I think doing social/emotional work with boys is one way to address loneliness, feeling "adrift," and declining college participation.
I coordinate a program in SF public schools that brings middle and high school boys together to talk about masculinity, social pressures and life struggles. The boys in the group get a chance to expand their ideas about "the man box" in a safe environment where it's ok to make mistakes/change your mind about things. They also connect deeply with one another and with the facilitators, who are mostly caring, college-educated men. The result? Boys who are more supportive, more empathetic, less sexist, and more connected to school - and more likely to see themselves going to college (and maybe going into a "caring profession" like teaching or social work.)
My agreement was with Austin Thornton's post of Oct 31. I've never responded to Incel Theory.
Lance Walker's angry, immature comments provide the perfect illustration why feminism is necessary...for all the wonderful men out there (the majority) there are enough Lance Walkers to poison the discourse and society itself.
There will always be a need for someone like me so long as people like you continue to consider the existence and value of boys, and the men they will never become as a result of your uniquely narcissistic contempt for them, as a secondary, and in the final assessment unworthy, consideration. I never made any presumptions concerning the lives and experiences of others, you, on the other hand, simply take it for granted that you possess a superior epistemological range of awareness than those who you regard as “oppressive” or “privileged”. The source of my contention with your statements here owes to nothing more than the need to make it clear that, despite all you take for granted, you don’t understand the male perspective and your judgement upon it is nothing but an indictment on yourself. Your projections don’t define my perceptions.
I hope your son doesn’t feel obliged to agree with your prejudices against him.
The best thing is to get single men of financial means to foster and adopt boys. There are so many boys languishing in the foster system who need to be adopted by a father. Or they are even waiting to just be fostered. It is so sad. I've been observing the Manosphere for years and haven't seen any of them do this. It's not even talked about. All these lonely grown men out here crying about "boys' and men's issues" and yet none of them are fostering or adopting boys?!
I’ve been using Reeves’ work as well as Christine Emba’s WaPo article (along with the show “Sex Education”) to help my college class think about how we as a society, and they as (mostly) young people, can adapt to a changing world. So much about how we think about gender has changed so fast. It’s no wonder our collective heads are spinning. I appreciate Reeves’ work to help us all be on the side of, as he says, “human flourishing.”
In any period of change you can find anecdotes such as Rice to support your resistance to change. Eizabeth Ware Packard's husband put his perfectly sane wife in an insane asylum, rendering their 6 children motherless, because she voiced opinions different from his. In the 19th century, a woman could be incarcerated on her husband's whim alone. This has changed, in part because after she finally got out, Elizabeth campaigned for changes in the law.
"positions that define and enforce the bounds of behavior and achievement from the time we're 4 or 5 years old through retirement " Please elaborate. I"m not sure what you're talking about.
Yes, women occupy a lot more positions of influence now than in the past. If this makes you feel you're operating under a matriarchy, you're getting a hint of what it's like for females operating under the patriarchy.
Most women don't describe themselves as feminists. Of those that do, if you ask them to say what feminism means, they will say it means equality between men and women.
Its only when you go further and ask what equality looks like that it gets complicated. Because you can have equality between things that are the same, but what does equality look like when the "things" to be compared are not things at all, but complex people with a different biological make up, an evolution given mutual dependence and who exist in a dynamic relationship with eachother.
It is IMO to avoid this problem that the fundamental assumption of critical theory based feminism is that men and women are the same and the extant differences are the result of social conditioning. This absurd simplification gives rise to very poor understanding.
The science supports, and the great majority of adults think, that men and women are not the same, neither physically, in their behaviour or in their internal worlds, but they have more in common than matters that separate them and this permits their relationships.
Misogyny is a cultural discourse that degrades and humiliates women. This discourse does exist globally in various forms and with varying levels of intensity.
Probably most self defined feminists who have not been educated in critical theory, think of feminist equality simply as society respecting the full personhood of women. To them, a man who says he is not a feminist is probably a misogynist.
Critical theory feminism (woke feminism) channels some fairly sophisticated philosophy about the relationship between cognition, language and power. It is dismissive of biology and evolutionary psychology, seeing these fields as aspects of a discourse of white male power. In practice, most male opinion, unless adopting the main tenets of critical theory, is regarded as a manifestation of male power and can be dismissed on that basis. It does not regard the theory as up for debate.
