Oddly the reference to Michael Kimmel – does a good deal to clarify the cause of a lack of understanding.
While the article spends a good deal of time focusing on the issue of fatherlessness, they fail to appreciate the more profound issues around this.
We need to ask, given the direct focus on the issue of “absent fathers” there is a massive hole being left, when they leap to “If we wish to revive the fortunes of today’s young men, we must help fathers teach their sons how to prepare better for adulthood, relationships and marriage.”
The authors of this paper, seem to have utterly missed the deeper issues here, that being that many if not most of those fathers were removed, and given their experience may well reinforce the lessons of avoiding relationships that these young men may well have drawn. I dare say one of the lead authors is essentially choosing to ignore the basic possibility that avoiding marriage and relationships may well reflect considered choice, not immaturity or error.
“Brad Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and The Future of Freedom fellow at the Institute for Family Studies” may perhaps be someone that needs to understand the more fundamental issues with marriage today.
I would like to suggest that as a society, we are far too willing to conclude what this senior does – those young men are not growing up.
“Take Cece, a rising senior: “The majority of the guys I’ve encountered at U.Va. don’t want to commit to an actual relationship. They haven’t grown up. They want to hook up with girls, but that’s it. Many of my friends and I are frustrated with the lack of maturity our guy friends exemplify. My parents met in college, which was common among their generation, and are about to celebrate their 30th anniversary. Meanwhile, I have one year left at U.Va. and don’t foresee myself dating anyone.””
“Sometimes it is just very frustrating to me when I want to tell a guy I know who is living his life in some sort of unsatisfactory way,” said Isabela, a junior. “I have to hold myself back from being like, ‘What are you doing? The way that you’re living is contributing to your unhappiness.’”
I would suggest that the issue is that young men are looking ar the world in a much more clear-eyed way than their critics are. The junior above, is very unlikely to have noted how often relationships are unmitigated disaster for men as expectations are so dangerously unbalanced. Where what would be asserted abusive and controlling when he does it, is laughed off when she does. Although many young women are coming to see the issues, we need to accept the mess we have made for young women finding partners because we ensured that these double standards were actively promoted, to a point where trust has been broken and this effect is rapidly spreading.
We need to understand the absence of fathers not only removed the role models, but their removal has defined marriage and relationships for young men. We need to also understand how that spreads far beyond in terms of messages of not mattering, and being other.
“ Young men are increasingly less likely than women to enroll in college and less likely than women to apply themselves even if they land in college; a growing number of them are also idle or underemployed as they move through their 20s.”
Note, we have to ask ourselves, why and what have we made clear to the young men of our society, that young women are just starting to understand. Note, this article makes a point of in part blaming the “opiate of electronic games”.
Perhaps we should examine the research that redefined the way teachers have been educated, and hence how boys have been treated in schools. The reality that it was driven by gender studies profs, and is full of errors, or lacking in actual research should be understood to be more than a problem.
it is boys understand that being a boy is cause for being resented, and being graded more harshly, hence also why boys who do not act like boys, are excessively rewarded.
it is that they also understand being a boy was cause enough to give him drugs that we now understand do profound harm in brain development.
It is also that we need to understand – that like domestic violence issues, we have asserted that the boy is always the issue. This while it is very obvious that teachers were not taught to teach boys, and within relationships, it is more likely that the girl is hitting her boyfriend than the inverse, very much as in marriage.
What are we telling boys and young men, they are the problem when she has a single drink and invades their room and bed? What are we telling them in terms of trust, that her regret after a single drink, is his criminal act. This even when she coerced him, and he had no way to know she had been drinking. https://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html
We are asserting boys are not growing up. Odd, as we used to call making choices using a risk vs return approach a display of maturity and common sense.
Lying to women, by pretending they are the main victims- of things they do more often
Young men look on as they see men asserted to be “horrid” for ghosting women, or dating multiple women at the same time. Things that gender reversed are a non-issue, and they know women were far more likely to ghost men, and the “female dating strategy” actively promotes the dating of many men. More importantly he knows getting upset, before she agrees it is exclusive just makes him the monster. Yet, he is also the monster, if he is not exclusive when she wanted it to be, even where nothing was said. That men are horrid for behaviors, that are only bad when men do them.
When we look who is villainized? Well Amber Heard could say what she did for a reason.
When she initiates against his will, he can still expect to be the one blamed. This it seems includes domestic violence, and sexual predation. Who has been told that does not happen to boys or men?
So perhaps it is time to ask, how do dating, and mating look for him. It is time to understand what being grown up looks like depends entirely on where you are headed. Monks are adults, truly grown up without dating, or marrying.
Undermining women – by hiding the male perspective.
We are undermining young women, when we try and dismiss these issues. Worse when we try and lecture young men without seriously stopping and asking some serious questions with regards to the benefits that accrue to him as opposed to his ability to provide.
Things that have been pushed as advantages of marriage for him look like sacrifices, when examined in terms of his personal wellbeing. Why should she not ask, plan and pay? Why is work “her choice” and not his?
Given that we have defined marriage and mating so that regardless of what she did he is the issue. When she reverses herself or when she abuses him, he is the issue. That it has been made clear that only her consent matters. What if, she had to know who to approach, and how? What if rejection was hers to deal with?
Did we not in effect tell him he should just know, yet when women have to initiate how do they fare? https://archive.ph/GuXCU – note how she concludes that men just go cold, without ever wondering if she approached the wrong man, or did so in the wrong way? Why is it his duty? Especially given he has been told many times male attention is toxic?
