices. Isn’t that how life should work, rather than this cradle to grave swaddling of, and control over, our lives?
    Why is the answer always the state? That should be the answer of last resort, the safety net – not the hammock.

    “Society is a mirror of the family,” Mr. Westerberg said. “The only way to achieve equality in society is to achieve equality in the home. Getting fathers to share the parental leave is an essential part of that.”
    Clearly, state money proved an incentive — and a strong argument with reluctant bosses.

    And it seems the only way to achieve it is to use taxpayer money to fund it. If the people are too stupid and irresponsible to see what is best for them, then take more of their money and only give it back to them if they do as we say.

    Worse than parental leave, she says, is the 120-day annual allowance for parents to tend to sick children, which is impossible to plan and which is suspected of being widely abused.

    Funny that, but if you make the hammock too comfortable people are never going to get off it.
    This is somewhat unrelated, but if you take away the hardships of poverty then you remove all incentive for people to ever improve their own lives. We have the situation now where we have generations that have only ever known welfare. Is that really how anyone wants to live? They aren’t starving (obviously because the poorest people in the West are usually the most obese) but they have no ambition, no dignity, no motivation, none of the joy and satisfaction that comes from earning what you have. It’s the most horrendous lifelong sentence of dependency and it crushes me.

    “In perhaps the most striking example of social engineering, a new definition of masculinity is emerging.”

    Exactly my point about the damage done by feminism. It’s purpose is to remake men, because as I said, they need to be civilized, to be more like women.

    “Now men can have it all — a successful career and being a responsible daddy,” she added. “It’s a new kind of manly. It’s more wholesome.”

    Why is it more wholesome? What does that even mean? What is wrong with men that we need a new kind?
    My understanding is that feminism views men as inherently evil. If men are not wholesome now then what are they? They must be unhealthy, loathsome, vile, offensive, sickening. (I looked it up :))

    Fathers at home “are still often second-class parents,” since the mother usually stays home first and establishes routine, Mr. Rojas said.
    “How many dads cut their children’s nails?” he asked, admitting that he does not. “I know she’s going to do it and so I don’t bother. We have to overcome that if we truly want to share responsibility.”

    So cut your child’s nails without waiting for the government to tell you to.
    Is she going to ‘bother’ to teach her child that risk can be a good thing?

    She laments that with preschools starting at 12 months and little alternative child care, there is huge pressure for parents to take at least a year off.

    So the only reason for staying home is the lack of availability of good (subsidised) childcare?
    Nothing about wanting to be a parent to your children. Just got to spread that child rearing drudgery around, so everyone has more time to realise their own self-worth at work. Fucks sake.


    Many would argue that a man has a god-given right to beat his wife. So we made a law recognising abuse as grounds for divorce.

    Do we have the right to abuse or beat anyone? Why do we need special laws for domestic abuse?
    Interesting that you should bring that up though. How differently are abused husbands treated?

    Would you allow employers to be able fire a woman for getting married?

    Employment should be at will. At the will of the employee and of the employer.
    We are not forced to work for certain employers, if someone wants to advertise a job and say that they only wish to employ people that fit their criteria and you don’t, then go find another job – no one owes you a living. I’ve used this example before, but say I decide tomorrow that I want to be a runway model. I don’t have a hope in hell. I am not quite tall enough, not young enough and not attractive enough etc. I cannot change any of those characteristics of myself, but should a designer be forced to hire me anyway? Where’s my equal opportunity? Where’s the affirmative action for the aesthetically impaired? What’s the quota the designers need to fill?

    Most of the people you know including me, see things like this – are you suggesting I am not a man?!
    Please can you define what it means to you to be a man?

    And see things like what exactly?
    It can’t be living according to the expectations of society because you have taken the red pill and dropped out of the system.
    In fact I think you are a forerunner of what the new manhood is actually going to look like.
    If the system is fucking you over then the system can go fuck itself.
    I couldn’t agree more, if playing by the rules doesn’t suit you and your choices aren’t negatively impacting anyone else then who is to tell you otherwise?
    Our words are one thing, but our actions are truly revealing – unless you are actually planning on getting married and getting a job any time soon?

    In this new world of the sexes, some women complain that Swedish men are too politically correct even to flirt in a bar. And some men admit to occasional pangs of insecurity. “I know my wife expects me to take parental leave,” said a prominent radio journalist who recently took six months off with his third child and who preferred to remain anonymous. “But if I was on a lonely island with her and Tarzan, I hope she would still pick me.”

    Damn there is that inconvenient cave again.

