is it ok that i like this article in the times?

[alannabanana]

came across it this morning and thought it was very incisive. ive no idea who the writer is/what her politics are, but i just thought she raised some good points about the role of men in todays society.
only concern... this doesnt make me a tory does it???

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article7138520.ece

"In Liverpool, male unemployment rose from 12 per cent in 1971 to 30 per cent in 2001. In 1971 11 per cent of families were headed by a single parent; by 2001, 45 per cent were". Quite shocking isn't it?

I am constantly amazed by the low expectations that lots of posters on here have of men in general. I didn't realise quite how many useless men were out there until I started using MN. The article doesn't suprise me at all tbh.

so whats happened to our men? the article seems to suggest they feel emasculated, which in turn suggests feminism might be a cause. i dont want this to be the case at all - being a passive feminist myself! - but i wonder if men no longer being the 'head of the household' but rather an equal partner, has made them feel undermined?? if this is true, my instinct is to tell them to get a grip and strap on a pair, but theres obviously some deeper psychological issues at work here!

Yes I read that. I found the figures interesting and worrying. I don't know if it makes you a Tory. Were you just surprised by the figures and believe that it's a problem? If so, no.

Do you have ideas about "what should be done" that might make you a Tory? Only then I suppose.

Yes, I got that feeling too, and my reaction is exactly the same, if a little more strident (being a rather more agressive feminist myself...).

I do think that primary education is geared far more to girls and that boys miss out hugely here. I also worry that there seems to be a creeping sexism in young men - brough on I suspect by the ever increasing sexualisation of young girls and objectification of women in general. The whole drive to get everyone to go to university was incredibly mis-guided and now there are practically no vocational courses or apprenticeships and choosing a vocation rather than academia is somehow seen as a lesser thing to do.

A very good article but it says nothing new.

I personally think that there are 4 types of men for women to choose from.

1. high earning males whose partners have a real choice about whether or not to work.

2. nice average income earning males who do their share of the childcare and domestic chores.

3. average income earning males who make no contribution to family life and therefore deserve to be replaced by tax credits (and very often are)

4. unemployed men looking for some gullible single mum to take care of them.

It doesn't take much brain power to work out which of these men are going to be settled happily in stable long term relationships.

There are unemployed men out there who do their share of the childcare and chores and nice average income earning males who do fuck all.

I doubt anyone who was really in love with and appreciated their husband/partner/boyfriend would replace them with tax credits because they are on an average income or were a bit shit with housework- though I assume you mean benefits not tax credits?

Oh,I've upset you I think. Wasn't my intention to upset anyone.

It's just that there is a certain type of man that the article is referring to and we've all met who just doesn't really make any contribution to family life and, in fact, creates more work for his partner. Sometimes, they even cost their partners money. It's this type of men that women like me who were sucked in initially, get rid of in the end.

Xenia could probably phase it better than me. Maybe she will.

There does seem to be a tie-in between men who won't work and men who don't respect or even hate women and see them as skivvies. But plenty of women enable this behaviour, especially mothers.

Yes, there are well-educated mysogynist bastards, however I think the prevailing attitude of educated men is that women are equal. I do find it depressing that so many intelligent and educated women put up with appalling treatment from men though.

Talking to my grandmother, there were a hell of a lot of feckless men (and women) back in her day as well.

Men who spent all the money on drink or horses, men who went out for a pint of milk and never came home, men who beat their wives black and blue every Friday night. They were mainly in work though, of some sort or another. Didn't make them good people or useful members of society.

She's got scary stories of neighbours who were trying to put on a brave face but were living in hellish, abusive marriages and bringing up 4 or 5 children on the leavings after the pub & the bookies had their share. They couldn't leave - shame, lack of financial support - often even their own mothers wouldn't have taken them in.

Ah, the good old days.

Lots of educated men are unemployed though?

I'm not upset honest

DF - dh will be unemployed this time next week. Yes, I'd be financially better off if he wasn't around but emotionally? Utterly bereft.

