So many times I've heard him talk about how men are supposed to be tough manly men, doing blue collar dirty work & they're being forced by society/the left to go against their nature if they're not like this...but he himself isn't like this at all!
He went to a private boys prep school, elite universities Stanford & Yale, NEVER done blue collar work or had to get his hands dirty. He clearly doesn't have aptitude for "blue-collar work" he thinks men should do!
It's maddening that he's so privileged, but appointed himself representative of all men & pushes men to be things he's not & do things he hasn't. The "I'm one of you" ppl are typically clueless abt the experiences, lives & struggles of ppl who aren't like them.
One of the problems is that once a field becomes >~30% dominated by females it tends to become very hostile to men. Not openly, but you will find lots of conflicts below the surface. For example, Summers was Harvard's president but got kicked out after a coalition of female professors got him dumped. Men groups tend to be open to outsiders (regardless of sex), fluidly organizing in a broadly accepted hierarchy of competence; they've also have open intra-sex competition with sports and other competence games. Majority female groups resist a hierarchy, say they are welcoming to everybody but in reality are extremely normative and intolerant; they severely punish any infractions; they tend to have hidden aggressive intra-sex competition.
It is quite amazing that despite a very long history of totally equal rights and large gains in education (and a much longer history that shows willing women always had access to the public sphere: Ada Lovelace, Curie, many more), there still is not a single Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. that was founded by a woman. Even with extremely heavy handed help of venture capitalists and politicians, Theranos was such a disaster that I actually feel sorry for Holmes. The New York Times had an article about the Stanford class of '94 that is elucidating in this context.
If we want more men in health care groups, women will have to come to terms with their lack of talent in how to work in large collaborative groups. Key elements are competence, very strong group solidarity, not getting offended easily, understanding the purpose of banter, never snitching, compete fairly with open visor, and checkout your emotions at the entrance of the workplace. And dress modestly.
I doubt this will happen any time soon. This type of criticism tends to be met with violent emotional criticism, see James Damore, but rarely with self reflection.
You say unlike men, women aren't open to others, hostile, too emotional & offended easily..but give a long list of things YOU would need women to do/change personally & professionally to accommodate you, including literally choosing their clothing for you bc you need them to take responsibility for controlling your urges ("never snitching" applies here I'm sure) & not offending your fragile sensibilities. Your total lack of self awareness is just stunning, as is your entitlement!!
Speaking of aggression & intolerance, there's ample evidence of women having to deal with cruelty, sexual harassment & assault & male co-workers working together to drive them out when women try to enter male dominated professions. PLEASE find & share evidence of women doing this to men in female dominated professions & maybe check out recent investigation into what happens to female firefighters in the UK fire department while you're at it.
Peter, I disagree with your anecdotal assessment that "men groups tend to be open to outsiders (regardless of sex)". As a female military veteran now working as a civilian for the DoD, I have spent years in male-dominated spaces and it is a very alienating and often unwelcoming experience. Too often I see unqualified males getting by over fully qualified females because of false confidence and undue trust. This is how we end up with large corporations founded by men-- investors willing to take a shot on a man moreso than any woman.
I also have found that the lack of emotional intelligence in men leads to strong, emotional reactions to constructive criticisms (especially from a female boss). I never see this with women. They accept criticism very well and work to resolve issues. Men are so easily offended that I often have to "compliment sandwich" any and all feedback given to them like I do with children. This is why we need to teach and raise men that don't react with volatility when they are questioned. Obviously your comments are not supported by facts, but only the mean-spirited sexism that plagues this country.
What you're doing here is why you likely had problems in male groups. You put yourself out as victim before you make your point. In our gynocentric society, this invokes sympathy for you without the need for having a point. For example, you accuse investors but you do not substantiate that in any way. This is the stereotypical female approach, it immediately shields you from criticism. In contrast, our society is very harsh to men that try to outline this mechanism, and other criticisms. Mainsplaining etc. I don't care anymore ...
Male groups are welcoming to anybody that wants to play as a team to pursue the team's goals. This is well established science, look it up.
In a male group, if you're the most competent, you can lead, if you're just credentialed (unqualified males vs highly qualified females is credentialism) and lack the actual competence, but you still attempt to lead you're going to be ridiculed and teased to go back to your place. A lot of bullying can be explained this way.
Your experiences describe to me how you did not try to figure out how the male group worked, you wanted it to unilaterally conform it to your norms. And that triggers the group's immunity system.
Many women are surprised how harsh men can be to each other. However, this is how men can surprisingly fast create fluid competence hierarchies. We all know that if you lack the competence on a topic, follow the guy that knows what he is doing. This normally cross cuts the organizational charts, although female bosses often can't handle this. And true, male groups can be vicious to anybody not following this rule. Justly, for in many situations in the past mistakes could be life threatening to the whole group. But this is why men built cathedrals and mega companies. Female groups, I think we can safely conclude this after being fully equal for the law for 60 years, just don't. The stories about exploding knitting groups are stereotypical but so is Elisabeth Holmes for whom the establishment and investors went out of their way to show a female Steve Jobs.
In the early 2000s there was a Swedish series Survivor where they put competing groups on a remote island. One year they decided to split the groups by sex. The difference between the groups was stunning. The female group was a total disaster while the males had the times of their lives. This is the English version Bear Grylls.
The Dutch version Robinson Island 2003 had a twist. The male group got a female leader and the female group got a male leader. On the island, the males loved their leader and never contested her leadership, they were way too busy having fun. In contrast, the female group went out of their way to sabotage the poor leader. The situation got so bad that they had to reshuffle the groups after only one week because they were afraid some women would get hurt.
