Where all the good men went

There are no good men!!! You might hear that from time to time. Well, if you want to know why there are no good men in your dating circles, read on. This post will explain a lot about where good men went. Trust me, they are all around. I feel that there would be a lot more good men, if our society would just let men be MEN.

   

By ROB OGDEN

 When I recently came across Kay Hymowitz’s article “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” in the February 12, 2011 issue of the Wall Street Journal, I became angry.  Hymowitz complains about a generation of men who refuse to grow up. Essentially, her problem is that men are waiting longer to get married, giving them lots of time without traditional family responsibilities.  This thrusts them into a “limbo” of video games, beer swilling, and casual sex with a generation of empowered women that appear to be more dissatisfied with men than they ever have been.  Men are avoiding growing up in favor of “pre-adulthood,” and women are sick of it.  Assuming she is speaking for “legions of women,” her complaints cannot possibly be fair to men.

It’s not that Hymowitz is wrong in her diagnosis; her marriage stats are telling: 55 percent of Americans between 25 and 29 have never been married, up 39 percent from 1970.  More men exist in this pre-adulthood than ever before, and it’s clear why women would be frustrated by it.  But this phenomenon is not simply the fault of one generation of young men.  Hymowitz talks about changing economic and social conditions since the 1980s, notably increases in college degrees and competitive high-level jobs, but she fails to identify the most important factor in the formation of the pre-adult male: the full-scale societal assault upon good men.

Men these days inhabit the world they inherited.  Feminism, which Hymowitz doesn’t even bother mentioning in her article, and the active favoring of women over men in our society, hold the answers to her question.  Where have all the good men gone, she asks?  There simply aren’t many; our society is designed specifically not to produce them.

 What is a good man?  Obviously a good man is a man who is good at being a man.  But with traditional manliness under attack, men today are confused about what exactly they’re supposed to be good at.  Being morally good is necessary, but women can do that too, so there must be something else.  Hymowitz appears to think that a good man is he who is not only responsible for himself, but who has a family and is responsible for them.  She doesn’t spend a lot of time elucidating what a good man is, but one gets the sense that the traditional head of the family is something that she thinks women are looking for.

 Her complaints against “pre-adults,” this new phenomenon, suggest that older models of manhood are preferable.  She mentions, somewhat wistfully, that “Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children…” but no longer. This leads me to believe that she thinks those things are the important parts of becoming a good man.

Those “milestones,” which functioned as rites of passage, required something very important: male responsibility.  Traditionally, family authority has been held by the husband; generally, this is no longer true (single mothers are epidemic, and in 2007, out-of-wedlock childbirth accounted for 40 percent of all kids, an all-time high, according to the Center for Disease Control.) The current lack of good men that “legions of women” bemoan correlates to our current lack of male authority generally.  We want our good men to be responsible men, but responsibility entails authority.  In fact, it’s difficult to understand exactly what it means to have responsibility without having authority — divorcing the two would be perverse.  When men are stripped of their authority systemically, it’s no wonder they also lose responsibility.  The pre-adults are products of the fact that many men no longer feel fit for, or capable of attaining, authoritative roles in society. A man’s desire for responsibility, for being a man instead of just a male, comes from his authoritative role, whether it be on a specific topic or craft or over his family or community.  Without authority, he cannot be the kind of good man that Hymowitz misses.

Men have been under attack at least since the 1960s.  That quintessentially radical and disparate collection of thought strains we call “feminism” has demanded that men are not in charge, and that they may not use traditional male methods to get things done.  Feminists have hopelessly obscured the very concept of masculinity, even to the point of making it embarrassing.  Feminists used the idea of a fight for equality to conceal their true motives: ousting men from power.  The “pre-adult,” on the other hand, is the feminists’ wet dream.  He has been relegated, often willingly, to the only thing feminists will admit he’s good for: a sperm donor.

 As Hanna Rosin notes in “The End of Men,” an essay in the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic, men still occupy leadership roles at the highest places in society; but almost everywhere else in the workforce, women have taken over.  Power has not been utterly wrested from the hands of men, but it’s moving that direction, and there’s not much reason to think it will stop any time soon.  With a generation of pre-adult males on their way to taking the reins of society, chances are that when they get there they won’t have the strength or character to lead.  Rosin asks, “What if the postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than men?”  It certainly is, because of a deliberate feminist cultural effort to make it so.

