I suspect at some level the people leading modern institutions know that men and women are not "equal," in the way their ideology insists they should be. As long as they want to judge fairness based on society wide outcomes, they're going to need to harm the men in society, and they are doing that. The only question in my mind is how consciously they do this.
For example, if we judge the fairness of society by comparing the number of men and women who start billion dollar companies, the natural ratio is so lopsided that extreme measures must be taken, and even then you might not get there. You can only get so far by giving extra attention to building skills in the female population. You can get a bit farther by shaming them for pursuing typical feminine priorities and encouraging rivalry with men. After that, what's left? Hurt the men. Discourage male ambition. Encourage dissolute lifestyles. Our society does all this and more in pursuit of "equality." They just frame it in ways that make themselves comfortable.
The solution, of course, is to acknowledge men and women have different and complementary roles, with associated talents and interests. Stop pitting them against each other. In a healthy society the vast majority of people will marry, and so the interests of Team Man and Team Woman are fully united in the most tangible way. That's how you get society in the first place. What we're doing now is truly anti-social.
You are right. I think your work in this space is really important. I think the silence from men in standing up for their own legitimate interests has been so deafening that I wonder if men aren't genetically programmed to avoid speaking up for men if it seems to be against women.
I was all set to disagree with you until your last two words, "against women." Yes, there's something innate that discourages engaging women in conflict.
Amen. Amen. And amen. The reason God puts men in the headship role is because the vast majority of men will not follow women. And this is not a social construct; it is in our makeup. That’s why God calls men to be Pastors, Elders and Deacons. Those churches that allow women in those positions do so because men abdicate their responsibilities. The unspoken secret is that men don’t see women-run organizations as worthy of their time and effort.
Aaron makes a number of important points. The central one is this: "... men need to learn to stand up for themselves and their own legitimate interests."
I believe the primary reason for their reluctance to stand up for their legitimate interests consists of two factors: The first is that almost the whole of society, including men, has deeply bought into the idea that equality (a very American ideal) requires that men and women be regarded as interchangeable. Anything short of that means that women would be denied access to certain roles. You see this reflected in multitudinous ways. An example would be the statement, "I don't care who is chosen for the job so long as the most capable person is chosen." The implication is that the right woman could just as easily fill the position as a man. When you hear such a statement, don't you find yourself inclined to agree with it? The problem, however, is that despite our equality-loving impulses to the contrary, such reasoning is deeply flawed. There are major differences in the legitimate roles of men and women, as naturally reflected in human history from ancient times to modernity and more importantly in the source of all wisdom, the Bible. These differences, properly understood, do not imply inequality but rather different roles consistent with our male and female natures. Both men and women are deeply troubled today because we are not living within our natural spheres. Just because some woman may be able to engage in combat does not mean she should be allowed to be a soldier. Allowance of such exceptions leads to other women demanding the same, the exception becoming the rule, and men no longer seeing manly valour and bravery as a characteristic of military service. Hence, lowered standards and a recruitment problem.The legitimate roles of men in society are hollowed out in this fashion, and a flawed understanding of equality prevents men from seeing it. The second problem to men standing up are the anti-discrimination laws which act as a witch-hunt to enforce feminist goals.
In short, men need to recognize their natural, and therefore legitimate, roles in society before they can stand up to demand them.
I suspect at some level the people leading modern institutions know that men and women are not "equal," in the way their ideology insists they should be. As long as they want to judge fairness based on society wide outcomes, they're going to need to harm the men in society, and they are doing that. The only question in my mind is how consciously they do this.
For example, if we judge the fairness of society by comparing the number of men and women who start billion dollar companies, the natural ratio is so lopsided that extreme measures must be taken, and even then you might not get there. You can only get so far by giving extra attention to building skills in the female population. You can get a bit farther by shaming them for pursuing typical feminine priorities and encouraging rivalry with men. After that, what's left? Hurt the men. Discourage male ambition. Encourage dissolute lifestyles. Our society does all this and more in pursuit of "equality." They just frame it in ways that make themselves comfortable.
The solution, of course, is to acknowledge men and women have different and complementary roles, with associated talents and interests. Stop pitting them against each other. In a healthy society the vast majority of people will marry, and so the interests of Team Man and Team Woman are fully united in the most tangible way. That's how you get society in the first place. What we're doing now is truly anti-social.
You are right. I think your work in this space is really important. I think the silence from men in standing up for their own legitimate interests has been so deafening that I wonder if men aren't genetically programmed to avoid speaking up for men if it seems to be against women.
I was all set to disagree with you until your last two words, "against women." Yes, there's something innate that discourages engaging women in conflict.
Amen. Amen. And amen. The reason God puts men in the headship role is because the vast majority of men will not follow women. And this is not a social construct; it is in our makeup. That’s why God calls men to be Pastors, Elders and Deacons. Those churches that allow women in those positions do so because men abdicate their responsibilities. The unspoken secret is that men don’t see women-run organizations as worthy of their time and effort.
Aaron makes a number of important points. The central one is this: "... men need to learn to stand up for themselves and their own legitimate interests."
I believe the primary reason for their reluctance to stand up for their legitimate interests consists of two factors: The first is that almost the whole of society, including men, has deeply bought into the idea that equality (a very American ideal) requires that men and women be regarded as interchangeable. Anything short of that means that women would be denied access to certain roles. You see this reflected in multitudinous ways. An example would be the statement, "I don't care who is chosen for the job so long as the most capable person is chosen." The implication is that the right woman could just as easily fill the position as a man. When you hear such a statement, don't you find yourself inclined to agree with it? The problem, however, is that despite our equality-loving impulses to the contrary, such reasoning is deeply flawed. There are major differences in the legitimate roles of men and women, as naturally reflected in human history from ancient times to modernity and more importantly in the source of all wisdom, the Bible. These differences, properly understood, do not imply inequality but rather different roles consistent with our male and female natures. Both men and women are deeply troubled today because we are not living within our natural spheres. Just because some woman may be able to engage in combat does not mean she should be allowed to be a soldier. Allowance of such exceptions leads to other women demanding the same, the exception becoming the rule, and men no longer seeing manly valour and bravery as a characteristic of military service. Hence, lowered standards and a recruitment problem.The legitimate roles of men in society are hollowed out in this fashion, and a flawed understanding of equality prevents men from seeing it. The second problem to men standing up are the anti-discrimination laws which act as a witch-hunt to enforce feminist goals.
In short, men need to recognize their natural, and therefore legitimate, roles in society before they can stand up to demand them.
By men for men indeed, but one issue we'll encounter is that many men no longer know what to say to each other.
There’s something to be said about a culture that silences men from speaking up for themselves in mainstream discourse.
Radical individualism (you do you) and feminism (girl power & girl bossery) has driven many average men and boys into obscurity.