My problem with this is the question begging of the entire project. The report begins with the assumption that egalitarian gender outcomes are the optimal solution. But why should we believe that is true? Here in the US, there is a well known paradox of declining female happiness as they gain more equality to men. Why is it taken as a given that the feminist lens is the correct one?
Agreed. It's far from obvious that "equality in workplace fatalities" is a worthwhile goal, or that men or women would even want to achieve this. "More workplace safety," on the other hand, is a far less tendentious way of addressing the same area.
I hope people listen to Richard. He’s obviously nice, serious, objective and well meaning.
Warren Farrell was treated like garbage for decades for pointing out undeniable truths.
Let’s hope given the passing decades since then there will be increased willingness to reframe and understand, and stop the Oppression Olympics. No, focusing on male suicide doesn’t mean you condone female suicide. But that too often has been the gut reaction from feminists, female and male, and only recently is it even theoretically possible to raise boy issues without being labeled with de facto pejoratives like MRA, incel, and far worse.
There are many well meaning feminists (some in this thread) who are fighting battles from decades ago, and seriously need to re assess the data and come face to face with their own prejudices and biases.
This entire topic in Australia is quite frankly bizarre. This post and ensuing comments capture a more grounded and reasonable view; the politicians there should be ashamed.
If they really want to make things even better for men, then they should also allow men to unilaterally opt-out of paying child support, or at least create child support insurance that would cover the cost of people's child support for 18+ years in the event of a LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) failure and/or sterilization failure.
Richard, my heartfelt thanks for sharing this report. This doesn't surprise me as I experience what the report outlines from my grown son, his son, and three more grandsons. For those who don't see the effects of inequality on men and boys, look more carefully, and take this report seriously. I see it and am encouraged by your support of boys and men.
Can’t say I’m surprised. America seems to take things too far in many areas. I see it also in the current debate on domestic violence in Australia, which is horrible and obviously shouldn’t exist. But do people understand tradeoffs and secondary effects?
There is a lot more room for improvement in terms of treating mental health but you will never achieve a target of zero. It is the same as driving under the influence. Some people just cannot or will not be stopped. It sounds terrible to say but what, if anything, has ever been eradicated completely from society? There are still people around who think the earth is flat for goodness’ sake!
America seems to have pushed the girls agenda AT THE EXPENSE FOR BOYS (yes it’s not zero sum, but if I gave you ten and remove 8 from him, isn’t that essentially zero sum?) for two generations. It’s obvious and you can’t seriously deny it any longer.
Norway casts a brilliant vision for how to focus our attention on men and boys without demonizing women and those who continue to work for the equality of women and girls. The move away from zero-sum thinking seems to be the critical first step in any initiatives getting off the ground. Metaphors of the swinging-pendulum (it's gone too far!) or the failure of one-side or another (Progressive policies have failed!) just lead to this sense that any attention given to men and boys will necessarily take it away from women and girls. But, thankfully, we're seeing a move in this report toward a Both/And approach to gender equity. (This seems the consistent stance of the AIBM as well.)
As for how helpful this can be for the US: the size of Norway's population is irrelevant. Their population is no smaller, nor more homogeneous, than many US states. Norway has an indigenous population (the Sami) and has had considerable immigration for many decades. They're experiencing many cultural shifts (as the Muslim population grows very rapidly) and generational gaps just as the US has.
Their work in this commission is an excellent example for every country. Thanks for helping it to gain wider attention. It will be extremely interesting to see what sorts of social policy initiatives come from it!
Good for Norway, sounds like they have a blueprint for Norway.
I will say, however, that the United States is not Scandinavia. We have very different cultures, with very different population densities and very different immigration policies. One of the reasons why this approach works in a country like Norway (or Sweden, or whatever your favorite Scandinavian country is) is because of their cultural homogeneity.
To get men into the HEAL fields is as simple as making those careers sexually attractive to women. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. To quite Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. "
--- Where are you looking? Men with those types of jobs are usually paired with women who have similar types of jobs. These are the average working women and men of the country that you might see shopping in Walmart or Dollar General or other chain "downmarket" box stores.
"Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. "
--- Men who chase money and status to get attention from women do so to get the attention of what sort of women, exactly? Women who are themselves monied and statused and have the looks to match. Such type of men are not looking for the girl who works the drive-thru at Taco Bell or the night shift at a gas station.
"To quote Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
--- Dave is Black so I'll say it since he won't. Perhaps he left this part out since his audiences are comprised of a lot of non-Black American people and there are just some things that people keep "in house", but you get a lot of Black American women and gay Black American men on Youtube talking about the "hobosexual" phenomena. What to speak of a house, there are certain men that don't even need a box to be able to pull.
Culture isn't a static thing, and it always shifts and changes throughout time. Culture in the US could very easily shift in the next 20 years to begin to accommodate men more.
I also don't believe that women 'dating up in money' is a thing rooted in biology or evolutionary psychology. In the wild, both men and women would provide and forage, and hunting big game was very rare. Very strict gender roles and looking up in social status only became a major thing when agriculture came into play in the neolithic revolution when men had a massive advantage over women went it came to gaining food and resources.
Jordan, you are correct. Hypergamy was the word used by the British imperialists in India back in the day to describe the arranged (forced) marriage system wherein parents would arrange their daughters to marry boys and men of equal or higher socio-economic status because left on their own, girls were choosing the boys they thought were cute, NOT the richer or higher status boys.
What do you mean "still"? As I wrote above, the word was traditionally used not to describe how women chose partners but how the fathers of women chose partners for them, because left to themselves, women were choosing HYPOgamously, not HYPER.
How is choosing a partner based (primarily?) on looks evidence of hypogamy? Taller men earn more money and are regarded as better looking. Causality and correlation, not to mention biology are things you’re aware of? Good looking men are often well fed and from upper classes, certainly historically.
Re-read my comment 4 posts up. You even "liked" it so I'm assuming you at least glanced at it? Anyway, read it thoroughly this time. The answers to your questions were addressed there before you asked them.
Maybe? I find it hard to believe. Culture evolves at orders of magnitude faster than biology does, but there would have to be some sort of nuclear event (metaphorically speaking) to create that kind of shift in dating and mating habits.
Scandi has shifted immensely since the mid 90s when the first immigrants came from former yugolslavia; and that has only accelerated the last 10-15 years, particularly in Sweden and Norway. Foreign born population now matches North American rates and Islam is increasingly a major player in society.