So how did actual policy change in favor of women?

Between 1970 and 2010, all 50 states passed no-fault divorce laws, meaning that couples can now end their marriage whenever they want, for no reason — no fault by either party is required.  This law was touted by feminists as a way for women to exit abusive relationships.  But in reality, it gave everyone the power to throw away their marriages and, in the case of divorced women, take half of everything their husbands owned.  Since women had traditionally not worked, courts almost always favored them in divorce trials; they got the kids because of a perceived greater need for female care, and the money, because supposedly they weren’t working.  But today, specifically in the summer of 2010, according to Rosin, women actually became the majority of the labor force for the first time in United Sates history — nonetheless, courts still favor women unless the woman makes substantially more than the man.

Women can legally force men out of their families, and for the most part, men can’t do anything about it.  A man who is in his 20s today was born in the 1980s, when divorce rates peaked.  Though they’ve fallen since, the twenty-somethings are a generation of men who saw their parents divorce at record rates, and who felt the effects. Men now still run the risk of divorce, after which they face losing their kids and fat alimony payments, often without much say in the matter.  Seems rational that men would avoid it.

But legal favoring of women at the expense of men is not the only way that men are under assault.  American culture has greatly aided feminists in their mission.  The pre-adult males that Hymowitz laments all grew up in a society that actively derided responsible, authoritative males.  They watched Homer Simpson — lazy, inept and stupid — haphazardly run his family, often on the brink of disaster.  They listened to rock band Blink 182 groaning about growing up and squawking about the joys of playing childish pranks at adult ages.  They watched an effeminate Jerry Seinfeld and company sleeping around with each other, never marrying or spending much time in monogamy, a TV show that Hymowitz herself notes.  In fact, Hymowitz spends some time on this issue, and she partially answers her own question.  The males of our younger generation have been led to believe that monogamy is boring, troublesome, and outdated.  Men may want a marriage and kids, but their culture is constantly advising against it.

Despite the fact that men either aren’t getting married or are getting divorced, they are still having kids.  In the days of yore, this was something shameful; these days, it’s expected.  As cited earlier, out-of-wedlock childbirth hit 40 percent in 2007; for mothers between the ages of 20 and 24, it went as high as 61 percent; for black women, it was a whopping 72 percent.  I’ve heard two male friends, one black and one white, express similar sentiments on the issue: that they were surprised, at the ages of 24 and 26, that they had no illegitimate children.  It’s become normal to have kids without keeping a nuclear family together.  Since women almost always get the kids, absent dads are now commonplace.

 This absence, obviously, leaves an administrative vacuum in families where men used to be making authoritative decisions.  Women have traditionally been very serious about managing their families, and since women have fewer men around to make the big decisions, they’ve naturally moved to fill those roles.  This, in turn, leads men to feel as though they’re in a society controlled by women.

Men’s role confusion is exacerbated by the fact that many men grow up either without a dad or with a loser dad who is himself a pre-adult.  When your male model is either a deadbeat or simply absent, you probably won’t come across much good manly advice. Moreover, kids who grow up without fathers are less likely to succeed; are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol at an early age; are more likely to commit suicide; are less likely to succeed in school; and are more likely to experience relationship troubles later in life.

According to the University of Virginia’s Marriage Project, kids living with single parents (84 percent female, 16 percent male in the U.S.) as opposed to married parents are three times more likely to suffer physical abuse, five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse, and three and a half times more likely to suffer emotional abuse.

The statistics are overwhelmingly clear: Humans simply do better with fatherly authority, and especially with married parents, during their developmental years.  As we’ve seen, a good man is he who takes responsibility not only for himself, but for others who cannot take responsibility for themselves.  Kids suffer, perhaps more than any other group, from lack of male authority.

The problem is a great one, and many men leap immediately to blaming women.  This is a huge mistake; as Hymowitz notes, women appear to be even less happy with this situation than men are.  The fall of men is a failure of our entire system.  Women are half the equation, however, and like most other areas of civilized life, if we’re going to get out of this, men need women’s help. But while most women don’t really share the views of hardcore feminists, many of them have been fed the proverbial Kool-aid.  Feminism is famous for its internal struggles and for never really coming to consensus on many of its issues — this rag-tag group could only have succeeded so spectacularly with the consent of women, which women like Hymowitz now appear to regret.

