How can you say that when there IS affirmative action? Gender cuotas for women? DEI policies that favour women? 1000s of million for women orgs? When "boy" scouts are not longer only for "boys" and "Girls" scouts are still only for Girls?
This IS not the only factor but It IS a factor for sure.
Correct. Then there is the fact that the feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. I have seen videos where a man did a resume with his first name on it, then did another resume with a similar woman's name on it. (For example, David and Davida, or Robert and Roberta, etc.) the resumes with the woman's name on it got nine times more call-backs than the resume with the man's name on it.
In my much younger days, the 1950s and ’60s, few women went to medical school, and the vast majority of doctors were men. Women, on the other hand, were the ones who primarily became nurses. But being an MD had more prestige --and provided more money -- than being a nurse, and the women’s movement said to girls and young women, in effect, “You don’t have to just be a nurse. You can be a doctor!” And girls and young women heeded the call. Today, the majority of medical students are women.
Today we seem to be saying to our sons (but not our daughters), “You don’t have to be a doctor. You can be a nurse!”
Nurses are wonderful, no question. But they do defer to doctors. Maybe the idea of men now being asked to systematically defer to women is appealing to many, but I think it may ultimately pose some problems for gender relations. But I’m an old guy with old ideas. I guess young boys should welcome with open arms the notion that, as the tee shirts say, “The Future is Female.”
The majority of doctors are still men and the majority of nurses still women. That said, any nurse who has a problem defering to women has no place in medicine/healthcare. It also means they won't take female patients seriously.
This assumes that men can earn an income to support a family of four - which is what both men and women want. Further, it assumes that a man can find a woman that makes equal to or preferably less than that income. These things just simply don't exist any more. You are trying to force men into roles that evolution simply will undermine - women will NOT be attracted to men doing these roles (considered feminine in terms of culture, and unable to give men the "provider" role they desire, the same role that women desire). Until our brains evolve over another 100 million years into different sets of impulses and desires, we are doing nothing but fighting against our nature - and we will lose. The solution is to provide men with higher paying and more prestigious jobs than women (sorry Feminism!). Women will be attracted to those men focused primarily on providing better than they could themselves (exceptions proving the rule), and be (exceptions proving the rule) happy in the role as primary for homemaking). The fact that feminist ideology hasn't been challenged in the last 50 years will make this idea seem anathema. Too bad.
The "pay gap" is an entirely made up myth, one of many offered by Feminists that for some reason no one in the last 50 years didn't bother to subject to the rigor of academic peer review until now.
Most men and women want traditional roles. The idea that women (anyone for that matter) can have it all without making hard choices (career OR family) is inane.
Depends on what you mean by "traditional roles". That term is bantied about on the internet by everyone from you, me, to Texan Taliban supporters like Daniel Haqiqatjou, and we all have different ideas about it.
Pleny of couples are happy and healthy doing 50/50. Others are happy with different ratios. Some are happy with a househusband set up.
What is evident though is that many men do not want to be the sole provider and do expect wives to contribute financially as well. This is a complaint by a cohert of women who are looking specifically for "provider men" and are dismayed at how few of them there are out there. But if you knew what these women think about men and how they go about "securing the bag" you wouldn't like it and I'm not providing links. It's an internet sub-culture and you can find it if you really want to. With the cost of living and housing as it is now I don't see many couples living on 1 income alone.
A male nurse anesthetist will make well above average just like a nurse practitioner, a cardiac Cath nurse, and many other nursing jobs. In addition, the male nurse will be in a working environment surrounded by women who are also high earners.
And every straight male nurse I ever worked with was married or in a relationship with a woman.
So, your saying a female nurse will simply randomly choose between the doctor who is interested and a colleague who has the same job and pay? The female nurse would have no increased probability of interest in a doctor with higher status and income? Really? Women are just randomly attracted to men based merely on height, sense of humor and a square chin? That actually sounds like male preferences - men typically don't care about the status and finances of a woman. A female might date on her level, but a female nurse is not going to date the janitor, she is going for the doctor. Does your counter example go for all professions, as it must if it is not an exception that proves the rule? Are men and women going to have equal, random attraction in general, i.e., women will date down as long as the guy is hot?
