I’m not a therapist but I feel I have unique insights into this group because I’m curious, fairly non-judgmental, avoidant (like most of them), and in a relationship (unavailable) so I don’t pose a threat to their fear of commitment. Instead, they share things about themselves.

Essentially, this is the sum of my observations:

For men who fear commitment, I sense that as intimacy intensifies, trust plummets, and their anxiety increases, till their nervous system starts screaming, “abort, abort, ABORT!”

While a few of them simply enjoy a playboy lifestyle (this post isn’t about you), most of them can’t explain why they feel so compelled to leave the relationship. They have conflicting goals and behaviors. On the one hand, they want connection, companionship, and a family, but on the other hand, a force within them starts pressing on brakes as these very things come to fruition.

I think this internal push-pull dynamic takes effect because relationships and intimacy don’t equate growth, comfort, and expansion — they equate compartmentalization, sacrifice, and even self-destruction.

Only the fantasy of the relationship feels safe — anything that deviates from the fantasy doesn’t.

When the relationship or a partner’s behavior starts to color outside the lines his nervous system goes into overdrive and his thought process turns into black-and-white thinking — either I get to be who I am, experience limited intimacy, and have this set of needs met sometimes OR I get to have a relationship, enjoy greater intimacy, and maybe this other set of needs gets met.

Authenticity often feels like the trade-off for intimacy.

Usually the lone wolf wins out because the chaos and vulnerability that come with close connection are too much of a gamble against the comforting routines and self-reliance he has come to depend on. Plus, he is protecting a much younger version of himself, who does not trust relationships or the accompanying intimacy.

Consciously or unconsciously, he is unwilling to give up something that he feels he will lose or he fears a repetition of dysfunctional behavior he saw modeled, which varies depending on the severity of his early life trauma.

In the most extreme cases, the trauma, which causes the irrational but very real sense that certain needs will go unmet or some part of his identity will be lost when he gets closer to someone else can be due to abandonment (physical or emotional) or a drastic disruption in nurturing or intimacy from the primary caregiver (mom) that occurred pre-verbally.

Poor moms… they get blamed for everything when many of them also weren’t able to do self-care or weren’t getting the support that they needed at the time. Yet, the truth is, I haven’t met a straight man with a fear of commitment who didn’t have significant and unresolved issues with his mother. Something occurred — perhaps unintentionally — that ruptured trust in her (and later women in general) and while that feeling of betrayal got buried in their minds, their bodies and nervous systems still remember vividly.

One of my friends and I were chatting the other day — he’s in his early 50s, single, and wants nothing more than to be married and have children. We’ll call him Sam. Sam is a smart and good-hearted guy who has his life together. He continues to meet lovely women, but every time the relationship starts going to the next level, he feels trapped and like he can’t breathe. It’s a visceral response.

Sam is trying to get to the core of what’s holding him back. He shared that if he were to have a child of his own, he thinks all of his needs would have to be put aside indefinitely. He believes it’d be the right thing to do. After all, the baby would be helpless and would need all of his and his wife’s attention. He assumes he should expect no touch, affection, or sex ever again.

“Well, no wonder you haven’t committed,” I said, “it’d be like a part of yourself has to die.”

“That’s what it feels like, and I don’t want to give those things up,” he said.

“Fawn types seek safety by merging with the wishes, needs, and demands of others. They act as if they believe the price of admission to any relationship is the forfeiture of all their needs, rights, preferences, and boundaries.”

- Pete Walker on the 4 defensive structures (fight, flight, freeze, and fawn) that we use in response to abandonment and trauma.

I knew he had a younger sister and asked him about the age difference. After much conversation, what resonated with him was that a serious decrease in nurturing must have occurred at age 2 when his little sister was born.

It sounded like he got cut off from his mother’s attention before he was ready but he didn’t have any practical tools to communicate his needs at the time. If I had to guess, he was left feeling excluded and like he had to fend for himself. Which, for a two-year-old, is terrifying and confusing.

This feeling of having to be completely self-reliant was also evident in childhood photos where he dressed himself like a responsible adult in a button-up and tie at just 3–4 years old.

Even if this is not exactly the case, whatever is causing his body to feel so threatened by committing to the kind of relationship where this situation would recur is so powerful it is overriding his natural biological desire to reproduce.

The man wants to be married and have children but the 2-year-old says “hell no, I won’t go!” It’d be like baby sister all over again.

Another friend of mine is on the path to being in Sam’s position because he hasn’t gathered the courage to do the deep personal work that will let him move forward in connection.

This man is in his early 40s, runs a successful business, and says he wants a long-term relationship but gets so triggered every time he starts having strong feelings that he hasn’t dated anyone for more than a few months.

For him, as closeness increases his sense of helplessness also increases while his sense of safety decreases. The more he cares about a woman, the more threatening she becomes. He becomes hypersensitive to any fumble she makes and as his stress skyrockets, his reactions become disproportionate to the perceived offense.

It’s hard for him to reconcile this out-of-control feeling with the rational thinking and competence he brings to every other area of his life.

In the past, he thought the problem was that the relationship wasn’t the right fit. But as he’s gotten older, he’s come to realize that he’s the common denominator.

Looking at the reasons why increasing intimacy is stressful is proving to be a challenge, however.

He acknowledges shocking experiences of parental neglect, emotional betrayal, and withdrawal in a very matter-of-fact way but then glosses over it with appreciation for the way his parents provided for him and his siblings.

He insists his inner turmoil has nothing to do with his childhood experiences, instead, he feels working hard enough will solve his problems.

Unfortunately, his success has only caused him to build higher walls around his heart.

“Extreme flight types are like machines with the switch stuck in the ‘on’ position. They are obsessively and compulsively driven by the unconscious belief that perfection will make them safe and love-able. They rush to achieve… flight types relentlessly flee the inner pain of their abandonment with the symbolic flight of constant busyness.”

- Pete Walker

So, he lives life like an emotional Sisyphus, going through the same motions in every relationship until the tension becomes unbearable and he feels himself running back down the hill.

He continues to do the same things over and over again because looking at his past through an unflinching lens would require too much vulnerability. He’d have to re-visit incredible pain and sadness as well as recognize a buried sense of powerlessness as well as anger toward his parents, which is inconsistent with his values (loyalty, honor, respect).

But it’s also that black-and-white thinking again: either I’m a loyal and respectful son OR a disloyal and disrespectful son.

I think one of the best things a man with a fear of commitment can do is embrace “and.” Perhaps you can be yourself and explore deeper levels of intimacy. Perhaps your parents did their best and did some things right but messed you up all the same and you have to be honest about that to reset your nervous system.

Little You, who did his best to rationalize and cope with the circumstances he found himself in, now needs some unconditional love and compassion. You’re going to have to get creative in thinking about and acting out ways that build his level of trust, which means identifying how that trust was hurt in the first place.