I think they tried this in other countries and had similar results. And I find it impossible to to imagine a male group acting as the females did in these movies. Don't you agree?
Your proof of men being competent, welcoming, great leaders in the workplace, but women are disasters, is (checks notes): exploding knitting groups, mansplaining, Elisabeth Holmes & 20+ yr old movie & TV show.
Bravo, no one can possibly argue against this evidence!
Dude, you are so anti-woman that you defend bullying among male groups as something good. Disgusting. At least I know that men like you are in the minority and probably dying off soon.
One is to direct you back in the fold when you're going overboard. Our brains are not always making us do the things that are good for us in the long run. Especially kids where the wiring of their brain is not even nearly finished, they absolutely need this guidance. People have mental problems, develop stupid ideas, sometimes behave in abnormal ways. Bullying is a group mechanism to indicate to the person that they're not conforming so they get a a chance correct. In the far majority of cases people then adapt to the group and have a normal life. (Which on average tends to be a lot better than being an outlier.) For example, I think a significant part of trans kids undergoing terrible surgeries with life long consequences could've been saved if their groups had not been invaded by interfering adults taking them too serious.
The second function is to guard the quality of the group. Male groups needed to be able to defend the women and kids; when the shit hits the fan you want the guy standing next to you not to crumble under the first problem. It was better to get rid of the ones that would not be able to stand up to the enemy ahead of time. Although we're usually not in hand to hand combat fights anymore, it does translate to getting an important job done. It is incredibly disturbing if you're working on a project and you have an incompetent individual or a person not being able to read the room in a group. She can damage everybody else's result.
Last, almost every natural system needs pressure to grow. Taleb wrote about this in Anti-Fragile. If you break a leg and put it up it will not heal, it needs the pressure. Nature is horrendously cruel but our forefathers have made it amazingly livable for humans. However, in the real world there inevitably will be predators. So if you want your kid to be prepared for the real world, you should prepare them to meet adversity. Raising them to crumble at the first problem is not doing them any favors. Learning how to handle bullies is one way to become resilient and handle the people that are not nice in adult life.
So I am convinced that the quite bad state of our youth is partly caused by female teachers thinking they prevent short term harm but actually causing long term harm.
That said, it has become very hard for teachers to resist the temptation to prevent the direct harm. Where a mother can kiss it off when a kid falls, a teacher needs to fill in paper work and might have to confront an angry mother. Much of the pathologies might be caused by our recent outsourcing of raising kids.
Men learnt to handle their toxic masculinity by creating laws, customs, prisons, and enforcement. Most of them gave up the advantage of their physical strength voluntarily. This strategy was tremendously successful and gave us our modern societies that are amazingly safe in comparison to what we had before. It also finally enabled women to enter their rightful place in the public sphere as equals since their weaker physique and need for protection was no longer a hindrance.
However, women never before had to consider their toxic femininity since their toxicity only emerges when the scale crosses a boundary. For example, empathy is tremendously valuable for the family and community but when applied to the public sphere it acts as a spotlight that obscures everything else. If you let yourself lead by empathy you are mostly blinded. Try driving a car with only a focused spotlight.
Your very strong empathy for the poor bullied kids that causes your impressive level of disgust blocks your brain from thinking through my arguments and seeing the bigger picture. The idea that your approach might cause more harm because you reduce the kid's self confidence that comes with solving his own problems, and thereby increases his vulnerability and fragility for future events, is obscured by your laser like focused empathy on his temporary feelings at that moment.
Sadly, men are handicapped with a great sensitivity for female judgement. Harry Summers was fired as Harvard's president by less than a handful female professors from secondary departments for accurately pointing out that male variance in IQ is higher. Women always had enormous power and now they also gained this power in the public sphere. however, unlike men, they did not reckon with their traits that become toxic at scale. This is causing huge harm in our societies but hey, you can feel virtuous in the small when you disrupt the kid's arguments that used to make us more resilient people.
It must almost be flattering to be alluded to so obviously and with such specific knowledge of your work! If only it weren’t quite so cynical and from such an unscrupulous character…
What is interesting about this whole discussion is the speed with which we feel we need to reach some desired, new balance between the sexes in a variety of vocational roles. And, yes, I said “sexes” because this fixation on gender was something that we all agreed was holding us back, and the sex differences of physical and emotional variance are really the crux of your argument (and Hawley’s).
What is most depressing about the debate that you’re having with Senator Hawley is the degree to which you show each other such disdain. You both make points that are valid, and you both have strong biases. It does not mean that you need to become contemptuous of the other point of view or to personalize it to the messenger.
I attended a commencement on Sunday where one of the speakers said we need more civility in our culture. Clearly those considering themselves “liberal” believe all of the incivility comes from their opponents. I don’t see that, personally. I think it is coming from both sides.
I think that the work you are doing is very important, and I would prefer that you spend more time holding debates with the left, none of whom want to discuss some of the most fundamental premises of your work. Maybe you see Senator Hawley as a foil, but I would find it more helpful for you to build a coalition of the center and that means taking on some of the most radical policymakers on the left, as well as people like Senator Hawley.
Any effort to read your work as calling for tools to "push" men into HEAL jobs is a strawman that misses the point.
There are certain professions, jobs and roles where the public is well-served to have a healthy balance of male and female interest and dedication. This is true from fields of public interest that are seen as male-dominated and need to be more welcoming to women, as it is of fields that are seen as female-dominated and need to be more welcoming to men. There is great public utility in having certain jobs closer to mirroring the demographics of the population as a whole, from policing to HEAL, and mirroring the demographics includes *all* demographics.
