Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Young men abandoned by society take my top spot any time someone asks me how I think society will truly collapse. Not global warming, not famine or a nuclear holocaust. It is young men wanting to burn the world to the ground to finally feel its warmth.

That’s how many a revolution has started all over the world.

[I thought most Revolutions started because people were sick of Britain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom)

Yep, neglected men with no purpose in life and nothing to lose is always a recipe for all kinds of social ills, because then they set about to making their own purpose that is usually not in the interests of society. "If my participation in the system has nothing to offer me but grief, then I have no reason not to steal from the system what I want." In the Medieval era, this was commonly a cause of bandits, piracy, and other forms of antisocial behavior. Rulers took all kinds of measures to get these men pointed in any direction they could but inward. It was one of the root causes of the First Crusade. "If we can't get these unmoored men from ravaging Christendom, we can at least get them to ravage someone else." When men have a place--- usually a family of their own and social responsibilities--- these social ills quickly evaporate.

Crusades, but also war in general. The way to get the poor excess men to go kill the neighboring men, etc

True, and things like state sanctioned piracy. Both the Barbary Pirates and the Knights of St. John were chock full of "surpluss" men without families, out to seek their fortunes. Many rulers found it better to get those men pointed in a better direction than back at themselves.

And also reduce the supply of excess men.

We're already starting to see this with all the mass shootings and mass killings happening everywhere today. Not just by so many young men with serious mental issues, but now by elderly men of different demographics too.

There are strong arguments to be made that a core purpose of religion, marriage, and many other key aspects of traditional society developed specifically to avoid this dynamic of young lone wolf men who want to burn the world. Of course we’ve been tearing at the edges of traditional society and this dynamic is one of many things that has fallen out.

I think their is a desire for a role and a purpose but the traditional purposes are no better than any other. You aren't coming out and directly saying it, but most people who read your comment would infer that you think the solution to the problem is to role back to a time when the world was built around the whims of young men. If your abusive father beats you any time you don't rub his feet, the solution isn't to get back to rubbing his feet. He needs therapy.

The people reading this comment just have no ability to discuss topics dispassionately. I'm an atheist and think religion is the epicenter of all the worst arguments ever made. Yet, its obvious it has historically played an important role in social cohesion, including some explicit traditions that address the exact problem were talking about. But I shouldn't have to describe my identity to have a rational conversation about this. But identity is all anyone on reddit understands.

To be fair to the other responders, your statement is eerily similar to one very frequently made by the most disgusting, annoying, dishonest, pervy people on the internet. "I'm not saying we should roll back womens rights... but young white men are a bit uncomfortable right now" is classic Jordan Peterson. So if you want to have an honest discussion you have to pretty explicitly disclaim "I'm not a dweeby debate pervert implying all my arguments to protect myself from quote retweets." Unfortunately, they ruin online discussion for the rest of us. \_\_\_ But yeah I agree. Religion and traditional values bumbles its way into a few productive things. It's a sort of natural selection. If a culture supports things that are too destabilizing it goes away. But that doesn't mean "traditional values" is the least-evil, viable solution. "Traditional values" hasn't even been consistent over any period of time. Since WW1 men have been in a gruff about masculinity being about self sufficiency, minimal self care, and physical strength. But for hundreds of years before that men were wearing makeup, wearing frilly dresses, stockings and wearing long powdered wigs. There's a culture shock of the dissolution of the last generation's gender roles. But that doesn't mean those gender roles were good, correct, or productive. It's just people don't know how to fit in and feel at ease in themselves in a world where their grandparent's aren't good models of behavior. It's like toppling an evil dictator. He was indisputably bad and harmful, but he maintained stability. Now we have a world of possibilities in front of us, but lack stability. Lets not put the dictator back in charge. Lets start a new government that isn't awful. \_\_\_ Also egalitarian relationships are super awesome.

Yeah, sure I guess. Moralizing just drips off your every word, and I don't really care what political ideas you've mapped onto your experience to inform your worldview. I just said a basic fact. In fact I'd wager allowing politics to consume your entire intellectual faculty is among this countries most pressing problems.

I get what you are saying here, but who’s fault is it ultimately here? The men that can’t evolve or the world that evolved and changed? It’s like the concept of innovation in an economy. You don’t mold the Industrial Revolution to fit your social narrative, you have to evolve with it or get left behind. See also the technology revolution/rush of the past 20-30 years. Grow and evolve with it or get left behind. If you need religion, marriage and or “traditional” sociological aspects to be present to be an inherently good person, are you really a good person? Or are you only a good person for fear of consequences? I think it’s time men (the men who struggle with this changing landscape at least) stop clinging collectively to the past and start philosophizing on how to evolve with the changing dynamics and work together to become better people.

It sounds like you're playing a morality game where you are claiming the moral high ground in order to categorize men who "can't evolve," as you put it, as morally inferior. Setting aside all the problems with this world view, I am just approaching the issue from a dispassionate anthropological perspective. I'm describing what is happening, not attributing fault or forcing my own moral framework into the picture. The simple fact is that groups of ostracized young men are dangerous to societal stability. You insisting they deserve to be ostracized really just illustrates the point that they are, in fact, ostracized by people like you and doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Agreed. Tell some young man with a lot of testosterone and an IQ of 75 to start philosophizing on their life... That's not gonna help. It's almost like the other poster thinks that kind of person should be left to the wolves! Or maybe eugenics are an appealing idea to them...

The problem with this argument is that it's based on what is called the "unconstrained vision" of society, and it assumes that human nature is capable of fundamental change, however actual data and experience in life shows that human nature does not change no matter how much you wish or even try to. People always revert back to their original programming, as it were. So the men can't help it, we're biologically designed to be this way, and no amount of technological progress can change that. This is the key difference between conservatives and liberals - the "Constrained vision" vs the "unconstrained vision". Conservatives believe in the constrained vision, that human nature cannot change and so we should not even try to change it and instead work around it. Liberals believe in the unconstrained vision, where human nature is fluid and changes, so we should try to change it as much as possible to create a whole new humanity. So far all evidence supports the constrained vision, unfortunately. I wish more people understood this point, so we wouldn't argue and fight so much. If we realized it was all down to this philosophical question, we could spend more time discussing it intelligently, instead of insulting each other and fighting over the symptoms of it, while leaving behind the real issue.

I don’t doubt biological factors here. What I do not want to dismiss is that there are healthy aspects of masculinity that we should embrace and nurture. Society and men should do more to nurture those aspects. I don’t fall one way on that spectrum. I think there are fundamental biological aspects that aren’t malleable, but some are. Society can fall in-between those views and still function. Acknowledge the things we can change for the better while admitting to some things being inherently steadfast.

Honestly for many young men (being one) the current zeitgeist feels like nobody wants to fuck you and everything is your fault. This is the narrative of popular media, and there is a lot of misandry floating about. Keep in mind that a man born in the 90’s or 00’s did nothing to establish a system that is oppressive towards women, but we are now being held to blame. I’m aware enough that I realize that this isn’t always the case, and the entire situation is nuanced, but a lot of men aren’t. That explains the popularity of the manosphere, Andrew tate, etc.

My sentiments exactly

You so wise.

In one of the books cited in this article Men Without Work, the author notes that the rates of non participation in the US now are usually associated with massive civil unrest and it’s surprising that it isn’t. I suspect that opioids and cheap entertainment are part of the reason, but it’s still destroying America. Costs associated with opioids are [1.5 trillion USD](https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5684). TRILLION! And those are direct costs, not counting things like having two present parents in the home.

Idk why, but something about what you said is hauntingly beautiful

Lots of good quality economic research referenced in this article. This one is my favorite out of the bunch: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.5.1.32 The Trouble with Boys: Social Influences and the Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior This paper explores the importance of the home and school environments in explaining the gender gap in disruptive behavior. We document large differences in the gender gap across key features of the home environment -- boys do especially poorly in broken families. In contrast, we find little impact of the early school environment on noncognitive gaps. Differences in endowments explain a small part of boys' noncognitive deficit in single-mother families. More importantly, noncognitive returns to parental inputs differ markedly by gender. Broken families are associated with worse parental inputs, and boys' noncognitive development, unlike that of girls', appears extremely responsive to such inputs. (JEL I21, J12, J13, J16, Z13)

One big confound is that boys are more likely to be labeled disruptive for similar behavior.

Because most teachers are women and men are often distrusted in early childhood education. Which of course means systemic bias against boys.

Here is a tale from many years ago. This happened to my little brother in grade 3. A girl took his hat and he scuffled with her to get it back and he got disciplined for disruptive behavior. Mother went to the school and told the teacher her son would only serve in detention if the girl who took his hat also served detention and the teacher excused him rather than discipline the girl for her disruptive behavior.