All of this would have been unheard of and brushed off as paranoia or racism a generation ago.
Culture can shift extremely fast, and we've seen long standing traditions and lifestyle change drastically in just a very short period of time. Probably the most obvious example is women joining the workforce on mass and a shift away from women being expected to be mothers.
I think what you meant to say is, you don't see women who look like porn actresses lining up to partner with men in the helping professions and that valuing capitalism above all else has made a large swath of the American public materialistic clout seekers.
Several of my highly-educated, girl-next-door-looking friends ARE with such men because they make excellent husbands and fathers. One even has a house husband because she was outearning him by quite a lot and it made sense for him to take on childcare. Having more men in the helping professions, which are tied to local community and interpersonal connections will be nothing but good for American society in the long term.
"I think what you meant to say is, you don't see women who look like porn actresses lining up to partner with men in the helping professions "
--- The porn industry or the "influencer" industry. Men's vision has been distorted by Instagram "models" and TikTok influencers with their gazillion filters and lip fillers. So now your average video game nerd thinks he deserves a "baddie".
That may be, but I believe that is more the exception than the rule. In the macro, men date "across and up "; women date "across and down". I know many successful women that are having a hard time finding a partner because the dating pool of men they are attracted to is very small.
Also, you can throw as much cultural revolution at Biology as you wish, but that is not going to change our natural biological predispositions relative to our sex and sexuality.
But hey, if you can convince a bunch of C-suite boss babes to marry a househusband/stay-at-home Dad, more power to you.
"That may be, but I believe that is more the exception than the rule. In the macro, men date "across and up "; women date "across and down".
--- Across meaning socio-economic status and the "up" and "down" meaning looks?
"I know many successful women that are having a hard time finding a partner because the dating pool of men they are attracted to is very small."
--- We know that on average men still make more money than women and have, on average, higher status jobs. So I will assume that the "attraction" you are referring to here is something other than money, career, status. What is it?
"Also, you can throw as much cultural revolution at Biology as you wish, but that is not going to change our natural biological predispositions relative to our sex and sexuality."
--- A video game nerd can desire an "instagram baddie" all he wants, that doesn't men he will get her. Similarly, a woman may desire such-n-such type of man all she wants, that doesn't mean she will get him. At the end of the day if these people prefer to live life un-coupled rather than not get their desired ideal, that is their decision and why should it matter to you?
"But hey, if you can convince a bunch of C-suite boss babes to marry a househusband/stay-at-home Dad, more power to you."
--- Assortative mating is, and has always been, the norm. The C-suite boss babe will couple with a man of equal socio-economic status but at some point if a stay at home parent is needed, it may be they decide it is best for the dad to do it. It's not like a C-suite boss babe will date and marry the McDonald's drive-thru guy or manager of the local Burger King or marry an unemployed man who marries her because he wants to be a stay-at-home dad. You might however find such a scenario in the demographic of hobosexuals and the working women who love them that Dave Chapelle conveniently kept out of his comedy routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY6_EIah0kA
First, you are working on old stereotypes of Scandinavian countries. Second, as for what motivates men to choose certain careers, speak for yourself. That kind of sociobiological determinism is, frankly, just ridiculous reductionism.
Please, there is no way on God's green earth Scandinavia is as heterogeneous culturally as the United States, and if you don't think that has an influence on the reception of yet another governmental intervention into our lives you have another thing coming.
Also, I don't know how many men you know Brian, but most of the ones that I know picked careers based on their aptitude for it and how much money they could make, which is very much tied to the quality of women they can attract Jesus, half the reason this Substack exists is men under 30 are basically circumstantial virgins.
Scandanavia, Sweden in particular, has a very large immigration population consisting of people from various ethnic backgrounds who mostly have Islam in common. This has changed Sweden a lot in the past decade. As for the rest, you are basically saying that men of a certain socio-economic class don't want the women who are in the same socio-economic class. In other words, these men don't want their equals but want to shoot upwards. They are hypergamous.
I don't know where you're getting that, men care about youth and attractiveness at the end of the day. Women are gaining the majority of the education, and therefore will hold the majority of the high-paying jobs over the next 20 years and the butterfly effect of the pool of eligible men according to women is simply getting smaller. Men have nothing to do with this.
--- No? But you said, "To get men into the HEAL fields is as simple as making those careers sexually attractive to women. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. "...
... So the take-away is that Kindergarten teachers and in-home nursing aides are somehow not attracted to women they meet working in their own or similar fields, women in their own socio-economic class.
"men care about youth and attractiveness at the end of the day."
--- Is the implication that women in their own socio-economic class are not as attractive as they (the men) are? Or is the implication that men are shooting out of their leagues looks-wise and feeling entitled to 8's when they may be 4s?
"Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women."
--- The men who do so are not satisfied with the women who are not status conscious. These men are not attracted to their natural equals.
"To quote Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
--- Men can, and in fact DO, do that. They are called "hobosexuals" and there is a whole sub-culture of them out here. They bounce from one woman's couch to the next and offer nothing more than their companionship and bedroom skills.
The term incel was created decades ago by somebody who was involuntarily celibate;
"In 1997, there was no Facebook, no Instagram, no Tinder. Even MySpace was six years away. Alana, who doesn't want to use her full name, was in her mid-20s and had just started dating. "It had taken me a long time. I was kind of a late bloomer. I thought, 'Maybe there are other late bloomers out there.'
"I noticed people would talk about the 'lonely virgin' and make silly jokes about people who didn't start dating in their teens," she said.
She was living in Toronto, Canada, and started the website, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project, for those who were struggling to form loving relationships.
She described the site as "a friendly place", a simple website where she posted articles and ran a mailing list.
It became a forum for men and women to talk about being lonely, where they could wonder aloud about why they couldn't meet anyone."
"A self-described late bloomer, she coined the term involuntary celibate in the late 1990s to describe her own experience of not having sex and not being in a relationship.
It soon snowballed into Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project, a simple, all-text website where she posted theories and articles as well as ran a mailing list. “I identified that there were a lot of people who were lonely and not really sure how to start dating,” she said. “They were kind of lacking those social skills and I had a lot of sympathy for that because I had been through the same situation.” The term was later shortened to “incel”.
This is a great example of "ideas matter." And I agree that it is especially important that your ideas are being picked up in a nation with a strong focus on gender equity.