We'll get through it together. It's the soul of the man that's important - not his pay packet.

But a shite man who doesn't pull his weight? Thank god women have the option to kick them to the kerb now and it doesn't ruin their (and their children's) lives. And that goes for men with no-good women as well.

I think I might be channeling Expat

Isn't part of the problem that statistics are not reliable? In 'the good old days' there would be people who appeared to be in a 'traditional' family, but weren't necessarily.

I know it's a fictional example, but Hardy's Jude the Obscure is about a family where the 'husband and wife' never married. Obviously, therefore, such situations existed.

Also, lots of people lived in 'empty' marriages, but wouldn't divorce. So, the stats. show the legal situation, but not necessarily the 'real' situation.

My mum definitely believes that a woman's job is to support her husband. My dad isn't a horrible person, but if he & I disagree, she will take his side. Imagine that situation with a bit of an arse for the guy - the marriage would survive, but the people would not be happy. Perhaps feminism hasn't emasculated men, but just stopped enabling crappy behaviour from them.

SuziKettles sorry to hear about your dh.

If my dh was unemployed it would make financial sense to replace him with tax credits (grin). However, as no amount of money would be enough to persuade me to do this, that's irrelevant. He's a good decent hard working man and loving husband and father and no amount of money can replace that.

However, it wouldn't be difficult for me to decide between an unemployed arsehole and tax credits.

He has 3 interviews lined up for the week after next. I have faith in him , and if it takes a while? Hey, the flat will be tidier and I won't have to take ds to nursery so will get an extra 30 mins in bed in the morning..

Read the article and disagreed with almost all of it.

very strange things put next to each other as if they are related when I'm not at all sure they are

some funny wording/stats which i think is wrong/misleading

overall premise very dodgy

didn't agree with it at all

Bit of a half-arsed thought process there. Lots of different stats thrown in together and stirred around as if there's some theme.

There may well be a ooherent thesis in there somewhere, but she hasn't expressed it.

Surprises me as Camilla Cavendish has been brilliant on the family courts issue and has provoked a significant change in legal practice, making our justice system much more open and honest.

Btw, well-paid middle class men can be lazy arses at home too. I know plenty of them. Including a finance director who has never, ever, looked after his kids on his own. One of them at a time for half an hour here and there, but not all three - the very rare occasion when his wife has to be elsewhere, he ropes in his mum. Diddums.

Oh, and this 'feminisation' of education is a big fat lie. People keep repeating it as if it's true. Because if someone else says it, it must be happening.

I'm not sure it's a lie, Edam. I understand the theory that if it suited boys over girls for so long, it's not a "feminisation" but simply a move in the other direction.

But it seems hard to deny that certain changes suit girls more than boys. Not all girls, not all boys and so on and so forth. Without making a judgment about whether it's good or bad, it seems hard to deny.

Also agree with Callisto about creeping sexism, definitely. Creeping back. In the way that racism creeps back during hard times, sexism must do as well.

Men needed jobs after the war: so the women went home again. That kind of thing.

I think this time it seems to be accompanied by a horrible resentment and dislike.

I read that too, and was very struck by it. I thought it was spot on, actually.

Edam - I didn't say schooling was feminised. I'm referring to boys having to start school too early, having to start reading too early and having to sit still too much. Not so much feminisation as just plain unsuitable.

Boys seemed to do very well at school in the 1950s when they had to shut up and sit down all day and were caned if they dared to misbehave.

Although I agree starting school at four is too early for some children, male or female. Thankfully ds was fine, despite being a very late summer birthday. But some of his friends around the same age weren't - remember discussing this with one of the mothers who was worried about her boy being a 'slow' reader and pointing out he was only four and would probably get into reading when he was good and ready.

I would be thinking more about module based courses rather than exam courses, and so on. I'm not sure where caning comes into it. I think you are being sarcastic?