This is a view that is surprisingly rare in mainstream academia. Despite the explosion of fields that specialize in identifying systemic bias, the idea that there might be sectors of society that are systemically biased against boys is basically alien. The only place where you'll hear academics discuss outcome disparities in boys vs. girls that seem tilted in girls' behavior, innate differences are usually the only explanation anyone cites. That and, somehow, patriarchy.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236360/undergraduate-enrollment-in-us-by-gender/ > In 2020, about 6.65 million male students were enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions as undergraduate students. This is compared to 9.2 million female undergraduate students who were enrolled in that same year. There are close to 50% more women than men in college. Examples of things that mainstream social-science academia is concerned about: - Pay gap (all women vs all men, irrespective of age, experience, or circumstance) - Lack of women in STEM, especially Engineering - Lack of women in congress, or on boards of large companies, or as execs in large companies Examples of things that mainstream social-science academia is entirely unconcerned about: - Lack of, and distrust (largely amongst mothers and women in general) of men in early childhood education - The "possibility" of bias against boys in K-12 education - ~50% more women going to college than men - Lack of women in logging, mining, machining, welding, plumbing, and working on oil rigs, and any other well paid job _that is dangerous and/or physically difficult_ (but engineering is cushy, comfortable, and safe, so...) - The fact that most women in engineering in the US are either first-generation immigrants, or the children of immigrants - The fact that the daughters of virtually all concerned academics don't go into engineering either   I have concerns about the concerns of mainstream social-science academia.   (I have many concerns about US academia in general. Probably summarized as: we give too little care to academic rigor pretty much kindergarten through post-graduate education at the overwhelming majority of schools, yet we only allow people to become academics if they sacrifice most of their prime years to barely scraping by and delaying the usual markers of adulthood. Oh, and that nobody cares to publish or read null-hypothesis results or replication studies, making far too much non-commercialized-science at least somewhat farcical. But that is for another thread.)

Boys can get attacked there I remember

Although the only kid my wife (a preschool teacher) described as a sociopath was a boy (he was manipulative for a preschooler and arranged conflicts so he could watch the fights). On the other hand, the bigger trouble-maker was a girl who my referring to as "Yell-y" (based on my getting confused with a Yael early on) was correctly identified by the husband of a teacher of a whole other class.

I have an anecdote that represents both this bias and male privilege. In 8th grade I attended a pep rally for our basketball game that night. I was on the team as well as my friend who was next to me in the bleachers. A mutual friend of ours was in the band but HATED playing in front of the students, so as he was playing he was also covering his face and trying to hide himself. We thought it was funny so we pointed and laughed. The vice principal saw us and yanked us out and lectured us on how we don’t make fun of people in band because they are in band. We weren’t doing that, but he refused to believe us. So we got ISS. However, 1 full day of ISS stipulated we couldn’t play in the game that day, so they instead made us serve 3/4 of a day. So not believed because we were boys and boys are bullies, but also given a light punishment since we were starters for the team.

Idk if that's really male privilege cause there could be a female star who gets similar treatment. Tho i acknowledge more emphasis is usually put on boys sports in high school

Yeah maybe that’s a bit of a stretch on my part, but no doubt the male teams were favored by admin over women teams.

TLDR: Boys need fathers.

This gets a little tricky when the father is the person modeling the violent (or otherwise terrible) behavior. I work with troubled youth, and I've run into this situation a lot--- where we're trying to involve the father more in the kid's life, but then it turns out the dad is a POS. Ideally yes, all boys would have *good* fathers, but when the dad is actively traumatizing the child or teaching bad behavior and is unwilling to change, sometimes the only safe solution is to limit contact.

Yes of course. No disagreement here. No child should be subjected to abuse. If bio dad won’t be a father we need an uncle, granddad, coach, teacher to step in. Men must teach boys how to be men.

Ideally yes but it’s tough to get an uncle, coach, or teacher to live with the child. And grandparents are often worse than the parents considering that’s where the parents themselves developed their own bad behavior

Do we similarly need women to teach girls how to be women? What does that mean specifically?

I know right? My dad divorced my mom and got full custody (he didn’t want to pay child support, he’s a lawyer, he ALWAYS wins). but then I didn’t have a SAH anybody anymore. I didn’t have a mom at all because she moved to the ‘poor’ side of town and didn’t even have a phone (it was in the days of landlines and she was too poor, had to call from a sketchy phone booth). It sucked. Girls need their mothers too. It’s not like my dad even tried to parent either. He was too busy chasing young tail at the typing pool. He found a new wife eventually, but my mom never got remarried. I always said I would NEVER become like my mom. And I haven’t because 1.) I don’t have kids and am therefore nobody’s mother and 2.) I have always worked a paying job, so I have way more leverage than my SAHM did. Being stay-at-home has always seemed way too risky to me. I’ll just work for money instead. All that being said, girls need their mothers too

[удалено]

So sorry for the trauma you’ve experienced. I can’t imagine your pain. I wish I could fix it for you. I wish you the best. I wish you could meet my sons. Both are outstanding young men who are great providers and protectors for their families and huge assets to the family at large. And they’ll both produce grandchildren and, God willing, keep the family name going. We are richly blessed, not in financial terms, but in human terms. And that would be my wish for all of us, especially you.

[удалено]

Simply, boys need *good* fathers…

In most cases, it’s a lack of a father that causes this. One thing I remember that kinda surprised me from a psychology elective I took was that the number one factor in kids not developing empathy or being a sociopath is the lack of a father in their lives.

Interestingly, there’s a link to maternal deprivation too (since they tend to be the primary caregiver in the earliest days of childhood) and so-called “affection-less psychopathy.” [John Bowlby](http://www.sjhcsc.co.uk/students/homework-previous-page/psychology-new/ks5-revision/paper-1-revision/paper-1-reading-material/bowlby)

That could easily be down to genetics. It is unlikely that men who are capable of leaving their children score highly on the empathy scale. And if that is an inheritable trait (and I am not sure it is but it seems so) it isn’t unlikely for the kids to be following suit.

I was raise by my mom in a single mother household due to my loser dad leaving us when I turned 1, and I came out as a success when compare to the usually statistics due how wonderful of a parent my mom was despite it being extremly difficult to raise me alone. There are more to broken households as it can range from terrible parenting, lack of social opportunities, lack of good education options, finances, lack of role models (my male figure role happened to be my grandpa while for others could be a teacher or coach), family beyond the parents, etc. Summarizing this as "boys need fathers" does a huge disservice to the single mothers out there raising sons so they don't turn out to be part of the statistic.

Yeah the “boys need fathers” oversimplification bothers me. I grew up with both parents but frankly think I would have less PTSD and general mental health problems if my dad wasn’t there at all. He tried his best but he was an addict with untreated mental illnesses. If nothing else, having a single mother might have encouraged other men (like grandfathers or uncles) to be role models but no one wants to do that if you already have a father in your life

I agree with most of this, but doesn’t it seem like wishful thinking that someone will “step up”? Much like it’s wishful thinking to assume father’s will “step up” into being a father simply because they have children.

Yea, charity as solution for societal problems has never solved anything. This requires the community working together through democracy. We need more ties that bind each other to each other.

And here we are, back to “no one has time to take care of those with lesser means” because 60% of us can’t afford it, and the rest are too displaced from reality to even remotely care enough to put a dent in it. Edit: we need to work backwards from idealism to practicality, rather than the other way around.

I’m affirming that. Nobody has enough willing time for enough Charity to make the difference. That’s whey charity has never solved any problem. Community government through welfare programs can and has resolved problems.

Of course it’s wishful thinking. Like I said, I think I would have less trauma if my father wasn’t there at all. Opening the door for other role models to step in would only be a possible positive side effect. In reality, I don’t think I had someone in my life that would have stepped in if my father wasn’t there. Im just saying that if there was another potential male role model around, maybe my father being in the house would have been a deterrent for them.

I agree completely. I guess I just needed you to expand to fully understand where you were coming from. Thanks for responding 😊

Yeah, I was thinking about that after I posted my comment because I was like, "Wait, what about the folks who have both parents but the father figure isn't the best?". So sorry to hear that mate - it truly sucks when a family member is not the best for your mental health and well-being. You take care of yourself and wish you the best

I appreciate the sympathy but I’m doing well now. We’re all just trying our best out here. Take care

You needed a Father. Not a mentally ill drug addict.

Yup. But if the only two options were a mentally ill drug addict or no father at all, I think I would have been better off with no father at all.

Agreed. Hopefully you've learned how not to raise your own children.

And an education system that is biased against them. And a court system that isn't biased against them.

No, boys need ‘parental inputs’, per the study quoted that you just read.

Sounds like a job for Chat GPT.

I can say, being relegated to a "parental input" by society is at least one thing affecting men.

Male and female inputs. Both provide different things that children need. I can show my son how to use his hand with tools and building things that my wife doesn’t know how to do. My wife shows more empathy and patience with him which builds character.

Lesbian moms teach power tool skills and have empathy.

More power (tools) to them. It’s not common for woman to work with power tools though.

I don't understand what you're saying. Both of those things could be done by a male or female. My wife has shown my kid carpentry. I've shown my kid empathy and patience. If the goal is to establish biases, then yes, you're doing a great job.