Wish we could get beyond separate commissions or efforts, focused on men and women and just try to lift up both, with particular emphasis on what a modern world is going to require from both, regardless of gender. (But I know I'm a broken record on this topic.)
To Johannis, I'd still choose to be a man from behind a veil of ignorance but only if I had already won the lottery of class, race, and rich country birth.
I have long thought that the U.S. does not pay enough attention to what other advanced countries are doing. Look to Norway makes sense in multiple contexts.
Thanks Belle! The veil of ignorance test is great. It's a hard one though, I think, and might in fact vary by class, race etc. Eg. if you know you're upper middle class and white, choosing male might make more sense than if you knew you were working class and/or Black? The life expectancy gap alone (6 years now in the U.S.) would be a strong reason for choosing to be feamle. On the separate Commissions point, I think it's important to separate two distinct approaches, which I'll call a Policy Wonk Approach and a Cultural Identity Approach. The first just looks at different outcomes for different groups where and if the evidence suggests they are large enough, in order to guide policy towards equalizing those outcomes. It's pretty boring, but important stuff. The second promotes group identity, encouraging people in the wider culture to see themselves primarily in terms of their group identity. My view is that the Policy Wonk Approach, of which the Norwegian Commission is a perfect example, will REDUCE group identity by reducing the risk that problems neglected become grievances exploited. But what do other folks think?
"The life expectancy gap alone (6 years now in the U.S.) would be a strong reason for choosing to be feamle."
The number of old women I've met who spent a large chunk of their retirement years maiding and nursing an ill husband and then he dies, to be left alone without a spouse to care for HER when she becomes ill... I would rather be the spouse who dies earlier but gets cared for.
Men still work to an older age, and die younger, to the degree that their “golden years” could be half or fewer those of women.
But sure if you knew your lottery ticket would give you successful, wealthy, tall, good looking, white waspy, Don Draper hair’s American male, then clearly that’s not a bad draw.
Men and women used to marry in their teens. If that’s what you’re promoting
The more obvious way to close the gap you’re responding to would be - well - to extend male lives? At least to same expectancy as females? As opposed to ignoring it and marrying younger men?
I have been saying for a long time that we need more Rawls and less Kendi. The veil of ignorance is such a vital concept that seems to have been lost. What’s more writing a social contract that benefits one select group is always a social contract that will always oppress the group not selected given time.
You make a good point by contrasting Rawls and Kendi. The sad fact is that too few people actually want to live in a just society. I regretfully conclude that the instincts that gave us Jim Crow and other fundamentally unjust systems are once again finding adherents.
Think about Rawls and his veil of ignorance. Would you rather be born a girl or a boy today, in Norway, or France, or Nigeria, or Australia, knowing the data?
There is a well documented “epidemic of violence against women” eg in Australia, approximately 5 victims per month. But male homicide victims are 3:1 and male suicide takes an astounding 9 per day.
Even if you think it’s all “the patriarchy’s fault”, the question is what govt programs, initiatives and departments exist today - or SHOULD exist - to do something about it?
The UK just missed to reach 10,000 votes in a country with more than 47 million voters to elect at least 1 male minister for boys and men. There are currently none. Versus 4 female ministers for girls and women.
Grateful for people like Mr Reeves who risk their careers to even point out these glaring issues.
I think the reason is things are viewed as such is because men 9.5 times out of 10 men are the ones doing the killing? It feels easy to talk about saving girls/women from men because gender seperation can "fix" the issue but saving men/boys from other men/boys feels intractable.
Replace "men" with "Muslims" or "Jews" or "Whites" or "Italians" and ask if you are still comfortable writing sentences that generalize like that? 97% of men are not violent. You can do better than this.
"Men" are also the ones going to be war and being shamed if they don't by women for centuries. It's no surprise that PTSD and untreated trauma (much of which can never be fully treated) is a if not the major cause of violence, suicide, and risky behavior, in some generations (look up epigenetics) after the wars. Europe is still paying for ww2, and ukraine will pay for this war at least until the end of this century. Boys and girls will suffer.
Look up "white feather movement ww1" if you're British.
I'm American so I speak from that perspective but it is a norm here to ignore INTRAcommunity conflict. Is it right (moral)? I can't say but it is practical.
I never implied that most men are violent. I was pointing out that most violence is done by men. TOTALLY different issue. That's like pointing out that children are born from women. While we know that not all women will birth children and in 2024 there are male-presenting people having children, it's a statistical fact that for all intents and purposes, women overwhelmingly are the source of childbirth. Furthermore, the only reason I pointed out violence as the topic is because the example was of Boko Haram, which is notoriously violent.
Now, back to the topic of this blog, if it's not obvious to you, everybody here is supportive of the work Richard Reeves is doing. It's completely necessary. I just responded the way I did because intra-male violence, is (in my opinion) the last thing to worry about. As you stated rightly stated, most men aren't violent.
It is far from obvious that all here support Reeves’ work. Some think he’s too soft, meanwhile there are more than a few radical feminists who clearly are suspicious of “men” as an entity. Incel theory clearly doesn’t view herself as a men’s supporter.
The intra community part I honestly don’t understand. Aren’t women and men part of the same community.
That sounds like a recent trick to reframe things, which would make sense in post modern dialectic words can be twisted over night to suit an agenda.
Women aren’t a community: they’re half the planet. Same as men
"Replace "men" with "Muslims" or "Jews" or "Whites" or "Italians" and ask if you are still comfortable writing sentences that generalize like that?"
--- Why would anyone feel "uncomfortable" acknowledging that within ethnic groups, the majority of violence is intra-ethnic? Isn't that what the data shows?
"97% of men are not violent. You can do better than this."
--- OK, but when men do become victims of violence, it is mostly at the hands of other men. Ignoring that fact won't change it.
But it is irrelevant. I’m not ignoring it and I don’t want to change it. How would anyone change it anyway?
Solve the issue of men being victims of violent crimes and you’ll also solve male violence against women.
As to your point about “intra ethnic” violence, are you sure? Certainly Turks killed far more Armenians than Armenians killed Armenians last century. You’re making wildly unsubstantiated claims again.
Ever hear of war? Fairly certain Israel experienced more murder in one October day than in multiple years combined “intra ethnically”
I’ll elaborate on the first point. The alternative to male violence against males is female violence against males. Which is hardly an improvement. Even if that is also increasing. Domestic violence is roughly 50-50 according to Murray Strauss. Women use other means and manipulate but don’t resort to mortal violence as much.
