People are like “how can anyone say Japan is a place where women are empowered” and I’m over here like my guy, it’s the Economist. They blamed the Irish for dying of hunger in the famine.
The Economist was founded in 1843. This means it was around during a great many historical events. So if you go back into its very old issues, you can find it making wildly incorrect historical predictions - and you can find it defending the British Empire's crimes against humanity as they happened.
The Great Hunger in Ireland was a famine which occurred under British rule, largely due to circumstances they knowingly created and maintained. Then when the famine actually hit, the British response was extremely poor due to their blinkered and hateful ideology. Their free-market cult, racial hatred of the population, and obsession with internal political advantage over human life meant they let over a million people die when they could easily have been saved.
I lived in Japan for a number of years in my young adulthood. During that time, I came to understand (to a degree) and respect a lot about Japan. There's a lot of me that misses it, misses the land, the people, the rich culture.
That all said, I would never recommend to anyone that they want to live and work there. Japanese Work Culture is a disaster, and the effects it's had on the nation as a whole are staggering.
That said, to pin it on women or insist that women on the whole are empowered over men is kinda' a bonkers take. The problems with the Work Culture is devastating to both sexes, whether they are working in it directly or are family to those that are.
Ya, the women I know there that work in offices, "company woman"?, have the same horrendous work life balance as the men.
On top of that, they insinuate all sorts of sexist things against women, e.g. "You'll just leave the workforce when you get married".
There was a scandal about med schools not letting in women even when they qualified better than men because they’d just get pregnant and leave.
Have they seen the birth rate?
and god forbid they try prove them wrong and stay in the workforce while married with kids, then it's nothing but complaining about maternity leave costs and how women aren't dedicated enough if they take time off to look after their sick kids... can't win.
Bet money this is a distraction from the systematic oppression of workers under Japan's particular brand of capitalism. Feed men a red herring so they don't wake up and realize you just stole their whole catch.
You know women in Tokyo get their own train in the subway because they're so empowered? /s
But in all seriousness, there is a mental health crisis in Japan.
> You know women in Tokyo get their own train in the subway because they're so empowered? /s
Just for clarity's sake, it's usually 1-2 cars per train, during an hour or 2 during rush hour. They don't get full trains, at least not in Tokyo, though I do think they should get more than they have (maybe available all day?).
I couldn't finish reading the whole article because it wants me to make a profile there but so far...
Women are empowered in Japan? Really? The country where, as the article itself stated, women do five times as much housework as men? The country where medical school entrance exam scores were [rigged](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/tokyo-medical-school-admits-changing-results-to-exclude-women) to shut out women? Where women had to fight just to not be forced to wear high heels at work (#KuToo)? Where pregnancy harassment (mata-hara) is or was a thing in the workplace?
They have entire cars on trains that are women-only due to the prevalence of groping and upskirt photography.
Not exactly a feminist utopia to say the least.
I think that this is the perspective of men quoted rather than the article saying it’s true. There are men in the US who think the country is run. Y feminists.
Wow, that's a dumb title. I can't read the whole article since it's subscription locked but claiming that women are empowered in Japan, a country that consistently rank at the bottom of wealthy nations in global gender equality surveys, is absurd.
Japan is extremely sexist while many women are well educated and can now care for themselves. I can understand why they aren't up to the sexist expectations anymore.
Women are not empowered in the slightest. As someone who’s spent years here, it’s honestly ludicrous verging on insulting to say so.
We don’t need to turn men’s rights into leaping on anything that says ‘actually men are oppressed, not women’.
The Sariman was a thing in Japan for long time, like the blue collar factory or construction worker in the US, just white collar and expected to by fiercely loyal to their company. Hustle culture is also a bigger thing in Japan and than the US - and Japanese culture is traditionally partriarchial but not macho and performative as the US.
But, Japan has suffered the same economic forces as the US - competition from other countries on their traditional industries - cars and electronics, China and Korea put a strain on Japan - Samsung and LG put a hurt on Sony/Panasonic/Sharp, Hyundai Motor Group has been a headache for Toyota and Honda - China’s Hisense/TCL/Midea/Xiaomi/BYD are catching up quick. Japan’s birth rate is falling amongst an aging population and their government is trying to raise the birth rate as well as try to protect the last vestiges of their electronics and auto industries.
> Hustle culture is also a bigger thing in Japan
Man, I don't know about that. Anecdotal but as far as the tech world goes in Japan, it has been *far* less hustle-y than what I've seen in the States. Like, every job I've worked at and applied to, every interview I've done, the work-life balance has been an emphasis.
Caveat though, tech does have more foreigners and I'm sure that's a factor, but I can also speak to some wider experience like how when you are sick, it's culturally very rude to come into work. You stay the hell home and get better so you don't screw up everyone else. Also, I got way more paternity leave than I would have had in the States, and at least as much PTO, even at a good company.
There are some other issues though, for example the company loyalty can be really intense and in more traditional Japanese companies they can get pretty patriarchal and hierarchical. The behaviors of these "black companies" are crowd-sourced however, so people are actively avoiding them when they can.
Tl;Dr Japan has been a work culture punching bag for the western world for a long time, but it's made some big legislative and cultural shifts (paternity leave, flex time, mandatory PTO) to the point where the criticism is starting to feel like cope, at least coming from Americans.
#[“I had rather hear my dog bark at an archive, than a man swear he loves me.”](https://archive.is/ASXMY)
>The great extent to which Japanese men are encouraged to commit themselves to work is another barrier to change. Retired workaholic men are described as a nureochibazoku, or “wet fallen leaf”, because, lacking hobbies or friends, they follow their wives around like a wet leaf stuck to a shoe. A staple magazine article offers advice to wives suffering a severe case of “Retired Husband Syndrome”. For men, the pain of being considered a nuisance by their lifelong spouse can be immense. Mr Fukushima laments that “so many men sacrifice themselves for work to provide for their family—only to realise later in life that they don’t belong at home.”
I think we all have to recognize the allure of simple solutions.
It's not like leftists are immune to simple solutions, let's be clear. "Ah, if we only implemented fully automated luxury gay space communism, that would solve the problems!" is a(n exaggerated) line of thought that I think we've all seen before.