Ultimately, trust in its deepest form transcends words, it’s a feeling like “I get you and you get me.” You can tell this person things that scare you because you trust that they will listen and help you walk through it. As trust blossoms and you think of this person, your body will feel ease rather than tension. You’ll be generally excited to see them and make future plans with them. You’ll believe they have your best interests at heart, that you can share yourself with them without fear of retaliation or guilt, and you’ll feel a mutual commitment to fulfilling each other’s needs.

An increase in trust may then reduce anxiety as intimacy increases. When that happens, romantic relationships may start to feel like they are expanding your life rather than fragmenting it.

***

TL;DR: People think man children are immature because they can’t commit, but it may not feel safe because of experiences in their past. There is a child inside the man that needs to rebuild trust in order to deepen intimacy.

If you’re interested in getting a better understanding of your triggers, a good therapist can be helpful. Additionally, the books Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents by Lindsay C. Gibson, Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving by Pete Walker, and Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment by Amir Levine and Rachel Heller are worth their weight in gold.

Possibly related: Could You Have High-Functioning BPD?

***

Note: my posts contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through one of these links, I will make a small commission. There is no additional cost to you and your purchase helps support my writing!

Side note: a fear of commitment is different than going through a midlife crisis. I think the midlife crisis is more about delayed gratification — a man that is ambitious in his late teens or 20s consciously or unconsciously makes I.O.U.’s to himself and then later on, when he has achieved his goals, seeks to cash in those I.O.U.s that the younger version of himself made, which may not be compatible with his current life situation. Relationship expectations also shift as the amount of resources changes.

Among men who have shared their stories with me, I’ve observed a desire to be a hero in the form of provider and protector. When they fall short, their environment provides no opportunities to fulfill this role, or the mission seems futile, they retreat into their caves.

To avoid feeling vulnerable, women put up invisible walls while men become invisible.

Again, these trends probably have more to do with the persistent themes and formulas in movies, TV shows and magazines that we consume from our pre-school years into adulthood than by chance.

For decades superheroes and ninjas have been the dominant themes in boy’s media while princesses and magical abilities have been the dominant themes in girl’s media.

One of the problems with girl’s television shows and movies is that they sell themselves as “female empowerment” yet they teach girls absolutely nothing about the importance of developing a skill, serving the greater good, or the effort or trade-offs that come with the pursuit of success. Instead, they revolve around the privileges that come with tiaras (“Sophia the First”), using one’s magical abilities (“Wishenpoof”), and acquiring the latest fashions (“Barbie Life in the Dreamhouse”); they teach girls to be entitled, rather than develop themselves and find purpose.

Indeed, one reason why nearly all the main female characters in popular girl’s shows have magical possessions or magical abilities that make them special may be to avoid confrontation with any uncomfortable possibilities that might accompany hard-earned accomplishments, such as the loss of femininity, risking injury or death, or having to compromise and cooperate with others.

Studies reveal that women are more critical of each other and do not cooperate as well as men do with each other (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). I’m not sure how much of this lack of cooperation and interest in collaboration is due to intrasexual competition and how much of it is due to not seeing examples of women working together towards a goal. At least in the most popular media, magical abilities seem to be the fast track for a girl to get what everything she wants.

As girl’s media transitions from the rating G to PG-13, however, magical abilities transition into “Magic Hoo Hoo,” a term coined by writers Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan to describe a heroine’s irresistible sex appeal (their book, Beyond Heaving Bosoms, analyzes the plots of romance novels).

With Magic Hoo Hoo, sex and beauty provide a buffer between the heroine and the harsh realities of the world while allowing her to appear independent and brave. A dutiful male will slay the dragons — real and metaphorical — while she gets all the credit for telling him to do so. For example, Princess Anna is seen as the hero in “Frozen,” not Kristoff even though she would have gotten nowhere without him or his sled. Or in “Game of Thrones” we recognize Daenerys Targaryen as the conquerer as she rides a dragon while sending thousands of unnamed men to their deaths.

If the heroine dismisses or even harms the male protagonist, he will find her even more alluring (“Ella Enchanted,” “Tangled,” “The Prince and Me,” “The White Queen”). Prince Char even says to Ella that he finds her “obvious disdain for [him] so refreshing,” while Princess Rapunzel repeatedly beats Flynn over the head with a pan, Paige sprays beer in Prince Edvard’s face, and Lady Elizabeth threatens to cut her throat if Kind Edward tries to have sex with her before they are married.

A heroine’s Magic Hoo Hoo can be so powerful she needn’t even pretend to be independent nor brave as the plot focuses on the male characters competing to protect her (“Twilight”).

Male competency rises and falls depending on the amount of Magic Hoo Hoo the female protagonist has. The more she has, as in Bella in “Twilight,” the more competent the males around her can be, because her sex appeal is more powerful than whatever supernatural weapons or skills they have.

However, the less Magic Hoo Hoo she has, the less competent the males around her must be in order to boost the significance of her skills, as in Princess Merida in “Brave.”

Ever noticed how, in movies and shows, when a female is out of a male’s league but they end up together, the movie is a comedy? But when he is out of her league, the movie is a drama? This is because the male is always expected to take the initiative. When the guy goes for the girl above his station she “accidentally” gets stuck with him somehow (like getting pregnant after a one-night stand, as in “Knocked Up”) — it’s always a colossal effort for him to woo her or to get her to stay with him. And he probably has to make a fool of himself, which shows he will put her first no matter what (“Hitch”). But when the guy ends up with the girl below his station something dramatic has to happen, such as love-at-first-sight, getting dis-owned by his family in order to prove his love to her, or she helped him overcome his demons or a crazy ex-wife (“Jane Eyre”). In the drama he also has to put her first and the whole movie is about him figuring out how to do that. When she is satisfied that he has put her above all other things, she then has to option to choose whether or not he is worthy of her attention and affection.

The message to girls and young women is that playing hard to get is rewarding, and that being beautiful gives one access to the most privileges, requiring fewer responsibilities and sacrifices than putting in the effort to become successful by one’s own efforts and merits. The choice of partners is also better.

This could be why, on a recent trip to Disneyland, I only saw eight girls in line to meet Princess Merida, two of whom were clutching Princess Rapunzel dolls, yet just half an hour later hundreds of girls were clamoring to squeeze into the Royal Theatre next door to watch the “Frozen” stage show.

It could also be why the number of girls who tried archery after the popular “Hunger Games” series was released didn’t measure up to the number of girls who dressed up as Princess Anna or Princess Elsa from “Frozen” for Halloween, or bought Anna or Elsa merchandise.[1] Interestingly, products featuring Elsa, the more magical and glamorous of the two sisters, outsold Anna merchandise at some retailers at a rate of about two to one.

Katniss Everdeen, the capable heroine of the “Hunger Games,” might well have been a princess too if she hadn’t been stuck in a dire situation that forced her to learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow in order to survive.

