Over the past 50 years, new technology and cultural narratives have worked in concert to fuel women's success. With contraceptives enhancing control and media raising ambitions, teenage pregnancy plummeted. Triumphing in university, they seized new opportunities in law, medicine, and management.Yet technology is pushing in the opposite direction for working-class men. Automation has devastated traditionally masculine work, as hyper-efficient robots and foreign competition displace jobs in manufacturing and construction. For the least educated men, the alternative is often gig work: Instacart-intensive solitude, rushing to deliver ordersThis is a tale of two uneven transformations, with the least-educated men lagging behind.
I am afraid that teaching and nursing aren’t exactly prestige occupations. Actually, when it comes to teaching, at least above a certain level, it used to be a predominantly male occupation (as the image drawn from the Dead Poets’ Society movie, ca 1950, attests). One can add that the feminisation of teaching has gone hand in hand with its loss of prestige. (In my teens I saw myself as a future teacher of ancient languages, the subject in which I excelled. I ended up as senior officer in an international organisation. I should say that I don’t have regrets. Schoolmates that went into teaching usually do.)
You might be interested in this counterpoint that stemmed from a feminist story (from Celeste Davis I believe, also on Substack) on male flight from higher ed. Davis and Evans have what I think is fair to call a gynocentric model of culture, and this post is decidedly masculinist.
I also work in the international world (Ed) but am on my way out. I think what this post hits on that is almost entirely missing from the feminist perspective is male individualism and competition. The incentive structures in the teaching world don't really align with 'perform better -> earn more pay / more status.' Rather, one is rewarded for a mixture of credentialism and conformism, similar to the kids (mostly girls) who made every decision based on how it would look on a college application. I've taught, mentored, and advised a lot of young people and I couldn't with a good conscience advise the vast majority of young men to enter the teaching / higher ed professions, not without a decided move away from their institutional feminization. I think it's more likely that a fair amount of "men's ed," for a lack of a better term, will happen outside of public schooling and universities - trends that have already appeared.
No matter what, I hope that culturally we develop solutions that are amenable to men and women, no matter how masculine or feminine.
Celeste Davis was wrong though, as data from South Korea and China show, both places where there is no male flight at all from higher education, yet where women outnumber men in higher education. Whatever is causing there to be more women than men in higher education needs to explain why there are more women than men in university in places like South Korea and China, where higher education is valorized in a way it isn’t in the US.
As a male elementary school teacher I genuinely think this take is basically wrong.
Granted small sample size is small but in 15 years in the classroom every teacher I’ve met has been married usually with kids and I definitely improved my dating market outcomes here. Maybe for the most elite men who could be like investment bankers or something pursuing the most attractive sex objects but for ordinary men it’ll get you a date and if you have charm you’ll do fine.
I appreciate the response, Andrew. To clarify, I was not speaking directly about sexual marketability (least not my own) but rather status/money and the opportunities/choice that affords (which affects the former).
As @matt297680 mentions below, "(there is a)...flattened hierarchy in these fields. A lack of space to grow vertically may also prevent men moving into them, as this could also limit career growth and opportunities for gaining status." Choosing to be an elementary teacher is fine, but it is a static choice devoid of almost all risk and associated reward. Ergo, most (masculine) men, and not just "elite men," will not be satisfied with this route. The data is clear - men are leaving the teaching professions. It is doubtful they are coming back without change.That the ones who remain can "get a date" speaks little as to the frequency and quality of those dates, and is the language of men who are satisfied with whatever life throws at them. I do not mean that as an insult.
Also, "education" is a nebulous term that encompasses not just teaching jobs but all the jobs in the domain. Though I've taught a lot, my domain is more development and programming, and I stand by my assertions.
So no, I do not think my take is basically wrong. I think it is largely correct. But, I don't want to hijack Alice's blog, so if you'd like to discuss it more please message me.
I wonder if the rise of short form algorithmic entertainment and the balkanization of the media landscape (sometimes called the death of the monoculture) makes it harder to solve the coordination problem?
For example, Netflix could make an absolutely stellar prestige TV show celebrating a friend group of coal miners in West Virginia who take on new roles in nursing and education, but if it’s only watched by well educated members of the PMC, will it really normalize such transitions?
This is an excellent point. I'll also add that with this balkanization of pop culture, plus global access to entertainment, a hypothetical great TV show that would have influenced Americans to admire men in nursing had it been seen by Americans with less education might not be seen by many Americans at all--but be seen by people in another culture, who then use it as an example of "huh, isn't American culture interesting?"
