A one income family is fine. A one income family where the breadwinner is miserable - literally "works a job [he] literally hates for a decade" under some idea of owing it to another person is sad.
A one income family is fine. A one income family where the breadwinner is miserable - literally "works a job [he] literally hates for a decade" under some idea of owing it to another person is sad.
Precisely.
If one chooses and negotiates with a willing partner to take on traditional gender roles and finds them fulfilling, great. More power to them. That is perfectly consistent with feminism.
If, on the other hand, one feels or demands that traditional gender roles are ordained by god or prescribed by social convention to the point of inflexibility, that is patriarchy.
Think about it this way. BDSM with a willing partner in a mutually negotiated scenario may be kinky, but it is perfectly okay.
Do it with an unwilling participant and it is at best kidnapping and assault.
Truly a surface-level observation, but that first article's description of an herbivore man really strikes me as being similar to how I'd describe nearly every male protagonist in anime of the ones I watched.
I'm seeing some overlap with the "I can't afford to become an adult" thread; there's a similar theme of economic hardship leading to a reevaluation (and sometimes rejection) of gender roles. Not being intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I can't say how similar they are, but the NEET/herbivore trend seems to have some overlap.
The most efficient setup is a large body of people working together and specializing functions. A large fraction of the household goes out and produces products (earns money) while a staff maintains the infrastructure and sees to vital home functions - basic human education, life activity assistance, that sort of thing. You might have a dedicated child support person and a dedicated home owner, and a dedicated food expert - it depends on how large the household is. For particularly large households, specialized transport personnel might be profitable.
I was just reading an article on American sex education films in the 20th c. and something that struck me was the concerted government/commercial effort after WWII to renormalize the disrupted American society along a particular vision of the individualistic nuclear family. Something that was already a factor in American society, but more so in the post-war era and the Baby Boom.
The United States has mostly maintained an individualistic society, where the basic economic unit is the household that consists of one couple and their underage children. Going over the census records, there are a lot of households that get very far from this norm: single parents, taking care of elderly relatives, adult children moving back home, etc. But the norm is perceived to be the individualized couple. (Even as a large fraction of 30-something couples secretly depend on their parents for financial support.) An extended family living together in a communal relationship is regarded as unusual, though it does happen.
I'm still not connecting this to hikikomori. My experience with hikikomori is that it starts at a young age with kids who can't deal with the school system and the bullying that happens there (and it happens there a lot...by students and teachers). Herbivores seem to be more adult men making this choice to opt out of social norms. The problem of hikikomori, at least from my perspective, is completely divorced from Herbivores. I could be wrong.
But, what Vector said? Yeah, all of that has been my experience as well.
Oh, and for those who aren't aware, LarryC briefly referenced this in the main post, but MRA and MGTOW groups definitely have their own agendas for interpreting this, which isn't neutral.
Like when you said to the other poster "Sometimes I think you'd benefit from feminism more than some women I know. Sounds like the patriarchy has trapped you in a pretty sh*tty position." I think it traps a lot of men.
This, here, is what I think is driving a lot of the (Western) debate; there's a large subset of men who are unable to fulfil the economic roles they were trained for by their society and who don't have a replacement. It's one thing to reject your culture's views, it's quite another thing to have your culture's views reject you. Which is where I think a lot of the anger comes from: people who still believe in a particular social order but aren't being allowed to participate in it.
My impression is that the Japanese herbivore phenomenon is somewhat less angry, but that's as a very distant outsider. (There are likely plenty of non-angry Westerners, they just don't get a label.)
The problem of hikikomori, at least from my perspective, is completely divorced from Herbivores. I could be wrong.
I get that impression, though I also get the impression that the judgemental part of Japanese society conflates them to a certain extent. But, like I said, distant outsider.
My view on that is the "single bread winner" scenario is essentially self-perpetuating. Females are forced into their stay-at-home roles because oftentimes they and their families have no viable alternatives in our society. Our workplace regulations and prevailing norms are not making it easy for a mother to return to workforce. In Europe a mother is typically able to take care of her baby for up to one year on a paid leave (a critical period for child's development) and then return to workplace while her kid attends a creche or kindergarten that is heavily subsidized or free altogether. In contrast, on our shores such arrangements are considered unacceptably socialist.
