@David Tatarowicz ...You are obviously a boomer male who fully embraced the idea of gender equality. I have three daughters who range from 45 to 22 and all three were raised to develop their own and varied interests. They have developed skills that would be hard to classify as either male or female, but the two oldest did marry and have children. They are strong and assertive women who have blended the best of both genders.

I disagree with you on one point; with young children it doesn't matter who is the primary care parent as long as their is someone to fulfill the role. It seems as if the decision to fulfill the role of primary care parent is now based on factors not so much based on gender, but who can produce the most income, minimizing the economic impact, while the other stays at home. In a two parent home the qualities that each parent can bestow on the children are unique and helps strengthen the individual.

@Greg...I don't see why you seemed to be so threatened by my opinion piece. It sounds as if you have already categorized yourself. I fully realize that with your perception of the world that what I have written would be categorize my view is "messed up". However, I am confident that it is your views that are out of step with the consensus reality.

I am not old enough to be a first class male, not young enough to be a second class male, so I had to assume the consensus reality placed me firmly in the third class.

@Greg...It has nothing to do with age or which cohort you may fall in. I know plenty of males who are last cohort boomers and firmly Gen-Xers who are clearly in touch with modern expectations and embrace them without any problems. They are very secure in their position and don't unreasonably fear the future.

You have an oldest class and a youngest class and it has nothing to do with age?

@Conspiracy T....I wouldn't consider including the "inner city males" since they constitute such a small minority of the overall population. They have always been powerless and remain so. You and others of your ideological thinking focus on scape goating them rather than dealing with the underlying problems of poverty and social injustice. I have written long and often about those conditions.

I won't label you as racist, I'll let others do that if they so desire.

As far as hating conservatives, nothing could be further from the truth. As a liberal and social democrat; I respect the conservative intellectual. Without conservative thinkers to counter the liberal and vice versa, the liberals would go careening off into ridiculous directions and extremes. I truly believe in balancing perspectives which will allow for compromise in finding solutions to important issues.

@CT I agree with most of your characterization of the "Thug Class" -- except for limiting the members of that class to the Inner City, or just Black ........... members of that class live everywhere --- and they are parasites on society.

They should not be confused with people who really do need assistance --- the last I saw, there is not an over abundance of family supporting jobs out there.

To extrapolate that behavior a bit --- what about the White guy who stays home and raises the kids and his wife supports the family? Is that just a normal outcome of economic circumstances as Lyle says above --- or is it a sub group of the men you are talking about, who rely on others for their support?

Is my opinion that "most" women are better as primary care givers to the very young children than "most" men (there are always exceptions) a Sexist Opinion, or a Fact of Nature?

@dave8833....It has nothing to do with liberal or anything else. When you make observations of trends and larger social issues, categorization allows for analyzing trends, values and ideologies. The changing values have changed all males in one way or another and left many in a state of anomie and searching for something to define the new social expectations.

Except for the fact you are a socialist liberal grouping people into classes. The case study couldn't be more clear. It scares me more and more how my tax revenue is used for education.

@Steve....Happy New Year! Are you suggesting that education shouldn't be supported if what is being taught doesn't agree with your personal ideologies? Education, especially post secondary education, should pursue the advancement of knowledge and truth, nothing more, nothing less. To gain a greater understanding, everything must be questioned and put under the microscope of open analysis. Don't worry, your taxes are not being wasted on education.

Try being a conservative professor or a Young Republican on campus. They know all about the free flow of ideas, with being shouted down and denied tenure. You are really out of touch.

@GearHead....I don't know of any professors who have been denied tenure based on their political ideology. I admit that young Republicans do have a harder time based on their ideology, but that is the nature of a college and university experience. However, they are welcome to express their ideas and views no matter how unpopular they are. Of course you get the reverse with young Democrats at campuses like UW-Waukesha.