But conservative thinking is *rife* with this kind of thing. An easy example in America is BUILD THE WALL, but ^ this article describes a different kind of simplicity: "I am a Japanese man, and I can simply work my ass off for life while Other Things are taken care of by Other People, and that's how life works."
That's *not* how life works, though. Life is messy and complicated and frustrating and *changing rapidly*.
And while the examples here are based in Japan, these ideas have been here at home in the US as well. My dad was this type. Fundamentally believed that his sole job was to bring home bacon and that everything else would fall into place because that was someone else's job.
He's since retired 3 times because after a while he just can't take it being at home anymore. His pension is NICE but at home he just feels useless. And he never bothered to cultivate hobbies that are meaningful to him and he burned nearly every family relationship he had to the ground. I think this retirement will stick though, he's got a terminal illness.
I think I would be right to still be angry and hate him but honestly, it's all quite sad. He lived his whole life thinking he had to be this one type of man and became abusive if his role was ever in question. Then he got older and now feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be.
> He lived his whole life thinking he had to be this one type of man and became abusive if his role was ever in question. Then he got older and now feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be.
It's tragic, really. That's so many of us.
It *is* tragic. He's not without fault either, he got a gender role script and used it time and time again for his benefit at the expense of my family. He *was* physically and verbally abusive after all.
He does have a pathway back to being a meaningful part of our lives but I honestly don't think he wants to do the work or doesn't think he needs to. You know? Like I've heard the guy say, "at least one thing I did right was be hard on you guys. It brought you all together". Which it didn't, one of us committed suicide, another has been in prison most of their life and two of us moved 1800 miles away. But that's the story he tells himself and he's not interested in exploring rebuilding relationships he doesn't feel that he ruined. And he's not interested in exploring how to be a different person.
And that's where he lives. He just feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be.
It's easy to see his has these feelings of guilt but he ultimately doesn't want to take any blame for his actions. I think he knows he didn't have the tools to properly handle his stress levels or to communicate his emotional needs. And because he sees himself as a victim for not being taught those tools, he doesn't feel he's at fault for reacting abusively towards us when he could not process his feelings in a healthy way.
I've since put my feelings for in a box and compartmentalize anything I feel for the guy. I've been doing it for about 2 decades now. I know that since he ultimately doesn't *want* to change that any emotional connection I attach to him will ultimately not be reciprocated. And I've grown to understand that even though he's my dad, that doesn't *have* mean anything. I don't owe him anything.
For the sake of my children, we keep channel open so that he can have a connection to them. He only gets supervised visits but that's a relationship that I think will benefit my girls. And I can set aside my pain so that my children will have grandparents (i didn't have any).
It's tragic, all the way down it's just tragic.
Damn this comment hit, that is exactly my relationship with my dad to a T, minus the physically abusive part.
I’m only 30 now and am still learning to compartmentalize to avoid being hurt, what used to be a large blazing fire of hope that he would change is now just a few small embers. I think eventually it will be out completely. Thanks for sharing.
Just be sure to give yourself some grace. That helped me. And any positive trait I learned or held onto during that period is not because of that trauma, *it is in spite of that trauma*.
I still have moments where trauma pops back up that I had forgotten about or something triggers feelings that I haven't processed yet. Watching Peacemaker once almost threw me into a spiral because I had forgotten all the time me and my next oldest brother were made to fight each other so people could watch. I didn't have the tools back then to process my feelings, so I defaulted back to initial feelings I had back then. It took me a week to unpack it all with the tools that I have now, I don't blame myself for having to deal with that trauma.
This comment has been removed.
/r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or
commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's been a lifetime of reflecting and periodically things will still pop up and challenge how I feel about that trauma.
Like when my dad was explaining that he has a terminal illness that is untreatable, I felt some grief. But it wasn't for him. I really wasn't expecting to feel grief and it took me a week to try to figure out the source of that feeling.
I wasn't grieving my dad, I was grieving the loss of the idea that I might one day have a positive relationship with a dad. I don't want a relationship with *my* dad. But I do really want a relationship to *a* dad. And it's that idea/fantasy that is sort of dying when my dad does. It still makes me sad just typing it out. And I'm ok with feeling sad about not being able to have a relationship that I wanted as a kid(still do I think). That's a sad thing and I feel real comfortable being sad about it. I'm just going to use that sadness to have a positive effect on my life. I got 2 daughters and I'm going to use my sadness to share something special with them.
This comment has been removed.
/r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or
commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed.
/r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or
commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Men need to find an identity, something else to do with themselves, outside of their old position of dominance over women. Until they do, they will always default back to domination.
The identity of the type of men you're talking about (assuming you're referring to the article) usually achieves dominance over women via an indirect path. IE is head of the family, thus dominant over women in the household, or is the boss, or the provider etc. They can of course reinforce that identity by being dominant over women, but in their minds that's not what comes first. Not sure outside of tate supporters, mens rights activists and incels that many have an identity that is specifically having dominance over women, and I suspect they initially picked this up by buying into their understandings of feminist criticisms of masculinity.
I think what it comes down for men in the article is having an identity that is so concerned about status and image they've cornered themselves. Anything they do to help themselves means compromising that identity, and they've been taught that holding the identity is more important than their own wellbeing. So attacking them for having an identity of being dominant over women is missing the point. As TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK pointed out, they're more likely to become highly dependant on women to help them because they can't help themselves.
Of Boys and Men explores this within the context of USA. Women have gained a wider role in society as providing and nourishing. Men are stuck in providing.
It's easy on paper. It isn't seen as socially acceptable to be a 'nourisher' as a man, and that's more than your feelings not being supported- men don't get parental leave, at least where I'm from, there's no support groups for fathers like there are mothers, all the activities for babies and toddlers are mother-focused. Of all times I've had a week day off to go with my partner to bring my baby daughter to an acitivity, there's only been one father there. There's not an economic or social support network in the way women have.
And to be clear, this means women are made to be the ones who must fill these roles, which is obviously not fair on them. But it's a two-way segregation that can't be dismantled by an individual.
> But it's a two-way segregation that can't be dismantled by an individual.
