It didn't take long for this Telegraph article to turn. Even though it was written by a woman

[deadpan]

William has been doing the rounds about mental health. Good for him, although arguably he seems to have been a bit blind to his brother's. We do have a rise in issues with mens mental health specifically. And William puts it down to our Grandfathers wanting to keep quiet about fighting in the wars?!?

Anyroad, then we get to it ladies...

"men, in particular, are no longer certain of their role or place in the world because of the huge changes which have been brought about by feminism"

Writes a woman! Which "huge" changes is she referring to? The fact that we still don't have equal pay, even though it's the law. The fact that we're sick of being assaulted and more of us are reporting it. The fact that even when we work full-time we're still the ones who do the main bulk of the household chores.
When is it going to stop being our fault.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/20/stiff-upper-lip-not-working-prince-william/
I tried to attach the archive.ph link but it didn't work.

You’re not wrong.

If men can't cope with no longer being the Most Important People (even though the vast majority of them never were) and not getting their own way all the time (even though most of them never did), then perhaps the problem is men rather than feminism.

Do you think feminism has not achieved anything for women? I don't think the world is perfect, but we now have the right to vote, the right to study, the right to divorce, the right to inherit, the right to equality. As a woman, I'd much rather live today than in the 17th century.

The problem is that some men have carried on as though feminism never changed the world. The consequences are framed as if they were feminism’s fault rather than men’s, when in reality the only significant social response men have come up with has been the manosphere.

I didn’t think this article was blaming women. I think you’re over reading it. Obviously feminism has changed things for men. How could it not.

I thought the pay gap had largely been debunked? Men choose higher paying jobs, ask for pay rises more often, and work a lot more hours.

Whilst there are a lot of women in senior office jobs there's still a huge gap with the working classes. Tradesmen and builders earn very well but most jobs popular with WC women are very low paid by comparison.

Whilst reading the thread here by the poor woman whose husband has just been sectioned I felt like sending it to William and Katherine who are (laudably) campaigning about mental health..... so that they can get a grip on what it is like at the sharp end when trying to access services.

I think feminism has changed things for men that require adjustments. I do not think this means that it is women's fault.

I must say I've never been entirely convinced by the argument about men losing purpose due to less 'masculine' jobs around nowadays, usually attributed to the decline of manufacturing. Construction is still hugely male dominated and always bounces back even if it has its slumps.

There's still a shortage of HGV drivers even if not as bad as a few years ago. Companies and agencies will happily take on new passes and an ambitious Class 1 driver that doesn't settle for a crap job will easily make £50k+. Much more with a specialism like fuel tankers. Heavy plant drivers working on fixed contracts are often making £22-£24 p/h with overtime rates at 1.25-1.5x standard rate.

Women get pregnant and spend more time caring for children. This disadvantages them in the work place.

Women still earn less for the same work. Jobs that are predominantly done by women are paid worse. If a profession becomes more popular amongst women, the salaries go down. If women are tough negotiators, they often don't get the job and are perceived negatively. If men are tough negotiators, they are seen positively. This is evidence based, not my opinion.

To say women work less and should therefore earn less is only half the picture and disregards the complexity of the issue. Women did not choose their biology and should not be punished for it. Society as a whole benefits from women's children. They will be everyone's doctors, plumbers, teachers.

I agree with most of these points.

I think the motherhood penalty is a big factor and sadly many people will choose the employee that they know is less likely to disappear from the business for long periods of time. I remember the Nasty Gal controversy where they were firing pregnant women despite the company owner being a big advocate of workplace equality and IIRC having written books on the topic. A lot of people are ultimately selfish when it comes down to their own money.

As of last year 84% of men and 60% of women worked full time. That's a huge difference. Of course it doesn't happen in a vacuum but it still affects things. And whilst feminists usually get angry about the following statement I've observed in my years of working in construction that most women just aren't interested in the dirty physical jobs despite them paying well.

Ironically, these types of jobs aren't hugely affected by taking time out. If you maintain your tickets and keep your training up to date with online courses you can easily jump back in. Most companies are only interested in whether you can safely operate the machine. They don't need to see evidence of uninterrupted employment.

The school system and gender stereotypes play a huge role in the pay differences between men and women.