As a personal example: My husband and I are US citizens, and we watch American Netflix (*note that different things are available for viewing on Netflix depending on what country you're in; use a VPN and set to different countries to find out more). We liked the Tollywood smash hit RRR, and so watched a bunch of Bollywood and Tollywood movies on Netflix. We were recommended "Dr. G" by Netflix's algorithms, and watched it. We thought it was really interesting, culturally: a movie about a male gynecologist, which is--per the movie--unusual in India. The young man training to be a gynecologist is definitely the hero of the movie, though, and wants to make gynecology a more respected medical discipline. There is also an excellent Bollywood dance sequence in the closing credits. So, so far, so good.
Except that this movie bombed in actual India. Whatever population might have been intended to influence in India, an audience it was actually hitting was Americans watching Bollywood movies on Netflix. We American viewers of "Dr. G" were already convinced that gynecology is an important medical field that deserves respect.
I think they do, unfortunately. I'm of the view that "Will & Grace" was instrumental in changing American attitudes toward homosexuality, and _if_ a similar cultural portrayal of caring, nurturing or emotionally in touch men were to exist, it would really move the needle. But...yeah...Balkanization.
(Cultural change doesn't have to just come from TV. Think of what the first few Tesla models did to purge our memory of the Edsel when it comes to electric vehicles. I'm not sure what the right lever is though.)
I do wonder if higher education (at non-selective institutions that can’t make it such that classes have a 50/50 gender split) will start to lose some of its general prestige because of its increasing association with femininity, which also happened to nursing and teaching in the last century.
Are nurses held in lower esteem now than they were in the early 20th century? What is the evidence for that assertion? Maybe I am not from a high enough class background, but throughout my life my impression of nursing is that it is a respectable, relatively highly paid career. Being an RN pays enough to support a family with a solidly middle class lifestyle on a single income. Certainly it isn’t high status like being a lawyer or doctor, but it isn’t low status like being a janitor or dog groomer or retail worker, etc.
Not to say trying to elevate the perceived status of caring or teaching fields for men isn't a good idea, but it's worth noting the differences between that and the push for women into the workforce.
Media portraying women in the workforce seems like it was all about getting them into it - showing examples of women breaking into the workforce across various industries. This is a lower bar than attempting to get men into caring fields by changing the perceived status of those fields. If all men needed was the freedom to get a job, that might work, but I think the need for status is still an important driver in mens decision making, and that's a higher barrier to clear. As an aside, I think status for men can also be thought of as proof of competency - something that I think is still vital to men in many societies.
I think the need for status isn't just about intrasexual competition - men are likely to make decisions about how women perceive status as well, to improve their chances at finding a partner. Perhaps if caring and teaching fields become more prestigious over time from both men and women's perspectives, men may move into the space more readily.
Another thing to note is perhaps the flattened hierarchy in these fields. A lack of space to grow vertically may also prevent men moving into them, as this could also limit career growth and opportunities for gaining status. The same reason may be why it attracts more women, particularly if it has a culture of flexible and part time work, which is likely to appeal to women. As Goldin noted, these fields could be more interchangeable - like pharmacists, most people aren't that concerned with who provides the service, just that it is provided. This differs from more rigid fields like law, where the client expects to interact with their lawyer, lengthening the time they need to be available, and likely hurting women in particular with that requirement.
I agree with much of what you have to say. You also may be interested in the link I posted (in my reply to Philalethes) from a fella named John Carter here on Substack.
The simpler solutions is to stop discriminating against men in the fields that they do want to work in. 3 out of the 4 tech companies I've worked at in my career explicitly discriminated against men. I'm talking, straight up prohibiting men from a segment of available headcount and imposing financial penalties if quotas for women were not met. Blatantly illegal in the US, but they correctly guessed that discrimination laws wouldn't be enforced when the victims were men.
Seeing people with Ivy League credentials telling you with a straight face that starting with a headcount of 80 people and adding 20 "bonus" headcount exclusive to women is distinct from having a headcount of 100 and prohibiting men from 20 slots will seriously change any preconceptions one has about which gender is discriminated against in the workplace. Same deal with DEI bonuses. If you have a $90,000 salary and a $10,000 bonus contingent on reaching an "inclusion target" for a certain percentage of women, how is that different from having a $100k salary with a $10K penalty if you don't meet the qouta for female hires?
