Women did not create the society that is hurting men emotionally and economically. Buying into that victim complex is a distraction from your own self-development and healing.
Earnings isn't necessarily the best measure of socioeconomic success.
https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-w...
Women control or influence 85% of spending, for example.
I would say the amount of goods and services you actually purchase and consume would be a better indicator of socioeconomic success, compared with earnings that may be enjoyed by someone else.
Working really hard to the point of destroying your health in order to provide a good life to your family would show up as "highly successful" by the earnings metric, but I would say the family benefits more than the one who is destroyed.
If every person of race X who is taught by teacher Y fails, does that mean that race X is the problem or that teacher Y is the problem?
Either male children are born bad or were raised incorrectly. If you accept the first option, what is your evidence? If you accept the second option and there are only women raising the child, how can men be the problem?
According to the US Census, 20% of asian, 34% of white, 42% of hispanic, and 66% of black families are single-mother homes.
In 1980, 30% of teachers were men. Today, it's around 15% (a mere 3-6% male for grades K-6). When you remove sports and PE teachers, it's the low single digits overall. The reason for this shift is rather obvious. Society assumes that men are predators. When a single false accusation will ruin not just your career, but your entire life, why take that risk?
That same risk applies to other male role models as well. A 2 year old drowned in England a few years ago (irresponsible daycare let them into the street IIRC). It was noticed that a van was nearby when the child was walking down the road. The driver was found and asked about what happened. They said they saw the child, but a man in a white panel van stopping to help a kid would face accusations of kidnapping. The man had his own family and did't want to put them at risk if anything should happen to him. The child was a victim of society's demonization of men (I'd add that studies of female predators are almost non-existent and what little research has been conducted indicates that there are tons of female predators who society simply refuses to look into).
Children raised by single mothers are much more likely to have learning issues, bad grades, be in trouble at school, not graduate, and have mental health problems. Single mothers are also much more likely to have mental health and anxiety issues. This is just as true for the 20% of asians and the 66% of blacks, so the inverse proposal of the mothers passing these issues on to their children is not likely (if it were true, then the claims of racists would also be true). These rates also track upward over time. Remember that only around 25% of black mothers were single parents in the 1960s (before the civil rights act). It's even notable that the single mother rates under slavery didn't come close to the rates today.
The most notable and undeniable single mother statistic is crime. Somewhere around 85% of all people in prison had no significant father figure. Incarceration rates per capita per race track single mother rates closely (as a surprisingly large fraction of those homes).
Here's the surprise -- this is NOT true for single father households. Is this because fathers are better parents? I think not. Instead, I'd put forward that female role models are everywhere and women are willing to get close to kids while male role models are very scarce and men are forced by society to remain aloof. I haven't seen studies, but I'd be interested to know if societies where the pedo scare didn't happen have the same issues.
After all, they could simply have created their own company.
It’s like all the barriers that women face in tech without any of the support programs or big payday in the end
I can't think of any men that never played sports but are somehow punished for being "so masculine"
On reflection, the parent comment jibes with my experience growing up in the suburbs in the early 2000s. Literally all of my elementary school teachers were women. The only man I remember was a PE teacher, and I don't remember ascribing any authority to him at all.
The overwhelming majority of them genuinely care about their male students, acknowledge their different learning styles professionally and give them as good an opportunity as any competent male teacher would.
If you wanted to make a big difference, you wouldn't need to change gender ratios through social engineering. The small minority of female teachers that undermine boys' education are all known by the student body and other teachers.
But to the point raised in comments above, most boys were not participating in sports. Maybe 1 in 4 were at my school.
Blaming women as a whole makes no sense to me.
And to add, if you go to less privileged neighbourhoods you'll see sports participation drop significantly, most don't do any sports at all. And the problems are much worse there. It might have been even worse if they did more sports, who knows, but I doubt it.
> According to the National Survey of Children’s Health, only 24% of youth ages 6 to 17 engage in at least 60 minutes of physical activity per day, down from 30% a decade earlier. B
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20...
