The Male Inequality Problem

This is the best article I’ve read all year.

(Or video. I didn’t watch the video.)

It is a very long article (worth it!) so I’ll pull out some points I thought were especially good.

It’s obviously true as we look around that many men and boys do feel somewhat lost. They don’t quite know their place in society. They don’t quite understand how they’re supposed to be. They very often know how they’re not supposed to be. So this sense of, “What’s my place in the world, why am I needed, what’s my role going to be going forward?” that’s a very real question that many men and boys are genuinely struggling with. That’s not a confected online idea.

So if you think about men without a college degree, for example, their wages are no higher today than they were in 1979. That’s almost half a century of stagnant wages for most men without a college degree… You’re seeing this disconnection from family life. You’re seeing stagnant wages. Men who are born into lower income families, they are worse off on most measures than men who were born just 15 years earlier into those families. So we’re seeing a declining economic social and family trajectory for men who are working class or towards the bottom of the economic distribution.

The author talks about the increased feminization of many professions that come into contact with boys and young men, including declining rates of male teachers, male mental health professionals, and others who may play a community or mentorship role in the lives of boys and men. He also decries the elimination of sex-segregated spaces such as the Boy Scouts, as these environments usually emphasize the development of alternate models of masculinity. In essence, he argues that we’re suffering a dearth of male role models to lead the next generation.

So if you’re a young man, say, and you’re struggling with a mental health problem, and you go to a website, and you only see images of women, you go to a counseling place at school or a college, and they’re mostly female providers, and just the whole vibe around it just feels like this is something that women are more comfortable talking about, and they’re more represented in. It’s already difficult to get many men to come forward and get help for mental health problems. They are much less likely to do so than women. So we should be redoubling our efforts to reach those men and make it easier for them to come through the door, easier for them to put their hands up and say that they’re struggling. One way we can do that is by at least reversing the decline in the share of men in those professions.

The author also discusses gender politics and how it hinders addressing the real root of the issue.

One of the things that really worries me is the way in which young men and young women have been increasingly persuaded that their problems are the fault of the other side… Weirdly, both sides have managed to politicize young men and young women almost against each other just at a moment in history where you’d want young people to be arm in arm against the structural problems that they’re facing in the economy… And so I think in different ways, the politics of gender have ended up becoming really way too personal and not structural enough. If we’re not careful, these conversations can shut the conversation down with boys and young men, rather than opening it up.

It’s a really difficult thing to think about or even to talk about, but how do we maintain this really wonderful idea of like the empowering and uplifting atmosphere that I think we’ve had around women and girls in schools, but do the same for boys and try and create this sense of it being uplifting for both. I didn’t think about this at all when I was younger myself. Like, “The future is female,” is probably something I would’ve gone along with, like as a good male feminist or whatever. But actually, that’s a terrible phrase. Like, the future can’t be female or male. It has to be for everybody.

(I’ve never liked that phrase.)

So first of all, horrible framing, non-toxic, but then you say, “Okay, so what does non-toxic masculinity look like?”

People will very often say things like, “Well, you know, that’s where you’re more emotionally vulnerable, you’re much more caring, nurturing.” Okay. Then you say, “And how is that different to stereotypical femininity, maybe positive femininity?” And then they’ll say, “Well, it isn’t really. It’s like, okay.” So the danger is that non-toxic masculinity is actually just an empty set in that two by two. And what you’re doing is you’re presenting boys and young men with a choice between being toxic and being female.

This is probably the most interesting point (to me): If we hold out toxic masculinity as the thing not to be, what is the alternative? How do we define it without making it just another version of being a woman? What is healthy masculinity? To some extent I think people have to decide that for themselves, but are there points we can agree on, are there guidelines? The author points out increased risk taking (such as heroism) and different ways of bonding with children. What else can we add to this?

What are men good for?

We’ve had to adjust and update our view about the role of men depending on the conditions of the society at the time. I don’t think we’re any different to that. We’ve got to update our model of manhood, masculinity, whatever language you prefer, for this new and much better world of gender equality, but we’ve also got to make sure that we continue to send the message to men, “We need you. We need you.” So, “We, the tribe, not just anyone needs you, and we need,” not it will be nice to have you, we’d like you but need and not just anybody but you.

We do not want barricades. We do not want marches. What we want is policies and solutions, and weirdly, I think if we get better at having actual solutions and actual policies, that will de-emphasize identity. I think if identities start to feel threatened or pathologized, they get stronger, and so I’m just all about saying, “Boys aren’t doing as well in school. Let’s tackle that. What’s happened to male mental health? Let’s tackle that.”

And in some ways, I think that a gender-sensitive approach to like policy and solutions is an antidote to an overemphasis on identity, rather than an extension of it. It should be obvious by now that a world of floundering men is not likely to be a world of flourishing women or vice versa.