@J.B. Schmidt....Happy New Year! If you fully understood the progressive movement and the principles of social justice, then you would have answered your own question. Rising to the top, shouldn't be based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, religious perspective or anything else other than earned merit. Second Wave Feminism was all about removing the barriers and leveling the playing field so that merit is the only factor. Who do respect more, the person who inherits a fortune or someone who has struggled and worked hard to attain a fortune. If you are like most, you respect more the one who works for their success. The social structure of the past gave white males the inheritance and no matter how hard others worked they couldn't overcome the advantage given to white males.

Society is better off with a leveling where opportunity exists for all and based on merit people pursue their own fulfillment. Your concerns about the changes to societal structure and the negative impact on families is only transitory and will with time, coalesce into a new order. Societal structures are the adaptations to changes in the three environments of, physical, technological and social.

You are responding as one who has inherited your status through race and gender and not through merit. You see yourself as having everything to lose and nothing to be gained. This is a faulty position on your part. It is time to stop bemoaning the change and embrace it exploring your new opportunities.

@Lyle
Those of us that must exist in the real world understand the true harm your progressive agenda poses to our culture. Please provide form me a culture that exists in true equality. More importantly an equality not imposed by government mandate.

As you exist in your pseudo-intellectual bubble believing this utopia exists where men and women are equal, the rest of us must bear the punishment for these false pretenses. Women are no longer to be respected for their ability to reproduce and care for young; rather they must disrespected as simple sex objects in the name of equality. Woman are not to be honored with the position of motherhood, but are to be punished by it.

The true identity crisis for men is the liberal ideal that a strong man is by nature abusive. It strips the natural protection instincts of men and demeans his essence. Creating mediocre men unwilling to stand up for what is right in face of possibly being called a sexist or worse yet; unable to make the right decisions for family and country because they have been stripped off their backbone.

Equal treatment has nothing to do with ability of one groups ability to perform the same roles as another. It has to do with each groups ability to freely practice their own roles. Liberal policy wishes to impose former and ignoring the latter. In doing so all groups are enslaved by your false notion of equality.

Interesting, J.B., that you should naturally assume that men are the 'top' and that the move toward gender equality (still far from achieved) has weakened the top.

@J.B. Schmidt....Culture is designed to be most effective when it is malleable and responsive to the changes in the environment. Your adherence to a culture and structure that is no longer viable puts you out of touch with the new reality. Instead of fighting the change, it would be most helpful to you and your family to embrace the change and prepare your sons for their new roles.

The roles of equality do not entrap anyone or place people into slavery, but provide liberation. You continuously cite the negatives associated with the Second Wave of Feminism, which have now been fully rejected. Women, as well as men, are now freed to pursue the development of their full potential without fear of condemnation. Third Wave Feminism fully embraces women's roles and desires to be mothers and fulfill that part of their lives. Men are now capable of being fully supportive. Your own decision to be a stay at home dad, was unheard of 5 decades ago. Now I ask you; is this a bad thing?

Somehow, I can't but believe your resistance is rooted in your religious understanding and ideologies. Serious research into the early Christian movement might shed some insight into the true role of women and men with regards to following Christ. It was the corruption of male dominance that diverted the truth. You can be both a faithful Christian and an enlightened man at the same time. I am sure your wife and children would support you in that endeavor.

@Randy
I never claimed men were the top.

It is not the move to gender equality itself that is the issue. It is the move to eliminate gender as a characteristic. The assumption that equality is the ability of every woman to perform every man's job and vice versa, is ignorance. You progressives theories that humans were designed to exist as if their sex had no bearing on the direction of their lives.

@Lyle
First, my religious beliefs regarding the roles of men and women mainly influence the structure of the church and marriage. I will leave the church discussion for now as it will muddy the waters; however, within marriage God has more to say about the lengths by which men must honor their wives, care for their wives and show selfless love for their wives; then anything else. He places the responsibility on the man to ensure the success of the marriage. Not because women are incapable, but because they are God's creatures deserving adornment and because men are weaker when it comes to self control.