Maybe as a fling, but not a serious relationship. Men would, on the other hand, be fine with an attractive female with far less status and income. It's just common sense, as well as evolutionary biology, that tells us exactly where the supply and demand would go.
If one believes that physicians marry nurses just demonstrates that one knows nothing about healthcare workers and the workplace. Physicians marry physicians or other professional graduate school level types. My PCP is married to a hedge fund quant. My dentist (female) is married to an ENT Surgeon. My optomitrist is married to an SES in the DOD.
When working in healthcare, I was amazed of how many physicians were married to other physicians. One had to mention the Mr or Mrs when mentioning many of the physicians since their spouse was also a healthcare provider.
And assortative mating and eliminated the idea of the trophy wife. That is why the college educated whites do not like Trump, he has had three trophy wives.
Did you know why there is the American Association of Men in Nursing? Because of discrimination against men in nursing by female nursing managers. Discrimination against men is openly practiced by the feminists in Human Resources in a wide variety of occupations.
2024 called and wants feminist bigotry and discrimination against men ended.
And how are men being discriminated against in schools and at universities. Any selective university that is 50% male is probably using affirmative action for men.
Open your eyes and your mind. There are many female-only programs at many colleges. The feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. Let's now look at discrimination that favors women: male-only military draft registration, and female-only reproductive rights.
Imagine a feminist like you posting on a page that is supposed to be advocating for men.
You are either an embarrassing ignoramus or a liar if you are seriously trying to assert that there are no female only programs at Universities let alone the female only polices and initiatives for K-12.
Go to the website of California State University, East Bay campus. There is a Women in Leadership program. There is a Women on the Rise program. There is a Women's Studies program. Now search for "men" on the site, and you will see a "male privilege checklist", and the men's football team, etc. Quite a difference.
1. Female teachers are marking higher female students
2. Millons of dollars and institutions to close the Fender gaps that favour men. No money to close those that favour women.
3. Afirmative action has been playing in favour of women for 4 decades now.in Europe we re even impose a female quota when there are less females (not the other way around).
4. 1000s of female scholarships more than men.
5. Even in Sports they are discriminating against men: when there are no sufricient females, the uni cancels the sport _not the other way around
Affirmative action has not favored women at selective universities in years. In 2024, men get slight affirmative action at most selective and highly selective universities. A good example is that Harvard is 50/50 while UNC-Chapel Hill is 60% female.
Also, one should look up Simpson's Paradox. Women have had a harder time for decades.
There are few official female only scholarships.
And the argument on athletics and Title IX is that offering more opportunity for women in sports created the interest and participation. That has been shown to be true.
So discrimintion 100 yeara ago is solved by discrimintion now. Hence the reason why young men are being left behind. Young men do not benefit from the discrimintion 100 yearas ago. You have answered yourself. Period.
Men are not being left behind by discrimination. Men are being left behind because women, when given the chance, raced by men. That is one of the major points of the book. Also, many families have failed to understand that females in education and occupations have raced past men and want to operate as if we are still living in the 1950's.
5. Groups And public programes of females in STEM. Nones of males in HEAL.
6. DEI at work: eg. BGO (a major invesent fund) IS recruiting females and minorities in 2/3 (sic!!!) of new recruiters!!! Who benefited? White women mostly.
Except that fraternities exist. If one would review "Paying for the Party" by Armstrong and Hamilton, one would note the real discrimination in Greek organizations is white frats/sororities versus non-white Greek organizations.
Also, being on the sorority/party track means that lots of women are knocked off the professional/management track.
Hmmm. First reaction was the old male bias... do we need this? And yet, as soon as I started reading and getting it, it struck me as how vital and timely this is!
Getting more males into the healing professions is a great idea but what must happen first is to fix the misandry in graduate programs. The anti-male atmosphere of many grad schools for psychotherapists is overwhelming. To expect young men to want to go into that gauntlet is irresponsible until we can fix the existing profound feminist bias of these institutions.
I think your “what must happen first” framing is unproductive.
We can foster more inclusive environments for men (and women) while also encouraging them to see themselves for all that they can be. Each effort will help the other.
