To continue my comment - the unfortunate reality is that we as a society have not acknowledged this trend, which is far more evident among the working classes / lower middle classes….
What you argue is so true for India also. I worked with women / girls education through the 1980s and 1990s - that’s when I realised we need to work with / include boys / men in our work. Rural girls often argued that unless men feel as empowered through education / collective action - the gender dynamics will not change. But, apart from few lone voices like mine - government and NGOs continue to be Girls / women focused…. We have reached a point where more girls enter secondary / higher secondary than boys, more women enrol in higher education and many many more men / boys dropped out, doing “nothing” and joining the populist brigades roaming the streets.
I read the Politico piece. My favorite line - "When problems are neglected, they metastasize into grievances. And grievances can be weaponized in service of reactionary goals" I have seen this in India and in the U.S. America has a real historical problem with processing male anger. We need to get boys involved in their local communities with men to expand their role model exposure. Much of this anger may stem from the fact that older men are not helping/mentoring younger men as they once did...the old boys' network is gone...but what replaces it? Luck?
The Democratic Party admits, right on their web site, that they serve women, but not men. By the "old boys' network, did you mean fraternal organizations like the Elks Club and the Lions' Club? They went away after feminists invaded them.
Much good material - one hopes it will succeed. Still, there are some "fuzzier" obstacles in the way. First, many women, but fewer men, will vote for a "Life of Julia"-style program, i.e. "a state that takes care of its people from cradle to grave."* To the extent that the Dem program is "we will take care of you and keep you safe," that is a turn-off to men who would prefer to see themselves in the role of safekeepers and protectors.
Second, as can be seen in the angry quote-tweets and most-liked comments of any story on this topic** (as I know Mr. Reeves is aware), there is a powerful and vocal faction of the Dems (including a great many of those progressive young women, many of whom also suffer from mental illness - not mutually exclusive categories by any means***), who respond to any interest in male affairs with some variation of "these whiny entitled young men are so horrible and privileged. They need to shut up, step back and get over themselves." Believe me, many men are aware of the views of these women and are not particularly eager to share a political coalition with them!
The Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't give a damn about men. They created the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which violate the rights of men under the Equal Protection Clause. Back in February, Biden gave $100,000,000 of taxpayer funds to a White House Initiative for Women's Health Research, and zero dollars for men's health research. They are interested in the life of Julia, but not the life of Jules.
As I understand it, the subject of our discussion has primarily been focused on education, so I thought it would be helpful to provide some relevant statistics:
Currently, there are over 3,842,796 teachers employed in the United States. Of these, 74.3% are women, while 25.7% are men. The gender imbalance is particularly notable at the elementary level, where 89% of teachers are women. In middle schools, 72% of teachers are women, and in secondary or high schools, the figure is 60%.
It is much the same in my country, Australia: the gender difference is more pronounced at the primary level (82.1% female) than at secondary level (61.4% female).
Interestingly, in Eastern Asia, the percentage of female teachers at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels was 97.31%, 95.27%, and 97.89%, respectively, in 2020.
It seems clear that the gender imbalance in teaching is a global issue, particularly at the earlier levels of education. The only real hope to improve educational outcomes for boys may be to increase the proportion of male teachers. However, to my knowledge, there is no country actively pursuing this as a policy priority, despite the evident need.
The lack of male representation in teaching, especially in formative years, is a concern that should be addressed if we truly want to create an inclusive and balanced educational environment for all students. This imbalance not only affects how boys perceive their role models but may also impact how they engage with education as a whole.
As a concluding thought, I would like to suggest a radical reform to address the challenges we face in education: the development of a globally accessible, externally driven educational platform—something akin to Wikipedia, but focused on a structured, comprehensive curriculum. Such a system would provide a vast range of educational content in multiple languages, accessible to students worldwide, and would enable them to specialize and follow their own paths while maintaining a disciplined approach.
The idea is to create a curriculum that is flexible yet structured, allowing students to explore areas of interest while ensuring that they meet rigorous academic standards. Unlike the current rigid systems that often fail to adapt to individual needs, this platform would offer students the opportunity to develop skills that are directly aligned with market demand and employer needs, making education more responsive to real-world requirements.
This approach could democratize education, providing high-quality learning opportunities to students regardless of their geographical location or socioeconomic background. By leveraging the collaborative, open-source model of Wikipedia, but with a disciplined curriculum overseen by educators and industry experts, we could create a learning environment that is innovative, inclusive, and deeply connected to the needs of modern society.
While this is still a rough concept, I believe that such an educational reform could revolutionize how we approach learning, empowering students to take control of their education while ensuring they acquire the skills necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
This kind of platform could be particularly empowering for both male teachers and students, who often benefit from self-directed and independent learning environments, and who may feel more engaged when they have the opportunity to shape their own educational paths while acquiring skills that are directly relevant to the job market.
