I deeply believe in the equality of men and women in terms of being equally VALUED by society, regardless of whether or not we are innately different (which I believe we are).
Sadly, women's liberation came to be defined as abandoning traditional "female" roles (nurturing, caregiving, relationship building, etc) and adopting traditional "male" roles (competing, individualizing, prioritizing independence over relationship, etc).
Both of these traditional gender roles were far too limiting, but disparaging and abandoning the traditional nurturing role in favor of the traditional competitive role has turned us into a very cold heartless society.
The "top" 20% are the worst offenders when it comes to abandoning traditional female roles, and outsourcing those roles to underpaid and devalued nannies, daycare workers, and housekeepers. The lifestyle of the "top" 20% would not be possible without the devaluation of female domestic workers.
But at least they give lip service (though not money) to the importance of domestic jobs; when it comes to traditionally "male" working class jobs they are contemptuous, slandering such men as "stupid" or plagued by "toxic masculinity" (All Cops Are Bastards is the most glaring example of this, along with the cruel stereotype of the dumb "hard hat". Ta Nahesi Coates expressing, without pushback, his lack of concern for the first responders who died on 9 eleven is an example of the "top" 20% dehumanizing working class men).
If men don't do as well at academics as women, why not start paying breadwinner wages to jobs that don't require a college education?
These jobs are often even MORE important than jobs requiring a college degree.
Wages for jobs requiring upper body strength are often driven down by desperate undocumented workers, to the benefit of the "top" 20% and to the gross disadvantage of the "bottom" 80% of both men and women (but women are FAR less stigmatized for earning low wages than men are).
One way the "top" 20% oppress working class people is by devaluing both physical and caregiving labor.
There are many essential jobs that require upper body strength and that men are better suited for than women.
And these jobs - along with caregiving jobs - deserve a breadwinner wage.
But this would radically alter the lifestyles of the professional/academic class, so they focus on identity politics rather than economic oppression to preserve their own privilege.
Breadwinner wages for jobs requiring physical strength would provide a great deal of dignity and self respect for poor and working class men. But for this to happen, we need the professional/academic class to take its foot off the necks of poor and working class men (and to drastically increase criminal penalties for exploiting undocumented laborers).
The Damore memo (scientists tended to agree with Damore, the left went bonkers) provides just one data point. Literally, no one made the rather obvious point “here is a realm where young men are thriving and that should be celebrated, not condemned”.
It is fascinating to me to read this explaining the hoarding and blocking professional class, which i agree with, and then the soft denigration of Jordan Peterson.
The lack of self-awareness seems a bit breathtaking. Are the professional class thinkers on this topic maybe just virtue signaling care while committed to protecting the status quo? I see that they still support the policies that favor THEIR bank accounts, social status and offspring privileges.
The structural changes required if implemented would allow more working-class boys and men to move up the social hierarchy. I think the professional class really does not want the competition. Postmodernist critical theory is commited to just that. So it seems are the policies of the Biden Democrats. Now that they are down, step on their "semi-facist" neck and kill them.
Some good comments here, but I think a lot missing, too. Mr. Reeves points out that men evolved certain characteristics under conditions that are no longer applicable, but he doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that pre-feminist societies also evolved gender roles, attitudes and practices that largely "worked", and that those conventions are simply out of favor, not objectively inapplicable. We don't seem to have a problem recognizing this when showing respect for other cultures, as long as they're safely in the pages of National Geographic, but many of us are convinced that our opinions as of fifteen minutes ago are the pinnacle of human thought.
It's fascinating, really, that major changes are made to fundamental aspects of society, society gets worse by a variety of metrics (and surely better by some others, but it's not necessarily a wash) and nobody with a "Science is Real" sign on his lawn thinks that perhaps this means the changes weren't a good idea and should be examined.
Also fascinating is that nobody considers the middle ground between banning things and promoting them. It's either "Women don't have a head for Math" or "We need to get more women into STEM," rather than "It's unusual for a woman to go into STEM, but so what?" I realize that there's a serious danger that whatever we deem "normal" descriptively will be made prescriptive, but let's weigh that danger against the problems that we're seeing and maybe look for ways to mitigate it rather than hold on to our social revolution and try to unscramble the saddest eggs.
If I am not mistaken, it is the upper middle class in the US that historically has provided leadership and support for the hugely important not-for-profit sector and the military officer corps. Therefore, let's think long and hard before we try to eviscerate the upper middle class.
Changing our educational system to do a better job with boys and young men will be like turning an aircraft carrier. First, recognize the need to turn. Second, decide to turn. Finally, make the turn, which will still take a lot of effort and a lot of water. We are slowly reaching the first step with our educational system. Do we have the political will to take the second step against entrenched vested interests?
I find it frustrating that Mounk & Reeves refer to "top 20%" without giving any monetary definition. Just for context, the website dqydf gives top 20% in terms of household income for 2020 at $141,100. But there are other measurements, perhaps most crucially savings/equity. But I just can't read "reasoned discussion" by people who can't be bothered to define what they're talking about -- it too vague; one might say, unpersuasive.
Richard Reeves on Why Men are Struggling
This article turned me into a paid subscriber.