But why would I wish half the male victims to be victims of female violence? That’s like wishing half of suicides victims to be female, which would require many more of my sisters to kill themselves. That would be horrible! And a global emergency. So why is the male equivalent not treated like an emergency? Australia is in national crisis due to one horrible crime; it’s like what Stalin said about the death of millions being just a statistic.
As for solving male violence against women, the second point you asked about, obviously if you remove the incomprehensible volume of trauma that men have experienced for millennia (often due to protecting their children and families) - if you break that chain - you will stop all male violence. Your problem is you only seem to care about male violence against women, rather than the >90% of victims of violence - other men. Don’t you have brothers you care about? I’m an Equal opportunity lover and care about my daughters as much as my sons; but not 10x more. Some of the abused and beaten boys later become abusers.
We do see eye to eye on much I assume on this point and maybe the path to getting there.
Zero is impossible we all know that - well maybe if AI takes us all out you’ll get there. It’s like the Swedish goal of zero driving deaths - it’s more symbolic than actual as it’s impossible as long as we drive.
Johannis, If that first sentence of mine did not come across as indicating my deep empathy, and deep love and respect for men I very much regret not making that clear. As an old time, yes white feminist, more than ever I feel for men these days and the price they have paid for patriarchal prioriities which count little or nothing for the qualities of love and caring, and thus of the best of mothering, and yes, fathering. Absolutely agree that with centuries of what matters most to each one of us...peace and love and understanding -- which does not count because it cannot show up on the bottom line of any controlling capitalist system -- we have all been losers. No, I do not have sons. Coming from my own broken beginnings, broken as a direct result of WW2, I knew I did not want to risk imposing my own fragmentation upon any child, so I chose to have none. We all -- personally and planetarily -- pay a huge price for the lack of love in our lives, and in fact it was what happened to an RAF pilot, being shot down in Norway, in, I guess 1942 that tells some of my mother's story and thus my own. A few days spent in your country in those beautiful Lofoten islands and in the war museum in Narvik, were the most memorable for me.
I think this conversation we are having is more i mportant than anything for humanity today, and for your children and theirs. And shameful my English (yes my first langauge) wasn't clear enough. I wish you and your family and your country all the very best and here's to you all setting the best of all examples to every other country around this precious globe. Thank you, Johannis.
“the price they have paid for patriarchal prioriities”
I know what you mean… but at end of day this is still just a theory, not backed up by data. You could easily argue if we are animals then it’s just animal instincts. Or blame technology. I don’t know. But it’s still feels like a backhanded way to blame dead men and somehow link those dead men to today’s men (and boys).
I do have sons, and I see a world where they are far more likely to die young, via violence or suicide, their cancers are less researched, they don’t go to college (where is their “title IX”, etc etc).
Heja Norge. Someone is finally seeing that the pendulum swung too far and now the administrative bureaucracy runs it all!
Rant over. Sorry! And thanks again for your generous and hopeful message!
Richard, this study seems terrific - thank you for posting. A key is promising employment opportunities for men, but I just don't see them overcoming an aversion to HEAL roles, despite your observation earlier that there were more men in such roles 40 years ago. I'd be very interested in examples of where this stigma seems to have been overcome.
The institution wants to use progressive means (race and class analyses) to fight the outcomes of progressivism. As opposed to de-emphasizing progressive attack vectors, it is self-assured that there is insufficient race and class analyses.
This is just feminism for men, bureaucratic therapy culture pretending that both men and women won’t be revolted by doting attention on men who are aesthetically much more expendable. It feels like seeing your dad put lipstick on before church. It feels like beginning a sentence, “Speaking as an oppressed man….”
While receiving proof of disparity, the only impulse is to close gaps (make us identifical) instead of acknowledging that men and women have different needs: Men need freedom to disregard the million microagressions feminist critique is always able to locate. Conversely the study’s findings require men be enthusiastic about this passionless/soulless process constantly seeking disparity and calling it a problem. The process itself is cringe and therefore counterproductive, unpersuasive, part of the problem.
Mr. Reeves, thank you for bringing this development to our attention.
I notice that the report does not recommend symmetric, i.e., gender-neutral, application of family laws. Is this because Norway applies family laws symmetrically? Or, it is because the application of family laws is a sacred cow there as well? Thank you.
Between 2 and 25 percent of men suffer from Post Partum Depression. Yes, dads can get it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b11VyCraAc
My problem with this is the question begging of the entire project. The report begins with the assumption that egalitarian gender outcomes are the optimal solution. But why should we believe that is true? Here in the US, there is a well known paradox of declining female happiness as they gain more equality to men. Why is it taken as a given that the feminist lens is the correct one?
"Here in the US, there is a well known paradox of declining female happiness as they gain more equality to men. "
Correlation is not causation. We can also say "as overall wages go up there is a paradox of declining male happiness".
What would it take for you to believe that feminism is a mistake? Or is it a religious belief?
Nothing. My religious belief is something else.
If nothing can sway your belief in feminism it's a religious belief.
That's ok. I have nothing against religion.
Agreed. It's far from obvious that "equality in workplace fatalities" is a worthwhile goal, or that men or women would even want to achieve this. "More workplace safety," on the other hand, is a far less tendentious way of addressing the same area.
I hope people listen to Richard. He’s obviously nice, serious, objective and well meaning.
Warren Farrell was treated like garbage for decades for pointing out undeniable truths.
Let’s hope given the passing decades since then there will be increased willingness to reframe and understand, and stop the Oppression Olympics. No, focusing on male suicide doesn’t mean you condone female suicide. But that too often has been the gut reaction from feminists, female and male, and only recently is it even theoretically possible to raise boy issues without being labeled with de facto pejoratives like MRA, incel, and far worse.
There are many well meaning feminists (some in this thread) who are fighting battles from decades ago, and seriously need to re assess the data and come face to face with their own prejudices and biases.
This entire topic in Australia is quite frankly bizarre. This post and ensuing comments capture a more grounded and reasonable view; the politicians there should be ashamed.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/colleen-harkin-736557_as-a-woman-i-reject-the-current-projection-activity-7193095856466649091-0DCj
If they really want to make things even better for men, then they should also allow men to unilaterally opt-out of paying child support, or at least create child support insurance that would cover the cost of people's child support for 18+ years in the event of a LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) failure and/or sterilization failure.