In her book, The Sexual Paradox, psychologist Susan Pinker determined that women opt for opportunities and career paths with more intrinsic and social rewards unless they face hardship or similar financial pressures as men.

For example, Russia, Thailand and the Philippines have a higher percentage of female scientists than the US,[2] and the US ranks 90th out of 197 nations in terms of female representatives in Parliament or equivalent — which is lower than countries like Sudan where Sharia law is in effect and China where the term sheng nu — “leftover women” — is used to urge professional women to get married.

And more than twice as many young women in the US feel overwhelmed by their workload in college than their male counterparts despite pursuing the majority of the less intense and lower paying liberal arts and soft science degrees (see here and here).

Perhaps these young women would be less overwhelmed and see becoming competent as a process they can work through if they were exposed to more realistic examples of women overcoming challenges when they were growing up. Or they would have less anxiety if they practiced taking the initiative and negotiating, or seeking more responsibility, since better jobs and higher salaries are not given to those who play hard to get.

Boys, on the other hand, dress up as Spider-Man and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for Halloween. Instead of tiaras, dresses and purses (“give me”) they don masks, capes and plastic weapons (“respect me,” “fear me”). Their identities are hidden because heroes, unlike princesses, must retain an air of anonymity. On the one hand, heroes are protecting those they care about by remaining anonymous, but they never get to be fully integrated within themselves. And so it is in life, men don’t get to take credit for the good things they do, because society needs to be able to exploit their disposability. For example, men work the majority of dangerous jobs, and suffer the vast majority of workplace deaths.

As boy’s media transitions from G to PG-13, the male characters live double lives (Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Clark Kent/Superman, Bruce Wayne/Batman, James Bond). Even the Ninja Turtles live below ground while completing heroic missions above.

And a hero’s life is not meaningful until he falls in love with, provides for and protects a beautiful woman. If he’s not in pursuit of love, he’s being tasked for the good of society. The modern twist is that the hero is a chauvinist when he protects his love interest, but she dies if he doesn’t protect her — either way he can’t win.

As a society, we believe women are better people than men. Growing up, boys will often hear that women are more loving and giving while men are more competitive and hierarchical, caring more about power than love. But what could be more giving than risking one’s own life for someone else’s?

The answer revolves around downplaying those kinds of sacrifices made by men by establishing those kinds of actions as the norm. We expect men to sacrifice and serve the greater good, because again, society wouldn’t function very well if it wasn’t able to exploit men’s disposability.

As social psychologist Roy Baumeister remarked, society benefits from playing men off against each other so they compete for “respect and other rewards that end up [being] distributed very unequally.”

Myth of Male Power author Warren Farrell refers to the most invisible and disposable men as operating within a “glass cellar,” as opposed to the “glass ceiling,” which describes the men who made it to the top of the professional and social hierarchy.

The glossing over of male sacrifice is made acceptable to children through their favorite stories. For example, in the Harry Potter series, despite both James and Lily (Harry’s parents) giving their lives to save his, only his mother gets the credit.

When Harry is an infant, the evil wizard Voldemort descends on the family’s hiding place because of a prophecy that Harry will grow up to destroy him. James yells at Lily to take Harry and flee, so he can hold Voldemort off. He dies protecting them, and then Lily dies protecting Harry, but because of her love, Voldemort’s killing curse backfires and irreparably damages him, and all Harry is left with is the famous lightening bolt shaped scar on his forehead.

The primary message is that love is stronger than hate. The secondary message is a mother’s love is more powerful than a father’s, and a mother’s death more profound.

Nobody talks about the secondary message because it is so ingrained. Later on in real life, the acceptance of male disposability is the $400,000 a soldier’s family receives if he dies while serving his country — no matter how gruesome or violent his death — versus the millions of dollars some women have received in sexual harassment settlements.

Imagine how unacceptable it would be in our society if the situation were reversed.

Experts hotly debate how deeply the media affects children. As technology and animation become more lifelike the blurrier the line between reality and virtual reality has become.

For example, in an experiment at Stanford University’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, children went “swimming” with realistic-looking whales in virtual reality and a week later half believed they swam with real whales.

In other instances boys and young men have sought to violently act out scenes that mimicked movies such as “Oldboy” or video games such as Doom or Grand Theft Auto,[3] showing a profound disregard for human life and making no emotional connection to the tragic consequences of their actions.

Certainly, those boys were disturbed and had narcissistic tendencies since the vast majority of boys play video games yet the vast majority of boys don’t commit crimes. But we need to ask whether their conditions were exasperated by their exposure to, or withdrawal from, violent media.

In 2015, the American Psychological Association confirmed that violent video game play can lead to increased aggression and emotional desensitization. After receiving gaming consoles boys also have higher rates of teacher reported classroom disruptions.

By contrast, Stanford’s lab found that giving people superpowers and a pro-social mission in a virtual space resulted in increased real life altruism. Thus the content of whatever media is being consumed appears to have the ability to influence in both positive and negative ways.

The average child currently spends 35 hours watching TV every week — nearly the same amount as a full-time job — and this doesn’t even include time on a computer or gaming console. Contrast that with the 21 hours per week they spend with their parents. They are learning lessons about how they are valued from both sources.

Boys and young men are arguably more influenced by media content than girls because they have fewer real life role models of their same sex. A third of boys are growing up without fathers, and even boys whose fathers are around go from female-dominated home environments where mothers call most of the shots to female-dominated school environments, where most teachers are women.

Boys also play more video games than girls (see here, here and here) many of which require risking one’s virtual life to acquire new resources or advance to the next level. Video games are also immersive, requiring active user participation unlike watching television, which is passive.

Every parent I’ve chatted with has a love-hate relationship with their children’s digital distractions. Televisions, tablets, smartphones, and gaming consoles can give parents a much-deserved break, but they also take away from other activities, like homework and real life socializing. Parents also worry about their children becoming “zombies,” unable to function without their devices and them losing interest in other activities.

Beyond the discussion of technology overuse and problems that result from sedentary and socially isolated media consumption, we need to be thinking about the ideas about self and purpose we are absorbing.

When parents endorse princess culture, they are teaching their daughters to be entitled to things without having to do anything to earn those things. Daughters are learning that sex and beauty can be traded for a comfortable life — no other personal development or prerequisites are needed.

A perfect example of how this wreaks havoc later on can be seen in the documentary I Am Not Your Guru, where Tony Robbins says to a woman unsatisfied with her love life that her father “taught you that you were his little princess didn’t he?” She nods. “He meant well, look how he fucked up,” Tony said. The woman adds, “He set the bar so high, I don’t even know if it’s possible [for anyone else] to reach it.” “That’s right,” says Tony, “He taught you you didn’t need to do anything to be loved. You should have all your needs being met. He’s a beautiful man with a big heart and he fucked you up, and made you think you were entitled. When you’re not, you’re confused [love] didn’t come your way [so freely as an adult]. He made it so you could take love away if you didn’t get it because you had no fear of losing it because he always gave it to you. So, you’re husband never stood a chance.”

