17 ms·

>>Median wages for men have declined since 1990 in real terms. Roughly one-third of men are either unemployed or out of the workforce. I wonder how much of thi

>>Median wages for men have declined since 1990 in real terms. Roughly one-third of men are either unemployed or out of the workforce. I wonder how much of this is because more women are joining the workforce. If men are leaving the workforce by their own free will because their wife is working and they are staying home with the kids, both of these facts could be true, but seems like a win in both gender equality terms and allowing men to have the life they want. This seems better then having two working parents. I don't really like how "out of the workforce" is coupled with unemployed. "out of the workforce" implies they don't have to and don't want to work, as opposed to unemployed

rhino369 5y ago
I think its more that they are dropping out and playing Xbox than dropping out and watching the kids. I'm not sure I blame them. If I had no prospects of a wife or kids, I'd quit my job and argue with people on the internet in my dad's basement too.
0_____0 5y ago
The effect of womens' labor participation should be easy to suss out. Look at professions where womens' share of employment is still very low in the US (building trades perhaps), and compare it with the rest of the economy.
decafninja 5y ago
Do many married men really want that kind of life though? It's one thing to be single and roaming the world carefree. But my observation has been that most men who are married, especially if with children, have some innate desire to provide for the family and not being able to do so (due to unemployment, underemployment, etc.) causes them stress even if the wife is earning more than enough. Those that don't seem to be an outlier. Is it biological? Is it social pressure? I don't know.
- ok_dad 5y ago
  Personally, I would love to quit working and take care of my family at home. I find much more joy in that than working a programming career. I think a lot of men have been conditioned to think we have to be the provider much like women have been conditioned to think they have to be a homemaker.
  - danbolt 5y ago
    Agreed; I think a lot of the shame deviating from that is both internalized and external.
  - mekal 5y ago
    I'm in the same boat as you, but I think it's important to remember another factor besides conditioning. It's much easier to say "I would love to quit" when you have a job than it is to be happy not having a job when you aren't sure if you could actually get one to begin with. Similarly, if you know you could take someone in a fight, and they challenge you in public...its easier in that case to "take the high road" and walk away than it would be if you knew you would lose the fight, or you weren't confident you would win. The people in the latter case are much more likely to feel shame and/or resentment towards the aggressor later on. I think with "power" like that its easier to make the best choice in many cases. It's a shame too...I know a few people that are miserable because they don't have a "real job", even though they don't really need one financially. That lack of power keeps them from being happy and choosing the lifestyle that would obviously be best otherwise.
    - ok_dad 5y ago
      I don't really understand your comment, sorry! However, in my case, I think taking care of my family would be my "real job" since it actually takes a lot of effort! My wife does a lot around here, and I consider her work as integral to our family's well-being as my work; maybe even moreso.
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    Indeed; how is it fair that men are "forced" to work and provide income (with all the stress associated for that, especially for low-earners) and are "forced" to miss out on their kids? It seems to me that's just as much of an injustice as women being "forced" to stay at home. ("forced" in quotes as it's not strongly forced, but rather "forced" by expectations, prospects, etc.) I've long considered traditional gender roles of man works and provides income and woman raises kids and cooks to be unfair to both genders and a general issue that affects everyone, and not really a "feminist" issue as such (or rather, not exclusively feminist). In my country there's been a lot of discussion that a lot of women are working part-time rather than full-time, with many claiming this is horrible and evidence of discrimination. Maybe that plays a part, but it seems to me the real question is "why aren't more men working part-time?" rather than "why aren't more women working full-time?" And more general: up to a few decades ago it was entirely normal for a single earner to support an entire family and still have money for a yearly holiday. Now that's much harder financially, if not outright impossible. Something really profound changed in our economy with seemingly few people noticing or commenting on it.
- frenchy 5y ago
  I, for one, would like it, and I think I'd like it more than my wife. My personality is well suited to being a stay at home parent. I like chaos, and I like working with my hands. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of reduced-hour programming jobs, and our financial situation isn't such that one of us can be full-time stay-at-home. Another thing is that it's awkard for breast-feeding women to be away from their babies for long times, and formula comes with its own set of problems.
  - worik 5y ago
    > Another thing is that it's awkard for breast-feeding women to be away from their babies for long times, and formula comes with its own set of problems. True. But it is a short period.
  - newaccount74 5y ago