So, women are forced to choose either to retreat from productive workforce until they are done rearing their children (and thus put brakes in their careers), or forgo the classic family life (and then men are complaining that it is hard to find a good mate), or to somehow balance these two extremes by splitting their time between children and working low-end, low-skill jobs (and spend a significant part of their income on the daycare).
The answer to Oddity's lament is more freedom to the women, not less. You are lamenting the stoic sacrifices you have to make, but they are caused by those very policies and conservative, patriarchal traditions which you are probably proudly supporting.
I'm seeing some overlap with the "I can't afford to become an adult" thread; there's a similar theme of economic hardship leading to a reevaluation (and sometimes rejection) of gender roles. Not being intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I can't say how similar they are, but the NEET/herbivore trend seems to have some overlap.
Adding to this, there's that whole "Lost Decade" thing in Japan due to their economy going to hell in the 90's and it sounds like they still haven't fully recovered.
Is this all that radically different than the sorts of changes in gender roles that have happened elsewhere? This strikes me as just the Japanese equivalent of burning your bra, 50 years down the line. Sure, Japanese society is more structured and has more clearly-defined gender roles that these men are overtly breaking away from, but this just strikes me as yet another "young people do something different than old people and old people are shocked by it" sort of thing.
Is this all that radically different than the sorts of changes in gender roles that have happened elsewhere? This strikes me as just the Japanese equivalent of burning your bra, 50 years down the line. Sure, Japanese society is more structured and has more clearly-defined gender roles that these men are overtly breaking away from, but this just strikes me as yet another "young people do something different than old people and old people are shocked by it" sort of thing.
Yup. If anything, it is the combination of a tanking economy and rigid adherence to gender expectations that is causing the distress on young Japanese males.
Blaming this on "radfems" is pretty bassackward and wrongheaded.
If you have any doubt, read this.
I don't want to derail this with a SAHM discussion but thank you Seth and Paleo for clarifying. There's surprisingly a lot of disdain out there towards SAHMs, but that's probably worth going into in a another thread.
As far as my experiences working with the Japanese Self Defense Force and Japanese civilian contractors about 15 years ago, I have to say that Japan struck me as still a pretty macho country. Not the American "yea hah let's roll coal, shoot an elk and watch the Cowboys" sort of chest-pumping but rather a "I'm a Zen warrior who stoically endures all" vibe. I'm therefore wondering if the herbivore movement is completely overblown, and that young men who are considered freakish by Japanese standards would just be seen as a slightly metro hipster in the West. That being said, I do get that both men and women get a raw deal in their current society. The US military isn't great about work-life balance or family leave time, but they at least give it lip service and try to give troops some times with their families when things are quiet. For the JSDF it's not even really a thing. The wife takes care of everything and the guy works until 8-9 and then goes drinking with his co-workers till like 1 am almost every night. And these drinking bouts aren't optional - it's often where the real work gets done and the only time that the team can freely brainstorm or give honest feedback without losing face.
I'm not saying Japanese women have it good - from my observation young moms have it far worse than in America and Europe. There is one bright spot though - middle-aged Japanese women tend to have a much easier time in middle age and retirement once the kids are out of the house. Many men are completely lost once they retire from a job that has subsumed their life. There's even a joke where a retired husband is called something like "oversized garbage," that is he's the used refrigerator or freezer that's too big to just through out. Given that there's no end-game or golden years even after a lifetime of grueling labor, I get why Japanese guys would want a different way.
