We can not both live balanced lives and keep the prestige and power we are used to. We, as individuals, must give up our illusions that we are better than others because we manage more people or make more money or get more funding. Instead, we much know we are good enough and choose for ourselves how to distribute our short time on earth.

Men can't have it all: we must give up "man" as our primary identity in order to find our more-satisfying "self".

Isn't that a double edged sword? That prestige and power is an attraction and sometimes necessity for men to court women. While I know it does happen, it's rare to find women who marry 'down' in the status ladder (be it race, income, or position). And as a marginalized male minority in the U.S., I know for certain that even good well-adjusted women wouldn't have given me the time of day if I wasn't earning a certain amount or at a high level or at a great company.

I agree that our societal norms haven't caught up with the fact that there are no longer enough high status men and low status women for all the women to marry up anymore, so the social pressure is still there but it seems to be changing fairly quickly.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/08/marriage-and-c...

Do I detect a roissysphere shibboleth? :)

Even if all women wanted was power, we are playing a zero-sum, I-got-mine, race-to-the-bottom, everyone-loses game if we demand total devotion to status, and I don't think most women want that either. Already 25% of stay-at-home parents are men. The majority of women are now in the work force. Egalitarian marriages last longer. Things are changing, and we can help them change faster by opting out of that self-destructive game.

That doesn't mean giving up on being able to find a romantic relationship, however. There is a difference between being a bum and not seeking to dominate the people around us to get ahead at all cost. I'd recommend reading http://postmasculine.com/ for the dating advice that worked best for me. Much like weight loss, there are no short cuts to becoming capable of having satisfying relationships. It is hard work to move from desperation to a place where relationships are one possible way your life could be a bit nicer, but certainly not the only one. On the other hand, I found it worth the energy.

I'm not insinuating that women are generally gold-diggers. I'm saying that ultimately status and income are considerations that come into play when it comes to the mating game. Physical attractiveness aside, a male doctor or male CEO is going to attract more interest than a male barista by virtue of his occupation and income. Income and wealth for men is a sometimes a consideration not different from height.

Let's put it another way: A minority male in the U.S. like an Asian male who earns a certain amount above the average is going to have significantly a lot more choices in interracial pairings than if he were at a low paying job. Statistics show that Caucasians females rarely marry Asians in the United States, but when they do, that pairing has the highest median income level compared to every other pairing in the U.S., including Caucasian/Caucasian and Asian/Asian. Anecdotally, all the Asian men I know who married Caucasian female are well-paid relative to the average Asian American male.

You clearly do not live in San Francisco.

If you sacrifice happiness for marriage, and get a crappier marriage than you would otherwise have in the bargin, what is the point?

Not in Silicon Valley. In Ohio, maybe.

I recommend reading David Buss's textbook, Evolutionary Psychology, 4th edition. In particular, Women's Long Term Mating Strategies, where the first heading is Preference for Economic Resources. Women consistently rate importance of economic resources in partner twice(!) higher than men. This is consistent from 1930 to today, and does not change whether most women are in the work force or not. As a textbook, it has lots of references you can check yourself.

Exactly. Women want a man that can provide (this is usually achieved through money and power). Just like men want a woman that's attractive.

I don't know why people want to go against human nature or try to pretend that it's a bad thing or it doesn't exist.

There was a study done sometime back at a Swedish university (I can't find the link at the moment) where they had the same mindset as you. A family raised a son and totally removed all male-oriented things from his life. They even gave him dolls to play with. He ended up gravitating towards male-centric things and they stopped the study.

One of the best study is International Preferences in Selecting Mates. This is a large study (N=9474) with samples from six continents, from cultures with monogamy and polygyny, etc.

No reasons except that we already know from separated twin studies that genetics plays a strong role in behavioral traits. Then also as you look at other places in the animal kingdom where learned behavior takes a greatly reduced role to wired/instinctive behavior we see many analogues. Birds provide many examples whereby the male must demonstrate his ability to provide an environment, sustenance, and protection for potential mates. Some male birds build their nests that the females examine before choosing a mate. Other birds demonstrate athletic abilities through dance.

Saying that it's just as likely that male/female behaviors are learnt as they are inborn is akin to saying that it's just as likely that having a womb to give birth with is just as likely learnt as inborn.

It's funny how selective our analogies to nature are sometimes.

Thinking up an example of a different trait attributed to the opposite sex in humans is completely irrelevant.

If you want to address this subject in a meaningful way -- rather than find a nit-pick over an analogy while obtusely missing the point, maybe you should look into refuting the mountain of twin study evidence that shows that nurture lost in the nature vs nurture debate.

Second the call for a rationale for this. In fact, I would wager that the opposite is true.

Do you have any data for that, or even a rigorous definition of an "egalitarian marriage?"

How is race among the others in the status ladder?