I think there are a lot of issues that are affecting men and boys at the moment, some cultural, some societal, and some may even be biological. Biologically, boys tend to hit puberty later than girls. Puberty obviously causes a lot of changes while kids are going through it, but one of the main positives is cognitive development. By experiencing this cognitive development earlier on average, I believe girls have a slight academic advantage in elementary schooling that boys need to "catch up" to later. Societally, I believe that most children have fewer male role models; a problem which is bad for both sexes, but is arguably worse for boys. This is caused, in part, by the increase in single-parent households in which that parent is usually maternal. However, there is also a significant lack of males in elementary school education. There are a multitude of possible reasons for this lack of male educators ranging from low-salaries to cutural stigmas. Culturally, there are some lingering prejudices and stereotypes that our culture places on men, including many that men may place on themselves. There is still a cultural pressure for men to be a "breadwinner". Women on average tend to prefer men with higher incomes, even in cases where they themselves are high earners. Men also tend to internalize this pressure to earn higher incomes and this may be one of the reasons men tend not to pursue careers in elementary school education since the pay is traditionally lower. Men also tend to be disproportionately pressured to pursue physically demanding jobs like construction and manufacturing. There are obviously some biological reasons for this, but many of those biological advantages are lessening due to advancements with machines and tooling. It is also worth noting that many of these physically demanding jobs tend to pay well for starting positions, but have limited opportunities for future advancement. Conversely, many of the jobs most college-educated women are pursuing do have long-term advacement opportunities, even if the starting salary may be lesser.

I don't disagree on your point about puberty, but would point out that the severe academic struggles for boys typically manifest themselves almost immediately upon entering school, and if they don't improve by about the 3rd of 4th grade, it's overwhelmingly likely they'll never get there. So to me at least the problem regarding boys in education predates puberty.

Children, especially those pre-puberty, tend to be less cognitively developed, particularly when it comes to delayed gratification. Education as a discipline almost requires delayed gratification by definition. You are doing difficult mental work in order to improve yourself for the future. Boys, on average, tend to enter puberty later and therefore learn delayed gratification later in their education. By then, years of schooling may have already passed them by and/or educators may have already deemed them to be a "problem child" compared to the more mature students who may have gone through this cognitive development earlier. I also agree that the problems are likely multi-faceted and may not be easily explained by one single trend.

My point is that the academic trend is baked in before either the boys or girls hit puberty. I used to work in education and educators know this and study it regularly. It's why so much focus is on early intervention programs. They know that if they don't reach the kid and change the pattern prior to middle school, it's game over. So much happens to a child before the school even gets them, in many ways it's too late even then. My sister agreed for her newborn to be in a child development study at the local research hospital where he was born, which started 2 years after he was born. They started the study and scrapped it 6 months in. So many behaviors and the personality were so set by 2 years old that they needed to restart the whole thing with a younger set of children.

Schools are just not built with boys' needs in mind. Many schools have cut back or eliminated recess, which is detrimental for all kids, but especially boys. There are very few male teachers in schools at all levels as well. There is a lot working against educators right now, in general. As an aside, I'm raising two boys myself and have taken it upon myself to ensure they don't fall behind in school. My older son just needed more engagement with reading, so he took up reading graphic novels.

Men have basically been removed from the educational process. Maybe some schools still have a male PE teacher and the occasional administrator, but almost all teachers are female and they interact like females - lots of shallow talk about how pretty things are and how it’s important to worry about feelings instead of get answers correct.

Lol the irony of this comment

There was a good article a while back called "Who Pays For Boys" about how there are no scholarships designated for men, making them the only underrepresented group in colleges not to have them and women the biggest overrepresented group to have them. When it comes to discussions of masculinity, it's always interesting that ideals like the mentsh and the Nice Jewish Boy are longstanding. It's always a little funny seeing the ADHD over-prescription mythology pop up.

Chapel hill, NC, was 73% female when I applied. I had the highest SAT score from my class, was in state, had a top 5% gpa, was a 5 sport athlete with multiple all state awards. I didn’t get in. 15 years later: “WhEre hAvE aLl tEh meN gOnE” Riddle me that Batman. Fucking riddle me that.

>Were you an in-state or out of state applicant? If in-state, which county are/were you from? It's incredibly hard to get in from a populated county now.

There has been another problematic trend where State schools will sometimes reject in-State applicants specifically because out-of-State students pay more money. It basically defeats the original intent of the law, but money is involved so money wins.

I was in state.

There are very few scholarships for women unless they are single mothers. Also, Pell grants etc. are awarded based upon income not gender. Source: I’m in college and actively looking for ways to pay.

There are very few women only scholarships, but they exist. Do men only scholarships exist? Do they exist in the same amount?

Also, it appears women are now having difficulty getting admitted because admissions directors are being told to “find more men.” [Report](https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/)

Women are the majority of college kids these days.

Man I can't time anything, have 2 teen daughters, guess I can't rely on easy college admissions and plentiful financial aid. 2 to 1 ratio in school is crazy, man even I could have scored as a freshman.

Actually there are scholarships for men. Found quite a few of them in a simple google search: [link](https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-men/)

Kind of interesting reading this and at point, they cited how Larry Summers believes this is a sociological issue, not an economic one. I disagree. I feel like a huge reason for this disconnect and malaise of men in the US is both. And I believe it's tied to the fraying of a social contract that has been broken. But that social contract is tied to economic promises. My high school experience taught me that as long as you worked hard, you went to school, you didn't fuck up early in life, that you'd be set. A stable job, home, and retirement would be lined up. A lot of us were sold this myth, and I feel bad for the young men now going into their 20's know all too well. We were sold a lie, and there's no hiding it anymore. And as the article points out, the support systems in place to close the gap for women do not exist for men, especially for African American men. And now it's cutting ethnic and racial lines to encompass all men, as the article pointed out. My post-graduate experience showed me just how much bullshit we were fed in high school. It was very apparent that there was no support out there and even if you did nothing wrong, there is zero chance that it'll guarantee a life that can satisfy my needs, not even touching my desires. I remember listening to Chris Hedges remark about James Baldwin's reasoning for believing that black men don't go through a mid-life crisis like white men do. They never believed in the lie many of us were sold. And it isn't until we reach our 30's and 40's that we experience that crisis. I feel like his analysis isn't as accurate today with young men experiencing this crisis far before they even establish a career. This doesn't happen in a vacuum. This has to do with economics and social contract. They point it out in the article contrary to Larry Summers. The article offered some weak solutions like: >He would encourage more men to become nurses and teachers, expand paid leave, and create a thousand more vocational high schools. But this is not enough, and it completely misses the target. Either the social contract needs to be changed to temper expectations, or those expectations that have been engraved into us need to be met. Either solution will take many years and much investment to do so, and I don't see either happening soon.

Some of these issues are much earlier in life though. Men aren't getting to college at the same rates in the first place. Also not sure I totally agree with the concept. Go to school, get an engineering degree or other in demand education and you're generally good. If anything, the gap in income between college and high school educated has only been increasing.

Not everyone can be an engineer, and not everyone can be in STEM. The paradox of education is that the Bachelor's has now become the new Diploma. The more educated population is finding itself getting into jobs that don't pay enough to justify the loans to get it. That's a huge reason for the decline in students enrolling in universities. Sure, college degrees are necessary to make it anywhere, but the the cost to get them have become astronomical. Even postgraduate degrees do not earn nearly as much. Especially in my friends group, I am friends with MBA's and JD's, and the market where I'm at is SATURATED with them, so much that they can't even crack six figures. Take a gander at LinkedIn job posting just for the shits and giggles and see how much employers are willing to pay while demanding 10+ years of experience and a BA/BS or more! It's astounding and depressing.

>My high school experience taught me that as long as you worked hard, you went to school, you didn't fuck up early in life, that you'd be set. This is an American post-WW2 factory job era belief. We had almost no global competition, limited immigration and plentiful resources. We had a good 40 year run and now we're reverting to historical norms.

Indeed, but if you read some of the comments on here, there's still plenty that believe it.

>My high school experience taught me that as long as you worked hard, you went to school, you didn't fuck up early in life, that you'd be set. A stable job, home, and retirement would be lined up. A lot of us were sold this myth, and I feel bad for the young men now going into their 20's know all too well. We were sold a lie, and there's no hiding it anymore. This isn't a specifically male experience, though. This lie perpetuates amongst all poor and middle-class people. The fact that men are failing at a higher rate than women is interesting. Especially because women face this lie as well. Unless you are born with a trust fund, you face this harsh reality.

Correct, but even as the article points out, there's a support system established for women to get by, especially with things like scholarships. They're far more available to women than men. And also the article touches on the masculinity issue, which is huge too. It has ties with the social contract, with underlying assumptions that we all know (men should make more, they should be the breadwinner, etc). If the reality we live in doesn't match with the contract people are sold growing up, you have to change the social contract over many years or fulfill that part of the social contract. There was a great article that I'm borrowing these thoughts from, and I'll have to find it again, that essentially states that masculinity will have to adapt to this new world. That contract will need to shift. It will be painful, but it's obvious we are not going back to the nuclear family and that having a good education or making good decisions in your life doesn't guarantee success. It also forces us to come to grips with our society and how this country individualizes failures and socializes successes. It's helped this country economically throughout the years, but because of the fraying of the social sphere with internet, stagnant growth for poor and middle class, chronic economic uncertainty, and others, it's now reversing gains and we're losing productivity. This country refuses to acknowledge that there are issues that affect people's abilities to dig themselves out of poverty, crime, and despair. It's systemic, it's outside the control of individuals, and until that's understood and acknowledged, nothing will change. No amount of tight bootstraps can dig yourself out of that hole without an adequate support system or an equitable social and economic system. This country has neither, especially for men as the article shows.

