Why American men are getting less marriageable

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-american-men-are-getting-less-marriageable-2018-1

by nitramm • 8 years ago

50 112 8 years ago

I think the job/economy weights much less then the fact that marriage gives absolutely zero benefits for men in western society and implies a lot of risks.

tonyedgecombe• 8 years ago

The article implies these men aren't even getting to the stage where they can make the decision on whether it's beneficial.

munchor• 8 years ago

AFAIK marriage does give enormous significant breaks in most western societies.

sreaching• 8 years ago

with enormous liabilities - http://www.realworlddivorce.com/

lotsofpulp2• 8 years ago

If you are referring to tax incentives, then in the US it depends on the variance in income and children:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria...

High income couples are actually penalized, and even worse off once they have a child!

bufferoverflow3• 8 years ago

Until the divorce, then men get wrecked financially most of the time, losing houses, half the money, forced to pay alimony.

gambiting2• 8 years ago

Does it? I'm about to get married in the UK and I cannot name a single break that we will get while married. I think you can transfer some of your tax-free allowance to your spouse, but only if one of you makes less than 10k/year, so with both of us working there is no benefit here.

It's slightly easier to get a large loan or mortgage as a married couple, but it's not exactly impossible if you just live together as partners.

The way I see it, it's an absolutely enormous expense with almost zero financial/economical benefit for us. I love my partner and want to get married because I think that's the right thing to do, but if I looked at it outside of the "romantic/traditional" angle, there is absolutely no reason to get married.

gaius2• 8 years ago

No tax breaks in the UK, haven’t been in a looooong time, with the sole exception of inheritance

dagw3• 8 years ago

It might in the US. I haven't noticed any difference here in Sweden. The only practical differences involve inheritance and child custody in the event of my wife dying.

dvfjsdhgfv• 8 years ago

That's so true. When you're not married, you can decide one day you want to quit, and that's it, the end of the story. When you're married, you need to prepare to lose money. And why? The only reason is because you signed a piece of paper. It's a very bleak perspective.

This is strengthened by culture: look how the marriage is presented in the movies, for example. The woman is anxious if he's going to propose, then he has to buy a very expensive ring just to propose, then she is extremely happy as if she won a lottery (not because he loves her, but because he decided to marry).

AnimalMuppet• 8 years ago

Absolutely zero benefits for men? Wow. You sure don't have anything like my marriage. I got a woman who is a joy to be with for the rest of my life. 27 years later, and she's still a joy. I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her then, and I still do now.

Now, you could argue that I could have gotten the same deal without marriage, just living with her for. But first, I could not have gotten that deal - not with her. It was marriage or nothing. And second, I didn't want just living together either. I wanted the real thing, with the commitment. I wanted to commit to her, not just to an institution or a tradition.

swiley• 8 years ago

Looking at people I know and people I've dated, employability seems like the least interesting thing to women.

mrarjen• 8 years ago

Perhaps you and your friends group fall out of the majority? But I do know there is a certain pressure from parents and personal ideals when it comes to money that are still very present when it comes to dating or choosing a partner. Even if it's only subconscious...

Most of my friends and relatives (NL) don't even get married, but rather have a partnership agreement that is pretty much the same status as married but less hard to unbind or set up.

bufferoverflow3• 8 years ago

That's factually not true, women rarely date down. Women, on average, prefer slightly older men, equally or more educated then themselves, more successful than themselves financially, in good physical shape, dominant/aggressive.

That's why we always hear "where did all the good men go?" from women, even though they are surrounded by guys who throw themselves at the women.

So since more women and fewer men started going to college, the dating pool for women shrunk a lot.

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is famous for talking about these issues on YouTube, highly recommended.

gaius2• 8 years ago

That's factually not true, women rarely date down

I call shenanigans. A guy will no prospects and a guitar will never be wanting for interest. It’s a cliche for a reason. Now this guy may not be husband material, but the criteria was “date”...

itronitron2• 8 years ago

Women may also have higher standards and less interest by virtue of being more exposed to men in the workplace than they were previously.

dagw3• 8 years ago

employability seems like the least interesting thing to women.