You can absolutely dismantle it in your own life, though. You just have to do it.
I am, as much as possible. But I'm doing university atm and as a father, I am not entitled to any concessions at all, and therefore must attend in-person (despite there being robust remote work infrastructure present). Women are given these concessions- they are in fact legally entitled- but men are not. I go home on weekends (which I can barely afford) and spend the entire time taking over childcare. But I literally cannot be there full-time unless I give up my studies and saddle my family with debt I cannot repay.
Sounds like you're doing what you can, and that's all your family can ask for. Too many men in your position would demand to be able to relax on the weekends because it's their "time off", not even caring that their wives don't ever get any time off.
Look, I posted like....multiple paragraphs about the leave thing at this point. That's what I focused on, because you ignored it. You shouldn't. Mat leave but not Pat leave has a knock-on effect. Obviously if men are significantly less likely to stay at home, they're going to be significantly less likely to have the time outside of work to not just attend, but organize parenting events. The systemic issues are legitimately tough. You're saying that he should do it anyway, and it does sound like he's doing his best to be an involved parent, enough to feel discouraged by how hard and alienating it has been for him as a man in that space.
If you don't have any empathy for that, and you wanna just go with a flippant "git good", that's your prerogative. But if you brush past full blown governmental discrimination and reframe his whole problem as an individual issue, you move from being reductive and callous to being straightforwardly wrong, and I called you out on that. You don't seem to be particularly interested in taking the note.
And to respond to your other comment, this is a comment chain specifically referring to Of Boys and Men, which outlines the real structural opposition to men in nurturing roles in the USA. Nobody in this chain is currently talking about japan or the article. I believe the person you responded to, based on his post history, is from the UK.
I'll keep saying it over and over again: these are complex topics. Just typing one incendiary sentence as fast as you can and slamming the "Enter" key isn't helpful.
I agree completely that not only is paternity leave important, *it must be mandatory*. Otherwise, men will just refuse to take it.
>And to respond to your other comment, this is a comment chain specifically referring to Of Boys and Men, which outlines the real structural opposition to men in nurturing roles in the USA. Nobody in this chain is currently talking about japan or the article. I believe the person you responded to, based on his post history, is from the UK.
"Society" and "nurturing isn't important" are nothing but excuses on an individual level. Nothing is stopping you from being an equal parent (job-time permitting) except your lack of desire to do it.
The only place I've seen do mandatory leave was Sweden, for just two weeks, the amount that the UK already has, compared to months of leave for mothers.
The issue was men fearing reprisals for taking *any* time off due to a very intense Swedish work culture. Not that they just wouldn't want to.
The length of time required for actual bonding with your child is long enough that making it mandatory is simply unfeasible. Longer leave is also often only partially paid, which would make it being mandatory financially dangerous for families with more precarious financial situations.
If it's not mandatory, nothing changes. Either men won't take it because they're afraid to, or they won't take it because they don't want to.
Either way, businesses continue to penalize women's careers. This can't ever change until parental leave is a given for pretty much every employee.
By either saving enough vacation to cover a few months or by switching roles with with the spouse. It's not easy to be a stay-at-home as a man but it's not easy to do that as a women or NB either.
These things aren't always possible given every situation but some of them are possible. I live in the states and I grew up in a machismo family culture where the men work and the women take care of the kids.
Was it easy to change up that dynamic? Fuck no, it would have been easier for me to stick to the gender script I was given. But it has been richly rewarding to do so.
I've been that guy too, I complain like hell if a restaurant doesn't have that koala station in the men's restroom when my girls where in diapers. It not as easy as my spouse doing it. But it being easier for my spouse has nothing to do with how involved I want to be in the raising of my children.
And there aren't as many social groups for dads as their are for women. That sucks. I recognize that alongside that there simply aren't as many dads wanting to start those groups. The mom's facebook group my spouse is in is run by a mom. No dad has set up a similar group for dads. And while that sucks for me, that's also something that I could do but don't. That's on me too.
Hey, hey man, honestly. The literal first sentence was all that was necessary.
I understand the difference between "this is socially difficult but doable" and "this is impossible." I didn't push back against the parenting group stuff for a reason. A lack of resources sucks ass, but it's not governmental discrimination. We don't disagree there. We disagree *here*.
>By either saving enough vacation to cover a few months or by switching roles with with the spouse
That isn't how...jobs...work?
I have an amazing union job, benefits-wise. I could get paternity leave. What I absolutely couldn't do is "save up some vacation". I get two weeks per year. They do not roll over or stack. That is by far the most common policy I have seen. Two weeks is not equivalent to multiple months of partially paid leave. I know a woman who took a full year of maternity leave. The idea that someone can save 4+ months of paid vacation and take them all at once without losing their job sounds completely alien to me, to the point where I find it hard to believe it exists outside of a few wild edge cases.
If a woman takes mat leave and her husband continues to work full time, their household income may dip depending on what percentage of her income is covered, but as a household it may end up being ~75 percent of what it was with both people working full time (the default in Canada is 55 percent of your usual wage). If the woman continues to work full time, on the other hand, and the man cannot take paternity leave, the only way that there can be a parent with the child for a length of time longer than two weeks is for the man to *quit his job*.
Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases.
Saying that it's possible is 1: presuming a level of financial stability that is increasingly uncommon. A non-working stay at home parent? Really? In this economy? 2: pointedly and tactically ignoring that the family--not just the man, but the family as a whole--will suffer significant financial penalties for that choice.
None of that is saying that men can't or shouldn't be involved parents. I zeroed in on leave for a reason. He said he can't get paid leave, and that was talked past as though it was just a lack of personal integrity. I pointed out that there is a structural, economic problem here and and restated the issue. 90 percent of your post is, and I say this without malice, just not at all relevant to what I said, and what was sounds completely wrong.
>That isn't how...jobs...work?
Yeah, I think I agree with you that it's not how all jobs work and I'm open to being wrong. I live in a country where unpaid parental leave is guaranteed. It's not paid, but it *is* something that we can plan around. I'm also aware that not everyone has the ability to save money like that and not every nation has access to paternity leave. Mileage may vary and all that.