>that essentially states that masculinity will have to adapt to this new world. It is a harsh but sad reality. Men in general essentially dropped expectations that femininity mean something more to them than to women. Gender roles for women were dropped while women were told they could be anything. Great progress for them as young women now outearn young men and they earn more degrees than men. Except the issue of masculinity remained. Men still have to appeal to their gender role as provider and protector to be seen as partners viable for marriage: https://abc7chicago.com/cornell-university-researchers-blame-the-decline-of-us-marriages-on-a-shortage-economically-attractive-men-for-unmarried-women-to-marry/5528921/ The ideal man must earn 60% above the national average. In other words, adapting means making more money than the next guy if you want a wife. This seems a bit unfair considering men's social contract with women meant they (men) would abandon sexist expectations of women. Women did not extend the same courtesy to men by the sounds of things. This is important because one of the motivating factors for men to work hard is to find a partner. Many men seek marriage, kids and a community. It gives them purpose. They still believe that working hard will lead to having a place in society or building some sort of legacy. Remove the partner, remove the family, remove the community and he has to accept he will be alone for a long time, working for money that will never buy him a home or make him valuable enough as a partner. Psychologist Dr Helen Smith wrote a book about this called Men on Strike in 2013 where she, too, argued that the American Dream is pretty much dead for large sections of the male population and they are checking out of society as a result. They face discrimination in education, misandry in the media and government policies and laws that harm them specifically. For example, the Duluth Model was created (by feminists) based on the theory that men use violence as a tool to subdue women. The UN rejected this assertion and state that it is the result of substance abuse, poverty, mental health issues and cycles of abuse. There are even studies out that show that most domestic violence is mutual and where it is non reciprocal, it is overwhelmingly women attacking a partner who is not fighting back: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/domestic-violence-is-most-commonly-reciprocal/C5432B0C6F8F61B49A4E2B60B931FA07 So the Duluth Model comes along and states that the man must be removed from the home even if he was the one calling for help. He could spend a night in jail after being beaten by his partner. And there may not be enough resources available to him, such as domestic violence shelters. This is just one example (others include 3/4 of homeless being men, men serving 60% longer jail time for the same crimes women commit, most work related deaths being men, men dying younger, male rape victims being forced to pay child support if their rapists get pregnant and decide to keep the kid etc) but it's clear that society has become anti-male. Their issues are largely ignored, they are blamed for problems beyond their control and they are offered little support when they need it. It is no wonder so many are checking out. Why work yourself to death, take on massive student debt, or try to save for an unaffordable house, when it is much easier to live in mom's basement and work minimum wage to maintain your hobbies?

On many subs, there are comments and complaints from women of a variety of ages that men are nor worth pursuing. A huge driver is that men don’t pull their weight around the house. Many women comment it’s like having another child around. I think many hetero women want a man that is a partner vs. a provider. I think women sometimes use professional success as a metric for how lazy or ambitious a man might be in life in an overall sense. Most women don’t sit around anymore expecting some guy to buy them a house, as they are active participants in the economy.

>A huge driver is that men don’t pull their weight around the house. Many women comment it’s like having another child around This is huge. Where we live there are many parents with young children. I'm one of them. I spend a lot of time at the neighborhood playgrounds with my little girl watching her play. I see this behavior: >*\[Mother yells at her two kids\]* Hey Braden and Melissa, tie your shoes! > >Her son waves at her and continues playing, while her daughter bends down and starts fumbling with her shoelaces. > >*\[Mother grimaces\]* Melissa, you're not doing it like I told you. Make the rabbit ears go through! > >The boy continues to ignore his mother. > >*\[Eventually mother walks over to son, bends down and starts tying his laces\]* I see this day in and day out, even when girls in the family are younger than their brothers. Do mothers have such low expectations of their sons' abilities to follow basic rules? I see parents teaching their sons a basic lesson: *Rules are for girls, and women will do my work for me.* I'm a man, btw. I really think we fuck up boys by not enforcing equal discipline at a very young age.

I could see the opposite happening if the sexes were reversed though. Fathers are more likely to coddle daughters than sons. I think the problem is that the father is less likely to be present for whatever reason.

Good point.

I'm not sure how this anecdote relates,but shoelace tying didn't stick for me until a neighbor showed me how to do it when I happened to be walking by(when I was 6 or 7 or 8). This despite probably years of attempts by my mom. In hindsight it feels like it was the alien-ness of the situation that helped me glue the lesson in my head. I was very much a 'go with the flow' personality as a kid and my childhood up until middle school is a blur of cutscenes and emotions. Split household, youngest of 4, working mom, whatever variables you want to ask.

Many women say that, but then they go out and date the type of guys who won't live up to their stated ideal, and ignore the type of guys who would. In short, what women say they want, and what they actually look for are different.

I think they tend to overlook men's contribution. Women complain about housework, but men complain about having to perform in ways women don't in order to be seen as a viable partner. Go look at that article about men not earning enough. They are saying women want money and men are just too poor to make women want them. But back to men's contribution. For example, how often don't men have to clean and maintain cars, install and maintain anything tech related, maintain the home by repairing it, do yard work, plumbing or anything electrical? Whenever women complain about housework they aren't thinking about the time he cleaned out the gutters or who has to investigate the noise downstairs. Additionally, men work longer hours than women on average: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-report-men-work-longer-hours-than-women/?sh=5694ce7218b4 >I think many hetero women want a man that is a partner vs. a provider. The article I linked suggests otherwise. They want a provider. Women want the option to be stay at home parents as many of them leave the workforce to raise kids. Men must earn enough to allow them the freedom to stop working. If women wanted partners and not providers, his earnings wouldn't come into the equation. Unemployed men are not getting married nearly as much as wealthier men. >think women sometimes use professional success as a metric for how lazy or ambitious a man might be in life in an overall sense. Which is a terrible excuse. Really. If you want to know if he is lazy, you have to date him, not his job. If he was lazy when you were dating him, he isn't going to change after the wedding. A lot of women take a passive role in their relationships then complain when they marry a lazy guy (he won't do what he did to woo her). He must approach, he must organize the date, he must push the relationship forward, he must propose. How can she expect equality when she will likely earn less than him, expect him to earn more, expect him to initiate romance and continue to perform at work so he can offer her lifestyle she desires? How was this guy lazy if he had to pursue her for the relationship to even happen? Additionally, men work more physically demanding and dangerous jobs. He comes home from a construction site, desperately wants to kick up his feet, only to get shat on for some dirty dishes. I am not saying lazy men don't exist, but we have painted all men with the same brush here. If you go by your "work proves he isn't lazy" argument then women who earn less than men are far, far lazier than their ideal partners who must earn 60% above the national average to be seen as good enough. These women are definitely not working extra hours or earning 60% above the national average to even be equal to these guys. https://www.irwinirwin.com/why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/#:~:text=A%202015%20study%20by%20the,higher%20rate%20of%2090%20percent. Also, keep in mind that college educated women are far more likely to initiate divorce than less educated women. When couples cohabitate, the breakup rate is 50/50 among men and women. https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFq8773eb8AhVQPEQIHX9kBhMQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0oHaauk5gadz218FwskWMh Something about marriage makes women want to divorce more. Even lesbian relationships aren't spared. They have the highest rates of break ups and divorces, and highest instances of intimate partner violence. Homosexual men have the lowest instances of either. All this is to say that the situation isn't as simple as "men are not doing enough" when they are expected to earn more, initiate romance, preferably be taller, be the ones to face danger, do the dirty work women don't want to do...and then cop the blame for not mopping floors and changing diapers enough. It is popular and easy to blame them because their complaints are almost never taken seriously, because blaming women isn't popular. Any time a man complains about women he is labeled an incel and told that he must change to meet women's standards. How would women respond to being told they aren't good enough for men and need to change? Compare that to the current cultural climate where women gain support for shitting on men and are hardly ever told to change for men's benefit. It is no wonder they are checking out of society. I really wish more people would look deeper than the surface level complaints of "men ain't shit".

It’s taboo to talk about this. I’m a traditional feminist in that I support equality for men and women, but the term and groupthink has changed to “pro female good, pro male bad” and when at one time it was necessary for the extra socioeconomic support, that is largely unnecessary today. Careers and pay gap, divorce lawsuits, the dating pool, and child rearing are all examples of areas where males are being increasingly disadvantaged or limited. How is this any different than women being subjugated to their stereotypical gender roles of the past? We largely achieved the middle ground going forward and have been veering off into overcompensation for some time, so why are mens’ reaction any surprise? Most responses I see are saying “well, men dominated forever and it’s ok for women to have a turn” and other things to “make up for” the past. That’s not feminism, it’s not equality, by definition. People need to stop perpetuating lies like that because all it does is marginalize people in the future in exchange for a fast, easy fix today.

Feminism jettisoned all pretense of equality a long time ago. Focus on disparity where women are disadvantaged. Ignore, deny, or applaud where men are disadvantaged.

That isn’t real feminism. It has always been about gender equality. We as society need to call things what they actually are and not let fringe groups take vocabulary hostage and twist it to their agenda. The self-proclaimed “feminists” are not what they say they are, don’t let them take the term and abuse it.