    You can do consulting part time, or go indie, then you can work as much or as little as you want. As a programmer you really have a lot of options. Or adjust your lifestyle to not need to earn so much. If you really want to stay home, there's probably a way to make it work.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Regardless of gender, it seems rare that only one partner would be making more than enough to support the family. It's very difficult to make ends meet with a family on a single salary these days (without assistance; and what about saving for retirement? ).
  - astrange 5y ago
    A dual-income family isn’t necessarily evidence that you need two incomes to survive. Rather, it just means there’s a lot of things out there to buy, so it's worth paying for childcare to earn more money. It’s also a sign that the gender income gap decreased, because it’s worth both people’s time to work. It’s not worth womens’ time to work either when the family is poor (because they can’t earn much and might as well do home/childcare labor) or rich (because the amount one partner can add with a job effectively doesn't matter). This means the easiest way to get back to a one-income family is to lower womens’ wages again, so you probably shouldn’t wish for it.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Most families need two incomes in my experience. "This means the easiest way to get back to a one-income family is to lower womens’ wages again, so you probably shouldn’t wish for it." There's no connection to this and the rest of your post. It also assumes that families don't need two incomes to stay out of poverty or off of assistance. The easiest ways according to your post is to make a family poor or rich.
      - astrange 5y ago
        > Most families need two incomes in my experience. Probably depends on the neighborhood - there's claims in this thread that single motherhood is up, but those can't both be true. (I don't have any evidence to add here.) > The easiest ways according to your post is to make a family poor or rich. Yes, but making someone poor's a lot easier. Murphy's law, y'know.
        giantg2 5y ago
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Does doing the actual childcare not constitute providing for their family? I'd argue that if men see bringing in an income as providing and not other things (and I don't think that's universal at all) then that's entirely cultural.
  - decafninja 5y ago
    "Providing for the family" traditionally refers to bringing in an income. Of course technically that's not the only thing, but for argument's sake. I'm curious - are there any human cultures where the woman was the traditionally (as in, not a recent modern phenomenon) the breadwinner and the men stayed at home? I know there are cultures that were matriarchal in leadership, and that there are animal species (i.e. lions) where the female does the hunting. But were there any true "Amazon" cultures in the past?
    - staticman2 5y ago
      Women needed to stay with the kids to breastfeed. Baby formula was only invented around 1865. Any traditional culture is going to need women to stay with the babies to keep them from starving. However women would take babies with them while doing things like picking nuts and berries.
      - tsol 5y ago
        Wetnurses were employed when a mother wasn't in a position to breastfeed babies for thousands of years
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  anecdotally I would love to spend all my time taking care of my kids, cooking, cleaning, etc… I find it much more enjoyable than working for someone else
- silent_cal 5y ago
  I think you're right.
johncessna 5y ago
> More U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are now living with their parents than with romantic partners. and > Research shows that one significant factor women look for in a partner is a steady job. As men’s unemployment rises, their romantic prospects decline. Unsurprisingly, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from 1960 to 2010, the proportion of adults without a college degree who marry plummeted from just over 70 percent to roughly 45 percent. Seem to imply that this isn't a case of men choosing to stay at home with the kids. I'm curious what the actual data is though.
- bmj 5y ago
  As the father of 18 year old who is not going to college and instead working as a carpenter, I don't think lumping 18 year olds with 25+ year olds makes much sense. Perhaps I have an antiquated view of family, but I don't feel his "independence" has everything to do with where he lives. I'm more than happy to have him around the house if it allows him to save money and live a better life at, say, 21.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Sure, it can be a great arrangement. It will slow down his dating prospects though, who can host if a relationship gets serious is a common discussion in dating.
    - bmj 5y ago
      Dating for the 18-21 cohort, outside of the university setting, is already very challenging. Truth be told, some of the women my son has dated in this cohort also live at home.
      - reducesuffering 5y ago
        Very challenging? Most couples have a car between them and a whole lot of appetite for adventure and risque.
coldtea 5y ago
>I wonder how much of this is because more women are joining the workforce. If men are leaving the workforce by their own free will because their wife is working and they are staying home with the kids, both of these facts could be true Not what's happening. For one, marriages are decreasing too and marriage age increases.
- salawat 5y ago