This requires not a push, but explicitly a "pull" - an effort to remind people that they can pursue the vocation of their desires rather than the vocation of a stereotypical deomography. Quite frankly, the same is true of the urban/rural divide, but that's a different topic for a different book for a different day.
Only thing Hawley may have gotten right is that people choose their life’s work out of passion and the masculine and feminine instincts that drive that. Similar to consumer spending habits that Geoff Miller talks about in his book Spent.
Mr Reeves, love the book as a psychiatrist and father of a young boy I have read it three times.
I don’t know that much about Hawley but you seem to have affinity for logic.
Outliers from the biological sex instincts that likely drive spending behavior and career choice might have to do with personality styles such as on the big five.
And even though sex tends to get lumped into personality as part of it maybe that’s erroneous.
What if they interact but are entirely separate functions?
And what if masculine and feminine instincts - unconscious as they are - do generally influence STEM vs HEAL - while personality style (such as high in Conscientiousness or Agreeableness) are the real determinants of why some individuals within their biological sex choose the unexpected as compared to their cohort.
But also why even in the very egalitarian policy environments of Scandinavia the divergence between males and females regarding career is even greater than ours.
If our goal we’re more HEAL career participants then maybe cajoling, advertising to, trying to attract and or compelling or forcing males or females to choose careers they just don’t like or are not instinctually passionate about is futility.
What about filling HEAL jobs based on personality style regardless of biological sex.
If the instincts correlate with consumer spending choices and career choices then as the most powerful force in human nature, more so than logic or reason - the passions in masculine and feminine instincts cannot be diverted from what most appeals.
However personality is a different thing from the instincts. It may be worked with and the right kinds of jobs that the personality is a match. It is the way to get people to populate job types in deficit in society.
Not using one of two biological sexes to direct societal change but by way if the myriad classifications of people in terms of personality measures all correlating with the myriad career fields out there.
I love personality tests more than ice cream but I’ve been lucky to have careers in STEM (aerospace project manager/pilot) & HEAL (MSW) and in my experience they both have plenty of room for all personality styles. The main lack of men in these fields is a compensation issue coupled with old stereotypes and the can’t see it/can’t be it effect. It’s not all hand holding and shoulder crying. Men are out here on accident scenes, in ERs, visiting prisons and running groups for veterans with PTSD. Also we don’t think of them as HEAL but cops are doing most of the front line mental health triage in the US by default.
"What about filling HEAL jobs based on personality style regardless of biological sex." Yes! Which would mean that most of them would be much more gender balanced, even if not 50/50. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I really appreciate it.
I agree that a more balanced workforce is desirable and would benefit everyone. That being said, I have seen how men CAN be treated in the healthcare field.
When a patient is giving a female nurse a hard time or threatening her, a male is called for help. When a large patient needs to be moved, a male is called to do the heavy lifting. I’ve heard a female nurse complain that men have many supervisory positions in healthcare but when asked why she didn’t apply she responded that she doesn’t want the headaches of a supervisor.
It’s easy to say we’re all equal but the reality is that we’re really separate but equal.
As always, brilliant Mr. Reeves. Your insights into this crisis are just what we need. There are so many reasons why both men and the HEAL vocations would benefit from better representation. Here are some:
1. HEAL is where many jobs are, and men need jobs. Even if major steel plants and auto factories were actually opening, how can we not encourage this?
2. Many HEAL jobs actually do require or would benefit from generalized "male" attributes like upper body strength (visit an assisted living facility).
3. Better representation of males in HEAL professions helps *all* men and boys who, as statistics overwhelmingly show, sorely need those services and caregivers and educators who understand their needs.
4. Male representation is likely to help boost wages and benefits in those fields for workers regardless of gender.
5. Men have always served in and been successful in HEAL vocations --even when gender lines were more rigid. In fact, the collapse of male representation in teaching and other HEAL fields unhappily coincides with the decline of industrial labor, and has arguably depressed wages for female workers in HEAL professions.
6. Even if you subscribe to the "men are interested in objects" "women are interested in people" generalization, many men are motivated to pursue so-called caring professions and are highly successful at them.
7. Does anybody really believe we wouldn't benefit from more such good men? Arguably the lack of men in teaching, social work and nursing is as unhelpful as the lack of women in say, engineering and police work.
8. if HEAL professions were considered high status and valued accordingly, presumably more men would be drawn to them and societal attitudes would continue to change. These are important roles -- not just for the men and women that do them, but for all those they serve.
Masculinity is more than point-and-shoot video games. To caricature it as both social conservatives and left wing gender critics tend to do is unhelpful to boys and men. We should be focused helping boys and men build meaningful lives that strengthen our communities, in HEAL and other vocations that will sustain them and improve all our lives.
"Arguably the lack of men in teaching, social work and nursing is as unhelpful as the lack of women in say, engineering and police work." Yes, I'd certainly argue that! Thanks so much for these comments.
As a female psychotherapist who is married to a male psychologist, I have seen for 30 years the loss of men from the profession. It is largely, in my opinion and experience, due to the erroneous assumption that men don’t understand women’s issues and men don’t have the capacity for empathy. Both are ridiculous assumptions. Men can provide a much needed corrective understanding to survivor’s of sexual abuse. In developing the trust in a therapeutic relationship, male professionals can show that maleness is good. It is the abuse that is wrong - regardless of the gender of the abuser. I saw many women who only wanted to speak to a female. They then cut off the avenue of knowing males as safe and healing. Getting a lot of feedback from other women about abusive males is not as valuable as working with a male healer.