The televised debate between Chomsky and Foucault is still imo the clearest demarcation of the biology based and historical
materialist view of social relations.
Chomsky criticised Foucault for his nihilism. This remains a major problem with critical theory. It can undermine and destroy, but has no coherent programme to build. It repeats the flaw of historical materialism in creating an activist cadre (similar to a priesthood) which is miraculously free of the relativism of historical materialsim by virtue of its understanding of its governing principles. It is not really interested in listening to men but is rather a faith intent on spreading its programme of radical equality through all social institutions. It has no real vision for social relations other than the adoption of a hegemonic group think, in common with the end point of all essentially communist ideologies.
For these reasons, the dilemma for men attempting to engage the womens movement in men's issues, is that the term feminism means very different things to different people. Some people you can talk to, others you can't.
My opinion is that its better to acknowledge that fact and leave the meaning of feminism to be debated within the women's movement. Men need to develop their own language. But what does matter, a lot, is for men to oppose misogynistic thinking and actions ,as women can rightly reject any movement which wants to set women back. And that is where so many of the "mens movement"
activists are going wrong. Their own misunderstanding of the sociology leads to resentment which gets the better of them. An approach of mutual respect is the best way forward.
--- Not familiar with it. I will assume it's not the same as mainstream Liberal Feminism? But I think people need to go back to basics, that is the old school Radical Feminism of the 60s and 70s.
I have high interest in this subject. It's why I acquired the book. I have a son and two daughters, five grandsons and two granddaughters. Beyond that, struggles of all men, boys, women, and girls are of high interest to me. But you are among the many men who insist women's insistence on a level playing field equates to hating men. And that's just wrong. It's an excuse for opposing feminism.
At what? Getting replaced as phone operators, service providers, and all the other jobs that a handful of men with a tool box create machines to do with greater efficiency and less maintenance cost?
Oh please. The only thing women are outcompeting men at is the race to see who can incur the most debt for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Young men are an energetic, sometimes chaotic, sometimes anarchic, sometimes narcissistic and sometimes violent force. The control systems of the frontal lobes of men do not fully develop until their mid twenties, significantly later than young women. Women may fear young men and looking at the crime statistics, may be justified in doing so, though very few young men commit serious crime. The delayed development of the young male brain is an opportunity for it to be moulded. If it is trained properly, it is an asset. If it is ignored or treated badly, the young man suffers, often for the rest of his life, and he may well externalise that suffering with force. Fatherlessness is an issue, but the right kind of fathering is important. Providing a young man with real life role models and a means of understanding his destiny is crucial to his effective transition to adulthood. We are failing on all of these points. The education system is overwhelmingly female and the dominant paradigm, even of adolescents, is mothering. Fathers are too often lost in work, family breakdown and cyclical psychological disfunction. No wonder men account for 75% of suicides. The metaphor of the level playing field carries an assumption that growing boys and girls are the same. But this view can amount to neglect. I am not sure that present cultural messaging wants boys and young men to be strong because this is associated by the womens movement with patriarchy. But boys and young men being weak is much worse. This is for men to sort out but there are only the earliest signs of them doing so, trapped as they are in a capitalist/consumerist orthodoxy that has ceased to offer a future.
Is the playing field level though? Employers are pressured to hire women and underrepresented minorities. Women run HR and DEI offices, which set the bounds by which you can operate in the workplace. The schools where they are educated are largely run by women. Women dominate college admissions offices. Even though women have not conquered the C-Suite, I would argue that conquering the positions that define and enforce the bounds of behavior and achievement from the time we're 4 or 5 years old through retirement is much, much, more important.
Lonely single men of financial means should foster and adopt boys and homeschool them. Problem solved. That solves so many issues at once: the male loneliness epidemic, family deprived foster kids and orphans get dads, along with getting dads they get their own personal educational tutors. "But what about work?" I've seen working parents pull off homeschooling. It can be done.