My life as a stay at home dad is a daily struggle. It is a role reversal and neither my wife nor I have fully come to terms with it; however, our job paths and choice as young adults have created a situation where this is the only way it works. Those choices I made becoming an adult were framed heavily on the liberal notion of equality of gender, women were objects and my life was mine and only mine to live. With boomers parents (whom I love and respect) it was more about my ability to show emotion and less about my ability to silence emotion when a decision required logic. As a result the list of details above regarding the role of husbands was not driven into my head until after I was married. The best thing a man can do is for his family is ensure his wife leads the wife she wants.
(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
You are advocating for the removal of man's ability to do this. Hence weakening or removing the need for men. If man's role is not longer to adorn women and ensure she is provided for, the self control goes out the window, women become sex objects and women never develop a respect for men. You suddenly have countless divorces, broken families, single mothers and an inner city were the nuclear family no longer exists.

I recently read a story that presented men who hold doors for women are doing it in an act of dominance. That is a contrived idea that has no basis in reality but can be twisted to fit your profile for mans need for the women to be submissive. The end result of your false ideas regarding male dominance and female submission only results in sexual divide in which each side is out for themselves and not the good of the family. You have enslaved each side to your assumed categories.

I find it interesting that the progressives who believe in an evolution that created separate sexes are trying to ignore the billions of years of fine tuning by saying those characteristics no longer bear meaning. Is it an accident that males cannot bear children and have forever been working outside the house; while women who can bear children have been home makers? What has changed? I can answer the second question by simply saying that the progressive tool of envy was inserted into the equation, not any real evolutionary change in our species.

@J.B. Schmidt...Who said that gender wasn't a characteristic of the human experience? Gender, which is biological, determines much of neuro-hard wiring. That definitely has an impact on how characteristics are expressed. There are things that women will never be able to perform and their are things men will never be able to perform. Where unaided raw strength is required, women are unable to do it. Women characteristically don't do as well with spacial relationships. All of this has to do with gender differentiation. Neither gender is superior to the other but possess different capabilities. However, for all practical purposes, gender results in very little differentiation. I think the biggest differentiation has to be with the biology of pregnancy, birth and lactation. I do feel that women's evolution has created specific social and emotional characteristics in birth and care of offspring. But again, psychological studies have found that having a bonded caretaker is more important to the early human no matter the gender.

@J.B. Schmidt....Your response was remarkable in its honesty and depth. Needless to say, there are many things expressed that I see quite differently.

You state that the role of men in marriage is to adorn their wives. Adorn them in what? How is this to be interpreted? If it means to care for her and provide for her needs this adds little to the discussion. From the earliest historical records, the male's role was the provider of protein with females providing around 80% of the calories consumed through the process of gathering. During our hunter-gatherer period, this was the egalitarian period in our species history. It wasn't until we became settled and agriculturists, that women were relegated to home and hearth. Also, much of it had to do with retaining control and ownership of productive cropland. This created an issue where males, because of their inherent strength, became the warrior protecting valued resources. Women's roles shifted from the position of full partners to that of chattel. With technology, male strength, for the most part, is no longer a viable factor. Women's liberation has been throwing off the shackles of the status of being chattel.

As far as women being stronger than males in the control of desires; that too is a result of evolution. Just as with other species , the female has the final choice. There is a genetic advantage with this. I feel very strongly that males now have the responsibility to control their own desires. (continued)

J.B. Schmidt...(continued) Males can no longer claim that their animalistic nature frees them from responsibility. This is one of the key issues that separates different cultural perspectives between the views of the west and the view advocated by Islam.

As we work through our new roles, it will be interesting how they will finally manifest.

@Lyle
I must disagree with you that gender is truly being eliminated. In parts of Europe, they are trying to remove male and female titles off marriage licenses completely. The medical fringe is advancing to the area of creating children using the DNA of both same sex couples; hence reducing the need for natural reproduction. Beyond that we already have people having medical procedures done to change sexual identity. If the natural production of the sexes via natural reproduction is irrelevant, then the gender designations we use is also irrelevant.