Final thought - just to be subversive, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say there are pros and cons both to the collectivist Japanese way and America's highly individualist way. We can all say that having men as workaholic wage slaves and women as slaves to the kids is bad, and I agree. But there are areas where Japanese culture runs circles around America. They have crazy low crime rate compared to America (and consequently can have a laid back and helpful police force that everyone points to in the Ferguson thread), low obesity rates, much higher test scores, better income equality, etc. A lot of what Japan is doing is working at the macro level, and so therefore how do you make major societal changes without giving up all the positive world class aspects? Because to me much of it is intertwined.
oddity wrote:The herbivore movement, more than anything, seems like a recognition on the part of the males that their side of the social contract is pretty sh*t as well and they are opting-out accordingly.
Can someone more attuned to Japanese culture verify that this is true in Japan? Even oddity knows this is a false statement when applied to America -- or any Westernized culture.
As was mentioned by another poster, it's expected, but probably not adhered to 100% that the men work these jobs and turn over their pay to their wives, who give them an allowance. It's a society where tremendous social pressures are enacted on its citizens on both sexes. According to everything I have read on their culture. The many facets of the repression enacted on all members is often mentioned or cited as possible reasons for a great deal of the weirder sh*t we hear out of Japan. I never said whether I believe one side has it worse, on the gender line, but male suicide rates and slightly shorter life expectancy are mild indicators, but are not definitive.
I do the standard traditional family. Blah blah....
Sometimes I think you'd benefit from feminism more than some women I know. Sounds like the patriarchy has trapped you in a pretty sh*tty position. I'm not aware of a single healthy child bearing relationship in my generation that is as you described, and you would definitely categorize all of the relationships I'm describing as feminist or post feminist.
It's neither patriarchy nor feminism that keeps me(personally) where I am. It's honouring a commitment. It's not the kids fault that they exist, regardless of the additional strain they place on everything or the circumstances under which they were conceived. At some point, both of them will be in school and hopefully after that we'll have a second income in the home, which should make everything easier and may allow for adjustments.
I can guarantee you that if I decided what I'm currently experiencing is a deeply unsatisfying situation and wanted out - neither feminism, nor patriarchy would offer me anything better than the sh*ttiest of options.
I see an element of "screw this; the game's rigged, I'm not going to play" in this and the hikikomori.
I don't see it as a "going Galt" (as the MGTOW dude said, and as their stick figure mascot suggests).
Agreed.
...and the guy works until 8-9 and then goes drinking with his co-workers till like 1 am almost every night. And these drinking bouts aren't optional - it's often where the real work gets done and the only time that the team can freely brainstorm or give honest feedback without losing face.
Ugh, you're reminding me of my days at Fujitsu...
The saddest thing is that none of it's required. No one is actually working until 8 or 9 at night. They just won't leave because their boss hasn't left and, culturally, they've determined that leaving before makes them look bad. Instead, they're freakin' surfing the web, reading the newspaper, or straight out sleeping in their offices.
srry double wall of text.
oddity:
One homeowner and one breadwinner is actually not efficient. It's arguably not efficient to lump all home functions into a single person in the first place, but you require a large household to make a staff worthwhile.
... stuff...
I'm going to shock you LarryC. You're right and I agree. A large family(tribe/deep familial connections) that covers many bases is definitively better. I will say though, that that's not always an option. But, for a society that wants to grow(IE:children), 1 homemaker 1 earner is the smallest efficient group for raising healthy emotionally stable and viable families.
I don't care who fills the role of worker or homemaker. Dad wants to stay home and raise the kids... god bless him. Mom wants to be the worker drone, more power to her. But two working parents for the first 6 years of that kid's life is a sh*t deal for the kids and the parents. Regardless of 1 year off, or whatever. If someone else is spending 8+ hours a day with your kid - that person or system is the parent. You still end up with a lot of kids that turn out, ok. But there are far more failures in that system than there are in a situation where it appears to the kids that they literally are the most important thing in the world, instead of lip-service paid to the idea.
I will say though, that western society's current setup completely undermines large extended family structures. Younger generations are far less inclined to want to submit to the older generations cultural pressure in order to procure help or resources, since they have plenty of other options. Their inclination is no longer exchange for mutual benefit, but instead take and cut ties, since some other system is available to supplement.
Back to the topic at hand though, let's say emotional satisfaction for the average Japanese person is substandard. Male or female. One sex appears to be seeing the writing on the wall and saying...
