I find your research and writing fascinating. Thank you! I'm just searching for the Margaret Mead quote you use (cut and pasted below) in Male and Female, and I can't seem to find it. Could you tell me which chapter it's from? There are so many editions. Thanks so much!
"Every known human society rests firmly on the learned nurturing behavior of men….This behavior, being learned, is fragile and can disappear rather easily under social conditions that no longer teach it effectively.” (Male and Female, pp. 189, 192.)
If we're looking to use education as a proxy for having your act together , it's notable that only about 30-35% of guys have a bachelor's degree, which excluding some of the trades, usually equates to earning potential. So, women will end up in a competition with other women to marry or date the 30%, but inevitably, unless some of them are willing to date other women, many of them will simply grow old alone, because there aren't enough of the guys with the qualities they want around. These discussions tiptoe around a fundamental question of nature vs nurture, with the ensuing tautologies.
Proposition 1- Men are largely sculpted by biology, nature, genes/chromosomes, prenatal and postnatal sex differentiation, and male culture and bonding rituals(sports, rites of passage, ritual violence, raiding and war) are adornments upon the frame of masculinity. These male drives existed in some primeval form with the figurative Adam and Eve or the 1st Man, but we developed cultural outlets for them over time, because unrestrained male violence, could catastrophically destroy society, if left unchecked. I don't believe in this view fully, because even soldiers don't come out of the womb preformed, and some degree of social conditioning/socialization is necessary, but I'm inclined to believe it explains about 70-80% of the story. Why are there so many male serial killers? Are women getting some sort of memo that men aren't?? I'm being facetious here, but the answers certainly don't align with modern progressive perspectives on gender.
Proposition 2- Men are not that different than women. The differences that have been observed throughout history are the result of male domination or the patriarchy. Yes, men have a male phenotype n a Y chromosome, but they can be socialized into becoming a mirror image of women, while still retaining the ability to conceive a child, and the traditional qualities that men were expected more to possess( courage, risk-taking, strength, strong work ethic, etc). Basically, you can have your cake and eat it too!! For some men who are especially intelligent, malleable, and quick learners, I have no doubt they can pull this off, but that leaves us with 60-70% of the population being unsure where they fit in society. I genuinely worry about a society where 50 to 60% of men are locked out of long-term relationships, sexually frustrated, and struggling with very low self-esteem. It leaves them susceptible to demagogues, and susceptible to groups like the Proud Boys, which give men a sense of purpose and belonging, even if they're racist, immoral, anti-social groups. The default pressure release valves we have now are video games, drugs, online porn, and gambling. All of these things are chimeras, or imitations of the real thing. It's an open question whether men will eventually put down the controller and re-engage with the real world, or whether they'd like to live in the Metaverse instead. Right now, a lot of men seem to be saying the world of the matriarchy sucks, and I don't want to participate. The crucial question is whether feminism and female empowerment can also include all men, or whether it's in fact, as some men have concluded by their actions, zero-sum and mutually exclusive. I hope that's not the case, but we'll see.
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?
In fact, I would think that a man, like you, who can manage his life while NOT making a high salary is more impressive than a guy who holds it together perhaps BECAUSE he's making enough money to fill in the gaps for his competence. Chances are you'd make a better partner for a woman because you've learned to manage a life with less than the guy who can be sloppy about it because the high salary covers the flakiness.
I think for most folks and/or women, the idea of a man having his shit together is more about handling adult life than making a lot of money. Having a vision for the future, paying one's bills in a responsible way, keeping the house moderately clean, staying in touch with key relationships, knowing how to apologize when necessary, making plans and promises and knowing how to keep them: I honestly think most women are looking for these more basic adulting skills. Of course, in some places, the cost of living is such that working in teaching or social work can make it very difficult to pay bills, keep plans, or even keep the house clean, as hustling becomes the norm. But I know many single women who struggle to find a guy who has much of a sense of his future and real plan to get there, let alone evidence of the ability.
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."
What are these jobs of which you speak so I can tell my gay POC female friends? I kid! Mostly.
