Check Mate: The Declining Social Capital of the American Male and its Consequences
| By kevco0509 - Dec 22nd, 2006 at 10:00 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I am neither a social scientist nor an economist. I am merely an American college student writing about what he has seen in his short twenty years. The title of this piece says it all; I have come to the conclusion that working-class men in the United States are in a precarious position. New books like The War on Boys and other research data indicate that men are falling behind in education, a trend magnified by the "skill bias" of the new global economy. Men are more likely to have substance abuse problems, kill themselves, and spend time in prison. Many of these trends and statistics have been brought to our national consciousness, so I am telling you nothing new. What I hope to add here is an interpretation and speculation as to what these trends and others mean for the future of America in general, and its progressive movement in particular.
Spreading Misogyny, a recent book, chronicled the growing volume of negative pop culture stereotypes of men. From The Simpsons to Malcolm in the Middle to Family Guy, it seems that the average American male is chubby, spacey, and useless. Some would argue that these stereotypes apply only to white men, but such shows as Bernie Mac and George Lopez seem to belie that statement. And while many would dismiss such caricatures of men as little more than humorous generalizations, I argue that this cultural antagonism towards men (particularly middle or working-class men) is only the most visible aspect of a general decline in the social capital of American men.
I consider myself a pro-feminist man. The feminist movement and its efforts towards wage parity, educational opportunity, and political participation is a proud and permanent fixture of American progressivism. However, like any social movement, feminism had unintended consequences. However, unlike most, I don't blame feminism or the feminist revolution for the current "crisis" in American masculinity. Rather, I blame the capitalist system for its endless ability to usurp any social movement for its own interests.
If it were not for the declining real wages of men in the early 1970s, there would have been no backlash against feminism. What working men failed to realize was that it was not feminism that had made their lives more difficult, but the outsourcing and deindustrialization of America. And those decisions were not made by vanguard feminists, but by rich men on Wall Street and in Washington. Yet mass media and conservative punditry managed to convince millions of struggling electricians, carpenters, and autoworkers that it was the fault of the women's movement, rather than union decline or the continued withering of the social safety net, that was the cause of their problems.
As such, the working-class man, rather than swinging his politics to the left, swung them to the right. These "Reagan Democrats," in a cultural backlash against liberal social policies, elected a president in 1980 that in just two terms managed to destroy the gains that had taken organized labor a century to consolidate. Look at racial and income demographics for Bush's elections and we see a similar pathology, one chronicled in What's the Matter with Ohio?
The unfortunate truth is that American men have failed to align themselves with the international worker's movements that were responsible for their formerly generous standard of living. If it were not for the radicals, anarchists, and syndicalists of the late 1800s, there would have been no American Dream for these men to lose to these "anti-family" feminists. But, it seems that 50 years of economic and political privilege has permanently conservatized the working-class American male, and as such he will continue to vote for free trade, laissez-faire reactionaries while their position- economic, social, and political- continues to erode.
But there is more at stake than job security, real wages, and male ego. I am afraid that the proliferation of this"angry white man" may turn into a full-fledged fascist subculture. This dark and sad corner of American society has already been examined in American History X and The Believer, and these films reveal the tragic flaw of the working-class American male: rather than realizing his plight- job insecurity, low wages, and poor education, are the same struggles shared by low-income women, African-American men, and Mexican families, they blame "welfare queens" affirmative action, and bilingual education while ignoring the real culprit: big business.
I want to help these men, these downsized factory workers, plumbers, and electricians. But first they have to learn to help themselves and drop the homophobic and xenophobic tendencies in their rhetoric. Now, more than ever, working-class people must work together across sexual, national, and racial boundaries, and make this global economy work for the benefit of all. But, unfortunately, these men would rather rail against abortion and gay marriage and send donations to the Minutemen than actually join their fellow proletarians in an effort to take their country- and their world- back from a financial oligarchy that has hijacked democracy.