It comes down to efficiency. We should all focus on being as effective as possible in the shortest amount of time. Prioritization is another way to look at it - spend time on the most important things.

This reminds me of Colman Mockler - longtime CEO of Gillette. He thwarted corporate takeovers throughout the 80's and led Gillette to massive growth and share price increases, up until his death in '91. He did all this while adamantly not working past 5pm. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much information him online but the book, Good to Great, covers him in detail.

Sheryl Sandberg is another great example of someone who draws the line at 5:30pm and seems to be hugely effective. http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/12/facebooks-sheryl-sandb...

Obviously, flogging a dead horse there. The point is that when everybody does that already, the next differentiating factor becomes the amount of hours put in. Which brings us to the current situation; which is, I might add, the natural order of things, and I'm continuously flummoxed by the total lack of, or even the slightest insight into human nature, emerging behavior or the ability to take fundamental processes or drivers and lead them to their conclusions, by the authors of pieces and posts like the GP and the article under consideration. Much like, let's say, socialism, I suppose, but I digress.

Also, an anecdote does not data make. The article covers that, too, by the way - some people are just almost 'super-human' (comes naturally with normal distributions), so measuring everybody against them just sets those others up for failure. You're basically saying 'yeah if you'd just all be as good as this Gilette guy here, you wouldn't have a problem! Can't combine parenthood and a top career? It's just because you're not good enough!'.

Our western society is very out-of-touch (IMHO) with how people's inner landscape is configured (through years of cultural stimulation, parents, western symbols, etc...).

The quick reaction is to "give up" or "repress" what you are in the present to be able to "see your true self" (ie, enlightenment); this process can work, but it is a distinctly Eastern way and their psychological configuration is very different from the Western one. The answer for the Western psyche is "integration".

How many men in our society have embraced both their masculine and feminine aspects without giving up or compromising either? Very few (I've only met one or two). The same is said for women, I have never met a single woman that has actually embraced BOTH their masculine and feminine aspects - feminists and lesbians are short circuiting it, they aren't actually integrating; gay men and metros are also short circuiting it, they aren't actually integrating.

Once the Mother and Father within are recognized and "given light" (enlightenment) will the true Self be evident and present.

Why do some even feel the need to have such a strong opinion on what "balance" means to different people and where they draw that line?

If you want more money and financial success, focus on your work. If you want more attention to your parenting and to devote more time to parental interaction, then focus more time on your family life.

The idea that we're going to decide as a society what a "balanced workweek" is and what that balance means between parents is alien to me. It's a topic that's so subjective and so based upon individual goals, situations, and preferences that to discuss it in the aggregate is meaningless. Worse, once people start talking about having a "balanced workweek" or a "living wage", the next step always seems to be, "Well now we need to legislate a lowest-common-denominator norm."

The fact is that employers don't work their employees 16 hours per day because it's counterproductive and employees would go find employers who didn't work them so hard if they tried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

Sometimes individual incentives don't lead to the best societal outcome and it can be beneficial to try to change the situation by setting examples, incentives or even sometimes with rules.

It's normally preferable to let the market sort out what is unproductive and what isn't.

If you're running a company and overworking your employees, then you leave yourself open to a competitor who better optimizes worker productivity by being smarter about hours worked. You'll also risk having your employees leave if they don't like the working conditions.

Rather than have a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats make a bunch of rules based upon their normal levels of incompetence and lack of knowledge, I'd rather let smaller groups of people and companies determine what works for them.

Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"

How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."

I don't expect you to agree with me, of course, but just try one on for work one day. You'll be amazed.

But to be honest, I feel a little silly making a big deal about the ability to wear a skirt or have a purse for instance.

It's called a messenger bag. Usually cheaper, more versatile, and a leather one can last you a lifetime.

And do you know what? That's life. It's no different than any other choice. Plenty of people who don't have children don't want to put in 80 hrs per week at their job. Should we accomodate them as well?

Yes, why not? "Think of the parents" arguments may just be a pretext for letting everyone work less. As productivity increases, the amount of available work decreases. We can either concentrate that work among a few, leaving many unemployed (e.g. the would-be 50hr/wk CEO), or have everyone work less.

The biggest obstacle to "spreading out the work" is payroll taxes. It's much cheaper for an employer to hire 1 person who works 100 hr/week than is it to hire 3 people at 33 hr/week.

But my point remains, there are people out there who do nothing but work, by choice. They want a job that requires 60,70,80 hrs per week. Are you suggesting we tell these people to find something else to do with their time?

There are people fighting traditional gender roles. But then you get called a feminazi by people who don't want change.

Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-...

Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? Should we be wary of all black people because some of them kill and are in gangs? Should we be wary of all Americans because some of them own lots of guns? Should we be wary of all police because some are corrupt? Should we be wary of all British government activity because they might want to invade and colonise us? Should we be wary of all germans because some are neo-nazis? Should we be wary of all irish because some set off car bombs? etc. etc. etc.