For people they date or for people they decide to settle down with with?

Blackstone46• 8 years ago

Interesting article. It is suggesting there is a smaller supply of marriageable men.

On the demand side, we are also seeing more and more educated, career focused women.

I feel like there are many who have a desire to have children and therefore would like to marry someone who can support them. Typically this means marrying a man who earns more than you. The thing is if you're a women, the more you earn, the smaller the marriageable pool becomes.

daemin2• 8 years ago

Which means there is more demand for upper educated men since they are in demand by both educated and uneducated women.

As another commented has suggested this might not be an issue when gender roles get removed, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this will just leave both parties unsatisfied with the result.

I would argue that innate biological differences contribute to the different gender based desires, and hence affect the different gender roles.

nickthemagicman• 8 years ago

Its the opposite for men. The more you make the wider your pool becomes.

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

Looking at this from another perspective:

As a modern woman who makes good money, I'd be comfortable in theory with marrying a man who makes far less than I do.

The problem with that in practice is gender roles in marriage. It's still the norm for women to be responsible for the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home.

That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career. For women it's the opposite. This is the primary reason IMO why marriage is a good deal for both parties if the breadwinner makes more than the homemaker. It's just that men who are willing to be the homemaker are vanishingly rare. And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife.

That means that from a practical (as opposed to a romantic) perspective, marrying a man who makes significantly less than me is liable to be an enormous burden. Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically?

Yes, there are some men out there who would make the fair trade and do more of the homemaking if I were the primary breadwinner. There are also a bunch who say they'd be willing to do it, but aren't aware of what that fully entails and aren't willing to put in the emotional investment. (See [1] and [2]). There are also more of those men in younger generations in general; and the ones who exist in my generation are likely to be already married - and happily so. So I'll stay single - and happily so.

The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.

Blackstone46• 8 years ago

I think you make an excellent point around gender roles.

The modern world of work (i.e. modern career focused women) clashes with the status quo/tradition of marriage (i.e. housework).

erikb• 8 years ago

Agreed. And I would even say that the traditional gender definitions will shift automatically if it's really the case that women can be the major bread winner in a relationship. The basic deal of "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" is a good one, no matter who's who in this relationship. It's just a transition that naturally takes 2-3 generations, and the people who are caught in the middle are a little F*d.

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

Although I suspect it will end up taking more than 2-3 generations, I admire your optimism and hope you're right!

watwut8• 8 years ago

I think that "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" deal does not really work in practice. The one that is supposed to give financial stability is very likely to end up spending so much time at work, that home does not really matter. And if the work ends up not liked by him/her, resentful. And the one at home is very likely to end up feeling unappreciated, useless and so on.

Blackstone46• 8 years ago

And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife.

Which is why I'm in favor of outsourcing (i.e. cleaning, take-out, blue apron). My friends (she's a doctor and he's a product manager) say getting a cleaner is the best thing they could have done for their relationship

Nursie• 8 years ago

Yeah, I need to get this sorted out. My long term GF and I are both really lazy in the home. It doesn't (often) strain the relationship, but ... yeah. Just having someone in to get a bunch of the drudgery out of the way would be good.

brightball3• 8 years ago

We once hired a nanny after our 2nd child was born because the cost was about the same as daycare for 2 kids. We asked her if she’d be up for doing a load of dishes and a load of laundry each day while the kids were taking naps for an increase in her rate and she agreed.

That year and a half or so was the easiest we have ever had. People take for granted how much time laundry absorbs when you have two people working and limited free time.

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

Ok, let's examine that with a bit of critical thought.

How does outsourcing help with a crying baby at 2am? How does outsourcing help with the mental burden of worrying about whether the kids have their shots and annual dentist visits and don't forget that you have to go shopping because they outgrew their shoes?

