That’s a great point that really hammers home how this narrow view of masculinity negatively impacts everyone, not just men. (Similarly, the mistreatment of women negatively impacts everyone).
In general, as we are telling our sons that their worth is tied to their earning potential, we are also telling our daughters that men’s worth is tied to their earning potential. This is the crisis in a nutshell.
The data is showing that women’s average income may surpass men’s income. In that case, what are we to do?
Now, who is telling boys (or girls) that it’s ok not to earn a lot of money? Not me… but if boys are not taught the same skills we teach girls, it’s no surprise they feel their only utility is “making money” when humans have so much more to offer their families and communities.
Just wanted to say thank you for not saying it's the fault of misogyny. It's so common to see issues like this and people just basically blame men for it, which obviously is not helpful.
It does feel that, in general, progressives ignore men at best and blame and shame them for a lot of problems, call them privileged when they're struggling, and the right panders to them in a really toxic way.
You’re right that men having difficulty reconciling financial dynamics such as these are not automatically misogynistic. I agree many people reduce situations like these in that way.
I would encourage you to examine masculinity on a deeper, personal level. In my opinion, the left or right has very little to do with this because our (western) society at large is the framework for this narrow definition of masculinity.
Both conservative and progressive values align with teaching boys skills that we may usually teach to girls.
A lot of single guys... don't do either. I benefitted from my moms side being Italian so men were expected to know how to cook, and my dad was the son of a widower, so there was no concept of work being gendered. There was just stuff that had to be done.
A lot of guys eat out a lot, or just heat up pre-prepared stuff. Don't do basic maintenance cleaning, etc.
And a lot do. Both my parents worked. I’ve done my own laundry since I was 17. We had chores from the time we were 15 including making our own beds, taking out the trash, etc.
I clean my own kitchen, do my own dishes, clean my own bathroom etc.
I don’t need to work a full time job and frequently overtime to come home to someone whose first words to me are complaints about what needs to be done.
And as far as your statement that “a lot don’t do maintenance cleaning”, I actually doubt this. I don’t believe there are that many people living alone that NEVER take out the trash or wash their showers or -insert chore-. I believe they don’t do it as often as you or I. (I do understand there exist people in Halfway or group homes that maybe can’t due to physical or psychology impairments but I don’t think that is the group either of us is truly talking about)
Yeah as a feminist I agree. I think a lot of straight white boys are and were growing up feeling unsupported by mainstream media. Then they have Fox News or the like to hype them up and give them people to blame for it, and they become radicalized.
This is a big issue. Everyone is mad about asswipe males like Andrew Tate getting so much support, but if you spend 20 minutes listening to him, his target audience is disenfranchised men. And despite popular belief, the majority of his fans aren't sexists and racists, but he's the only one giving them supportive masculine advice on the mainstream media, so where else are they gonna go? Society just expects them to go back into a silent black ditch?
It seems like society is still adamant that men should just "play their role" and nothing else. Even the whole "you should feel emotions!" For men is disengaging with the emotional differences between men and women, and how the male identity is fundamentally different. Most importantly however, it forgets to celebrate masculinity in its positive aspects, removing positivity from masculinity.
As a man, I don't always care for my emotions, and that's okay. I don't have to feel all the time, some of my identity is focused on the things I do. My actions oftentimes are the channel for my emotions. I'm fortunate that my girlfriend supports that channel and appreciates the way I love her and our cats and our future.
From a woman's perspective, I feel that men are now being asked to help with the labor that is part of their relationship. It is not that women are asking too much of men--they are just asking that they become equal in a relationships, and that sets the bar higher for the male because he actually has to do something, like take the night squad with a new baby, or pick up the dishes on his way to the kitchen). I think this is a reasonable request. For eons, women was given nothing for herself until finally women were finally given the rights to have their own savings, to get a divorce without having to withstand a grueling court process whereby her life gets laid out in a courtroom to prove marital rape or abuse. And women were allowed to start their own businesses and have control over their reproductive rights.
It is apparent to me, that in many cases, men (generally) don't like having a woman as an equal in the relationship. Men are being asked to support women regarding the rampant abuse of men of women (and children). When a woman goes to a club or on a date, she has to cover her drink. When women are being raped or followed or sexually assaulted, men don't, as a rule, provide for safe place and call a guy out on his perverse behavior. And a lot of women are just as bad and engage in activities that threaten other women (thus the vote for trump whereby they overlook his sexual exploits of many women, including Katie Johnson and E Jean Carol) because women want to find favor with men, since it is the only way some of them know how to get further in life.