I read Richard's book a few months ago, and it was a profound insight into the real issues facing a generation of men being raised in the shadow of feminism. Boys and men need more representation as we are becoming ever more marginalized and disenfranchised. I would urge anybody with an concern for the long term social effects of this culture shift to not only read Richard, but to also read George Gilder's Men and Marriage. Well done Richard on the great work. More sensible voices are needed. I will be writing about this in due course.
"men being raised in the shadow of feminism. Boys and men need more representation as we are becoming ever more marginalized and disenfranchised." The reason there is feminism is that women have been raised in the shadow of an entrenched, systemic patriarchy and were for centuries, and still largely are globally, marginalized and disenfranchised. A shift in power is always painful to those who hold the power. Ask any monarch whose subjects deposed them in order to govern themselves. You perceive feminists as strident and overbearing and man-hating? Remember, power is never given away, it has to be taken, and force is usually required.
Also... you know 650,000 men died in the American civil war right? What was the casualty count of the feminist war? Someone broke a nail and a mad Englishwoman jumped in front of horse... not exactly a war. What “force” are you referring to? Women won a war against men? In what year did that occur?
That right there seems like a big part of the challenge.
Men have to care about mens health. Start there. And I mean care enough to go to the doctor and dentist. Get counseling and advocate for counseling accessibility to other people with the time to do it.
One of the big things we've learned in raising the ranks of women in the workplace is that representation matters. But if men are not availing themselves of the healthcare infrastructure (and they don't, even controlling for access to insurance) they will not see themselves as being a professional in those settings.
Don't just grow a mustache for Movember. Go to the doc and get your physical. Go to the dentist. Avail yourself of your company's EAP and do a mental wellness check up. Then be really brave and urge a buddy to do the same.
My boys need examples of men who know how to take care of their health. That's what that 'stache they so wish they could grow means.
I'd agree with going to traditional doctors, but recommending men have to go to talk therapy is just one more step in the long line of the post-60's belief that men are merely defective women. Men thrive by doing and accomplishing things with other men. If that is not the foundation to the solution for the "man problem," it's not a solution grounded in reality. Talking about your feelings may help some men, but it's useless if that man's life is not grounded in activities that give him a sense of belonging.
It's the idea that the lives of boys and men are of less concern to society because women are the reproductive bottleneck. It's a highly reproducible phenomenon in terms of how we prioritize everything from lifeboats on a sinking ship to medical research funding to suicide prevention.
"how we prioritize everything from lifeboats on a sinking ship"
If you're talking about "women & children first," it's a myth that's been widely debunked! It only happened ONE time in history & not bc of chivalry. On the Titanic the Captain ordered it & for staff to hold men back at gunpoint.
Oh, and from the article: "We have to make men young men feel like gender equality, gender equity and feminism are things that are for them"
The UN Women's organization is what successfully pushed for men to receive food last when the UN sends relief to famines and disaster areas. The women do receive enough food to feed their male family members, but single men only eat if everyone else has gotten enough food, which in famines rarely happens.
As a mother you've been put in a tough spot. If you teach your sons that gender equality means them eating last, then how do you ever expect them to prioritize their own health and go to the doctor? But if you teach them that feminism is not for gender equality then that makes you evil in the eyes of feminism.
" pushed for men to receive food last when the UN sends relief to famines and disaster areas. The women do receive enough food to feed their male family members, but single men only eat if everyone else has gotten enough food, which in famines rarely happens."
--- But single men are in families too. In most cultures single adults live with family members until they marry, and sometimes after they marry too.
Anyway, I've been in cultures where women eat last in a family as a matter of principle. Was the UN trying to counter that?
I don't think She For He is really what's needed. I think He For He would be better. Men of means should be helping poor men. Single middle class men should be fostering and adopting boys.
That's interesting to point out. In this day and age, people are very wary of biological arguments, which seems like the core basis of "expendibility." While in a physical sense, there could be an argument for legitimacy of that POV but for psychological health, it is imperitive that both genders be represented in all areas of society and be cared for. Biologically, young kids DO need to eat first. Young women HAVE to exist in order for population to continue. For stability's sake, heads of households with children SHOULD take priority over singles. (And I say this as a single!)