And if you're raising two kids on a $35k nursing salary and the $15k your husband earns at the minimum wage job that's all that's available to him, how are you going to afford any of that anyway?

watwut8• 8 years ago

To be fair, I know men who absolutely do their fair share around cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. However, obviously, they are not the ones bragging on forums about constantly working overtime nor are much visible in their hobbies etc.

Edit: for those who downvote - there is opportunity cost for doing these things. At minimum, he is more tired when he does that. And it is not possible to do fair share of house work if you work 70 hours a week every week. Nor when you train or work on hobby additional 20 hours a week.

It is not like men who did all those things would have longer days or magically needed less sleep.

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

Oops, missed the links and for some reason my edits won't take:

[1] https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/

[2] https://www.themarysue.com/emotional-labor-pdf/

PuffinBlue5• 8 years ago

The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.

The solution is not merely one sided. Women must also be willing to 'give up' those roles.

Say what you will about men stepping up but my ongoing experience in a marriage with the woman as the bread winner and me as the home maker (with kids) is that my wife puts herself under a lot of 'self' pressure to be the classic mum (baking, cleaning, ironing, washing whatever). She also receives a ton of pressure from her mother and from her friends, intended or perceived it doesn't really matter, to maintain the 'mum to the kids and running the house' meme.

Believe it or not we've had stand up arguments about her not doing the washing and ironing and leaving it to me, because she just can't let it go. The most recent one is wrestling control of the kitchen from her, not in the sense of shutting her out but letting me in. Even food purchasing, I began to solely do that last year but New Year, New Resolutions has brought a return to the 'we'll eat healthily, I'll cook every evening and bake at the weekend' pantomime. Despite the fact we already ate great food and she's away with work for at least 1 week in 6 and the weekly late evenings still in work or day trips away for conferences/meetings.

All this might sound like one big complaint but really it's just to illustrate that it takes both sides to change in order to actually affect change.

arethuza• 8 years ago

Perhaps its because my wife is a commercial litigation lawyer - but we've ended up having a fairly firm "contract" as to who does what in our household. She shops, I cook. She cleans some parts of the house, I clean others. We both look after our own clothes. Just about everything has a clear demarcation and, in general, we do the bits we like (or at least dislike least).

This has survived 27 years and kids so far.... :-)

seanalltogether• 8 years ago

While I'm not in the same situation as you, it has been interesting to watch my wife change into supermom since having our first kid. She has taken a 1 year maternity leave but with all the activities she does with the baby and the increased interest in cooking, cleaning, baking etc I have serious doubts that she'll want to return to work after the one year is over.

hycaria2• 8 years ago

New Resolutions has brought a return to the 'we'll eat healthily, I'll cook every evening and bake at the weekend'

What do yo usually eat then ?

eeZah7Ux3• 8 years ago

The solution is not merely one sided.

Thinking in terms of "sides", "them", "us" is harmful. Sexism can be internalized by anybody.

moltar3• 8 years ago

And if we are erasing the gender roles completely, then women should also start fixing faucets, toilets, taking out garbage at night and doing other traditionaly male jobs. So far I have never seen this happen.

Gatsky3• 8 years ago

This is exactly why women in Japan have stopped getting married, it's a terrible deal for them as there is no flexibility in gender roles.

Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. Frankly, it isn't going to go down very well. Lets hope that traditional masculinity doesn't start a war on its way down.

daemin2• 8 years ago

There was also the trend of "herbivore men" in Japan where they didn't want to actively pursue women, and instead were just interested in being friends with them (in the purely platonic sense). This actually drove women mad because at some level they did want men to make the moves.

Blackstone46• 8 years ago

Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status.

@Gatsky that's a strong statement. Would you mind expanding on your definition of "Men, as they currently exist"?

alterego2• 8 years ago

So, essentially, women still want to marry a man who earns more than them. At the same time we're fighting hard for women to earn the same (or more) on average.

