Gender roles hurt everyone. Men die younger than women and the trend is men are dying younger today than last year, the year before ... Why? Why are men dying younger and younger w healthcare more accessible to more but w rising costs. I postulate that it’s b/c of gender roles & the worst healthcare in the industrial world. Think John Wayne & Clint Eastwood as role models: men don’t seek help instead struggle in silence b/c anything else would be seen as weak. So men drink like Wayne & Clint characters to take the edge off. All these alleged causes of death that read stroke, heart attack, liver cancer, .. are really substance abuse. Capitalism does not allow most American men to support a family. Yet who is blamed: women, minorities and immigrants for taking men’s jobs. Really there’s less jobs that pay even a living wage for one. In the 50s & 60s a guy working in a grocery store could support a family. Smart, in charge, competent women are not liked / hired / promoted by men or women b/c women who do not conform to gender roles are seen as especially deviant / rule-breaking. In sociological reviews men are more likely than women to hire a non-gender conforming woman. Speculation: b/c generally men are more ok w rule breaking in general, women more obedient - generally.
yes, i totally agree with you. if there is in fact a crisis of masculinity, i think it's likelier because of the ways in which gender roles are harmful to men than because men are confused about gender roles. in a passage in susan faludi's book that we mention in the podcast (i incorrectly identify it as coming from 'backlash,' and christine correctly identifies it as being in 'stiffed'), the men she interviews don't feel confused about what masculinity demands of them (they all think it demands that they be in control); they just feel unable to satisfy its demands.
Nobody’s in control anymore. Try calling Verizon or your Dr’s office; the “customer service” people all say: I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do. In the bad old good old days, you went to a store owned by someone you knew, talked to them face to face and they fixed it.
You can write all you want about how unimportant gendered organization is, but as long as both men and women operate within the confines of this formulation, it won't matter. We do not live in a world in which most women would be ok with dating and marrying a man who makes less money than them or has less status. You might be ok with this and you could argue that women at large don't feel this way, but they do. Do I have a systematic review to back up this claim? No. I don't think I need one though to know which way the wind blows. Until the expectations on men by women are not there to be "real men", in that they are to provide security (which in modern times means financially) then gendered reality will always exist. The real question is why do I think this formulation has no hope for changing? Because it evolutionarily in the best interest of women to optimize for these traits in men, so it is in the best interest in men to optimize for traits that women find valuable. Just like peacocks fan their plumage. These evolutionary pressures soften when societies have better social safety nets, because women do not feel their whole lives are at risk if they pick a bad man. I do not think they can ever truly dissolve though.
Men are killing themselves because they can no longer be seen as viable men for women. We can sit back and say, "gender sucks" but it doesn't change the experience of gendered reality that men face. Is the answer then to throw away the concept and teach men (and people) that it's really all about being human? I don't think so. If your gut tells you that there is a benefit in say, a group of old ladies talking together about their problems, which would be distinctly different from a group of old men, then can we not conclude that gendered reality is real in so far in that it is experienced differently? If you don't see how those groups would differ, then perhaps our viewpoints are irreconcilable. You want to move away from gender as a concept in its entirety since it is constrictive and not useful. I get it, but I don't see it as plausible, mainly because I believe gendered reality is real.
In a non-industrialized society, where reality is significantly more real, these questions are far less important, because gender roles are just more rigid by necessity. The man, as you said, toils away in a field while the woman nurses some babies,(Btw, this is a real reality for most people on this planet), but just because this reality is so far removed from our industrialized modern society does not mean the evolutionary machinery that we operate with is fundamentally different. Women still desire the man who can proverbially toil the fields and provide. There is no changing this. Women want the rich man. THIS is why Andrew Tate is appealing. He GETS women and prays on the insecurity of men who cannot. THIS is why men need tracks of positive masculinity. You will say this logic is unconvincing. So be it. The solution in my eyes is not to tell a room full of men that the concept of being a man is not real, when they are told every day in thousands of ways that it is real. It is to navigate the waters of what it means to be a man/father/husband etc.
To be honest, I appreciate this post you have written and I do not have the answers. I just feel this post lacks a perspective "from the ground" of being an average guy in today's world and wanted to add some.
Things are bad in general. TMI. People are anesthetizing themselves w food, TV, sex, gambling, alcohol, drugs, luxury this & that anything to keep reality away.