Boys outnumber girls in A-Level Computing by 4 to 1
They outnumber girls in A-Level Physics & Accountancy by 3 to 1
They outnumber girls in A-Level Maths by 2 to 1

Health & Social Care at A-Level is an almost exclusively female subject: 96%
Ditto for Performing/Expressive Arts: 92%
Girls outnumber boys by 4 to 1 in English Literature

Meanwhile, Chinese girls are now outperforming boys at Maths from age 15 on... We have a lot of work to do to get rid of regressive stereotypes among young girls, many of whom still think of maths as a "boys" subject.
It's not.
It's probably the most important subject you can learn in relation to future earning potential.

Hmm, but on the flipside I get paid the same as the men I work with in the construction sector.

I'm working nights on HS2 atm (driving concrete mixers) and I got paid £360 a shift Mon-Fri last week. Usually it's about 4-5 hours work but I only did one shift last week longer than around three hours. Was starting 6pm and back in yard at around 21:15 most nights.

My sister studied maths and geo something and works for the MOD. She's the only woman in her building and has 40 male reports. She had Level 4 clearance by the time she was 30.

Well women are told time and time again on here their only purpose is to have children, stay at home and raise them ready for the time they need to help provide childcare for their grandchildre, that is all women are good for, the message is getting louder and louder

But it is all as long as the man is the fiancial plan all is fine

No PollyBell women don’t think that. In fact if men stepped up and did their share on the domestic and childcare front women would be much more able to earn a decent wage themselves rather than accepting low paid work that fits around the man’s job. Like @GaIadriel upthread who presumably has either a supportive partner or no kids.

My previous company had more women in senior roles than men, but there was still a sex pay gap because women would also take almost all of the part time jobs with lower pay in the branches.

Or at least that’s how they explained it to us.

So it's real but perhaps not always caused by the reasons we assume.

That'll be no kids. Although with me working 18:00-21:15 most days atm I could quite easily be doing the school drop offs/pickups/housework and have a full time working partner looking after the kids for a few hours in the evening.

But tbh they're kind of a lifestyle choice at this point IMO. The world is bursting with humans and the graphs of human population are pretty eye opening when you see how stable the population was until the 1900s, at which point it absolutely rocketed.

Yes, we have too many old people but that's because of increased life expectancy/misbalance between age demographics rather than low population. Public services and infrastructure are already creaking under the weight.

We can't of course just let the elderly die but increasing the birth rate to deal with the issue seems a bit like taking out long term loans to pay off short term loans - the issue is having unmanageable debt in the first place.

And let's be honest. Nobody really has kids for altruistic reasons anyway. It's a completely optional decision.

That very much depends on the reasons you have assumed.

It's very widely understood that the problem is multifactorial. It's been many decades since it was a simple 'we can get away with it, they're only women'.

I am going to come at this from a slightly different angle...

"men, in particular, are no longer certain of their role or place in the world because of the huge changes which have been brought about by feminism"

I think there is an element of truth in this... before feminism, men 'knew their position' - the fact that it was inappropriately balanced / misogynistic / paternalistic, stacked in their favour - isn't the whole argument...

feminism (and as a bloke I am a big advocate - see my other postings!) has done well to dismantle much of that (though plenty still to do), however, what hasn't happened (and no allocation of blame) is that an alternative perspective hasn't been considered or codified - if men are not to be what they have traditionally been, what should they be now?

The simple answer of course should be 'decent human beings' there doesn't need to be a strong difference between men and women - all should be considerate and caring towards others, selfless and thoughtful, tidy and hard working etc. but the reality is that society's differences are not fully dismantled, but they no longer have the same identity - so boys and girls are taught from an early age that they are different, we segment in sports (makes sense with strength differences), but also we now have more segmentation in other areas to redress imbalance - e.g. stem etc. so children are brought up that there is a clear identity difference between boys and girls - supported by colours and toys / tv / books / clothes / etc. However when you get to adults, there is still a rubric around women (caring / nurturing / etc.) but no longer one for men - where it used to be provider and strength etc. those things are now removed from men - because rightly we say that women can also do that - but we haven't replaced them...

so you end up with a society where men can feel a little pointless and purpose-less - the only alternative being offered to them is the Andrew Tate approach...

so, I think there is truth in that - but it doesn't have to be seen as negative - all people want to find their tribe / their purpose / to feel fulfilled - helping that happen for men and women (and allowing it to be found anywhere for either) is surely part of building a more balanced society...?