I appreciate these series so much! I work primarily work with boys school and juvenile detention settings and these posts have been great in understanding more of the cultural context behind gender. What I'm most curious about is the section talking about men having their shit together and making more money. I feel this contradicts the proposition Reeves has made toward men entering HEAL (health, education, adminstration and literacy) professions. As a male who's in a HEAL profession, I can tell you there isn't much money in it, but in some ways I have my shit way more together than any male friend of mine that makes way more than me. Thoughts?
Loved the post, but I think we shouldn't sleep on the need for actual, hard skills. As a knowledge worker, I'm constantly needing skills like working with cars or doing construction, that I don't have. We may not have a lot of shipwrecks these days, but even guys with nerd jobs like me ought to be able to hang drywall.
I’m totally on board with the idea that men need to develop stronger social skills both at home and at work, but call BS on the line, “A man who can ‘support his family financially’ likely has the skills that would also make him a good stay-at-home Dad.” After all, if that were true, the whole point of men needing to develop those skills would be moot.
I totally get women not wanting to take care of / provide for an under-earning guy, but let’s not pretend that, at least historically, social skills and earning potential are related.
Except the jobs and opportunities that used to go to straight, white, (Christian), men now go to women and POC, even if they didn't study or work where I did.
And at the same time, all we hear about is "white privilege" and "white supremacy" and "toxic masculinity."
Ah, the good old days that never were. The whole idea os separate spheres and male breadwinners is relatively new. Most people nearly everywhere used a division of labor that was essential to survival. In places where there was a surplus of labor and a shortage of land, we saw the emergence of the elites depicted in the painting. My experience is that the word “patriarchy” is either preceded or followed by nonsense. I wonder if the Kulaks that Lenin so despised and so thoroughly murdered ever gave a thought to theories of patriarchy. We know that Lenin thought about it a lot. In any case, men and women lived together with their children. Nobody went off to work to be absent from their families. Few people resembled the people in the painting.
I grew up in a working-class neighborhood in New York. I received my first dance lessons in either first or second grade at the Soviet-sounding Public School Number 71. Virtually all men wore ties, jackets, and hats, regardless of social class. The first dance that I remember learning was the waltz.
None of us boys were condemned from birth as oppressors. Neither were we punished and drugged for being boys. The idea that there were moms and dads, husbands and wives, with distinct societal roles was understood. The command to “honor thy father and thy mother” did not require definitions or the questioning of whether or not fathers and mothers existed.
I do not wish a return to the 1950s. Neither do I think that it would be either possible or desirable. We can recognize boys’ strengths and honor their place in the world. We might start by not telling them that they are toxic members of the patriarchy, cursed with some original sin.
The problem with this article is the underlying approach that says "women are socially progressive and men are globally deficient." That is an intensely one sided, personalised ideological position. Perhaps its roots are in the feminist mantra of "the personal is political." It probably isn't the actual experience most men. It encourages in response a personalised critique that at best identifies the person with right wing trends and at worst gleans accusations of misogyny. Modern relationships are thus painted as hostile territory where an adventure might be taken but not settled.
Whats missing from all this are the economic and service underpinnings of effective families. Affordable childcare, accessible housing and healthcare, adequate wages that don't demand both parents to work full time plus overtime to make ends meet, strong communities with local work rather than working away. Modern families may need high levels of relational skill to survive, because they live in a hostile environment.
The graph in this article you could read as showing a lack of skills in working class men, or you could read it as showing that economic and social pressures on working class people are obstructing family formation.
One view is that this article just reflects the patronising social views of a self regarding middle class.
I think well meaning nen can design boys spaces to create connections or to create dude bros. The latter is way easier.
I wish there were more spaces for my boys.
But there are a couple of things to point out
- This essay is dripping with heteronormativity. Come on...it is 2024 and my gay son has to have access to male spaces that are not defined by his sexual orientation. We are currently living through a national brain aneurysm over LGBTQIA rights to exist. If my gay son doesn't have the same rights as my straight one...what the hell is the point of talking male only spaces?
- It is okay for female only spaces to look different than male only ones. Desiging male centric spaces based off of successful womens spaces...is not going to work.
- For male only spaces to work, they need to be designed for and by men who are comfortable with the range of men that we have in our society. If such a thing has ever existed, I'd like to see it. The closest thing I have seen is the reimagined BSA troops post the national BSA meltdown. But look who was harmed to get there.
“That question is the closest proxy to ‘A guy needs to have his shit together’, which is what women are looking for”. - an interesting take, which I think is likely correct.
No matter how many times you say this, Richard, I just don't see how single sex male spaces make men better communicators. You need some serious data and evidence to back this up.
I'm around men who spend most of their time in effectively single sex male spaces. Namely, highly educated men in STEM. I do believe that they are better communicators with computers. I don't see any indication that they are better communicators with each other, women or children, than other men.