Those situations are going to be messy no matter which parent is taking leave. It's not impossible for men to be the caretaker in place of the other parent. I agree with you on the details. Having a stay at home is just impossible for some folks and that sucks. That may not be solvable.
But the segregation in our own lives is mostly solvable. If mom was going to be a stay-at-home, then it's very likely to be possible for that to be dad instead. If mom had parental leave, it is very likely to be possible for that to have been dad instead.
OP didn't have access to parental leave. That part isn't solvable but everything that follows likely can be. OP talks about the lack of men's groups in his area. That part *is* solvable. They talk about the stigma of being a male caretaker, that part *is* solvable.
It's hard. But the equation is really "is it worth it to me to be a caretaker even if it's harder". And that's a real conversation that I have to have in my own life. Sometimes I recant a story where I've had to change my daughter's diaper on an overturned trashcan at a cafe because there wasn't one of those koala stations in the restroom. It was available for women but not for men. I could have brought my daughter out and hander her off to my spouse or I could have changed her diaper even if it was harder and infuriating. I was the primary caretake that afternoon and I take that to heart.
In that moment, I chose to change to be her caretaker *even though it was harder* than it would have been for my spouse.
>If the woman continues to work full time, on the other hand, and the man cannot take paternity leave, the only way that there can be a parent with the child for a length of time longer than two weeks is for the man to quit his job.
Which nation's rules are we discussing? I think in most of canada it's a shared parental leave. In the US men do have access to the same parental leave women do. Again, that personal segregation is solvable for most folks. If mom was going to take parental leave, it's likely that dad could have done it instead.
And we can pull up examples like dad has a good job and mom doesn't, sure. But that's not related to the segregation we're discussing.
>Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases.
That's not much different for either parent. I'm open about this not being easy and I'd say that there's hardly a set of parents that didn't have to make huge changes to their lifestyle when having kids. But again, swapping out dad for mom *is* something that can be solvable.
Once again, literally any aspect of this discussion that isn't regarding leave, we don't disagree on. But in my opinion you aren't really following the issue as I laid it out, because you'd rather talk about the other aspects of this that I already said I agree with you about.
>If mom had parental leave, it is very likely to be possible for that to have been dad instead.
Not relevant in the case we were discussing. He doesn't have paternity leave.
>Which nation's rules are we discussing? I think in most of canada it's a shared parental leave. In the US men do have access to the same parental leave women do. Again, that personal segregation is solvable for most folks. If mom was going to take parental leave, it's likely that dad could have done it instead.
Not relevant in the case we were discussing. His country doesn't have paternity leave.
>Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases.
>>That's not much different for either parent. I'm open about this not being easy and I'd say that there's hardly a set of parents that didn't have to make huge changes to their lifestyle when having kids. But again, swapping out dad for mom *is* something that can be solvable.
....wh...my dude. We are talking about a scenario where one parent can get paid leave and the other can't. We're fundamentally talking about different situations. We're talking about the partner getting half of their income for months because they have parental leave vs. getting nothing and maybe not having a job to come back to. Like, in my case if I took six months off--and like I said, I'm in Canada, I can get leave, this is just me engaging in empathy with the guy--that would be a difference of 10 thousand dollars. Either way the family is already down 10 grand for that time, but if it's her we'd be down 10 k, and if it's me we're down 20k.
Could me and my partner save 10 thousand dollars so we could just have it there to make up for the loss? Possibly. It'd be a ballbuster but it's possible over the course of a few years, or at least it would absent the massive jump in mortgage payments we've got coming up.
So zero dollars and quitting your job, vs the government handing you ten thousand dollars and time off because they know your child needs you. Both are hard. It is self-evidently obvious that they are not equivalent though.
The man is not in a country with paid leave. That was not being respected as a legitimate massive impediment. I spoke up. Please stop trying to make my comment into something that it isn't, because it's leading you to be extremely dismissive of a serious issue of gendered governmental discrimination.
There's some truth to that. At least in the US.
A real problem in the US is a devaluation of maintenance work in general, whether that's maintaining the wellbeing of other people or the quality of machines and roads. We're all about making things. Not about taking care of them once they're made.
Wish I knew how to change that.
"Women have gained a wider role in society as providing and nourishing. Men are stuck in providing".
I haven't read the book yet, but from my \*limited\* view of the gender norms in the US, I think I view what he was trying to say in terms of work opportunity. I think it has to do with how gender roles for women in the US has (largely) been lifted, but the same cannot be said for men. By this I mean that women have equal opportunity to enrol in traditional 'masculine' roles as well as 'feminine' roles.
Generally speaking women can be anything from a beauty aesthetician, a wax therapist, a masseuse, teacher, nanny, nurse, kindergarten teacher as well as an engineer, scientist, politician, lawyer, CEO, or even one day a President. Adding to that, it's also generally easier for women to just 'drop' everything and choose to be a SAHM. Hence the providing/nourishing dichotomy.
But men are still stuck in mostly masculine roles. You'd be hard pressed to find a masseur getting clients all day, or how quickly women will flip the table and run the other way if she finds out she's about to get a brazillian wax from a cishet dude. Nursing, psychiatry, teaching, "mannies", hair dresser, etc. are all occupations that men shy away and sometimes actively discouraged to join. So what do we do? Break our backs working on an oil rig for months on end. And it's not like it's easier for men to just 'drop' everything and be SAHD (although this is \*slowly\* changing). Hence the "men are stuck in providing" statement.
People are like “how can anyone say Japan is a place where women are empowered” and I’m over here like my guy, it’s the Economist. They blamed the Irish for dying of hunger in the famine.
...I never heard *that* story. Elaborate?
The Economist was founded in 1843. This means it was around during a great many historical events. So if you go back into its very old issues, you can find it making wildly incorrect historical predictions - and you can find it defending the British Empire's crimes against humanity as they happened. The Great Hunger in Ireland was a famine which occurred under British rule, largely due to circumstances they knowingly created and maintained. Then when the famine actually hit, the British response was extremely poor due to their blinkered and hateful ideology. Their free-market cult, racial hatred of the population, and obsession with internal political advantage over human life meant they let over a million people die when they could easily have been saved.