In my opinion, men's lack of self-worth and devaluation in Western society is a reflection of the loss of Christian worldview. When people believe that everyone is made in God's image, that includes men too. ;)
Mr. Reeves, your project is appropriately pitched from a political standpoint. Well done on that front. However, to move beyond surfaces and palliatives, we need to change the application of family laws in the courts away from prejudice and in the direction of true equity. Removing the incentives of entrenched bureaucracies benefiting from the status quo will not be easy, but unless the perverse incentives are removed, our efforts would not amount to anything more than grasping for the wind.
"However, to move beyond surfaces and palliatives, we need to change the application of family laws in the courts away from prejudice and in the direction of true equity. "
Single men of middle class means should be fostering and adopting boys. Then the courts will take notice of just how serious men are about fatherhood and raising children. He For He.
Thank you for the important work your doing.. Your pro-feminist position may bring some of the moderate feminist along. If only in small increments. It's an important piece of the Mens movement. I do realize no group gives up power easily or willingly. Fortunately for us, many of these women have husbands and sons. All of them have fathers. Feminist will never admit it, but the fact is that it was men; partnering with women that made equal rights possible. If these men could have foreseen where it lead us, I wonder if they would have been so inclined to participate.
''But where is the equivalent work to at least arrest the decline in the share of men in our classrooms, in psychotherapy, in the mental health professions?'' Instead of arresting decline, how about increasing the # of men in these fields?
''But where is the equivalent work to at least arrest the decline in the share of men in our classrooms, in psychotherapy, in the mental health professions?'' Instead of arresting decline, how about increasing the # of men in these fields?
--- Supposedly the pay grade offered is only good enough for women.
I think doing social/emotional work with boys is one way to address loneliness, feeling "adrift," and declining college participation.
I coordinate a program in SF public schools that brings middle and high school boys together to talk about masculinity, social pressures and life struggles. The boys in the group get a chance to expand their ideas about "the man box" in a safe environment where it's ok to make mistakes/change your mind about things. They also connect deeply with one another and with the facilitators, who are mostly caring, college-educated men. The result? Boys who are more supportive, more empathetic, less sexist, and more connected to school - and more likely to see themselves going to college (and maybe going into a "caring profession" like teaching or social work.)
My agreement was with Austin Thornton's post of Oct 31. I've never responded to Incel Theory.
Lance Walker's angry, immature comments provide the perfect illustration why feminism is necessary...for all the wonderful men out there (the majority) there are enough Lance Walkers to poison the discourse and society itself.
There will always be a need for someone like me so long as people like you continue to consider the existence and value of boys, and the men they will never become as a result of your uniquely narcissistic contempt for them, as a secondary, and in the final assessment unworthy, consideration. I never made any presumptions concerning the lives and experiences of others, you, on the other hand, simply take it for granted that you possess a superior epistemological range of awareness than those who you regard as “oppressive” or “privileged”. The source of my contention with your statements here owes to nothing more than the need to make it clear that, despite all you take for granted, you don’t understand the male perspective and your judgement upon it is nothing but an indictment on yourself. Your projections don’t define my perceptions.
I hope your son doesn’t feel obliged to agree with your prejudices against him.
Your thoughts have merit. I don't disagree.
A feminist agreeing with an incel?
No way! It’s almost as though feminists and incels are both cut from the same myopic cloth of perpetual resentment and messianic narcissism.
You lot deserve each other.
The best thing is to get single men of financial means to foster and adopt boys. There are so many boys languishing in the foster system who need to be adopted by a father. Or they are even waiting to just be fostered. It is so sad. I've been observing the Manosphere for years and haven't seen any of them do this. It's not even talked about. All these lonely grown men out here crying about "boys' and men's issues" and yet none of them are fostering or adopting boys?!
Make it make sense.
I’ve been using Reeves’ work as well as Christine Emba’s WaPo article (along with the show “Sex Education”) to help my college class think about how we as a society, and they as (mostly) young people, can adapt to a changing world. So much about how we think about gender has changed so fast. It’s no wonder our collective heads are spinning. I appreciate Reeves’ work to help us all be on the side of, as he says, “human flourishing.”
In any period of change you can find anecdotes such as Rice to support your resistance to change. Eizabeth Ware Packard's husband put his perfectly sane wife in an insane asylum, rendering their 6 children motherless, because she voiced opinions different from his. In the 19th century, a woman could be incarcerated on her husband's whim alone. This has changed, in part because after she finally got out, Elizabeth campaigned for changes in the law.