Should we not understand that really growing up and taking responsibility for your own life and wellbeing may just involve rejecting marriage and mating, because the logic against them is stronger than the logic for them.
Perhaps we should also understand that we are close to reaching critical mass on the number of women who understand why young men are rejecting marriage and mating. They are understanding that the killing of dating came before #metoo, and that dating apps, were not what killed dating, but rather arose because dating was already deathly ill.
They will understand that the lies that broke trust were many, and the silencing and demonizing of men was a choice. They are starting down the road by first noticing the infantilization of women, but eventually they will understand what that was really about – the othering of men. When they do, what can we expect? Can you really rage at men, as you realize that women were at least as likely to be doing the very things that men were being demonized for? Will they rage at their peer men, whose mothers and teachers they are coming to understand silenced them from childhood? Or will they notice that the elder feminists who controlled the institutions are the ones who tried to resist conversations around consent, that included consent they needed from men?
Young women are asking – despite their elders.
Young women are starting to press on these questions, they are starting to notice who resisted the conversations. Will feminists deceive and manipulate again, and try and assert it was a patriarchy that would not allow such a discussion? Or will young women understand the cause and depth of alienation the feminist choice to demonize and other created? Will it trigger a red pill rage, aimed at those who made a point of othering men and boys? Will they be furious at those who ensured their desires for family were made much more difficult to achieve, or will they ensure a deepening of alienation, by excusing those who sold hate.
The distortions around domestic violence can’t be understood as innocent error. Perhaps a few selling the many in a hysteria, but not innocent mistakes. The starting assumption that women could only be victims, men only abusers, is the sort of starting point that would cause a fail in a statistics course. The reality of first refusing to examine the possibility of violent women, then to report their answers to perpetrator questions makes clear this distortion was choice not accident. It was a choice that should have triggered serious questions in the broader public, but those who did question were loudly decried as misogynists, both effectively silencing them and making all the clearer the reality of choice to distort when looked back on.
The similar reality of refusing to allow discussion of female sexual abusers, predators and pedophiles, looks equally ridiculous, the reality of asserting she is a victim, because of a single drink, regardless how she feels regardless of her previous intent etc, seems very much a choice to other men.
Denying even the possibility of female abusers and predators, makes their discovery even more damaging. The denials provided protection and encouragement for abusive and predatory women, and this is so transparently true, that it will be hard to answer the doubts with regards to that being the point. It appears today in research being done on a gender-neutral basis, that women are (predictably) more likely to initiate than men and more likely to be sole abuser. This is a more than predictable outcome of the “no woman would” approach.
The same effect with regards to refusing to imagine the possibility of abusive mothers, resulting in mothers being more likely to be involved in child abuse,(abusive mothers get custody far more often than abusive fathers), but now young men just have that dad gets blamed, while mom abuses.
A narrative of “women good men bad”, creates more cover and opportunity for women to be abusive, and for some women to not understand it is still abuse when women do it.
Women so utterly dominating sexual interference in juvenile detention, is not a question of the nature of women, but rather a reality that predatory women would be attracted to such work, and marginal women would be led to believe it was not bad when they did it.
“The attitude that these boys bear some blame, however small, is dangerous in a vacuum. It’s downright reckless when we know that 90% of reported incidents involve male juveniles and female guards. “That minimizing of a serious crime is really contributing to the crisis,” says Stannow, “and we are talking about a crisis here.”
Note- blaming boys – for being sexually interfered with – where it is female staff – that are far less than half of staff – representing 90% of the sexual interference. What will we find, when we finally look honestly at schools? Today it seems a male teacher adjusting his underwear is subject to more scrutiny than a female one disappearing frequently with a male student. Will we not find, that some female teachers will not have understood the harm they are doing? Some will just be predators? That we also made schools an attractive place for female predators? Is not the refusal to see bad or abusive women the cause of women initiating 70% of domestic violence? What do we expect young men to conclude, as the lies of “no woman would” and “women good men bad” collapse?
Why would the limits as understood through media not inform them?
Consider what is funny, and appreciate how this would be seen gender reversed
Consider the notion of domestic violence and that it does not matter that she hit him, where they already understand dad is arrested when she is violent/
Consider that he already had reason to believe his consent was not material –
We have handed young men cause to not want relationships. Perhaps it is time to face up to that, and understand rejecting dating and relationships can’t be framed in terms of “grown up” when society has defined them in ways that avoiding them is a healthy and reasonable choice. Perhaps we owe young women a fair chance to fix the mess we are handing them.
Those who assert walking away from relationships is somehow misogyny, clearly are making a choice to ignore human nature, the reality of incentives, and the humanity of men. He needs merely know that women like all humans are subject to social norms and incentives. If he examines those norms and incentives and concludes they are not conducive to relationships in which his wellbeing is considered, he has reason to avoid.
The concern should be as society more broadly examines the issues, what will be required to get young men to revisit their views as the laws and culture change.
Will quiet change be noticed, or take generations to cause shift, and can we as a society afford that?
Also, will young women be willing to be defined by the blindness of the feminism of their elders? Or will they act to ensure that they distance themselves from the previous generation and redraw the lines of identity – so they define themselves as being with young men, and against their elders? Will young women see they are being denied the choice to correct the issues for their own generation? If they do, will they make a point of drawing the lines in a way – that their elders will be clearly understood to be other, in a more complete way than feminists were defining men? Consider the fiscal recklessness of a generation, and from the perspective of young women a lack of question even from older men, and silence from non-feminist women, should young women consider that their interests were of concern, let alone those of their peer men?