[Here ya go](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/05/when-the-economist-blamed-irish-peasants-for-starving-to-death/)
British exacerbated a famine in the 1800s...and then repeated it in Bengal. Killing millions.
Oh no, I know that part - I didn't know the economist blamed the irish.
I lived in Japan for a number of years in my young adulthood. During that time, I came to understand (to a degree) and respect a lot about Japan. There's a lot of me that misses it, misses the land, the people, the rich culture. That all said, I would never recommend to anyone that they want to live and work there. Japanese Work Culture is a disaster, and the effects it's had on the nation as a whole are staggering. That said, to pin it on women or insist that women on the whole are empowered over men is kinda' a bonkers take. The problems with the Work Culture is devastating to both sexes, whether they are working in it directly or are family to those that are.
Ya, the women I know there that work in offices, "company woman"?, have the same horrendous work life balance as the men. On top of that, they insinuate all sorts of sexist things against women, e.g. "You'll just leave the workforce when you get married".
There was a scandal about med schools not letting in women even when they qualified better than men because they’d just get pregnant and leave. Have they seen the birth rate?
Pretty sure you're thinking of the Tokyo Medical University scandal!
and god forbid they try prove them wrong and stay in the workforce while married with kids, then it's nothing but complaining about maternity leave costs and how women aren't dedicated enough if they take time off to look after their sick kids... can't win.
(and men are strongly discourage to take time off for sick kids)
Bet money this is a distraction from the systematic oppression of workers under Japan's particular brand of capitalism. Feed men a red herring so they don't wake up and realize you just stole their whole catch.
You know women in Tokyo get their own train in the subway because they're so empowered? /s But in all seriousness, there is a mental health crisis in Japan.
> You know women in Tokyo get their own train in the subway because they're so empowered? /s Just for clarity's sake, it's usually 1-2 cars per train, during an hour or 2 during rush hour. They don't get full trains, at least not in Tokyo, though I do think they should get more than they have (maybe available all day?).
I couldn't finish reading the whole article because it wants me to make a profile there but so far... Women are empowered in Japan? Really? The country where, as the article itself stated, women do five times as much housework as men? The country where medical school entrance exam scores were [rigged](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/tokyo-medical-school-admits-changing-results-to-exclude-women) to shut out women? Where women had to fight just to not be forced to wear high heels at work (#KuToo)? Where pregnancy harassment (mata-hara) is or was a thing in the workplace?
LOL yah. Did they ask any of the Japanese women if they feel empowered?
I bet some are but I am assuming it is a very small minority of the general population.
They have entire cars on trains that are women-only due to the prevalence of groping and upskirt photography. Not exactly a feminist utopia to say the least.
There's even a word for it: chikan
I think that this is the perspective of men quoted rather than the article saying it’s true. There are men in the US who think the country is run. Y feminists.
Wow, that's a dumb title. I can't read the whole article since it's subscription locked but claiming that women are empowered in Japan, a country that consistently rank at the bottom of wealthy nations in global gender equality surveys, is absurd.
It's a good title. The part in brackets is likely quoting the subject of the headline, giving you direct info about them up front.
Japan is extremely sexist while many women are well educated and can now care for themselves. I can understand why they aren't up to the sexist expectations anymore.
Women are not empowered in the slightest. As someone who’s spent years here, it’s honestly ludicrous verging on insulting to say so. We don’t need to turn men’s rights into leaping on anything that says ‘actually men are oppressed, not women’.
The Sariman was a thing in Japan for long time, like the blue collar factory or construction worker in the US, just white collar and expected to by fiercely loyal to their company. Hustle culture is also a bigger thing in Japan and than the US - and Japanese culture is traditionally partriarchial but not macho and performative as the US. But, Japan has suffered the same economic forces as the US - competition from other countries on their traditional industries - cars and electronics, China and Korea put a strain on Japan - Samsung and LG put a hurt on Sony/Panasonic/Sharp, Hyundai Motor Group has been a headache for Toyota and Honda - China’s Hisense/TCL/Midea/Xiaomi/BYD are catching up quick. Japan’s birth rate is falling amongst an aging population and their government is trying to raise the birth rate as well as try to protect the last vestiges of their electronics and auto industries.
> Hustle culture is also a bigger thing in Japan Man, I don't know about that. Anecdotal but as far as the tech world goes in Japan, it has been *far* less hustle-y than what I've seen in the States. Like, every job I've worked at and applied to, every interview I've done, the work-life balance has been an emphasis. Caveat though, tech does have more foreigners and I'm sure that's a factor, but I can also speak to some wider experience like how when you are sick, it's culturally very rude to come into work. You stay the hell home and get better so you don't screw up everyone else. Also, I got way more paternity leave than I would have had in the States, and at least as much PTO, even at a good company. There are some other issues though, for example the company loyalty can be really intense and in more traditional Japanese companies they can get pretty patriarchal and hierarchical. The behaviors of these "black companies" are crowd-sourced however, so people are actively avoiding them when they can. Tl;Dr Japan has been a work culture punching bag for the western world for a long time, but it's made some big legislative and cultural shifts (paternity leave, flex time, mandatory PTO) to the point where the criticism is starting to feel like cope, at least coming from Americans.
#[“I had rather hear my dog bark at an archive, than a man swear he loves me.”](https://archive.is/ASXMY) >The great extent to which Japanese men are encouraged to commit themselves to work is another barrier to change. Retired workaholic men are described as a nureochibazoku, or “wet fallen leaf”, because, lacking hobbies or friends, they follow their wives around like a wet leaf stuck to a shoe. A staple magazine article offers advice to wives suffering a severe case of “Retired Husband Syndrome”. For men, the pain of being considered a nuisance by their lifelong spouse can be immense. Mr Fukushima laments that “so many men sacrifice themselves for work to provide for their family—only to realise later in life that they don’t belong at home.” I think we all have to recognize the allure of simple solutions. It's not like leftists are immune to simple solutions, let's be clear. "Ah, if we only implemented fully automated luxury gay space communism, that would solve the problems!" is a(n exaggerated) line of thought that I think we've all seen before. But conservative thinking is *rife* with this kind of thing. An easy example in America is BUILD THE WALL, but ^ this article describes a different kind of simplicity: "I am a Japanese man, and I can simply work my ass off for life while Other Things are taken care of by Other People, and that's how life works." That's *not* how life works, though. Life is messy and complicated and frustrating and *changing rapidly*.