This was so well written! Your writing style is detailed yet so easy to read.
The fact that the article is based on data and factual information that seeks to balance the trajectories of careers etc is great!
There's a great Ted talk by an attorney called Marilyn York titled "What Representing Men in Divorce Taught Me About Fatherhood". Here's the link if interested: https://ofboysandmen.substack.com/p/look-to-norway/comments
It's so poignant. So many American children grow up fatherless and they are the disadvantaged ones in family court.
Thanks!
That’s a fabulous and prescient TedTalk!
Richard, my heartfelt thanks for sharing this report. This doesn't surprise me as I experience what the report outlines from my grown son, his son, and three more grandsons. For those who don't see the effects of inequality on men and boys, look more carefully, and take this report seriously. I see it and am encouraged by your support of boys and men.
Thanks for sharing! Can I ask which country you live in?
United States
Can’t say I’m surprised. America seems to take things too far in many areas. I see it also in the current debate on domestic violence in Australia, which is horrible and obviously shouldn’t exist. But do people understand tradeoffs and secondary effects?
There is a lot more room for improvement in terms of treating mental health but you will never achieve a target of zero. It is the same as driving under the influence. Some people just cannot or will not be stopped. It sounds terrible to say but what, if anything, has ever been eradicated completely from society? There are still people around who think the earth is flat for goodness’ sake!
America seems to have pushed the girls agenda AT THE EXPENSE FOR BOYS (yes it’s not zero sum, but if I gave you ten and remove 8 from him, isn’t that essentially zero sum?) for two generations. It’s obvious and you can’t seriously deny it any longer.
Norway casts a brilliant vision for how to focus our attention on men and boys without demonizing women and those who continue to work for the equality of women and girls. The move away from zero-sum thinking seems to be the critical first step in any initiatives getting off the ground. Metaphors of the swinging-pendulum (it's gone too far!) or the failure of one-side or another (Progressive policies have failed!) just lead to this sense that any attention given to men and boys will necessarily take it away from women and girls. But, thankfully, we're seeing a move in this report toward a Both/And approach to gender equity. (This seems the consistent stance of the AIBM as well.)
As for how helpful this can be for the US: the size of Norway's population is irrelevant. Their population is no smaller, nor more homogeneous, than many US states. Norway has an indigenous population (the Sami) and has had considerable immigration for many decades. They're experiencing many cultural shifts (as the Muslim population grows very rapidly) and generational gaps just as the US has.
Their work in this commission is an excellent example for every country. Thanks for helping it to gain wider attention. It will be extremely interesting to see what sorts of social policy initiatives come from it!
That’s a great analysis! Would you think that neighboring countries such as Sweden are Denmark are ready for a similar step?
However, when 70% of college grads are female, don’t you think the pendulum being pushed for 6 decades did swing a little too far?
Good for Norway, sounds like they have a blueprint for Norway.
I will say, however, that the United States is not Scandinavia. We have very different cultures, with very different population densities and very different immigration policies. One of the reasons why this approach works in a country like Norway (or Sweden, or whatever your favorite Scandinavian country is) is because of their cultural homogeneity.
To get men into the HEAL fields is as simple as making those careers sexually attractive to women. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. To quite Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. "
--- Where are you looking? Men with those types of jobs are usually paired with women who have similar types of jobs. These are the average working women and men of the country that you might see shopping in Walmart or Dollar General or other chain "downmarket" box stores.
"Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. "
--- Men who chase money and status to get attention from women do so to get the attention of what sort of women, exactly? Women who are themselves monied and statused and have the looks to match. Such type of men are not looking for the girl who works the drive-thru at Taco Bell or the night shift at a gas station.
"To quote Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
--- Dave is Black so I'll say it since he won't. Perhaps he left this part out since his audiences are comprised of a lot of non-Black American people and there are just some things that people keep "in house", but you get a lot of Black American women and gay Black American men on Youtube talking about the "hobosexual" phenomena. What to speak of a house, there are certain men that don't even need a box to be able to pull.
Culture isn't a static thing, and it always shifts and changes throughout time. Culture in the US could very easily shift in the next 20 years to begin to accommodate men more.
I also don't believe that women 'dating up in money' is a thing rooted in biology or evolutionary psychology. In the wild, both men and women would provide and forage, and hunting big game was very rare. Very strict gender roles and looking up in social status only became a major thing when agriculture came into play in the neolithic revolution when men had a massive advantage over women went it came to gaining food and resources.
Jordan, you are correct. Hypergamy was the word used by the British imperialists in India back in the day to describe the arranged (forced) marriage system wherein parents would arrange their daughters to marry boys and men of equal or higher socio-economic status because left on their own, girls were choosing the boys they thought were cute, NOT the richer or higher status boys.
Hypergamy still is used to describe how women choose partners… universally
What do you mean "still"? As I wrote above, the word was traditionally used not to describe how women chose partners but how the fathers of women chose partners for them, because left to themselves, women were choosing HYPOgamously, not HYPER.
You’re contradicting yourself
How is choosing a partner based (primarily?) on looks evidence of hypogamy? Taller men earn more money and are regarded as better looking. Causality and correlation, not to mention biology are things you’re aware of? Good looking men are often well fed and from upper classes, certainly historically.
Re-read my comment 4 posts up. You even "liked" it so I'm assuming you at least glanced at it? Anyway, read it thoroughly this time. The answers to your questions were addressed there before you asked them.
Maybe? I find it hard to believe. Culture evolves at orders of magnitude faster than biology does, but there would have to be some sort of nuclear event (metaphorically speaking) to create that kind of shift in dating and mating habits.
I think Jordan is right
Scandi has shifted immensely since the mid 90s when the first immigrants came from former yugolslavia; and that has only accelerated the last 10-15 years, particularly in Sweden and Norway. Foreign born population now matches North American rates and Islam is increasingly a major player in society.
All of this would have been unheard of and brushed off as paranoia or racism a generation ago.
Culture can shift extremely fast, and we've seen long standing traditions and lifestyle change drastically in just a very short period of time. Probably the most obvious example is women joining the workforce on mass and a shift away from women being expected to be mothers.
Culture can change, but human sexual attraction doesn't by and large. Women have always been attractive to high status men.
Michael, read my comment above about the word hypergamy and arranged marriage.