Tech may be "dominated" by men, but that's largely used as an excuse to perpetrate discrimination against men. If self-described feminists were serious about eliminating discrimination, they'd be advocating for anonymized candidate packets, masked interviews. But they don't. They want quotas, knowing full well that it'll be achieved through discrimination.
The better approach is rethink why the gender pay gap is an issue. There's also a big gap in workplace injuries and deaths. There's a gender gap in hours worked. Equal pay for equal work does not mean equal pay for *different* work. The gender pay gap stems from the fact that men are willing to work more dangerous jobs for longer hours than women.
Hey, why haven't "the Groups" whose mission is focused on reproductive freedom, and grassroots people motivated by that issue made more news or public spectacle of themselves?
I have heard multiple references to a few nightmare news stories, but nothing is approaching virality. And nothing is getting out onto streets or becoming disruptive and impossible to ignore like anti-police shooting protests of 2020, which, however uncomfortable they made people and mobilized MAGA vote, made Trump look bad too and mobilized anti-Trump vote.
The old ways of protest we have seen have gone stale.
We need new techniques. I have felt, since the Dobbs decision, that if we had reproductive rights movement committed to the fight, with any dynamism or flair for innovation, we would have started seeing mass actions and edgy disruptive stuff to show the pro lifers that THIS…IS…FAR…FROM….OVER…everybody with an interest in heteronormative sex and romance and profiting from it gets hurt…
1. A mass solidarity movement by women, especially of reproductive age, to stop wearing any feminine or form-fitting or shaping clothes until their jurisdictions guarantee bodily autonomy. At least outside of work hours. And if form fit or shaping clothes are considered a professional standard for employment, well then at least doing so out of work hours (although it is a legit labor issue if suitability for male gaze or beauty standard appropriated therefrom is a condition of employment)
2. Boycott & cancellation of beauty pageants
3. Boycotts of normal heterosexual mixing social venues
4. Exposures, whenever possible, of payoffs for conservatives, Republicans or Federalist Society members for abortions
5. Doxxing/exposures of abortion tattletales/tipsters/bounty-collectors
6. Mass cyberattacks and DDOS strikes on straight porn sites"
In the war on women in 2024, I say: Lysistrata strategy for the win baby!
I am not sure the pill by itself had the transformative effect ppl attribute to it. Fairly reliable barrier contraception had been available for decades e.g. diaphragms - my gyno told me that women during the Great Depression had used the diaphragm to limit family size.
I am afraid that teaching and nursing aren’t exactly prestige occupations. Actually, when it comes to teaching, at least above a certain level, it used to be a predominantly male occupation (as the image drawn from the Dead Poets’ Society movie, ca 1950, attests). One can add that the feminisation of teaching has gone hand in hand with its loss of prestige. (In my teens I saw myself as a future teacher of ancient languages, the subject in which I excelled. I ended up as senior officer in an international organisation. I should say that I don’t have regrets. Schoolmates that went into teaching usually do.)
You might be interested in this counterpoint that stemmed from a feminist story (from Celeste Davis I believe, also on Substack) on male flight from higher ed. Davis and Evans have what I think is fair to call a gynocentric model of culture, and this post is decidedly masculinist.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/academia-is-womens-work
I also work in the international world (Ed) but am on my way out. I think what this post hits on that is almost entirely missing from the feminist perspective is male individualism and competition. The incentive structures in the teaching world don't really align with 'perform better -> earn more pay / more status.' Rather, one is rewarded for a mixture of credentialism and conformism, similar to the kids (mostly girls) who made every decision based on how it would look on a college application. I've taught, mentored, and advised a lot of young people and I couldn't with a good conscience advise the vast majority of young men to enter the teaching / higher ed professions, not without a decided move away from their institutional feminization. I think it's more likely that a fair amount of "men's ed," for a lack of a better term, will happen outside of public schooling and universities - trends that have already appeared.
No matter what, I hope that culturally we develop solutions that are amenable to men and women, no matter how masculine or feminine.
Celeste Davis was wrong though, as data from South Korea and China show, both places where there is no male flight at all from higher education, yet where women outnumber men in higher education. Whatever is causing there to be more women than men in higher education needs to explain why there are more women than men in university in places like South Korea and China, where higher education is valorized in a way it isn’t in the US.
As a male elementary school teacher I genuinely think this take is basically wrong.
Granted small sample size is small but in 15 years in the classroom every teacher I’ve met has been married usually with kids and I definitely improved my dating market outcomes here. Maybe for the most elite men who could be like investment bankers or something pursuing the most attractive sex objects but for ordinary men it’ll get you a date and if you have charm you’ll do fine.