  Public schools, which are famously run by women and designed to give women an advantage, encourage young women to have sex.   They do this by demonstrating usage of condoms, and explanatory videos (when I was in high school I saw at least one video that graphically depicted an ejaculating penis inside a vagina). An implicit assumption exists: Girls have free reign over their bodies, and they express this through sex.  The very idea of “sex education” affirms this.  Since young men don’t need much encouragement to have sex, kids these days have substantial amounts of sex–according to the Center for Disease Control, forty-six percent of high schoolers were sexually active in 2009.  Another CDC study said that seventy-nine and a half percent of college students ages 18 to 24 reported engaging in sexual intercourse.  This doesn’t do much damage to a man’s marriage prospects, but it hurts a woman’s.

A woman with a good career (which, according to a 2005 New York Times article by Maureen Dowd, hurts a woman’s desirability), who spends her 20s the way that most people are spending them these days, may have to face the fact that her career and sexual choices have removed her from the marriage market.  It’s not really fair to behave poorly in a traditional sense, and then expect men to behave well in the same traditional sense.  A woman may not get to have her cake and eat it too.  “So was the feminist movement some kind of cruel hoax?” Dowd asks.  In many ways, it absolutely was.

“We are sick of hooking up with guys,” complains comedian Julie Klausner, the “we” being the same “legions of women” that Hymowitz speaks for.  When I read this, I screamed to my empty living room: Well, then stop hooking up with them, for God’s sake! I want to avoid putting too much responsibility for men’s improvement on women; however, I guarantee that if large numbers of women simply refused to have sex outside of marriage, there’d be a lot more men looking to get married.  It may take some time for the overall quality of men to improve from its current state, but women’s participation will be necessary to it.

After reading over her article a few times, I realized that Hymowitz’s tone discloses a common contradiction in her feelings about masculinity.  She parrots Klausner’s disdain for video games and Star Wars; I am not sure what video games and Star Wars have to do with adulthood or childishness, but they seem to represent men’s failings to her.  More likely, she is simply lashing out at male characteristics she doesn’t like.

A video game is just another game, and men have always loved games because of their masculine delight in competition and camaraderie — evolutionary necessities for males to perform their function.  My brother, who is a manly young law student married to a beautiful, intelligent woman, said of Star Wars: “It is about heroism, sacrifice, and finding courage when at one’s worst.  It is about conflict at its deepest, and finding the fortitude to look it in the face. What could be more manly? Is Star Wars really less realistic than You’ve Got Mail?” Indeed, it’s as though Hymowitz wishes all men were rich, neutered Tom Hanks characters.  But this is reality, and Star Wars and video games are not the problem; lack of masculinity is.  It is ridiculous to accuse men of being unmanly while also belittling manliness.

Men no longer need to grow into adults to enjoy adult pleasures.  They won’t act responsible because, increasingly, they have no responsibilities.  For these reasons, the good men have receded.  I once heard a male friend say, “Why would I want to change things when sex is free?  For kids and responsibility?  Yeah right!”  Piggish, but understandable.  With free sex, and when culture teaches that responsible males are ridiculous, it becomes difficult to blame him.  What we need is a little cultural faith restored in men: Ladies, have faith in men to come and marry you; you don’t need to do all the work.  Have enough faith to give them the authority that you wish they were exercising.

Men, have faith in yourselves to run this society and your families.  Take responsibilities; take your rites of passage.  You don’t want to be dead weight for women to carry around; this is unmanly, and demonstrates poor character.  Be men! This is, after all, what Hymowitz and everyone else appear to want.

Why Women Should Stop Trying to Be Perfect

For Newsweek/The Daily Beast, Barnard President Debora Spar writes about the challenges of “having it all” and why women should stop trying to be perfect. An excerpt:

“To begin with, we need to acknowledge that biology matters—not that it determines everything, but that it’s one of those areas of life that probably shouldn’t be ignored. This isn’t to argue that women’s bodies condemn them to a particular fate, but really just to state the obvious: that women experience pregnancy and childbirth in a deeply physical way. Women are the ones who carry the child for nine months, and whose bodies leap instantly after labor to sustain that child through the first critical months of life. These are the physiological aspects of mothering that defy government regulation and corporate policy. And they are not going away.”

