Don't Man Up. Or Down. Just Be.

So I've read the Newsweek article twice now (the cover story I told you about yesterday), and I've got mixed feelings. That's probably because the article sends mixed messages. Thankfully, the cover was pretty misleading, and the authors of the article are not calling for men to put on their muscles and pound their chests. But what exactly is the article calling for men to do? I'm still not sure . . .

Because the article is the feature story, it's fairly long, and I won't be able to summarize everything here for you, but the authors' main point is that there needs to be a "New Macho," whose definition is broadened to include "both Mr. T and Mr. Mom."

Okay, good . . . The article goes on to say that the best place to start is in the home, since "society still expects very little of fathers." The authors relate an anecdote:

As the novelist Michael Chabon discovered on a trip to the grocery store with his son . . . "You are such a good dad," a woman told him as he waited in line to pay. "I can tell." Exactly what she could tell was a mystery to Chabon, who recounts the story in his 2009 essay collection Manhood for Amateurs. But clearly no woman would earn kudos for toting her kids around the frozen-foods aisle. "The handy thing about being a father," he later concludes, "is that the historic standard is so pitifully low."

But old roles are "hard to shake." Even though "young couples believe in coparenting and sharing the household chores . . . the percentage of men who call themselves stay-at-home dads has stalled below 3 percent." The authors' proposed solution is policy changes:

Consider contemporary life in Sweden. In the past, new parents split 390 says of paid leave however they liked . . . Women used far more of it than men. But today, new fathers no longer rush back to work . . . The reason for the change? Smart public policy. In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it. A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80 percent of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child, up from 4 percent a decade ago.

And further,

[In Sweden] if a man refuses time at home with the kids, he faces questions from friends, family, and yes, other guys. Policy changes produced personal changes - and then, slowly but surely, society changed as well.

Hmmm . . . that sounds very nice, but is it realistic in this country? I mean, Sweden is much more socially and politically progressive: "Sweden is currently leading the EU in statistics measuring equality in politics and equality in education," and in 2006, Sweden was ranked number one in terms of gender equality. And, same-sex marriage is legal in Sweden.

And the article even seems to counter its own argument by then going on to say that "Of course, policy changes will be pointless unless attitudes change, as well." Um, yeah! While I do think that men should have access to paid paternity leave (and the authors do propose good ways to pay for that), I don't know if such a policy as Sweden has will work here. Because the majority of the country's attitude towards gender has a lot of changing to do. And the authors of the article unknowingly prove that. Let me explain.

The authors cite that "of the 15.3 million new jobs projected to sprout up over the next decade, the vast majority will come in fields that currently attract far more men than women" (think teachers, nurses, home health aids, etc.).

All told, the social sector of the economy will gain 6.9 million jobs by 2018. But unless the complexion of the workforce changes, according to a recent study by Northeastern University, a whopping 2.5 million of them will go unfilled . . . If the male morale - and the American economy - are ever going to recover, the truth is that the next generation of Homer Simpsons will have to stop searching for outsourced manufacturing jobs and start working toward teaching, nursing, or social-service positions instead. To hasten this transition, schools that train "nurturing professionals" should launch aggressive, male-oriented advertising campaigns and male-to-male recruiting drives that stress technical expertise, career-advancement potential, and beyond-the-bedside opportunities . . . (my emphasis).

Whoa - what? I thought we were trying to get to a "new definition of masculine"? Shouldn't that expand beyond things like "aggressive" and "career-advancement"? I mean, that doesn't sound very "new" to me. It sounds like the authors are advocating for making the traditionally "girly" jobs more "manly." And indeed. the authors use the phrase "girly jobs": "On the surface, the New Macho is a paradox - a path to masculinity paved with girly jobs and dirty diapers."

Perhaps the authors think that the only way to get the majority of men into these social sector jobs are by "manning up" the marketing and appeal of those jobs? Are they right? But where does that get us? It still doesn't get us anywhere near a new definition of "masculine."

In the end, I'm not sure what to say because I'm not sure what exactly the authors are saying. They contradict themselves, and seem to be too hung up on this "new definition." Definitions of gender are the problem in the first place. But the article does end on a good point:

In a changing world, men should do whatever it takes to contribute their fair share at home and at work, and school, policymakers, and employers should do whatever they can to help them.

I think that's well-said. Too bad for all the confusing mess in the middle of the whole piece: another perfect example of what too much labeling can do to us.