
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be   - LekkoscPiwa
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/#ixzz2nv4fvTfg
======
beloch
In spite of how it begins, this article can be read as yet another criticism
of men, albeit an underhanded one. Two key points the author makes betray
this:

"Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-
sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work
environment thrive."

"After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again!
Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can
rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children
will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home
turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is
to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own
work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work
of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging
electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing
trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who
heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is
men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered
plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall."

To summarize, she argues that women are better adapted to the modern white-
collar workplace while men, thanks to their brute strength, are better adapted
to lower status blue-collar jobs, and nothing short of an apocalypse will put
men back on top. There's certainly no rancor against men evident in this fact-
based argument!

This end to the article is especially unfortunate because there should be some
real concern about how men are portrayed in modern media. In children's
movies, boys have become brutish, bullying antagonists to the protagonist
princess more often than not. In comedies, the most common formula pairs a
strong, competent, beautiful woman with a bumbling, slob of a man-child who
will inevitably woo the lass with sweet intent more than anything else.
Arguably, this probably reflects the fantasies of the bumbling, slovenly, men-
children running Hollywood more than a deliberate campaign against the
competent male, but the effect is the same. Action flicks glorify blue-collar
men. The cerebral, hero scientists of decades past are long gone. Heck, even
Indiana Jones is grossly over-educated by modern action hero standards!

------
pgsandstrom
TL;DR: Men built the modern society, women should be grateful. Men are doing
all the dangerous work in the world, women should be grateful. When society
collapses, the classic male figure will be necessary once again.

That's it. I guess the author does not think that women would be "pouring
concrete, laying bricks" even if their lives depended on it.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
It is not like the feminist groups are fighting to make sure 50% of all
pouring concrete jobs is done by women. It's not like feminist fight to make
sure that in 50% of divorce cases children go to fathers. This isn't helping
feminist image at all. Another special interest group that fights for special
treatment. This much about equality.

~~~
qwerta
> t's not like feminist fight to make sure that in 50% of divorce cases
> children go to fathers

But they do!

------
LeeHunter
From Jezebel: "Camille Paglia has been trolling since before trolling was A
Thing. She's the OG of barfing up archaic assertions about women, men, and
feminism, justifying them with sweeping, unverified statements, and dressing
them up with $2 words, and calling it new. Her latest, "It's A Man's World,
And It Always Will Be" is so absurd that it doesn't merit a response; it
merits an edit." Http://jezebel.com/camille-paglia-please-see-me-after-
class-1484324950

~~~
unlogic
Jezebel: using ad hominem since before ad hominem was A Thing.

~~~
LeeHunter
A line-by-line dissection of a writer's pposition is not an ad hominem attack.
Slamming Jezebel for some supposed disposition for ad hominem is itself,
ironically, an ad hominem attack.

~~~
unlogic
I have no business arguing with you on the topic, but I'm just wondering: is
it really so that accusing someone's argument in ad hominem is ad hominem? Or
have you just used "tu quoque"?

~~~
6d0debc071
AH is defined by the context. When someone's character is central to their
argument then a comment on that character isn't a fallacy.

That the person's who wrote the article above thinks that the author of the
other piece is flawed, isn't central to the majority of their argument. Thus
using that the person who wrote the article thinks that way, as a reason to
dismiss the entirety of their piece, probably qualifies as AH.

------
6d0debc071
> without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians)
> to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of
> themselves as women.

You know, if you feel your femininity is defined in terms of the men in your
life, that's your business. And I can understand how if you felt that way you
might feel that other women weren't _really_ women.

But if that's your definition, then I don't want to be your sort of woman.
Waving your hands in the air and saying things like 'centered and profound'
just makes you sound like you don't have an argument.

~~~
__pThrow
If you read it in context, following the debate question "are men obsolete",
followed by her paragraph where she says feminists have been tearing men down,
then in context what you quote is not a woman defining herself in terms of a
man W=f(M) so much as what is the relationship of the women and the man
cothreads? Producer and Consumer? Master / Slaves?

I think Paglia is suggesting a co-equal but different Producer / Consumer
relationship is better but what we are getting is perhaps closer to Master /
Slaves, a relationship that distorts each individual thread.

~~~
6d0debc071
If Paglia is just saying that we should have a co-equal producer/consumer
relationship, in what sense does the man serve as 'a model to be embraced or
rejected'?

And how would that even be an equal relationship? In more agrarian societies
it might make a certain degree of sense. But in a modern world, less so. If
you go that route it looks very much like she's defining femininity in terms
of the traditional idea that women should stay at home to raise children. (And
if you don't, you're a lesbian, apparently.)

But if so, the argument she goes on to build around that - men made the world
and continue to have a great deal of influence in many areas (ignoring the
major contributions of women to many areas of modern life) has to be
questioned for relevance. It answers the prompt, to a degree, 'Are men
obsolete?' Or at least one interpretation of it. But seems to have little to
do with any discussion as to why we might want to be kept women or address
many of the horrifying inequalities that arise from being so.

~~~
__pThrow
What she said:

 _Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the
happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages
of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for
an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely
denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with
boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And
without_ __strong ___men as models to either embrace or (for dissident
lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of
themselves as women._

Emphasis added:

Definition of model:

1\. a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed
structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original. "a model of St.
Paul's Cathedral"

2\. a system or thing used as an example to follow or imitate.

I believe she is referring to the first usage of model and emphasizing how she
needs a _strong_ men. That is she wants a well defined instance of class men
so that instances of men and instances of women can have well defined
interoperable and efficient interfaces. Without such well defined interfaces,
instances of women are not sure what instances of men respond to or what
inputs they accept and not sure what their output is. Reflection is not
implemented.

You believe she is saying class men is putative parent class of class women
which can smash patriarchy by choosing a different protype.

I don't believe that is what she is saying.