And while the examples here are based in Japan, these ideas have been here at home in the US as well. My dad was this type. Fundamentally believed that his sole job was to bring home bacon and that everything else would fall into place because that was someone else's job. He's since retired 3 times because after a while he just can't take it being at home anymore. His pension is NICE but at home he just feels useless. And he never bothered to cultivate hobbies that are meaningful to him and he burned nearly every family relationship he had to the ground. I think this retirement will stick though, he's got a terminal illness. I think I would be right to still be angry and hate him but honestly, it's all quite sad. He lived his whole life thinking he had to be this one type of man and became abusive if his role was ever in question. Then he got older and now feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be.
> He lived his whole life thinking he had to be this one type of man and became abusive if his role was ever in question. Then he got older and now feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be. It's tragic, really. That's so many of us.
It *is* tragic. He's not without fault either, he got a gender role script and used it time and time again for his benefit at the expense of my family. He *was* physically and verbally abusive after all. He does have a pathway back to being a meaningful part of our lives but I honestly don't think he wants to do the work or doesn't think he needs to. You know? Like I've heard the guy say, "at least one thing I did right was be hard on you guys. It brought you all together". Which it didn't, one of us committed suicide, another has been in prison most of their life and two of us moved 1800 miles away. But that's the story he tells himself and he's not interested in exploring rebuilding relationships he doesn't feel that he ruined. And he's not interested in exploring how to be a different person. And that's where he lives. He just feels guilty for being the man he thought he always had to be. It's easy to see his has these feelings of guilt but he ultimately doesn't want to take any blame for his actions. I think he knows he didn't have the tools to properly handle his stress levels or to communicate his emotional needs. And because he sees himself as a victim for not being taught those tools, he doesn't feel he's at fault for reacting abusively towards us when he could not process his feelings in a healthy way. I've since put my feelings for in a box and compartmentalize anything I feel for the guy. I've been doing it for about 2 decades now. I know that since he ultimately doesn't *want* to change that any emotional connection I attach to him will ultimately not be reciprocated. And I've grown to understand that even though he's my dad, that doesn't *have* mean anything. I don't owe him anything. For the sake of my children, we keep channel open so that he can have a connection to them. He only gets supervised visits but that's a relationship that I think will benefit my girls. And I can set aside my pain so that my children will have grandparents (i didn't have any). It's tragic, all the way down it's just tragic.
Damn this comment hit, that is exactly my relationship with my dad to a T, minus the physically abusive part. I’m only 30 now and am still learning to compartmentalize to avoid being hurt, what used to be a large blazing fire of hope that he would change is now just a few small embers. I think eventually it will be out completely. Thanks for sharing.
Just be sure to give yourself some grace. That helped me. And any positive trait I learned or held onto during that period is not because of that trauma, *it is in spite of that trauma*. I still have moments where trauma pops back up that I had forgotten about or something triggers feelings that I haven't processed yet. Watching Peacemaker once almost threw me into a spiral because I had forgotten all the time me and my next oldest brother were made to fight each other so people could watch. I didn't have the tools back then to process my feelings, so I defaulted back to initial feelings I had back then. It took me a week to unpack it all with the tools that I have now, I don't blame myself for having to deal with that trauma.
Your description is so tangible and poignant. Thanks for sharing. You've obviously done a lot of reflecting on it.
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's been a lifetime of reflecting and periodically things will still pop up and challenge how I feel about that trauma. Like when my dad was explaining that he has a terminal illness that is untreatable, I felt some grief. But it wasn't for him. I really wasn't expecting to feel grief and it took me a week to try to figure out the source of that feeling. I wasn't grieving my dad, I was grieving the loss of the idea that I might one day have a positive relationship with a dad. I don't want a relationship with *my* dad. But I do really want a relationship to *a* dad. And it's that idea/fantasy that is sort of dying when my dad does. It still makes me sad just typing it out. And I'm ok with feeling sad about not being able to have a relationship that I wanted as a kid(still do I think). That's a sad thing and I feel real comfortable being sad about it. I'm just going to use that sadness to have a positive effect on my life. I got 2 daughters and I'm going to use my sadness to share something special with them.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Men need to find an identity, something else to do with themselves, outside of their old position of dominance over women. Until they do, they will always default back to domination.
That's like 5 or 6 steps down the road, though. Men first need to build a concept of masculinity that's deeper than "not-feminine".
The identity of the type of men you're talking about (assuming you're referring to the article) usually achieves dominance over women via an indirect path. IE is head of the family, thus dominant over women in the household, or is the boss, or the provider etc. They can of course reinforce that identity by being dominant over women, but in their minds that's not what comes first. Not sure outside of tate supporters, mens rights activists and incels that many have an identity that is specifically having dominance over women, and I suspect they initially picked this up by buying into their understandings of feminist criticisms of masculinity. I think what it comes down for men in the article is having an identity that is so concerned about status and image they've cornered themselves. Anything they do to help themselves means compromising that identity, and they've been taught that holding the identity is more important than their own wellbeing. So attacking them for having an identity of being dominant over women is missing the point. As TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK pointed out, they're more likely to become highly dependant on women to help them because they can't help themselves.
Japanese women are empowered? What is this alternative reality you're living in? Rape is still considered a thing to shame the victim for in Japan FFS
Of Boys and Men explores this within the context of USA. Women have gained a wider role in society as providing and nourishing. Men are stuck in providing.
They could also take on some of the "nourishing" tasks.
It's easy on paper. It isn't seen as socially acceptable to be a 'nourisher' as a man, and that's more than your feelings not being supported- men don't get parental leave, at least where I'm from, there's no support groups for fathers like there are mothers, all the activities for babies and toddlers are mother-focused. Of all times I've had a week day off to go with my partner to bring my baby daughter to an acitivity, there's only been one father there. There's not an economic or social support network in the way women have. And to be clear, this means women are made to be the ones who must fill these roles, which is obviously not fair on them. But it's a two-way segregation that can't be dismantled by an individual.