I am guessing that you are not aware of the depth of misandry at these schools. I am very aware since I have had relatives who were attending the grad schools in the recent past and have let me know what sort of things are going on. The men are afraid to say anything for fear of being labelled and dismissed. None of the females will stand up for the mistreated males. The males are routinely blamed for the ills of the world, and shouted down as misogynists if they stand up for men and boys. It's a mess. In 2003 there was some research done on this. I din't think the same sort of study could be done today but here is a quote from that study:
These respondents asserted that the instructors unfairly reinforced this“status”: “It’s like some instructors hate white male students—like we’re the ones responsible for discrimination.” Or, as another student forcefully stated, “I am sick and tired of apologizing for having a penis!” These views dovetail with the survey finding that the male students were significantly more likely to select concern about being viewed as sexist by the instructor.
I’m not disputing that there are cultural problems in many of these schools. I’m saying that we should take a “yes and” approach and work on more than one problem at once.
The issue is that men in graduate school need to function like academics and use studies, research, and cites to back up whatever they say instead of being BS'ers.
In studies of college students, many students complain that the white male students make statements that are not backed up with cites or references and just try to BS their way through class. It is major complaint in any class that requires discussion.
What studies of college students? Were these studies conducted by feminists? Did the students also complain that white men account for 75% of U.S. suicides, along with the fact that there are no governmental efforts to address that disparity?
And since when haven’t they been doing that? Male physicists have to make way more citations than female physicists for the same positions for example.
This seems like a great book for those concerned about:
(a) the "boys falling behind" problem at all levels of education and/or
(b) certain types of preventable (and treatable) mental health and/or emotional health issues that have greater incidence in boys and men.
Trump's untreated learning disability (as called out by his sister and his niece) as well as Biden's treated childhood stutter (which my father, also from the "Silent Generation", had too) might be helped (or even prevented) by this . . . together with more fathers taking a generous stint as primary responsible parent very early in children's lives and learning emotionally available and relational parenting skills (sometimes "emotional literacy").
I have feelings about this! One the one hand, I'm a mom of 4 sons who has written about & advocated for boys for 20+ yrs. I'm a long-time fan of your work and ABSOLUTELY AGREE that we need more men in HEAL professions, for all the reasons you say. I also think a book like this is an excellent opportunity to introduce boys to careers. AND, as a woman who is also a nurse (and was a nurse before she was a mom, before she transitioned to writing), I feel a kind of sinking feeling seeing men celebrated as pioneers in nursing. That feeling surprises me b/c I broadly support this project. I also know that men disproportionately got (& still get) promoted to positions of power and influence in nursing and other female-heavy professions (like education) for all the reasons that happens in non-female dominiated professions (societal bias to seeing males as authority figures, females still have most responsiblity for family caregiving etc.) I want boys to see men in HEAL professions. I want to celebrate all humans who make amazing contributions. Somehow, we need to share that whole messy story with our kids.
This is a great mini thesis statement - love it: "We have to learn from our past and imagine a new future. And maybe paying some attention to boys is the next frontier for gender equity." Thank you for sharing this great resource.
Excellent! I was recently in a bookstore in San Francisco, and I noticed that there were many inspirational books for girls, yet almost none for boys. This is sorely needed. I can't wait to read it and share it with others. Bravo Jonathan and Richard.
How can you say that when there IS affirmative action? Gender cuotas for women? DEI policies that favour women? 1000s of million for women orgs? When "boy" scouts are not longer only for "boys" and "Girls" scouts are still only for Girls?
This IS not the only factor but It IS a factor for sure.
Correct. Then there is the fact that the feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. I have seen videos where a man did a resume with his first name on it, then did another resume with a similar woman's name on it. (For example, David and Davida, or Robert and Roberta, etc.) the resumes with the woman's name on it got nine times more call-backs than the resume with the man's name on it.
She can STEM and he can HEAL but part of STEM, the M, is H.
In my much younger days, the 1950s and ’60s, few women went to medical school, and the vast majority of doctors were men. Women, on the other hand, were the ones who primarily became nurses. But being an MD had more prestige --and provided more money -- than being a nurse, and the women’s movement said to girls and young women, in effect, “You don’t have to just be a nurse. You can be a doctor!” And girls and young women heeded the call. Today, the majority of medical students are women.