Spreading Misogyny, a recent book, chronicled the growing volume of negative pop culture stereotypes of men. From The Simpsons to Malcolm in the Middle to Family Guy, it seems that the average American male is chubby, spacey, and useless. Some would argue that these stereotypes apply only to white men, but such shows as Bernie Mac and George Lopez seem to belie that statement. And while many would dismiss such caricatures of men as little more than humorous generalizations, I argue that this cultural antagonism towards men (particularly middle or working-class men) is only the most visible aspect of a general decline in the social capital of American men.
I consider myself a pro-feminist man. The feminist movement and its efforts towards wage parity, educational opportunity, and political participation is a proud and permanent fixture of American progressivism. However, like any social movement, feminism had unintended consequences. However, unlike most, I don't blame feminism or the feminist revolution for the current "crisis" in American masculinity. Rather, I blame the capitalist system for its endless ability to usurp any social movement for its own interests.
If it were not for the declining real wages of men in the early 1970s, there would have been no backlash against feminism. What working men failed to realize was that it was not feminism that had made their lives more difficult, but the outsourcing and deindustrialization of America. And those decisions were not made by vanguard feminists, but by rich men on Wall Street and in Washington. Yet mass media and conservative punditry managed to convince millions of struggling electricians, carpenters, and autoworkers that it was the fault of the women's movement, rather than union decline or the continued withering of the social safety net, that was the cause of their problems.
As such, the working-class man, rather than swinging his politics to the left, swung them to the right. These "Reagan Democrats," in a cultural backlash against liberal social policies, elected a president in 1980 that in just two terms managed to destroy the gains that had taken organized labor a century to consolidate. Look at racial and income demographics for Bush's elections and we see a similar pathology, one chronicled in What's the Matter with Ohio?
The unfortunate truth is that American men have failed to align themselves with the international worker's movements that were responsible for their formerly generous standard of living. If it were not for the radicals, anarchists, and syndicalists of the late 1800s, there would have been no American Dream for these men to lose to these "anti-family" feminists. But, it seems that 50 years of economic and political privilege has permanently conservatized the working-class American male, and as such he will continue to vote for free trade, laissez-faire reactionaries while their position- economic, social, and political- continues to erode.
But there is more at stake than job security, real wages, and male ego. I am afraid that the proliferation of this"angry white man" may turn into a full-fledged fascist subculture. This dark and sad corner of American society has already been examined in American History X and The Believer, and these films reveal the tragic flaw of the working-class American male: rather than realizing his plight- job insecurity, low wages, and poor education, are the same struggles shared by low-income women, African-American men, and Mexican families, they blame "welfare queens" affirmative action, and bilingual education while ignoring the real culprit: big business.
I want to help these men, these downsized factory workers, plumbers, and electricians. But first they have to learn to help themselves and drop the homophobic and xenophobic tendencies in their rhetoric. Now, more than ever, working-class people must work together across sexual, national, and racial boundaries, and make this global economy work for the benefit of all. But, unfortunately, these men would rather rail against abortion and gay marriage and send donations to the Minutemen than actually join their fellow proletarians in an effort to take their country- and their world- back from a financial oligarchy that has hijacked democracy.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
WHY ARE LAZY KEPT WOMEN; THAT NEVER WORKED ALLOWED TO COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY AT AGE 65 AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WIDOWS???????
I suffer from neurofibromatosis TYPE-1 (SEE Link for more info) I have lower back pain, spurs in my neck, butterfly shaped bones in my spine, disk compression, starting to get bone loss. Small lumps and bumps all over my body from the complications of neurofibromatosis. Let me go on, High Blood pressure, I have 3 stents in my heart,scoliosis. Anxiety and depression. Flat feet, mild carpal tunnel in both hands, I also have neurofibromas in my plams and this hurts. I have insomnia, take prescription meds and still get very little sleep.