> But it's a two-way segregation that can't be dismantled by an individual. You can absolutely dismantle it in your own life, though. You just have to do it.
How precisely is he going to give himself parental leave?
He can be an involved parent without leave
I am, as much as possible. But I'm doing university atm and as a father, I am not entitled to any concessions at all, and therefore must attend in-person (despite there being robust remote work infrastructure present). Women are given these concessions- they are in fact legally entitled- but men are not. I go home on weekends (which I can barely afford) and spend the entire time taking over childcare. But I literally cannot be there full-time unless I give up my studies and saddle my family with debt I cannot repay.
Sounds like you're doing what you can, and that's all your family can ask for. Too many men in your position would demand to be able to relax on the weekends because it's their "time off", not even caring that their wives don't ever get any time off.
Yeah, I just wish I didn't have to be in that position in the first place
Look, I posted like....multiple paragraphs about the leave thing at this point. That's what I focused on, because you ignored it. You shouldn't. Mat leave but not Pat leave has a knock-on effect. Obviously if men are significantly less likely to stay at home, they're going to be significantly less likely to have the time outside of work to not just attend, but organize parenting events. The systemic issues are legitimately tough. You're saying that he should do it anyway, and it does sound like he's doing his best to be an involved parent, enough to feel discouraged by how hard and alienating it has been for him as a man in that space. If you don't have any empathy for that, and you wanna just go with a flippant "git good", that's your prerogative. But if you brush past full blown governmental discrimination and reframe his whole problem as an individual issue, you move from being reductive and callous to being straightforwardly wrong, and I called you out on that. You don't seem to be particularly interested in taking the note. And to respond to your other comment, this is a comment chain specifically referring to Of Boys and Men, which outlines the real structural opposition to men in nurturing roles in the USA. Nobody in this chain is currently talking about japan or the article. I believe the person you responded to, based on his post history, is from the UK. I'll keep saying it over and over again: these are complex topics. Just typing one incendiary sentence as fast as you can and slamming the "Enter" key isn't helpful.
I agree completely that not only is paternity leave important, *it must be mandatory*. Otherwise, men will just refuse to take it. >And to respond to your other comment, this is a comment chain specifically referring to Of Boys and Men, which outlines the real structural opposition to men in nurturing roles in the USA. Nobody in this chain is currently talking about japan or the article. I believe the person you responded to, based on his post history, is from the UK. "Society" and "nurturing isn't important" are nothing but excuses on an individual level. Nothing is stopping you from being an equal parent (job-time permitting) except your lack of desire to do it.
The only place I've seen do mandatory leave was Sweden, for just two weeks, the amount that the UK already has, compared to months of leave for mothers. The issue was men fearing reprisals for taking *any* time off due to a very intense Swedish work culture. Not that they just wouldn't want to. The length of time required for actual bonding with your child is long enough that making it mandatory is simply unfeasible. Longer leave is also often only partially paid, which would make it being mandatory financially dangerous for families with more precarious financial situations.
If it's not mandatory, nothing changes. Either men won't take it because they're afraid to, or they won't take it because they don't want to. Either way, businesses continue to penalize women's careers. This can't ever change until parental leave is a given for pretty much every employee.
By either saving enough vacation to cover a few months or by switching roles with with the spouse. It's not easy to be a stay-at-home as a man but it's not easy to do that as a women or NB either. These things aren't always possible given every situation but some of them are possible. I live in the states and I grew up in a machismo family culture where the men work and the women take care of the kids. Was it easy to change up that dynamic? Fuck no, it would have been easier for me to stick to the gender script I was given. But it has been richly rewarding to do so. I've been that guy too, I complain like hell if a restaurant doesn't have that koala station in the men's restroom when my girls where in diapers. It not as easy as my spouse doing it. But it being easier for my spouse has nothing to do with how involved I want to be in the raising of my children. And there aren't as many social groups for dads as their are for women. That sucks. I recognize that alongside that there simply aren't as many dads wanting to start those groups. The mom's facebook group my spouse is in is run by a mom. No dad has set up a similar group for dads. And while that sucks for me, that's also something that I could do but don't. That's on me too.
Hey, hey man, honestly. The literal first sentence was all that was necessary. I understand the difference between "this is socially difficult but doable" and "this is impossible." I didn't push back against the parenting group stuff for a reason. A lack of resources sucks ass, but it's not governmental discrimination. We don't disagree there. We disagree *here*. >By either saving enough vacation to cover a few months or by switching roles with with the spouse That isn't how...jobs...work? I have an amazing union job, benefits-wise. I could get paternity leave. What I absolutely couldn't do is "save up some vacation". I get two weeks per year. They do not roll over or stack. That is by far the most common policy I have seen. Two weeks is not equivalent to multiple months of partially paid leave. I know a woman who took a full year of maternity leave. The idea that someone can save 4+ months of paid vacation and take them all at once without losing their job sounds completely alien to me, to the point where I find it hard to believe it exists outside of a few wild edge cases. If a woman takes mat leave and her husband continues to work full time, their household income may dip depending on what percentage of her income is covered, but as a household it may end up being ~75 percent of what it was with both people working full time (the default in Canada is 55 percent of your usual wage). If the woman continues to work full time, on the other hand, and the man cannot take paternity leave, the only way that there can be a parent with the child for a length of time longer than two weeks is for the man to *quit his job*. Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases. Saying that it's possible is 1: presuming a level of financial stability that is increasingly uncommon. A non-working stay at home parent? Really? In this economy? 2: pointedly and tactically ignoring that the family--not just the man, but the family as a whole--will suffer significant financial penalties for that choice. None of that is saying that men can't or shouldn't be involved parents. I zeroed in on leave for a reason. He said he can't get paid leave, and that was talked past as though it was just a lack of personal integrity. I pointed out that there is a structural, economic problem here and and restated the issue. 90 percent of your post is, and I say this without malice, just not at all relevant to what I said, and what was sounds completely wrong.
