I am currently reading a book called "Reviving Ophelia"written by Mary Pipher,
Ph.D.  The story of Ophelia, from Hamlet, shows the destructive forces that
affect young adolescent women.  As a girl, Ophelia is happy and free, but when
she enters her adolescence she loses her true self.  She falls in love with
Hamlet and lives only for his approval.  She loses her inner direction, and
rather struggles to meet the demands of Hamlet and her father.  Her value is
determined by their approval.  When Hamlet spurns her, she kills herself. 
The premise of the book is that there is a segment of the female, adolescent
population who are very uch like Ophelia.  I see them at the High School in
which I work.  The girls who, we are told, have been well adjusted, happy,
productive, with high aspirations. . they enter middle school years and ther
locus of control turns completely outward.  Focus is on learning how to please
boys, fulfill physical stereotypes of pathological thinness, and goal
directedness disappears.  Care to comment?

74 responses total.

Happens to boys, too.  The majority of them, in fact, from
what I can observe.

This response has been erased.

Women, in general, embrace the roll of victim.  It's always done
to us by them.  We had no choice or complicity.  We are what they
made us to be, poor us.  

Men, in general, don't embrace the roll.  

(I'll bet you a cup of coffee that the very next response will be
 something along the lines of "society made us play the roll of
 the victim". ;-)

Society has made men play the role of the victim.  We die younger,
get sick more often, commit suicide more often, go out and fight
stupid wars, you name it.  Plus we have to wear the most uncomfortable
work clothes and do the most dangerous and exhausting jobs.  We never
get to see our own children, the role of nurturer is snatched away
from us, and in return we're expected to carry our significant others
around on our shoulders, emotionally, financially and psychologically.

Try as you might, Michael, your whining can't hold a candle
to a woman's whine.  Women have elevated the whine to an art form.

Pardon me, but seeing no smiling emoticons in #4, I assume he's serious, and
think he makes some valid points.
BTW, I am 35 years old and have *never* whined.

This response has been erased.

Re #7:  "The college degree I busted my ass for does not give me 
the earning power that a man's high school diploma will."  Is 
that true?  How does that work, exactly?  A man with a high 
school diploma and a woman with a college degree apply for the 
same job and the man gets it and woman doesn't?  That happens?  
What job is it, exactly?  Or, is it that a man with a high school 
diploma and a woman with a college degree are working side by 
side in the same job, and the man's salary is higher?  Really?  
What company do they work at, exactly?  

Or do you mean that *on the average* roofing contractors with 
high school diplomas make more money than social workers with 
psych major college degrees?  (Duh.) 

And I *love* your statement that no one is actually taking the 
"nurterer" role away from men, "it's just been more commonplace."  
It's just been more commonplace!  I love it!  It's so...simple, 
so...elegant.  It had me staring into space with a dreamy smile 
for a good ten minutes.  Alas, if I say anything more specific 
about it I'll spoil the irony.  (Ironies, actually, if you count 
the misspelling of "nurturer".)

This response has been erased.

(Mary waits in wild anticipation...)

And I am the reigning queen of typos. Sigh.

(Re #10: Ditto...)

I think Michael's point about your "role of nurturer" comment, beeswing, was
that it's not fair to bemoan the roles women are often maneuvered into without
recognizing that the same thing happens to men.  I heard it said once that
even with all the changes that feminism has wrought, a woman is still judged
by her family and a man is still judged by his career.  That's a little out
of date, and of course a generalization, but there's a lot of truth in it.
(At least what it says about men.)  If you recognize that there are
sociological forces that influence women toward thinness and subservience,
you must also see that there are forces which push men toward being
workaholics and dominators.  And as with women, there is shame for those who
don't meet the ideals.  If your argument is that men are basically free
and women are basically enslaved, I'm not buying it.

Re #9:  I agree that in many fields the average pay for women is still 
less than it is for men.  What you said in #7, however, was: "THE 
COLLEGE DEGREE I BUSTED MY ASS FOR DOES NOT GIVE ME THE EARNING POWER 
THAT A MAN'S HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA WILL."  (I'm putting it all in caps 
so you'll pay attention.)  I have never heard anyone say that WOMEN 
WITH COLLEGE DEGREES earn less on the average than MEN WITH ONLY HIGH 
SCHOOL DIPLOMAS, so I asked you for some specifics.  (More caps there.  
Same reason.)  Well?  

My point about the roofing contractor vs the social worker is that 
most of the former are men and most of the latter are women.  But if 
you can say that no one is stopping me from being a house-husband, 
then I can say that no one is stopping you from being a roofing 
contractor.  Which brings me once again to to your statement that no 
one is actually taking the nurturer role away from men, "it's just 
been more commonplace."  Lots and lots of bad things have just been 
more commonplace, beeswing, including everything you're opposed to as 
a feminist.  "It's just been more commonplace," is what a dull stupid 
unthinking male chauvinist who just doesn't get it uses to explain why 
women stay home and take care of the kids.  Coming from a self-styled 
feminist, it's *stunningly* ironic.  When I said it had me staring 
into space with a dreamy smile for a good ten minutes, I wasn't 
joking.  