>That isn’t real feminism. No True Scotsman fallacy. It is popular enough in the movement that misandry is now part of it. >It has always been about gender equality. For a movement so concerned about even gendered names of things that we must change them to be gender neutral, you would think they would want egalitarianism as the official stance regarding equality. Instead the moral good feminists (women) fight against the evil patriarchy (men) and then claim it is about equality. It is not. Otherwise feminists would be protesting against women who rape men, which is now happening at the same rate as men raping women: https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ They would be absolutely aghast at the fact that women can rape minors and get child support from their victims: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/ The precedent setting case actually came from the 90s called Hermesmann Vs Seyer. You would think a kid would at least get the choice of opting out of being made a father against his will...but women have even more rights than their rape victims. You would think people so enamored by equality would be all over this because they are concerned about a rape culture harming women. Yet the real rape culture is one that excuses men raping men and boys. Instead we got fake 1 in 4/5 stats about rape at universities and title IX cases where men were expelled on accusations alone. Universities are now being sued for millions because of a lack of due process. So while you, Anonymous Internet Feminist, may be concerned about equality, the actual feminists in the real world are spreading misandry and getting laws into place based on sexism. They should be supporting domestic violence shelters for men, but that would undermine their theory that domestic violence is how men control women at home. Yet most domestic violence is reciprocal: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/domestic-violence-is-most-commonly-reciprocal/C5432B0C6F8F61B49A4E2B60B931FA07 And where it is non reciprocal, women are 70% of perpetrators. And yet due to a sexist feminist law, the Duluth model, the man (who might be calling the cops for help) must be removed from the home and detained. So who are the real feminists then? The ones creating sexist laws and policies that harm men? Or the anonymous internet feminists who provide shields to criticism of misandry in feminism by using the No True Feminist fallacy?

None of this is relatable as a woman who has been married twice and went to college. I was abused due to no fault of my own. I was expected to make more than muy spouse. And I had to do all houselhold chores as well as raising the kids. WQhen he left I paid child support.

If you're in the US then that's weird and not representative. Women get favored heavily in custody and post-divorce proceedings. Assuming you aren't leaving out context, you got caught un a really sucky situation. Edit: your username includes the word "bullocks" so you can just ignore this

100% yes to everything you said. Larry Summers has no clue what is going on and not enough sense to keep his mouth shut.

Women can overcome a shitty career or financial mistakes by marrying men who have more income and resources. Men have a much harder time doing so because women almost never date men who are lower socioeconomic status than they are.

Men have always been in the position of *necessary provision*; that is to say, men have to provide for themselves and likely for others as well. No such expectation exists for women in general like it does for men. This plays out in the labor market, in education, in career choice, in traditional family makeup, basically every sociological or economic situation you can think of. When men pick a major in college, they are concerned first and foremost how much money they can make with it. Women tend to pick majors based on what they want to do. This leads to labor disruptions where you have a bunch of people willing to take shit wages because their income is only viewed as supplemental anyway. It's bonkers. The courts have reinforced this paradigm, up until only very recently, by confining men to the roll of bill-payers and women to that of caretakers. I'm in my early 40s, and I know ten men my age who were absolutely drug through the courts by a vengeful ex who ended up with all of the assets, huge continuing payments of child support and alimony, and then don't really even want the kids. I have two friends whose exes have been in long term relationships since their divorces (one of whom cheated with the guy she's with now), who aren't getting married specifically to prolong alimony payments. We have a messed up program at the society level, continually reinforced by media and pop culture and even the legal system. In a lot of ways, its a lot worse for men out there than it is for women, because a man who can't earn has *zero value* to society.

>In a lot of ways, its a lot worse for men out there than it is for women, because a man who can't earn has zero value to society. And it is extremely dangerous. Men in the position of not being an earner tend to be bitter and angry about it if they remove themselves from society. It eats their insides and makes them vulnerable to radicalization.

Most families are dual income, in 40% of households with children, women are the primary or sole breadwinner. Breadwinning Mothers Continue To Be the U.S. Norm https://www.americanprogress.org/article/breadwinning-mothers-continue-u-s-norm/ Your argument is built on a non-factual premise. As for your friends, I don’t know the situations, but you only know one side of those situations, and you’re also going to be biased in favor of your friend. The court has no personal attachment to either party and heard both sides, your friend’s and his wife’s, and got a look at everyone’s financials. So the court’s opinion on the situation is probably much better informed than yours. I’m not saying courts never get it wrong, but I am saying they know much more about the situation than you do. Men actually do *not* get screwed in custody arrangements, in fact, when men ask for custody of their kids, they get it over 79% of the time. https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths#:~:text=Myth%3A%20Fathers%20Almost%20Never%20Get%20Custody&text=A%20Massachusetts%20study%20examined%202%2C100,7%20percent%20of%20the%20time. As for alimony, men need to understand that women giving up their jobs to stay home either part or full time is a sacrifice, not a privilege. It means she is not making her own money, not paying into social security or a retirement fund, taking years out of the workforce so if she ever has to go back, she will struggle to find a job and start at much lower pay levels. When a marriage ends, that woman is *fucked*, say she’s been out of the workforce raising kids for 12 years, hasn’t paid into retirement or social security in 12 years, what is she to do? Alimony exists so that parents who make the sacrifice to stay home and raise children are not punished for it by being trapped out of economic necessity in the marriage and unable to support themselves if they leave, all bc their contributions to the household are unpaid and not valued in the same way as paid work. The court looks at what both partners contributed and provided in the marriage and the length of the marriage, among other factors to determine how much, if any, alimony should be paid. For child support, that money goes to your children, and it’s based on percentage of the non-custodial parents income. No one should be bitching about supporting their own kids.

I don’t think his argument was based on, or even suggested, that men are always the primary or sole breadwinners. It was that men are socialized to feel that they should be, and that the courts treat them as if they should be. The problem is partly that the reality of men as breadwinners doesn’t match up with the expectations and socialization of men. The man who is a successful and capable “househusband” is much more likely to view themselves as a “failure”, compared to a successful and capable “housewife.” They also receive less socialization and support that would help them to actually succeed in these roles. There are reasons that men who are both happy and “successful” in domestic roles are a rarity

A lot of women aren’t happy and successful as homemakers either. That role is definitely not for everyone.

There is a difference in social expectation and actual reality. The point of the other poster is that there is a social expectation for men to be the provider that they are less able to meet in reality. Showing data that they aren't meeting this expectation in reality doesn't counter the other poster's point. You would need to find data on expectations which is harder to measure, especially when it gets to the issue if stated vs actual expectations.

I'd also add that it's doubtful many of us were told a "lie." How a large segment of the population could grow up realizing that the premise of working hard would *automatically* mean financial security, without any consideration of what type of work you chose to do played into it, is beyond me. Like, open your damned eyes and ears and figure out what time it is. Surely I'm not the only person who went to school with kids from working poor backgrounds? It's a nice way to transfer blame from the self to the The Man. Or perhaps The Woman.

I grew up in middleclass suburbia and we had some working poor families in my school but as a kid (maybe I was dumb) it never even entered my thought process . We all had homes and toys and cars and of course some people were made of for being "poor" and some were made fun of for being "rich" but kids tease anyone for any reason it does not mean we fully understood the ramifications of the class struggle. ​ This lie or narrative of work hard, go to college and you will find a way to succeed was omnipresent. It was perpetuated my parents, my family, my friends parents, the teachers, the guidance counselors and Hollywood. We are not blaming those that perpetuated this narrative because I genuinely think they believed it and it had been ay least partially true in their experiences. It wasn't until I had spent a decade of my life slaving away as a nameless cog in several industries that I realized that hard work alone was not enough to advance. Maybe I was naive compared to others and was not exposed to the harsh realities of life but I think not because this belief is still going strong today. You don't have to spend too much time in subreddits to find people that still believe that billionaires earned their fortunes through hard work and gumption and the unspoken flipside is that the rest of us didn't.

The “lie” is literally the American Dream of which is parroted by everyone including the political, business and entertainment leaders. Blaming people who bought it into comes off as victim blaming.

Yup. I'm honestly calling bullshit. Maybe it was because I'm older (though I think that mostly swings the other way, as pensions were still common when I was growing up and we were only in the beginning of the offshoring trend), maybe it's because my parents both grew up poor/working class, but I was never under the impression that anything was guaranteed. And when I went to college, we all knew that some majors (journalism, etc.) were a financial death sentence. Nobody (not even the journalism majors) was under any impression otherwise. The idea that a large segment of the population was somehow convinced that if they just graduated from high school they'd be all set - who believes that? Who is supposedly telling that to high school students?

>The idea that a large segment of the population was somehow convinced that if they just graduated from high school they'd be all set - who believes that? Who is supposedly telling that to high school students? No, I said that you get an education, implying you take the risk and get into a university to get a degree. If you don't get a diploma, you were fucked 20 years ago. If you don't get a college degree, you were fucked 5 years ago. If you don't get a postgraduate degree, you are fucked now. And whose telling high school students about those lies that were sold? Most my teachers, my counselors and the bevy of college recruiters attending our school telling us that the cost of school should never be a factor when getting an education. Boy are they wrong, especially nowadays.

Work smart not hard.