"positions that define and enforce the bounds of behavior and achievement from the time we're 4 or 5 years old through retirement " Please elaborate. I"m not sure what you're talking about.
Yes, women occupy a lot more positions of influence now than in the past. If this makes you feel you're operating under a matriarchy, you're getting a hint of what it's like for females operating under the patriarchy.
I hope you remind you little invalid (son) of his debts of restitution owed for his crime of being male.
Most women don't describe themselves as feminists. Of those that do, if you ask them to say what feminism means, they will say it means equality between men and women.
Its only when you go further and ask what equality looks like that it gets complicated. Because you can have equality between things that are the same, but what does equality look like when the "things" to be compared are not things at all, but complex people with a different biological make up, an evolution given mutual dependence and who exist in a dynamic relationship with eachother.
It is IMO to avoid this problem that the fundamental assumption of critical theory based feminism is that men and women are the same and the extant differences are the result of social conditioning. This absurd simplification gives rise to very poor understanding.
The science supports, and the great majority of adults think, that men and women are not the same, neither physically, in their behaviour or in their internal worlds, but they have more in common than matters that separate them and this permits their relationships.
Misogyny is a cultural discourse that degrades and humiliates women. This discourse does exist globally in various forms and with varying levels of intensity.
Probably most self defined feminists who have not been educated in critical theory, think of feminist equality simply as society respecting the full personhood of women. To them, a man who says he is not a feminist is probably a misogynist.
Critical theory feminism (woke feminism) channels some fairly sophisticated philosophy about the relationship between cognition, language and power. It is dismissive of biology and evolutionary psychology, seeing these fields as aspects of a discourse of white male power. In practice, most male opinion, unless adopting the main tenets of critical theory, is regarded as a manifestation of male power and can be dismissed on that basis. It does not regard the theory as up for debate.
The televised debate between Chomsky and Foucault is still imo the clearest demarcation of the biology based and historical
materialist view of social relations.
Chomsky criticised Foucault for his nihilism. This remains a major problem with critical theory. It can undermine and destroy, but has no coherent programme to build. It repeats the flaw of historical materialism in creating an activist cadre (similar to a priesthood) which is miraculously free of the relativism of historical materialsim by virtue of its understanding of its governing principles. It is not really interested in listening to men but is rather a faith intent on spreading its programme of radical equality through all social institutions. It has no real vision for social relations other than the adoption of a hegemonic group think, in common with the end point of all essentially communist ideologies.
For these reasons, the dilemma for men attempting to engage the womens movement in men's issues, is that the term feminism means very different things to different people. Some people you can talk to, others you can't.
My opinion is that its better to acknowledge that fact and leave the meaning of feminism to be debated within the women's movement. Men need to develop their own language. But what does matter, a lot, is for men to oppose misogynistic thinking and actions ,as women can rightly reject any movement which wants to set women back. And that is where so many of the "mens movement"
activists are going wrong. Their own misunderstanding of the sociology leads to resentment which gets the better of them. An approach of mutual respect is the best way forward.
"Critical theory feminism (woke feminism) ..."
--- Not familiar with it. I will assume it's not the same as mainstream Liberal Feminism? But I think people need to go back to basics, that is the old school Radical Feminism of the 60s and 70s.
I have high interest in this subject. It's why I acquired the book. I have a son and two daughters, five grandsons and two granddaughters. Beyond that, struggles of all men, boys, women, and girls are of high interest to me. But you are among the many men who insist women's insistence on a level playing field equates to hating men. And that's just wrong. It's an excuse for opposing feminism.
Hang on Mimi, don’t you mean: “I have an invalide and two daughters”?
It's not level. It's more nearly level than it used to be.
Seems one logical conclusion is that, on a more nearly level playing field, women outcompete men.
At what? Getting replaced as phone operators, service providers, and all the other jobs that a handful of men with a tool box create machines to do with greater efficiency and less maintenance cost?