January of 2006 ended up in hospital and needed 8 pints of blood because my hemoglobin was down to ‘5’ As of 12/15/2006 and many test, tests doctors still can find out why my hemoglobin keeps dropping. I take Iron pills 3 times a day to keep my red count up.
If you want to see any medical reports, CAT-scans, MRI’s. etc… I will show to anyone and everyone. I have almost $200,000 in medical bills in the last 18 months.
I worked fulltime from September 1979 until May 2005, that is 26 years and the Social Security is saying nothing is wrong with me.
First of all WOMEN Do not have to register for the United States draft like men have to. Is that fair? BUT THEY WANT TO GET PAID THE SAME AT WORK. So then it should be mandatory that they also register when they are 18.
Why Should Stay at home spouses, get social security benefits? When they never paid into the system and their spouses are still living? The point here is THEIR SPOUSES ARE LIVING. Hey men, if you want a kept woman, you should still should pay for her when you go on Social Security. Now men, do not say "My wife raised the children" Other women WORKED and rose, better mannered and bettered educated children than MOST of the stay at home moms(lazy worthless humans) Why couldn't these women work on weekends or when their husbands came home? They don't even make an attempt to work part time.
They are just plain LAZY. My Mother worked, kept a clean house, cooked and then drove 100 miles each weekend to my grandparent’s house. After my grandparents passed, my Mother still drove to their house every other weekend and CLEANED. Now Mom is up in age and she still drives those 100 miles.
Most people do not know where our Tax deductions for Social Security are going.
First of all Social Security is a FLAT tax, everybody pays the same rate (married, children or single).
Most people think when a house-spouse gets to age 65 “They are collecting off their husbands” This statement is a bare face lie, maybe not a lie, but people were told this by the US government. How can they collect off their husbands, when their husbands are not collecting any less money than the single man that worked with him?
Now housewives don’t get upset, I am speaking the truth.(other mothers worked the midnight shift or worked weekends) I am 46 year old and where I grew up most Mothers worked, cooked and kept a clean house (except the kept women, north of ‘22’) now we have kept women on the south side of 22. What I mean by KEPT. They have a husband a large house, high-end car and a cleaning service. Oh yes, I almost forgot. They think every body should kiss their feet and you should give them the right away on the road, because they have a high-end car and want to talk on their cell phone.
Here is a true story. Twin brothers worked at the ****** plant on the production line for 45 years.(they made the same amount of money, union job) The brothers had a sister who worked for 48 years at a small store; she also took care of their parents. One of the brothers married a hometown girl. This woman has a 2-year business degree and is healthy as a horse. They didn't have any children; she doesn't know how to cook, except hotdogs, frozen food and canned food. Her house keeping is not the best. But she had color TV and air conditioning in 1958. She can tell you about every soap opera and game show that aired since in 1958.
Here is the punch line.
Now they are all in their 70’s and retired: The twin brothers each receive $1,400 in Social security, that’s because they made the same amount of money at their union production line job and retired at the same time. Their sister who worked 48 years full time, cooked good home made food, kept a very clean house and took care of the parents only receives $625
NOW THE LAZY HOUSEWIFE GETS $700 A MONTH. Something is wrong here? Shouldn't the single brother be getting more in benefits or shouldn't the married brother be getting less. After all his wife is "collecting off her husbands” How can she be collecting off her husbands when he is still living? I won't begrudge her $1,400 when her husband dies. But I do begrudge her the $700 a month that she receives. The married brother also saved more on federal taxes because of the LAZY stay at home KEPT wife.
$700 for sitting at home her whole life and the person who works gets less. Only in America. I call this Whoring off the system
Come on Mr. Bush and all of you senators, do something here. Oops, I forgot. You all have kept women, even under age daughters that drink, gets a job handed to them and then she can take time off to go to Africa with their Mommy on taxpayer’s money.
Regards,
Joel C. Hentz
33 Ivy lane
Bridgewater, New Jersey
jhentz@verizon.net
(908) 642-6864