    Sorry about the funky formatting, I was trying to make the different bits I quoted stand out.

    gipperfan

    June 24, 2010 at 4:45 pm

  9. It is also overly long and a bit ranty. Sorry.

    gipperfan

    June 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

  10. I’m going to ignore all your references to quotes from the article as I have already explained that they are irrelevant and the language just winds you up.

    “It’s a forced change and an unnecessary one, by those who view themselves as the elite over the little folks who can’t be trusted to make the ‘right’ decisions on their own.”

    The list of laws that you now agree with that would never have been made if it had been up to the ‘people’ is almost endless.

    Its absurd to say that anyone can take as “little or as long off to raise their children” – you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the average persons workplace.

    “Why do we need special laws for domestic abuse?”
    Because so many people in society believed that it was the right of a husband to beat his wife. They were wrong and a law needed to be introduced to stop it.

    “Define what it is to be a man?”
    No. Its a pretty absurd thing to define. You were talking about the feminization of men. Either you see me as feminized in your eyes or you see me as a man.
    I don’t see me not wanting to get married or have a job has to do with it.

    jackshaftoe

    June 25, 2010 at 8:36 am

  11. So according to your reasoning we should just accept any and all new laws and be good and quiet little worker bees because occasionally we might just get lucky with a good one. If history has taught us anything it must be that there are always unintended consequences to social engineering and rarely are they good.

    As for the “average worker” in Sweden, those who are actually doing the hard graft aren’t exactly embracing this new law.
    It is the university educated who are. Surely the possession of a degree and a relatively well paid job to begin with presupposes some opportunity to be able to plan and save for child rearing without a government handout. Except they need their own money back because it is hard to save when you are working for almost half a year to support a nanny state. Catch 22! So keep on praying for those advantageous
    laws from your beneficent overlords and who cares who gets screwed over even if it is really you.

    What has happened is that with the rise of service based economies men have found themselves shut out of employment. Women now outnumber men in eight of the ten fastest growing sectors of the US economy. Job
    sectors that require formal qualifications are becoming predominantly female. Women are outnumbering men in universities and in the attainment of degrees so it follows that they get the jobs.
    Engineering and science are the only areas where men outperform women and that gap is closing as fast as the usefulness of those skills wanes. As is what I
    referred to earlier as the hard graft, the traditionally male sectors of manufacturing, construction and agriculture.
    Going to be mighty tough to pay for those increased nurturing services women are providing when we stop producing anything of value and therefore creating wealth.
    Education from a very young age is geared towards the verbal abilities and the need for the kind of focus and attention that favours girls.
    On top of that maleness is seen as a trait that needs to be contained by medicine. Boyness is frequently labelled as ADD and ADHD and more recently by the autism spectrum and treated medically so that boys will act more like girls in the classroom.

    I said I didn’t want to go back to women being second class citizens and what you are referring to as the right of a husband to beat his wife really had more to do with wives being the property of their
    husbands. However, we have been emancipated now. It’s done, we cannot keep harking back to the historical oppression of women as justification to get some of what we think we’re owed as reparations.

    The following is truly not meant to be facetious, I am asking purely from a point of logic: if a definition of your masculinity is too absurd for you
    to contemplate yourself, what does it matter what I think? I’ll happily tell you though, but you have to go first. I’m genuinely interested in your perspective of your own masculinity and not simply as a repudiation of my opinion.

    I believe marriage and having a job are relevant because men stand to lose a whole lot more
    than they can expect to gain from marriage these days. The only segment of the male population actually making financial gains are single men. I explained above why I believe the job market is becoming anti-male.
    Like I said previously why play the game when the odds are stacked against you.

    gipperfan

    June 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm

  12. As I live my life I look around continually and say “What would Gipper do without that law – she must agree with it”.
    I’m sure there are thousands of laws you agree with.
    It is laws that have given you the freedom that you have now and cherish so much.

    Masculinity is way too broad a term to define it. Its interesting that you want a definition so you can accept people in or reject them.
    Of course I consider myself a man (thats what the reference to dragging you into my cave was supposed to show).
    I dont care whether you think I am a man or not – although I had presumed you would agree that I was – I just wanted to see that a man could agree with these changes and not be less of a man. In the same way that some men agreed with the emancipation of men and some didn’t (and were presumably lampooned in the same way by ‘real’ men of their day and women like yourself).