Oh please. The only thing women are outcompeting men at is the race to see who can incur the most debt for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Young men are an energetic, sometimes chaotic, sometimes anarchic, sometimes narcissistic and sometimes violent force. The control systems of the frontal lobes of men do not fully develop until their mid twenties, significantly later than young women. Women may fear young men and looking at the crime statistics, may be justified in doing so, though very few young men commit serious crime. The delayed development of the young male brain is an opportunity for it to be moulded. If it is trained properly, it is an asset. If it is ignored or treated badly, the young man suffers, often for the rest of his life, and he may well externalise that suffering with force. Fatherlessness is an issue, but the right kind of fathering is important. Providing a young man with real life role models and a means of understanding his destiny is crucial to his effective transition to adulthood. We are failing on all of these points. The education system is overwhelmingly female and the dominant paradigm, even of adolescents, is mothering. Fathers are too often lost in work, family breakdown and cyclical psychological disfunction. No wonder men account for 75% of suicides. The metaphor of the level playing field carries an assumption that growing boys and girls are the same. But this view can amount to neglect. I am not sure that present cultural messaging wants boys and young men to be strong because this is associated by the womens movement with patriarchy. But boys and young men being weak is much worse. This is for men to sort out but there are only the earliest signs of them doing so, trapped as they are in a capitalist/consumerist orthodoxy that has ceased to offer a future.
Speaks in male: *bark* *bark*
Is the playing field level though? Employers are pressured to hire women and underrepresented minorities. Women run HR and DEI offices, which set the bounds by which you can operate in the workplace. The schools where they are educated are largely run by women. Women dominate college admissions offices. Even though women have not conquered the C-Suite, I would argue that conquering the positions that define and enforce the bounds of behavior and achievement from the time we're 4 or 5 years old through retirement is much, much, more important.
Lonely single men of financial means should foster and adopt boys and homeschool them. Problem solved. That solves so many issues at once: the male loneliness epidemic, family deprived foster kids and orphans get dads, along with getting dads they get their own personal educational tutors. "But what about work?" I've seen working parents pull off homeschooling. It can be done.
I read Richard's book a few months ago, and it was a profound insight into the real issues facing a generation of men being raised in the shadow of feminism. Boys and men need more representation as we are becoming ever more marginalized and disenfranchised. I would urge anybody with an concern for the long term social effects of this culture shift to not only read Richard, but to also read George Gilder's Men and Marriage. Well done Richard on the great work. More sensible voices are needed. I will be writing about this in due course.
"men being raised in the shadow of feminism. Boys and men need more representation as we are becoming ever more marginalized and disenfranchised." The reason there is feminism is that women have been raised in the shadow of an entrenched, systemic patriarchy and were for centuries, and still largely are globally, marginalized and disenfranchised. A shift in power is always painful to those who hold the power. Ask any monarch whose subjects deposed them in order to govern themselves. You perceive feminists as strident and overbearing and man-hating? Remember, power is never given away, it has to be taken, and force is usually required.
Also... you know 650,000 men died in the American civil war right? What was the casualty count of the feminist war? Someone broke a nail and a mad Englishwoman jumped in front of horse... not exactly a war. What “force” are you referring to? Women won a war against men? In what year did that occur?
Boys should be beheaded, you’re absolutely right! And good for you for understanding what it means to be “on the right side of history”.
Do most men want (or care about) #Sheforhe?
What does women's allyship look like and does it help or hinder the conversation or spaces men want to create?
Why is the head of Movember female?
That right there seems like a big part of the challenge.
Men have to care about mens health. Start there. And I mean care enough to go to the doctor and dentist. Get counseling and advocate for counseling accessibility to other people with the time to do it.
One of the big things we've learned in raising the ranks of women in the workplace is that representation matters. But if men are not availing themselves of the healthcare infrastructure (and they don't, even controlling for access to insurance) they will not see themselves as being a professional in those settings.
Don't just grow a mustache for Movember. Go to the doc and get your physical. Go to the dentist. Avail yourself of your company's EAP and do a mental wellness check up. Then be really brave and urge a buddy to do the same.
My boys need examples of men who know how to take care of their health. That's what that 'stache they so wish they could grow means.
I'd agree with going to traditional doctors, but recommending men have to go to talk therapy is just one more step in the long line of the post-60's belief that men are merely defective women. Men thrive by doing and accomplishing things with other men. If that is not the foundation to the solution for the "man problem," it's not a solution grounded in reality. Talking about your feelings may help some men, but it's useless if that man's life is not grounded in activities that give him a sense of belonging.