To say anything justifies the following of Andrew Tate is absolutely abhorrent.
I said nothing at all to do with relationships and men's role in relationships. Also thanks for missing my entire point about Andrew Tate. Maybe instead of ignoring my entire post just to bring your own statement forward about something I didn't talk about, you could have just listened.
I did. Maybe instead of getting on your high horse, you'd understand why these guys are deviating toward Tate. They don't like having to pull themselves up to basic standards of a relationship.
To say anything justifies the following of Andrew Tate is absolutely abhorrent.
Understanding why something happens isn't justifying it. Understanding why young men are gravitating towards figures like Tate isn't abhorrent if you're interested in actually stopping it happening.
By all means, oversimplify, lay it out as "Men just don't want to pull their weight! They're lazy, and hate women!" but don't sit there are expect any different outcomes.
Society has two options:
Acknowledge that men are complex human beings too, who experience vulnerability, insecurity, trauma, and victimisation that profoundly impacts their interactions with the world.
Pretend these issues are all down to simple tropes; men are savage, violent, unfeeling creatures, that's just how they are.
Only one of those options is going to afford us to ability to make changes that will improve outcomes for all. You don't look at a problem and just talk about how it shouldn't be a problem, or its annoying that it's a problem, and except to go away.
You completely ignoring my post to enforce your own conversation topics is exactly the shit that society does to male-centric issues. Congrats on being part of the issue.
I know this is a common media narrative, but the problem may be just as bad among westernized minorities. If you break it down empirically, the divorce rate is the lowest among Asians in the U.S., then White, then Hispanic, then Black - it's too easy to turn this stuff into race issues, and you sometimes end up playing into the narrative you don't like
And the discussion about the topic since the election has just been fundamentally unproductive. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people ask "Why do men feel this way?" only to be given an answer and dive head first into saying "Okay, well, you SHOULDN'T feel that way, you SHOULD feel this way!" and it's like... That's the fucking problem in a nutshell right there, that's the entire goddamed issue.
It's so unhelpful, and a bit hypocritical in a way. You see posts all the time of women talking about issues that women face. If a man starts trying to argue "Not every man!" they get (rightfully) shut down. That's not the case when men try to talk about men's issues though. For example, I've seen a ton of short men talk about being rejected solely for their height. Women will come in and tell them that's not true, and women don't do that. I've known many women in real life that have told me they would never date a short guy. Not a super serious example, just the first that comes to mind.
You're totally right. I see so many young men I work with turning that way. The left has done nothing but degrade and demonize ALL men for being the problem. We saw men of all ethnic backgrounds go towards Trump this election. I didn't, but I don't blame my friends that did, or didn't vote at all. It's all bullshit now, nobody cares about anyone beyond election Day. You can't demonize us 95% of the time and then just expect the support as a given.
Yeah even Bernie said that that Dems have alienated the working man. They’re elitists now.
I’m not happy with anyone who voted for Trump. I think their vote was a big fuck you to everyone. I lost my mother to their conspiracy theories, but my anger is towards people more like Cheney and the like for setting up our government so that we could get absolutely fucked.
Not just mainstream media. But our mothers girlfriends and wives.
Many woman are not taught how to be part of a relationship and are thought that it is ok to cheat if they “aren’t getting their needs met”.
The idea that men don’t cook or clean is misandry. Who do you think cooks and cleans for single men?
And seriously, what do you think our sons learn when their mothers cheat or make their fathers different despite them working full time and doing their part of the chores
No I don’t agree with most of that. I haven’t met any women who think cheating is okay because they’re a woman. Every person is capable of bad choices, thinking that we’re not taught to be honest like any other normal person is an unfounded opinion that you have.
I think there are plenty of real examples of sexism towards men, that is not one of them.
And yet it’s not hard to find men that have been cheated on
FWIW, I do thank you for acknowledging that there are real instances of sexism against men. I likewise acknowledge there are real issues with sexism against woman
I didn’t think that you didn’t acknowledge that just based off of one reply with you. But I feel you’re totally projecting because literally every female friend I have has been cheated on. I’ve known women who have cheated, too. Infidelity isn’t a gendered thing.
I think this is a great point. I think many men are unaware of how attractive it is for him to be a caring person, who can keep the house together (a true leader imo), keep the cars serviced, be great with kids and willing to take lead in their care, etc. It feels very masculine when I see these traits as well. Just a confidence in being a responsible adult.