No wonder the marriage is declining.

brightball3• 8 years ago

For what it’s worth, we are really good at lifting heavy things and reaching stuff on high shelves. :)

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

I can lift heavy things too. And for $30/hr I can hire someone twice a year to lift the ones I can't (and can't get a brother, friend, or neighbor to help with). As for high shelves, even if you're taller than me (not guaranteed) I've got this thing called a stepladder for that.

hycaria2• 8 years ago

As a woman, the solution is to know what you want. House care is not an obligation. You can pay people to clean or just accept to have a relative untidyness in your home. You don't have to have children either (which is a burden I don't think is ever equally shared).

The problem is the pressure women put on themselves, out of social mimicry. I don't give a shit if I'm not the perfect housekeeper, that's not my goal in life, and many things are more exciting than this to me.

partycoder4• 8 years ago

That is assuming that a household can afford it, which is not always the case.

Then, historically, before house appliances, the burden of home tasks was brutal. No washing machines, driers, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, no instant or fast food, etc. What can now be done in a few minutes used to take hours, and require more work, to the point it was a full time occupation.

I am glad this is no longer the case.

cimmanom8• 8 years ago

Not everyone can afford to have someone else clean for them. In fact, those who can afford it are a small and privileged group even in cities like NY and SF where they're relatively highly concentrated. The article above is specifically about average families in parts of the country where jobs paying that kind of money are extremely rare.

And if you don't clean a certain minimum amount, yeah, your home gets unhygienically disgusting. As proven by the 6 months of beard shavings and toothpaste spittle crusted up on my ex's sink. (And that was the least disgusting surface in the bathroom.)

The same goes for things like washing bedsheets and towels now and then; leaving clothing all over the floor where you trip on them in the dark; letting dishes pile up in the sink until you get pests; and more.

Technology has decreased the amount of time required to keep a home to a minimum standard of cleanliness - but it still requires a certain amount of attention and effort.

Then if you have a partner who's either unwilling to clean or whose standards for "gross" are far lower than yours, you're stuck cleaning for two or living in conditions you find unlivable.

And that's without even beginning to get into the complications of childcare for those couples who want children for reasons other than social pressures and norms.

eeZah7Ux3• 8 years ago

Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home.

A lot of people here seem to assume that living together and being married it's the same thing.

You can have one without the other. Please don't make this assumption.

itronitron2• 8 years ago

If the husbands aren't doing more than their share around the house they are not really woke but just nodding in agreement. Having said that, I agree that women spend more 'mental' energy on the home as they are the ones being judged by friends and family. The solution is to task husbands with more of the unskilled labor household chores.

miscreanity• 8 years ago

The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles.

While it may nice to imagine an idyllic world devoid of gender roles, that simply is not reality across the board. Each couple has their own idiosyncrasies and forcing a social pattern or demeaning traditional ones always ends in failure.

There is a continuum of personalities, yet recent movements seem to assume a strict dichotomy exists and seek to tear down a division that is unique to each individual.

This is not to say that you should assume a traditional role, only that before offering a one-size-fits-all solution it is worth keeping in mind that what works for you will not necessarily do so for others. Certain acts such as abuse, murder and theft are universally accepted as wrong; it's when opinion becomes demand that respect fades and hostility builds. It happens in both male and female-led societies.

A simpler solution may be to encourage individual discovery with awareness of history - what is occurring now is nothing new :)

ajuc• 8 years ago

That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career.

Not my experience. It's easier to have a career, hobbies, and energy if you're single, than if you're in a "modern" marriage. I'd argue it's easier even compared to "oldfashioned" marriage, but for different reasons, but that's just a guess.

People still get married, because love, and kids, and social expectations, and tax cuts ;), but in my experience being alone requires the least effort.

The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.

Why would you want to erase them? These roles developed and exist for a reason. Obviously the alternative roles should be promoted as viable and respectable choices, but the existing roles exist because for most people it's a good fit.

I've met women that are quite angry at society for making them feel inadequate because they just want to be housewives.

If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.

