The Way We Were…And Now

Next Part The Effects of World War I

Why are strong, balanced, principled men so rare today—even viewed as oddities? Why are there so few men of the same stature and uncompromising strength as in past generations? Likewise, traditional, virtuous femininity in women is as scarce as precious jewels. What has happened?

Today’s social landscape is being turned upside down. Gender roles are being blurred and marriages redefined. Traditional roles and values once considered normal are now being dismantled and reshaped.

In an article written for the Trentonian, a columnist writes, “Women are the new men…And I have no earthly idea what the men are, now…By, ‘women are the new men,’ I mean that women are strong, efficient, and can balance work and family. We can open doors and jars for ourselves, kill bugs, install electronic equipment without help, even put in our window air conditioning unit after work on a 90-degree day. Or, women can do anything men can do.”

A marketing and style strategist from Fashion Group International also notes a shift in gender roles: “The masculine ideal is being completely modified. All the traditional male values of authority, infallibility, virility and strength are being completely overturned…[he] no longer wants to be the family superhero” (Ibid). The Associated Press article that originally published this quote contained a picture of a man with “punk rock,” fire-engine red hair, backwards suspenders and a striped green and red sweater.

Many parents still teach traditional gender roles to their children. However, their efforts are being thwarted by an increasing number of teachers who are instructing young children and teenagers that they must recognize “the various ways in which gender categories are tied to an oppressive binary structure for organizing the social and cultural practices of adolescent boys and girls” (ON LINE opinion).

One result is that traditional literature is coming under assault for promoting heterosexual relationships, and fairytales such as Jack and the Beanstalk are being ridiculed for portraying boys as physically assertive. A classroom resource titled Fracturing Fairytales argues that traditional stories “present powerful images of gender-specific roles, and, in particular, negative female roles and the attitudes, beliefs and values inherent in them need to be critically examined and challenged” (Ibid).

Those promoting the redefining of gender roles understand that, in order to bring about acceptance of this idea, cultural perception must first be adjusted. And they realize that such an adjustment is best introduced in schools, where they can indoctrinate young teachable minds.

If this new way of thought becomes accepted, does this automatically mean that it is correct? What are the implications of a society in which males and females are no longer distinguishable?

One Extreme to Another

This “new” way of thinking is not new at all. History demonstrates that, prior to total economic and military collapse, prosperous and dominant cultures always produced a final generation of weakened and softer men. Feminine qualities among men such as compromise, tolerance and submissiveness—each a great virtue when complemented with the strength and guidance of a masculine leading partner—became the norm.

Prior to the 20th century, relationships between men and women were governed by tradition and somewhat by biblical instruction, with roots extending back for centuries. While men and women had unity of purpose in forging ahead with their lives, the roles of each were very different, yet still complementary.

The natural differences between the sexes were emphasized throughout the formative years of childhood. Fathers taught their boys to be courageous and daring, to be out in front, to provide, to be tough and to sacrifice. Mothers instructed their daughters to be meek, unassuming, respectful and supportive. Men taught their boys to hunt and to perform heavy, physical work at an early age, while girls were assigned duties around the house, assisting with cooking, sewing, cleaning and nurturing. The typical family worked as a team, with each member having an important role to play.

When of age, the young brides would willingly offer the words “love, honour and obey” in marriage ceremonies. Young men would commit to protect and provide for the woman with whom they had agreed to spend the rest of their lives. Nuptial vows were viewed as commitments to be kept despite all obstacles. Marriage was considered a lifelong partnership and mates worked together as a team.

However, it should be noted that the hallmark of human nature is to be given to extremes. The Victorian Age, during the 1800s and early 1900s, established and shaped a society of sexual repression and rigidly-defined roles of masculinity and femininity. While the roles were predominantly correct, there was some misuse, as will always be the case when human nature is involved.

Later generations gave way to the social backlash of the liberal and “free love” oriented 1960s and 70s, and, as a result, Western civilization has been radically different ever since—as have the traditional roles of men and women, husbands and wives.

The prominent advertising agency Leo Burnett did a study to learn how men viewed their roles in society and how these compared with the way that men are portrayed in advertising:

“Half of the men surveyed in most parts of the world said they didn’t know what society expected of them. Three-quarters feel the imaging in advertising is out of touch with reality.