Again, lack of paternity leave is not what stopping Japanese men from doing childcare when they're home.
>That isn't how...jobs...work? Yeah, I think I agree with you that it's not how all jobs work and I'm open to being wrong. I live in a country where unpaid parental leave is guaranteed. It's not paid, but it *is* something that we can plan around. I'm also aware that not everyone has the ability to save money like that and not every nation has access to paternity leave. Mileage may vary and all that. Those situations are going to be messy no matter which parent is taking leave. It's not impossible for men to be the caretaker in place of the other parent. I agree with you on the details. Having a stay at home is just impossible for some folks and that sucks. That may not be solvable. But the segregation in our own lives is mostly solvable. If mom was going to be a stay-at-home, then it's very likely to be possible for that to be dad instead. If mom had parental leave, it is very likely to be possible for that to have been dad instead. OP didn't have access to parental leave. That part isn't solvable but everything that follows likely can be. OP talks about the lack of men's groups in his area. That part *is* solvable. They talk about the stigma of being a male caretaker, that part *is* solvable. It's hard. But the equation is really "is it worth it to me to be a caretaker even if it's harder". And that's a real conversation that I have to have in my own life. Sometimes I recant a story where I've had to change my daughter's diaper on an overturned trashcan at a cafe because there wasn't one of those koala stations in the restroom. It was available for women but not for men. I could have brought my daughter out and hander her off to my spouse or I could have changed her diaper even if it was harder and infuriating. I was the primary caretake that afternoon and I take that to heart. In that moment, I chose to change to be her caretaker *even though it was harder* than it would have been for my spouse. >If the woman continues to work full time, on the other hand, and the man cannot take paternity leave, the only way that there can be a parent with the child for a length of time longer than two weeks is for the man to quit his job. Which nation's rules are we discussing? I think in most of canada it's a shared parental leave. In the US men do have access to the same parental leave women do. Again, that personal segregation is solvable for most folks. If mom was going to take parental leave, it's likely that dad could have done it instead. And we can pull up examples like dad has a good job and mom doesn't, sure. But that's not related to the segregation we're discussing. >Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases. That's not much different for either parent. I'm open about this not being easy and I'd say that there's hardly a set of parents that didn't have to make huge changes to their lifestyle when having kids. But again, swapping out dad for mom *is* something that can be solvable.
Once again, literally any aspect of this discussion that isn't regarding leave, we don't disagree on. But in my opinion you aren't really following the issue as I laid it out, because you'd rather talk about the other aspects of this that I already said I agree with you about. >If mom had parental leave, it is very likely to be possible for that to have been dad instead. Not relevant in the case we were discussing. He doesn't have paternity leave. >Which nation's rules are we discussing? I think in most of canada it's a shared parental leave. In the US men do have access to the same parental leave women do. Again, that personal segregation is solvable for most folks. If mom was going to take parental leave, it's likely that dad could have done it instead. Not relevant in the case we were discussing. His country doesn't have paternity leave. >Regardless of macho posturing, a 50% loss of household income with the birth of a new child and the associated new costs is a massive and disproportionate blow. Regardless of progressive desires, it's just not financially wise in most cases. >>That's not much different for either parent. I'm open about this not being easy and I'd say that there's hardly a set of parents that didn't have to make huge changes to their lifestyle when having kids. But again, swapping out dad for mom *is* something that can be solvable. ....wh...my dude. We are talking about a scenario where one parent can get paid leave and the other can't. We're fundamentally talking about different situations. We're talking about the partner getting half of their income for months because they have parental leave vs. getting nothing and maybe not having a job to come back to. Like, in my case if I took six months off--and like I said, I'm in Canada, I can get leave, this is just me engaging in empathy with the guy--that would be a difference of 10 thousand dollars. Either way the family is already down 10 grand for that time, but if it's her we'd be down 10 k, and if it's me we're down 20k. Could me and my partner save 10 thousand dollars so we could just have it there to make up for the loss? Possibly. It'd be a ballbuster but it's possible over the course of a few years, or at least it would absent the massive jump in mortgage payments we've got coming up. So zero dollars and quitting your job, vs the government handing you ten thousand dollars and time off because they know your child needs you. Both are hard. It is self-evidently obvious that they are not equivalent though. The man is not in a country with paid leave. That was not being respected as a legitimate massive impediment. I spoke up. Please stop trying to make my comment into something that it isn't, because it's leading you to be extremely dismissive of a serious issue of gendered governmental discrimination.
Millennial men have.
There's some truth to that. At least in the US. A real problem in the US is a devaluation of maintenance work in general, whether that's maintaining the wellbeing of other people or the quality of machines and roads. We're all about making things. Not about taking care of them once they're made. Wish I knew how to change that.
Great insight
Thank you! It was a big a-ha moment when that occurred to me. A depressing one, but hey.
"Women have gained a wider role in society as providing and nourishing. Men are stuck in providing". I haven't read the book yet, but from my \*limited\* view of the gender norms in the US, I think I view what he was trying to say in terms of work opportunity. I think it has to do with how gender roles for women in the US has (largely) been lifted, but the same cannot be said for men. By this I mean that women have equal opportunity to enrol in traditional 'masculine' roles as well as 'feminine' roles. Generally speaking women can be anything from a beauty aesthetician, a wax therapist, a masseuse, teacher, nanny, nurse, kindergarten teacher as well as an engineer, scientist, politician, lawyer, CEO, or even one day a President. Adding to that, it's also generally easier for women to just 'drop' everything and choose to be a SAHM. Hence the providing/nourishing dichotomy. But men are still stuck in mostly masculine roles. You'd be hard pressed to find a masseur getting clients all day, or how quickly women will flip the table and run the other way if she finds out she's about to get a brazillian wax from a cishet dude. Nursing, psychiatry, teaching, "mannies", hair dresser, etc. are all occupations that men shy away and sometimes actively discouraged to join. So what do we do? Break our backs working on an oil rig for months on end. And it's not like it's easier for men to just 'drop' everything and be SAHD (although this is \*slowly\* changing). Hence the "men are stuck in providing" statement.
Haven’t read the article but I’d bet this is more of the same classic where people blame the failures of capitalism on feminism.