“But there are also attitudes and relationships that can make these facts of life infinitely easier—or more difficult—to handle. When my first child was born, I was lucky. I was still in graduate school, able to control my own schedule and surrounded by hordes of eager undergraduate babysitters. I was a young professor when my second son was born, though, and due to be back in the classroom less than three months after giving birth. I made one research trip in the intervening time, fervently pumping breast milk during an early-morning drive, much to the shock and consternation of my research assistant. I attended seminars—and heard for years afterward from one colleague how amused he was to see me “in your shlumpy clothes, like you’d just gotten out of bed!” (No, I just GAVE BIRTH, you idiot.) And I went back into the classroom with suits that barely fit and a body still physically committed to my son, not my students. Within weeks, it proved too much. I gave up nursing, gave up pumping, and tried diligently to avoid all the studies telling me how much healthier it was for a woman to breast-feed her child. When I survived—barely—the end of that semester, a colleague helpfully suggested that I end class by jumping out of a cake.”

“These are the pressures that are tougher to address. Of course, companies should strive to create generous maternity leaves and family-friendly workplaces and private pumping rooms for new mothers. And yes, governments should aim to provide more accessible and affordable child care. But at the end of the day, women who juggle children and jobs will still face a discrete and serious set of tensions that simply don’t confront either men (except in very rare cases) or women who remain childless. Women cannot avoid these tensions entirely, but they can make choices—and plans, if they’re lucky—that acknowledge them more carefully. Women can choose, for instance, between jobs in far-off cities and those that leave them closer to family and friends willing to help with the inevitable crises of child-rearing. They can choose not to breast-feed their babies for as long as they might ideally like, or to resist the lure of attachment parenting. They can choose whether to have children earlier in their lives or later, and indeed whether to have them at all. The point is that women need to make these choices and plans consciously rather than simply hoping for the best and trying to do it all. Because unless biology truly undergoes a revolution, the task of bearing babies will fall always on women. And having babies imposes consequences that cannot, and should not, be denied.”

“Meanwhile, if women are ever to solve the “women’s problem,” they need to acknowledge that they cannot do it alone. Men must help. This isn’t because women aren’t smart enough, or unable to garner sufficient power. It’s just the basic math. Women account for only 50 percent of the population and far less than 50 percent of the decision-making seats in any organization. If women want to change the world, they need to involve men as well.”

Child Support, Welfare and Government Intrusion Into The Family

On January 4, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1974, which, among its other provisions, created a state-federal child support enforcement program under a new part D of title IV of the Social Security Act. This is now generally referred to as the “IV-D program.” The purpose of this new partnership between the states and the federal government was directly tied to the existing federal program of cash assistance, or “welfare,” under the Title IV-A, “Assistance to Families with Dependent Children” (AFDC). Specifically, the new IV-D program was designed to accomplish two welfare system-related goals through the enforcement of child support: (1) recover for state and federal governments the costs of public assistance paid out to families (“cost recovery”); and (2) help families on welfare leave the public assistance rolls and help families not yet on welfare avoid having to turn to public assistance (“cost avoidance”).

As soon as he signed this he wrote:

“I HAVE approved H.R. 7710, a bill which would make a desirable change in the tariff schedules affecting watches and watch movements manufactured in U.S. insular possessions. It would also amend the new child support program which became law last January as part of the Social Security Act.

The child support amendments, which were added to this bill shortly before the Congress recessed, will provide some States needed time to change their laws to comply with the new program, which became effective on August 1, 1975. They will also help in the orderly implementation of this program and will strengthen the confidentiality of records in the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children by specifying the purposes for disclosure of such records.

One of these amendments requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to develop standards to assure that unreasonable demands are not made on individuals to cooperate with States in their child support collection efforts. Regrettably, this amendment requires the Secretary to submit the proposed standards to the Congress with the provision that they may be disapproved by either House within 60 days.

As I indicated when I signed into law the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1975 on May 26, I am seriously concerned about the increasing frequency of passage by Congress of legislation containing such provisions, which are an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. At the same time, I believe it is entirely proper for the Congress to request information and to be consulted on the operation of Government programs.

I am therefore instructing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to treat this provision of H.R. 7710 simply as a request for information about the proposed standards in advance of their promulgation. Accordingly, I have asked the Secretary to report to the Congress at least 60 days in advance of the date he intends to issue such standards to protect individuals’ interests in child support collection efforts.