Through the media women also never get to see a female character become successful without magic, Magic Hoo Hoo, or a financial and physical safety net ultimately provided by a man. In other words, daughters learn that sex is a commodity and beauty their most important asset. Which is why girls value their virginities at 10,000 times what boys do[4] and why Cosmopolitan magazine has millions of young female subscribers.

It is important for girls to comprehend that success often requires making trade offs and taking real risks and for boys to see that the hero can be the same person as the husband and father.

If boys and girls are to get along and later collaborate as partners, I’m convinced we must be presented with more well-rounded characters of both sexes from an early age. Make no mistake, I’m not suggesting a movement towards “sameness,” I’m suggesting we depict female and male characters with a little more depth and varied interests. This might allow us to learn to value each other’s unique contributions and work together more productively in real life. For this to happen, however, we must become more mindful about what we consume.

In the 1980s, comic artist Allison Bechdel came up with the “Bechdel Test” to highlight the lack of female character development in movies. To pass the test a show or movie has to feature two named female characters, who talk to each other, about something other than a man.

Amazingly, out of over 6,000 movies in the Bechdel Test database, just over half completely pass those simple criteria. Swedish cinemas are even considering using the Bechdel Test to rate films in order to raise audience-goers’ awareness around sexism — only sexism against women, however.

I thought about what a reverse Bechdel Test might look like, to help audiences and parents navigate the programs their children watch so they may also recognize destructive male stereotypes, and came up with the “MacGyver Test” (named after the popular 1990s television adventure series). A film or show passes the MacGyver Test if it meets any of these criteria:

• Plot does not require the absence of the mother for the father to be portrayed as a competent dad.
• Honest, hard-working man is in a successful or leadership position and/or is not a chump.
• Female protagonist shows interest in the male protagonist before he is the hero.
• Male protagonist solves problems in creative ways, and only uses violence as a last resort to accomplish his goals or mission.

It’s hard to come up with a movie that passes just one of the criteria let alone all of them. Even in the beloved “Finding Nemo,” do you think Nemo’s father would have been allowed to be such a concerned and caring dad if Nemo’s mother was still alive?

After sharing this test with a group of men, many suggested add-ons, such as counting how many male characters died so that a female character could live, or noting the instances where a female character physically hurts or verbally abuses a male character with no repercussions.

What becomes clear when applying both the Bechdel Test and MacGyver Test is that there is room for improvement. Or maybe not, if you prefer the dynamic how it is.

No doubt we would be happier and better off if we didn’t have so many “invisible walls” and if men were given credit for providing and protecting while being valued as humans. But the entertainment industry probably won’t take these billion dollar gambles as long as movies like “Frozen” and “Spider-Man” continue to do so well at the box office. So far it hasn’t been possible to create inspiring and profitable characters in Disney or Hollywood outside of these lingering stereotypes.

As it is, titles such as “Bertha: the ‘Nice’ Friend Who Volunteers and is Good at Math” and “Heroic Husbands” most likely won’t be making appearances anytime soon. We’d probably see greater variation in themes if we valued women’s abilities more and men for their other traits… but characters like Bertha don’t perform as well at the box office because in real life nobody asks Bertha out and heroic husbands don’t get laid.

TL;DR: women are largely valued for their fertility and beauty (being), men are largely valued for their abilities (doing); our media choices and preferences reflect this but it’s politically incorrect to admit it.

Note: my posts contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through one of these links, I will make a small commission. There is no additional cost to you and your purchase helps support my writing!

Citations:

[1] Note: US female archery membership (includes all ages) in 2012 was 5.8 million, after the release of “Hunger games” as a movie; female membership declined, however, to 4.75 million between 2012 to 2014; 1.8 million girls dressed up for Anna or Elsa from “Frozen” for Halloween in 2014 (out of 3.4 million total dressing up as princesses); Anna and Elsa merchandise sales amounted to an estimated $1 billion in 2014 alone; versus $661 million in archery equipment sales to all demographics that same year.

[2] Note: “Approximately 5 percent of women choose physics as a career in Japan, Canada, or Germany, for example, but in the Philippines, Russia, and Thailand, the number of women in physics is relatively high, ranging from 30 to 35 percent. Of the twenty-one countries polled, those with the highest proportion of women earning physics degrees — Poland and Turkey, at 36 and 37 percent, respectively — also have the highest rates of immigration to other European Union countries and offer little fiscal support for women and families. For the most part, these are countries where both sexes are under intense financial pressures.” See: Pinker, S. (2010). The Sexual Paradox: Extreme Men, Gifted Women and the Real Gender Gap. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada. 64–65, 71.

[3] Note: these are just a few examples: Cops: Grand Theft Auto video game inspired teen crimes; Boy, 8, played violent video game, killed 90-year-old woman — but will NOT be charged: cops; College student steals truck, kidnaps woman while reenacting Grand Theft Auto; and GTA 5: 14-year-old Boy Kills Father and Brother ‘Inspired’ by Violent Character Trevor.

[4] Note: in a 2012 survey, when asked — “Assume you are a virgin, and you decided to sell your virginity. What, realistically, would be your asking price?” — females valued their virginity at an average of $10 million while males valued their virginities at an average of $1,000, which is 10,000 times the value of men’s self-assessed value. In percentage terms, that would be a 900,000 percent gap. See: LBN, Levine Breaking News, February 14, 2012. LBN is the online newsletter of Levine Communications Office in Beverly Hills, CA. Also note recent incidences of young women auctioning off their virginities (some of the women called off the auctions after bids reached these amounts): Brazil, Catarina Migliorini, $780,000; Italy, Raffella Fico, $1.24 million; Peru, Graciela Yataco, $1.5 million; America, Hanna Kern, $800,000; versus instances of young men auctioning off their virginities: Russia, Alex Stepanov, $2,600; Romania, Sorin Salinievici, could not get his desired amount of $2,250; Romania, Seb Ciercies, got no takers for his asking price of $1,000.

In The Myth of Male Power, Warren Farrell remarked, “feminism suggested that God might be a ‘She,’ but never suggested that the devil might also be a ‘she.’”

In a revealing Pew survey, both men and women thought women are better people than men — more compassionate, honest, intelligent, outgoing and creative. The sexes were tied when it came to perceptions of their work ethic and ambitiousness. The only thing men were thought to be better at was decisiveness. Men were also rated as more arrogant and stubborn while women were rated as more manipulative and emotional.

Why do we believe men are of lower moral caliber than women? There are many factors, no doubt, but I want to focus on a couple ideas not often discussed: men may appear to be less moral than women because they often take on more responsibility — which increases the chances of mishandling responsibility and putting others in harm’s way; and because of how men and women reward each other, men have to do more to impress the opposite sex and therefore have to take more risks — which means breaking some rules, making some rules, and then enforcing those rules.