I work with a bunch of engineers who are still overwhelmingly white and male so I have no idea what industries there are that have supposedly flipped to minority, gay, and female other than the role of barista. And trust, if there's a white male around, he's still the manager barista. 😏
But my guess is, you wouldn't kid if it was your life and you couldn't start it or get married because you couldn't get hired - despite 2 degrees. And my family goes back to the Mayflower, so not first generation.
Also, who said "gay POC [and] female" - wasn't me.
Wow. Skimmed that article. While I consider myself a feminist, I'm pretty moderate (and old-school Christian) so I tend to avoid "progressive" spaces since I know my views aren't particularly welcome there. From what I read, I'm sorry to hear about the chaos but I can sympathize. I trained/studied as a journalist then became a teacher and finally transitioned to tech digital marketing so that I'd have a chance at steady employment and retiring before I dropped dead. Never got anything steady in journalism and couldn't fathom the chaos of teaching for any salary much less the ones they were offering. In my current field, you might get hired for diversity, but that won't keep you since output is paramount. The liberal arts and non-profit work aren't quite that way. Kudos to everyone who sticks it out because of their passion for a cause. *smh*
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.
What does heteronormativity look like for boys and men? Someone close to me told me that he only accepted his own bisexuality once he felt secure in his masculinity in his mid 20s. I feel intrigued. The gay men I know tend to have came out younger.
“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.
All that evidences to me is one of two things: 1) women are more concerned about the state of society and/or 2) women are more likely to engage openly on topics requiring high EQ and nuanced discussion.
I'm voting for #2 which basically validates the premise of the article.
I think that mainly it's the joint effect of women believing themselves to be the superior sex and 2) women enjoy complaining, especially about men, and even moreso about how men fail to measure up to their standards.
Could you elaborate a bit, please? I’m a mum of a boy having to choose next year between „normal” school and all boys school. I’m often told that if we choose the latter my son will be „crippled socially”
When you have an all boys school, 100% of the population can be a potential friend vs a school where you only have half the population to pick from. Our school is traditional in that it is big on sports but has an AMAZING band/theatre art program. Something for every boy. There is little drama as there are no girls around to distract ( though the weekends offer socialisation once they get older and learn to drive). Go with your instinct, if you have the opportunity to tour the schools. Again, there is no utopia but im happy with our decision. Side note, there is less social justice political activism in our all boys school as well. “ fight the patriarchy” is not a selling slogan to families voluntarily placing their sons in an all boys school. There is a self selection bias when choosing a single sex school. Btw, my husband went to an all boys school through gr 12. A perfect gentleman and the most socially adept person i know.
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 don't think Richard is referring to single sex spaces for grown men, what you are observing is men who have come through a co-ed eduction system, yet do not have the required communication skills to succeed. The way I read it is that co-ed spaces often will serve girls / women better because they are better suited to it and also more mature at an early age. This is already common knowledge. The idea is that skills for communication should be developed earlier and that perhaps, for boys, it would be easier in a single sex environment. In addition to this, there is the concept of boarding school which is not such a foreign concept where I am from. It is remarkable to me how many successful men or men who has their "shit" together come from a boarding school for grades 8 to 12. I myself was in boarding school for grade 11 and 12. In reflection I now realize that my peers where already more mature that me in many ways at that age. Just something interesting to consider.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm getting my impressions about boarding school from Britain, but aren't the boys sent there are usually from affluent to wealthy families? Their family background already gives them a huge leg up over other boys, so they are not a representative sample.
I'm originally from South Africa, and there you have both private and public boarding schools. The private boarding schools mirror a lot of the private boarding schools in Britain. The public schools that offer boarding where initially built to accommodate children from rural areas to attend schools in the nearby towns. So it's not just the situation you imagine. Also children in general benefit from the structure, and now these schools are often a preferred choice.
Having spent time at boarding schools I think a much bigger contributor to their success than being single sex is that they are often more rigorous, structured and resourced than public schools and most (but not all) of the students are from higher achieving families with the means to wrap their kids in educational supports. Most of what I have read about Western same sex spaces for students is that they benefit girls and women in far more ways than they benefit boys and men.