  Legal marriage is decreasing. You can draw on more benefits as single from the System. Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    A substantial population of men are also deeply concerned that a legal marriage will end in a costly, lopsided, and devastating divorce. It is no secret that women have the advantage in such proceedings.
    - vmception 5y ago
      For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered, except for the conditions of custody of any children. And although not very gendered, it is a shitty contract where the worst clauses have extremely high rates of occurring. Even when isolating to later aged upper middle class economic equals, a 10% rate of triggering the worst clauses in a financial contract is extremely bad. You simply can't decouple the financial aspects of a financial contract just because how someone might have been conditioned to romanticize an overarching concept.
      - caeril 5y ago
        > For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered This is a distinction without a difference. Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". In the aggregate, this leaves the situation arguably even worse than before: 1. More men are pushed out of the marriage market. 2. Men who are in the marriage market still face financial devastation when the wife decides it's time to "find herself" in a no-fault divorce state (e.g. nearly all of them).
mandmandam 5y ago
This isn't mysterious. The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women. 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars probably didn't help either, though it does tie in once again with the 1% class.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women What does that mean?
  - newaccount74 5y ago
    It means that employees are paid less so more profits go to the shareholders. It's not men vs women, but workers vs owners.
  - tsol 5y ago
    Sounds like they're talking about wealth inequality
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    The wealthy determine how the rest of us in USA are governed. Inevitably, they decide that they will get more and we will get less. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
    - astrange 5y ago
      That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        From your link: "The middle class still gets its preferred policies enacted 26 percent of the time even when the rich are opposed." Gee, thanks! Most of this "debunking" rests on the idea that the tiny minority of rich people should have about the same amount of power as the rest of us, so it isn't so terrible that they actually have a fair amount more. That just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, the fact that a few people have a few quibbles with a few minor details doesn't amount to "that study is false".
8bitsrule 5y ago
How "out of the workforce" is defined might be a missing part of the big picture. (The term itself is pretty nebulous!) "Staying home with the kids" might also include learning some skills, or trying to start a business, or self-employment. The radar will likely miss this. In the US, singles who earn under $12,500 don't need to file a federal tax return. (Note that the radar will always remember that 'missing time' ... which you may need to account for later! And that info is widely available.)
readthenotes1 5y ago
The demographic data, which you can pretty easily look up, is pretty clear on that. Women started joining the workforce dramatically in the '70s. What happened in the '90s was the death of manufacturing. One thing to remember when looking at manufacturing capacity in the United States is that it's somewhat skewed. For instance, when a CPU doubled its speed, the US government decided that we had doubled our manufacturing capacity. I don't know what other interesting if you points have skewed the data.
tsol 5y ago
Are there a lot of stay at home dads? I personally don't know any. I don't believe that's a large societal trend. I agree it would be a good thing if it were that way, but I don't see any indication to think that
uoaei 5y ago
> I wonder how much of this is because more women are joining the workforce. If men are leaving the workforce by their own free will because their wife is working and they are staying home with the kids, both of these facts could be true, but seems like a win in both gender equality terms and allowing men to have the life they want. This seems better then having two working parents. You sound like you didn't look at or have any sense of the statistics around two- vs one-income, single-family households before you posted this comment.
friedturkey 5y ago
Wild to me that data showing men are facing objective decline is called a win, just because the gender gap is smaller (or speeding in the opposite direction as before, with regards to college entrance rates) due to the situation being worse for men. Society really loves to kick them while they’re down these days.
dlsa 5y ago
The picture is nowhere near this neat and tidy. Plenty of men can't get jobs. They want jobs but can't get them. Life circumstances are far more complex. Its not always solved by learning to code either. Not everyone can do that. Offshoring jobs was not good for societal structures at all. It was all about short term profit. Less men in employment is not a good thing. It isn’t some kind of passing the torch to women happy event. Its just mass unemployment of a significant number of people in their prime earning age. Its societal failure.
- prawn 5y ago
  And probably people in an age bracket prone to acting out aggressively or against some perceived opponent. I look at the variety of protests (of all sorts) and wonder how many people are there for a cause and how many want something to be part of, and a bit of motivation and thrill.