I think what's missing the most from this conversation is narratives about what it's like to actually be a man in a HEAL profession today. What parts of your job speak to your masculinity? We're not necessarily reinventing masculinity to have men partake in these jobs, many of them have traditionally masculine traits like control, command, creativity etc.
It's not just about economic opportunity- younger generations are increasingly making career decisions based on identity and sense of purpose. How can the media play a role in creating strong male roles in HEAL? What if Tony Soprano's therapist was a man? I think some qualitative narratives from men in these professions would be influential.
"I think what's missing the most from this conversation is narratives about what it's like to actually be a man in a HEAL profession today." I working on this! Watch this space for a potential book on this very subject....
I didn’t hear any mention of the feminization of the educational system. Many of the careers the author refers to require significant amounts of education, and boys are struggling academically in primary school (no secret to the author) let alone interested in going to college.
Plus, there is the income issue. Few, if any of these HEAL jobs pay very well anymore, and one doesn’t need to dig too deep to find out that women primarily use earning potential as a marker for an attractive mate. I was a teacher myself for a few years, but besides the work being arduous, the pay sucked. I make 5X as a software engineer. Also, let’s not merely stroll past the fact many of fields that have seen an influx of women also happen to pay very well.
All that said, I’m sure the author means well and boys and men are in fact, struggling. That said, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the men that are struggling are merely doing so, because nobody encouraged them to be a preschool teacher. The problem is much larger and more complicated than that.
All good points Michael - I think what’s larger and more complicated is we are finally coming to the end of women being willing and able to work for low wages or none (volunteer). Many of the HEAL professions we depend on were once done by religious orders or rich socialites. Can you imagine how much software engineers would bring home if nuns founded the field? The real riddle is how do we “push” labor into areas we need (farming, nursing, elder care, etc.) The market is beginning to take care of it but like other old models built around cheap money, unlimited natural resources, endless water, oil or labor we could really benefit from new incentives as well.
Well, as far as I can tell here in lies the problem: to pay people an attractive wage to do elder care for example, you would have to charge price is so outrageous no one could afford them. Labor will go where there is opportunity, and frankly, there is no opportunity in home health aides.
I have a friend in California, who is a nurse making more money than I do, so for nursing, there is some market for that skill. I have several musician friends who have transitioned to nursing as a career. Where there is opportunity, labor will follow.
Totally agree Michael - I might not be doing social work if I wasn’t already financially ahead after an aerospace career! I do fear a future in which only the rich can afford to teach their kids, get nursing or mental health support. I wonder if there are income tax incentives that would get more labor into lower wage fields? Is there a point where we might be willing to subsidize these like we do other sectors? Home health aides are so scarce in my area that patients are going into skilled nursing or hospice who never would have so soon (often at profoundly higher cost to taxpayers through Medicare).
There you go :-) much easier to do HEAL work once you’ve built up your 501(k)
The only way I see subsidizing home health aides is by universal healthcare, which is a tough sell, despite the purported enthusiasm for it. Plus, if you take the profit motive out of medicine, you’re going to end up with less quality care, because why would I give 100% if I can get paid the very same with 50% you know what I mean?
Plus, aren’t we talking about kin work here? It would seem as though low-paying jobs like preschool teacher, home health aide, etc. are trying to create a market out of work that was typically done by families. There wasn’t any money in this to begin with, and the meager wages that can be earned from this work damn near bankrupt the people that pay for it.
I think we look to the State to play the role of community, which I would imagine you agree, especially in your line of work, has deteriorated significantly from the time that we were kids. I don’t see government feeling that void effectively.
One gap is I see is any mention of discrimination. No mention of discrimination against boys in school. No mention of the fact that once a field is female dominated then discrimination against males becomes insurmountable. The evidence on these points is unarguable but cannot be spoken.
Maybe it’s time to discuss these problems frankly.
You should feel proud of yourself. Being on the opposite side of an insurrectionist is a GOOD thing. Also...this liberal woman doesn't think you come across as really all that liberal.
But Sen Hawley would like to whine about blue collar jobs leaving and you are a convienent target. I would be shocked if he read your book. If he had, he wouldn't have said the things he did.
Would more blue collar jobs be good? Sure. But how, given what the applicant pool is like...do we know they would be filled by men?
"This liberal woman doesn't think you come across as really all that liberal" I'm going to take that as a compliment, I think :) Thanks for reading and commenting Michele, I do appreciate it
I’m a white, male, heterosexual, married social worker about to complete an MSW. I’d love to be pushed (encouraged) but instead have had to swim upstream in university settings where I’m an absolute unicorn. To say that HEAL fields are hostile to men would be to assume it was by design which it isn’t. However these fields appear to be making no efforts to support men. The few men I do know do their best to keep their heads down to avoid being targeted for their gender. Deep thanks for your work. You are about 10 years ahead of everyone on mens wellness. (BTW - One place we definitely need to “push” is for more women in congress. Most women would never tweet that!)
So many times I've heard him talk about how men are supposed to be tough manly men, doing blue collar dirty work & they're being forced by society/the left to go against their nature if they're not like this...but he himself isn't like this at all!
He went to a private boys prep school, elite universities Stanford & Yale, NEVER done blue collar work or had to get his hands dirty. He clearly doesn't have aptitude for "blue-collar work" he thinks men should do!
It's maddening that he's so privileged, but appointed himself representative of all men & pushes men to be things he's not & do things he hasn't. The "I'm one of you" ppl are typically clueless abt the experiences, lives & struggles of ppl who aren't like them.