I think what you meant to say is, you don't see women who look like porn actresses lining up to partner with men in the helping professions and that valuing capitalism above all else has made a large swath of the American public materialistic clout seekers.
Several of my highly-educated, girl-next-door-looking friends ARE with such men because they make excellent husbands and fathers. One even has a house husband because she was outearning him by quite a lot and it made sense for him to take on childcare. Having more men in the helping professions, which are tied to local community and interpersonal connections will be nothing but good for American society in the long term.
"I think what you meant to say is, you don't see women who look like porn actresses lining up to partner with men in the helping professions "
--- The porn industry or the "influencer" industry. Men's vision has been distorted by Instagram "models" and TikTok influencers with their gazillion filters and lip fillers. So now your average video game nerd thinks he deserves a "baddie".
That may be, but I believe that is more the exception than the rule. In the macro, men date "across and up "; women date "across and down". I know many successful women that are having a hard time finding a partner because the dating pool of men they are attracted to is very small.
Also, you can throw as much cultural revolution at Biology as you wish, but that is not going to change our natural biological predispositions relative to our sex and sexuality.
But hey, if you can convince a bunch of C-suite boss babes to marry a househusband/stay-at-home Dad, more power to you.
"That may be, but I believe that is more the exception than the rule. In the macro, men date "across and up "; women date "across and down".
--- Across meaning socio-economic status and the "up" and "down" meaning looks?
"I know many successful women that are having a hard time finding a partner because the dating pool of men they are attracted to is very small."
--- We know that on average men still make more money than women and have, on average, higher status jobs. So I will assume that the "attraction" you are referring to here is something other than money, career, status. What is it?
"Also, you can throw as much cultural revolution at Biology as you wish, but that is not going to change our natural biological predispositions relative to our sex and sexuality."
--- A video game nerd can desire an "instagram baddie" all he wants, that doesn't men he will get her. Similarly, a woman may desire such-n-such type of man all she wants, that doesn't mean she will get him. At the end of the day if these people prefer to live life un-coupled rather than not get their desired ideal, that is their decision and why should it matter to you?
"But hey, if you can convince a bunch of C-suite boss babes to marry a househusband/stay-at-home Dad, more power to you."
--- Assortative mating is, and has always been, the norm. The C-suite boss babe will couple with a man of equal socio-economic status but at some point if a stay at home parent is needed, it may be they decide it is best for the dad to do it. It's not like a C-suite boss babe will date and marry the McDonald's drive-thru guy or manager of the local Burger King or marry an unemployed man who marries her because he wants to be a stay-at-home dad. You might however find such a scenario in the demographic of hobosexuals and the working women who love them that Dave Chapelle conveniently kept out of his comedy routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY6_EIah0kA
I’m glad you’ve found someone else to argue with 😆
First, you are working on old stereotypes of Scandinavian countries. Second, as for what motivates men to choose certain careers, speak for yourself. That kind of sociobiological determinism is, frankly, just ridiculous reductionism.
Please, there is no way on God's green earth Scandinavia is as heterogeneous culturally as the United States, and if you don't think that has an influence on the reception of yet another governmental intervention into our lives you have another thing coming.
Also, I don't know how many men you know Brian, but most of the ones that I know picked careers based on their aptitude for it and how much money they could make, which is very much tied to the quality of women they can attract Jesus, half the reason this Substack exists is men under 30 are basically circumstantial virgins.
Scandanavia, Sweden in particular, has a very large immigration population consisting of people from various ethnic backgrounds who mostly have Islam in common. This has changed Sweden a lot in the past decade. As for the rest, you are basically saying that men of a certain socio-economic class don't want the women who are in the same socio-economic class. In other words, these men don't want their equals but want to shoot upwards. They are hypergamous.
I don't know where you're getting that, men care about youth and attractiveness at the end of the day. Women are gaining the majority of the education, and therefore will hold the majority of the high-paying jobs over the next 20 years and the butterfly effect of the pool of eligible men according to women is simply getting smaller. Men have nothing to do with this.
"I don't know where you're getting that"
--- From you.
"Men have nothing to do with this."
--- No? But you said, "To get men into the HEAL fields is as simple as making those careers sexually attractive to women. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't see a lot of attractive women lining up to fuck the kindergarten teacher or the in-home nursing aide. Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women. "...
... So the take-away is that Kindergarten teachers and in-home nursing aides are somehow not attracted to women they meet working in their own or similar fields, women in their own socio-economic class.
"men care about youth and attractiveness at the end of the day."
--- Is the implication that women in their own socio-economic class are not as attractive as they (the men) are? Or is the implication that men are shooting out of their leagues looks-wise and feeling entitled to 8's when they may be 4s?
"Men chase money, status, etc. mainly to get attention from women."
--- The men who do so are not satisfied with the women who are not status conscious. These men are not attracted to their natural equals.
"To quote Dave Chappelle "if a man could fuck a woman in a box he wouldn't buy a house".
--- Men can, and in fact DO, do that. They are called "hobosexuals" and there is a whole sub-culture of them out here. They bounce from one woman's couch to the next and offer nothing more than their companionship and bedroom skills.
While it's good, all I see is feminists getting more power to push their hate ideology.
Care to explain? How do you see that in this?
Explain what?
It's good someone is trying to raise awareness of the fact that boys and men are forgotten when ut cknes to equal consideration.
If anyone takes notice, it will just lead to feminists getting more power.
"Drunken Irish Writer. A bottle of whiskey and a pint will get you to places you've never been before. Beware the trip back is painful."
Never mind. I get it now.
Better to live your life in reality than to be brainwashed into hating people just because you never worked as hard as them.
"Incel" an insult made by people whose only unit of value is how many people they have sex with.
The term incel was created decades ago by somebody who was involuntarily celibate;
"In 1997, there was no Facebook, no Instagram, no Tinder. Even MySpace was six years away. Alana, who doesn't want to use her full name, was in her mid-20s and had just started dating. "It had taken me a long time. I was kind of a late bloomer. I thought, 'Maybe there are other late bloomers out there.'
"I noticed people would talk about the 'lonely virgin' and make silly jokes about people who didn't start dating in their teens," she said.
She was living in Toronto, Canada, and started the website, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project, for those who were struggling to form loving relationships.
She described the site as "a friendly place", a simple website where she posted articles and ran a mailing list.
It became a forum for men and women to talk about being lonely, where they could wonder aloud about why they couldn't meet anyone."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455
"A self-described late bloomer, she coined the term involuntary celibate in the late 1990s to describe her own experience of not having sex and not being in a relationship.