Throughout history, there have been great male leaders, good male leaders, bad male leaders, and some downright evil male leaders. But women in positions of power haven’t exactly been benevolent saints, as unassuming as their pantsuits (or equivalent) might have been.

In King of the Mountain, which analyzes the nature of political leadership, Arnold M. Ludwig writes that of the small percentage of 20th century leaders that were women, “most seemed just as willing to risk their lives and personal freedom for their political convictions,” yet most spent less than a year in office. “What attests even more to their being the equal of their male counterparts is that several had administrations that were just as corrupt.” One prime example is Dilma Rouseff.

On an individual level, women are about as likely as men to be aggressors in intimate partner violence, yet there are little to no resources available to male victims of domestic violence (see here, here and here). Boys are also more likely than girls to experience “completed sexual abuse” and are later more likely to commit suicide after sexual abuse (see here and here). And women get shorter sentences than men for the same crimes, and are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

One of the reasons why women can get less punishment is because of the “halo effect” — we look more innocent and are perceived as less threatening. For example, people with softer faces are less likely to be found guilty of intentional crimes, but more likely to be found guilty of negligence. And in one fascinating experiment, the mere presence of an unfamiliar male (or his hormones) elicited a stress response in rodents, whereas the presence of a female did not.

There are also more social systems in place that support women and especially single mothers, such as welfare, making it seem as if a woman must have really been in need or in danger if she committed a crime. Yet, as one marginalized man observed in this Atlantic article, “as a low-income man, you almost have to get in trouble to get help.” The article noted that nonprofit service providers connect with men most frequently through parole and child support enforcement programs.

Ever wonder how a female version of Lord of the Flies would play out, where everyone has a halo but still needs to eat? Here are a couple of examples of what happens when women are under the same levels of stress as men:

In Stanley Milgram’s classic 1963 obedience to authority experiment, the original participants — all male — “shocked” another participant (really a confederate) when he got a wrong answer on a simple test, with each wrong answer increasing the number of volts. In that scenario, 65 percent of the male participants went all the way up to 450 volts (the highest setting). Later Milgram conducted variations of the experiment; when women were participants, 62 percent of them escalated the shocks to 450 volts.

Later, in 1972, Charles Sheridan and Richard King used an authentic victim — puppies — in another obedience to authority experiment. While 54 percent of male participants obeyed to the end of the shock scale, 100 percent of female participants went right up to the end.

Interestingly, in recent good samaritan experiments, the same number of men and women walked by people needing help. And in a recent variation of Soloman Asch’s conformity experiment, women agreed with group judgments at higher rates than men.

If you don’t think these experiments reflect reality, consider that in Germany since WWII, just 3 out of the 3,700 women who worked at Nazi death camps were investigated for the roles they played as collaborators to mass murder. A couple of the most brutal guards, Charlotte S and Gisela S, will never be prosecuted because they are frail old women.

Other studies have revealed that men are more likely than women to reconcile with their opponent after conflict, are more comfortable standing out from their same-sex peers, have greater tolerance of same-sex peers, engage in less social ostracism, and are more willing to resolve conflicts with same-sex peers.

In a hidden camera experiment, no men gave in when underage teens asked them to buy alcohol while women were more lenient.

Throughout history women, unlike men, did not have to take as many risks or necessarily cooperate with others to continue their line. Through sampling the genetics of various populations alive today, biologist Jason Wilder determined that humanity’s ancestors are roughly 67 percent women, and 33 percent men, indicating some men were able to have children with multiple women, but most men didn’t have any children at all (see here and here).

Men typically care little about how much money a woman makes when selecting a mate — caring more about physical attractiveness — whereas women still prefer dating an older and wealthier man (see here, here, here and here). In other words, women get more rewarded for “being” while men get more rewarded for “doing.”

Men are expected to do good on behalf of society; men doing good is really the expected average. Men fulfilling the foundational requirements of an economy or society (raw material extraction, fabrication, movement, management, regulation creation and enforcement, power generation, utility services and maintenance, and public safety) are what allow us to progress civilization. To discredit the very population that provides that foundation is a hubristic action on the part of society, and shows a patent level of socially accepted entitlement. This is a great way for a social contract to unravel and unwind itself.

In television and movies, we make men wear masks when they do good things so their contributions to society are anonymous and therefore they don’t get to be on the “good person list.” Batman and Bruce Wayne, Spider-man and Peter Parker, Superman and Clark Kent, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, James Bond — all of them live double lives. If they weren’t wearing masks and we had to acknowledge their heroic deeds, it wouldn’t be as easy to exploit their disposability.

Perhaps we’re afraid that if we let men value their lives as much as women value theirs, society would fall apart. Imagine Batman tearing off his mask singing “Let It Go,” like Elsa in Frozen? How well would that work out?

It is largely men who have built civilization. And still today, men make up the majority of the workforce, and work longer hours than women. But we don’t like to give them credit for those contributions. As Chris Rock hilariously points out, “Women need food, water and compliments… and your daddy makes sure you thank your momma for everything… Nobody ever says, ‘hey Daddy, thanks for knocking out this rent; hey Daddy, I sure love this hot water; hey Daddy, it’s easy to read with all this light!’”

While it’s true that male risk-taking leads to men comprising the vast majority of serial killers, bank robbers and school shooters, male risk-taking leads to the vast majority of our inventors, explorers, jazz musicians, and CEOs. Male risk-taking also gives us heroes who risk their lives saving others, such as firefighters — 96 percent of whom are male and 7 out of 10 of which are volunteers (yet we can’t acknowledge them as firemen), police officers — 7 out of 8 of whom are male (not policemen), and military service members — 5 out of 6 Soldiers are male and, until recently, men filled 100 percent of combat roles.

Instead of examining the roots of crime and success, however, we point to crime as proof men are bad and point to men’s accomplishments as proof they are oppressors — they can’t win!

This idea of which sex is better is a false dichotomy because in the end, we both need the other. To ask who is better, who has done more, doesn’t benefit us at all. The reason I wrote this is to give men more credit where credit is due. When society thinks that men are automatically bad, which is now becoming institutionalized with forced “toxic masculinity” classes across campuses, we need to examine whether or not things are really so black-and-white. Ultimately, we (society) need to stop painting men as the enemy, recognize there’s good and bad on both sides, and get the good on both sides to start working together.

TL;DR: As a group, women are perceived as good simply because they are women, whereas men are demonized simply because they are men (for example, we have “toxic masculinity” classes but not “toxic feminity” classes). If this perception continues, then our male-female relationship dynamic will further deteriorate, falsely perpetuating itself.

*If you have more examples please share them*

Note: my posts contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through one of these links, I will make a small commission. There is no additional cost to you and your purchase helps support my writing!

In the Gulag Archipelago, which describes the Soviet Union’s forced labor camp system, author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recalls a scene from a communist party conference in Moscow:

At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with “stormy applause, rising to an ovation.” For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the “stormy applause, rising to an ovation,” continued. But palms were getting sore and raising arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin. However, who would dare be the first to stop?