Definitely don’t think there are very compelling reasons to attempt to reappropriate or ameliorate some kind of contemporary concept of masculinity to “save men,” but that’s consistent with thinking there is a crisis of masculinity, in the sense that some men used to feel comfortable and be bolstered by a concept of masculinity that has slowly withered away, and they’re now left grasping at what’s left / wanting something to replace it. The answer to the death of God is secular morality, not another God; but it still makes sense to talk of a crisis of faith.
i agree with you that these two things (thinking there is a crisis of masculinity and thinking that gender roles should not be resuscitated) are consistent, but i'm still unsure whether there is a crisis of masculinity for the reasons stated in the post. it's just unclear to me whether men are doing poorly because they don't understand what men are supposed to be like, or whether men are doing poorly because.....things are bad in general. i'm open to learning that confusion about gender roles explains male failures, but i just haven't seen evidence supporting this claim
i totally hear you! what i meant to be saying is that i think cases like yours are cases of injustice that--i think and hope?--might not be so inevitable or so crushing if women weren't so often forced or, if not forced, then pressured into caretaking roles that they might not want to occupy. i didn't at all mean to be denying that all too often women DO find themselves saddled with these roles, to the point where they're unable to pursue other projects. you write, "there’s a huge weight of history of women being in the caretaker role convincing others around you, male and female, that it’s fine if you have zero time to do intellectual work; that it’s fine if you as a women become only a caretaker. The assumption is still often made that poorer and less successful women never need to do intellectual work to 'reach their potential' or experience some degree of contentment; just give them babies and toddlers to play with (or rather meet the endless needs, demands, and cries of) 24/7 and they'll be 'fulfilled'." this seems totally true to me--but i don't think it has to be this way, and this assumption is what i mean to be objecting to!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were denying that women do find themselves in such positions! I didn't think you were, and I'm not surprised at all that you object to the quoted assumption. I wasn't trying to criticise anything in your original post, just trying to add what seemed a side point (or a bunch of side points!) As you can tell, my original message was quite rushed (not that this is not). Thanks for your reply!
Gender roles hurt everyone. Men die younger than women and the trend is men are dying younger today than last year, the year before ... Why? Why are men dying younger and younger w healthcare more accessible to more but w rising costs. I postulate that it’s b/c of gender roles & the worst healthcare in the industrial world. Think John Wayne & Clint Eastwood as role models: men don’t seek help instead struggle in silence b/c anything else would be seen as weak. So men drink like Wayne & Clint characters to take the edge off. All these alleged causes of death that read stroke, heart attack, liver cancer, .. are really substance abuse. Capitalism does not allow most American men to support a family. Yet who is blamed: women, minorities and immigrants for taking men’s jobs. Really there’s less jobs that pay even a living wage for one. In the 50s & 60s a guy working in a grocery store could support a family. Smart, in charge, competent women are not liked / hired / promoted by men or women b/c women who do not conform to gender roles are seen as especially deviant / rule-breaking. In sociological reviews men are more likely than women to hire a non-gender conforming woman. Speculation: b/c generally men are more ok w rule breaking in general, women more obedient - generally.
yes, i totally agree with you. if there is in fact a crisis of masculinity, i think it's likelier because of the ways in which gender roles are harmful to men than because men are confused about gender roles. in a passage in susan faludi's book that we mention in the podcast (i incorrectly identify it as coming from 'backlash,' and christine correctly identifies it as being in 'stiffed'), the men she interviews don't feel confused about what masculinity demands of them (they all think it demands that they be in control); they just feel unable to satisfy its demands.
Nobody’s in control anymore. Try calling Verizon or your Dr’s office; the “customer service” people all say: I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do. In the bad old good old days, you went to a store owned by someone you knew, talked to them face to face and they fixed it.
You can write all you want about how unimportant gendered organization is, but as long as both men and women operate within the confines of this formulation, it won't matter. We do not live in a world in which most women would be ok with dating and marrying a man who makes less money than them or has less status. You might be ok with this and you could argue that women at large don't feel this way, but they do. Do I have a systematic review to back up this claim? No. I don't think I need one though to know which way the wind blows. Until the expectations on men by women are not there to be "real men", in that they are to provide security (which in modern times means financially) then gendered reality will always exist. The real question is why do I think this formulation has no hope for changing? Because it evolutionarily in the best interest of women to optimize for these traits in men, so it is in the best interest in men to optimize for traits that women find valuable. Just like peacocks fan their plumage. These evolutionary pressures soften when societies have better social safety nets, because women do not feel their whole lives are at risk if they pick a bad man. I do not think they can ever truly dissolve though.