This speaks to me because it’s the ideal I thrive for, more generally in society and in my own marriage. I’m married to a guy who is not, at first blush, an ultra-masculine dude. He’s a 5’7’’ bespectacled nerd. But he has all these attributes that do underpin what in my view is a healthy view of masculinity. He is extremely self-assured, consistent, reliable, protective, safe, and let’s be honest, he’s a provider. He’s predictable. These aren’t characteristics exclusive to men, but at what point can we say, these all sort of cluster together, more often than not, when it comes to good men? He gives my son a blueprint for how to be a man at a time when there aren’t a lot of great blueprints out there. He isn’t only these things, but these are things I find attractive about him, as a woman toward a man. Our relationship has always been a partnership where we sort of bring different things to the table. Not everything about me is stereotypically feminine, but I do have these qualities, of nurturing, and sensitivity. I’ve helped him make and keep friendships. As a mother and a wife, I put a lot of energy into making things easier and better for my husband and son.

This author speaks to something I wish we had more of, which was an appreciation for how these traits sort of cluster around sex and more emphasis on how we can partner that way. But it has to be an appreciation that allows for deviation, that allows people to define masculinity on their own terms, that doesn’t shove people into boxes. There’s like a nuance there, you know?

If we had more men volunteering, more men in our communities, obviously that would help women too. But also there’s a hunger, I think, now for a real partnership between men and women, one that acknowledges the huge gains that women have made but which also builds men into family and community life.

Someone on the boards recently asked, “Why do we need men?” And that’s a hard question to answer without defaulting to some kind of gender essentialist argument. How do you answer that question without diminishing men who don’t embody those qualities? I think my response was that they have a different energy and I feel safer around them, all true, but it kinda dodges the question. They are different and I like that difference. If I had to generalize about all the good men in my life, I would say: I love their candor, their tendency to see a concrete need and fill it, their protection, their reliability, their willingness to just figure shit out rather than wait for someone to do it for them, the things they notice that I don’t, and well, I could go on. And no, not all men. But if we can’t say “this is healthy masculinity” then what is healthy masculinity?

Anyway I thought this was a really important article. Curious to hear what you all think.

Great post. I can’t think of any reply that isn’t basically, just rephrasing what you said but in different words.

But I would say: The main problem is that a lot of (well-meaning) women and feminists got the idea that all they needed to do to combat toxic masculinity was to put it under a spotlight and relentlessly show examples of it. Show examples of bosses sexually harassing their female employees, examples of catcalling and sexism, etc. They thought that by simply putting the dirt under a microscope, that it was a sufficient message.

But that’s like some well-meaning folks who think that all they need to do to fix the obesity crisis is to fat-shame and body-criticize as much as possible. When in fact it’s been demonstrated that mocking people for their fat often just makes them retreat and eat even more junk food. In other words, the war against toxic masculinity is all stick but no carrot. It is full of (rightfully) vilifying toxic men for being toxic, but as you point out, good male examples are rarely highlighted. And people don’t respond well to negative motivation; they are much better attuned to positivity. That’s kind of why a lot of young men have become drawn towards bad role models who portray themselves as good models, like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, because those influencers portray themselves as being on the side of men rather than against men.

A lot of musicians, by analogy, will say that they never became great until they first saw a great musician, were inspired, and thought, “I want to be like that person.” Seeing 10 minutes of an astounding performance will do more to motivate someone than 10 years of lecturing and criticism about how someone doesn’t play their scales or arpeggios right. And we’re seeing kind of that problem with men.

The only area I can think of in which men are indisputably seen as clearly masculine role models is pro sports. Guys like Messi, Mbappe, Ronaldo, LeBron, etc. Now, of course, many male athletes can do drugs, crime, be sleazy, etc. But it’s the only arena in which they are held up as doing something that (most) women can’t do.

I can’t help but think of my son, who gravitates toward men but doesn’t really understand gender. He still hasn’t gotten the “she/he” thing down yet, and it’s hard to explain it to him without defaulting to stereotypes. He can’t read the social cues men and woman tend to give off. Yet without question, he prefers the company of men. I don’t know if it’s because he’s so attached to his father or if he’s so attached to his father because he loves men, but there’s definitely a need in him for that kind of connection, even if he doesn’t know what it means.

I would also say, in the social media era, you have male influencers like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc., who are promoting a very twisted, toxic, “alpha male” philosophy. They’re absolutely negative masculine role models, but they are also exceptionally popular among young men.

It’s an interesting article, and it makes a plausible case for single-sex education and youth activities (which is something I’ve always been skeptical about, since the world isn’t single-sex and kids need to learn to get along with all sorts of people, but if it’s an after-school group for a couple of hours a week it seems reasonable).