The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had just called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who’d been arrested. He was afraid! After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on — six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly — but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them?

The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even those who were left would not falter…

Then, after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved!

Solzhenitsyn remarked that the director at the paper factory was arrested later that night. “That… was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them.”

They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he signed… the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding!” (And just what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to stop?) Now that’s what Darwin’s natural selection is. And that’s also how to grind people down with stupidity.

It’s a good thing you can’t be arrested for lack of enthusiasm here in America. Or Brett Favre would be dragged away for his lackluster clapping for Caitlyn Jenner, which apparently made “the ESPYs uncomfortable for everyone”… you didn’t clap long enough, comrade!

Social justice warriorism has been slowly suffocating popular culture and the education system like some kind of medieval crushing torture.

Academics can now have their careers ended when they highlight factual information, say something others deem offensive or merely ask a question.

People such as Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard, who was pressured to resign after stating that there are more men who have “aptitude at the high end” (he might have added that there are also about twice as many boys than girls on the low end, see here, here and here).

And Nobel laureate Tim Hunt, who resigned from University College London after a frenzy over his comment that female scientists cry “when you criticize them.”

And Marquette University professor John McAdams, who was suspended after he wrote a blog post criticizing another professor, who told students not to share their opinions if they were not pro-gay.

And Yale lecturer Erika Christakis, who resigned after cultural appropriation backlash from an email where she asked whether or not there was “room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or yes, offensive [with their Halloween costume]?”

The list goes on. Christina Hoff Sommers dubbed this new status quo the “axis of intolerance.” Camille Paglia said universities are “institutionalizing neurosis.”

Replacing old-fashioned dialogue and debate is a deranged passive-aggressive “logic” that is running amok unchecked — universities policing language, banning dissenting voices on campus, professors saying men should not be allowed to speak first in discussions, attempts to eliminate due process, phrases like “you guys” and “melting pot” being deemed hurtful and racist, mispronouncing a student’s name being considered a microaggression, demanding the “misogynist” history of constellations be told, yoga stop being culturally appropriated, “racist” campus buildings be renamed and “racist” campus restaurant logos be changed — “logic” that bullies others into conforming to a narrow set of dos and don’ts. “Logic” that embodies exactly what it claims to be against!

“If you constantly feel anxious and frightened by what you encounter in life, are we sure that means the world must reorder itself?” asks Peggy Noonan. “Do you think Shakespeare, Frieda Kahlo, Virginia Woolf, Langston Hughes and Steve Jobs woke up every morning thinking, ‘My focus today is on looking for slights and telling people they’re scaring me?’”

The Iron Curtain squashed opinions that were considered threatening to communism, and renamed buildings too. However delusional, the Soviets at least had an endgame — “in the eventual worker’s utopia, unnatural desires will vanish and each will contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs.” (Source)

What social justice warriors have in store after their “safe space” quota has been reached is less clear. Whether or not there is a power trying to socially engineer something and using the social justice warriors as pawns, the effect is the same.

“The role of oppressor has been passed to the left,” Lionel Shriver wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed, “Liberals have ominously relabeled themselves ‘progressives,’ forsaking a noun that has had its roots in ‘liber,’ meaning free. To progress is merely to go forward, and you can go forward into a pit.”

What are we so afraid of? If what someone says is in fact racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever, how is shutting down their voice going to make them any less racist, sexist or homophobic? Perhaps we’re afraid that the conversation would lead us to confronting our differences, that people do not have equal ability or intelligence and our choices and preferences actually have some impact on our individual success and happiness.

We all start out in different environments and cultures with differing genetics and opportunities. Denying the impact of these factors won’t solve inequality. Providing everyone with the same opportunities won’t solve inequality.

As Ferdinand Mount wrote in Mind the Gap, “when you think about it, equality of opportunity is an odd kind of equality. ‘The equality to become unequal’ — what sort of justice is that?… Even if equality of opportunity is fully achieved, all that has happened is that each of us starts off on the same rung of the ladder. There is still a ladder.”

There is not much room at the top of any hierarchy. This is not new. But it seems social justice warriorism is in part a reaction from those who think getting there should be easier; maybe, on some level, they realized the “privilege” they thought others had actually meant working hard. Maybe they believe they can’t get ahead even if they work hard.

Perhaps social justice warriors have decided the only way to escape the endless ladder rungs of real world competition is to embrace the lower expectations of victimhood, which is their choice to make, but they are bringing down others with them and that non-strategy isn’t going to lift anyone up.

The biggest frustration is, it’s clear social justice warriors don’t feel capable. Because people that feel capable do not purposely drag others down; people that feel capable do not become “cry bullies” when others treat them as if they are capable.

It is a good thing to include genuinely oppressed voices. But it’s time to stop applauding when perceived intolerance is met with intolerance and violence, when irrationality and emotional outbursts are institutionally rewarded, when being “offended” or “triggered” infringes on somebody else’s right of free speech and due process… in short, when it stops making any damn sense.

TL;DR: Social justice warriors are destructive hypocrites.

Note: my posts contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through one of these links, I will make a small commission. There is no additional cost to you and your purchase helps support my writing!

Afterthought: I can’t help but wonder if SJWs did not get the “communism” they needed at the family level as children thus now project their perceived unmet entitlements onto the larger communities around them (see below).

Do women really want equality? It’s a question I think every one of us needs to ask ourselves because frankly I don’t think many of us do.

Feminists and feminist organizations gain support by emphasizing “equal rights” while de-emphasizing “equal responsibilities.” They point out the ways that life can be more challenging for women but ignore the ways that life can be more challenging for men. They paradoxically suggest that women are weak, that the “patriarchy” is against us, and therefore we deserve all sorts of programs and special benefits just to be on a level playing field with men yet in the same breath present women as superheroes who do it all and have it all and don’t need help from institutions, men, or anyone else.

It’s mental gymnastics not based in reality.

Here in the West, when it comes to career opportunities and access to social support, women today have more paths to success open to us and options than we have ever had. In many ways, we have more benefits and support available to us than men do, and we need only take a closer look at men’s lives to see it.

Most of us don’t want to pay half the bill on dates, we don’t want to work dirty and dangerous jobs, we don’t want to be drafted if there was a war, we don’t have to prove to a court that our children need us after divorce, and we don’t want to serve as unpaid bodyguard or be the first one to go downstairs when we hear a strange noise… and luckily for us, we don’t have to!

Because men do these things. Voluntarily. Every day. They don’t ask for a “thank you” because it is so built-into them to do these things. And, although it may surprise some readers, men do these things because they love women. They are doing these things for us so we might love them back.

Women do not have to prove they are worthy of being loved the same way that men do.

Might this discrepancy impact motivation?