One of the problems is that once a field becomes >~30% dominated by females it tends to become very hostile to men. Not openly, but you will find lots of conflicts below the surface. For example, Summers was Harvard's president but got kicked out after a coalition of female professors got him dumped. Men groups tend to be open to outsiders (regardless of sex), fluidly organizing in a broadly accepted hierarchy of competence; they've also have open intra-sex competition with sports and other competence games. Majority female groups resist a hierarchy, say they are welcoming to everybody but in reality are extremely normative and intolerant; they severely punish any infractions; they tend to have hidden aggressive intra-sex competition.
It is quite amazing that despite a very long history of totally equal rights and large gains in education (and a much longer history that shows willing women always had access to the public sphere: Ada Lovelace, Curie, many more), there still is not a single Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. that was founded by a woman. Even with extremely heavy handed help of venture capitalists and politicians, Theranos was such a disaster that I actually feel sorry for Holmes. The New York Times had an article about the Stanford class of '94 that is elucidating in this context.
If we want more men in health care groups, women will have to come to terms with their lack of talent in how to work in large collaborative groups. Key elements are competence, very strong group solidarity, not getting offended easily, understanding the purpose of banter, never snitching, compete fairly with open visor, and checkout your emotions at the entrance of the workplace. And dress modestly.
I doubt this will happen any time soon. This type of criticism tends to be met with violent emotional criticism, see James Damore, but rarely with self reflection.
You say unlike men, women aren't open to others, hostile, too emotional & offended easily..but give a long list of things YOU would need women to do/change personally & professionally to accommodate you, including literally choosing their clothing for you bc you need them to take responsibility for controlling your urges ("never snitching" applies here I'm sure) & not offending your fragile sensibilities. Your total lack of self awareness is just stunning, as is your entitlement!!
Speaking of aggression & intolerance, there's ample evidence of women having to deal with cruelty, sexual harassment & assault & male co-workers working together to drive them out when women try to enter male dominated professions. PLEASE find & share evidence of women doing this to men in female dominated professions & maybe check out recent investigation into what happens to female firefighters in the UK fire department while you're at it.
Agreed. Female-dominated workplaces tend to be very unpleasant for very significant numbers of men.
Being a male teacher in a school staff that is 50% male, is a very different proposition from being a male teacher in a school staff that is 10% male.
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/assimilating-women-into-male-institutions
https://thoughtsofstone.com/the-day-the-logic-died/
Surprisingly, many women find it unpleasant as well. Interesting video of Bear Grylls (Survivor) where the had a female and a male group.
https://www.tiktok.com/@nickjg94/video/7234223382261239067
Peter, I disagree with your anecdotal assessment that "men groups tend to be open to outsiders (regardless of sex)". As a female military veteran now working as a civilian for the DoD, I have spent years in male-dominated spaces and it is a very alienating and often unwelcoming experience. Too often I see unqualified males getting by over fully qualified females because of false confidence and undue trust. This is how we end up with large corporations founded by men-- investors willing to take a shot on a man moreso than any woman.
I also have found that the lack of emotional intelligence in men leads to strong, emotional reactions to constructive criticisms (especially from a female boss). I never see this with women. They accept criticism very well and work to resolve issues. Men are so easily offended that I often have to "compliment sandwich" any and all feedback given to them like I do with children. This is why we need to teach and raise men that don't react with volatility when they are questioned. Obviously your comments are not supported by facts, but only the mean-spirited sexism that plagues this country.
Cee Cee.
What you're doing here is why you likely had problems in male groups. You put yourself out as victim before you make your point. In our gynocentric society, this invokes sympathy for you without the need for having a point. For example, you accuse investors but you do not substantiate that in any way. This is the stereotypical female approach, it immediately shields you from criticism. In contrast, our society is very harsh to men that try to outline this mechanism, and other criticisms. Mainsplaining etc. I don't care anymore ...
Male groups are welcoming to anybody that wants to play as a team to pursue the team's goals. This is well established science, look it up.
In a male group, if you're the most competent, you can lead, if you're just credentialed (unqualified males vs highly qualified females is credentialism) and lack the actual competence, but you still attempt to lead you're going to be ridiculed and teased to go back to your place. A lot of bullying can be explained this way.
Your experiences describe to me how you did not try to figure out how the male group worked, you wanted it to unilaterally conform it to your norms. And that triggers the group's immunity system.
Many women are surprised how harsh men can be to each other. However, this is how men can surprisingly fast create fluid competence hierarchies. We all know that if you lack the competence on a topic, follow the guy that knows what he is doing. This normally cross cuts the organizational charts, although female bosses often can't handle this. And true, male groups can be vicious to anybody not following this rule. Justly, for in many situations in the past mistakes could be life threatening to the whole group. But this is why men built cathedrals and mega companies. Female groups, I think we can safely conclude this after being fully equal for the law for 60 years, just don't. The stories about exploding knitting groups are stereotypical but so is Elisabeth Holmes for whom the establishment and investors went out of their way to show a female Steve Jobs.
In the early 2000s there was a Swedish series Survivor where they put competing groups on a remote island. One year they decided to split the groups by sex. The difference between the groups was stunning. The female group was a total disaster while the males had the times of their lives. This is the English version Bear Grylls.
https://www.tiktok.com/@nickjg94/video/7234223382261239067
The Dutch version Robinson Island 2003 had a twist. The male group got a female leader and the female group got a male leader. On the island, the males loved their leader and never contested her leadership, they were way too busy having fun. In contrast, the female group went out of their way to sabotage the poor leader. The situation got so bad that they had to reshuffle the groups after only one week because they were afraid some women would get hurt.