When that is coupled with the idea that a woman can (and should) do everything that a man does (or vice versa) then what are we left with? Essentially the human race becomes an undefined, unregulated production of it own creation making a mess of the structure either God or evolution has put in place. Change that is undefined and unregulated is anarchy. Hence, family chaos in the inner city, single motherhood, objectification of women and broken families. None of which is good for our society.
(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
As for the my explanation of the roles of men in marriage. Would your wife enjoy a confident husband willing to take on the challenge of making her the center of his universe or a husband lacking confidence because he was told it is oppressive of the female and therefore unable to make her the center of his universe because he was told she is his equal and assuming she needs that kind of attention is sexist? I will gladly assume she would prefer the former rather then the latter. My guess is that the vast majority of women would prefer that situation. However, it is the latter that is created through the progressive feminization of men.

Its a double edge sword. The feminist movement wants to teach men to be more sensitive, less confident and emotional; while the females want confident man strong enough to control his emotions when she can't. The result either a weak metrasexual man more concerned with his own appearance or women with flamboyant gay friends.

@J.B. Schmidt....I find your use of adjectives to describe males and females rooted in Romanticism and archaic principles.

There are and will be a number of technologies available for procreation that will not use the standards that we observe. However, this will always remain aberrant, with people choosing the old fashion means of coitus. Your making this point is nothing but a red herring fallacy regarding the changes in gender identification and roles.

No one is advocating the elimination of gender, but only to recognize that gender is no longer the limiting factor that it once was. In egalitarian relationships, leadership is exercised on the capability of each partner. In my own marriage, sometimes I lead and sometimes my wife leads. Decisions are usually based on quite a number of variables, with previous experience often the deciding factor.

Every person wants to be appreciated, counted, loved and respected. This has absolutely nothing to do with gender, but with being human. I am confident that as we work out the expectations for changing conditions, that it won't result in chaos or anarchy, but adaptive social orders.

@Lyle
These adaptive social orders come at what expense to the current generations? It could take the inner city culture decades to fix the progressive social order they have attempted to adapt to.

Romanticized as it may be, it works. Where is the proof the current direction will end as innocently as you theories?

@J.B. -- Why can't your wife be the center of your universe AND your other equal half?

@Randy
You are confusing outward expression vs. inside motive. My wife and I do discussion and come to agreements. I neither keep anything from her nor assume she is not an equal partner. The difference is I am doing it because I believe she deserves it and not because society is forcing me to give her space. In everything we do, the intent is what drives a successful end result.

The progressive movement finds a problem (unbalanced gender in the workforce), then make a generalized demonization of that problem (men are oppressive) and therefore makes the generalization that all men and women have interchangeable roles. Without ever considering the benefit to an unbalanced gender workforce (ie a parent at home and less stress). It is simply an emotional response to the subjective idea of fairness. Was it unfair for the women to be at home? Maybe. Is it now unfair for children to be raised by daycare centers or single parent households? Yes. So, as we work towards this unattainable and subject levels of fairness; we have destroyed the traditional family units.

@J.B. Schmidt...What you fail to recognize concerning the social order and culture of the inner cities is not a progressive social order or social engineering; it is people attempting to survive, with little or no resources. It is the culture and social order of poverty. It is not isolated only to the inner cities, but can be found in any number of areas, including Appalachia, the rural South, and the Native American Communities. These are the people that have been marginalized for decades and well over a century. When the economy radically changed beginning in the 1980s, these are the people that were permanently "kicked to the curb", without any concern for their long term survival. A prime example is to be found here in Milwaukee when they routed Interstate 43 through the vibrant Black cultural center of Bronzeville, displacing the residents.

If you really want to know about why the inner cities are the way that they are, then you need to do some serious research about the foundations of the culture, beginning with slavery to present.

@Lyle
Poverty is a cop out. It does nothing to explain the lifestyle that exists with NBA players, rappers and Hollywood.

@J.B. Schmidt....Those that are raised in the culture of poverty, once they come into big money, the culture remains.

Lyle,

The problems in many poor, black neighborhoods ARE largely the result of progressive social engineering, insofar as the black population has believed the narrative that has been propagated by the left, and have therefore been discouraged from taking the alternative path followed by wave after wave after wave after freaking wave of poor immigrants because they had their optimism stolen from them by their progressive patrons.