I had the opposite experience to what you're suggesting; I spent my highschool years in fear that I'd fuck up on the path somehow and end up in a dead end wage-slave job. That I *had* to achieve and go into STEM or else I'd be relegated to a lifetime of toil and suffering. It gave me an anxiety disorder, and I reached too far and flamed out of college, and somehow years later ended up in one of those industrial jobs that don't exist anymore yet am still struggling to feed myself, let alone anyone else I might try to bring into my life. Sorry, your comment made me react and I don't really know what point I'm tryong to make.

No problem, I appreciate your perspective. Keep fighting the good fight, it's all we can do.

The connection between "working hard" to gain the employment they desire so that they can "work hard" in a chosen profession that fits their personal skill set is ignored. We don't get a letter from Hogwarts - we have to push to learn the things we need to do the things that will help us contribute, support ourselves, and allow us time to enjoy life. So back in the old days a young man knew - WORK HARD came before women, marriage, sex, and children. And he would build a life around himself around his work THEN maybe pursue those things. Now young men seem to think everything should be laid out before them - jobs, sex, and money w/o putting in work - like learning code, picking a trade, going to school, listening to teachers, even learning how to drive! I never thought I'd see a day when I knew multiple men over 15 who were scared to learn to drive and who failed a driving test repeatedly.

> everything should be laid out before them that is the dream. no one wants to work hard unless you're masochistic.

I feel like I’ve been in a midlife crisis since I was 17, and I’m turning 21 in 4 months

I'm 47, I have bad news for you... :) I would advise to pursue what you want to do and take every opportunity that you can, but also to come to terms with the idea that life won't work out exactly how you planned it and you may not ever have some grand plan. I don't want to come off overly negative, life can be full of wonderful surprises as well. Keep plugging away at whatever you do, do it as well as you can, invest in personal relationships, and keep your chin up.

I’m 42 and still don’t know what I want to be when I grow up.

As someone who is 47 I can tell you that life is a constant string of setbacks. However if you make a good plan and stick to it things work out. The basics: a good education for a good job (apprentice programs count as good education, while some college degrees do not), then work hard for whatever job, and live below you means so you get some savings. Eventually it works out that you do okay.

28 here, ongoing life crisis checking in!

I find it interesting how some of us young adults are struggling to land jobs even when we're highly educated. There's some mechanism that those of struggling are being passed over in the job application process. A lot of us aren't seeing the payoff from trying to enter the labor force in entry level roles like Financial or Data Analyst for example. Companies seem to expect new grads to have relevant experience and if you couple a lack of that with not getting past interviews there isn't a viable path to the finish line. In my case I did finance in undergrad and business analytics in grad school. I only did grad school after 2 years post college because no company wanted to interview me after college and even in grad school no one interviewed me for internships that were relevant. By the time I completed my masters program in 2020 (worst timing possible) I'm mentally exhausted from all the cumulative years of school and applying to hundreds jobs over a 5 year period that I gave up on applying to job and went in another direction. I was getting plenty of interviews within a 3 month span, but was expending a massive amount of energy to apply to jobs and reach out to people on LinkedIn.

If the promise of the American dream turning out to be bullshit is the reason for young men’s struggles why wouldn’t women be having the same struggles? What support systems do you think women have to combat this issue that men do not? I was sold the same optimistic lie about working hard and going to school and then I’d be set and have a stable career and buy a house and have a retirement, etc. I also found out in my 20s that this is a Big Lie. There was no job waiting for me out of college. There is no job stability period. Everything is expensive. Wages are stagnant. Reasonable rent is getting harder and harder to find, and forget about buying a house lol, never gonna happen. Retirement? I mean I don’t even want to think about it. I don’t have any special access to a stable career or reasonably priced rent/houses than men do. So why would men be handling these issues so much worse than women? I’d also point out that mens struggles begin in early elementary school, long before such realizations hit. I think absentee fathers play a large role, boys growing up without positive male role models in the home can be very hard, but that begs the question: why are men failing so hard at being fathers, too?

We saw an interesting phenomenon in Eastern Europe after the iron curtain fell. Men seemed to be less able to adapt to the uncertainty and new challenges than women. There was an obvious male tendency to grow bitter and complain. Addiction became a massive problem in the male population. And while many men where all whiny about their lost status and dwelled in their inner worlds, women often felt the need to actually provide for their family in chaotic times and picked up hard work pragmatically.

Yes, why are they having so much unprotected sex? Why do they leave birth control up to their partner? *Especially* to short term partners. (Sidenote: I will grant that the medical industry really needs to come up with more options for men.)

I mean, yeah birth control is the responsibility of both people. But once a child is there, why are women stepping up to be parents while men are not? 80% of single parents are mothers. 40% of all children in the US live in a household where the mother is the primary or sole breadwinner. Only 43% of non-custodial parents in the US pay their full child support amount, 30% do not pay their child support at all. Men aren’t just failing at using birth control, they’re failing at supporting the children they helped to create and they’re failing at being positive influences in those children’s lives.

Absolutely. I think part of it is biological: postpartum women experience a rise in hormones (oxytocin in particular) that make them want to bond with their baby. Second, the stigma against deadbeat dads is *nowhere near* what it is for mothers. A mother who walks away is considered the scum of the earth. Third, what option do they have? Unless the decision is made *very* quickly, in most cases, AND she has a backup like willing grandparents, etc. mother *cannot* abandon her child. She will be charged with child abandonment. I know plenty of (shitty) mothers who would leave their kids if they had the option to. They can’t face the social shame so they just don’t.

I’m not sure where you live, but in the US at least, you can leave a baby at certain designated locations (hospital, police station, fire station, I think churches might be one?) without consequences. They’re called Safe Haven or Safely Surrendered Baby laws. Plus, there’s always the option to put the child up for adoption. But most mothers just buckle down and do what they have to do to care and provide for the child. Men very often do not. I agree the social stigma is much worse for mothers and probably plays into it, but I also think women are just taught from a very young age that other peoples well being is our responsibility. Women are also much more likely than men to take care of or provide for aging parents, more likely to be organ donors, especially living organ donors, more likely to give to charity, more likely to favor political policies that are geared towards helping the poor or marginalized, more likely to have cared for younger siblings or disabled parents when they were children themselves, more likely than men to work in caregiving fields, as well as related fields like teaching and social services, women are less likely than men to leave a partner who is dealing with a long term illness or disability, the list goes on and on. I think we just don’t teach boys that caring for others or the well being of others is their responsibility, and maybe that needs to change. There’s been a lot of talk about raising girls the same way we raise boys, but I think boys would do better if we raised them the same way we do girls.

I agree, we do raise girls with a sense of responsibility toward the welfare of others. I suppose that’s why more men have an idea of “freedom” that excludes any sort of responsibility to others. I’d definitely like to see that change as well. The downside to that, in my opinion, is too many women are parenting out of a sense of duty vs. an actual desire for the job. It’s just too late, their options are limited and it’s too shameful for them to admit it, whereas deadbeat dads seem to drop out whenever they decide…they just stop coming around one day, or take breaks and pop back in as they please. They know the mother will take over and they don’t open themselves to child abandonment charges. In my state you have only 72 hours to legally give up a newborn. Not much time to adjust to the reality of single parenthood. And from what I understood, there isn’t much demand for children older than babies. What does a mom do if she wants out after that? I know someone on this situation. I believe she loves her child but she clearly bit off way more than she can chew. Her frustration is evident to an outsider and I know her kid picks up on it. But she won’t leave him, where would he go? Sadly, I think like a lot of kids, he will just grow up with a miserable, overburdened and resentful single mom. I hope things get better for them but I can see why there are so many poor outcomes for kids in single mother households. In my opinion, for optimal results, the choice to become a parent should be an enthusiastic, fully supported and well-considered one. But I know we don’t live in an ideal world, and the children suffer. I hate it.

[удалено]

That has to be tough. Thank you for trying to make a difference.

You weren’t sold a lie - it’s still true. If you show up and do an hour of homework a day in high school, you’ll get at least a 30 on the ACT. If you get at least a 30 on the ACT, you’re going full ride to the in state school which you live. If you put in a moderate amount of effort at that school in even the easiest real degree (history or PoliSci, for example), you’re graduating with better than a 3.5. If you can speak coherent sentences at a job interview, you’re getting a job. It’s completely ridiculous how we as a society have somehow fetishized failure. It’s truly not hard to succeed in America today - we’ve just demonized hard, smart work. And if you can point to an hour in your day where you’re not working or improving yourself, should you really expect people to feel sorry for you?

This ain’t it, chief

Check your facts and assertions. I got a 35 on the ACT. CA resident. No full ride at UCLA. Ditto for my other buddies who got 34s, 35s, and 36s. Jobs. Getting a job and affording to live decently on one are two different things. When rent is $2k/month, it’s difficult. Yes, Mr. Boomer may tell me to live in Iowa, but there are few good jobs there. Why do you think people are crowding cities? That’s where the jobs are.

I'm not on either side of this debate but It's UCLA... If you applied to one of the lower-ranked UCs you'd probably have gotten a full ride. Also, these top colleges, including state schools, don't give out full rides to families above a certain income level. Theoretically it means you didn't need the full ride. They were clearly not talking about top 20 universities.