Maybe he means single sex social spaces. Basically that men need male friends. Work is different and doesn't count. Men need male friends, a brotherhood, and to stop crying on the internet that they are "lonely" just because they don't have a girlfriend. A girlfriend isn't supposed to cure male loneliness. OTHER MEN ARE.
Yeah but highly educated men in STEM also tend to befriend other highly educated men in STEM. People tend to be friends with people from work and school. It's cool they get along with each others I just don't see how gender segregation made them better communicators.
I agree. Richard has to flesh this out more. In highly gender segregated cultures where men are demonstrably physically affectionate to one another (there are several such cultures)... are men known to be great communicators with women and children? I've travelled around a bit and can say that, at least the countries I've been to like this, the answer is "not necessarily".
I don't think it's the single-sex spaces themselves, but single-sex spaces designed to cater to the social-emotional needs of a particular gender. It's no different than what women's spaces are supposed to provide.
Most of the male single sex environments I’ve observed are designed to encourage male bonding, mutual task completion and victory over competitors. Seldom, if ever, do I see male single sex spaces designed to support or explore emotional intimacy.
In the absence of compelling data, I too am skeptical that all male spaces will encourage the development of male emotional intelligence.
My current operating theory is that female emotional intelligence is cultivated from birth. In most cultures, girls are expected to be mothers and caregivers. Roll playing with dolls, doing domestic chores, and observing how individuals interact with each other helps to develop skill sets in girls that provides a foundation for their emotional intelligence as adults.
I think you're assuming male and female needs are the same. Men and women are very different here. Male emotional intellgnce and socialisation will be different to women's.
I’ve made no assessment on how male’s emotional needs or predilections differ from, or are the same as, female ones.
As I see it, women are requesting(demanding) greater male emotional intelligence as a condition of forming durable partnerships.
The hope and expectation is that, whatever the form enhanced emotional intelligence takes, it will contribute to the flourishing of those partnerships.
"Seldom, if ever, do I see male single sex spaces designed to support or explore emotional intimacy. "
What does "emotional intimacy" mean to you? I think it means--and presents as--something very different than what you expect, when applied to men.
"Boys are generally not so encouraged [to become good fathers]"
Boys aren't expected to become fathers and productive members of society? As a man, I find that claim surprising. Yes, male play is diffetent to female. And male approaches to the world are different. That doesn't make men wrong.
Here’s a loose framework that I use when I think about emotional intimacy.
It means being attuned to a another’s individual’s moods. It sometimes involves noticing unspoken distress in others. It might require disclosing to someone else uncomfortable feelings about who you are and how you see yourself in the world. It might mean being willing to apologize when one has caused emotional or physical harm. It would include being emotionally vulnerable to someone else.
I don’t see any of the above characteristics as being gender specific.
When I claim that boys are generally not so encouraged, it means that most cultures incorporate into their child rearing practices the biological fact that parenthood is far more costly and demanding for females than it is for males. Men don’t get pregnant, they don’t give birth, they don’t breastfeed and there is no such thing as paternal mortality. Most cultures demand that mothers be nurturing and on call for their children’s needs. Males can totally detach themselves from those requirements if they so choose, often with little or no penalties.
Even in contemporary culture, women are still expected to have and raise children, and are often disparaged if they don’t. There simply is no equivalent pressure on men.
That doesn’t make men wrong.
But as women further penetrate the contemporary workforce, acquire greater economic independence, and seek success in arenas outside of motherhood, they are asking (and in many cases demanding) that their potential male partners be willing to expand their emotional repertoire so that the burdens of family do not fall so strongly on the shoulders of women alone.
My husband attended an all boys school k-12 in canada. He is an outstanding husband and father. He loved his education and the all boys environment so much that we followed the same for our boys. An excellent decision for our family. Of course, this is our anecdotal experience. .
In Toronto, perchance? If this is one of the schools I’m thinking of, then I think the class dimension of this upbringing isn’t one we should neglect either.
I find your research and writing fascinating. Thank you! I'm just searching for the Margaret Mead quote you use (cut and pasted below) in Male and Female, and I can't seem to find it. Could you tell me which chapter it's from? There are so many editions. Thanks so much!