You're wrong, it's far too late. They were ignored and ridiculed for bringing up legitimate problems for far too long and now it's impossible to establish a basic level of trust with them. Liberals are only even trying now because they're scared. You've lost them like the GOP lost black people for a good half-century after the Civil Rights era.
Ive come to believe that with the many obstacles facing the fight for men's rights; the greatest obstacle is men themselves. There is an innate desire in men to protect women and see them as victims. We also have great difficulty having empathy for other men. I think we're built this way. Which is why it's so challenging to change that mindset.
Of course, it's desirable to express these masculine traits with the people in our family and friends. However, we must set it aside in the workplace and in society. This of course doesn't mean not being courteous or civil to others. I am an older man and it's very difficult not to let women go first. Yet, it sends the wrong message in a work environment. Such as "women first" when ordering, going through a door, taking turns speaking. This is no longer appropriate in a work setting.
Words are powerful. It's common for men to make jokes about men in general. That they are not as smart as women or think about only one thing. What's particularly damaging is men who say their wife is their boss. That she is the brains in the relationship. I hear this often and it's usually said in jest. However, it sends a toxic message. Especially to young men and women who take them literally. Even if it's subtle.
True change won't happen until men are able to care about other men and their rights. To get comfortable speaking out for men's rights wherever and wherever the situation arises. Even if you get blow back. Men are inherently strong and courageous. Today, our battles take place in the boardrooms and cubicles, not with a sword and shield on a battlefield. We must overcome the thought that it's weak or victimhood to speak out for men and their rights. Do we want to continue being seen by society as 2nd class? We must speak out in our daily interactions, if not for ourselves, then for future generations of men. Before it's too late.
Thank you. The problem is that the men at the top of the pile pander to feminists, and turn their backs on their fellow men. A stellar example of that is male CEOs deferring to the man-hating feminists in Human Resources constantly. (Maybe the problem is that the banshees play dirty, and find some dirt and the CEOs, and have them blackmailed).
You make some excellent points. Particularly the fact that the party that addresses men's issues will gain a significant advantage. Men are essentially 50% of the population. The Democrat party; at best ignores straight white men, at worst vilifies and discriminates against them.
The republican party cares enough about men,where Cristian Conservatives defend the hedonistic tendencies promoted by the manosphere types.The problem is they don't care about women's issues.
If you have the misfortune of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, you will learn that hedonistic and sociopathic feminists in Congress made sure that there is far more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
Trump will kick-start the economy again, just as he did in 2016. That will benefit men (and women) of all races. On the other hand, Harris' plans to fund black men are an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The economy was doing fine in 2015. Look it up. Trump just cut taxes and ran up the national debt. And tax cuts financed by debt are nothing but future higher taxes.
When Trump was in office, Education Secretary Betsy deVos restored Due Process rights to college men accused of sexual assault, that were ordered to stand trial in feminist kangaroo courts on campus, conjured up by Obama. . When Obama was in office, crisis lines were flooded by distraught college men. Betsy deVos undoubtedly prevented many male suicides back then, as a direct result of her rule changes to Title IX.
What's sad is that the Biden admin removed Trumps policies and reinstated what the Obama admin had previously initiated, only worse. It's criminal and immoral.
Before DeVos, sexual harassment was treated the same as academic dishonesty with the same penalties. DeVos's regulatory propagation has made sexual harassment somewhere between academic dishonesty and a criminal charge but retained the same penalties as academic dishonesty.
This is my first experience of Substack, and it's disheartening to see the recent turn the conversation has taken.
Richard, if you're reading this, I think it would be beneficial to remove comments that are intended to provoke rather than contribute constructively. This space should be for exchanging ideas, not for intimidating others into silence.
I am mindful that my own comments might also be perceived to warrant removal. But I hope not. I do acknowledge that my comments are contentious, but I am doing my best to contribute constructively to the exchange of ideas.
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnhalseywood/p/gender-in-the-24-election?r=ewwce&utm_medium=ios
Fav Substack follow right now!
So your solution is more of the same HR-driven crap that got us here?
To continue my comment - the unfortunate reality is that we as a society have not acknowledged this trend, which is far more evident among the working classes / lower middle classes….
What you argue is so true for India also. I worked with women / girls education through the 1980s and 1990s - that’s when I realised we need to work with / include boys / men in our work. Rural girls often argued that unless men feel as empowered through education / collective action - the gender dynamics will not change. But, apart from few lone voices like mine - government and NGOs continue to be Girls / women focused…. We have reached a point where more girls enter secondary / higher secondary than boys, more women enrol in higher education and many many more men / boys dropped out, doing “nothing” and joining the populist brigades roaming the streets.
