If young men want ‘traditional’ gender roles, we need to know why - Kathleen Stock

And @IwantToRetire, can you point to these surveys that say "men are as sexist as they once were"? This seems totally implausible to me, frankly - just taking as one example, 75 years ago many men truly believed women couldn't and shouldn't run marathons.

Yes, there are lots of problems in the world, but I don't think this kind of hyperbole does us many favours

@IwantToRetire

Hmm, the claim that domestic violence is worse than it has ever been really isn't borne out in fact. Of course, there are fewer barriers to reporting than there once were (my own grandmother stayed in a relationship because there was nowhere to go and there was no question of her reporting her husband to the police), but this really isn't true.

What are other people’s thoughts about this phenomenon contributing to the declining birth rate. To me it seems obvious that a factor in women not bearing as many children on average is connected to the fact that there is a disconnect in the expectations of many men for what to expect in a relationship with the expectations many women now have.

In essence - the disparity and negative toll on women is so bad over a whole population that women are saying that it’s better to not be part of it at all and as a result fewer children are produced.

My personal experience is of a relationship with a man who shares the load equally. But I know many women, some friends and family included, are not in that position at all. One friend is so disillusioned with her saying and relationship experience she has decided to pack it in.

I’m not saying this is the whole reason for the birth rate declining, just a piece of the puzzle.

I think it is to do with power and hierarchies. As women progress their reliance on men is lessening to the point where men are facing a huge crisis of identity. Before a man’s status was always based on his place in the hierarchy. A growing son with an absent father may challenge the mother through dominance to take his ‘rightful’ place in the domestic setting, filling the shoes of the father. For a young man, the instinct to do this (and I do believe that competition in men is instinctive whereas in women it is more choice driven) must feel confusing and mixed with testosterone and will lead to emotional outbursts.

I have been mulling over whether the feminist view that the patriarchy exists to subjugate women to the benefit of men is at all correct. It sounds very conspiratorial. The patriarch evolved as the most effective way of making society operate and function, hence the roles we all were supposed to fit into. Now that the patriarch has delivered success on many levels (despite its unfairness, exploitation and destruction it has served to provide us with modern day capitalism that has taken more people out of poverty globally than any other system and has effectively led to women’s liberation) we face new challenges and these challenges require a new order, perhaps an order that is more collaborative and not as competitive. We no longer rely on muscle power to build and cultivate the world we live in. Women are no longer tied and oppressed through their biology. It seems to me that women are grabbing the bull by the horns and are exceeding even their own expectations whereas men are feeling inadequate on many levels compared to their forefathers, who automatically had respect and power afforded to them just for being male.

I actually really liked this article. I am not sure whether or not I agreed with it fully, but as a mum of a boy (like Kathleen stock herself), I did welcome the discussion.

I think that it is true that female liberal perspectives are automatically assumed to be "good" in many elite spaces at the moment - I imagine that KS is also referencing the trans debate in this one (where "be kind" seems to trump rational behaviour) whereas a male conservative perspective would be considered somehow unfeeling or inferior. It's helpful to point out that neither are necessarily based in objective truth and might be grounded in feelings or psychology.

And that the liberal female point of view SOMETIMES throws the baby out of the bath water (dismissal of marriage in some quarters being quite a big one - yes, totally fine to dismiss it offhand as patriarchal and outdated, but it remains the best practical way for many women to ensure that their kids remain provided for if their relationship breaks down and still seems to produce better outcomes for children, unfashionable as that might be - if you are wealthy enough for it not to matter for you or someone for whom it would be less of an advantage, of course do what you like, but for women who intend to have kids as a class, it's currently a plus)

I don't think that what KS is saying is that we need to assume men are right to gripe and women need to sort men out, but rather that we (as a society, men and women) shouldn't label men who are struggling with their identity "emotional and angry" and dismiss them. Women, after all, have had to deal with being called "hysterical" for having an opinion and we all know how that feels!!