"Every known human society rests firmly on the learned nurturing behavior of men….This behavior, being learned, is fragile and can disappear rather easily under social conditions that no longer teach it effectively.” (Male and Female, pp. 189, 192.)
If we're looking to use education as a proxy for having your act together , it's notable that only about 30-35% of guys have a bachelor's degree, which excluding some of the trades, usually equates to earning potential. So, women will end up in a competition with other women to marry or date the 30%, but inevitably, unless some of them are willing to date other women, many of them will simply grow old alone, because there aren't enough of the guys with the qualities they want around. These discussions tiptoe around a fundamental question of nature vs nurture, with the ensuing tautologies.
Proposition 1- Men are largely sculpted by biology, nature, genes/chromosomes, prenatal and postnatal sex differentiation, and male culture and bonding rituals(sports, rites of passage, ritual violence, raiding and war) are adornments upon the frame of masculinity. These male drives existed in some primeval form with the figurative Adam and Eve or the 1st Man, but we developed cultural outlets for them over time, because unrestrained male violence, could catastrophically destroy society, if left unchecked. I don't believe in this view fully, because even soldiers don't come out of the womb preformed, and some degree of social conditioning/socialization is necessary, but I'm inclined to believe it explains about 70-80% of the story. Why are there so many male serial killers? Are women getting some sort of memo that men aren't?? I'm being facetious here, but the answers certainly don't align with modern progressive perspectives on gender.
Proposition 2- Men are not that different than women. The differences that have been observed throughout history are the result of male domination or the patriarchy. Yes, men have a male phenotype n a Y chromosome, but they can be socialized into becoming a mirror image of women, while still retaining the ability to conceive a child, and the traditional qualities that men were expected more to possess( courage, risk-taking, strength, strong work ethic, etc). Basically, you can have your cake and eat it too!! For some men who are especially intelligent, malleable, and quick learners, I have no doubt they can pull this off, but that leaves us with 60-70% of the population being unsure where they fit in society. I genuinely worry about a society where 50 to 60% of men are locked out of long-term relationships, sexually frustrated, and struggling with very low self-esteem. It leaves them susceptible to demagogues, and susceptible to groups like the Proud Boys, which give men a sense of purpose and belonging, even if they're racist, immoral, anti-social groups. The default pressure release valves we have now are video games, drugs, online porn, and gambling. All of these things are chimeras, or imitations of the real thing. It's an open question whether men will eventually put down the controller and re-engage with the real world, or whether they'd like to live in the Metaverse instead. Right now, a lot of men seem to be saying the world of the matriarchy sucks, and I don't want to participate. The crucial question is whether feminism and female empowerment can also include all men, or whether it's in fact, as some men have concluded by their actions, zero-sum and mutually exclusive. I hope that's not the case, but we'll see.
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?
In fact, I would think that a man, like you, who can manage his life while NOT making a high salary is more impressive than a guy who holds it together perhaps BECAUSE he's making enough money to fill in the gaps for his competence. Chances are you'd make a better partner for a woman because you've learned to manage a life with less than the guy who can be sloppy about it because the high salary covers the flakiness.
I think for most folks and/or women, the idea of a man having his shit together is more about handling adult life than making a lot of money. Having a vision for the future, paying one's bills in a responsible way, keeping the house moderately clean, staying in touch with key relationships, knowing how to apologize when necessary, making plans and promises and knowing how to keep them: I honestly think most women are looking for these more basic adulting skills. Of course, in some places, the cost of living is such that working in teaching or social work can make it very difficult to pay bills, keep plans, or even keep the house clean, as hustling becomes the norm. But I know many single women who struggle to find a guy who has much of a sense of his future and real plan to get there, let alone evidence of the ability.
Thank you, Brian. I totally agree.
Yup. Nailed it.
This is spot on!
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.
What are these jobs of which you speak so I can tell my gay POC female friends? I kid! Mostly.
I work with a bunch of engineers who are still overwhelmingly white and male so I have no idea what industries there are that have supposedly flipped to minority, gay, and female other than the role of barista. And trust, if there's a white male around, he's still the manager barista. 😏
You kid!