I think they tried this in other countries and had similar results. And I find it impossible to to imagine a male group acting as the females did in these movies. Don't you agree?
Your proof of men being competent, welcoming, great leaders in the workplace, but women are disasters, is (checks notes): exploding knitting groups, mansplaining, Elisabeth Holmes & 20+ yr old movie & TV show.
Bravo, no one can possibly argue against this evidence!
Dude, you are so anti-woman that you defend bullying among male groups as something good. Disgusting. At least I know that men like you are in the minority and probably dying off soon.
Bullying has multiple functions.
One is to direct you back in the fold when you're going overboard. Our brains are not always making us do the things that are good for us in the long run. Especially kids where the wiring of their brain is not even nearly finished, they absolutely need this guidance. People have mental problems, develop stupid ideas, sometimes behave in abnormal ways. Bullying is a group mechanism to indicate to the person that they're not conforming so they get a a chance correct. In the far majority of cases people then adapt to the group and have a normal life. (Which on average tends to be a lot better than being an outlier.) For example, I think a significant part of trans kids undergoing terrible surgeries with life long consequences could've been saved if their groups had not been invaded by interfering adults taking them too serious.
The second function is to guard the quality of the group. Male groups needed to be able to defend the women and kids; when the shit hits the fan you want the guy standing next to you not to crumble under the first problem. It was better to get rid of the ones that would not be able to stand up to the enemy ahead of time. Although we're usually not in hand to hand combat fights anymore, it does translate to getting an important job done. It is incredibly disturbing if you're working on a project and you have an incompetent individual or a person not being able to read the room in a group. She can damage everybody else's result.
Last, almost every natural system needs pressure to grow. Taleb wrote about this in Anti-Fragile. If you break a leg and put it up it will not heal, it needs the pressure. Nature is horrendously cruel but our forefathers have made it amazingly livable for humans. However, in the real world there inevitably will be predators. So if you want your kid to be prepared for the real world, you should prepare them to meet adversity. Raising them to crumble at the first problem is not doing them any favors. Learning how to handle bullies is one way to become resilient and handle the people that are not nice in adult life.
So I am convinced that the quite bad state of our youth is partly caused by female teachers thinking they prevent short term harm but actually causing long term harm.
That said, it has become very hard for teachers to resist the temptation to prevent the direct harm. Where a mother can kiss it off when a kid falls, a teacher needs to fill in paper work and might have to confront an angry mother. Much of the pathologies might be caused by our recent outsourcing of raising kids.
This was the most enthusiastic defense of bullying I have ever seen. Very disgusting.
Men learnt to handle their toxic masculinity by creating laws, customs, prisons, and enforcement. Most of them gave up the advantage of their physical strength voluntarily. This strategy was tremendously successful and gave us our modern societies that are amazingly safe in comparison to what we had before. It also finally enabled women to enter their rightful place in the public sphere as equals since their weaker physique and need for protection was no longer a hindrance.
However, women never before had to consider their toxic femininity since their toxicity only emerges when the scale crosses a boundary. For example, empathy is tremendously valuable for the family and community but when applied to the public sphere it acts as a spotlight that obscures everything else. If you let yourself lead by empathy you are mostly blinded. Try driving a car with only a focused spotlight.
Your very strong empathy for the poor bullied kids that causes your impressive level of disgust blocks your brain from thinking through my arguments and seeing the bigger picture. The idea that your approach might cause more harm because you reduce the kid's self confidence that comes with solving his own problems, and thereby increases his vulnerability and fragility for future events, is obscured by your laser like focused empathy on his temporary feelings at that moment.
Sadly, men are handicapped with a great sensitivity for female judgement. Harry Summers was fired as Harvard's president by less than a handful female professors from secondary departments for accurately pointing out that male variance in IQ is higher. Women always had enormous power and now they also gained this power in the public sphere. however, unlike men, they did not reckon with their traits that become toxic at scale. This is causing huge harm in our societies but hey, you can feel virtuous in the small when you disrupt the kid's arguments that used to make us more resilient people.
It must almost be flattering to be alluded to so obviously and with such specific knowledge of your work! If only it weren’t quite so cynical and from such an unscrupulous character…
What is interesting about this whole discussion is the speed with which we feel we need to reach some desired, new balance between the sexes in a variety of vocational roles. And, yes, I said “sexes” because this fixation on gender was something that we all agreed was holding us back, and the sex differences of physical and emotional variance are really the crux of your argument (and Hawley’s).
What is most depressing about the debate that you’re having with Senator Hawley is the degree to which you show each other such disdain. You both make points that are valid, and you both have strong biases. It does not mean that you need to become contemptuous of the other point of view or to personalize it to the messenger.
I attended a commencement on Sunday where one of the speakers said we need more civility in our culture. Clearly those considering themselves “liberal” believe all of the incivility comes from their opponents. I don’t see that, personally. I think it is coming from both sides.
I think that the work you are doing is very important, and I would prefer that you spend more time holding debates with the left, none of whom want to discuss some of the most fundamental premises of your work. Maybe you see Senator Hawley as a foil, but I would find it more helpful for you to build a coalition of the center and that means taking on some of the most radical policymakers on the left, as well as people like Senator Hawley.
Any effort to read your work as calling for tools to "push" men into HEAL jobs is a strawman that misses the point.
There are certain professions, jobs and roles where the public is well-served to have a healthy balance of male and female interest and dedication. This is true from fields of public interest that are seen as male-dominated and need to be more welcoming to women, as it is of fields that are seen as female-dominated and need to be more welcoming to men. There is great public utility in having certain jobs closer to mirroring the demographics of the population as a whole, from policing to HEAL, and mirroring the demographics includes *all* demographics.