There was a TED Talk a few years back from a US Army General about how the terrible physical fitness of America's youth is becoming a national security problem.[1] I think the "low quality" of adolescent males over the past 2 decades is partly behind the push for more women in the military: we have so few physically-fit high-testosterone males that we have to cast a wider net and recruit physically-fit, comparatively-high-T females; they are better than soft fatbody guys. If boys were seriously engaged in sports at the rates that you are suggesting, teen obesity shouldn't be so widespread.
She was a very good coach too; she was also the one who taught me to swim about 10 years earlier.
Maybe in some parts of USA. Definitely not the case for Europe.
My dad was great, but through divorce, I had other great male role models, none of which you'd consider "feminine." However, it helped me understand the plurality of what it means to be a man. There are many ways to embrace your "natural" manhood that are beneficial to society. Animals rape each other, but we're not animals. Don't fall for the naturalistic fallacies.
The extreme elements of 3rd wave feminism has influcenced society in ways that unfairly and negatively impact boys.
Specifically the concept of "toxic masculinity". Toxic people are toxic. Toxic behaviors are toxic. Toxic people should be shamed and toxic behaviors should be discouraged.
Boys should not be shamed for being masculine, and masuclinity should not be discouraged.
Although you can rationalize the association away, it still exists and influences listeners. It's marketing against men.
If you really wanted to address issues with hyper-agression, you would use the term "hyper-agression", which is gender-neutral.
If you really wanted to address the consequence of not asking for help or compaining, you would perhaps use the term "stoicism", which is gender-neutral.
If you really wanted to address people overly affected by irrational fears, you would use the term "neuroticism", rather than "toxic femininity"
All these traits together are a subset of those denoted by "masculinity". I would not have a problem with toxic femininity being used in the same context, for example to describe the idea that a woman shouldn't earn her own way, or that one should manipulate men to get ahead or whatever else.
For the record I'd be far happier if the concepts of masculinity and femininity didn't exist at all, I think it just puts us in boxes and makes us insecure, but unfortunately they do.
Yes, and generally when the term "toxic people" is used, few assume that the speaker is saying that "people are toxic" and "people should be shamed for being people."
And yet... you've done pretty much that with the term "toxic masculinity." It's almost as if someone has persuaded you that adjectives are actually appositives.
The phrase "toxic masculinity" no more implies that masculinity itself should be discouraged or shamed than the phrase "toxic food" implies the entire world should fast forever.
And like "toxic food" would suggest there's some subset of foodstuffs one should avoid, it does suggest that there's some subset of masculine-identified behavior that are unhealthy for either those acting those behaviors out, or those on the receiving end of them.
Nobody's fooled.
"Toxic masulinity" has no obvious or direct meaning. It's a made up term. It's marketing. It itself conveys no useful meaning other than to associate masculitity with toxicicity.
To tie such a negative term to any other social/gender group would be called out as the biggotry it is.
Conservatives will be conservatives, aka creating a straw man so their base can feel just and continue in their camaraderie-through-bullying strategy.
Like the abolishment of "critical race theory" which was taught exactly zero places in the US before the calling for it's ban.
I think it's fine to call it toxic masculinity as long as people don't get it confused with healthy masculinity (not the same as femininity) or forget that toxic femininity exists or assume all men have toxic masculinity, or all the other misunderstandings that come with simplistic judgements of popular issues.
It found that the overwhelming bulk of DV was symmetric. In asymmetric cases, it was actually perpetuated by the woman in some 2/3 of cases. Further, in symmetric violence, the women admitted to starting the encounters 2/3 of the time.
Likewise, if a weapon is involved in DV, it was used by a woman in something like 4 out of 5 cases.
In most places, the law is to arrest the bigger party even if they were NOT the aggressor. Further, the law often dictates that an arrest is MANDATORY. This combination makes it easy to arrest large numbers of men which then plays havoc with the DV statistics.
As another data point, DV between gay (male) partners is several times less than heterosexual partners while DV between lesbian partners is several times higher.