This response has been erased.

Um, I don't buy the high school/college gender thing, either.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

re #15:  As a psych. major, you should know to put Faludi away and base your
         arguments on Gilligan.

There are countless factories in the U.S. where men (and women) toil for
$5 - 6/hour, and try to support familes on that income.

This response has been erased.

RE beeswing's latest, it is "a fact that the role of nurterer HAS gone 
to women," as you say.  "I said it was more commpnplace," you add, "I 
did not say it was right."  

What you said, beeswing, was: "And no one is taking ayway a nurterer 
role... it's just been more commonplace for that to go to women, which 
is unbalanced."  You certainly didn't say it was right, beeswing; but 
"No one's taking it away from you, it's just been more commonplace" 
sounds kind of dodgy to me.  Don't you hear that, too, a little?

I dunno, I'm just playing devil's advocate here anyway, as chelsea 
correctly surmised.  I've been in the workforce longer than you've 
been alive, beeswing, and I have no illusions about the roles men and 
women play, and how those roles came about.

Actually, if I remember right, Faludi is based in part on Gilligan's work.

Not to say that it doesn't happen, but I have been around for quite a few
years without the benefit of *any* formal education beyond HS and have never
encountered a problem with unequal pay. In fact, I have never known or heard
of anyone who did. Is this more a white-collar situation than blue or pink?

BTW, I manage an automotive repair facility and make exactly the same
wage/commission/bonus as every other manager in our franchise chain.

A couple of comments about both sides of the argument:
(BTW, "pink collar" is a long established term)

First, stop trying to apply generalities or averages to a specific
situation.  It *never* works.  The general truth, that women with
a college degree make less than men with HS degrees is a documented fact
if you are talking about the whole population...not necessarily your or 
my salaries.  Remember, that population includes lots of men who
are at the top of their fields, while women may struggle with a
glass ceiling.  It also includes women who have *chosen* a lower
paid job for more time with family.  It doesn't mean that beeswing,
with a psych degree, will make less than a man with a psych degree.
BTW, a plumber with his HS degree makes more than my husband with his
two law degrees.  And that's two men...

Another fact...the law allows for 12 weeks, not 2 months, of maternity
leave.  Unpaid.  Even for women who caan afford it, the workplace
disparages them for taking it.  (I am in the middle of this now).

Men do have the role of nurterer taken away from them...a man who wants to
use vacation time to care for kids is frowned upon.  He is considered
not serious about his job if he takes off for doctor's appointments, 
etc.  That's mom's role.  My husband was denied leave to stay home
for a month when I returned to work after our 1st was born.  But his
colleague was granted a month's leave to go on an overseas trip.

I think if we want to teach girls not to be victims we each need to
work with the young girls in our lives to help them.  It is important
to give all children support with self esteem so when they pass through
puberty, they can return to liking themselves.

Women do have very different approaches to work, team interaction,
competition, etc. than men.  Women are less comfortable, as a rule
with being singled out for praise as well as punishment.  (There was
a great article in a recent Investors Business Daily on this).  What
adults have to do is accept these diferences, and encourage women and
men to develop themselves in ways they are comfortable.

Simcha steps down off the soapbox.
        :-)

This response has been erased.

Well, I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that some of that salary 
difference can be explained by simple supply and demand.  There are more
secretaries available than there are roofers, relative to the demand.
(Probably has something to do with the unpleasantness of the work, but please
don't flame me on that; I have never been either, so I don't really know.)

I don't know how you can say that women aren't taking the nurturer 
role away from men, beeswing.  If a woman wants the nurturer role, she 
gets it.  It's as simple as that.  And you're right, men aren't 
brought up to be nurturers.  But who brings them up that way?  WOMEN!  

But let's suppose you're right.  Let's suppose that all those women 
who end up with all those children to nurture are entitled to shrug 
innocently and say, "Hey, that's just the way it is."  Now what?  
Doesn't it work the other way?  Aren't all those men with HS diplomas 
making megabucks up there nailing tiles on roofs entitled to shrug 
innocently and say the same thing?  What's the diff?  

This response has been erased.

All of the situations listed above happened because of choices that were
made.  Hard choices, sometimes, but choices.  If you want a father to be a
co-equal parent then you marry someone who wants to parent.  If you don't
want to be much of a parent then you make very sure you communicate this
to your partner prior to having sex.  If you want to develop a career and
have that career be the center of your life, great.  If you want to stay
home and talk to babies all day, great.  My point is that to a very large
degree you have control over how your life goes and if you choose to not
take that control and direct your life then you are a victim of your own
ignorance. Society bears but a fraction of any blame. 

The most important insight you can give yourself, your child, a woman
feeling victimized, a man feeling at odds with his life-choices is that of
empowerment.  And like with investing for a secure future, the earlier you
learn how to do it the bigger the payoff. 