But my guess is, you wouldn't kid if it was your life and you couldn't start it or get married because you couldn't get hired - despite 2 degrees. And my family goes back to the Mayflower, so not first generation.
Also, who said "gay POC [and] female" - wasn't me.
Anyway, no idea about engineering; politics and policy is my field, so send them to any of the organizations mentioned here: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
Wow. Skimmed that article. While I consider myself a feminist, I'm pretty moderate (and old-school Christian) so I tend to avoid "progressive" spaces since I know my views aren't particularly welcome there. From what I read, I'm sorry to hear about the chaos but I can sympathize. I trained/studied as a journalist then became a teacher and finally transitioned to tech digital marketing so that I'd have a chance at steady employment and retiring before I dropped dead. Never got anything steady in journalism and couldn't fathom the chaos of teaching for any salary much less the ones they were offering. In my current field, you might get hired for diversity, but that won't keep you since output is paramount. The liberal arts and non-profit work aren't quite that way. Kudos to everyone who sticks it out because of their passion for a cause. *smh*
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.
What does heteronormativity look like for boys and men? Someone close to me told me that he only accepted his own bisexuality once he felt secure in his masculinity in his mid 20s. I feel intrigued. The gay men I know tend to have came out younger.
“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.
All that evidences to me is one of two things: 1) women are more concerned about the state of society and/or 2) women are more likely to engage openly on topics requiring high EQ and nuanced discussion.
I'm voting for #2 which basically validates the premise of the article.
I think that mainly it's the joint effect of women believing themselves to be the superior sex and 2) women enjoy complaining, especially about men, and even moreso about how men fail to measure up to their standards.
Cry about it.
Run along now dear - the grown-ups are trying to talk.
My boys attend an all boys school. There are costs and benefits but the latter are orders of magnitude greater than the former.
Could you elaborate a bit, please? I’m a mum of a boy having to choose next year between „normal” school and all boys school. I’m often told that if we choose the latter my son will be „crippled socially”
When you have an all boys school, 100% of the population can be a potential friend vs a school where you only have half the population to pick from. Our school is traditional in that it is big on sports but has an AMAZING band/theatre art program. Something for every boy. There is little drama as there are no girls around to distract ( though the weekends offer socialisation once they get older and learn to drive). Go with your instinct, if you have the opportunity to tour the schools. Again, there is no utopia but im happy with our decision. Side note, there is less social justice political activism in our all boys school as well. “ fight the patriarchy” is not a selling slogan to families voluntarily placing their sons in an all boys school. There is a self selection bias when choosing a single sex school. Btw, my husband went to an all boys school through gr 12. A perfect gentleman and the most socially adept person i know.
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 don't think Richard is referring to single sex spaces for grown men, what you are observing is men who have come through a co-ed eduction system, yet do not have the required communication skills to succeed. The way I read it is that co-ed spaces often will serve girls / women better because they are better suited to it and also more mature at an early age. This is already common knowledge. The idea is that skills for communication should be developed earlier and that perhaps, for boys, it would be easier in a single sex environment. In addition to this, there is the concept of boarding school which is not such a foreign concept where I am from. It is remarkable to me how many successful men or men who has their "shit" together come from a boarding school for grades 8 to 12. I myself was in boarding school for grade 11 and 12. In reflection I now realize that my peers where already more mature that me in many ways at that age. Just something interesting to consider.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm getting my impressions about boarding school from Britain, but aren't the boys sent there are usually from affluent to wealthy families? Their family background already gives them a huge leg up over other boys, so they are not a representative sample.
I'm originally from South Africa, and there you have both private and public boarding schools. The private boarding schools mirror a lot of the private boarding schools in Britain. The public schools that offer boarding where initially built to accommodate children from rural areas to attend schools in the nearby towns. So it's not just the situation you imagine. Also children in general benefit from the structure, and now these schools are often a preferred choice.
Having spent time at boarding schools I think a much bigger contributor to their success than being single sex is that they are often more rigorous, structured and resourced than public schools and most (but not all) of the students are from higher achieving families with the means to wrap their kids in educational supports. Most of what I have read about Western same sex spaces for students is that they benefit girls and women in far more ways than they benefit boys and men.