Come on, aren't we past these gross stereotypes?

And you know that there are extremists everywhere in all groups?

I'm glad you think she's an extremist. I think she's an extremist. I start to wonder whether people on the whole share this view when people like Rosin get to speak at TED conferences and are invited to present at think-tanks like the New America Foundation. Is it just because these organizations are "open minded?" Well, take Rosin's "The End of Men" article and try replacing "men" with "black people" and "women" with "white people" throughout the article, and speculate on whether The Atlantic would have published it:

"What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to white people?"

"White people live longer than black people. They do better in this economy. More of ’em graduate from college. They go into space and do everything black people do, and sometimes they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out of the way—these white people are going to leave us black people in the dust."

I'm guessing that the author of such a piece wouldn't find an audience at TED (which bills itself as the curator of "ideas worth spreading"), or think-tanks like the New America Foundation. But apparently enough people find Rosin's ideas worth considering that she should get an audience at such venues.

Should we be wary of all christians because there's some who think all religions that don't match there's should be banned? Should we be wary of all muslims because some think it's OK to kill for their religion? ...

These are all great questions. Here's another one: should women be wary when a birth control hearing on Capitol Hill has a predominately male panel? I would say yes.

There's no shortage of troglodytes advocating women stay at home, in the kitchen, bare footed, and pregnant.

There's even laments about women suffrage (enfranchisement, right to vote).

You don't have to look very hard to find whack jobs of any stripe to use as justification for own reactionary / oppositional views.

And I imagine these troglodytes make some women skeptical of whether they should rely on men to empower women.

No-one said we shouldn't have affirmative action for men in female dominated spaces. I think it's a great idea. For example, in Sweden (and some other countries) the father is legally required to take 2 months of the (paid) paternity leave after their child is born. This sort of affirmative action means that it will become much more common for fathers to get involved with child rearing, since, well "everyone is doing it".

People who embrace our traditions get called "troglodytes" "fascists" "nazis" "sexists" and the like by cultural Marxists, moralistic activists, and other fanatics.

>Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.

No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize. You may be surprised to learn how little many people care about your 20th century social ideologies.

The whole point of feminism is to effect some changes in society. How do you propose to do that without, you know, talking about it?

Incidentally, I feel the same way about religions. I'm fine with being proselytized at, because I'm okay with people trying to persuade me of their opinions on any subject -- I don't consider religion special here. (And really, I'm not sure what to think about people who believe that their religion is the one true path to salvation, and don't try to convince others to join. It seems kind of... selfish, I guess? I don't believe any of that stuff, so I guess I should be happy about the peace and quiet, but it still irks me slightly.)

Thing is, many religions don't think they're the one true path to salvation (and in fact many don't even have a "salvation" going on). And people who hold to those rightfully get annoyed when they can't have lunch in peace because someone shows up on their doorstep trying to convince them that this someone's religion _is_ such a one true path.

The key problem with proselytizing isn't that it happens, it's _how_ it happens.

Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."

Our understanding of your ideology is precisely the reason we reject it.

Leftist ideology clearly has its roots in secularized Judeo-Christianity. We all have the "original sin" of racism/sexism/etc. we must be redeemed of, and the world is "torn" and must be tikkun-olamed to be "fixed" by a priest class of activists.

No thanks.

I think that this is the most concise summary of what's wrong with feminism as an ideology that I've ever seen. One thing to note is that this doesn't just apply to outsiders; feminists do this to other feminists that disagree with them , which is probably one reason why the grassroots of the movement is consistently a lot more reasonable than the career activists.

It is widely understood because people talk about it. Maybe it is over discussed; I obviously don't have a complete understanding of it because I thought that it was a movement for equality and you seem to disagree.

No, you're not.

For the most part, feminism is aimed at giving privileged women some of the same opportunities that privileged men have.

As a "not very privileged" man....

And, in many cases, the result of "same" has been (at best) marginal increases for women accompanied by huge decreases for men. It's unclear why that's an improvement.

And, we've yet to see feminists address female privileges, except, of course, to defend them.

The problem is feminism doesn't actually do a particularly good job at making it clear that is what they are fighting for, and perhaps because there is a particularly vocal minority that doesn't believe that to be the true and proper goal of feminism.

The only solution to this is to mandate working hours for CEOs, an idea that rather impractical to say the least.

If another male potential CEO can perform worse by working more, he will probably replace him. And that's a societal/cultural problem; we need to get over the idea that someone who puts in longer hours must be contributing more.

Society is not choosing how you live your life - you are.

Your point is valid, but the real solution is to simply not play the game.

The other way is to discard the idea that being a "CEO" is a desirable goal at all.

Now the answer is to create your own company? I thought the answer was not to play the game? If you think you don't have to play the game to start a company then you haven't done it before.