Be honest with yourself.  Know where you want to be.  If you wanted to
make good money and have a secure job then getting a BA in Psychology was
probably not the best move.  If you're a guy who wants to be able to be a
big part of his kid's lives then you're probably not going to want a
career where you have no control over the amount of effort involved.  If
you want steady work, don't care to invest in an advanced education, like
working with your hands, and having stormy days off, then being a roofer
is a good choice.  The operative word being "choice". 

One last thought: You know you've made it to adulthood when you take
responsibility for your own actions or inactions. 

As usual, well said chelsea.  When we had kids, it was very important to me
that my husband be around for them just as  my dadd was around for me.  He
is a lawyer, and I wasn't interested in having him making big bucks with a
giant firm that required 80+ hour work weeks including weekends.  Life is full
of tradeoffs.  We traded money for parenting.  It also means I have to work,
but my kids get two parents instead of mom plus a shadow.  Everyone is home
every night for dinner.  And he doesn't get emergency calls requiring an
immediate solution ("help, my roof caved in!")

Dammit, Mary, we were having so much fun, and you have to come 
along with your common sense.  (One of the objections you're likely 
to get is that people usually don't have as many choices as you 
think they do.) 

Btw, there's a book published every couple of years by the 
Department of Labor called _Occupational Outlook Handbook_.  It's a 
big compendium of information about different kinds of jobs.  It's 
a fascinating book, whether you're in the job market, counselling 
others, writing a novel about a psychiatric social worker who's 
married to a roofer, or just curious.  If I ruled the world, it 
would be provided free of charge to every high school student.  

Life definitely imposes some limitations ... but it's crucial to know that
there are choices.  A few years ago, I had every reason in the world to throw
my hands up in despair -- but my upbringing taught me that it's always worth
a try, no matter how hopeless a situation looks.

I was a 25 year old single mom on welfare with two pre-school aged tots.  I
had no job skills and uncontrolled epilepsy that limited the sorts of jobs
i could do.  After a foray or two into the minimum wage market, I realized
that there ws no future there for me.  I didn't have the physical stamina or
the temperament for it.  So I went to the local community college to see if
I might be able to get some sort of aid.  

With the help of the financial counselor in the women's center, I cobbled
together enough financial aid to start taking a few classes.  Since my book
and expenses money from my grant was taken dollar for dollar from my food
stamps (already very slim pickings for a family of three) I started walking
to school so I could save the bus fare and I got really chummy with my local
food co-op.  In exchange for several hours of work each week, they gave me
free any vegetables that were too spoiled to sell and a discount on the rest
of my groceries.

I started out studying computer programming, but that didn't go well ... I
didn't have a computer at home, I didn't have access to the funds to get a
computer, and I was already stretched to limit for child care -- so I just
couldn't get in enough hours at the school lab.  So, I changed my goal.  I
turned the training I already had in computer programming into the basis of
an "embroider your own" degree in technical writing.

Then, since the market was horrid where I was, i rlocated to A2, where the
technical jobs are.

I had obstacles, I had choices.  If I hadn't been very lucky, my choices would
not have materialized.  If I hadn't been very determined, the obstacles would
have stopped me.  The key, I think, is a fundamental optimism.  I didn't
believe i could really fail, in the end.  I was willing to keep changing the
goal to make use of past accomplishment and meet curent need.  And I got very
lucky at several turns.


Hmmmm, I'm rambling.  I think the point that I wanted to make is that it's
far more complicated than "having choices" or "having limits and obstacles".

Good illustration of the point that having choices doesn't translate into
silver platters or an easy life.  And I'm convinced that mta didn't so much
"get" lucky as create her own luck.  But there are many options out there that
some people just don't explore, md.

This response has been erased.

A person who finds herself single, with two small children, no education,
and no money is indeed someone who has limited choices.  But the reason
probably has a whole lot less to do with what anyone did to her than what
she did to herself. 

Women routinely fuck assholes.  They may even willingly get pregnant by
these jerks.  Women have one, two, and even more children by men who say
they'll always be there when these same guys can't even "be" to work in
the morning. And women believe them. Young women especially must be taught
that sperm is not a token of love or respect or a promise of a secure
future together.  If you want good sex and don't want to risk a
handicapped future - masturbate.  Don't have kids until *you* want kids
and are reasonably comfortable with the thought of raising them alone (as
you probably will for some period of time).  But whatever you do accept
you had a choice and take responsibility for your decisions. 

This is not to suggest I don't feel sympathy for folks in tight
situations.  Not true, I do.  But the only way out has to be to first
realize culpability.  I mean, if you sit there pointing the finger of guilt
at your family, men, women, or society, then you are suggesting your
plight will improve only when the guilty party stops doing It to you. 
That will be a very long wait indeed. 

I use single parenthood here as an example to make the point. I couldn't
have used drunk driving, inadequate education, getting married as
a self-improvement scheme, becoming a roofer when you're afraid of heights,
etc.   And most folks who feel out of choices and a victim of bad
luck or society's prejudices are really, more often than not,
the victim of their own bad judgement.

In the last paragraph s/could/couldn't.

This response has been erased.

(Whooosh...)

Whooosh? Sounds like a toilet flush if you ask me.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss