Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Role Value Recession

Often what happens to one gender also happens to the other. On the surface it may look different, but at its core, a profound similarity exists. The current recession has lead to job losses and those losses are affecting men’s role value. The industries most affected are ones dominated by males in those positions so naturally job losses have affected more men. In a society dominated by role value and the man’s role is that of provider, his role value decreases. This often occurs even when a circumstance beyond his control limits his opportunity to financially provide.

Historically, perception of a woman’s role value has often been connected to her degree of beauty. The woman’s role value recession occurred when the size of what is beautiful went from a size 10 to a size 2.* Marilyn Monroe used to be an icon of beauty with curves still visible under a swirling white dress. As the media and magazines began endorsing thinner women, by sheer repetition of cover models at size 0, the perceived standard of beauty shifted to accommodate. When this happened, women experienced social pressure to achieve the new size of beauty. Since men were being shown and taught the same things about what beauty was supposed to look like their expectations increased as well.

By today’s standards, runway models seem to bare more ribs than cleavage, while men making $50K require a second income to support a family of four. Because of this, an opportunity exists to move beyond role and gender value and connect to our human and individual value. As a person the man’s value has not changed due to economic shifts any more than the woman’s individual value is based on a cultural change. It is up to both of them to find and express new ways to connect to their own value. They must also make themselves available for others to connect to their new found value separate from financial and beauty. After all, the connection between two individuals will always be recession proof.


*contrary to popular belief Marilyn Monroe’s size was not a 16 but closer to a modern day 10. http://traceurl.com/rdS?r=3753&l=29

No comments: