The “Status of Men in A Woman’s World”:
Educational, Legal, and Demographic Realities vs. Social Inertia, 2011
If you’re considering marriage, and you realize there’s some risk the marriage won’t work out—even just because of how high divorce-rates have become—do you have more to fear as a man or as a woman? If you want your child to become successful in life—to be well-educated, “make good money”, and if there should be legal trouble, “come out the winner”—are your chances better with a girl or a boy?1 If you are a child in school, is that school a friendlier place for you as a boy or as a girl? In a year’s time, what is the risk that you will suffer violence personally? or be charged with a crime you didn’t commit?
How many years can you expect to live?
Those are the kinds of questions whose answers indicate whether it’s “a man’s world” or “a woman’s world” today. The answers all indicate that it’s a woman’s world in 2011. Still, I’ve heard several times this year that someone “on the radio” thinks it’s a man’s world, and one basically good and sensible woman was outraged that I would dare to say women are advantaged.
Last spring, I took notes:
On May 6, 2010, several CBC Radio News broadcasts featured women’s organizations demonstrating on “Parliament Hill” in Ottawa, complaining that Canadian Federal Government funding for their programs was decreasing. Nothing was said about past or present mirror-image funding for men’s organizations—perhaps there is none. No one has hinted to me that, if there is any, there could be even a tenth as much as women’s organizations have received from Governments.
On May 26, several CBC Radio News broadcasts featured reductions in Canada’s teen pregnancy rate, crediting interest in school and career achievements as the reason more and more girls now take care not to become pregnant2 . No reports of similar reductions in “social failure” rates among boys, were mentioned. Many reports of increased female and decreased male participation in university study and professional employment, have been published this century.
On June 2nd, CBC Radio’s The Current interviewed former and present Board members of “Assisted Human Reproduction Canada”, and referred especially to the agency serving women, (not couples, not families, and a fortiori, not men.) Reproduction has become women’s business to the exclusion of men and even children.
The second and third stories contradict the “man’s world” basis for the demands made in the first. As the teen-pregnancy story hints, and the human-reproduction story states “by the way” but explicitly, efforts to improve the prospects of girls and young women have succeeded beyond equality to where, today, Canada is part, not of “a man’s world”, but a woman’s world in which it is advantageous to be born a girl rather than a boy. It has been a woman’s world in that sense for about a generation, perhaps longer; and today the girls born 25-30 years ago are the young women dominating university graduating classes and entrants to the professions. If there is “a man’s world” left on earth, Canada is not part of it, nor is the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, nor much of the European Union. (Since that’s approaching a long list, let me refer mostly to “the Nice countries” in the remainder of this essay.3
Statements alleging a “man’s world” might be out of date, they might refer to Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or warlord societies, or they might even be fraudulent efforts to secure further preferment for women based on past disadvantage that no longer exists in the present. In Canada, in other “Nice Countries”, such statements are one thing for sure: They are false. Today’s “nice world” favours women over men and girls over boys. Any appearance of male advantage in statistics represents social inertia.
Social inertia cannot be eliminated; but in the 1960s it was not always tolerated. Nathan Glazer (1964:34) wrote, and the “Moynihan report” (Anonymous, 1965) quoted, a historic demand which is impossible to meet both rapidly and gently: “The demand for economic equality is now not the demand for equal opportunities for the equally qualified: it is now the demand for equality of economic results… The demand for equality in education…has also become a demand for equality of results, of outcomes.” Such a demand can take two generations to meet (cf. Grant,1969: 115 et passim), even with substantial and concerted effort, and it is an impressive achievement for Feminism, that less than two generations after its resurgence in the 1960s, women now dominate university student and junior professional demographics.
Starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 1990s, programmes were put in effect in Canada and the United States, and in many other “Nice Countries”, to preferentially hire women especially in the salaried professions, and to enhance the success rates of girls in mathematics, science, trades, and other areas where boys had historically performed better. Many of these efforts were supported by men whose sons they would disadvantage!—though of course, many men who supported them had daughters, and some had only daughters, or more daughters than sons.
These efforts did bear fruit: Women outnumber men “handily” among young professionals and university students today. What they did not and could not do, is go back in time and change the early years of women who were already “grown up” by the 1970s; nor could they totally overcome “social inertia” (cf Grant, 1969: 115). The best indications of whether it is a man’s or a woman’s world today, are to be found in current student numbers and “grades”, in the work and pay of young adults, and in the legal treatment of the two genders, to the extent they are treated differently. Those indicators, as we shall see below, show that today’s girls and women are advantaged. Having more than caught-up in opportunities in less than two generations time, with substantial male help—will women now help men achieve equality?—when it is girls whose present advantages might have to be curtailed?
To say women and girls are advantaged is not to say all men or all boys are “at the bottom” Many men I know have good jobs. Many older men still benefit from workplace advantages they had 30-50 years ago—but young men and boys today have disadvantages instead. Framing social policy and conducting “affirmative action” as if it were the third quarter of the 20th Century, even acting as if social inertia did not exist, acts to increase and entrench women’s and girls’ advantages4 and de facto, to treat male humans as an inferior gender (as “Black” humans were once treated for reasons of race.)
The disadvantages men are under today, affect us personally when we must be in competition or conflict with women. They also reduce our bargaining power in situations that contain elements of both cooperation and competition. Threats of divorce [or separation] and of departure to another university or professional firm, are more powerful made by a woman than made by a man, because of those advantages. When the salaried workplace and universities were to some extent a man’s world, say in 1955-1965, many individual women still succeeded; and today, many individual men still succeed. We say it’s a woman’s world because overall, women are the advantaged gender; and in so saying, we confront double standards and gender inequality rather than pretend they did not exist.