I appreciate the response, Andrew. To clarify, I was not speaking directly about sexual marketability (least not my own) but rather status/money and the opportunities/choice that affords (which affects the former).
As @matt297680 mentions below, "(there is a)...flattened hierarchy in these fields. A lack of space to grow vertically may also prevent men moving into them, as this could also limit career growth and opportunities for gaining status." Choosing to be an elementary teacher is fine, but it is a static choice devoid of almost all risk and associated reward. Ergo, most (masculine) men, and not just "elite men," will not be satisfied with this route. The data is clear - men are leaving the teaching professions. It is doubtful they are coming back without change.That the ones who remain can "get a date" speaks little as to the frequency and quality of those dates, and is the language of men who are satisfied with whatever life throws at them. I do not mean that as an insult.
Also, "education" is a nebulous term that encompasses not just teaching jobs but all the jobs in the domain. Though I've taught a lot, my domain is more development and programming, and I stand by my assertions.
So no, I do not think my take is basically wrong. I think it is largely correct. But, I don't want to hijack Alice's blog, so if you'd like to discuss it more please message me.
I wonder if the rise of short form algorithmic entertainment and the balkanization of the media landscape (sometimes called the death of the monoculture) makes it harder to solve the coordination problem?
For example, Netflix could make an absolutely stellar prestige TV show celebrating a friend group of coal miners in West Virginia who take on new roles in nursing and education, but if it’s only watched by well educated members of the PMC, will it really normalize such transitions?
This is an excellent point. I'll also add that with this balkanization of pop culture, plus global access to entertainment, a hypothetical great TV show that would have influenced Americans to admire men in nursing had it been seen by Americans with less education might not be seen by many Americans at all--but be seen by people in another culture, who then use it as an example of "huh, isn't American culture interesting?"
As a personal example: My husband and I are US citizens, and we watch American Netflix (*note that different things are available for viewing on Netflix depending on what country you're in; use a VPN and set to different countries to find out more). We liked the Tollywood smash hit RRR, and so watched a bunch of Bollywood and Tollywood movies on Netflix. We were recommended "Dr. G" by Netflix's algorithms, and watched it. We thought it was really interesting, culturally: a movie about a male gynecologist, which is--per the movie--unusual in India. The young man training to be a gynecologist is definitely the hero of the movie, though, and wants to make gynecology a more respected medical discipline. There is also an excellent Bollywood dance sequence in the closing credits. So, so far, so good.
Except that this movie bombed in actual India. Whatever population might have been intended to influence in India, an audience it was actually hitting was Americans watching Bollywood movies on Netflix. We American viewers of "Dr. G" were already convinced that gynecology is an important medical field that deserves respect.
Wow, that's a fantastic example! Thank you!!
Thank you!
I think they do, unfortunately. I'm of the view that "Will & Grace" was instrumental in changing American attitudes toward homosexuality, and _if_ a similar cultural portrayal of caring, nurturing or emotionally in touch men were to exist, it would really move the needle. But...yeah...Balkanization.
(Cultural change doesn't have to just come from TV. Think of what the first few Tesla models did to purge our memory of the Edsel when it comes to electric vehicles. I'm not sure what the right lever is though.)
I do wonder if higher education (at non-selective institutions that can’t make it such that classes have a 50/50 gender split) will start to lose some of its general prestige because of its increasing association with femininity, which also happened to nursing and teaching in the last century.
Are nurses held in lower esteem now than they were in the early 20th century? What is the evidence for that assertion? Maybe I am not from a high enough class background, but throughout my life my impression of nursing is that it is a respectable, relatively highly paid career. Being an RN pays enough to support a family with a solidly middle class lifestyle on a single income. Certainly it isn’t high status like being a lawyer or doctor, but it isn’t low status like being a janitor or dog groomer or retail worker, etc.
Not to say trying to elevate the perceived status of caring or teaching fields for men isn't a good idea, but it's worth noting the differences between that and the push for women into the workforce.
Media portraying women in the workforce seems like it was all about getting them into it - showing examples of women breaking into the workforce across various industries. This is a lower bar than attempting to get men into caring fields by changing the perceived status of those fields. If all men needed was the freedom to get a job, that might work, but I think the need for status is still an important driver in mens decision making, and that's a higher barrier to clear. As an aside, I think status for men can also be thought of as proof of competency - something that I think is still vital to men in many societies.
