18 ms·

Why American men are getting less marriageable

50 points by nitramm 9y ago

romanovcode 9y 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 9y ago
  The article implies these men aren't even getting to the stage where they can make the decision on whether it's beneficial.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    It implies that but in no way proved that. The only statistic it offers is the marriage rate. As if women are the only ones who select mates. Of course they are the sexual gatekeepers. It makes me wonder how much single motherhood is involved. I'm sure many men aren't willing to start a relationship with a single mother. Not to mention single mothers have a different outlook for what they want in a man than a single woman. Perhaps if we had a more traditional way of life, fewer women would get pregnant out of wedlock to begin with, those who did would feel pressure to marry, and the fathers would as well. However now it is practically glorified to be a single mother, encouraging these women that they don't need men. I think this is pretty damaging to everyone, men, women, and the children.
    - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      "Dorn and his colleagues find that when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate." It seems clear which way the cause and effect goes from that.
- munchor 9y ago
  AFAIK marriage does give enormous significant breaks in most western societies.
  - sreaching 9y ago
    with enormous liabilities - http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
  - lotsofpulp 9y 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/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html 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!
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    Until the divorce, then men get wrecked financially most of the time, losing houses, half the money, forced to pay alimony.
    - watwut 9y ago
      You pay alimony only if you expected women to give up work for marriage.
      - hajile 9y ago
        You also pay off she says, "I don't want to work." Considering that it's illegal (as it should be) to force your spouse to work (or stay at home), your point is irrelevant.
        watwut 9y ago
        It is relevant, because in majority of marriages in USA both partners work. Stay at home women, especially stay at home women without small child at home are minority among married women. You all make it sound as if stay at home women was the norm, but it is not the case.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y 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).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - michaelt 9y ago
    there are a lot of potential negatives [...] Why in the world is tying all of your assets [...] a thing? This started making much more sense to me when I noticed that, among my friends, 95% of people who get married have a baby within 12 months. Once you think of "get married and have a baby" as a single atomic decision, all the "downsides" of marriage are overshadowed by the _inherent_ downsides to having children. Marriages are difficult to get out of? Well, children are almost impossible to dispose of. Marriages can be personally costly? Children will take up a lot of time and money, no matter how rich you are. Marriages can involve one partner shouldering more than half the burden? Well, a man can't breastfeed a newborn at 4am no matter how much he wants to. And so on. pitching the idea of marriage minus mixing finances, [...] resulted in hours of crying. The discussion might go more productively if you approach it from a different angle: Start by deciding if you want children together; then discuss the things that follow from that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 9y 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 9y ago
Looking at people I know and people I've dated, employability seems like the least interesting thing to women.
- mrarjen 9y 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.
- bufferoverflow 9y 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.
  - gaius 9y 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”...
    - badosu 9y ago
      This cliche is successful because it's an instance of lekking [0], giving more freedom for female choice. In this arena the status markers may be different from individual evaluation (with some general markers shared). It's pretty common to notice that women who like guys with long hair in a band and women who like 'successful' (whatever that means) men are not usually the same, just different selection criteria at work. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_mating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_mating
Blackstone4 9y 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.
- daemin 9y 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 9y ago
  Its the opposite for men. The more you make the wider your pool becomes.
cimmanom 9y 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.
- Blackstone4 9y 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 9y 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.
vivab0rg 9y ago
MGTOW!
xya3453 9y 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.
pentae 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
  - pentae 9y 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.
partycoder 9y 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.
lukeschlather 9y 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.
- xya3453 9y ago
  A marriage isn't comprised of gender-neutral actors.
  - lukeschlather 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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-manhood-a-review/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhoo...

50 points by nitramm 9y 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 9y ago
The article implies these men aren't even getting to the stage where they can make the decision on whether it's beneficial.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  It implies that but in no way proved that. The only statistic it offers is the marriage rate. As if women are the only ones who select mates. Of course they are the sexual gatekeepers. It makes me wonder how much single motherhood is involved. I'm sure many men aren't willing to start a relationship with a single mother. Not to mention single mothers have a different outlook for what they want in a man than a single woman. Perhaps if we had a more traditional way of life, fewer women would get pregnant out of wedlock to begin with, those who did would feel pressure to marry, and the fathers would as well. However now it is practically glorified to be a single mother, encouraging these women that they don't need men. I think this is pretty damaging to everyone, men, women, and the children.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    "Dorn and his colleagues find that when towns and counties lose manufacturing jobs, fertility and marriage rates among young adults go down, too. Unmarried births and the share of children living in single-parent homes go up. Meanwhile, places with higher manufacturing employment have a bigger wage gap between men and women, and a higher marriage rate." It seems clear which way the cause and effect goes from that.
munchor 9y ago
AFAIK marriage does give enormous significant breaks in most western societies.
- sreaching 9y ago
  with enormous liabilities - http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
- lotsofpulp 9y 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/marriage-penalty-couples-income.html 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!
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Until the divorce, then men get wrecked financially most of the time, losing houses, half the money, forced to pay alimony.
  - watwut 9y ago
    You pay alimony only if you expected women to give up work for marriage.
    - hajile 9y ago
      You also pay off she says, "I don't want to work." Considering that it's illegal (as it should be) to force your spouse to work (or stay at home), your point is irrelevant.
      - watwut 9y ago
        It is relevant, because in majority of marriages in USA both partners work. Stay at home women, especially stay at home women without small child at home are minority among married women. You all make it sound as if stay at home women was the norm, but it is not the case.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y 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).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- michaelt 9y ago
  there are a lot of potential negatives [...] Why in the world is tying all of your assets [...] a thing? This started making much more sense to me when I noticed that, among my friends, 95% of people who get married have a baby within 12 months. Once you think of "get married and have a baby" as a single atomic decision, all the "downsides" of marriage are overshadowed by the _inherent_ downsides to having children. Marriages are difficult to get out of? Well, children are almost impossible to dispose of. Marriages can be personally costly? Children will take up a lot of time and money, no matter how rich you are. Marriages can involve one partner shouldering more than half the burden? Well, a man can't breastfeed a newborn at 4am no matter how much he wants to. And so on. pitching the idea of marriage minus mixing finances, [...] resulted in hours of crying. The discussion might go more productively if you approach it from a different angle: Start by deciding if you want children together; then discuss the things that follow from that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 9y 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 9y ago

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

mrarjen 9y 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.
bufferoverflow 9y 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.
- gaius 9y 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”...
  - badosu 9y ago
    This cliche is successful because it's an instance of lekking [0], giving more freedom for female choice. In this arena the status markers may be different from individual evaluation (with some general markers shared). It's pretty common to notice that women who like guys with long hair in a band and women who like 'successful' (whatever that means) men are not usually the same, just different selection criteria at work. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_mating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lek_mating

Blackstone4 9y 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.

daemin 9y 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 9y ago
Its the opposite for men. The more you make the wider your pool becomes.

cimmanom 9y 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.

Blackstone4 9y 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 9y 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.

vivab0rg 9y ago

MGTOW!

xya3453 9y 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.

pentae 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
- pentae 9y 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.

partycoder 9y 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.

lukeschlather 9y 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.

xya3453 9y ago
A marriage isn't comprised of gender-neutral actors.
- lukeschlather 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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-manhood-a-review/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhoo...