Monday, April 03, 2017

New York Times: "Millennial Men Want Stay-At-Home Wives"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Apparently young men, aged 17-34, are rejecting the feminist, the LGBTQ and the far Left progressive's evolved notions about what a family should look like.

A new Council on Contemporary Families survey has found that high school aged young men are saying they want a "stay-at-home wife."

This is a tough pill to swallow for the champions of choice and the "women's equality movement."

And it became more difficult for them in 2016 when it was revealed that a growing number of young women agree with the young men.


Stephanie Coonz, an instructor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. in an op-ed published by the New York Times this weekend says the "Millennials, generally defined as people born between 1982 and 2000, were supposed to be the generation that forged what has been called 'a new national consensus' in favor of gender equality."

She says, "The prominent Columbia professor Jeffery Sachs labeled the 2016 election, where an extremely qualified female candidate lost to a man with a history of disrespecting women, 'a blip' on the road to the egalitarian society that will be achieved once millennial voters outnumber their conservative elders."

This is an assumption made by most all secular progressive leaders and advocates, because they believe they "own" this new generation as a result of the unrelenting indoctrination they execute on the captive children of our nation for 12 to 16 years in public education, with the entertainment industry affirming the indoctrination.

Quite frankly, there were millions of both sexes who did not feel Hillary was a "highly qualified candidate."

However.

Sociologists Joanna Pepin and David Carter with Council on Contemporary Families have taken the annual survey of the "family" for the past 40 years.

From 1977 to the mid 1990s, they found people holding what they call "egalitarian" views about gender relationships rose steadily, and in 1994, they found that 42% of high school seniors said that the best family was one where the man was the main income earner and the woman took care of the home. But in 2014, 58% of seniors said they preferred that arrangement.

This is a significant cultural shift, and deeply troubling to those who seek to redefine the family---and gender.

In 1994, fewer than 30% of high school seniors thought that "the husband should make all the important decisions in the family," however in 2014, nearly 40% subscribed to that premise.

A different survey noted in Coontz's op-ed from Tufts University finds that this may have been a factor in the election, causing Hillary to loose, but that poll also revealed that while 63% of young women voted for Hillary, only 47% of young men voted for her.

The progressive elites are trying to figure out what happened to what they call "gender equality."

One political scientist, Dan Cassino, suggests "that the increased support for male leadership in home life may reflect an attempt to compensate for men's loss of dominance in the work world"....It's related to the "longstanding erosion of men's earning power."

He believes men are acting out of desperation.

Some believe these changing beliefs of this generation are rooted in the hardships these young people have witnessed in families where both mother and father are earners---separation, divorce, fighting, etc.

Europeans weighing in on this very concerning turn of events (at least concerning to progressives) say it is the lack of family friendly policies in the US.

Coontz seems to believe that new policies will solve the problem.

She asks what her colleagues seem to be asking, "Are we facing a stall or even a turnaround in the movement toward gender equality?"

She says, "That's a possibility, especially if we continue to pin our hopes on an evolutionary process of generational liberalization."

The Times has updated the data sourced in the op-ed, because 2016 data has become available in the past couple of days.

The 2016 stats show that "the trend still confirms a rise in traditionalism among high school seniors and 18-25-year-olds."

However, the new data show that the rise is no longer driven mainly by young men, as it was in the 1994 through 2014 surveys---now young women are agreeing with the premise as well.

A couple of thoughts.

A number of feminists have written columns and articles shaming, lecturing and attacking the growing number of young women who want to stay home and let their husband be the earner, while they raise the kids and manage the household?

Why are the champions of choice, those straight ahead feminists who demand the right to leap tall buildings and stop locomotives "just like men" so upset when a women makes a different choice than that of the feminist playbook that can only see equality through the lens of jumping as high and lifting as much as the boy next door?

If it is really about "choice" and "equality," why should those women who choose to be in the home be mocked for their choice?

Certainly this reveals the hypocrisy, or at least the confusion of the feminist movement.

And this is not an issue "outside the church" only. In recent years the topic of manhood and womanhood has become divisive within the church.

Scripture clearly defines what a growing number of young people are looking for---defined, productive and meaningful gender roles.

Noted pastor, author and theologian, Dr. John Piper, has written a book on the subject, "What's The difference?"

He has also written a paper for church leadership titled, "God Created Man Male and Female," which deals with the biblical concept of what he calls "Complementarian."

This is an excerpt from the paper:

What “Complementarian” Means

The intention with the word “complementarian” is to locate our way of life between two kinds error: on the one side would be the abuses of women under male domination, and on the other side would be the negation of gender differences where they have beautiful significance. Which means that, on the one hand, complementarians acknowledge and lament the history of abuses of women personally and systemically, and the present evils globally and locally in the exploitation and diminishing of women and girls. And, on the other hand, complementarians lament the feminist and egalitarian impulses that minimize God-given differences between men and women and dismantle the order God has designed for the flourishing of our life together.
So complementarians resist the impulses of a chauvinistic, dominating, and abusive culture, on the one side, and the impulses of a sex-blind, gender-leveling, unisex culture, on the other side. And we take our stand between these two ways of life not because the middle ground is a safe place (which it is emphatically not), but because we think this is the good plan of God in the Bible for men and women. “Very good,” as he said in Genesis 1.
In fact, I would say that the attempt by feminism to remedy the male abuse of women by nullifying gender differences backfires and produces millions of men that women cannot enjoy because of their unmanliness, or cannot endure because of their distorted, brutal manliness. In other words, if we don’t teach boys and girls about the truth and beauty and value of their differences, and how to live them out, those differences do not mature in healthy ways — but dysfunctional ways. And a generation of young adults comes into being who simply do not know what it means to be a mature man or a woman; and the cultural price we pay for that is enormous.
The way I would like to approach this is to move from the general to the specific: a word about being human, an illustration about being male and female, and then a specific text to show the biblical roots.

Take a moment and read the paper.

In his book he says, "Over the years, I have come to see from Scripture and from life that manhood and womanhood are the beautiful handiwork of a good and loving God. He designed our differences and they are profound" ( p.13,14).

The Psalmist wrote (139:14), "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made, your works are wonderful..."

Indeed.

Be Blessed.


2 comments:

  1. I wonder what the second preference would be. Would it be stay at home dads, instead of both parents working?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Human efforts at engineering society? GOD will NOT be mocked. I know His timing is always perfect, but still I have to admit, I wonder what took Him so long? P.T.L.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.