"Men thrive by doing and accomplishing things with other men."
Exactly why they need to be adopting boys.
You might be interested in a sociological/psychological phenomenon called male disposability, see:
https://quillette.com/2019/06/03/considering-the-male-disposability-hypothesis
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability
It's the idea that the lives of boys and men are of less concern to society because women are the reproductive bottleneck. It's a highly reproducible phenomenon in terms of how we prioritize everything from lifeboats on a sinking ship to medical research funding to suicide prevention.
"how we prioritize everything from lifeboats on a sinking ship"
If you're talking about "women & children first," it's a myth that's been widely debunked! It only happened ONE time in history & not bc of chivalry. On the Titanic the Captain ordered it & for staff to hold men back at gunpoint.
Oh, and from the article: "We have to make men young men feel like gender equality, gender equity and feminism are things that are for them"
The UN Women's organization is what successfully pushed for men to receive food last when the UN sends relief to famines and disaster areas. The women do receive enough food to feed their male family members, but single men only eat if everyone else has gotten enough food, which in famines rarely happens.
As a mother you've been put in a tough spot. If you teach your sons that gender equality means them eating last, then how do you ever expect them to prioritize their own health and go to the doctor? But if you teach them that feminism is not for gender equality then that makes you evil in the eyes of feminism.
It's not a tough spot bc our sons aren't in a famine or disaster area, they're comfortably playing video games & eating Cheetos.
" pushed for men to receive food last when the UN sends relief to famines and disaster areas. The women do receive enough food to feed their male family members, but single men only eat if everyone else has gotten enough food, which in famines rarely happens."
--- But single men are in families too. In most cultures single adults live with family members until they marry, and sometimes after they marry too.
Anyway, I've been in cultures where women eat last in a family as a matter of principle. Was the UN trying to counter that?
I don't think She For He is really what's needed. I think He For He would be better. Men of means should be helping poor men. Single middle class men should be fostering and adopting boys.
That's interesting to point out. In this day and age, people are very wary of biological arguments, which seems like the core basis of "expendibility." While in a physical sense, there could be an argument for legitimacy of that POV but for psychological health, it is imperitive that both genders be represented in all areas of society and be cared for. Biologically, young kids DO need to eat first. Young women HAVE to exist in order for population to continue. For stability's sake, heads of households with children SHOULD take priority over singles. (And I say this as a single!)
In my opinion, men's lack of self-worth and devaluation in Western society is a reflection of the loss of Christian worldview. When people believe that everyone is made in God's image, that includes men too. ;)
Mr. Reeves, your project is appropriately pitched from a political standpoint. Well done on that front. However, to move beyond surfaces and palliatives, we need to change the application of family laws in the courts away from prejudice and in the direction of true equity. Removing the incentives of entrenched bureaucracies benefiting from the status quo will not be easy, but unless the perverse incentives are removed, our efforts would not amount to anything more than grasping for the wind.
"However, to move beyond surfaces and palliatives, we need to change the application of family laws in the courts away from prejudice and in the direction of true equity. "
Single men of middle class means should be fostering and adopting boys. Then the courts will take notice of just how serious men are about fatherhood and raising children. He For He.
Thank you for the important work your doing.. Your pro-feminist position may bring some of the moderate feminist along. If only in small increments. It's an important piece of the Mens movement. I do realize no group gives up power easily or willingly. Fortunately for us, many of these women have husbands and sons. All of them have fathers. Feminist will never admit it, but the fact is that it was men; partnering with women that made equal rights possible. If these men could have foreseen where it lead us, I wonder if they would have been so inclined to participate.
''But where is the equivalent work to at least arrest the decline in the share of men in our classrooms, in psychotherapy, in the mental health professions?'' Instead of arresting decline, how about increasing the # of men in these fields?
''But where is the equivalent work to at least arrest the decline in the share of men in our classrooms, in psychotherapy, in the mental health professions?'' Instead of arresting decline, how about increasing the # of men in these fields?
--- Supposedly the pay grade offered is only good enough for women.