Young American Men; A Lost Generation
I don’t have the precise reference, but I am confident that someone somewhere told us that women’s advancement would not be at the expense of men. A rising tide lifts all boats, they say.
Feminists might not have wanted to use the phrase, because it makes them sound stupid, but they have promised women that they could have it all.
Feminists also promised that men, as soon as they got over their patriarchal toxic masculinity, would happily welcome women into the workplace and onto the battlefield. And they also told us that said men would happily do half the household chores.
Anyway, contemporary feminism has been around for some five decades now, and women have never had it so good. At least, to be fair, if they do not mind being alone, without male partners. They have made progress in the world of work and warfare. And they have learned to hookup. Another victory for feminism.
One begins on this note because it is conspicuously absent from the most recent Wall Street Journal article on the sorry state of American men. To think that this has nothing to do with feminism is naive to an extreme.
According to the Journal, these future masters of the universe, male chauvinist oppressors, incipient raging patriarchs have dropped out of school, can barely hold a job, are living at home and are helping Mom do the dishes.
The Journal reports:
Presented with a more-equal playing field, young women are seizing the opportunities in front of them, while young men are floundering. The phenomenon has developed over the past decade, but was supercharged by the pandemic, which derailed careers, schooling and isolated friends and families. The result has big implications for the economy.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but we are not talking about a level playing field. We are seeing the outcome of the ongoing war against boys. Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about more than two decades ago, and apparently it persists.
Boys are disparaged and denigrated. They attend schools run by women, for girls, and are brought up by enlightened mothers who refuse to let them be boys. And when they suffer from any level of emotional distress they are sent packing, to a female therapist who wants them to get in touch with their feelings.
And of course, the full throated assault on the role of male breadwinner has left many young men confused, feeling useless. If a woman can do everything for herself by herself, why should he work to provide for her and for their children?
In her Journal piece, Rachel Wolfe mistakes the problem for the solution. She offers various forms of therapy as a cure for men’s failure as men. And therapy is hawking feminist and feminine values.
“They’re not as able to talk about their feelings, so they are going to have fewer friendships with other men and suffer more psychologically,” says Niobe Way, a professor of developmental psychology at New York University.
It’s nice to have a professorial opinion, even if it is grossly wrong headed. Men do not connect with other men by sharing their feelings. Women do connect with other women by doing so.
Men connect with other men by participating in male dominant activities. Joining a bowling league, going to the ballgame, playing golf together, going fishing-- these forms of male bonding do not involve whining over the soup.
Wolfe offers another example of a man who has found the way to become more like a woman. The man in question, a recovering alcoholic, has done therapy. From it, he learned about “emotional honesty.” If you join a baseball team or a military unit no one much cares about your emotional honesty. Everyone cares about how well you wear the uniform and follow the rules.
He has also overhauled his approach to friendship to prioritize emotional honesty. “It’s definitely a true stereotype that men say they’re fine instead of getting feedback and criticism and all the useful things you need to grow,” he says. And he has gone to individual and group therapy to overcome his depression.
Are we about to find a way out of this labyrinth? Apparently not.
A little research would beef up this case. Real male earnings did not grow from the early 1970s, when large numbers of women entered the workforce at the professional level. Source below, though dated. Declining paychecks (after inflation) for men continued until 2018, when they rose slightly until COVID.
The Atlantic's writer also left out that there's a quirk to women's entry into fields traditionally dominated by men, specifically white-collar professions: Women's tendency to accept the first salary offer.
When a recruiter from a big accounting firm sits down with a qualified BBA candidate at a respected business school, his job is to make the lowest offer the top candidates will accept. It's been documented (and decried by feminists) that a female candidate is much more likely to accept the first offer than a male candidate.
And, because businesses won't be caught dead making higher offers to males, starting salaries decline overall. (Again, relative to inflation.)
Of course, the recruiter would like to offer the woman less, because he can cite statistics showing that she is very likely to leave the company (and the workforce entirely) within 5-10 years. But the law says pay can't correlate with sex. So men's starting pay goes down, in the name of equality.
And yet, when choosing a mate, women still want their husband to earn more, or at least enough to pay all the expenses if she can't resist the pull to stay home and nurture their children.
Pretty soon, the only way men can attract a high-value mate is to choose professions that have defied equality. Construction (99 percent male), sales, travel-heavy careers. Men stick these out. Women don't enter, or don't stay long if they do.
(Source cited above: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/mens-earnings-havent-grown-since-the-1970s-why/262296/)