Today we seem to be saying to our sons (but not our daughters), “You don’t have to be a doctor. You can be a nurse!”
Nurses are wonderful, no question. But they do defer to doctors. Maybe the idea of men now being asked to systematically defer to women is appealing to many, but I think it may ultimately pose some problems for gender relations. But I’m an old guy with old ideas. I guess young boys should welcome with open arms the notion that, as the tee shirts say, “The Future is Female.”
"The future is female"? Sounds like Hitler saying, "The future is Aryan". Sane boys and men are repelled by feminist female supremacy and bigotry.
The majority of doctors are still men and the majority of nurses still women. That said, any nurse who has a problem defering to women has no place in medicine/healthcare. It also means they won't take female patients seriously.
Nobody takes man-hating feminist bigots like you seriously.
This assumes that men can earn an income to support a family of four - which is what both men and women want. Further, it assumes that a man can find a woman that makes equal to or preferably less than that income. These things just simply don't exist any more. You are trying to force men into roles that evolution simply will undermine - women will NOT be attracted to men doing these roles (considered feminine in terms of culture, and unable to give men the "provider" role they desire, the same role that women desire). Until our brains evolve over another 100 million years into different sets of impulses and desires, we are doing nothing but fighting against our nature - and we will lose. The solution is to provide men with higher paying and more prestigious jobs than women (sorry Feminism!). Women will be attracted to those men focused primarily on providing better than they could themselves (exceptions proving the rule), and be (exceptions proving the rule) happy in the role as primary for homemaking). The fact that feminist ideology hasn't been challenged in the last 50 years will make this idea seem anathema. Too bad.
"This assumes that men can earn an income to support a family of four - which is what both men and women want. "
--- You're implying that women are underpaid.
Everyone outside of the 1% is underpaid.
The "pay gap" is an entirely made up myth, one of many offered by Feminists that for some reason no one in the last 50 years didn't bother to subject to the rigor of academic peer review until now.
Most men and women want traditional roles. The idea that women (anyone for that matter) can have it all without making hard choices (career OR family) is inane.
Depends on what you mean by "traditional roles". That term is bantied about on the internet by everyone from you, me, to Texan Taliban supporters like Daniel Haqiqatjou, and we all have different ideas about it.
Pleny of couples are happy and healthy doing 50/50. Others are happy with different ratios. Some are happy with a househusband set up.
What is evident though is that many men do not want to be the sole provider and do expect wives to contribute financially as well. This is a complaint by a cohert of women who are looking specifically for "provider men" and are dismayed at how few of them there are out there. But if you knew what these women think about men and how they go about "securing the bag" you wouldn't like it and I'm not providing links. It's an internet sub-culture and you can find it if you really want to. With the cost of living and housing as it is now I don't see many couples living on 1 income alone.
Yes, there has been a rug pulled out from under men and women, with no upside. We had something both sexes liked and we flushed it.
A male nurse anesthetist will make well above average just like a nurse practitioner, a cardiac Cath nurse, and many other nursing jobs. In addition, the male nurse will be in a working environment surrounded by women who are also high earners.
And every straight male nurse I ever worked with was married or in a relationship with a woman.
The 1950's called and wants its steroetypes back.
So, your saying a female nurse will simply randomly choose between the doctor who is interested and a colleague who has the same job and pay? The female nurse would have no increased probability of interest in a doctor with higher status and income? Really? Women are just randomly attracted to men based merely on height, sense of humor and a square chin? That actually sounds like male preferences - men typically don't care about the status and finances of a woman. A female might date on her level, but a female nurse is not going to date the janitor, she is going for the doctor. Does your counter example go for all professions, as it must if it is not an exception that proves the rule? Are men and women going to have equal, random attraction in general, i.e., women will date down as long as the guy is hot?
Maybe as a fling, but not a serious relationship. Men would, on the other hand, be fine with an attractive female with far less status and income. It's just common sense, as well as evolutionary biology, that tells us exactly where the supply and demand would go.
If one believes that physicians marry nurses just demonstrates that one knows nothing about healthcare workers and the workplace. Physicians marry physicians or other professional graduate school level types. My PCP is married to a hedge fund quant. My dentist (female) is married to an ENT Surgeon. My optomitrist is married to an SES in the DOD.