I read the Politico piece. My favorite line - "When problems are neglected, they metastasize into grievances. And grievances can be weaponized in service of reactionary goals" I have seen this in India and in the U.S. America has a real historical problem with processing male anger. We need to get boys involved in their local communities with men to expand their role model exposure. Much of this anger may stem from the fact that older men are not helping/mentoring younger men as they once did...the old boys' network is gone...but what replaces it? Luck?
The Democratic Party admits, right on their web site, that they serve women, but not men. By the "old boys' network, did you mean fraternal organizations like the Elks Club and the Lions' Club? They went away after feminists invaded them.
On the Democrats' "who we serve" page, they mention that they serve women, but not men.
https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
They also mention every racial/ethnic group EXCEPT for Whites/Caucasians. Yet they call themselves the "party of inclusion!
I just ran across this: 51% of you men identified as Democrat in 2016. In 2023, it was down to 39%
https://citizenwatchreport.com/massive-shift-young-men-identifying-as-democrat-dropped-from-51-in-2016-to-39/
Much good material - one hopes it will succeed. Still, there are some "fuzzier" obstacles in the way. First, many women, but fewer men, will vote for a "Life of Julia"-style program, i.e. "a state that takes care of its people from cradle to grave."* To the extent that the Dem program is "we will take care of you and keep you safe," that is a turn-off to men who would prefer to see themselves in the role of safekeepers and protectors.
Second, as can be seen in the angry quote-tweets and most-liked comments of any story on this topic** (as I know Mr. Reeves is aware), there is a powerful and vocal faction of the Dems (including a great many of those progressive young women, many of whom also suffer from mental illness - not mutually exclusive categories by any means***), who respond to any interest in male affairs with some variation of "these whiny entitled young men are so horrible and privileged. They need to shut up, step back and get over themselves." Believe me, many men are aware of the views of these women and are not particularly eager to share a political coalition with them!
* https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/opinion/bennett-obama-campaign/index.html
** seriously, check out the most popular comments here https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/24/upshot/trump-polls-young-men.html
*** https://x.com/RichardvReeves/status/1382818208084848653
EDIT: PS: why the male decline in academia is probably irreversible https://barsoom.substack.com/p/academia-is-womens-work
The Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't give a damn about men. They created the Women's Health Act and the Violence Against Women Act, which violate the rights of men under the Equal Protection Clause. Back in February, Biden gave $100,000,000 of taxpayer funds to a White House Initiative for Women's Health Research, and zero dollars for men's health research. They are interested in the life of Julia, but not the life of Jules.
Teacher Gender Imbalance
As I understand it, the subject of our discussion has primarily been focused on education, so I thought it would be helpful to provide some relevant statistics:
Currently, there are over 3,842,796 teachers employed in the United States. Of these, 74.3% are women, while 25.7% are men. The gender imbalance is particularly notable at the elementary level, where 89% of teachers are women. In middle schools, 72% of teachers are women, and in secondary or high schools, the figure is 60%.
It is much the same in my country, Australia: the gender difference is more pronounced at the primary level (82.1% female) than at secondary level (61.4% female).
Interestingly, in Eastern Asia, the percentage of female teachers at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels was 97.31%, 95.27%, and 97.89%, respectively, in 2020.
All of the above is based on UNESCO Data
https://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3801
It seems clear that the gender imbalance in teaching is a global issue, particularly at the earlier levels of education. The only real hope to improve educational outcomes for boys may be to increase the proportion of male teachers. However, to my knowledge, there is no country actively pursuing this as a policy priority, despite the evident need.
The lack of male representation in teaching, especially in formative years, is a concern that should be addressed if we truly want to create an inclusive and balanced educational environment for all students. This imbalance not only affects how boys perceive their role models but may also impact how they engage with education as a whole.
Proposal for Radical Reform in Education
As a concluding thought, I would like to suggest a radical reform to address the challenges we face in education: the development of a globally accessible, externally driven educational platform—something akin to Wikipedia, but focused on a structured, comprehensive curriculum. Such a system would provide a vast range of educational content in multiple languages, accessible to students worldwide, and would enable them to specialize and follow their own paths while maintaining a disciplined approach.
The idea is to create a curriculum that is flexible yet structured, allowing students to explore areas of interest while ensuring that they meet rigorous academic standards. Unlike the current rigid systems that often fail to adapt to individual needs, this platform would offer students the opportunity to develop skills that are directly aligned with market demand and employer needs, making education more responsive to real-world requirements.
This approach could democratize education, providing high-quality learning opportunities to students regardless of their geographical location or socioeconomic background. By leveraging the collaborative, open-source model of Wikipedia, but with a disciplined curriculum overseen by educators and industry experts, we could create a learning environment that is innovative, inclusive, and deeply connected to the needs of modern society.