    Best if we leave my personal state of affairs out of it as I am an anomaly. There are very few people lucky enough to be able to lead an Epicurean existence and I can assure you it has nothing to do with the ‘unfairness’ of marriage or the job market.

    jackshaftoe

    June 26, 2010 at 8:46 am

  13. Hang on a minute, you brought up the cave dragging so does it not follow that you see masculinity as dominance?
    What have I dared to say that is so threatening to that?
    That it is not unmanly to stay at home and raise your children, but it is unmanly to pour scorn on all that is precious about fatherhood by having your children call you Mama?
    It is not unmanly to respect women and treat them as equals, it is unmanly to call yourself a feminist (it is unladylike too, in fact it is inhuman) because feminism is not about equality it is about replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy – it’s about demanding the pedestal. None of what I’ve said violates the right of the individual to do what best suits them, like you do, unlike the feminist cause which is so closely linked to progressivism because it is about control.

    And I wasn’t disagreeing with the need for the rule of law, I was disagreeing with the blind acceptance of new laws and the inaction to repeal bad old ones based upon the premise that sometimes we do wind up with a winner, so we must take the wheat with the chaff. That’s bullshit.

    Did you read the part where I said the cave was more alluring than the pedestal?
    It is a biomechanical truth. One that feminism finds deeply disturbing and wants to hide underneath a shroud of ‘equality’, because the more women act more like men and vice versa the less men will want/believe they are allowed to drag us anywhere.
    And however much we are attached to our belief that we need men as much as a fish needs a bicycle, we can’t do much to change that we desire and seek male approval. Hardly shocking stuff?

    So I don’t see masculinity as a judgment, to me it is more of an objective reality.
    Just like femininity. But although I think it exists and the absence/presence of it is easy to spot, it is nigh on impossible to define.
    But is that because society tells us this is what to look for or are we responding to it instinctively? That’s the part that is the issue for me, because I am a big fan of objective reality so the biological explanation resonates.
    What I do know for sure is that, for me, it isn’t about accepting or rejecting people, nice that you think I walk around all day qualifying people and consciously dismissing those who don’t quite meet my standards. Yet I am the same person who you accuse of being ridiculously naive because I presume that the vast majority of us are inherently good.
    For me it is about understanding that what is sometimes described as irrational behaviour could be an innate reaction.
    Women like myself simply accept that perhaps being on a pedestal is not ideal and that wanting the cave might not be irrational. And that women like myself should be able to say that men are fantastic and important, as are women, but I see the value coming from what is different about us.

    Also your lifestyle has very little to do with luck. Yeah maybe you were blessed with certain opportunities because of the country you were born in, but after that it is about the choices you make.

    gipperfan

    June 27, 2010 at 1:58 am

  14. “So I don’t see masculinity as a judgment, to me it is more of an objective reality.
    Just like femininity. But although I think it exists and the absence/presence of it is easy to spot, it is nigh on impossible to define.”

    This is a crux of the matter.
    As we have discussed before – THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.
    It is “nigh on impossible to define” because it doesn’t exist…you “think it exists and the absence/presence of it is easy to spot” because that is YOUR SUBJECTIVE REALITY.
    [Caps turned on for emphasis, not shouting]

    jackshaftoe

    June 27, 2010 at 7:23 am

  15. Because it is granted that traits like dominance, strength, power etc. are all relative to your own status.
    Subjective and meaningless. 

    What is objective reality is that the masculine men get the pick of the women.

    Do you have any trouble spotting a feminine woman?   

    gipperfan

    June 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm

  16. “What is objective reality is that the masculine men get the pick of the women.”
    Completely depends on what you mean by masculine and who the women are.

    Anyway – the point I’m trying to make is that its just not as bad as you are making out.
    I live in this terrible world of manly women and girly men and its OK. Perhaps even nicer that the days of my youth when a man wearing an earring or having long hair was enough of a reason to beat him up for being a poof.
    I dont feel I have been in any way emasculated. Stop trying to protect me (and all the other men) for something that you feel I should be worried about (the rise of dominant women). You’re as bad as the state you hate so much!

    jackshaftoe

    June 28, 2010 at 8:25 am

  17. You missed my point entirely.
    Not trying to protect anyone as such, just highlighting and bemoaning state interference in our individual lives.
    People should just be whatever they want to be, just as long as they don’t try and change me or make me pay for their choices.
    I’m a stuck record, I know.

    gipperfan

    June 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm

  18. Would the emancipation of women have happened without state interference?

    jackshaftoe

    June 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm

  19. No and lots of other good wouldn’t have happened too.
    Too little state is a bad thing, just like too much is.

    And how can you compare the emancipation of women with forcing private companies and taxpayers to fund someone else’s maternity or paternity leave?

    gipperfan

    June 28, 2010 at 4:17 pm

  20. Too little state is a bad thing, just like too much is.
    I agree.
    Lets finish in agreement!

    jackshaftoe

    June 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm

  21. WOW 🙂

    gipperfan

    June 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: