Women may be doing better, but are kids better off? Women may no longer need men to provide for them, but what about the value of fathers and two parent families? Many younger people are in crisis, and society isn't exactly running fantastically on all cylinders right now. We need to value the better qualities of both men and women. Men can and should contribute more than just $ earnings to the equation.
You have asked the right question, which is likely to be absent from these conversations. Are the kids better off? Or, as I would put it, what’s best for the kids?
Much of the discussion seems to revolve around whether the adults are living fulfilled lives. Is that what children are for? To fulfill the adults? Or are adults for the children? If you center the children, the conversation changes.
I agree with your comments but in my circle, men do give it their all with families. I see that elsewhere in our society, men are creating their own pseudo-harems where they have several children with several women. Usually these guys are alpha types. As Richard said, all throughout history, this structure seems to pop up. The monogamous culture of the West may to be more of an exception than the rule. I think most primates have alphas that have all the mating rights where the betas are left out. We seem to be devolving in that direction if you see the stats on the sexless males in our society. 😕
Great discussion! A few months ago (before this book came out) I lobbied for a book group to read “The War Against Men” (?) by Christina Hoff Sommers. The group just hated it because it didn’t toe the line of patriarchy, privilege, power. Folks just argued against it for the whole time. This book sounds better and I wish it well! We need this discussion.
Wow. How refreshing to hear this! I feel ‘heard’ lol. No but really. The bit about women needing to have more compassion and empathy is so true. I’ve felt this for many years now. There’s a general sense in the culture now that all men have every advantage in life and basically, Fuck Men. How ironic, coming from rich white young women who always claim to be the queens of virtue and empathy. Which brings me to the other good point made about class. Rich white women control a LOT, especially in the arts, academia, etc. The point is well-taken about these women being at the top and working-class men of all races being far below. This reminds of the racial controversies in the public discourse now as well, the idea that all (white) men have it easy somehow. It’s beyond ridiculous. The ‘hypergamie’ thing is interesting. I experienced this when I lived in Manhattan: I noticed women seemed to be very money-driven when it came to choosing men. There was a physical angle too: Women generally wanted tall men over 6’0, with a full head of hair and a good job making a lot of money. Any men outside of that circle had a tougher time. Luckily NYC is very diverse so you could still meet people but the overall trend was pretty clear.
Do 3rd and 4th wave feminists truly want to live without men? I’m in a relationship now but when I was still doing online dating it seemed very odd and confusing: Women often seemed to borderline hate men but simultaneously were desperately seeking good men. Do these women not see that their own attitudes push men away?
One last thing. This discussion made me wonder something I’ve wanted more info on: Do women in contemporary times REALLY make less money for the same work like the media incessantly claims? Or are these overall averages which don’t highlight birthing children, individual ambition and choices, etc etc? I’m genuinely curious.
Takes a lot of courage to have these discussions. Thank you 🙏
I can honestly say that I've never worked a job where the boss decided to give me more than a woman doing exactly what I do. I think people dumb down the logic by saying: The job of a pro basketball player is to put the ball in the hoop. Men earn much more than women at this therefore it is sexism. But the proper logic is: The job of a pro basketball player is to entice people to purchase stadium seats and tv advertising spots. Men are much more successful at this than women therefore men are paid more.
I get that. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if women are literally paid 83 cents for every dollar men make for the same job. It’s pitched to suggest that women are literally given a lower wage/salary, but this strikes me as hard to believe in contemporary times? Thirty years ago: absolutely. But now? Or am I missing the point? Have you done a podcast on this topic?
No, they're not. Obviously it varies case by case (and women tend to be worse salary negotiators) but my understanding is that hour by hour for the same job the pay is equal.
One problem with the equal.pay statistics is the failure to define "comparable" jobs. Men tend to dominate the most dangerous blue collar occupations that garner a wage premium. We were led to believe that a male data entry clerk with 5 years experience made more than the woman in the exact same job with the exact same years of experience.
Great episode. I'm glad Richard Reeves' book is getting traction. I remember when I read Christine Hoff Summers book in 2020 on the same topic and, while generally agreeing with her, I found some of it oft-putting. (I don't remember what exactly though I know that most of her writing has been a mixed bag for me.) I had read before that in '95, Failing at Fairness, which showed the ways girls weren't given a fair shake and recognized how it was absolutely right for when I went to high school and college (68-76) before second-wave feminism "won" but was quickly becoming outdated, as the script flipped.
I think a national service component before going to college or the work world could both help in our current cultural divide as well as helping men catch-up to women before hitting college. Having worked closely with young men in college for 17 years, I can say unequivocally that most guys should not be there so young. Particularly given the high costs of college. They flail for 2-3 years before, finally, catching up and developing the habits and drive most girls enter college with. A year of national service or - better yet - two would erase that maturity gap while helping young men with both practical and social skills.
Mormons do their 2-year proselytizing mission at 19 for guys (and girls can do it too) and, of all the Mormons I know, it did wonders for the young men in terms of maturity. (While, obviously, they are trying to convert folks - I think the other major reason they do it is to actually address the male maturity issue so they are more ready for their assumed role as husband and father.)
I think a national service could be similar without the religious motivation.
Great discussion but I have to say that it’s pretty funny to hear all the throat clearing about mens rights just as you start a discussion about stuff mras have been talking about for years. That is an area where I don’t really think this podcast is particularly heterodox.
You were right. You did push further in this one. I've been listening to all of his podcast appearances and this one has been my favorite.