Why do you want most? Isn't it sufficient if some do? You won't marry all of them :)

megaman222• 8 years ago

I think that one of the primary disconnects is that the amount of domestic work that a typical man finds necessary and the amount a typical woman finds necessary are wildly different. Men, by and large, have spent their single lives existing with entire classes of housework, that their female partners consider essential, not being done or even considered. And those tasks that men have done for themselves are typically done at a much lower frequency or degree of thoroughness than might be expected by another party.

moltar3• 8 years ago

There was a study that showed that the more chores a husband does the less sexually attractive his wife finds him.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...

romanovcode4• 8 years ago

It's pretty clear that by doing those chores he is emasculating himself and thus making himself less attractive partner to the women.

I don't want to be a dick here but one cannot cheat the biological psychology of gender dynamics in a whim. Maybe someday, but as it currently stands it is just the way it is and there is nothing one can do about it.

mpweiher2• 8 years ago

Apologies, but this is flashing "rationalization" in big bright letters. "I would so much like to, but circumstances outside my control just make it impossible".

for men, marriage lightens the burden

No, it absolutely does not. You are now the sole breadwinner for an entire family.

See A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-lette...

leaving more time and energy for career.

Huh? How backward is that? First, the vast majority of people has jobs, not careers. Second, you have a job in order to live, you don't live in order to have a job. A job is generally something you don't really want to do, otherwise people wouldn't give you money to do it.

Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically?

This is the truth: you don't. And the vast majority of women don't. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to. Really, really, really don't want to. Which is why the rationalizations come so thick and heavy. Anyway, the reason I am pretty confident that it is not because they can't is that every study shows that the higher the income, the less women want to support a man, despite the fact that with higher income it obviously becomes factually easier.

And in fact, when it comes to to senior dating, it becomes even more extreme. Wealthy widows with no financial concerns and no housework to speak of absolutely and adamantly refuse to consider men who have less than they. And of course, they have a million rationalizations as to why that's just not possible.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Olde...

continue to erase traditional gender roles.

You go right ahead! Start erasing!

If most of the men out there were ready...

Ahh, but of course it is the men that have to change. And change first. Should have guessed. And of course you can't actually tell if a particular man is willing to take on more house-work and child-rearing before your "consider" him, so you have set up a nice impossible barrier. "There's just nothing I can do".

david382• 8 years ago

In my experience, high earning women want even more high earning men because if she can do X, as a man, he should be able to do X+1. I hear this FAR more than anything else.

The second most common thing I hear is that men are intimidated by her. Sometimes this is true and sometimes they are just put off by her aggressive (masculine in their eyes) behavior. She of course rewords it make it sound like he shouldn't have a choice or preference (while she can).

It should be obvious that anyone who is too much of an outlier is going to have issues with marriage. Picture a man who is the image of a soft caring person who strives to be the best caregiver as a stay at home husband. Can he get married? Of course. Will lots of women reject him and think he's not a proper man? You bet! His behavior won't get him mocked my women, in fact he'll be so deep in the friendzone he be surrounded by women. Sexual attraction is another thing.

Regarding the comment about not doing more homework, I see it this way. Many men are simply unwilling to do it. I just can't be bothered. Her level of income won't change my attitude towards this. Does this restrict me to women who earn less? Probably. Most men who chase youth and beauty also end up with women who earn far less. It shows that her income is very low on the priority scale while his exemption from most housework is high.

Your solution is a valid one. Another is to try to make our society a more fair and balanced one so that income isn't as important in a spouse as it's getting to be if you're not already wealthy.

david382• 8 years ago

I should add that as men get older a HUGE incentive against marriage is the perception of mistreatment by family courts.

Stories about owing a woman a paycheck for years make people think twice. This is in glaring contrast to the line everyone hears about the amount of employment opportunities women have.

The way I see it, the law fails to protect women from abusive men in the physical sense men from women in the financial and custody sense.

jacknews• 8 years ago

The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles.

I don't think you can just erase gender roles. I think in any relationship there is a "masculine" role and a "feminine" role, and currently men tend to fill the former, and women that later.

xya34532• 8 years ago

This is rising equality in effect. The path to financial independence has opened up to average American women over the past 40 years. Marriage rates falling suggest that American women tend to exhibit (or feel pressured to follow) hypergamous tendencies.

pentae2• 8 years ago

So if I read the article correctly, the average American male has lost his job due to economic forces as well as gender equality, but it's also his fault and his responsibility to change. Seems fair.

bryanlarsen• 8 years ago

You're making the classic mistake of confusing a group of people and an individual.