@Luke....Strong statement, but how many incoming immigrants came in after being in forced servitude for centuries and then held hostage in the share cropping system and Jim Crow. Most immigrants that I know came here of their own free will. Also, you need to provide some research evidence to support your statement.

BTW, Happy New Year. I hadn't seen your name pop up lately and I assumed that maybe you were in S.E. Asia.

@Lyle Ruble.... The specific urban routing for US-141 (re-tagged I-43) was selected to to accomplish social engineering goals. The In the early years of the 'freeway commission' it was part of City government;all of the route planning for I-43 occurred under the guidance of Mayor Zeidler(S).

It was part of the 'master plan' to remove much of the blighted area(Bronzeville) and build 'projects' with a higher grade of housing and a park.(you will see this if you google it, south of Walnut & West of 6th St paralleled to I-43) Much of the early funding to remove the blight came in the form of the Federal Housing Act of 1949.

The on the northern end of Bronzville, in the middle of what is now I-43 was the baseball stadium [Borchert Field (7th & Burleigh)] it was removed in 1954, for the expressway right of way, when County Stadium opened. Note: this all happened before the Eisenhower Interstate Act.

Milwaukee County took over expressway planning in 1955. The the the route for I-43 was opened from the Locust on/off ramps to Silver Spring in 1963. The Marquette exchange was not completed until 1969.

In short, I'm saying that even your own argument, flawed and as debilitating as it is, would shock the very people who would hear it if a politician dared to say it..

Lyle,

One more thing. In case I wasn't clear, I think that your message is different than that which the progressives are enslaving blacks with. Nonetheless, it isn't exactly correct, nor would anyone campaign on it.

@Luke....Let me make myself clear; I am attempting to make the point that those who have found themselves in the culture of poverty through a series of events uniquely American, which trace their roots to involuntary servitude, is not the same experience that other groups have experienced upon entering this nation.

You are making the serious error of comparing apples and oranges by comparing the two situations, one indigenous and the other foreign. Also, the efforts made to compensate for the history of a people that has been at the bottom of the social structure for so long is a daunting task. Every promise made since Civil War Reconstruction, beginning with 40 acres and a mule, has been routinely and systematically been reneged on. The same pattern and process has also occurred with the aboriginal defeated nations of the continent. When the national sentiment finally changed in the late 1950s and 1960s, allowing for attempts to change the traditional social structure, those attempts have met with more failure than with success. Now the question I must ask you is why have they failed? Is it because there is something wrong with the population and they are incapable of rising? Is it because what has been offered in the past has been wrong? Have we followed the wrong ideology and should we have just abandoned these people, should we abandon them now? What is the answer?

The structure of these blogs make it difficult to address many issues directly without spending a great deal of time better spent elsewhere ... yet, I haven't thought of an improvement - just a side note ...

That said, two things that peaked my interest in your responses ...

"leveling the playing field so that merit is the only factor ..." I disagree that we have done this at all. Merit is only lauded within the groups you and other "Progressives" believe were in a former minority position dominated by the white male. I still remember watching a ceremony where ribbons were given, literally, for nearly a hundred minority students (everyone in the school). This isn't merit, and it is hardly laudable to present false reward, or to diminish real effort by those that were not in that group of individuals.

The comment by Luke is one that everyone should be considering, that none alive have suffered centuries of anything. To continually pacify weakness and a lack of discipline, or worse - to excuse the terrible behavior that usually ensures their plight continues, is not "leveling the playing field so that merit is the only factor ...".

It matters how we condition people, you are obviously aware. You do a great disservice to the many in the minority that accomplished great things because they refused to accept your position that they couldn't. I feel terrible that we continue to teach minority individuals that they have an excuse for failing to embrace the opportunity in this country, in most other countries I believe their plight would have been significantly more challenging.

"The white European has been responsible for more human misery during the last 1000 years than any other group. Is that something you really are proud of?"

... are you serious? I hope you aren't overlooking a handful of contributions which certainly created the environment being better than most around the world, let alone here in the United States.