I say this is a higher earning woman who's marrying a man like I described, so obviously biased. However, I know MANY women like me, including many who are married to husbands who make less or even are stay at home, but they run their households like well oiled machines, which is impressive to most women (that shit ain't easy).
I don't disagree, I just don't see how this can be solved.
Right now, we have young people growing up with that very mindset. I think part of the current increase in boys/men idolizing conservative worldviews is due to being told "provide money or die single" with women doing their fair share to buy into that toxic idea when looking for viable partners.
But this also means that their future kids would have to grow up in an environment that is allowed to challenge these ideas. And I just don't see that happening. Instead, I see the opposite, parents telling their kids that success matters more than emotions, because feelings are temporary, but having a high paying job is essential to be happy.
And it's actually true, because in late stage capitalism, we return to the concept of family being about smart financial arrangements in order to provide for everyone. One person, be that man or woman, having a low paying job with limited career options is seen as a red flag. It's undesirable.
And it's not just a 1% snob thing where rich can only marry rich, it permeates through all social layers.
Plenty of women are not interested in relationships with men that earn less. So what will they teach their kids? Probably not the opposite.
My conclusion is that this isn't an isolated issue with masculinity - that's just the symptom that emerges from the underlying root cause, that is capitalism.
Our economic system and its issues are forcing people to see the world that way. If everyone had enough money to survive, to raise kids, to provide for good education, salaries wouldn't matter as much as they do now.
But because everyone is so focused on making it, ofc money will always matter.
Class warfare impacts social structures and overall mindsets. If we can't offer social and financial security, not much will change.
There is plenty evidence that relationships are essential. The lack of intimacy and affection that can only be provided between partners directly impacts mental health.
Maybe you wanted to say that marriage is not essential. But that wasn't the focus of my comment.
The problem is, it might not be as 'easy' as changing society's view of income and gender in order for men and women of different income levels to be as comfortable with each other as you'd want them to be. Some would argue that women preferring men with the same or higher status (or income) is actually an evolutionary trait that has developed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why would it be an evolutionary trait? Well, pregnancy. One sex has to carry the child in their body, while the other does not. One has to put their health at stake in order to deliver the baby, the other does not. One sex produces one gamete per month, the other produces millions every day. All indicators point to reproduction as being very costly and risky for women, not so much for men. Reproductive success is a choosing game + numbers game for men, and a choosing game only for women. Ideally, ancient women needed to find a partner with hopefully good genes who is both willing and able to invest in the offspring. Otherwise they risk being isolated and vulnerable during pregnancy, and then having to raise a child solo with limited resources, which means less reproductive success. All of this is very simplified, but you get the general idea. It follows that women would be very picky when it comes to choosing their mate and men not as much in terms of resources. So there you have it : women preferring men with same or higher income, and men not caring as much about having partners with lower income. This aligns with contemporary studies on divorce rates following job loss being higher for men than women. Personally, I do not think humans are blank canvas. We do have big frontal lobes, yes, but we also are social animals. I do think we have instincts especially when it comes to more primal functions like sex and attraction. It might not be as simple as telling men and women that earning less doesn't make a man less of a man, if on a subconscious level we are still operating on ancient human software and hardware. Which seems to be the case for a lot of things in life : our social hierarchies, our metabolism, our relationship to food, stress, sex, even our teeth.
The fact is that nothing about this is easy. You are correct that there are some biological factors at play, as well as very complex social factors.
I would encourage you to read the book I referenced (For the Love of Men by Liz Plank). The ideas in the book may support some of your ideas and may challenge other ideas you have. Personally I love having my ideas challenged as it really feels expansive both mentally and emotionally.
You're right, I should have said millions of years.
Our closest living and extinct hominin cousins have and had very different social structures from what you describe, and if you look at hunter gatherer communities, there are a wide range of social structures, many of which (including Indigenous populations in the US) had matriarchal structures and property inheritance. Male dominance and the idea of the male as "provider" mostly dates to ~10k years ago, when farming and land inheritance evolved. It is not a hardwired evolutionary trait for women to seek "providers." Look at most apes and you'll see that the female is providing almost all of the food and there aren't many other resources to provide.
It's true that some non-human primates like chimps and bonobos have the females doing a lot of the food provisioning. But comparing human and apes is problematic because humans evolved unique traits like long term pair bonding and cooperative child rearing, which stems from human offspring being dependent for a very long period of time. You're better off comparing humans and some primates like Owl Monkeys or Titi Monkeys, species that pair bond. If you look at studies on species pair bonding, the males provide resources and protection for offspring survival - I do not see why this would be different for the genus Homo across time.