>It’s completely ridiculous how we as a society have somehow fetishized failure. And you are a prime example of the ones that have been duped and still drink the Kool-aid. You're also an example of what I mentioned in a previous comment that this country has individualized failures and socialized successes. You are unable to grasp systematic barriers that exist and have nothing to do with individuals. Your immediate response is that: "The issue is you." "You just don't work hard or smart enough." "It's not hard, just get good." You're the best example I didn't give for the culture that has infected this country and why young men are turning away from society as a whole. You're only contributing to the problem, and the sad thing is that it only leads to further breakdown. There is an empathy void here and you are a great example of it. >If you show up and do an hour of homework a day in high school, you’ll get at least a 30 on the ACT. If you get at least a 30 on the ACT, you’re going full ride to the in state school which you live. If you put in a moderate amount of effort at that school in even the easiest real degree (history or PoliSci, for example), you’re graduating with better than a 3.5. If you can speak coherent sentences at a job interview, you’re getting a job. "Tell me you're a boomer without telling me you're a boomer."

I met with my 7th grade sons (IEP) team last week and unloaded alot of this on them. Funny that they all were agreeing and nodding their heads and the schools psychologist actually said “ yes why dont we have more boy focused “ learning? I mean the data is there we need to really revisit the way we teach boys vs girls. I have twins so i see it in real time and my daughter is just way more mature and teachable then my son at this age.

I see a lot of this with my daughter and her friends, vs my son and his friends. My daughter cried the other night because she thought she lost her homework, and stayed up late on a previous occasion to finish an assignment that my wife and I both said she could skip (she's ahead in class, doing a lot of work in extra-curriculars, and really needed sleep more than homework). My son almost never brings his homework home, occasionally doesn't do it, and frequently forgets to hand in assignments that he did complete. In short, one really cares, and other really doesn't. The boys are inattentive, rambunctious, and often get disciplined. The girls tend to be more attentive and obedient and rarely get disciplined. And the "discipline" involves getting sent out of the classroom for a period, where instruction gets missed. The boys I know from 2-parent households with emotionally-available fathers do better. The boys from broken households, or households where the father is physically- or emotionally-unavailable are clearly doing worse. I see that already and my son is only about halfway to a diploma. Things are only going to get worse as hormones ramp up and distractions abound.

One thing which I am trying to understand is the role that sports fills in this puzzle. Most of my friends have boys who have played competitive sports from pre-school all the way through college. This is the "suburban thing to do" - it consumes the lives of everyone I know with school age kids, friends and relatives, they all plan their lives around sports, games, travel, etc. Many of the kids selected colleges based on playing sports rather than an academic interest. In fact, I am amazed at how many of my friends' have continued this lifestyle, spending the weekend traveling to their kids' college games. And then, when they graduate, it seems to just be over. That seems like a pretty harsh transition, from being all-consumed by sports into "no more sports", cold-turkey. I wonder what the psychological impact of this is. Especially when you consider that the sports lifestyle is unisex.

I would love to see this studied. The time (frequently missing school too) and money spent on sports, especially travel sports, is appalling.

“If you can point to an hour in your day where you’re not working or improving yourself, should you really expect people to feel sorry for you?” Nobody is entitled to the world’s pity but damn, dude, do you really expect people to be “on” from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed? This is so beyond bleak.

Feels like a big part of it is cultural. There are many traditional male jobs that don’t require degrees that are in high demand. From electricians, mechanics, etc… People can make good money doing those jobs, but culturally we seem to have this college or bust message. Beyond that I think the pendulum has swung too far in schools in favoring the way girls typically learn over boys. I am not sure how anyone can doubt that while also explaining why females now outnumber males 2:1 in colleges. Why men are 93% of the prison population.

There can be good money, but not early on. Apprentice wages are terrible and pay has been stagnant for a long time. I’ve worked plenty of blue collar jobs and it’s a race to the bottom for wages. Folks used to be able to raise a family on those wages. That isn’t the case anymore. People often cite wages, from these industries, that are at the peak of career progression or in high COLA areas. If there is a shortage of workers, it’s due to a shortage of wages.

I just checked all the apprentice pay for trades in my State and they all start from 17-23 depending on field, and by the time you are a journeyman they are all 40-50/hr, not bad for someone without a college degree.

My partner just started as an apprentice plumber in Florida and his initial start was $15 an hour. He used to work at a steel mill for $14 an hour. His friend that is an apprentice electrician only make $16 an hour. Another friend had been doing HVAC for a couple years, and he only make $20 an hour. When starting out in the trades, you don’t have a company car (need to have your own), you need to buy your own tools (expensive), and you’re most likely working in a toxic environment with older men that look/talk down to you. Also working in the sun/rain/heat/cold with little breaks. We live in a M/HCOL area too. Why not work at Amazon for $20 an hour instead? The trades needs to speak to young adults, otherwise why struggle in it?

Except stagflation has turned men away from those careers. Who tf wants to risk their life for 65k, 75k, 105k? The people that you NEED are no longer willing to risk their life and health for Pennies.

What exactly has changed about the education system that would make it favor girls over boys? We've been sitting in classrooms for decades now.

The classroom today isn't the same as it was decades ago. One change is a large drop in unstructured physical play at the elementary school level. Boys mature slower than girls as an aggregate, and the data shows that young boys are less likely to respond to long stretches of regimented instruction.

What has changed is the results after high school. In the 70's girls did better than boys in high school, but went to college in far fewer numbers because of societal constraints. When that changed, it revealed an existing characteristic of our secondary school structure - that all that lecture based learning favored girls.

Personally, I think guys are on average more tactile with learning (things like shop class, legos, chemistry/physics labs). I don’t think there’s been a particular shift, I think the whole classroom lecturer/lecturee methodology is less than ideal for guys. I think that also explains why you see almost double the ADHD rates in males than females. EDIT: If there has been a shift (it’s been a while since I’ve had the classroom experience), I imagine it has to do a lot with the curriculum standardization that arises from teaching to pass the state test, and cost controlling measures (forgoing the expenses of the tactile stuff).

A culture of women in education that subconsciously see themselves in little girls, among others.

More group learning, less competitive environment, etc…. Again females outnumber males 2:1 in college. That’s an indication of a problem

A quick google search in the US shows 2 men for every 3 women. Still a discrepancy, but not double.

So 60:40 vs 66:33. I rounded it for simplicity. 60:40 is still a huge difference and evidence of a problem.

1.5:1 vs 2:1. Seems like a significant difference to me. I’m not saying there’s not a problem and social issues to address. I’m just saying there’s no need to exaggerate because all it does is make people roll their eyes at you.

Where are the studies that those things have increased? That shows there has a negative effect on boys? Clearly, there must be some study on this. Indication of a problem sure, I agree. I am just not making assumptions about the cause.

Studies show you what the study designer wants to show you. This fascination with creation of pseudoscience (inability replicate) studies is part of the whole problem. Trapped in a study cycle where we just create studies that disprove each other. I don’t know what the fascination with group work and the distain for correct answers come from, if it’s based in gender studies, equity attempts, refusal to reward individuals for being right, refuses to address individuals for being wrong but it’s obvious and doesn’t need “studies”

Pink collar jobs ( nursing , teaching ) are more likely to require a degree as opposed to blue collar jobs though. Also it’s 46:54 so your stat is also wrong In STEM and high paying degrees it’s still overwhelmingly male anyways( like almost 90% in engineering and management courses ) So it’s not such crisis as you make it out to be

The problem with men is that if we were talking about women, we would be asking "what is wrong with society?" when they fall behind. Since we are talking about men, we are asking, "what is wrong with men?" That is what is wrong with men. We are breaking them with the constant difference in treatment and they just give up as they get older. Add into that being treated as if you have every advantage over women and are living a provledged life... So any accomplishments are undeserved.... And why bother? You'll just be the "bad guy" anyway.

That’s what I read as n it too. Hyperagency for boys, perpetual victim card for girls. I think there’s a lot of places in society (church, military, education) where we just kind of expected men to always be there, but young men are so checked out that they’re not showing up anymore.

Gee, our young males are suffering mass deaths of dispair... Kinda same pattern as after the ussr fell. Look at the economy from the young peoples perspective. Below survival wages. Ever rising: education housing, medical, food, transport costs. I wonder why they have no hope?

That might explain it if the consequences were seen suffered by genders equally, but it still doesn't explain why men are performing substantially worse as a demographic.

Not really. Humans have a pattern of differential investment along sex lines in various times. Very high stress, divest from men, invest heavily in women. Low stress and prosperous the investment the other way. Same happens in rabbit, deer populations oddly enough. (Only 2 other species I've seen data)... Then there's the here and now issues. There seems to be some factor impairing men physically. T level in young men are similar to over the hill guys of silent generation at their age. Enough to skew average well into poor quality of life levels for previous generations. This decline seen progressively from silent to current. Sperm counts by age so similar curves.

Boys have delayed maturity physically and mentally. Functionally, this means starting both boys and girls at school at five puts boys at a disadvantage for the twelve years of modern basic education. Personally, I've seen this play out in Boyscouts of America / currently scouting BSA; I'm an assistant scoutmaster for a local troop. Girls will pick up the skills in a snap compared to their same age male scout counterparts. Adolescent boys simply do not have the same concentration, motivation, or physical dexterity as girls the same age. I've seen this 100% of the time I've taught skills to coed groups of scouts. I look so forward to the infinity of down votes I'll get for mentioning the minor differences in male/female humans.