While I do believe you have a lot to offer, when you take positions that wholly disregard the honor and suffering of generations in the group you continually beat on, I think you are part of the problem.

When Christ told the lame man to put down his crutches and walk, he was speaking to more than that man ... and we would do well to quit handing out crutches.

Lyle,

You said: "Now the question I must ask you is why have they failed? Is it because there is something wrong with the population and they are incapable of rising? Is it because what has been offered in the past has been wrong? Have we followed the wrong ideology and should we have just abandoned these people, should we abandon them now? What is the answer?"

We have come full circle, Lyle. Yes, there IS something wrong with the population. One thing that is wrong with the population is that they have made a negative narrative too much of their main source of identity, and the politicians cater to that and nurture it in hopes of gaining votes.

In case you didn't notice, I used examples of minority groups that my family comes from that survive to this day in their countries of origin. Their main source of identity (regardless of where they live) is not what others have done wrong to them. The Hmong would welcome equal rights in the countries from which they come, but nothing will stop them from working to better themselves to the point where they surpass all others. They, just as you Jews, are fully aware of has happened to them, but they have never allowed those things to become the main narrative that defines them. Even though they experience prejudice, they find it dysfunctional to spend too much time focusing on it. Yet in America, politicians do exactly the opposite in order to gain votes.

How dysfunctional would we make kids, Lyle, if every day we reminded short boys and "big-boned" girls that they are less liked and statistically proven to be discriminated against (which is a factually accurate!)? What would happen to them if their parents, teachers and representative politicians reminded them on a daily basis that they are "different," and that the majority does not have their best interest at heart? I think that you will agree with me, Lyle, that such a thing would be a horrible way for a child to be raised, and such an experience would result in a group of people who significantly more mentally dysfunctional and prone to crime than the norm. And although it is generally socially acceptable to make fun of fat and short people (not to mention the elderly) in our society, we would consider it abusive for the major figures in a child's life to make that in any way the focus of a child's experience or identity. Yet what is exactly what is being done to black children in America.
.

So when you ask me if there is something wrong with the poor in America, I will have to differentiate the chronically poor from the chronically poor blacks. Regarding the chronically poor (most of which are not black), you should remember that I of all people have championed offering free preschool as a scientifically-proven means of increasing IQ scores, health and financial advancement in America's poor. No one who has studied the issue will disagree with me that preschool dramatically improves the prospects of poor children for the rest of their lives, because it offers them experiences that middle class families almost always offer their children, but the poor are much less likely to do, such as reading to them and participating in controlled, constructive play. Such a program is also arguably in the best interest of government, because it will pay for itself because of the reduced dependency on entitlements and services, as I have explained elsewhere.

Other than that, Lyle, I would say that we need to raise kids with the focus on valuing virtue, learning and respect - respect for others and themselves. We owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Lincoln, King and people like Lyle Ruble. But the final step of Progressivism is being led by people like me, who are motivated by academic studies and a war on dysfunction. I hope you will not stand in the way like the politicians have.

@Richard...Happy New Year! How do you define male "wusses" and what does it infer? If you are referring to males who have gone through the process of self analysis and came to the conclusion that they would rather pursue equality of opportunity and let merit be the deciding factor rather than let gender and race alone give them an unfair advantage, then calling someone a "wussie", rather than being a pejorative, is actually a statement of someone who has achieved a certain level of enlightenment. It is interesting that you would use a feminine pejorative to describe males. This is an indication how you really feel about women, if you deride a male by calling him a woman, you obviously don't think very highly of women.

Your addressing the problems of the inner city male verse the suburban male is pretty much an issue of popular myth propagation rather than reality. Some white suburban males fear the inner city male invading their secure neighborhoods, seeking the wealth and property of their efforts, raping their wives and daughters, killing their sons and ultimately killing the suburban male who is attempting to protect his family and property. The probability of something like this occurring is remote at best.

