BACK AND FORTH

 A few days ago, I was quite surprised to see that the difficulty of high-powered, highly intelligent and, presumably, good-hearted women in finding a partner is still out there! Will and Ariel Durant mentioned this when they wrote a century ago!
But then, why should I be? The recent election showed that we still have more than our share of the type of male wuss I call 'doughfaced dinkyjohnnies'. They'd rather vote for a hereditarily rich white male (he is no man by my definition of that worthy thing!) who is also a convicted criminal and knows only how to make our government a private enricher for himself, rather than a woman of color who, all her working life, has had only one boss: WE! THE! PEOPLE! First, the people of San Francisco, then of Alameda County, then the state of California and finally the whole country!
And she has served each very well!
However, I've found that not all the onus is on we males. Let me ask the women out there a question: if a man (and I mean a real man; that is, one who lives with integrity, responsibility and courtesy) told you he could be a good and able househusband (a redundancy, really, as 'husband' means 'home manager') and was willing to be the primary caretaker for any children you might have---how many of you would want to take him up on that? Even if you are a high-powered, highly-salaried person?
I mean, look at his place by all means! If he says he'll clean, see if his place confirms that. If he puts himself forward as a cook, check his kitchen. If he has pets, check them out too. Not to mention his way with little young people.
But, having done all that and pretty much finding it all 'checks', will you still feel he's 'less of a man' because his monetary worth is judged less than yours? If you do, guess what: you're shooting yourself somewhere between the foot and your female parts, to use a dated description.
Again: if an adult male hominid lives his life with integrity, responsibility and courtesy (and works on all three) he is a man. And, so long as they are men according to this definition, none of them are 'manlier' than any other. Indeed, the only billionaires I'd dignify with that description are Nick Hanauer, Uncle Warren (Buffett) and maybe Bill Gates.
I was fourteen years old in 1970, when late 20th century feminism came center stage and TIME magazine 'ratified' it by featuring Kate Millett on its cover. I thought, now it'll all change.
I and my brother babysat for a number of families during our teens, mostly (but not exclusively) for families with boys. But the 1980s, in this respect, was a 'retro' decade. Some reasons for that were 1) inflation and 2) GOP giveaways to the already obscenely rich. Such giveaways tend to take money out of circulation. I remember when Bush II did the same thing in 2003; almost immediately in its wake the local economy felt like it had less 'oxygen' in it.
But as a result of the factors mentioned here, a two-earner family started to go from a luxury to a necessity. Thus, only now do ads feature husbands who are cooks and/or see to the laundry and even apply good old Vicks VapoRub on a sick child.
Anyhow, I hope my guideline for manly character and behavior proves useful for both males and women.
Before I go, let me tell my fellow males this: in the end, you will find being a man according to this definition more satisfying, in and of itself, than any other way of living. Also remember the great Lord Acton's maxim: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If we are to save the souls of the wealthy, we must curb their earthly power. For our earthly good and their spiritual health!