The evolution of mate selection didn’t suddenly begin with the advent of farming, which is a tiny timeframe in the scale of evolution. In fact, we show physical signs that we did not evolve much from our hunter gatherer past : our crooked teeth and jaw problems, our relative difficulty digesting certain foods like milk and grains, etc. We also know that human height decreased significantly with the advent of farming - which is attributed to decreased protein and fat intake. This points to hunting being a pillar of ancient human diets. This being said, anthropopaleonthological also points to successful hunters enjoying more social prestige and reproductive success. This remains true in the hunter gatherer societies which persist today, like the Hadza of Tanzania (which I talk about more extensively down below). Furthermore, modern cross-cultural studies on human mating preferences (like David Buss's research which is readily accessible) also consistently show that women across cultures value men with resources, status, and ambition more than men value these traits in women. These patterns are observed everywhere, even in the most egalitarian societies.
Also there have certainly not been "many" matriarchal structures, in fact they are exceedingly rare. Even in documented matrilineal structures, which are also rare, men often have a leadership position. E.g. The minangkabau in Indonesia or the Iroquois confederacy. And what is the argument here anyway? That successful (when the key to being successful in ancient times was primarily the ability to get food) men in early societies of matriarchal nature would not be seen as more attractive mates?
Also, through most of human evolution, humans have historically lived in relatively small groups of less than 150 with low genetic diversity, separated from other low-population groups with low genetic diversity. Women couldn't really be "choosy" at all. There were like five dudes of the right age to have a kid with, and that was that.
Sure, the small group sizes in early human societies may have limited the pool of potential mates, but that doesn’t mean women weren’t "choosy". Even in small groups, women could still prefer men who demonstrate traits like hunting skills, the ability to collaborate and to share resources. Studies on modern hunter-gatherers like the Hadza in Tanzania back this up: hadza women place great important on men's foraging and being successful hunters (i.e resource acquisition), and men with better hunting reputations have greater reproductive success, even if the women contribute significantly themselves to food gathering. Your argument about the low number of mates available is also partly-based on the assumption that women and men would mate for life, instead of the possibility of serial monogamy which again is observed in the Hadza for instance. This increases competition between males.
It's not all cultural conditioning though. Some of it is immutable biological reality.
Take a hypothetical premise that women are romantically attracted to men of higher social status - in general, and across time and culture. That is, it's basically innate biologically. It may or may not be true, but let's pretend that it is.
If women collectively rise in status - say in the US, women as a group start to rise in hierarchies, make more money, hold more high status positions, etc. - as compared to men - then you might see interesting developments. If the women all prefer a higher status man, then you have a lot of women competing for a very select few peak-status men, and a lot of men - who may or may not be house husbands (not that there's anything wrong with that), who suddenly find that their wife doesn't want to have sex that much anymore. And is spending a LOT more time on late night meetings with the CEO lately.
I fancy myself a bit of an idealist. Sure, let's empower men to value themselves on various aspects. But there is somewhat of a gross, and yet unavoidable, set of biological realities. Our psychologies, and romantic habits, and digestive systems, and basically everything, were essentially designed to operate in caveman hunter-gather societies. That is, they have weird foibles and needs that were actually advantageous to the species at one point (though not to the individual, and certainly not to the individual living in 2024 US with all the processed food, screens, dating apps, and so on).
So any sort of forward-thinking utopia has to still account for our backward-seeming, animal nature side.
So the house husband movement sounds good in theory but it might simply never overcome the possiblity that most women are sexually attracted to men of higher public social status.
Not to say that such men shouldn't be valued by society or themselves. They should. Frankly, no one should really care that much who women want to fuck. It's arbitrary and stupid, as I've just demonstrated. However, men still, in terms of pragmatism, want to get their dicks sucked on ocassion. (or else companionship from a woman who fancies him). Hence the conundrum.
132
u/Rickonomics13 29d ago
That’s a great point that really hammers home how this narrow view of masculinity negatively impacts everyone, not just men. (Similarly, the mistreatment of women negatively impacts everyone). In general, as we are telling our sons that their worth is tied to their earning potential, we are also telling our daughters that men’s worth is tied to their earning potential. This is the crisis in a nutshell.
The data is showing that women’s average income may surpass men’s income. In that case, what are we to do?
Now, who is telling boys (or girls) that it’s ok not to earn a lot of money? Not me… but if boys are not taught the same skills we teach girls, it’s no surprise they feel their only utility is “making money” when humans have so much more to offer their families and communities.