When working in healthcare, I was amazed of how many physicians were married to other physicians. One had to mention the Mr or Mrs when mentioning many of the physicians since their spouse was also a healthcare provider.
And assortative mating and eliminated the idea of the trophy wife. That is why the college educated whites do not like Trump, he has had three trophy wives.
Did you know why there is the American Association of Men in Nursing? Because of discrimination against men in nursing by female nursing managers. Discrimination against men is openly practiced by the feminists in Human Resources in a wide variety of occupations.
2024 called and wants feminist bigotry and discrimination against men ended.
The solution IS stop discriminating men at school and universities (and Jobs) with afirmative actions.
You are right. Plus the feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men, and make no effort to hide it.
And how are men being discriminated against in schools and at universities. Any selective university that is 50% male is probably using affirmative action for men.
Open your eyes and your mind. There are many female-only programs at many colleges. The feminists in Human Resources openly discriminate against men. Let's now look at discrimination that favors women: male-only military draft registration, and female-only reproductive rights.
Imagine a feminist like you posting on a page that is supposed to be advocating for men.
There are no female only programs at universities. Males and females have the same ability to pick a major. Look it up.
You are either an embarrassing ignoramus or a liar if you are seriously trying to assert that there are no female only programs at Universities let alone the female only polices and initiatives for K-12.
One should provide a link for it. Remember what killed Take Your Daughter to Work Day.
Go to the website of California State University, East Bay campus. There is a Women in Leadership program. There is a Women on the Rise program. There is a Women's Studies program. Now search for "men" on the site, and you will see a "male privilege checklist", and the men's football team, etc. Quite a difference.
But the argument would be that men are allowed to major in Women's studies. Just like women can major in physics but few do.
False. The top is always 50/50.
1. Female teachers are marking higher female students
2. Millons of dollars and institutions to close the Fender gaps that favour men. No money to close those that favour women.
3. Afirmative action has been playing in favour of women for 4 decades now.in Europe we re even impose a female quota when there are less females (not the other way around).
4. 1000s of female scholarships more than men.
5. Even in Sports they are discriminating against men: when there are no sufricient females, the uni cancels the sport _not the other way around
Affirmative action has not favored women at selective universities in years. In 2024, men get slight affirmative action at most selective and highly selective universities. A good example is that Harvard is 50/50 while UNC-Chapel Hill is 60% female.
Also, one should look up Simpson's Paradox. Women have had a harder time for decades.
There are few official female only scholarships.
And the argument on athletics and Title IX is that offering more opportunity for women in sports created the interest and participation. That has been shown to be true.
So discrimintion 100 yeara ago is solved by discrimintion now. Hence the reason why young men are being left behind. Young men do not benefit from the discrimintion 100 yearas ago. You have answered yourself. Period.
Men are not being left behind by discrimination. Men are being left behind because women, when given the chance, raced by men. That is one of the major points of the book. Also, many families have failed to understand that females in education and occupations have raced past men and want to operate as if we are still living in the 1950's.
Exactly. Thank you.
5. Groups And public programes of females in STEM. Nones of males in HEAL.
6. DEI at work: eg. BGO (a major invesent fund) IS recruiting females and minorities in 2/3 (sic!!!) of new recruiters!!! Who benefited? White women mostly.
One is behind the times.
https://nursejournal.org/resources/financial-aid/nursing-scholarships-for-men/
7 Sorority IS a public form of discrimintion
Except that fraternities exist. If one would review "Paying for the Party" by Armstrong and Hamilton, one would note the real discrimination in Greek organizations is white frats/sororities versus non-white Greek organizations.
Also, being on the sorority/party track means that lots of women are knocked off the professional/management track.
Hmmm. First reaction was the old male bias... do we need this? And yet, as soon as I started reading and getting it, it struck me as how vital and timely this is!
The aim of the regime is to destroy men and boys so that they are a diminished section of the population.
Getting more males into the healing professions is a great idea but what must happen first is to fix the misandry in graduate programs. The anti-male atmosphere of many grad schools for psychotherapists is overwhelming. To expect young men to want to go into that gauntlet is irresponsible until we can fix the existing profound feminist bias of these institutions.