It soon snowballed into Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project, a simple, all-text website where she posted theories and articles as well as ran a mailing list. “I identified that there were a lot of people who were lonely and not really sure how to start dating,” she said. “They were kind of lacking those social skills and I had a lot of sympathy for that because I had been through the same situation.” The term was later shortened to “incel”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/woman-who-invented-incel-movement-interview-toronto-attack
It's usually used as an insult by people who judged based on how much sex they get.
I've been basically told an incel is someone too ugly/unpleasant to fcuk.
That's how it's been portrayed.
Usually it's feminists using the slur, not understanding that it's a two pronged attack.
Judging someone by the numbers they get to shag, suggests that's the only metric of value they have.
Anyway, my byline is pretty hood I think.
I don't drink much, but by God when I was younger, pubs had to order in extra stock.
This is a great example of "ideas matter." And I agree that it is especially important that your ideas are being picked up in a nation with a strong focus on gender equity.
Wish we could get beyond separate commissions or efforts, focused on men and women and just try to lift up both, with particular emphasis on what a modern world is going to require from both, regardless of gender. (But I know I'm a broken record on this topic.)
To Johannis, I'd still choose to be a man from behind a veil of ignorance but only if I had already won the lottery of class, race, and rich country birth.
I have long thought that the U.S. does not pay enough attention to what other advanced countries are doing. Look to Norway makes sense in multiple contexts.
Thanks Belle! The veil of ignorance test is great. It's a hard one though, I think, and might in fact vary by class, race etc. Eg. if you know you're upper middle class and white, choosing male might make more sense than if you knew you were working class and/or Black? The life expectancy gap alone (6 years now in the U.S.) would be a strong reason for choosing to be feamle. On the separate Commissions point, I think it's important to separate two distinct approaches, which I'll call a Policy Wonk Approach and a Cultural Identity Approach. The first just looks at different outcomes for different groups where and if the evidence suggests they are large enough, in order to guide policy towards equalizing those outcomes. It's pretty boring, but important stuff. The second promotes group identity, encouraging people in the wider culture to see themselves primarily in terms of their group identity. My view is that the Policy Wonk Approach, of which the Norwegian Commission is a perfect example, will REDUCE group identity by reducing the risk that problems neglected become grievances exploited. But what do other folks think?
"The life expectancy gap alone (6 years now in the U.S.) would be a strong reason for choosing to be feamle."
The number of old women I've met who spent a large chunk of their retirement years maiding and nursing an ill husband and then he dies, to be left alone without a spouse to care for HER when she becomes ill... I would rather be the spouse who dies earlier but gets cared for.
…you and your anecdotes.
Men still work to an older age, and die younger, to the degree that their “golden years” could be half or fewer those of women.
But sure if you knew your lottery ticket would give you successful, wealthy, tall, good looking, white waspy, Don Draper hair’s American male, then clearly that’s not a bad draw.
Don Draper?! Gross. US statistics back my anecdotes. US women may need to target young men for marriage to close that gap.
The Don isn’t a role model, agreed!
Men and women used to marry in their teens. If that’s what you’re promoting
The more obvious way to close the gap you’re responding to would be - well - to extend male lives? At least to same expectancy as females? As opposed to ignoring it and marrying younger men?
"Men and women used to marry in their teens. If that’s what you’re promoting"
No I'm not promoting grown adult women marrying teen boys. Or teen girls marrying teen boys, which would not close the gap.
On the money and I love the Rawls reference.
Why thanks! It makes you think - brilliant and powerful. Although I feel like it has been twisted by post modernists
I have been saying for a long time that we need more Rawls and less Kendi. The veil of ignorance is such a vital concept that seems to have been lost. What’s more writing a social contract that benefits one select group is always a social contract that will always oppress the group not selected given time.
You make a good point by contrasting Rawls and Kendi. The sad fact is that too few people actually want to live in a just society. I regretfully conclude that the instincts that gave us Jim Crow and other fundamentally unjust systems are once again finding adherents.
Think about Rawls and his veil of ignorance. Would you rather be born a girl or a boy today, in Norway, or France, or Nigeria, or Australia, knowing the data?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
There is a well documented “epidemic of violence against women” eg in Australia, approximately 5 victims per month. But male homicide victims are 3:1 and male suicide takes an astounding 9 per day.
Even if you think it’s all “the patriarchy’s fault”, the question is what govt programs, initiatives and departments exist today - or SHOULD exist - to do something about it?
The UK just missed to reach 10,000 votes in a country with more than 47 million voters to elect at least 1 male minister for boys and men. There are currently none. Versus 4 female ministers for girls and women.
Grateful for people like Mr Reeves who risk their careers to even point out these glaring issues.
The boko haram and United Nations examples says much: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thetinmen_equality-genderequality-thetinmen-activity-7189563866014527490-k8P4?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
I think the reason is things are viewed as such is because men 9.5 times out of 10 men are the ones doing the killing? It feels easy to talk about saving girls/women from men because gender seperation can "fix" the issue but saving men/boys from other men/boys feels intractable.
Replace "men" with "Muslims" or "Jews" or "Whites" or "Italians" and ask if you are still comfortable writing sentences that generalize like that? 97% of men are not violent. You can do better than this.
"Men" are also the ones going to be war and being shamed if they don't by women for centuries. It's no surprise that PTSD and untreated trauma (much of which can never be fully treated) is a if not the major cause of violence, suicide, and risky behavior, in some generations (look up epigenetics) after the wars. Europe is still paying for ww2, and ukraine will pay for this war at least until the end of this century. Boys and girls will suffer.
Look up "white feather movement ww1" if you're British.
I'm American so I speak from that perspective but it is a norm here to ignore INTRAcommunity conflict. Is it right (moral)? I can't say but it is practical.
I never implied that most men are violent. I was pointing out that most violence is done by men. TOTALLY different issue. That's like pointing out that children are born from women. While we know that not all women will birth children and in 2024 there are male-presenting people having children, it's a statistical fact that for all intents and purposes, women overwhelmingly are the source of childbirth. Furthermore, the only reason I pointed out violence as the topic is because the example was of Boko Haram, which is notoriously violent.
Now, back to the topic of this blog, if it's not obvious to you, everybody here is supportive of the work Richard Reeves is doing. It's completely necessary. I just responded the way I did because intra-male violence, is (in my opinion) the last thing to worry about. As you stated rightly stated, most men aren't violent.