Maybe he means single sex social spaces. Basically that men need male friends. Work is different and doesn't count. Men need male friends, a brotherhood, and to stop crying on the internet that they are "lonely" just because they don't have a girlfriend. A girlfriend isn't supposed to cure male loneliness. OTHER MEN ARE.
Yeah but highly educated men in STEM also tend to befriend other highly educated men in STEM. People tend to be friends with people from work and school. It's cool they get along with each others I just don't see how gender segregation made them better communicators.
I agree. Richard has to flesh this out more. In highly gender segregated cultures where men are demonstrably physically affectionate to one another (there are several such cultures)... are men known to be great communicators with women and children? I've travelled around a bit and can say that, at least the countries I've been to like this, the answer is "not necessarily".
I don't think it's the single-sex spaces themselves, but single-sex spaces designed to cater to the social-emotional needs of a particular gender. It's no different than what women's spaces are supposed to provide.
That’s the dilemma.
Most of the male single sex environments I’ve observed are designed to encourage male bonding, mutual task completion and victory over competitors. Seldom, if ever, do I see male single sex spaces designed to support or explore emotional intimacy.
In the absence of compelling data, I too am skeptical that all male spaces will encourage the development of male emotional intelligence.
My current operating theory is that female emotional intelligence is cultivated from birth. In most cultures, girls are expected to be mothers and caregivers. Roll playing with dolls, doing domestic chores, and observing how individuals interact with each other helps to develop skill sets in girls that provides a foundation for their emotional intelligence as adults.
Boys are generally not so encouraged.
I think you're assuming male and female needs are the same. Men and women are very different here. Male emotional intellgnce and socialisation will be different to women's.
Actually, I make no such assumption.
I’ve made no assessment on how male’s emotional needs or predilections differ from, or are the same as, female ones.
As I see it, women are requesting(demanding) greater male emotional intelligence as a condition of forming durable partnerships.
The hope and expectation is that, whatever the form enhanced emotional intelligence takes, it will contribute to the flourishing of those partnerships.
In fact, you did.
"Seldom, if ever, do I see male single sex spaces designed to support or explore emotional intimacy. "
What does "emotional intimacy" mean to you? I think it means--and presents as--something very different than what you expect, when applied to men.
"Boys are generally not so encouraged [to become good fathers]"
Boys aren't expected to become fathers and productive members of society? As a man, I find that claim surprising. Yes, male play is diffetent to female. And male approaches to the world are different. That doesn't make men wrong.
Here’s a loose framework that I use when I think about emotional intimacy.
It means being attuned to a another’s individual’s moods. It sometimes involves noticing unspoken distress in others. It might require disclosing to someone else uncomfortable feelings about who you are and how you see yourself in the world. It might mean being willing to apologize when one has caused emotional or physical harm. It would include being emotionally vulnerable to someone else.
I don’t see any of the above characteristics as being gender specific.
When I claim that boys are generally not so encouraged, it means that most cultures incorporate into their child rearing practices the biological fact that parenthood is far more costly and demanding for females than it is for males. Men don’t get pregnant, they don’t give birth, they don’t breastfeed and there is no such thing as paternal mortality. Most cultures demand that mothers be nurturing and on call for their children’s needs. Males can totally detach themselves from those requirements if they so choose, often with little or no penalties.
Even in contemporary culture, women are still expected to have and raise children, and are often disparaged if they don’t. There simply is no equivalent pressure on men.
That doesn’t make men wrong.
But as women further penetrate the contemporary workforce, acquire greater economic independence, and seek success in arenas outside of motherhood, they are asking (and in many cases demanding) that their potential male partners be willing to expand their emotional repertoire so that the burdens of family do not fall so strongly on the shoulders of women alone.
I think it is a fair ask.
My husband attended an all boys school k-12 in canada. He is an outstanding husband and father. He loved his education and the all boys environment so much that we followed the same for our boys. An excellent decision for our family. Of course, this is our anecdotal experience. .
In Toronto, perchance? If this is one of the schools I’m thinking of, then I think the class dimension of this upbringing isn’t one we should neglect either.
No, not in toronto.
I love seeing/reading you wrestling with these ideas.
Thank you