As far as I know, this factor has never been studied or taken into account in the discussion around why men and women make different life choices and pursue different careers.

Instead, for the past few decades, those differences have been framed almost exclusively as an old boys club that actively keeps women out. Nuance is kept out too.

Should women get paid the same as men for doing the same work? Absolutely. But the supposed “pay gap” debate is full of misleading headlines and unfounded data. Men work longer hours than women do and choose specialties that require more responsibility. For example, more women are now attending medical school than men, but they gravitate towards areas such as pediatrics rather than cardiology and neurosurgery, which carry greater risks and responsibilities, have more demanding hours (see here and here), and as a consequence, pay more.

Institutions are trying to get more women to enter into these intense programs and are confused why they cannot raise their numbers. The reason is that women are choosing not to! The gender divide is actually most pronounced in nations where women have the most freedom to pursue whatever profession they want. There are a greater percentage of female scientists in Russia or Turkey than in Canada or Germany, for example.

Christina Hoff Sommers probably summed it up best when she said, “if employers could save 23 percent by hiring women, they’d fire all the men.”

Long-term studies reveal that women prefer more meaningful and connected jobs, which enhance their emotional advantages but “conflict with making lots of money and rising through the ranks,” as psychologist Susan Pinker discusses in The Sexual Paradox:

Intrinsic goals such as making a difference, or belonging to a community, are often in direct opposition to extrinsic goals like seeking financial rewards or status… women, on average, are motivated by intrinsic rewards at work… One of [the] findings was that the sway of intrinsic rewards and autonomy on the job rises with a woman’s level of education… highly educated women were also more interested in working part-time, thus fueling the opt-out phenomenon in two ways — through their search for inherent meaning at work, and via the amount of time they were willing to commit to their jobs.

Men, on the other hand, take less time off from work after having kids — giving them more work experience and thus greater earning potential.

In The Myth of Male Power Warren Farrell talks about the three options a mother considers when she has a baby:

1. Work full-time

2. Home full-time

3. Combination of the two: work part-time

Men, on the other hand, consider these three options:

1. Work full-time

2. Work full-time

3. Work full-time [work over-time could be another option!]

In general, he says, men learn to love their families by being away from the love of their families while women love their families by being with the love of their families.

Women talk about whether or not to “lean in” or “lean out” while men have never had the option to “lean out.” This gives men the financial advantage, but cuts them off from giving and receiving love.

In Father and Child Reunion Farrell writes:

Women provided an emotional womb, akin to love; men provided a financial womb, that took them away from their purpose — loving and supporting the family, in order to achieve their purpose — loving and supporting the family. Men loved the family by being disconnected: women loved the family by being connected. Traditionally, women’s role had the love advantage and the emotional advantage.

Would more women be willing to share their love advantages or share financial pressures with their husbands?

It is one consideration often missing from the pay gap debate — if it were acceptable for men to not have to work so intensely, women could choose jobs where they could make more money. However, that would only happen if women wanted real equality, because men would then have to be valued for more than just their wallets, just as women are.

Yet women largely still want to be with a man that makes more money than them, reinforcing the cycle where she must then take more time out of the workforce than him to care for their children.

In “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” Anne-Marie Slaughter suggested men don’t have to make the kind of sacrifices and compromises women make, that the hypothesis that women can have high-powered careers if men are willing to share the parenting load equally “assumes that most women will feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children, as long as their partner is home with them.”

In her follow up book, Unfinished Business, she explains, “women also face much more cultural responsibility to be caregivers, and perfect ones at that, than men do. Even in the twenty-first century, America looks askance at any woman who doesn’t appear to put her children’s care above her professional life.”

But who is putting the pressure on whom?

What appears to be a man choosing work over family is more often a man sacrificing his wishes to be with his family for the benefit of his family.

Where a woman may feel she is being selfish by spending time away from her children, a man may feel the opposite — since he is expected to earn more he feels it would be selfish for him to work less hours to spend more time with his kids because he would be taking away financial security from his family.

The average man makes more money than the average woman, but the average man works more hours and is willing to do so because he hopes to be rewarded with love when he picks up the tab.

Meanwhile women are rewarded with love when they reduce their hours or drop out of the workforce after having children.

Affordable childcare would allow more women to stay in the workforce if they choose to, ensuring less of a pay gap due to work experience. But there is evidence this might not even be enough, or the right solution. Even in Sweden, a country with some of the most generous parental leave benefits, women still choose to take four times as much time off from work as men, and some who initially thought they wanted the father to help raise their baby now find themselves “coveting more time at home.” Perhaps, it is natural to covet this.

Another concern is how the merging of more traditionally feminine and masculine roles in women and men will impact attraction and relationship success. The question remains whether or not women would still find their stay-at-home partner as desirable than if he were their stay-at-work partner.

Thus far, it appears this kind of man is not as attractive to women. For example, psychologist Lori Gottlieb found the risk of divorce is lowest when the husband earns 60 percent of the income and the wife does 60 percent of the housework, and women report higher levels of sexual satisfaction when there is a more traditional division of chores.

In other words, equal opportunity does not necessarily produce equal results, and economic shifts and socially prescribed relationship changes towards “sameness” do not necessarily result in sexual attraction and relationship success, which cannot be forced.

Being a man and a stay-at-home partner is not seen as valuable and does not communicate alpha male behavior, which many women are attracted to. Indeed, even as women become more financially independent, they want an older and wealthier male partner (see here, here and here).

The stakes have been raised, not equalized, by the women’s movement, at least for men. And men will carry whatever currency women are accepting — meaning they will adapt to whatever system rewards them.

Children get these messages about reward and the value of a father’s love in subtle ways. For example, in the Harry Potter book series, despite both James and Lily (Harry’s parents) giving their life to save his, only his mother gets the credit.

When Harry is an infant, the evil wizard Lord Voldemort descends on the family’s hiding place because of a prophecy that Harry will grow up to destroy him. James yells at Lily to take Harry and flee, so he can hold Voldemort off. He dies protecting them, and then Lily dies protecting Harry, but because of her love, Voldemort’s killing curse backfires and irreparably damages him, leaving Harry with the famous lightening bolt shaped scar on his forehead.

The primary message is that love is stronger than hate. The secondary message is a mother’s love is more powerful than a father’s, and a mother’s death more profound.

Nobody talks about the secondary message because it is so ingrained. What is surprising is given the popularity of the series, few readers took issue with the fact that James and Lily’s actions had the same consequence yet her sacrifice was worth more. It is just one of many instances of a male’s purpose being seen as secondary to the mother-child connection.

The message boys are still getting is that they must provide financially in order to remain relevant. On some level boys know that a man with little earning potential is less likely to find a desirable partner and is more likely to get divorced; they know that a significant portion of their value and desirability is directly linked to their earnings potential (see here and here).

Boys also catch on to the stigma against stay-at-home fathers — a recent Pew Research survey revealed that 51 percent of people say children are better off if their mother stays at home while just 8 percent feel the same way about fathers.