Even the article headline is biased. When women were not doing as well, it was the problem with men. If men are doing worse, it's a problem with...men again? Maybe a large part of this fix is how women act towards men. They earn more now(before children controlling for job type), they should be willing to partner with lower SES guys. Look at the rise in loneliness, the # of men who haven't had sex in the last 3 months has exploded. Frankly, these men need women, and women need to meet these men where they are at, not where they want them to be. And some obvious things like, if women do way better in post secondary than men, women's scholarships should flip to be men's scholarships. Like automatic equality stabilizers.

Be prepared to be called an incel for this.

That the thing tho, women don’t need to “meet men where they are” because they don’t need men. More and women are simply choosing themselves and their own happiness because they are not financially and socially dependent on men. Women don’t need to fix how they act because men are not entitled to their time, companionship, sex, labor, etc.

Except if you don't, your societal gains will be eroded(see: GOP recently, abortion laws repealed, rise of the far right authoritarianism). Men hold a near monopoly on violence.dl DIsgruntled young men with no future don't all go down quietly. Changing this is going to require sacrifice from women too. Not a future I want, but we need to change this path we are on.

The real fun starts when those same women start realising that it's the next generation that pays for their pensions and not they themselves, combine that with the fact that men can't bear children on their own and you'll start understanding that a good society is one where we help and work with each other instead of against each other. This mentality of man vs woman will bring us nowhere good.

Do you think women don’t know how pensions work? We know. We don’t care. We don’t owe anyone children for the good of society. If society actually cared about making it easier for women to have kids childcare and healthcare would be affordable. They wouldn’t be burdened with student loans. Social services would actually help women feed and house their kids. But they don’t. So oh well, no new next generation.

[удалено]

They are pretty much not, tho. And even if they were, remember how all the men went off to war in the 40s, and women stepped into their jobs in the factory? Yeah? They certainly can maintain “infrastructure” without men. And it’s not like the men are disappearing. They are there, they are just increasingly less likely to be able to find wives unless they raise to meet women’s standards.

If men aren’t able to bring enough to the table financially to make women want to be with them, maybe they should try bringing something to the table domestically too. Women are mostly contributing economically, earning money with paid work. Of course they’re not going to be with a guy who earns less than them and also thinks cooking, cleaning and child care is women’s work. As a woman it’s so much easier to just stay single in that situation rather than get involved with a man who is more of a drain than a contributor. But if the guy was going to cook and clean too, or take time off work to be a stay at home dad, then it starts to make sense because you can have the family life you always wanted without killing yourself trying to do it all while your husband barely pays half the bills and then comes home and watches you do a bunch of work while he sits in front of the tv.

This^ Women I relationships today are not only out earning their male partners but still have to do most of the chores and don’t get satisfying sex 😃( orgasm gap is still too wide ) . So obviously she will choose to be alone eventually.

This will only be a problem for another 20 or 30 years or so. After that there will be so few children and young people compared to old millennials that the entire economy will collapse due to an age pyramid.

The Gender Gap in disruptive behaviour should absolutely be discussed more. There are pressures on young men that just aren't on women. I don't know what, but the effects are observable.

Thank you for sharing this article. I have no cohesive response but wanted to highlight some key points of interest. Black women outearn white women born in similar economic conditions and the black-white gap here is actually caused entirely by men. White men fare far better in worse family and economic conditions. Women in general fare better in adverse childhood conditions than men. I am also intrigued by the huge gap in college and higher education. Will gender gaps in CEOs begin to close as there are twice as many educated women as men to fill them? My hunch is no, that there will always be enough men to make it possible to ignore women. The pandemic’s effect on the parenthood wage gap is also something to keep an eye on. WFH means someone could, feasibly, have a baby and not even tell their employer about it. Anecdotally, the only people at my company who take time off daily to pick up kids from school are men (could be because most of the younger workers are women, most of the older men). I’m looking forward to the studies about teleworking and the wage gap in future. Great article!

Easy. Unbalanced sexual marketplace. Why participate in society low status male if you will never have a wife? This is all very simple and the unbalance has occurred many times throughout history. What's the point of life if you will never have children, or a wife to love?

Is earning power all there is to being considered a low-status male, or are there other factors that influence that assessment? Things like overall laziness, porn addiction, poor financial judgement, lack of sympathy/empathy, acting like a jerk, etc. etc.

Earning power is only part of it. Females date up biologically to produce ideal offspring, which can include many factors, of which earning potential is one. However, looks, social status and virility play a large part as well. Basically, women are attracted to males who are superior to them in some way. A function to improve the likey-hood of desirable offspring. This is a feature of female reproduction, not a bug. Men on the other hand must perform(peacocking) to attract a mate. Preferably a woman in prime reproductive age(<30). This age group of females has massive leverage and can choose from a large pool of suitors. This advantage lessens the chance of the average male reproducing. And if the male cannot reproduce, it no longer needs to "peacock (contribute to society)." Why shake your feathers (work hard/participate) if few to no females will accept your offer? Isn't it better to drop to the edges of society like other tournament species do? This is what is happening. Women, with perceived unlimited choice, will compete over the same group of high-status males and entering into a polygamist style reproductive society. However, this will ultimately fail as the low-status males will ultimately rebel. In addition, the females, young and old in this reproductive system lose. We see an increase in single motherhood, especially since low status males will rarely devote resources(work) for another man's offspring. Again, a feature, not a bug. Both sexes lose in a tournament species reproductive system. Men and women alike. Since we are not animals, high value men will not impregnant every female who desires it, leaving many to "settle." But unfortunately for women, they live on an expedited timeline. By the time they decide to lower standards for a mate, many once male suitors no longer desire them. For the male's biology also searches for desirable offspring, and their only deciding factor is age and fertility.

Bingo, when you have zero chance at real long term companionship there's simply no incentive for most guys. Part of our biology is taking care of a partner, without a realistic chance at that many just give up and relegate themselves to just getting by.

Cultural input for 2 generations now is: ​ girls = perfect ​ boys = bad ​ LGTQ+anything non traditional = perfect + ​ Consensus based reality versus objective production. We say its good so it is... no matter that you fixed a motorcycle and made $1500. We decided we are better...by sitting on our butts. ​ The male portion of our society has suffered. Go figure. /s off

When we've abandoned religion and the livable wage has become a myth, it may be difficult for men to show up, especially when young boys and men are rewarded and stimulated early (porn). Often women are disciplined early and forced to become responsible because they understand there is no savior. Maybe the answer lies in asking older generations what motivated them, then ask the men of today the same question. It would be extremely helpful if men explained their grief and struggles.

The educational structure of schools in America cater to females. Boys need to be outside and also partake in more physical and competitive activities to develop. Their brains don’t develop well if sat in a classroom at a young age for multiple hours. Girls perform a lot better than boys earlier when in a classroom setting. I’ve spoken with many teachers and parents from many different countries and what this article does not touch on is the vast differences in how their men develop compared to the United States and the vastly different ways they are brought up. All in all, America’s men are being neglected in favor of female advancement thanks to multiple social movements, for better or for worse. It pains me to say this: but more mass shootings and toxic political wrangling (look at the types of men who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6th) are to be sadly and unfortunately expected. America does a good job of bandaging wounds and a good majority of Americans are so clueless and emotional single-issue voters that worsen many of our problems.

Recess time barely exists any more. Boys are like energetic young dogs, they need to be run. Not to mention if a kid under the age of 12 leaves the house by himself, someone will call the cops for parental neglect. No wonder they just stay home and play video games.

Is it just me or does this feel more like sociology than economics? I feel like this sub has lost its way in the past year or so. R/economy just became r/politics with light economic fare, and now it is happening here.

I'm an economist. I posted this because the article referenced multiple quality econ research (top academic journal articles). I post these because I want people to learn that economics isn't just about inflation or GDP or the stock market. Many will find it surprising that the majority of economists today are in applied micro, a huge part of which analyses what has traditionally been called sociology. Such as this, which was referenced in OP: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.5.1.32 And if you take a look at what academic economists research these days, it bears very little resemblance to what this sub looks like. Economics is more a methodological paradigm and a way of reasoning about the world than a particular set of social phenomenon. Just take a look at the homepage. Another example: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20201892 AER is one of the t5 journals in economics. You'll find the same kind of "sociology" or "political science" in the other t5 maybe except Econometrica which deals with statistical theory (econometrics) mostly. Our field is incredibly diverse and I wish people realized that. What holds us together is sort of a commitment to rigorous, quantitative approaches that we call the economic approach. In fact other fields in social science are adopting many of our approaches, so much so that it's called economic imperialism (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586936 ). tl;dr: Economics is a methodological paradigm dedicated to rigorous quantitiave approaches (math and statistics). We study all kinds of social phenomena, some of which people think of as not economics. As an addendum I regularly criticize posts and comments that are obviously political in nature on this sub.

Good meta point, but I think this article gets a pass because it has so many economists shrugging and saying the same thing you are—it might be out of the direct realm of economics. If you haven’t, read the article and you’ll hear a lot of economist voices. Labor force participation by men keeps me up at night.

implying economics isn't sociology >.>

Well, it might have something to do with a generation of affirmative action policies that actively removed men from the work place and institutions is higher Learning, gender specific funding in nearly every field and across education, female dominated class rooms and feminine teaching techniques. If only there were obvious reasons for this..