"I see what that lifestyle has done to my dad, my uncles and many of my friends dads. No thanks."
It's a powerful statement.
I will say though, that western society's current setup completely undermines large extended family structures. Younger generations are far less inclined to want to submit to the older generations cultural pressure in order to procure help or resources, since they have plenty of other options. Their inclination is no longer exchange for mutual benefit, but instead take and cut ties, since some other system is available to supplement.
I admit to more than a wistful desire to have large, multigenerational families available as an option to me. My family has experienced enough of a diaspora where that's just not in the cards. O course, I'm part of the problem -- not only did I move far away from my parents, but I'm also not really planning on having kids. But the wistfulness remains. I didn't really come to know my grandparents until my late twenties, and I regret the annoying little sh*t I was to them on our semi annual visits growing up.
Larry:
Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. I'm still really surprised that MRAs and MGTOW are in support of this phenomenon. Given the vitriol I see out of A Voice For Men, any male that eschews sex as a conquest is any number of pejoratives (white knight, beta male, etc).
The connection to hikkimori seems strange to me. I mean I clearly understand where there would be overlap, but can one be a herbivore and still social? Does the structure of Japanese gender expectations more or less exclude that option?
I still feel like this has a lot of analogues to the modern westernized hipster male, whether they be metrosexual, lumbersexual, or whatever. I see similar behaviors among especially among the folk rock crowd. Men with girlfriends are rare, and when they do exist, the physical component comes well after a connection made on an intellectual (specifically in this case, musical) level.
I will say though, that western society's current setup completely undermines large extended family structures. Younger generations are far less inclined to want to submit to the older generations cultural pressure in order to procure help or resources, since they have plenty of other options. Their inclination is no longer exchange for mutual benefit, but instead take and cut ties, since some other system is available to supplement.
Or, this can be looked at the other way around. Historically, large extended family structures have been built around some inheritance relationships. Our society is not rural anymore, and there is no such kind of inter-generational, bequeath-able property that would knit the extended families together, through the lines of succession really -- typical patriarchal ones.
I'm still really surprised that MRAs and MGTOW are in support of this phenomenon. Given the vitriol I see out of A Voice For Men, any male that eschews sex as a conquest is any number of pejoratives (white knight, beta male, etc).
My guess would be that the dark side of so-called men's movements don't consider sex desireable for the actual sex. Instead, it's the power and status that is considered desireable in those ways of thinking (and the genuine desires for pleasure and personal connection and human self-expression are twisted into the way those movements characterize sex) Therefore, it's okay to eschew conquest if your reason is rejection of the power women hold over you, and dimishment of women's status. Rejection and self-sufficiency is ultimate form of conquest, in a sense.
I will say though, that that's not always an option. But, for a society that wants to grow(IE:children), 1 homemaker 1 earner is the smallest efficient group for raising healthy emotionally stable and viable families.
The problem is this is the kind of statement that is simply not supported by evidence. Yes, a stay-at-home parent gives some advantages to a child. Two working parents also gives advantages to a child. There have been multiple studies looking at the children of stay-at-home vs. working parents, and there is no viable statistical difference whatsoever between academic performance, behavioral issues, health, or general success in any way. This is the kind of thing that has been looked at repeatedly, and it's simply not true that a stay-at-home parent leads to more healthy and emotionally stable children. A child needs excellent care and stability. It can get that from a parent or a relative or a paid daycare provider of some sort.
My culture has this thing called fictive relatives - that this, relatives that you choose for yourself. Typically, you're very close friends with the people and you seal the relationship with godparenthood in some ritual or other. Basically, it's making relatives out of your best friends.
A large household doesn't have to be related by blood nor by marriages, but simply by a mutual recognition that a larger household is more efficient and more stable.
We have those too, I just wonder to what degree the economic structures of a society make some cultural arrangements more or less possible. Like to echo what Gremlin said above, we had immigrant communities--including white Europeans--in America that basically lived in large households. We still do with recent immigrants. Yet those cultural arrangements are undermined by things like suburbanization. Heck, they're even undermined by our diversity--a major theme in American culture is how to handle in-laws that come from two different cultures.