I think your “what must happen first” framing is unproductive.
We can foster more inclusive environments for men (and women) while also encouraging them to see themselves for all that they can be. Each effort will help the other.
I am guessing that you are not aware of the depth of misandry at these schools. I am very aware since I have had relatives who were attending the grad schools in the recent past and have let me know what sort of things are going on. The men are afraid to say anything for fear of being labelled and dismissed. None of the females will stand up for the mistreated males. The males are routinely blamed for the ills of the world, and shouted down as misogynists if they stand up for men and boys. It's a mess. In 2003 there was some research done on this. I din't think the same sort of study could be done today but here is a quote from that study:
These respondents asserted that the instructors unfairly reinforced this“status”: “It’s like some instructors hate white male students—like we’re the ones responsible for discrimination.” Or, as another student forcefully stated, “I am sick and tired of apologizing for having a penis!” These views dovetail with the survey finding that the male students were significantly more likely to select concern about being viewed as sexist by the instructor.
Remember this is 2003 long before things got so bad. Heres a link to that study if you are interested https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/0886109903018002008
I’m not disputing that there are cultural problems in many of these schools. I’m saying that we should take a “yes and” approach and work on more than one problem at once.
The issue is that men in graduate school need to function like academics and use studies, research, and cites to back up whatever they say instead of being BS'ers.
Your misandry and female chauvinism is obvious and telling. Image such persons posting on a forum dedicated to advancing men.
In studies of college students, many students complain that the white male students make statements that are not backed up with cites or references and just try to BS their way through class. It is major complaint in any class that requires discussion.
What studies of college students? Were these studies conducted by feminists? Did the students also complain that white men account for 75% of U.S. suicides, along with the fact that there are no governmental efforts to address that disparity?
And since when haven’t they been doing that? Male physicists have to make way more citations than female physicists for the same positions for example.
Yes, both men and women need to do this....and not harbor gynocentric blame and disdain for a birth group.
Nice - though a quick correction: even in the midst of the pandemic, the arts and creative industries contributed $1.1trillion (4.4%) of US GDP (https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2023/new-data-show-economic-activity-us-arts-cultural-sector-2021), and as long as we're including the UK, the GDP percentage is even higher at 5.6% during the same period. Not to be sniffed at!
This seems like a great book for those concerned about:
(a) the "boys falling behind" problem at all levels of education and/or
(b) certain types of preventable (and treatable) mental health and/or emotional health issues that have greater incidence in boys and men.
Trump's untreated learning disability (as called out by his sister and his niece) as well as Biden's treated childhood stutter (which my father, also from the "Silent Generation", had too) might be helped (or even prevented) by this . . . together with more fathers taking a generous stint as primary responsible parent very early in children's lives and learning emotionally available and relational parenting skills (sometimes "emotional literacy").
I have feelings about this! One the one hand, I'm a mom of 4 sons who has written about & advocated for boys for 20+ yrs. I'm a long-time fan of your work and ABSOLUTELY AGREE that we need more men in HEAL professions, for all the reasons you say. I also think a book like this is an excellent opportunity to introduce boys to careers. AND, as a woman who is also a nurse (and was a nurse before she was a mom, before she transitioned to writing), I feel a kind of sinking feeling seeing men celebrated as pioneers in nursing. That feeling surprises me b/c I broadly support this project. I also know that men disproportionately got (& still get) promoted to positions of power and influence in nursing and other female-heavy professions (like education) for all the reasons that happens in non-female dominiated professions (societal bias to seeing males as authority figures, females still have most responsiblity for family caregiving etc.) I want boys to see men in HEAL professions. I want to celebrate all humans who make amazing contributions. Somehow, we need to share that whole messy story with our kids.
This is a great mini thesis statement - love it: "We have to learn from our past and imagine a new future. And maybe paying some attention to boys is the next frontier for gender equity." Thank you for sharing this great resource.
Excellent! I was recently in a bookstore in San Francisco, and I noticed that there were many inspirational books for girls, yet almost none for boys. This is sorely needed. I can't wait to read it and share it with others. Bravo Jonathan and Richard.