rhino369 5y ago

I think its more that they are dropping out and playing Xbox than dropping out and watching the kids. I'm not sure I blame them. If I had no prospects of a wife or kids, I'd quit my job and argue with people on the internet in my dad's basement too.

0_____0 5y ago

The effect of womens' labor participation should be easy to suss out. Look at professions where womens' share of employment is still very low in the US (building trades perhaps), and compare it with the rest of the economy.

decafninja 5y ago

Do many married men really want that kind of life though? It's one thing to be single and roaming the world carefree. But my observation has been that most men who are married, especially if with children, have some innate desire to provide for the family and not being able to do so (due to unemployment, underemployment, etc.) causes them stress even if the wife is earning more than enough. Those that don't seem to be an outlier. Is it biological? Is it social pressure? I don't know.

ok_dad 5y ago
Personally, I would love to quit working and take care of my family at home. I find much more joy in that than working a programming career. I think a lot of men have been conditioned to think we have to be the provider much like women have been conditioned to think they have to be a homemaker.
- danbolt 5y ago
  Agreed; I think a lot of the shame deviating from that is both internalized and external.
- mekal 5y ago
  I'm in the same boat as you, but I think it's important to remember another factor besides conditioning. It's much easier to say "I would love to quit" when you have a job than it is to be happy not having a job when you aren't sure if you could actually get one to begin with. Similarly, if you know you could take someone in a fight, and they challenge you in public...its easier in that case to "take the high road" and walk away than it would be if you knew you would lose the fight, or you weren't confident you would win. The people in the latter case are much more likely to feel shame and/or resentment towards the aggressor later on. I think with "power" like that its easier to make the best choice in many cases. It's a shame too...I know a few people that are miserable because they don't have a "real job", even though they don't really need one financially. That lack of power keeps them from being happy and choosing the lifestyle that would obviously be best otherwise.
  - ok_dad 5y ago
    I don't really understand your comment, sorry! However, in my case, I think taking care of my family would be my "real job" since it actually takes a lot of effort! My wife does a lot around here, and I consider her work as integral to our family's well-being as my work; maybe even moreso.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  Indeed; how is it fair that men are "forced" to work and provide income (with all the stress associated for that, especially for low-earners) and are "forced" to miss out on their kids? It seems to me that's just as much of an injustice as women being "forced" to stay at home. ("forced" in quotes as it's not strongly forced, but rather "forced" by expectations, prospects, etc.) I've long considered traditional gender roles of man works and provides income and woman raises kids and cooks to be unfair to both genders and a general issue that affects everyone, and not really a "feminist" issue as such (or rather, not exclusively feminist). In my country there's been a lot of discussion that a lot of women are working part-time rather than full-time, with many claiming this is horrible and evidence of discrimination. Maybe that plays a part, but it seems to me the real question is "why aren't more men working part-time?" rather than "why aren't more women working full-time?" And more general: up to a few decades ago it was entirely normal for a single earner to support an entire family and still have money for a yearly holiday. Now that's much harder financially, if not outright impossible. Something really profound changed in our economy with seemingly few people noticing or commenting on it.
frenchy 5y ago