This requires not a push, but explicitly a "pull" - an effort to remind people that they can pursue the vocation of their desires rather than the vocation of a stereotypical deomography. Quite frankly, the same is true of the urban/rural divide, but that's a different topic for a different book for a different day.
Only thing Hawley may have gotten right is that people choose their life’s work out of passion and the masculine and feminine instincts that drive that. Similar to consumer spending habits that Geoff Miller talks about in his book Spent.
Mr Reeves, love the book as a psychiatrist and father of a young boy I have read it three times.
I don’t know that much about Hawley but you seem to have affinity for logic.
Outliers from the biological sex instincts that likely drive spending behavior and career choice might have to do with personality styles such as on the big five.
And even though sex tends to get lumped into personality as part of it maybe that’s erroneous.
What if they interact but are entirely separate functions?
And what if masculine and feminine instincts - unconscious as they are - do generally influence STEM vs HEAL - while personality style (such as high in Conscientiousness or Agreeableness) are the real determinants of why some individuals within their biological sex choose the unexpected as compared to their cohort.
But also why even in the very egalitarian policy environments of Scandinavia the divergence between males and females regarding career is even greater than ours.
If our goal we’re more HEAL career participants then maybe cajoling, advertising to, trying to attract and or compelling or forcing males or females to choose careers they just don’t like or are not instinctually passionate about is futility.
What about filling HEAL jobs based on personality style regardless of biological sex.
If the instincts correlate with consumer spending choices and career choices then as the most powerful force in human nature, more so than logic or reason - the passions in masculine and feminine instincts cannot be diverted from what most appeals.
However personality is a different thing from the instincts. It may be worked with and the right kinds of jobs that the personality is a match. It is the way to get people to populate job types in deficit in society.
Not using one of two biological sexes to direct societal change but by way if the myriad classifications of people in terms of personality measures all correlating with the myriad career fields out there.
Thank you.
I love personality tests more than ice cream but I’ve been lucky to have careers in STEM (aerospace project manager/pilot) & HEAL (MSW) and in my experience they both have plenty of room for all personality styles. The main lack of men in these fields is a compensation issue coupled with old stereotypes and the can’t see it/can’t be it effect. It’s not all hand holding and shoulder crying. Men are out here on accident scenes, in ERs, visiting prisons and running groups for veterans with PTSD. Also we don’t think of them as HEAL but cops are doing most of the front line mental health triage in the US by default.
"What about filling HEAL jobs based on personality style regardless of biological sex." Yes! Which would mean that most of them would be much more gender balanced, even if not 50/50. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, I really appreciate it.
I agree that a more balanced workforce is desirable and would benefit everyone. That being said, I have seen how men CAN be treated in the healthcare field.
When a patient is giving a female nurse a hard time or threatening her, a male is called for help. When a large patient needs to be moved, a male is called to do the heavy lifting. I’ve heard a female nurse complain that men have many supervisory positions in healthcare but when asked why she didn’t apply she responded that she doesn’t want the headaches of a supervisor.
It’s easy to say we’re all equal but the reality is that we’re really separate but equal.
As always, brilliant Mr. Reeves. Your insights into this crisis are just what we need. There are so many reasons why both men and the HEAL vocations would benefit from better representation. Here are some:
1. HEAL is where many jobs are, and men need jobs. Even if major steel plants and auto factories were actually opening, how can we not encourage this?
2. Many HEAL jobs actually do require or would benefit from generalized "male" attributes like upper body strength (visit an assisted living facility).
3. Better representation of males in HEAL professions helps *all* men and boys who, as statistics overwhelmingly show, sorely need those services and caregivers and educators who understand their needs.
4. Male representation is likely to help boost wages and benefits in those fields for workers regardless of gender.
5. Men have always served in and been successful in HEAL vocations --even when gender lines were more rigid. In fact, the collapse of male representation in teaching and other HEAL fields unhappily coincides with the decline of industrial labor, and has arguably depressed wages for female workers in HEAL professions.
6. Even if you subscribe to the "men are interested in objects" "women are interested in people" generalization, many men are motivated to pursue so-called caring professions and are highly successful at them.
7. Does anybody really believe we wouldn't benefit from more such good men? Arguably the lack of men in teaching, social work and nursing is as unhelpful as the lack of women in say, engineering and police work.
8. if HEAL professions were considered high status and valued accordingly, presumably more men would be drawn to them and societal attitudes would continue to change. These are important roles -- not just for the men and women that do them, but for all those they serve.
Masculinity is more than point-and-shoot video games. To caricature it as both social conservatives and left wing gender critics tend to do is unhelpful to boys and men. We should be focused helping boys and men build meaningful lives that strengthen our communities, in HEAL and other vocations that will sustain them and improve all our lives.
"Arguably the lack of men in teaching, social work and nursing is as unhelpful as the lack of women in say, engineering and police work." Yes, I'd certainly argue that! Thanks so much for these comments.
As a female psychotherapist who is married to a male psychologist, I have seen for 30 years the loss of men from the profession. It is largely, in my opinion and experience, due to the erroneous assumption that men don’t understand women’s issues and men don’t have the capacity for empathy. Both are ridiculous assumptions. Men can provide a much needed corrective understanding to survivor’s of sexual abuse. In developing the trust in a therapeutic relationship, male professionals can show that maleness is good. It is the abuse that is wrong - regardless of the gender of the abuser. I saw many women who only wanted to speak to a female. They then cut off the avenue of knowing males as safe and healing. Getting a lot of feedback from other women about abusive males is not as valuable as working with a male healer.
