Men = Appendix ?
Wednesday, June 6 : 2:17 AM : 0 comments :
The current month's reading for the book club (no longer "my" book club since I haven't attended in quite awhile) was the provocatively titled "Are Men Necessary?" The title alone warranted my attendance at the discussion. While the discussion was interesting and quite inconclusive -- just like the book -- one thing really caught my attention. For a brief moment, we pondered the question of whether or not males would have a problem with their (female) partners making more money or being more successful than them.In our enlightened world view, this would seem to be no problem. Even though most of my friends have fathers who make more than their mothers, I would assume that most of us would have no problem with a female dominanting the financial income department. Oh how wrong I was/am. Never underestimate the power of the male inferiority complex.
A few years ago, we went around the room (with about a dozen friends) and I was surprised to hear that about 80% of the males wanted to make more money than their spouses. Furthermore, they thought it would be a slight issue if they didn't.
My personal stance on this, of course, is that I'd love to marry rich. I'm not a gold digger; I'm just lazy and opportunistic. If I could be a stay-at-home dad (without kids), I'd feel like an accomplished Tony Danza, no problem. Then again, I'm facing a future of financial insecurity so if I get married, someone had better pay the bills and if not me, then my wife; I'm fine with that.
The question I have is this: Suppose the wife does make (significantly) more money but the husband would like to publicly have the pretense that he takes care of the family -- for whatever reason. Would it be okay for him to still seem like he makes enough to support the family? As in pay for things in front of other people with his credit card, have the wife demure to him about financial purchases, not have her bring up that she supports the fam, that kind of thing? I know this question is very relative but the point is that if the who making the money is no object, would it then be an issue if the person who doesn't make the money still wants to seem like they're the one in charge of (or made) it?Or would there be a hissy fit and a storm of "WTFs" about a guy trying to pretend like he's in charge of money that he didn't earn? I first reaction would be "he/she who makes the money gets to choose how they spend/represent it." But the second thought is that right now, in a traditional patriarchal family, the man makes the money, the woman is in charge of distributing it, and the husband gets the satisfaction that he's the bread winner. Would it be different if these two financial and social positions were gender-reversed?
For the record, I would have argued that men really aren't that necessary; but then brought the conversation around to "wait, if we're not necessary, why the hell is every woman I know concerned/devoted/frustrated with getting one instead of just getting to a sperm bank and leaving men out of the picture entirely."
I also have a bone to pick with women who want sensitive men but then keep on dating/keeping the alpha thug types. But that's another story for another day.
Men: Totally unnecessary but still a nice gratuitous accessory.