I, for one, would like it, and I think I'd like it more than my wife. My personality is well suited to being a stay at home parent. I like chaos, and I like working with my hands. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of reduced-hour programming jobs, and our financial situation isn't such that one of us can be full-time stay-at-home. Another thing is that it's awkard for breast-feeding women to be away from their babies for long times, and formula comes with its own set of problems.
- worik 5y ago
  > Another thing is that it's awkard for breast-feeding women to be away from their babies for long times, and formula comes with its own set of problems. True. But it is a short period.
- newaccount74 5y ago
  You can do consulting part time, or go indie, then you can work as much or as little as you want. As a programmer you really have a lot of options. Or adjust your lifestyle to not need to earn so much. If you really want to stay home, there's probably a way to make it work.
giantg2 5y ago
Regardless of gender, it seems rare that only one partner would be making more than enough to support the family. It's very difficult to make ends meet with a family on a single salary these days (without assistance; and what about saving for retirement? ).
- astrange 5y ago
  A dual-income family isn’t necessarily evidence that you need two incomes to survive. Rather, it just means there’s a lot of things out there to buy, so it's worth paying for childcare to earn more money. It’s also a sign that the gender income gap decreased, because it’s worth both people’s time to work. It’s not worth womens’ time to work either when the family is poor (because they can’t earn much and might as well do home/childcare labor) or rich (because the amount one partner can add with a job effectively doesn't matter). This means the easiest way to get back to a one-income family is to lower womens’ wages again, so you probably shouldn’t wish for it.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Most families need two incomes in my experience. "This means the easiest way to get back to a one-income family is to lower womens’ wages again, so you probably shouldn’t wish for it." There's no connection to this and the rest of your post. It also assumes that families don't need two incomes to stay out of poverty or off of assistance. The easiest ways according to your post is to make a family poor or rich.
    - astrange 5y ago
      > Most families need two incomes in my experience. Probably depends on the neighborhood - there's claims in this thread that single motherhood is up, but those can't both be true. (I don't have any evidence to add here.) > The easiest ways according to your post is to make a family poor or rich. Yes, but making someone poor's a lot easier. Murphy's law, y'know.
      - giantg2 5y ago
nicoburns 5y ago
Does doing the actual childcare not constitute providing for their family? I'd argue that if men see bringing in an income as providing and not other things (and I don't think that's universal at all) then that's entirely cultural.
- decafninja 5y ago
  "Providing for the family" traditionally refers to bringing in an income. Of course technically that's not the only thing, but for argument's sake. I'm curious - are there any human cultures where the woman was the traditionally (as in, not a recent modern phenomenon) the breadwinner and the men stayed at home? I know there are cultures that were matriarchal in leadership, and that there are animal species (i.e. lions) where the female does the hunting. But were there any true "Amazon" cultures in the past?
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Women needed to stay with the kids to breastfeed. Baby formula was only invented around 1865. Any traditional culture is going to need women to stay with the babies to keep them from starving. However women would take babies with them while doing things like picking nuts and berries.
    - tsol 5y ago
      Wetnurses were employed when a mother wasn't in a position to breastfeed babies for thousands of years
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
micromacrofoot 5y ago
anecdotally I would love to spend all my time taking care of my kids, cooking, cleaning, etc… I find it much more enjoyable than working for someone else
silent_cal 5y ago
I think you're right.