If there's a group of people that are doing poorly, and external reasons are at fault, we can say that the external reasons are to blame.

Yet if a reasonable percentage of that group are doing relatively well, and there is a clear path to improvement for that individual, then that individual also has responsibility to improve their situation.

cinquemb• 8 years ago

…and there is a clear path to improvement for that individual, then that individual also has responsibility to improve their situation.

If only all individuals could agree on what would be defined as an acceptable improvement one should should pursue…

It's not too hard to see that some people might make choices where they would define it as an improvement for their life, but come at the expense of/be in conflict with what a larger group would define as an improvement.

ameister14• 8 years ago

Yep. Doesn't have to be fair, though - it's more important to deal with the world as it is and take control of what you can than see who should be blamed or pass responsibility.

pentae2• 8 years ago

I Agree. However, I'm not the average American male. It seems to me like 'he' is getting a bit of a raw deal while simultaneously being blamed for everything these days.

partycoder4• 8 years ago

Marital status used to be a thing. Pressure to get married may not only come from your partner, but your family, friends and even strangers. Plus, divorce was frowned upon a lot and shamed. That's not the case anymore.

If people want to get married, then do it. It's not for everyone.

lukeschlather2• 8 years ago

They reference recent results from the World Values Survey, where respondents were asked how much they agreed with the claim that, "If a woman earns more money than her husband, it's almost certain to cause problems."

That sounds a bit to me like a push poll. I wonder if you phrased the question in a gender-neutral way how the responses would change.

xya34532• 8 years ago

A marriage isn't comprised of gender-neutral actors.

lukeschlather2• 8 years ago

Sure. The question as phrased is pretty suggestive though. I wouldn't be surprised if you asked that question, and the reverse question, and a gender-neutral version of the question, you would get results that look contradictory.

Really, you would have to ask just one question to each individual, because I suspect if you asked all three questions you would get different responses than if you only asked one. I'm not denying the effect, just that I think the question is leading.

roenxi• 8 years ago

This is ... some very complicated intersection of economics, politics and morals. I see opinions drawn from an unorthodox sample of an unorthodox community and fixes to problems that haven't really been defined.

The topic is delicate, but the comments here have, unusually, not satisfied my interest in the slightest. There is an interesting debate on something here, but the parameters of the question are poorly articulated.

How is a community supposed to gauge the importance of even the opening questions raised by this article? Do we care more about securing the next generation? Creating a world where women get first pick of the role they will fill? Judging the value of marriage as an institution? Whining about how men/women have it tough?

The structure of families have fundamental and far reaching demographic consequences. It is important at a clash-of-civilisations level and can make or break cultures. It'd be pleasing to have a language to talk about that without resorting immediately to anecdotes and solutions.

Balgair• 8 years ago

The article goes into one of the issues with masculinity, that of a Provider. However, there are two other aspects that are also critically important in the marriage markets: Protector and Procreator (the 3 P's, in total). These aspects of manhood are fairly universal among cultures and throughout time (many excerpts have been studied, but more serve to prove the rule). It is important to remember that for most males manhood is a continually earned trait, whereas in females womanhood is largely inherent. This means that most males can 'loose' manhood and return to boyhood in the eyes of society. Often this is lumped into the concept of 'honor' (though things really get messy now). The article mostly focuses on the provider role and the interface with money and the decline of 'blue collar' jobs. It would be instructive to also look into the roles of protector that men may not be fulfilling (due possibly to opiod use, obesity, etc) and the procreator role as well (obesity again, other environmental sterilizers, etc) to get a full view of the problems many young people are facing.

A good introduction on the 'universal' traits of manhood can be found here: https://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhoo...

Why American men are getting less marriageable

Related Stories