I think the need for status isn't just about intrasexual competition - men are likely to make decisions about how women perceive status as well, to improve their chances at finding a partner. Perhaps if caring and teaching fields become more prestigious over time from both men and women's perspectives, men may move into the space more readily.
Another thing to note is perhaps the flattened hierarchy in these fields. A lack of space to grow vertically may also prevent men moving into them, as this could also limit career growth and opportunities for gaining status. The same reason may be why it attracts more women, particularly if it has a culture of flexible and part time work, which is likely to appeal to women. As Goldin noted, these fields could be more interchangeable - like pharmacists, most people aren't that concerned with who provides the service, just that it is provided. This differs from more rigid fields like law, where the client expects to interact with their lawyer, lengthening the time they need to be available, and likely hurting women in particular with that requirement.
I agree with much of what you have to say. You also may be interested in the link I posted (in my reply to Philalethes) from a fella named John Carter here on Substack.
The simpler solutions is to stop discriminating against men in the fields that they do want to work in. 3 out of the 4 tech companies I've worked at in my career explicitly discriminated against men. I'm talking, straight up prohibiting men from a segment of available headcount and imposing financial penalties if quotas for women were not met. Blatantly illegal in the US, but they correctly guessed that discrimination laws wouldn't be enforced when the victims were men.
Seeing people with Ivy League credentials telling you with a straight face that starting with a headcount of 80 people and adding 20 "bonus" headcount exclusive to women is distinct from having a headcount of 100 and prohibiting men from 20 slots will seriously change any preconceptions one has about which gender is discriminated against in the workplace. Same deal with DEI bonuses. If you have a $90,000 salary and a $10,000 bonus contingent on reaching an "inclusion target" for a certain percentage of women, how is that different from having a $100k salary with a $10K penalty if you don't meet the qouta for female hires?
Tech may be "dominated" by men, but that's largely used as an excuse to perpetrate discrimination against men. If self-described feminists were serious about eliminating discrimination, they'd be advocating for anonymized candidate packets, masked interviews. But they don't. They want quotas, knowing full well that it'll be achieved through discrimination.
We can't celebrate men of any kind while pursuing gender equality.How do you increase uneducated male earnings while closing the gendered pay gap.
The better approach is rethink why the gender pay gap is an issue. There's also a big gap in workplace injuries and deaths. There's a gender gap in hours worked. Equal pay for equal work does not mean equal pay for *different* work. The gender pay gap stems from the fact that men are willing to work more dangerous jobs for longer hours than women.
The people who make policy are steadfast about closing those gaps,and they have little care for why those exist in the 1st place.
Hey, why haven't "the Groups" whose mission is focused on reproductive freedom, and grassroots people motivated by that issue made more news or public spectacle of themselves?
I have heard multiple references to a few nightmare news stories, but nothing is approaching virality. And nothing is getting out onto streets or becoming disruptive and impossible to ignore like anti-police shooting protests of 2020, which, however uncomfortable they made people and mobilized MAGA vote, made Trump look bad too and mobilized anti-Trump vote.
The old ways of protest we have seen have gone stale.
We need new techniques. I have felt, since the Dobbs decision, that if we had reproductive rights movement committed to the fight, with any dynamism or flair for innovation, we would have started seeing mass actions and edgy disruptive stuff to show the pro lifers that THIS…IS…FAR…FROM….OVER…everybody with an interest in heteronormative sex and romance and profiting from it gets hurt…
1. A mass solidarity movement by women, especially of reproductive age, to stop wearing any feminine or form-fitting or shaping clothes until their jurisdictions guarantee bodily autonomy. At least outside of work hours. And if form fit or shaping clothes are considered a professional standard for employment, well then at least doing so out of work hours (although it is a legit labor issue if suitability for male gaze or beauty standard appropriated therefrom is a condition of employment)
2. Boycott & cancellation of beauty pageants
3. Boycotts of normal heterosexual mixing social venues
4. Exposures, whenever possible, of payoffs for conservatives, Republicans or Federalist Society members for abortions
5. Doxxing/exposures of abortion tattletales/tipsters/bounty-collectors
6. Mass cyberattacks and DDOS strikes on straight porn sites"
In the war on women in 2024, I say: Lysistrata strategy for the win baby!
I am not sure the pill by itself had the transformative effect ppl attribute to it. Fairly reliable barrier contraception had been available for decades e.g. diaphragms - my gyno told me that women during the Great Depression had used the diaphragm to limit family size.