While this is still a rough concept, I believe that such an educational reform could revolutionize how we approach learning, empowering students to take control of their education while ensuring they acquire the skills necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
This kind of platform could be particularly empowering for both male teachers and students, who often benefit from self-directed and independent learning environments, and who may feel more engaged when they have the opportunity to shape their own educational paths while acquiring skills that are directly relevant to the job market.
You're wrong, it's far too late. They were ignored and ridiculed for bringing up legitimate problems for far too long and now it's impossible to establish a basic level of trust with them. Liberals are only even trying now because they're scared. You've lost them like the GOP lost black people for a good half-century after the Civil Rights era.
Ive come to believe that with the many obstacles facing the fight for men's rights; the greatest obstacle is men themselves. There is an innate desire in men to protect women and see them as victims. We also have great difficulty having empathy for other men. I think we're built this way. Which is why it's so challenging to change that mindset.
Of course, it's desirable to express these masculine traits with the people in our family and friends. However, we must set it aside in the workplace and in society. This of course doesn't mean not being courteous or civil to others. I am an older man and it's very difficult not to let women go first. Yet, it sends the wrong message in a work environment. Such as "women first" when ordering, going through a door, taking turns speaking. This is no longer appropriate in a work setting.
Words are powerful. It's common for men to make jokes about men in general. That they are not as smart as women or think about only one thing. What's particularly damaging is men who say their wife is their boss. That she is the brains in the relationship. I hear this often and it's usually said in jest. However, it sends a toxic message. Especially to young men and women who take them literally. Even if it's subtle.
True change won't happen until men are able to care about other men and their rights. To get comfortable speaking out for men's rights wherever and wherever the situation arises. Even if you get blow back. Men are inherently strong and courageous. Today, our battles take place in the boardrooms and cubicles, not with a sword and shield on a battlefield. We must overcome the thought that it's weak or victimhood to speak out for men and their rights. Do we want to continue being seen by society as 2nd class? We must speak out in our daily interactions, if not for ourselves, then for future generations of men. Before it's too late.
Thank you. The problem is that the men at the top of the pile pander to feminists, and turn their backs on their fellow men. A stellar example of that is male CEOs deferring to the man-hating feminists in Human Resources constantly. (Maybe the problem is that the banshees play dirty, and find some dirt and the CEOs, and have them blackmailed).
You make some excellent points. Particularly the fact that the party that addresses men's issues will gain a significant advantage. Men are essentially 50% of the population. The Democrat party; at best ignores straight white men, at worst vilifies and discriminates against them.
The republican party cares enough about men,where Cristian Conservatives defend the hedonistic tendencies promoted by the manosphere types.The problem is they don't care about women's issues.
and the Democrats don't give a damn about men's issues.
If you have the misfortune of being diagnosed with prostate cancer, you will learn that hedonistic and sociopathic feminists in Congress made sure that there is far more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
I have never seen this and would sincerely like to see one example of an anti-women policy.
Republicans do care about the issue, they just propose policies that are very anti-woman.
And the Democrats are anti-men. You "forgot" to mention that.
What part of what any Republican is proposing would be considering pro-male for blacks or Hispanics?
Trump will kick-start the economy again, just as he did in 2016. That will benefit men (and women) of all races. On the other hand, Harris' plans to fund black men are an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The economy was doing fine in 2015. Look it up. Trump just cut taxes and ran up the national debt. And tax cuts financed by debt are nothing but future higher taxes.
When Trump was in office, Education Secretary Betsy deVos restored Due Process rights to college men accused of sexual assault, that were ordered to stand trial in feminist kangaroo courts on campus, conjured up by Obama. . When Obama was in office, crisis lines were flooded by distraught college men. Betsy deVos undoubtedly prevented many male suicides back then, as a direct result of her rule changes to Title IX.
What's sad is that the Biden admin removed Trumps policies and reinstated what the Obama admin had previously initiated, only worse. It's criminal and immoral.
Before DeVos, sexual harassment was treated the same as academic dishonesty with the same penalties. DeVos's regulatory propagation has made sexual harassment somewhere between academic dishonesty and a criminal charge but retained the same penalties as academic dishonesty.
This is my first experience of Substack, and it's disheartening to see the recent turn the conversation has taken.
Richard, if you're reading this, I think it would be beneficial to remove comments that are intended to provoke rather than contribute constructively. This space should be for exchanging ideas, not for intimidating others into silence.
I am mindful that my own comments might also be perceived to warrant removal. But I hope not. I do acknowledge that my comments are contentious, but I am doing my best to contribute constructively to the exchange of ideas.