I deeply believe in the equality of men and women in terms of being equally VALUED by society, regardless of whether or not we are innately different (which I believe we are).
Sadly, women's liberation came to be defined as abandoning traditional "female" roles (nurturing, caregiving, relationship building, etc) and adopting traditional "male" roles (competing, individualizing, prioritizing independence over relationship, etc).
Both of these traditional gender roles were far too limiting, but disparaging and abandoning the traditional nurturing role in favor of the traditional competitive role has turned us into a very cold heartless society.
The "top" 20% are the worst offenders when it comes to abandoning traditional female roles, and outsourcing those roles to underpaid and devalued nannies, daycare workers, and housekeepers. The lifestyle of the "top" 20% would not be possible without the devaluation of female domestic workers.
But at least they give lip service (though not money) to the importance of domestic jobs; when it comes to traditionally "male" working class jobs they are contemptuous, slandering such men as "stupid" or plagued by "toxic masculinity" (All Cops Are Bastards is the most glaring example of this, along with the cruel stereotype of the dumb "hard hat". Ta Nahesi Coates expressing, without pushback, his lack of concern for the first responders who died on 9 eleven is an example of the "top" 20% dehumanizing working class men).
If men don't do as well at academics as women, why not start paying breadwinner wages to jobs that don't require a college education?
These jobs are often even MORE important than jobs requiring a college degree.
Wages for jobs requiring upper body strength are often driven down by desperate undocumented workers, to the benefit of the "top" 20% and to the gross disadvantage of the "bottom" 80% of both men and women (but women are FAR less stigmatized for earning low wages than men are).
One way the "top" 20% oppress working class people is by devaluing both physical and caregiving labor.
There are many essential jobs that require upper body strength and that men are better suited for than women.
And these jobs - along with caregiving jobs - deserve a breadwinner wage.
But this would radically alter the lifestyles of the professional/academic class, so they focus on identity politics rather than economic oppression to preserve their own privilege.
Breadwinner wages for jobs requiring physical strength would provide a great deal of dignity and self respect for poor and working class men. But for this to happen, we need the professional/academic class to take its foot off the necks of poor and working class men (and to drastically increase criminal penalties for exploiting undocumented laborers).
Anyway, I am very eager to read your book.
The Damore memo (scientists tended to agree with Damore, the left went bonkers) provides just one data point. Literally, no one made the rather obvious point “here is a realm where young men are thriving and that should be celebrated, not condemned”.
It is fascinating to me to read this explaining the hoarding and blocking professional class, which i agree with, and then the soft denigration of Jordan Peterson.
The lack of self-awareness seems a bit breathtaking. Are the professional class thinkers on this topic maybe just virtue signaling care while committed to protecting the status quo? I see that they still support the policies that favor THEIR bank accounts, social status and offspring privileges.
The structural changes required if implemented would allow more working-class boys and men to move up the social hierarchy. I think the professional class really does not want the competition. Postmodernist critical theory is commited to just that. So it seems are the policies of the Biden Democrats. Now that they are down, step on their "semi-facist" neck and kill them.
This is why Trump will return.
Some good comments here, but I think a lot missing, too. Mr. Reeves points out that men evolved certain characteristics under conditions that are no longer applicable, but he doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that pre-feminist societies also evolved gender roles, attitudes and practices that largely "worked", and that those conventions are simply out of favor, not objectively inapplicable. We don't seem to have a problem recognizing this when showing respect for other cultures, as long as they're safely in the pages of National Geographic, but many of us are convinced that our opinions as of fifteen minutes ago are the pinnacle of human thought.
It's fascinating, really, that major changes are made to fundamental aspects of society, society gets worse by a variety of metrics (and surely better by some others, but it's not necessarily a wash) and nobody with a "Science is Real" sign on his lawn thinks that perhaps this means the changes weren't a good idea and should be examined.
Also fascinating is that nobody considers the middle ground between banning things and promoting them. It's either "Women don't have a head for Math" or "We need to get more women into STEM," rather than "It's unusual for a woman to go into STEM, but so what?" I realize that there's a serious danger that whatever we deem "normal" descriptively will be made prescriptive, but let's weigh that danger against the problems that we're seeing and maybe look for ways to mitigate it rather than hold on to our social revolution and try to unscramble the saddest eggs.
If I am not mistaken, it is the upper middle class in the US that historically has provided leadership and support for the hugely important not-for-profit sector and the military officer corps. Therefore, let's think long and hard before we try to eviscerate the upper middle class.
Changing our educational system to do a better job with boys and young men will be like turning an aircraft carrier. First, recognize the need to turn. Second, decide to turn. Finally, make the turn, which will still take a lot of effort and a lot of water. We are slowly reaching the first step with our educational system. Do we have the political will to take the second step against entrenched vested interests?
I find it frustrating that Mounk & Reeves refer to "top 20%" without giving any monetary definition. Just for context, the website dqydf gives top 20% in terms of household income for 2020 at $141,100. But there are other measurements, perhaps most crucially savings/equity. But I just can't read "reasoned discussion" by people who can't be bothered to define what they're talking about -- it too vague; one might say, unpersuasive.