I think that there is a generation of young(ish) men who have seen traditional fatherhood modelled to them (or not at all) and so are struggling to understand what their role might be. Many of the dads in popular culture are oafish and less capable than their female counterparts but are the providers - strip away the provider bit and honestly they really are not that appealing. Young men know this but they don't know what they are supposed to be. I don't think that KS is saying that we females should centre them or weep for them, but that society needs to find a better way of discussing and modelling what good positive manhood looks like.

There is an issue with the way men are portrayed in the media at the moment I think, there are very few representations of "good" men.

When I became a Dad, it really started to bother me how fathers are shown, particularly in TV that kids are likely to watch. We're the Homer Simpsons, the Daddy Pigs, the loveable oafs who are completely incapable of being competent. And that's when we're not completely absent.

I've been watching "Fool Me Once" on Netflix recently, and while I didn't think much of it, one thing that really surprised me was its depictions of fatherhood. One side character in particular is just a really god Dad. He's not perfect. He's grieving, drinking a bit too much, and so makes mistakes, but he's really really trying. And it stood out to me so much because its just so so rare to see at the moment.

It's obviously not women's problem to fix, because largely women still aren't in charge of our film or TV industries, but its a huge part of our culture, and I think it's at least part of the reason that young men are feeling lost at the moment. Because men on TV are either the big action star, the superhero, the rock, or they're the loser the buffoon, the deadbeat. There's no middle ground.

Louise Perry questions whether the feminist movement has been a net positive for women. I think it was morally necessary but I do have some sympathy for her pov. I wonder what a feminist movement that focused on valuing the domestic sphere would look like.

Yes, I sometimes find it most depressing on MN as there is an aggressive insistence that men and women are the same and want exactly the same. Observable differences are almost always put down to socialisation despite science simply not supporting this. We actually don't really know why men and women are different so the scramble to completely deny that biology can have any role is more about pushing an agenda than caring about truth.

The patriarchy has done such a number on women and 'female' activities that there is a strong contingent that simply can't accept that some women want to stay at home with their kids or clean the house or whatever. It can't be allowed because they then think this will be used as proof that all women want this and women will be stripped of their hard won rights. It's a defensive stance and one that doesn't really progress the position of the women that aren't happy simply doing the same as men. They are sacrificial lambs for some though in the supposed fight to equality.

Yes I agree. Although these standards are not imposed by the patriarchy they are undervalued by it, which creates many problems for women. It’s extraordinary really: raising functional humans is probably the most important thing for our society and yet it is not valued at all. If it were our culture would look completely different.

I think a lot of people women buy into this though so there isn’t the social/political pressure to value child-rearing more.

Traditionally, the man provided the home and the woman looked after it. These days, women are jointly providing the home but the men are failing to jointly look after it.

I am starting to contemplate reframing the role of provider. If men truly want to be providers, there are plenty of ways they can do that. What is cooking a meal but providing food? What is cleaning the kitchen but providing a clean environment? You don't have to slay a dragon and bring home meat to provide. Being a partnership in the mundaneness of some parts of life so your partner doesn't feel it's all on them is being a provider. So how can men convince other men that this is worth doing?

This point really stands out to me. Boys need to see role models every bit as much as girls do. The most straightforward is their father. I think the work that Louise Perry has been doing in looking at healthy societies to support women and children is interesting. The father figure is an important part of that. Honestly, I think our culture has denigrated the role of men in family life. It hasn't played out well for our sons (or our daughters). There is no society without both happy, healthy men and women.

I would certainly be interested in seeing some studies into the possible biological roots of the division of/importance placed on different tasks.

Of course it will never be completely consistent across a population and there will always be plenty of examples that buck the trend, but I still think it's true for the vast majority of couples. Socialisation plays a role but I will never be convinced it's the whole story. Biology is strong!

It isn't just cleaning or tidying that is belittled. Looking after children and family organisation is also devalued. The example of buying thoughtful gifts really rings true too! We all know how much we (men and women) treasure that thoughtful gift that was bought with love for us and yet it's seen as such an unimportant activity to source the gift.