When I approved the legislation establishing the new child support program last January, I expressed my strong backing of its objectives. I reaffirm that support now. However, at that time I also stated that some of the program’s provisions inject the Federal Government too deeply into domestic relations and that others raise serious privacy and administrative issues. I pointed specifically to the provisions for use of the Federal courts and the tax collection procedures of the Internal Revenue Service for the collection of child support, the provisions imposing excessive audit requirements on the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the provisions establishing a parent locator service-with access to all Federal records.

Legislation which would have corrected these problems was recently passed by the House of Representatives, but these corrective amendments were not included in the bill I have just signed. I urge the Congress to enact such legislation as soon as possible after the current recess, so the desirable objectives of the child support program are not undermined by undue intrusion of the Federal Government into people’s personal lives.”

 

It never happened. In fact, the size of this program increased tenfold from 1978 to 1998.

These things just don’t happen overnight. If you do a little research you will find out that the child support industry, welfare, and the slow and steady creep of government into our personal lives happens over a long period of time. By the time we figure this all out, there are millions of casualties. I hope you do whatever it takes to keep any government entity out of your bedroom, your family and especially out of your wallet.

Be proactive. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Matriarchy and the end of men.

WSJ: As empowering as it is, in a way, to see women “doing everything” and succeeding, does the “end of men” have the power to destabilize societies in the poorer and middle-classes?

HANNA ROSIN: That’s what we’ve already seen with urban black America. When William Julius Wilson wrote the book “When Work Disappears” [in 1996], he was describing a world in which the urban, manufacturing economy collapses, people loose their jobs and basically the civil society comes apart. We’ve already been down this road, and I think it would be safe to say that the inner-city, African-American culture is a matriarchy. In the sense that social welfare flows to mothers, mothers get housing vouchers…In a sense, that’s our first American matriarchy we’ve been working through the past forty years. You have a Latino version of that now, a white version of that now.

So yes, it does have the potential to destabilize society as we’ve already seen happen once. Part of my hope here is that people open their eyes to that and put a stop to it.

Oh, so NOW you get it.

People already have their eyes open. Black folk have been crying out for help for decades. Start with the Moynihan Report and you will see that fatherless homes have been a problem for decades. A slow and steady shift towards matriarchy in the black community has not worked out very well. It seems the trend towards a ‘new normal’ of single mother homes is starting to effect the rest of American society. Do we really want to travel down the same road the black community has already seen?

The above quote was from an interview on the Wall Street Journal Online. Hanna Rosin was pretty insightful. Her new book The End of Men is causing quite a stir. I feel she is peeling back layers of reality that some chose to ignore.

The facts are disturbing.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

According to 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data, over 24 million children live apart from their biological fathers. That is 1 out of every 3 (33%) children in America. Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) African American children live in father-absent homes. One in three (34%) Hispanic children, and 1 in 4 (25%) white children live in father-absent homes.

In 1960, only 11% of children lived in father-absent homes.

The Consequences

Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents to:

  • Be poor
  • Use drugs
  • Experience educational problems
  • Experience health problems
  • Experience emotional problems
  • Experience behavioral problems
  • Be victims of child abuse
  • Engage in criminal behavior

(from the National Fatherhood Initiative)

We all can put a stop to the problem if we start being honest with ourselves. Widespread fatherlessness has far-reaching consequences and is possibly the most significant cultural problem of our time.

The Contempt for Dads

I don’t take this stuff that seriously. Guys With Kids is yet another stupid sitcom.  I watched the pilot a few minutes ago on Hulu and read a review on the show in Esquire.

I’ll never watch the show ever again. Steven Marche’s assessment below of the show is spot on.

I get tired of the narrative of the bumbling, idiot dad who can’t take care of kids. As you can see from my blog, and if you just look around, you will see that it’s clearly not true. We are not the second parent and we know just as much as women do when it comes to caring for children. There is no manual that comes in a mother’s womb. The line in the show where the ex-wife says, “grew inside me” is an outdated way of thinking. She uses it as a trump card for decisions with regard to their child. She says this line as if to say , “Look, you can say whatever you want, but I am the mother. Since I gave birth to the child, I know best…”

Sorry but, if you never knew before, fathers know exactly how to raise children. We can care for them just as well as any mother. Child rearing comes naturally to fathers too. If I were in the show and my ex ever said that line, I would reply, “Started with my sperm…” I also find it interesting how, in the show, the divorced dad allows his ex to run all over him until the very end of the show. What a sucker. Sorry, but I hate to see this stuff. Why would he allow his ex-wife in his home without his permission? She even had an extra key made! Wow. I see a need for manhood training for ex-husbands, or soon to be ex-husbands. Too many men allow their future ex wives to take advantage of them – before during and after a divorce.