johncessna 5y ago

> More U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are now living with their parents than with romantic partners. and > Research shows that one significant factor women look for in a partner is a steady job. As men’s unemployment rises, their romantic prospects decline. Unsurprisingly, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from 1960 to 2010, the proportion of adults without a college degree who marry plummeted from just over 70 percent to roughly 45 percent. Seem to imply that this isn't a case of men choosing to stay at home with the kids. I'm curious what the actual data is though.

bmj 5y ago
As the father of 18 year old who is not going to college and instead working as a carpenter, I don't think lumping 18 year olds with 25+ year olds makes much sense. Perhaps I have an antiquated view of family, but I don't feel his "independence" has everything to do with where he lives. I'm more than happy to have him around the house if it allows him to save money and live a better life at, say, 21.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Sure, it can be a great arrangement. It will slow down his dating prospects though, who can host if a relationship gets serious is a common discussion in dating.
  - bmj 5y ago
    Dating for the 18-21 cohort, outside of the university setting, is already very challenging. Truth be told, some of the women my son has dated in this cohort also live at home.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Very challenging? Most couples have a car between them and a whole lot of appetite for adventure and risque.

coldtea 5y ago

salawat 5y ago
Legal marriage is decreasing. You can draw on more benefits as single from the System. Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  A substantial population of men are also deeply concerned that a legal marriage will end in a costly, lopsided, and devastating divorce. It is no secret that women have the advantage in such proceedings.
  - vmception 5y ago
    For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered, except for the conditions of custody of any children. And although not very gendered, it is a shitty contract where the worst clauses have extremely high rates of occurring. Even when isolating to later aged upper middle class economic equals, a 10% rate of triggering the worst clauses in a financial contract is extremely bad. You simply can't decouple the financial aspects of a financial contract just because how someone might have been conditioned to romanticize an overarching concept.
    - caeril 5y ago
      > For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered This is a distinction without a difference. Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". In the aggregate, this leaves the situation arguably even worse than before: 1. More men are pushed out of the marriage market. 2. Men who are in the marriage market still face financial devastation when the wife decides it's time to "find herself" in a no-fault divorce state (e.g. nearly all of them).

mandmandam 5y ago

This isn't mysterious. The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women. 20 trillion in debt for illegal and stupid wars probably didn't help either, though it does tie in once again with the 1% class.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> The people sucking money out of the wage pool are the 1% class, not women What does that mean?
- newaccount74 5y ago
  It means that employees are paid less so more profits go to the shareholders. It's not men vs women, but workers vs owners.
- tsol 5y ago
  Sounds like they're talking about wealth inequality
- jessaustin 5y ago
  The wealthy determine how the rest of us in USA are governed. Inevitably, they decide that they will get more and we will get less. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - astrange 5y ago
    That study is false. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      From your link: "The middle class still gets its preferred policies enacted 26 percent of the time even when the rich are opposed." Gee, thanks! Most of this "debunking" rests on the idea that the tiny minority of rich people should have about the same amount of power as the rest of us, so it isn't so terrible that they actually have a fair amount more. That just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, the fact that a few people have a few quibbles with a few minor details doesn't amount to "that study is false".

8bitsrule 5y ago

How "out of the workforce" is defined might be a missing part of the big picture. (The term itself is pretty nebulous!) "Staying home with the kids" might also include learning some skills, or trying to start a business, or self-employment. The radar will likely miss this. In the US, singles who earn under $12,500 don't need to file a federal tax return. (Note that the radar will always remember that 'missing time' ... which you may need to account for later! And that info is widely available.)

readthenotes1 5y ago

The demographic data, which you can pretty easily look up, is pretty clear on that. Women started joining the workforce dramatically in the '70s. What happened in the '90s was the death of manufacturing. One thing to remember when looking at manufacturing capacity in the United States is that it's somewhat skewed. For instance, when a CPU doubled its speed, the US government decided that we had doubled our manufacturing capacity. I don't know what other interesting if you points have skewed the data.

tsol 5y ago

Are there a lot of stay at home dads? I personally don't know any. I don't believe that's a large societal trend. I agree it would be a good thing if it were that way, but I don't see any indication to think that

uoaei 5y ago

> I wonder how much of this is because more women are joining the workforce. If men are leaving the workforce by their own free will because their wife is working and they are staying home with the kids, both of these facts could be true, but seems like a win in both gender equality terms and allowing men to have the life they want. This seems better then having two working parents. You sound like you didn't look at or have any sense of the statistics around two- vs one-income, single-family households before you posted this comment.

friedturkey 5y ago

Wild to me that data showing men are facing objective decline is called a win, just because the gender gap is smaller (or speeding in the opposite direction as before, with regards to college entrance rates) due to the situation being worse for men. Society really loves to kick them while they’re down these days.

dlsa 5y ago

The picture is nowhere near this neat and tidy. Plenty of men can't get jobs. They want jobs but can't get them. Life circumstances are far more complex. Its not always solved by learning to code either. Not everyone can do that. Offshoring jobs was not good for societal structures at all. It was all about short term profit. Less men in employment is not a good thing. It isn’t some kind of passing the torch to women happy event. Its just mass unemployment of a significant number of people in their prime earning age. Its societal failure.

prawn 5y ago
And probably people in an age bracket prone to acting out aggressively or against some perceived opponent. I look at the variety of protests (of all sorts) and wonder how many people are there for a cause and how many want something to be part of, and a bit of motivation and thrill.