I think what's missing the most from this conversation is narratives about what it's like to actually be a man in a HEAL profession today. What parts of your job speak to your masculinity? We're not necessarily reinventing masculinity to have men partake in these jobs, many of them have traditionally masculine traits like control, command, creativity etc.
It's not just about economic opportunity- younger generations are increasingly making career decisions based on identity and sense of purpose. How can the media play a role in creating strong male roles in HEAL? What if Tony Soprano's therapist was a man? I think some qualitative narratives from men in these professions would be influential.
"I think what's missing the most from this conversation is narratives about what it's like to actually be a man in a HEAL profession today." I working on this! Watch this space for a potential book on this very subject....
Another great article thanks Richard
There's an error above that might like to correct btw:
men are on average a bit more into things, women are on average a bit more into things.
Corrected! Really appreciate that.
Oh thank you!
Emotions.
Senator Hawley seems to be unaware that the economy has already pushed many men out of these traditional male blue collar jobs and into unemployment.
I didn’t hear any mention of the feminization of the educational system. Many of the careers the author refers to require significant amounts of education, and boys are struggling academically in primary school (no secret to the author) let alone interested in going to college.
Plus, there is the income issue. Few, if any of these HEAL jobs pay very well anymore, and one doesn’t need to dig too deep to find out that women primarily use earning potential as a marker for an attractive mate. I was a teacher myself for a few years, but besides the work being arduous, the pay sucked. I make 5X as a software engineer. Also, let’s not merely stroll past the fact many of fields that have seen an influx of women also happen to pay very well.
All that said, I’m sure the author means well and boys and men are in fact, struggling. That said, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the men that are struggling are merely doing so, because nobody encouraged them to be a preschool teacher. The problem is much larger and more complicated than that.
All good points Michael - I think what’s larger and more complicated is we are finally coming to the end of women being willing and able to work for low wages or none (volunteer). Many of the HEAL professions we depend on were once done by religious orders or rich socialites. Can you imagine how much software engineers would bring home if nuns founded the field? The real riddle is how do we “push” labor into areas we need (farming, nursing, elder care, etc.) The market is beginning to take care of it but like other old models built around cheap money, unlimited natural resources, endless water, oil or labor we could really benefit from new incentives as well.
Well, as far as I can tell here in lies the problem: to pay people an attractive wage to do elder care for example, you would have to charge price is so outrageous no one could afford them. Labor will go where there is opportunity, and frankly, there is no opportunity in home health aides.
I have a friend in California, who is a nurse making more money than I do, so for nursing, there is some market for that skill. I have several musician friends who have transitioned to nursing as a career. Where there is opportunity, labor will follow.
Totally agree Michael - I might not be doing social work if I wasn’t already financially ahead after an aerospace career! I do fear a future in which only the rich can afford to teach their kids, get nursing or mental health support. I wonder if there are income tax incentives that would get more labor into lower wage fields? Is there a point where we might be willing to subsidize these like we do other sectors? Home health aides are so scarce in my area that patients are going into skilled nursing or hospice who never would have so soon (often at profoundly higher cost to taxpayers through Medicare).
There you go :-) much easier to do HEAL work once you’ve built up your 501(k)
The only way I see subsidizing home health aides is by universal healthcare, which is a tough sell, despite the purported enthusiasm for it. Plus, if you take the profit motive out of medicine, you’re going to end up with less quality care, because why would I give 100% if I can get paid the very same with 50% you know what I mean?
Plus, aren’t we talking about kin work here? It would seem as though low-paying jobs like preschool teacher, home health aide, etc. are trying to create a market out of work that was typically done by families. There wasn’t any money in this to begin with, and the meager wages that can be earned from this work damn near bankrupt the people that pay for it.
I think we look to the State to play the role of community, which I would imagine you agree, especially in your line of work, has deteriorated significantly from the time that we were kids. I don’t see government feeling that void effectively.
Excellent work. And a great rebuttal.
One gap is I see is any mention of discrimination. No mention of discrimination against boys in school. No mention of the fact that once a field is female dominated then discrimination against males becomes insurmountable. The evidence on these points is unarguable but cannot be spoken.
Maybe it’s time to discuss these problems frankly.
You should feel proud of yourself. Being on the opposite side of an insurrectionist is a GOOD thing. Also...this liberal woman doesn't think you come across as really all that liberal.
But Sen Hawley would like to whine about blue collar jobs leaving and you are a convienent target. I would be shocked if he read your book. If he had, he wouldn't have said the things he did.
Would more blue collar jobs be good? Sure. But how, given what the applicant pool is like...do we know they would be filled by men?
"This liberal woman doesn't think you come across as really all that liberal" I'm going to take that as a compliment, I think :) Thanks for reading and commenting Michele, I do appreciate it
I think you are balanced. I had my husband and oldest son read your book. Youger son is already into HEAL as a possible career choice.
There are just some things I disagreed with in the book that were not my lived experience.
And anyway, according to Hawley a liberal is anyone who is a millimeter to the left of him, which you clearly are and that is awesome.
I’m a white, male, heterosexual, married social worker about to complete an MSW. I’d love to be pushed (encouraged) but instead have had to swim upstream in university settings where I’m an absolute unicorn. To say that HEAL fields are hostile to men would be to assume it was by design which it isn’t. However these fields appear to be making no efforts to support men. The few men I do know do their best to keep their heads down to avoid being targeted for their gender. Deep thanks for your work. You are about 10 years ahead of everyone on mens wellness. (BTW - One place we definitely need to “push” is for more women in congress. Most women would never tweet that!)