(continued)

@Richard...(continued) Of greater concern should be the problems of male suburban youth who have escaped into worlds of extreme sports, video games, and fantasy board games. These are the young men who need the help. They have found themselves in this reality, because of their fathers lack of preparing them for the new emerging order. Females have begun to out perform them and rather than learn to compete they have retreated into a parallel reality. I suggest you focus on the real problem, not the myth.

The upside is that we're not paying Lyle for this.

We've got people employed by universities making 6 figure salaries and receiving grants on top of that to pay their potential progeny to produce studies reaching conclusions of no greater value than what Lyle's come up with here.

@GearHead...Happy New Year! I haven't stereotyped you, that is of your own making as evidenced by your past positions.

@Bob McBride...Happy New Year! Here we are enjoying the emergence of another year. Everything has changed, but nothing has changed. I look forward to your continuing skepticism and cynicism.

You can count on it, Lyle. Somebody around here has to keep their head out of the ether and attempt to refocus attention on what's important and away from what isn't.

Happy NY to you as well!.

And you are the better for not being included into that nitwits crowd

@Bottom Line...Happy New Year! I never claimed to be imbued with any unique understanding. I find your analysis of change unenlightening. Basic change goes through three stages: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This has been recognized for millennia. The ancients used astrology to state the same thing with fixed, mutable and cardinal. In my experience people tend to get hung up in the content and not the process of change. It is true that social movements come and go and are replace, to by another. However, that is the process of change, to raise awareness to the point of action which results in the new normal.

Happy New Year to you as well.

So, are you agreeing that many of the changes are neither good or bad? Aren't they simply a "new" normal? And what makes stating the new norm relevant as one decides whether to accept or reject it?

Is it progressive to indoctrinate behavior in young minds that titillate them to activities they are wholly incapable of rationalizing?

Is it progressive to regress every few generations into accepting behavior that history has shown to be unproductive, and detrimental to stable life?

Is it acceptable to condition individuals to believe behavior is without consequence, because we can medicate the result of such behavior?

In our short lives I doubt anything of true consequence will occur, but I lament the suffering that I see everyday, which wouldn't occur if principles and disciplines we know are beneficial are taught and applied. This would include making people responsible for their choices.

Take the debate over legalizing drugs that are currently illegal. Haven't we sufficient history to simply teach consequence and allow everyone to engage the behavior understanding that there will not be a safety net when they choose to gamble the result for themselves?

The "new" norm for roles between men and women overlooks quite a bit. It is true that former generations missed opportunity when they conditioned women to subservience. However, you are also overlooking the responsibility side of men being expected to be the leader and provide. To only project the benefit is to ignore the long suffering of the men that exhausted themselves trying to meet those standards when they were incapable the expectation.

There are trade offs in these behaviors, and I doubt many can truly appreciate why society reverts to standards over time. I believe leaders come from either gender, and it is unfortunate that we cannot allow for the natural development to reveal that in individuals. The current "norm" challenges individuals that are incapable to try their hand at any number of responsibilities, and society pays for that inefficiency.

While some will find their attraction tenable, others will suffer the experiment.

As to the "new" sexuality norm ... it is hardly new, and you know it. Sexuality is probably the biggest weakness in human beings. It is true that a small percentage emotionally benefit acceptance of whatever behavior becomes normalized when it is what they enjoy.

I lament the introduction of this into schools. It has decidedly challenged our children to behavior that should be restrained until they can accept responsibility for the choices they make. With adults, I am indifferent their choices. I believe they should be allowed whatever behavior they consent to, with the understanding that they are to be wholly responsible for the result.

I believe government should withdraw from the discussion, including marriage, and allow whatever contract between individuals be held legal.

@Bottom Line....I am in agreement with you on a number of your statements. It is not only the progressives that are concerned with educating the young. We all should be concerned to make sure that people understand the consequences of their actions and the repercussions. That is only correct parenting. As far as sexual behavior in youth, I think that it is worthy of concern, but I think your are overly concerned.

@Randy1949....Thankfully the era of militant feminism has finally pasted. Even Betty Friedan separated herself from the extremists who denigrated stay at home women.