“Most male-targeted advertising places men in one of two camps. The latest incarnation of man is referred to as the ‘metro sexual,’ a guy who loves shoes, pink shirts, man-purses, and conversations over General Foods International Coffee. They’re refined, sensitive, in touch with their feminine sides and can screech like a 13-year-old girl at an American Idol concert…” (WebProNews).

A metrosexual has been defined as a “straight man who embraces the homosexual lifestyle, i.e. refined tastes in clothing, excessive use of designer hygiene products, etc.” (a user entry from Urban Dictionary).

Obsessed with his appearance and self-image, the typical metro sexual maintains an urbane lifestyle of frequenting the finest clothing stores, nightclubs, gyms and hairdressers. “According to Leo Burnett, though, the world is shifting toward more feminine attributes and the advertising world should adjust accordingly.

“‘As the world is drifting toward a more feminine perspective, many of the social constructs men have taken for granted are undergoing significant shifts or being outright dismantled,’ said Tom Bernardin, chairman and chief executive of Leo Burnett Worldwide” (Ibid.).

The other group that advertisers are targeting is called “retrosexuals.” The antithesis of the metro sexual, the retro sexual is a man who does not obsess over his physical appearance, such as plucking his eyebrows. Some view him as a man who rejects casual sex as mindless and immoral.

In its early years, Hollywood portrayed such men as having strength of character. They were seen as tough, hardworking and self-sacrificing. For these heroic cinema characters, family and country always came first. And yet, because human nature shifts to the extreme, Hollywood often portrayed such characters as stoic, the “strong and silent” types; tenderness and gentleness were generally seen as weakness. A generation of young moviegoers grew up to emulate this Hollywood-made image of masculinity. Many became husbands, fathers and leaders who were strong, dedicated and uncompromising—yet without much emotion. This helped set the stage for the “sexual revolution” and “women’s lib” movement years later.

Accepting Divorce as an Option

Although it was not entirely absent, divorce was almost unheard of before the 20th century, with separation usually occurring only at death.

Prior to this time, the husband was recognized and accepted as the head of the household. Practically, as well as legally, the authority to make the final decision resided with him. The wife was obliged to accept her husband’s decisions—even if she did not believe those decisions to be wise. (Of course, a wise husband would seek and listen to his wife’s counsel.) There was government in the family. Disagreements did not automatically lead to separation and divorce.

But today, the state of marriage and divorce is radically different.

Let’s look at a few startling numbers: In 1886, there were 25,000 divorces for all causes. The number rose to over 72,000 by 1906, hit nearly 500,000 by 1965 and passed the one million mark per year by 1975. The number has levelled off at about 1.2 million per year over the past decade. Put another way, taking into account increases in population, the divorce rate increased more than 700% in the 20th century! It should also be noted that subsequent remarriages fail 60-75% of the time.

Marching Toward Moral Decay

One of the perplexing ironies of history is that many difficulties accompany the material prosperity and power of a dominant culture. People, governed by human nature, have typically become much more selfish and self-cantered. Associated with this change in human behaviour are all forms of corruption and evil.

Consider. As the industrial revolution moved toward its climax in the 20th century, many began to view the guarded traditions of culture as impediments to their “self-fulfilment.” Increasing numbers of men fell into the age-old snare of infidelity, while women sought economic independence from men. As the 19th century faded into history, a growing number of discontented men and women pursued “liberation” from the established and traditional “old” ways.

Note that before the ratification of the nineteenth amendment, allowing women the right to vote, each household had one vote, which was cast by the husband. (Naturally, the wife had, to a certain degree, influence upon the husband’s decision.) A woman running for office and assuming political power was unthinkable until the early 20th century.

Following the passage of the nineteenth amendment by Congress, and its ratification into law, the political landscape shifted dramatically. With the codification of “women’s suffrage,” a wife could politically divide the household by casting her vote for a different candidate, effectively cancelling her husband’s vote.

The “feminist movement” derived its beginnings from an alliance between discontented women and affluent male politicians who saw the political benefit of independent women, who they viewed as a voting block to which to cater.

Next Part The Effects of World War I

Back to By David C. Pack