I think the class differences are super-interesting, and I would like to have seen a deeper dive into WHY. I suspect (but don’t know for sure) that masculinity is constructed differently as you get higher up the social scale, so that school is perceived as sort of girly and irrelevant if you’re a male teenager from a poor background, but as something that boys are supposed to compete and excel at if you’re upper-middle-class and above.

I don’t buy it. My primary role model in my life has been my mother. Who, of course, isn’t male. But why would that matter? She’s taught me how to be a good person. I never needed to learn to be “masculine”, because that’s automatic: If “masculine” is “like a man”, and I’m a man, then whatever I am, it’s by definition masculine.

(Quoting the quote, not @Spice_Weasel.)

The root of the problem is the idea that “feminine” and “masculine” have any inherent value. They don’t. Trying to find some general attribute that is applicable to men, but not women, or vice versa, is not useful.

And then people decide to coerce others into their conceptions of what men and women should be like. And then others struggle to fit into those categories. The whole “problem” of transgender is many people don’t fit into popular gender stereotypes. The actual problem is not the people, it’s the gender stereotypes.

Just get rid of gender and let people be themselves. We don’t need masculine or feminine role models, we need human role models.

The only paragraph I agree with is this one.

We do not want barricades. We do not want marches. What we want is policies and solutions, and weirdly, I think if we get better at having actual solutions and actual policies, that will de-emphasize identity. I think if identities start to feel threatened or pathologized, they get stronger, and so I’m just all about saying, “Boys aren’t doing as well in school. Let’s tackle that. What’s happened to male mental health? Let’s tackle that.”

I’m all for problem solving in society. Of course, that requires defining the problem, the causes of the problem, and then solutions to the problem.

The causes of the problem are fairly simple. For almost the entirety of this country’s history, the default answer to everything has been men. (Actually, straight white christian men, but he doesn’t let a word of that string intrude on his lament.) Women have always been defined as inferior. Women were told they were literally too stupid to be educated, or to be leaders, or creators, or serve on juries, or handle their own money, or anything at all except roles equivalent to mothers. Generation after generation had these fixed roles and expectations, downgrading and denigrating women.

Does Reeves say anything about this history in his article? Of course not. That would be admitting that men created this world he finds so dismal.

But times have slightly changed. Women are finally beginning to approach some equality, via an inch-by-inch series of trench wars that have actively been fought for a half century. As a consequence, men are complaining they aren’t being treated fairly by equality. Do they want and seek equality? Absolutely not. They want to regain what they see as their rightful domination.

If this description of current events does not resonate with you, try replacing the word “women” with the words “blacks” or “immigrants.” The trends and complaints are strikingly similar. Equality is treated in no way differently than actual class revolution. The actual day-to-day problems of women (or blacks or immigrants or …) might see some alleviation but the mere looming spectacle of equality is a existential terror, a “moral panic.”

How does Reeves handle this?

So if you’re a young man, say, and you’re struggling with a mental health problem, and you go to a website, and you only see images of women, you go to a counseling place at school or a college, and they’re mostly female providers, and just the whole vibe around it just feels like this is something that women are more comfortable talking about, and they’re more represented in.

AAARRRGGHHH! cry women (and blacks and gays and Jews and everybody else in American schools for the entirety of the 20th century). Do anyone think they don’t remember what they had to deal with, sometimes literally their entire lives? And what the Trump administration is trying to return to using threats and blackmail?

Do men as a group have serious problems with inequality today? Objectively, no. Women hold 9.4% of S&P 500 CEO positions; 28.2% of the voting members of the 119th U.S. Congress; constitute 13.4% of the world’s billionaires. Are computers the future since they require no physical strength? Only 20% of computer science and 22% of engineering undergraduate degrees in the U.S. go to women.They dominate nothing other than the Billboard Pop Charts. (Yes, Reeves does mention some professions in which women are exceeding men but does not remember to say that men have always dropped out of jobs considered to be women’s work. See teachers, secretaries, and nurses.)

If we truly live in a world in which robots and AI are taking over the vast majority of jobs in all professions and class levels, then giving men special help to overcome the small achievements women have collectively garnered is solving a problem that is irrelevant to the future world. What else could anyone possibly define it except as affirmative action, the horror that is being decried and decimated officially.

Reeves mentions “moral panic.” You bet. It’s just not the panic he describes. I do believe that Reeves is well-meaning and not just a shill for Christian theocracy. I also believe that any forward motion that does not equally involve men and women, boys and girls, will devolve to a dystopia just as bad.

The issue is that while it may not matter to you, it does matter to a great many people. Many, perhaps most people want a gender role to follow; perhaps not a standard one, but something.

