It's international grumpy fucker day today. I'm not kidding. And I am grumpy. Just grumpy enough to blog for the first time since my Olympic/Korean adventure started back in late January.
What's got me grumpy today? Same stuff as I've been blogging about lately. Just exemplified in more recent events. Like the latest in the long list of school shootings and the events around it and the conversation about it.
Scot Peterson. This is the guy who didn't go into the Florida school and confront the shooter and possibly save the lives of some kids. He is being hated on hard. I have been a security guard. It's not the same, but it's similar. I'm getting paid 10 bucks an hour. If there's a shooter in the building I'm guarding, I am NOT supposed to confront him I would probably want to, but I'm not supposed to. I am supposed to call a guy like Scot Peterson, who is being paid more, and, unlike me, is ARMED. He is then supposed to go in and confront that shooter. It's his duty. It's what he's paid to do. From mall cop all the way up to police swat team, law enforcement officials emulate and idolize the military. They use the same codes, equipment, techniques, they are like law enforcement soldiers. And soldiers who shy away from their duty can be punished for cowardice. Dereliction of duty, desertion, I'm no expert so I don't know what Peterson's actions, or non-actions, would be defined and punished as in a military court, but I know the punishment could be as serious as death. That's right, death.
For what? Well, he didn't do his JOB, and he didn't protect those children. Two extremely significant parts of our world culture that have few exceptions. As a man, you are primarily identified by your job. That is the major part of your identity. In some cases even more important than your very life. This guy was too scared to do his job. That makes him a weenie.
But what's worse? He didn't protect the kids. "Women and children first." In any emergency like a school shooting, burning building, sinking ship, it's save the women and children first. Why? Is it something we learn, is it natural, is it a combination? Why are men the protectors of women and children? Well what are women and children? The children are the future, right? And one of them might be vital to the entire world. One of the 17 kids killed that day in Florida might have gone on to write the great American novel, cure cancer, invent a car that runs on CO2 and emits oxygen. We will never know.
And the women? They are the carriers, birthers and primary care-givers of the children. The boobs are as obvious a natural hint as can be found. And while their potential for gaining power is being gauged by many of their owners, the breast's natural purpose is milk for the children. THIS is why "women and children first." Children, you have to study and become the architects of a better future. Women, you have to nurture these children and enable them to do so.
Is this happening? I am going to take some shit for saying this, but I think mothers are becoming worse and kids are becoming worse while men are staying very much the same. In general.
Now, I'm not saying kids are getting assault rifles and shooting up schools because of bad parenting. And I'm not saying that since these basic roles in our societies are getting blurred, that maybe Scot Peterson isn't a coward or that since women and children are breaking out of traditional roles that maybe they shouldn't go first any more. So what am I saying? I'm saying that nature, all natural, obvious and undeniable, NATURE is not getting the respect she deserves in social circles the world over. I'm saying NATURE is also saying "me too."
Donald Rump's quote about how he would have gone in and taken on that shooter even if he was only armed with his fun-sized fists is an example of a highly masculine trait. It's common, it's natural and it's undeniable. Strength, real or imagined, is a source of pride FAR more so in men than in women. It is likely all tied in with this protection thing. This is our natural and traditional role. Protector/provider. This is also why our jobs are so self-defining.
So I guess what I'm saying is men need their jobs. This has a GREAT deal to do with why men all GET jobs. And why there are more men working at many jobs than women.
I am also saying that there is a great social consideration for women, more so than men, when applying for a job traditionally held by men. You are taking a job, a vital job, away from a man. Jobs are what men need most. You are also diminishing the quality and maybe the quantity of nurture and parenting that you can give to any of your kids. I'm gonna come right out and say it: we need our mothers more than our fathers. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I were raised by my father alone, I'd be a more messed up person than I am now. And I was raised pretty much by my mother alone. What children need most is their mother.
Now, if anyone assumes from this that I think women should stay in the home, they shouldn't be paid the same or have the same job opportunities as men, women can't handle certain jobs, women are inferior or unequal in any way, they are just assuming. I am saying, nor implying absolutely none of that. My point is that when a woman chooses the more traditional role of stay at home mom, I have a great deal of respect for that because she is enabling one man to achieve a job identity and however many children she has are receiving a better shot to not be little brats. And this is an often overlooked consideration when people talk about job equality. The world has about 50-50 men and women, but this is just one reason a 50-50 split in the work world is not necessarily equality.
I am a teacher. I work with a lot of children and I've taught in several countries. There are two things in common and I believe directly related in all of the places I've worked: 1. Women are trending toward higher employment and 2. Children are brattier.
Trump also said that teachers love the students. When did this shit start? Teachers are not the ones who are supposed to love the kids. If you're like me and have classes of 90, we're lucky to remember a few names for crying out loud! But since both parents started working, children are receiving more time in classrooms. They can't be left alone can they? So two income families try to convince themselves that teachers "love" their students and it's not an abandonment of their proper parental duties.
I hate to even think this, but, it's possible the Orange Orator meant that children need firm instruction and sometimes discipline and that this should not be given to them by someone who doesn't love them. If so, I agree with Trump! I don't love my students. I'm not the one who should be teaching them manners or punishing them when they're assholes. But in today's world, this has become an expectation of the teachers.
Once again, don't draw any false conclusions from this statement. I think it has more to do with greed and the bottlenecking of resources to the few that has almost forced women to become a larger part of the workforce than ever before. As well as the social conventions that demand every kid have everything it wants. I'm not saying women are being selfish, abandoning their children, stealing jobs from men or anything like that. I would like to see a stop to the shaming of women who want to be housewives. I would like to see wages keeping up with the cost of living so that option becomes available again to average people. I would also like to see people think of natural and traditional roles as just one of the factors that just might have something to do with perceived "inequality" in the workplace.
It's part of that thinking I keep saying people aren't doing any more. Before you jump on a bandwagon and say, "Yeah, I want this job because women never get it," or "You are a misogynist bastard because you hired 7 men and only 6 women," or something like that, consider all the factors. And though it is becoming increasingly unfashionable to consider, roles like the caregiver/nurturer, and the protector/provider are not just made up. They require some serious consideration.
Take this with a grain of salt if you will since I have a few clear biases. Being a teacher, traditional roles in which children are brought up by parents and just TAUGHT by teachers are definitely preferable in my opinion. Also, being a man who requires a job, the fewer competitors for my job the better and I AM in a field in which there actually ARE more women than men. I'd even go so far as to say the women are better at it. But any successful, female ESL teacher working for a good school that treats you well, if you are considering staying home and starting a family, let me nudge you in that direction, and, could I please have your job?
Before anyone paints me as a woman-hater, I think women carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Men have the easy part. Working a job and maybe coming home and giving your kid a lickin' for something is much easier than the crucial responsibilities shouldered by women. To add on a full-time job to that is asking a lot. But there are some superwomen and I have a great deal of respect for them as well. I reckon women are like the Atlases of the world. They carry the important weight of society on their shoulders. This is why "women and children first." But if we try to ignore these important roles, if we shrug them off, what happens to our world?