It is far from obvious that all here support Reeves’ work. Some think he’s too soft, meanwhile there are more than a few radical feminists who clearly are suspicious of “men” as an entity. Incel theory clearly doesn’t view herself as a men’s supporter.
The intra community part I honestly don’t understand. Aren’t women and men part of the same community.
That sounds like a recent trick to reframe things, which would make sense in post modern dialectic words can be twisted over night to suit an agenda.
Women aren’t a community: they’re half the planet. Same as men
"Replace "men" with "Muslims" or "Jews" or "Whites" or "Italians" and ask if you are still comfortable writing sentences that generalize like that?"
--- Why would anyone feel "uncomfortable" acknowledging that within ethnic groups, the majority of violence is intra-ethnic? Isn't that what the data shows?
"97% of men are not violent. You can do better than this."
--- OK, but when men do become victims of violence, it is mostly at the hands of other men. Ignoring that fact won't change it.
That’s not wrong
But it is irrelevant. I’m not ignoring it and I don’t want to change it. How would anyone change it anyway?
Solve the issue of men being victims of violent crimes and you’ll also solve male violence against women.
As to your point about “intra ethnic” violence, are you sure? Certainly Turks killed far more Armenians than Armenians killed Armenians last century. You’re making wildly unsubstantiated claims again.
Ever hear of war? Fairly certain Israel experienced more murder in one October day than in multiple years combined “intra ethnically”
"But it is irrelevant. I’m not ignoring it and I don’t want to change it. How would anyone change it anyway?"
--- You seem to answer your own question below...
"Solve the issue of men being victims of violent crimes and you’ll also solve male violence against women."
--- Please elaborate.
I’ll elaborate on the first point. The alternative to male violence against males is female violence against males. Which is hardly an improvement. Even if that is also increasing. Domestic violence is roughly 50-50 according to Murray Strauss. Women use other means and manipulate but don’t resort to mortal violence as much.
But why would I wish half the male victims to be victims of female violence? That’s like wishing half of suicides victims to be female, which would require many more of my sisters to kill themselves. That would be horrible! And a global emergency. So why is the male equivalent not treated like an emergency? Australia is in national crisis due to one horrible crime; it’s like what Stalin said about the death of millions being just a statistic.
As for solving male violence against women, the second point you asked about, obviously if you remove the incomprehensible volume of trauma that men have experienced for millennia (often due to protecting their children and families) - if you break that chain - you will stop all male violence. Your problem is you only seem to care about male violence against women, rather than the >90% of victims of violence - other men. Don’t you have brothers you care about? I’m an Equal opportunity lover and care about my daughters as much as my sons; but not 10x more. Some of the abused and beaten boys later become abusers.
We do see eye to eye on much I assume on this point and maybe the path to getting there.
Zero is impossible we all know that - well maybe if AI takes us all out you’ll get there. It’s like the Swedish goal of zero driving deaths - it’s more symbolic than actual as it’s impossible as long as we drive.
Johannis, If that first sentence of mine did not come across as indicating my deep empathy, and deep love and respect for men I very much regret not making that clear. As an old time, yes white feminist, more than ever I feel for men these days and the price they have paid for patriarchal prioriities which count little or nothing for the qualities of love and caring, and thus of the best of mothering, and yes, fathering. Absolutely agree that with centuries of what matters most to each one of us...peace and love and understanding -- which does not count because it cannot show up on the bottom line of any controlling capitalist system -- we have all been losers. No, I do not have sons. Coming from my own broken beginnings, broken as a direct result of WW2, I knew I did not want to risk imposing my own fragmentation upon any child, so I chose to have none. We all -- personally and planetarily -- pay a huge price for the lack of love in our lives, and in fact it was what happened to an RAF pilot, being shot down in Norway, in, I guess 1942 that tells some of my mother's story and thus my own. A few days spent in your country in those beautiful Lofoten islands and in the war museum in Narvik, were the most memorable for me.
I think this conversation we are having is more i mportant than anything for humanity today, and for your children and theirs. And shameful my English (yes my first langauge) wasn't clear enough. I wish you and your family and your country all the very best and here's to you all setting the best of all examples to every other country around this precious globe. Thank you, Johannis.
Thank you for a wonderful reply!!
“the price they have paid for patriarchal prioriities”
I know what you mean… but at end of day this is still just a theory, not backed up by data. You could easily argue if we are animals then it’s just animal instincts. Or blame technology. I don’t know. But it’s still feels like a backhanded way to blame dead men and somehow link those dead men to today’s men (and boys).
I do have sons, and I see a world where they are far more likely to die young, via violence or suicide, their cancers are less researched, they don’t go to college (where is their “title IX”, etc etc).
Heja Norge. Someone is finally seeing that the pendulum swung too far and now the administrative bureaucracy runs it all!
Rant over. Sorry! And thanks again for your generous and hopeful message!
Richard, this study seems terrific - thank you for posting. A key is promising employment opportunities for men, but I just don't see them overcoming an aversion to HEAL roles, despite your observation earlier that there were more men in such roles 40 years ago. I'd be very interested in examples of where this stigma seems to have been overcome.
There are more men in nursing than there used to be!>
The institution wants to use progressive means (race and class analyses) to fight the outcomes of progressivism. As opposed to de-emphasizing progressive attack vectors, it is self-assured that there is insufficient race and class analyses.
This is just feminism for men, bureaucratic therapy culture pretending that both men and women won’t be revolted by doting attention on men who are aesthetically much more expendable. It feels like seeing your dad put lipstick on before church. It feels like beginning a sentence, “Speaking as an oppressed man….”
While receiving proof of disparity, the only impulse is to close gaps (make us identifical) instead of acknowledging that men and women have different needs: Men need freedom to disregard the million microagressions feminist critique is always able to locate. Conversely the study’s findings require men be enthusiastic about this passionless/soulless process constantly seeking disparity and calling it a problem. The process itself is cringe and therefore counterproductive, unpersuasive, part of the problem.
Mr. Reeves, thank you for bringing this development to our attention.
I notice that the report does not recommend symmetric, i.e., gender-neutral, application of family laws. Is this because Norway applies family laws symmetrically? Or, it is because the application of family laws is a sacred cow there as well? Thank you.
The report has lots to say on that, in fact