Men are killing themselves because they can no longer be seen as viable men for women. We can sit back and say, "gender sucks" but it doesn't change the experience of gendered reality that men face. Is the answer then to throw away the concept and teach men (and people) that it's really all about being human? I don't think so. If your gut tells you that there is a benefit in say, a group of old ladies talking together about their problems, which would be distinctly different from a group of old men, then can we not conclude that gendered reality is real in so far in that it is experienced differently? If you don't see how those groups would differ, then perhaps our viewpoints are irreconcilable. You want to move away from gender as a concept in its entirety since it is constrictive and not useful. I get it, but I don't see it as plausible, mainly because I believe gendered reality is real.
In a non-industrialized society, where reality is significantly more real, these questions are far less important, because gender roles are just more rigid by necessity. The man, as you said, toils away in a field while the woman nurses some babies,(Btw, this is a real reality for most people on this planet), but just because this reality is so far removed from our industrialized modern society does not mean the evolutionary machinery that we operate with is fundamentally different. Women still desire the man who can proverbially toil the fields and provide. There is no changing this. Women want the rich man. THIS is why Andrew Tate is appealing. He GETS women and prays on the insecurity of men who cannot. THIS is why men need tracks of positive masculinity. You will say this logic is unconvincing. So be it. The solution in my eyes is not to tell a room full of men that the concept of being a man is not real, when they are told every day in thousands of ways that it is real. It is to navigate the waters of what it means to be a man/father/husband etc.
To be honest, I appreciate this post you have written and I do not have the answers. I just feel this post lacks a perspective "from the ground" of being an average guy in today's world and wanted to add some.
do you despise the Point's new symposium title? =D
I’m into it!
Things are bad in general. TMI. People are anesthetizing themselves w food, TV, sex, gambling, alcohol, drugs, luxury this & that anything to keep reality away.
Definitely don’t think there are very compelling reasons to attempt to reappropriate or ameliorate some kind of contemporary concept of masculinity to “save men,” but that’s consistent with thinking there is a crisis of masculinity, in the sense that some men used to feel comfortable and be bolstered by a concept of masculinity that has slowly withered away, and they’re now left grasping at what’s left / wanting something to replace it. The answer to the death of God is secular morality, not another God; but it still makes sense to talk of a crisis of faith.
i agree with you that these two things (thinking there is a crisis of masculinity and thinking that gender roles should not be resuscitated) are consistent, but i'm still unsure whether there is a crisis of masculinity for the reasons stated in the post. it's just unclear to me whether men are doing poorly because they don't understand what men are supposed to be like, or whether men are doing poorly because.....things are bad in general. i'm open to learning that confusion about gender roles explains male failures, but i just haven't seen evidence supporting this claim
i totally hear you! what i meant to be saying is that i think cases like yours are cases of injustice that--i think and hope?--might not be so inevitable or so crushing if women weren't so often forced or, if not forced, then pressured into caretaking roles that they might not want to occupy. i didn't at all mean to be denying that all too often women DO find themselves saddled with these roles, to the point where they're unable to pursue other projects. you write, "there’s a huge weight of history of women being in the caretaker role convincing others around you, male and female, that it’s fine if you have zero time to do intellectual work; that it’s fine if you as a women become only a caretaker. The assumption is still often made that poorer and less successful women never need to do intellectual work to 'reach their potential' or experience some degree of contentment; just give them babies and toddlers to play with (or rather meet the endless needs, demands, and cries of) 24/7 and they'll be 'fulfilled'." this seems totally true to me--but i don't think it has to be this way, and this assumption is what i mean to be objecting to!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were denying that women do find themselves in such positions! I didn't think you were, and I'm not surprised at all that you object to the quoted assumption. I wasn't trying to criticise anything in your original post, just trying to add what seemed a side point (or a bunch of side points!) As you can tell, my original message was quite rushed (not that this is not). Thanks for your reply!