You and I are of an era when we watched our mothers toiling away cooking, cleaning, sewing, washing with a ringer washer, keeping the table garden, killing chickens, etc. We know women worked and worked hard. Part of our consumer society was built on modernizing and making easier the work of the housewife.

Essentially you are correct in your analysis of women entering the workforce, but our economy couldn't have grown without the increased labor. Early in the 20th century we had new immigrants flooding our shores to provide labor, but after WW II, with legal immigration down, it was women who stepped forward and filled the need.

During the Third Wave we are challenged to restructure society to again reach a state of stasis. We have reached a milestone where it is merit that counts. People are finally understanding that having it all isn't necessarily the correct goal. The pursuit of material possessions cannot make up for the missed hug from your child or missing them taking their first step. This is all about being more human rather than just economic units.

@Lyle -- While modern appliances may have made the job of the housekeeper easier, they haven't made them go away. In fact, standards have changed because of the supposed 'ease'. Clothing used to be worn for more than one day when laundry was such a chore, for instance. Floors don't sweep and wash themselves, toilets don't clean themselves, and most importantly, children don't raise themselves. I know that if you have enough money you can hire someone else to do all of the above, but two working class parents don't have that luxury. The children are either being raised by day-care workers or the nanny.

This is because that 'career path' is still based on a breadwinner who could devote long hours to a job while having a help-meet at home to take care of life's details. If you don't have one of those, you're overworked.

Perhaps the economy grew, but you cannot deny that there has been a downward pressure on wages, simply because of supply and demand. How many jobs nowadays can support a family on a single income? This is especially hard for single-parent families.

(continued) My mother never killed any chickens. She was an executive, and i watched her work for much less than her male counterparts. Another sixties-era working woman I knew was a teacher who had been widowed with young children, and the job conditions she had to put up with simply to become employed seemed heartless at the time. She could not leave work to care for them if they became ill. But then again, how many mothers can take care of their sick children now? Or fathers?

@Randy1949....I don't disagree with your statements. It is truly sad that it is nearly impossible for a family to survive on a single income, which most single mothers are forced to do. This is precisely why in most of other developed nations, women and men are given extended paid maternity leave. They also begin subsidized day care when the parent when they decide to return to work.

"extended paid maternity leave" who is paying for this?

@Young Conservative...It is paid by local taxes.

@WPN1488....I don't hate white males. However, just because we are white males doesn't mean we deserve any special consideration. We are not more intelligent or more capable than anyone else.

If you were more familiar with the process of evolution, you wouldn't be so quick to state that the white man is the ultimate expression of evolution. Most of the foundations of material sciences and scientific knowledge has come from other cultures and other racial ethnicity. The Chinese and Indians alone have contributed more to the advancement of technology and the spread of civilization. They were doing this while the white Europeans were living in straw hut hovels. It was the pursuit of spices, primarily pepper, and silk that drove the white European to begin the process of exploration. The white European has been responsible for more human misery during the last 1000 years than any other group. Is that something you really are proud of?

I don't remember them having any children. I figure that managing their white males was difficult enough.

That brings up a good point--most TV shows today also seem to characterize the 'husband' or 'Dad' as the buffoon, who is rarely respected by the wife and/or children, both of whom seem to be more intelligent and responsible than the male adult in the household...

Husbands are obsolete. Government is the new "significant other."

While your notions that Gen-X males view the world and society as spiraling downward is likely not inaccurate, your insinuations that such views will lead to a civil war (at the hands of Gen-X males) is simply unreasonable. While Gen-X males have been classified as alienated and indifferent, and stereotyped as angst-ridden “slackers,” Gen-Xers are nonetheless too intelligent to resort to civil war as a solution to their problems. Get a grip, Lyle.

Finally, your statement that Gen-Xer’s will recede into history as no more than an afterthought exemplifies how little you know about this generation. I suggest you talk with your own Gen-X daughter(s) and seek some reality here in relation to media-fueled, post-modern multiculturalism. You’ll also likely find that her(their) navigation of the present “post feminist” era is no less challenging than that of the males you ignorantly criticize.

@Eugenics now; what's next, "the Final Solution"?