
Being a Man in the 21st Century (Part 2) - bhousel
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/being-a-man-in-the-21st-century-part-2.html
======
jerf
Basically, being a man in the 21st century, according to this author, is
basically not "being a man" at all. The entire article applies to women as
well. It's just being "yourself", with no guidelines laid on you based on your
gender.

I am not expressing agreement or disagreement; I just think the article beat
around the bush and (probably not deliberately) went to great lengths to avoid
the very conclusion it is drawing, which is that being a man has no particular
meaning anymore, according to the author.

~~~
Tichy
"being a man has no particular meaning anymore"

And unfortunately, men are also not needed much anymore. I read somewhere
recently that people are descendants of many more women than men (meaning
women have children more often than men - few men are fathers).

Women not needing the money of their spouses - will they really just be
attracted to a wider variety of men? Another thing I read recently is that
women are becoming more likely to care for physical attractiveness now. Good
for them, but I can't really see the benefit for men gained from that.

Also what tires me is the assumption that women where held down by barriers we
erected. I think in "former times" it simply wasn't possible to survive alone,
and the traditional roles where one successful approach to managing life.
Women were supposed to do the household chores because men were working at
their jobs earning the money.

What really freed women therefore was not the destruction of barriers. It was
the invention of dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and frozen
food.

~~~
fnid
According to genetic research, 80% of women reproduce, but only 40% of men
reproduce.

~~~
bhousel
I'm assuming that those percents are historic, not current.

In the past, men were far more likely to die in war than today. I'm curious
what that would mean in terms of evolutionary biology. Would Darwinism suggest
that we self-selected a more peaceful human race by breeding men who stayed
home, or a more aggressive human race by breeding men who were more
_successful_ at fighting wars and then returning?

I realize that evolution works over extremely long time periods and we've been
fighting wars regularly for our entire recorded history, but only recently has
technology really started to remove humans from the business of fighting.

~~~
Tichy
I think it just shows that it is women who decide who reproduces. It is
probably easy to find some sperms somewhere (these days there are also sperm
banks), but it is hard to find a willing womb. Hence only the top fraction of
men gets to reproduce (with several women), because women can just stick to
the top fraction of men for reproduction.

~~~
billybob
Tell that to the woman who is desperate for a mate.

~~~
Tichy
Desperate for someone to mate with, or desperate for someone to pay the child
support? The former would be easy, but I suspect most women who are feeling
lonely are really looking for the child support aspect.

As the blogger told us, it is increasingly becoming a non-issue as women are
better able to earn money themselves.

~~~
michael_browne
While it's true that procuring material/financial support from a man isn't the
necessity it used to be for women, I would suggest they are still hard-wired,
to an extent, as well as socially conditioned to be attracted to men with
available resources (also consider the increasingly popular belief that an
acceptable lifestyle requires two incomes.) Keep in mind, too, that emotional
support is likely considered by women more important than it used to be. They
are less likely today to be satisfied with a man who just goes to work
everyday and is then distant and uninvolved in domestic life. This is another
reason for women to be selective of their mate for what he can provide (rather
than just who he is,) despite their opportunity to be financially self-
sufficient.

~~~
Tichy
I think since women can afford to let men work for them (their "service" to
reproduction is more expensive, so they can ask a higher price), many will
just choose to not work and let the men pay instead.

Not everybody LIKES to work.

------
michael_browne
The unstated (but unavoidable) conclusion of the article is that we are all
now non-gendered, generic "individuals." Despite his best efforts at
suggesting otherwise, what he's describing is not a new definition of
masculinity, but the end of it. By definition, if a word or idea can mean
anything at all then it really means nothing.