Humans just aren’t wired like that; the drive to separate ourselves into genders is pervasive and instinctive. A human universal, seen in every society. What differs is what gets labeled as "masculine and “feminine”; and if the nice people refuse to provide their own labels, there are many not-nice people quite willing to step up and do so in their place.

So it’s all women’s faults. Got it.

Eh, I’ve seen plenty of men do the same. Bash, bash, bash other men, but never provide any examples of what a “good” man would be like. That is, when they aren’t just claiming men are innately evil.

There are those who argue primary education is biased towards meeting the needs of girls rather than boys. Boys are diagnosed with learning disabilities at a higher rate than girls (perhaps because girls have been underdiagnosed), boys tend to be the disciplinary problems at school, and girls are outperforming boys academically. I don’t have any children of my own and when I went from elementary to middle school Reagan was still president, but between kindergarten and 5th grade I had one male teacher. From all the elementary schools I attended, I can only recall a handful of male teachers. Even in middle and high school, the female to male ratio of educators was overwhelming.

I have a non-binary friend who wants to see society move towards a genderless society. Do you honestly think we’re going to get rid of gender any time soon? Have we ever had a genderless society anywhere?

Also; most people don’t want a genderless society. Which means you’d have to either somehow convince most people to change their minds about a core part of their identity (which is probably impossible, or the attempts to torture transgender people into compliance would actually work), or create some totalitarian state that monitors people 24/7 for any sign of illegal gendered behavior.

That’s a core issue with such utopian schemes. Since most people don’t want to shape their lives to fit into any given ideology, any plan to reshape all of society to fit an ideology inevitably turns into an attempt at a totalitarian dystopia or fails to get anywhere when people start saying “not interested”.

Repeating for emphasis.

If you read the rest of my post, you would have seen that’s not what I’m saying.

(Fretful Porcupine, I have no idea how to remove your quote box. This new format sucks. Sorry.)

To reply to Odesio: You can’t possibly have a genderless society. As Der Trihs pointed out, it’s hard-baked into our biology. Men and women aren’t just different in terms of how we’re conditioned to behave; there are very real biological reasons why people behave differently based on gender. If you tried to make a genderless society, it would only last a short time before again men and women start sorting themselves back into what resembles traditional gender roles or behaviors, or something akin to it, again.

But what you said is in no way changed or mitigated by the part that follows.

It is full of (rightfully) vilifying toxic men for being toxic, but as you point out, good male examples are rarely highlighted. And people don’t respond well to negative motivation; they are much better attuned to positivity. That’s kind of why a lot of young men have become drawn towards bad role models who portray themselves as good models, like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, because those influencers portray themselves as being on the side of men rather than against men.

I don’t. The idea of being stripped of my gender is quite distressing, frankly. It has informed so much of what has happened to me. Not only that, but I like being a woman. Being a woman is a core part of my identity. I think it’s wrong to take that away from anyone, and will defend anyone’s right to be the gender they are.

What I don’t want is to be defined by my gender, for my choices to be limited by my gender, or for gender to be the deciding factor in what happens to me. And I would work toward a society where that’s true of everyone.

@Spice_Weasel, I’m so glad you brought up this subject. It’s really important.

Krugman addressed it recently. Young men who feel left are ripe for “influencers” like Charlie Kirk.

Charlie Kirk’s audience consisted to a large extent of resentful young white men who felt that modern society wasn’t delivering the status that they deserved.

Given MAGA’s brazen attempts to exploit Kirk’s murder to suppress freedom of expression, I’m sure someone will call what I just said hate speech. But it’s actually just an honest description of reality.

The thing is, there are real reasons for the upsurge in resentment by young white males. American men have in important ways been hurt by the changes in our society over the past several decades.

For today, I want to focus on the ways MAGA – including the late Charlie Kirk — have been exploiting men’s problems for political gain. While these problems are real, MAGA’s explanations are fake. And because MAGA’s explanations are fake, it can offer no real solutions. It only offers an ever-escalating story of victimization and outrage.

Despite the unremitting chaos, there is an underlying unifying theme in Trump’s economic policy: that he will avenge men’s loss of status and bring back “manly jobs” by going after those he considers the villains — cheating international trading partners, lying environmentalists and supporters of renewable energy, the federal “deep state”, and sneering intellectuals.

This witch-hunt won’t help American men. …

If you take ADHD, there’s like a double inequality. On the one hand, you’ve got boys tending toward the hyperactive and impulsive side and flaming out in school or being labeled disruptive. But on the other hand, you’ve got girls like me (ADHD: predominantly inattentive) who are quiet, introverted space cadets who flew under the radar for decades.

We are getting my son evaluated for ADHD. In some respects it feels like parenting myself, but in other ways, where you see this very physical impulsivity and hyperactivity, he’s having a whole different experience.

Of course, women can be hyperactive and men can be inattentive. But you tend to see the inattentive presentation more often in women.