I appreciate these series so much! I work primarily work with boys school and juvenile detention settings and these posts have been great in understanding more of the cultural context behind gender. What I'm most curious about is the section talking about men having their shit together and making more money. I feel this contradicts the proposition Reeves has made toward men entering HEAL (health, education, adminstration and literacy) professions. As a male who's in a HEAL profession, I can tell you there isn't much money in it, but in some ways I have my shit way more together than any male friend of mine that makes way more than me. Thoughts?
Loved the post, but I think we shouldn't sleep on the need for actual, hard skills. As a knowledge worker, I'm constantly needing skills like working with cars or doing construction, that I don't have. We may not have a lot of shipwrecks these days, but even guys with nerd jobs like me ought to be able to hang drywall.
I’m totally on board with the idea that men need to develop stronger social skills both at home and at work, but call BS on the line, “A man who can ‘support his family financially’ likely has the skills that would also make him a good stay-at-home Dad.” After all, if that were true, the whole point of men needing to develop those skills would be moot.
I totally get women not wanting to take care of / provide for an under-earning guy, but let’s not pretend that, at least historically, social skills and earning potential are related.
"You don't give a weapon to a man until you taught him how to dance."
Have your shit together
Except the jobs and opportunities that used to go to straight, white, (Christian), men now go to women and POC, even if they didn't study or work where I did.
And at the same time, all we hear about is "white privilege" and "white supremacy" and "toxic masculinity."
Just my lived experience.
Ah, the good old days that never were. The whole idea os separate spheres and male breadwinners is relatively new. Most people nearly everywhere used a division of labor that was essential to survival. In places where there was a surplus of labor and a shortage of land, we saw the emergence of the elites depicted in the painting. My experience is that the word “patriarchy” is either preceded or followed by nonsense. I wonder if the Kulaks that Lenin so despised and so thoroughly murdered ever gave a thought to theories of patriarchy. We know that Lenin thought about it a lot. In any case, men and women lived together with their children. Nobody went off to work to be absent from their families. Few people resembled the people in the painting.
I grew up in a working-class neighborhood in New York. I received my first dance lessons in either first or second grade at the Soviet-sounding Public School Number 71. Virtually all men wore ties, jackets, and hats, regardless of social class. The first dance that I remember learning was the waltz.
None of us boys were condemned from birth as oppressors. Neither were we punished and drugged for being boys. The idea that there were moms and dads, husbands and wives, with distinct societal roles was understood. The command to “honor thy father and thy mother” did not require definitions or the questioning of whether or not fathers and mothers existed.
I do not wish a return to the 1950s. Neither do I think that it would be either possible or desirable. We can recognize boys’ strengths and honor their place in the world. We might start by not telling them that they are toxic members of the patriarchy, cursed with some original sin.
The problem with this article is the underlying approach that says "women are socially progressive and men are globally deficient." That is an intensely one sided, personalised ideological position. Perhaps its roots are in the feminist mantra of "the personal is political." It probably isn't the actual experience most men. It encourages in response a personalised critique that at best identifies the person with right wing trends and at worst gleans accusations of misogyny. Modern relationships are thus painted as hostile territory where an adventure might be taken but not settled.
Whats missing from all this are the economic and service underpinnings of effective families. Affordable childcare, accessible housing and healthcare, adequate wages that don't demand both parents to work full time plus overtime to make ends meet, strong communities with local work rather than working away. Modern families may need high levels of relational skill to survive, because they live in a hostile environment.
The graph in this article you could read as showing a lack of skills in working class men, or you could read it as showing that economic and social pressures on working class people are obstructing family formation.
One view is that this article just reflects the patronising social views of a self regarding middle class.
I think well meaning nen can design boys spaces to create connections or to create dude bros. The latter is way easier.
I wish there were more spaces for my boys.
But there are a couple of things to point out
- This essay is dripping with heteronormativity. Come on...it is 2024 and my gay son has to have access to male spaces that are not defined by his sexual orientation. We are currently living through a national brain aneurysm over LGBTQIA rights to exist. If my gay son doesn't have the same rights as my straight one...what the hell is the point of talking male only spaces?
- It is okay for female only spaces to look different than male only ones. Desiging male centric spaces based off of successful womens spaces...is not going to work.
- For male only spaces to work, they need to be designed for and by men who are comfortable with the range of men that we have in our society. If such a thing has ever existed, I'd like to see it. The closest thing I have seen is the reimagined BSA troops post the national BSA meltdown. But look who was harmed to get there.
“That question is the closest proxy to ‘A guy needs to have his shit together’, which is what women are looking for”. - an interesting take, which I think is likely correct.
So you think it's helpful to sit around with fellow feminists & day dream about what shapes men should twist themselves into to make y'all happy?
I note all the comments here are from women... Sort of like an echo chamber.
My boys attend an all boys school. There are costs and benefits but the latter are orders of magnitude greater than the former.
No matter how many times you say this, Richard, I just don't see how single sex male spaces make men better communicators. You need some serious data and evidence to back this up.
I'm around men who spend most of their time in effectively single sex male spaces. Namely, highly educated men in STEM. I do believe that they are better communicators with computers. I don't see any indication that they are better communicators with each other, women or children, than other men.
I love seeing/reading you wrestling with these ideas.
Thank you