That is probably why women comprise the majority of college graduates yet men are still the majority of STEM majors.

Based on the proportions and differences in earnings, at first glance it could look like discrimination against women, yet both sexes knew beforehand that going the STEM route would most likely lead to a higher income.

One reason why men and women differ in major choice is because they simply have different preferences. For example, men would rather work with inorganic materials while women prefer to work with living things and mathematically gifted women are more likely than mathematically gifted men to have strong verbal abilities, giving them a wider range of career choices.

Another reason men and women differ is because more often men have to pay their own way. The trend of parents spending more on their sons’ education in the 1970s not only equalized in the 1990s, but was reversed by the late 2000s; parents now spend about 25 percent more money on their daughter’s education than their son’s.

In addition, there are plenty of scholarships offered to people of all sexes and ethnicities, but more scholarships — both academic and athletic — are offered exclusively to women than to men. For example, on scholarships.com — one of the most popular sites on which to find and apply for scholarships in the US — women’s scholarships outnumbered men’s four to one.

When I asked men who had paid their own way if doing so had any effect on their success, they said it made them hungrier to achieve. They chose to major in subjects that would result in well-paying jobs, and they planned out their lives so they could rise to the top, because they knew no one would care if they failed.

Women have other advantages when it comes to health and well-being. All around the world women outlive men. Slightly more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer than women are diagnosed with breast cancer, yet breast cancer research is supported by federal spending over prostate cancer at a ratio of nearly two to one (see here and here). Men die at higher rates from nearly all the top fifteen causes of death; the largest differences are in diseases of the heart, suicide and fatal injuries sustained from unintentional accidents. Men also outnumber women in dangerous jobs. Ninety-two percent of work fatalities in America were men. Construction accounted for the most fatalities, with the majority of accidents occurring from falls and slips.

Women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than men, but suicide is four times higher among men, representing four out of five suicides in the US. In fact a half million male suicides could have been prevented in the last 15 years — about the same amount of people that have died in the US AIDS epidemic to date. And men account for both the majority of the sheltered and unsheltered homeless. This includes male veterans, who make up a sizeable portion US homeless population.

In other words, many men are invisible. When men are not actively contributing to the system, the system forgets about them. The “patriarchy” then, doesn’t care about men either.

As psychologist Roy Baumeister said, “What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally.” Whereas women get rewarded for being men get rewarded for doing — “Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values… That basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for men… but that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.”

Women live in a much friendlier, much less cutthroat world. As a woman, when I walk down the street, I can smile at people and they will smile back. I can smile at children, and no one thinks I’m a pedophile. If I cry people will comfort me. If I feel discriminated against people will help me. If I get sexually assaulted people will believe me — unless evidence proves otherwise. Men cannot say the same thing.

You know what’s at least as bad as catcalling? No one ever asking you out. Never feeling desirable. Always having to take the initiative sexually and getting rejected most of the time. One of the luxuries of being a woman is that we don’t have to ask for affirmative consent because we don’t have to take the initiative and therefore are not held responsible or accountable for anything that happens. Sure I am smaller and more physically vulnerable, but at any point I can accuse any man of saying something sexist or touching me in an inappropriate way and he could lose his job and family. He is guilty until proven innocent. Even if he’s found innocent, I would face no repercussions.

Ultimately, if we actually wanted equality we would be asking men what life is really like for them. Because as long as male roles are limited, female roles will be limited, too. If we actually wanted equality, we would be talking about equal responsibilities alongside equal rights; we would be having honest conversations around biological differences and attraction. Until we do these things, we will find ourselves in a continual gridlock, complaining about such trivial things as manspreading and wondering why we can’t have it all while mistakenly believing men do.

***

TL;DR: Men and women both get a mixed bag of pros and cons; everything has trade-offs.

***

5-year update: I’ve gotten a whole range of responses since writing this article and want to clarify why I wrote it:

1) I think the truth matters;

2) I don’t think empathy is a limited resource. While it seems like feminists take issue with using the word “and,” I feel women and men each face a unique set of challenges, women can be victimized and men can be victimized, women can be empowered and men can be empowered (at the same time!), girls and boys should be encouraged to develop themselves and be the best person they can be, etc;

3) I care about the balance of the masculine and the feminine and think that having an awareness of the other’s challenges and a sense of personal responsibility is more productive than anger and entitlement; and

4) The desire to undermine the rights of others because of real or imagined victimization is a dangerous precedent to set (i.e. #believeallwomen). It also leads to unintended consequences (i.e. men are now less willing to mentor women and interact with them one-on-one).

In my opinion, when men and women devalue each other, the family starts to become unstable. Based on the research I have seen, if families are not supported by a culture, children become dysregulated in a variety of ways, which results in an increasing number of dysregulated adults, which contributes to economic and social instability, which leads to that culture unraveling. As this unraveling happens, freedoms of all kinds are eroded.

To me, modern feminism and feminist organizations are at best lazy and misinformed and at worst deliberately spreading misinformation in order to attain funding and stay relevant. Personally, I do not find it empowering to be given an incomplete picture and then told to focus on an outside enemy that has control over me. Being a strong independent victim is not appealing. I also dislike being infantilized and find that modern feminism often puts women in the role of child and men in the role of parent, especially when it comes to sex, stripping women of their agency. I would rather look at the whole picture, including all of the inconvenient factors involved, in order to see what I can actually do about a situation. That is, if at that point I felt like the situation was unfair or unjust.

Modern feminism refuses to acknowledge and address many inconvenient but important factors. For example, what would happen if feminism looked at intrasexual competition among women? What would happen if women did a better job supporting the success of other women instead of just talking about the importance of supporting other women? Without digging too hard I found 20 studies showing how women react negatively to another woman’s success and engage in social ostracism if a woman is more attractive than them. This kind of behavior starts in elementary school. I have also wondered why modern and prominent feminists do not vocally support due process or paternity leave, address family court bias, or take an honest look at how men and women reward each other with love.

Without a doubt there are cases of discrimination against women in the workplace. It goes both ways though; I have talked to more than a few men who either didn’t enter into K-8 teaching positions or had to leave their position because parents complained that they wouldn’t raise their kids’ grade so made up some bogus accusation, they felt hostility from their female peers, or they couldn’t support their families on a teaching salary. No one talks about the lesser paying positions, or the dangerous and dirty “glass cellar” positions like the invisible men who pick up our trash because the glass ceiling is far more sexy and elusive.

There are plenty of individual men who are assholes. No question about it. I’ve encountered my fair share of them. This article isn’t about individual experiences though. I think a lot of the general resentment coming from women as a group that is directed at men as a group could be mitigated by having more information, being honest, and not projecting our own issues onto other people.

***

Note: my posts contain affiliate links. If you decide to make a purchase through one of these links, I will make a small commission. There is no additional cost to you and your purchase helps support my writing!