25 years ago l was a teacher at a nice comprehensive.

I had a pastoral period with my y9 form. All the girls wanted to be architects and peadiatricians

The boys wanted the girls to be housewives. So they would have someone to cook and clean for them. The girls were horrified.

Its not a new thing.

also nobody wants chores, they're chores because we have to do them. I enjoy having clean kitchen, not cleaning the kitchen - and I am sure there men are similar, only now many of them are taught they need to clean the kitchen to have a clean kitchen.

I haven’t read this full thread but wanted to comment because I read the article when it was published and thought it very insightful and interesting. We should stop treating boys as two dimensional characters. There is a lot to consider in the article.

Women placing more importance on clean and tidy homes could be partly social conditioning, in wider society and within a family/growing-up experience.
And I'm not sure men do, in general anyway, care less about cleaning etc; I've seen threads on here where men are incensed if their wife/gf etc hasn't done some cleaning or tidying task. I think at least to some degree some men really think that's 'women's work'.

I do agree though that there's a general tendency to scoff/belittle if a woman expresses a desire for a clean house or for piles of things to be tidied away.

author was never a drama kid, huh?

years ago, when I was one, everything we studied in drama class had a serious dose of...well, drama!

you don't make plays about mundane life, you need conflict, action and if you can add a death or six -even better! gives you the sweet points for dramatic fall on stage, and what teen does not want to look like a unconvincing corpse with the tongue sticking out while watching the audience's reaction through half-closed eyelids?

for as long as theatre existed, the aim of the play was to evoke strong emotions - and the negative ones are easier to pull off for a bunch of teen actors

A lot of times images of "good" masculine men, in the media for example, or even public life, are treated as kind of comic, or something to be indulged by women.

I don't think it's a surprise that this is not appealing to many boys as a model.

And explaining female progressivism away psychologically would be easy enough to do. Since today’s left seems largely to be interested in dismantling social norms rather than standing up for any, its allure for young women could be explained in terms of high levels of feminine agreeableness and a confusion between being socially permissive and kind.

This certainly rings true to me in terms of gender ideology. Most of the time it seems to be women who are most pushing it, and accusing those who don't agree of being bigots. Men I find more skeptical, overall.

Of course they don't have a desire to scrub floors or clean toilets as these are pretty nasty jobs. However studies suggest women do generally place more importance on having a clean and tidy homes. This can be achieved through doing the work themselves as family unit, outsourcing it or using domestic appliances. I also believe women will prioritise their children and associated tasks often more than men will. The alternative viewpoint is that men and women want exactly the same as each other which just seems completely contrary to trends that can be observed across cultures, across history and across similar species.

So if we are at the point where women and men have different priorities then why is it that the woman is considered as fussy or unnecessary if they seek to have their wants and needs met?

Not at all convinced women are 'concerned' with scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets out of deep female compulsions. Remember the impact of labour saving devices eg washing machines etc.

I think your post is interesting. I actually agree with you that women are men are fundamentally different in terms of what they value and I do controversially believe this is at least partly rooted in biology. It is therefore completely natural that mothers and fathers will value different things. I think from an evolutionary perspective it would make sense for the sexes to broadly specialise in slightly different areas and interests as it broadens what actually gets done for the benefit of the family/tribe.

I think it is the fault of the patriarchy though that they have belittled and trivialised the interests and activities typically associated with women. Having a tidy and clean house is considered a frippery when it has been proven time and again that it's important for people's mental and physical health. Extracurricular activities are hugely important for children as it not only allows them to develop interests and friendships outside of school but also can make a real difference when they come to apply to university or for jobs. The list goes on and on.

My point is that equality is generally a shorthand for women doing the same as men. Working the same types of careers, earning the same kind of money and not being bogged down by kids or domestic matters. The problem is, what if women actually naturally are more concerned with children and domestic matters and therefore aren't happy if these things are compromised? The men may well continue on not caring and having lower standards but that doesn't automatically mean the woman must overlook what she actually cares about and lower her standards too.