There are silly and slightly funny moments in the show, but I can do without the emasculating tone that persists throughout the show.

Good luck to the producers and actors, I guess. People need jobs in TV. I do like seeing Tempest Bledsoe. I used to like her in the Cosby Show.

 

 

Guys with Kids and the Contempt for Dads 

By Stephen Marche – Esquire Magazine

For a brief moment, I actually thought that NBC’s new sitcom Guys with Kids (premiering Wednesday night) was going to try to depict a real conundrum of modern fatherhood. The opening shot is a bunch of guys watching sports in a bar with babies in carriers on their chests. I’ve been in this situation on more than one occasion, and I thought, naively, that the show might present the true challenge of having a baby in a carrier at a bar: trying to piss at a urinal without getting it all over your baby’s feet. Unfortunately, Guys with Kids never gets close to any real-life modern-fatherhood situation, though it seems to want to.

Straight off, let’s be clear that this is not a show you want to watch. Ever. I have trouble imagining a situation in which you would sit through an entire episode. Maybe your arm has been pinned under a rock, and it’s the only thing you’ve got to watch? Maybe you’ve never seen television before? I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a shit sitcom, whose interest is strictly anthropological, as a guide to the fast-shifting attitude toward fatherhood in pop culture. There’s a recently divorced father, trying to work things out with his ex-wife; a clueless boy-man whose wife is at home; and, somewhat daringly, a stay-at-home dad with four kids. A lot of new television this season tries to guess what the successful part of Modern Family is and then replicate it. The New Normal thinks it’s the gay couple. Guys with Kids is putting its money on Phil Dunphy.

There are currently two ways to play up dads in comedies. One is as benevolent idiots. I’ve already written about that. The other, as in What to Expect When You’re Expecting, is as buffoonish Mr. Moms, people who are biologically incapable of taking care of children. I hate this. There are men out there who want to take care of their kids, who are good at it and who make impressive sacrifices to do it. They shouldn’t be mocked as if they’re freakish.

We supposedly live in an era of progressive gender roles, and yet shock at a stay-at-home father is a surprisingly predominant social reaction. Even Hanna Rosin had it, as she describes in The End of Men:

In “The Seesaw Marriage,” I mentioned that I was “startled” at the sight of a stay-at-home dad at my youngest child’s preschool making hand-printed t-shirts for the teachers. When I confessed to that reaction in introducing my female-breadwinner-couple survey in Slate, a stay-at-home dad who guessed I was talking about him approached me to ask what exactly was so “startling.” I had to think about that one for a while. In fact, he was one of the saner parents I knew. He brought in instruments to play for the kids, concocted cool art projects, biked his toddler daughter to school in all weather, and generally seemed to always be having fun and to transmit the energy of someone who considered himself lucky. Obviously it was not just men restricting themselves to a narrow set of acceptable roles, but the rest of us colluding to keep them imprisoned. He was right. Why should I, after all my research, be “startled”? Why should I be anything but delighted?

Television shows like Guys with Kids rely on the idea that men are not naturally nurturing, that they are not inherently child-centric like women. That is nonsense. Taking care of your kids is the definition of manliness. It’s as primordial as sex or eating. I believe that one of the best things about being a man today, as opposed to in previous generations, is that we’ve recognized how much pleasure there is in taking care of children. And I’m not just talking about fathers who have made the choice to be primary caregiver. The lawyers I’ve known have almost without exception added years to making partner in order to be home at bath time. Why do you think golf courses are in decline all over America? Which guy today wants to work all week and then miss his kids on Saturday, too?

Social attitudes about nurturing fathers are in mid-flux. You can see the change on television roughly every year now. Guys with Kids, though it is lazily formulaic in virtually every other regard, has at least managed to capture one new part of the current reality: Men want to be dads. Unfortunately, the fact just isn’t complicated enough to be funny

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/guys-with-kids-nbc-13098624#ixzz27dRBhfsc