Saturday, October 17, 2015

Why was the sexual revolution of the 1970s bad for todays economy?

Most of the general ideas about the sexual revolution of the late sixties to the early eighties were very progressive, and won a hard fought battle for gender equality in the workplace.  That's not what this post is about.

First, let me say I have always thought that anyone who performs the function of the job, no matter what gender, race, sexual orientation or religion of that specific 'drone' happens to be, should be paid accordingly to their skill and the jobs functions.  Next, I want to make it clear, before getting the dander up on any feminists or sexist males, neither sex is superior to the other. The point I'm trying to make is over equality. This post is about the problems with having one gender having a sexual revolution while leaving the counterpart in the archaic ages.

Most of my experience has found that when women entered the workplace to help financially provide for their families, instead, their families suffered because men's roles didn't adapt accordingly.

Women have been traditionally the 'home-maker' and the Men, "bread-winner".

Many times in the past two decades, the female counterpart has been the backbone of our countries while men go off to fight in wars.  When the few men return, the women have kindly, and most quietly returned to the home-maker roles for the men to re-enter the workplace.

In the 70's, combined with the anger from previous wars, equal rights for every race to the standards of Caucasians,  women demanded equal pay, with every reason.  The subsequent effect was for women to enter the workplace.  However, in doing so, they burned their bras, and started applying for jobs traditionally held by men.

When these mothers joined the workforce, it led to more 'latchkey kids', those who would go to the institution of schools at a time where schools have also faced an issue of under funding, over population, and trying to integrate students into a system which would benefit everyone.

Instead, our population in the United States had dozens of unattended children from every home, and we were pacified with MTV, Rock and Rap, Video Games, Personal Computers, Skateboards, and declining importance in the role of the family.  Divorce rates skyrocketed, mostly over financial issues, as well as the average median income for the family, despite the dual income. Tuition rates went up, while skilled trades began to falter in the 90's.

Most of these divorced and broken families produced children who grew into adults, and emulated their parents, finding divorce acceptable. It became the standard for mothers to receive child support and custody of the children, also creating a system of dependency, and increasing the amounts of latchkey kids. The areas worst hit were also low income areas.

The issue was that it wasn't socially acceptable for the parenting responsibilities to be shared equally between parents, grinding fathers into the dirt with child support rather than giving them equal parenting responsibilities.  Fathers were (and still are) considered the 'bread-winners' rather than an equal part of the parental equation, while women accept both roles and are praised for doing both roles, even if they aren't actually performing both or either roles.

What has also made the whole dynamic worse is that the media has evolved into using our sex and genders to sell everything except sex itself.  We are constantly bombarded with images which play upon our insecurities and libido. If I had sex one tenth as often as the media would have me believe over products which I purchase, I'd be having 5 new sexual partners every day.

Men need the same sexual revolution. I'm not exactly sure how simple this solution is, however.

How does a society recognize the importance of having a father to be seen as anything more than a paycheck?  How can that work ethic be seen through a child support payment? At what point could men change the opinions of each other?

Another point which the sexual revolution has left men by the wayside is that it became more accepted for lesbian relationships, where gay male sexual relationships are still somewhat frowned upon in most social settings, at very least in predominant christian communities.

"Gay sex is wrong...  Except two chicks... That's pretty 'alright'."

I'd like to blame the issue upon our collective desire to cleave to religion.  People need faith in each other, and in themselves to progress our society, instead of some omnipotent being for their success and failures. We need accountability for ourselves and our actions.

How often does one hear the term "deadbeat dad"?  Why isn't there an equally derogatory term for mothers who deprive their child the benefit of their father beyond a paycheck?  Why do courts award primary custody and large lump sums to mothers in the form of monthly supplementary payments while limiting the parental time?  Are they saying that the father is an inappropriate 'home-maker', and if so, why wouldn't the reverse be true, that a woman is an inappropriate 'bread-winner'?  This, of course, is insulting to both genders, and favors women...  This is NOT "gender equality".

In closing, please examine your own families dynamic?  Were your parents 'good parents', when both genders were in the workplace? Was your father anything more than a paycheck to support his family? 

1 comment:

  1. I want to write a full post response to this post but I don't have enough focus to write much right now. As for your last questions:

    My mom was untreated and mentally ill and my dad was passive aggressive and didn't call her out when she did things he didn't like. They both had careers. Honestly it was way worse when Mom was around. My Dad was way more than a paycheck... he was the one to warn me "Your mother is in a mood" so I could just hide out and stay out of her way. I am not really sure how any of this relates back to the sexual revolution though....

    ReplyDelete