Women may be doing better, but are kids better off? Women may no longer need men to provide for them, but what about the value of fathers and two parent families? Many younger people are in crisis, and society isn't exactly running fantastically on all cylinders right now. We need to value the better qualities of both men and women. Men can and should contribute more than just $ earnings to the equation.
You have asked the right question, which is likely to be absent from these conversations. Are the kids better off? Or, as I would put it, what’s best for the kids?
Much of the discussion seems to revolve around whether the adults are living fulfilled lives. Is that what children are for? To fulfill the adults? Or are adults for the children? If you center the children, the conversation changes.
Right?!?
I agree with your comments but in my circle, men do give it their all with families. I see that elsewhere in our society, men are creating their own pseudo-harems where they have several children with several women. Usually these guys are alpha types. As Richard said, all throughout history, this structure seems to pop up. The monogamous culture of the West may to be more of an exception than the rule. I think most primates have alphas that have all the mating rights where the betas are left out. We seem to be devolving in that direction if you see the stats on the sexless males in our society. 😕
Great discussion! A few months ago (before this book came out) I lobbied for a book group to read “The War Against Men” (?) by Christina Hoff Sommers. The group just hated it because it didn’t toe the line of patriarchy, privilege, power. Folks just argued against it for the whole time. This book sounds better and I wish it well! We need this discussion.
Wow. How refreshing to hear this! I feel ‘heard’ lol. No but really. The bit about women needing to have more compassion and empathy is so true. I’ve felt this for many years now. There’s a general sense in the culture now that all men have every advantage in life and basically, Fuck Men. How ironic, coming from rich white young women who always claim to be the queens of virtue and empathy. Which brings me to the other good point made about class. Rich white women control a LOT, especially in the arts, academia, etc. The point is well-taken about these women being at the top and working-class men of all races being far below. This reminds of the racial controversies in the public discourse now as well, the idea that all (white) men have it easy somehow. It’s beyond ridiculous. The ‘hypergamie’ thing is interesting. I experienced this when I lived in Manhattan: I noticed women seemed to be very money-driven when it came to choosing men. There was a physical angle too: Women generally wanted tall men over 6’0, with a full head of hair and a good job making a lot of money. Any men outside of that circle had a tougher time. Luckily NYC is very diverse so you could still meet people but the overall trend was pretty clear.
Do 3rd and 4th wave feminists truly want to live without men? I’m in a relationship now but when I was still doing online dating it seemed very odd and confusing: Women often seemed to borderline hate men but simultaneously were desperately seeking good men. Do these women not see that their own attitudes push men away?
One last thing. This discussion made me wonder something I’ve wanted more info on: Do women in contemporary times REALLY make less money for the same work like the media incessantly claims? Or are these overall averages which don’t highlight birthing children, individual ambition and choices, etc etc? I’m genuinely curious.
Takes a lot of courage to have these discussions. Thank you 🙏
Michael
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
The gender wage gap is largely a motherhood penalty at this point. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html
I can honestly say that I've never worked a job where the boss decided to give me more than a woman doing exactly what I do. I think people dumb down the logic by saying: The job of a pro basketball player is to put the ball in the hoop. Men earn much more than women at this therefore it is sexism. But the proper logic is: The job of a pro basketball player is to entice people to purchase stadium seats and tv advertising spots. Men are much more successful at this than women therefore men are paid more.
I get that. I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if women are literally paid 83 cents for every dollar men make for the same job. It’s pitched to suggest that women are literally given a lower wage/salary, but this strikes me as hard to believe in contemporary times? Thirty years ago: absolutely. But now? Or am I missing the point? Have you done a podcast on this topic?
No, they're not. Obviously it varies case by case (and women tend to be worse salary negotiators) but my understanding is that hour by hour for the same job the pay is equal.
Got it
One problem with the equal.pay statistics is the failure to define "comparable" jobs. Men tend to dominate the most dangerous blue collar occupations that garner a wage premium. We were led to believe that a male data entry clerk with 5 years experience made more than the woman in the exact same job with the exact same years of experience.
Great episode. I'm glad Richard Reeves' book is getting traction. I remember when I read Christine Hoff Summers book in 2020 on the same topic and, while generally agreeing with her, I found some of it oft-putting. (I don't remember what exactly though I know that most of her writing has been a mixed bag for me.) I had read before that in '95, Failing at Fairness, which showed the ways girls weren't given a fair shake and recognized how it was absolutely right for when I went to high school and college (68-76) before second-wave feminism "won" but was quickly becoming outdated, as the script flipped.
I think a national service component before going to college or the work world could both help in our current cultural divide as well as helping men catch-up to women before hitting college. Having worked closely with young men in college for 17 years, I can say unequivocally that most guys should not be there so young. Particularly given the high costs of college. They flail for 2-3 years before, finally, catching up and developing the habits and drive most girls enter college with. A year of national service or - better yet - two would erase that maturity gap while helping young men with both practical and social skills.
Mormons do their 2-year proselytizing mission at 19 for guys (and girls can do it too) and, of all the Mormons I know, it did wonders for the young men in terms of maturity. (While, obviously, they are trying to convert folks - I think the other major reason they do it is to actually address the male maturity issue so they are more ready for their assumed role as husband and father.)
I think a national service could be similar without the religious motivation.
I’ve listened to a few podcast interviews with Richard and this was by far my favorite.
Great discussion but I have to say that it’s pretty funny to hear all the throat clearing about mens rights just as you start a discussion about stuff mras have been talking about for years. That is an area where I don’t really think this podcast is particularly heterodox.