3 comments

[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 18.1 ms ] thread
As an early/mid GenX, my empathetic view based off of real-world observations:

Young men are still being nailed to the wall with patriarchal standards, such as having good incomes and prestigious careers and owning a house and being (largely) debt-free. Without these, the vast majority of women will consider these men as “non-persons”, and utterly ignore them in terms of potential romantic candidates. Exhibit № 1: the “666 man” rule that now enjoys non-trivial levels of use among young(er) women.

Unfortunately, the tools and paths to achieve these benchmarks are almost completely denied to young men, especially in comparison to prior generations like the boomers and the earlier half of GenX. And then they face twice as much competition for those benchmarks as their grandfathers did. That alone is a massive hammer blow against “success”.

Unless the expectations being piled on young men get radically lowered to be more in-line with actual opportunities, the current chasm will continue to widen, with more and more men being left behind.

What also bothers me about this article is the intellectually bankrupt usage of the so-called “gender wage gap” of 17%, which compares the wages of all men against the wages of all women. That’s no different than comparing a 26yo male junior lawyer to a 26yo female barista and complaining about the barista’s low wage.

Adjusting for the job itself, certifications pursued, hours worked, availability to work and the nature of the work itself, the actual “wage gap” almost vanishes to 1.5-3%, depending on industry. In many larger metro regions - and keeping all other things the same, such as specializations, education, time worked, etc. - young women under the age of 30 actually out-earn men of the same age by up to 20%. And yet, that is always conveniently ignored.

So do I agree with Galloway? Broadly, yes.

And he is worlds better than the 1ncel movement, which has an overarching tendency to blame women instead of focusing on self- improvement.

But while I think that helping men is an important part of the solution, there are insurmountable and systemic societal and economic barriers that young men have no power to affect, and never will.

Helping men will only go so far, and I fear that it will be nowhere near enough.

I was a student in Gerda Lerners patriarchy class at Madison and she always said off hand there’d be a time where the narrative construct of patriarchy (our male unideity myths, our law, our state, our history in cause effect simplifications- all illusions btw) would run aground when women gained equality and the hidden legacy that gave lesser able men places at the societal table would vanish. These men who are castaways were included earlier as the effluvia of dominance. Now they’re not included.

That’s evolution, especially as patriarchy is dismantled far too slowly. When do we demote these male gods? The dinosaur skeleton of patriarchy?

Keep in mind, patriarchy is just a narrative that masculinity can never resurrect.

And the question becomes how do we ensure parity or partnership, otherwise women can possibly implement the pendulum swing matriarchal dominance? The patriarchy (male mono mythic gods, inheritance favorability, dominance, you name it) is slowly coming to an end. And those that sneaked by in the past on the coattails of dominance are not getting into college nor can this plurality compete in an open market.

Retrieving masculinity isn’t bringing back the dominance or self image of it.

What did men do to deserve this? We accepted evolution and the switchover happens.