Whaddya mean, "being a man"?

I keep thinking I'm going to just stop paying attention to Double X altogether, because really, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But this bit of nonsense simply demands a response. Jessica Grose's latest purports to take on the issue of "Omega Males and the Women Who Hate Them." First of all, the article doesn't appear to deal with any women whatsoever, so I'm guessing the "and the women who hate them" bit was just added as an afterthought to make it seem like an appropriate piece for a site that claims to represent "What women really think about news, politics, and culture."

Second, it thoughtlessly regurgitates and rides on the now-thoroughly-debunked myth of an alpha male-type hierarchy. According to Grose, omega males are those who have trouble "being a man." They're unemployed and "romantically challenged." In other words, they've failed. And characterizing it this way assumes, of course, that all male persons aspire to this narrow definition of masculinity, and that "omega" males endorse the values inherent in it but are simply unable to achieve them. It also implies that the problem lies with the individual men themselves, and not with the way our culture has responded to changing gender roles and economic conditions. And my understanding of Susan Faludi's point in Stiffed, which Grose references, is that the main forces underlying the alleged increase in the number of "omega males" are these social and economic conditions rather than some failure or personal choice on the part of the men themselves.

So Grose's take on "omega males" is unhelpful at best, and counterproductive at worst. What would be more helpful is a thoughtful look at how both men and women are feeling pressured by the gap between the changes in our social and economic conditions and the outdated expectations and socialization attached to our gender constructions. For instance, it seems to me that socializing boys to expect an easy entrance into the career field of their choice, which may have been appropriate 50 years ago, creates a false sense of entitlement in the current context and sets them up for disillusionment and resistance to changing roles and career options. And continuing to construct masculinity as primarily about competitive earning and career performance and material gain devalues other roles (like stay-at-home dad) that would be a valuable contribution to their families in tough economic times and that many men might find fulfilling if the negative connotations were dropped. And this is the counterpart to the way that socializing women to be primarily focused on childrearing and homemaking leaves them underprepared for the realities most women will face, and puts immense pressure on them to take on a disproportionate amount of domestic labor and feel that they have failed whenever problems occur in their families. Discussing how both men and women are often pressured by the disconnect between our outdated socialization and cultural expectations and the social/economic realities they actually face is an important aspect of feminist discourse, and writing snarky pieces that catalogue the types of failed men doesn't contribute in any perceivable way.