Like jdzappa was saying, the good and the bad sometimes look like two sides of the same coin. It's easy to pick out the 'good' parts of different cultures, but you can't build a new culture overnight just out of the things you've picked and chosen. Sometimes those good things are sustained by some not-so-good things, or just facts of life like 'we all live near each other for saftey and because we can't afford to live anywhere else'.
edit: also, this comment, which makes me think, 'yeah--the Kennedys and the Romneys and the Bushes and now even the Clintons have been able to make the 'large household' thing work for them.
My culture has this thing called fictive relatives - that this, relatives that you choose for yourself. Typically, you're very close friends with the people and you seal the relationship with godparenthood in some ritual or other. Basically, it's making relatives out of your best friends.
A large household doesn't have to be related by blood nor by marriages, but simply by a mutual recognition that a larger household is more efficient and more stable.
Yup. Our gang call that "chosen family". Most of my nearest and dearest are all folk who've migrated hundreds or thousands of miles from their bio families.
Turns out, it's an unsurprisingly good way to sidestep a lot of the bullsh*t you put up with when you don't get to choose not to be related to assholes.
Tangentially related, around my neck of the woods (hippy-dippy PNW), there's growing interest in co-housing. We know a few people who do it, including my wife's employers. 2 couples buy a big-ass house, and raise kids together. We're starting to investigate the possibility of doing something similar ourselves. No idea if anything will come of it, but there's definite advantages, not least of which is being able to afford to live in much nicer houses than you'd be able to afford by yourself.
edit: also, this comment, which makes me think, 'yeah--the Kennedys and the Romneys and the Bushes and now even the Clintons have been able to make the 'large household' thing work for them.
Yes, this is exactly my point. As long as there is some capital (whether financial or political, which are pretty much the same thing these days), then the "extended families" begin to appear in the picture.
Seth:
Modern hipster male in the West is what I might think herbivores kind of resemble, but context is important. Metrosexual hipsters aren't bucking strongly enforced gender norms, as far as I can tell. They're just choosing a slightly atypical expression. Herbivores feel more radical than that to me - like 60% of urban males in NYC suddenly deciding that makeup and dresses were okay expressions of masculinity.
Some authors relate NEETs and freeters to hebivorism due to the economic connections.
It's a fair distinction. And I think the economic difference is important. Hipsters aren't shedding their masculinity due to economic reasons, as far as I can tell. If anything, adherence to masculinity becomes more prevalent as wealth decreases here in America. That seems to stand in contrast to Japan.
The connection to hikkimori seems strange to me. I mean I clearly understand where there would be overlap, but can one be a herbivore and still social? Does the structure of Japanese gender expectations more or less exclude that option?I don't understand the question well. Herbivores seek out female friends, and the nature of Japanese society means that unless you're withdrawing completely, like the hikikimori, you sort of can't escape participating in social life. At the very least, you're sort of obligated to maintain some social ties to your workplace group.
Yep okay. That clarifies. Thank you. I don't know much about hikkimori.
Seth wrote:I'm still really surprised that MRAs and MGTOW are in support of this phenomenon. Given the vitriol I see out of A Voice For Men, any male that eschews sex as a conquest is any number of pejoratives (white knight, beta male, etc).
My guess would be that the dark side of so-called men's movements don't consider sex desireable for the actual sex. Instead, it's the power and status that is considered desireable in those ways of thinking (and the genuine desires for pleasure and personal connection and human self-expression are twisted into the way those movements characterize sex) Therefore, it's okay to eschew conquest if your reason is rejection of the power women hold over you, and dimishment of women's status. Rejection and self-sufficiency is ultimate form of conquest, in a sense.
Yikes. That seems both alarmingly dangerous yet grotesquely fitting. Good analysis.
Suddenly, I'm reminded of "The Sexodus" articles Breitbart was running a week or two ago.
Pages