There may quite possibly exist “a man’s world” elsewhere on earth, at the same time it’s a Women’s World in the Nice Countries. China, Japan and Latin America have been called patriarchal in the past; native Christian missionaries in Asia, active and student, are pictured as mostly male (Yohannan, 2001); I don’t know enough about those regions of the planet to say if girls are becoming advantaged there or not. Buddhism is stricter on women than on men, I have read; and so, the surface story goes, is Islam5
Not so in the Nice countries today: Most of the advantages women enjoyed fifty years ago, when a “trade-off” balance existed6 —are still theirs. Most of the advantages men enjoyed fifty years ago are gone; and many are now reversed. One could say women remain privileged in the ways that became conventional by 1959, and men have lost the privileges they conventionally enjoyed back then. Sometimes, men’s past advantages have become disadvantages: This is particularly visible in educational and professional attainment among young adults.
Over-all, legally, “morally”, and statistically, men and boys are now the inferior or disadvantaged sex:
It’s generally agreed that school is much more girl-friendly than boy-friendly;
Girls greatly outnumber boys among university students7 ;
Young women now have higher average salaries than young men in major American cities;
In contests-at-law over custody of young children [neither babies-in-arms nor adolescents] mothers win nearly all, even when the children are boys;
When a violent domestic conflict occurs [with about equal violence on both sides], the police usually arrest and jail the man while the woman is left in possession of the home.8
In many places, if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault or harassment, the man has a burden of proof to bear rather than being “innocent until proven guilty”.
Abortion is available to pregnant women on their own decision, and neither the sire nor the foetus has any rights in the matter. However,
if a woman chooses to “have the baby”, she may require by law, that the putative sire pay her for the duration of the infant’s childhood [to age 18, 19, 20, 21, or in some cases past age 21.] In some cases documented by father’s advocate Jeremy Swanson, men have been required to pay support for children who have been proved by DNA analysis, not to be their offspring,
yet, if there were another Titanic disaster (cf. Martin, 2011, Harlan and Pierce, 2011, Lord, 1955) women and children would be given first place in the lifeboats; men, and boys in their late teens, would die in far higher percentages than women and children.
In the “Nice Countries”, some self-styled representatives of women may still claim to be disadvantaged; but when the claims are tested against facts, they prove to be based on obsolete data or on “social inertia”—or on a crude application of the impossible9 criterion of equal “economic” outcomes for the whole population, ignoring both the superior outcomes enjoyed by girls and young women today and the legal advantages women have had for decades and never lost.
For a common example: If10 women now retiring do have smaller pensions on average than men now retiring, those pensions reflect incomes received before 1980 more than incomes received since 199011 . If women’s incomes average less than men’s, the averages probably include:
many women who chose in 1960-75, not to be ambitious for income; and fewer men who saw wisdom in such choice;
“career inertia” in the form of older women having entered the workforce later at lesser jobs and at jobs with less prospect for advancement;
career interruption being commoner among women than among men, especially in age cohorts born before 1980;
social inertia in the form of women choosing to be stay-home mothers when they can, and men choosing to be breadwinners, as their parents did before them.
When we look at such indications of fortune as university attendance12 , gender-composition of recent entrants to the professions, salaries of big-city full-time workers, and double standards at law—well, it’s true that gender equality “isn’t”; but it’s not true that women are the less fortunate gender: Men are the disadvantaged among the under-30’s; and it is among the young that we see the present situation most clearly. Picture the situation twenty or thirty years hence, when today’s new professionals are leaders and today’s leaders have retired, when today’s schoolgirls are new professionals and today’s university students are faculty and mid-career professionals. The demographics of a world where men are pervasively and visibly inferior in the best careers, and no longer merely among the young, are already to be foreseen between Grade 1 and age 35. Demographic projection is more valid than treating pay differences whose origins go back before 1965 as indicating present [dis]advantages.
The only logical inference I have noticed, which combines women’s advantages today and their greater prospective advantages in coming decades, with the demands of women’s organizations for continuing Government funding13 , is that the Feminists those organizations represent believe that gender equality is unfair to women—that they believe women deserve to earn and have more, and be treated better, than men.14 It’s high time and indeed long past due for women’s-interest activists to admit, publicly and repeatedly, that they have won more than equality already, and then either turn their lobbying skills to helping men catch-up; or else retire; or else confess that they want a women’s world to persist and that their efforts are not to catch women up but to keep men down.
Much more likely than heavy catch-up funding for men’s organizations and continuing funding for women’s, and more reasonably in a 21st Century where affluence is ending, not increasing; here are some appropriate “things to happen”:
Women’s-interest organizations publicly take pride in their achievements: In universities where far more students are girls than boys, in professions where far more new entrants are women than men, they could stand up and say “This university, this profession, is well on its way to becoming women’s territory, where men are very much the minority gender”;
Women’s-interest organizations publicly renounce any further claims to “catch-up” funding;
If women’s-interest organizations fail to do so, men’s-interest organizations publicly chide them for the failure;
Women’s-interest organizations publicly state their positions on the question of gender equality: Is gender equality their goal [or at least, one of their major goals]? Or are they seeking to entrench women’s currently advantaged relative situation for future generations and future centuries? Not all women want a world in which they can’t find an equal man to socialize with!—nor where their sons are second-class human beings—but some seem to; and I doubt that all women’s-interest organizations will take the same stance.
Men’s-interest organizations publicly formulate catch-up plans for boys, preferably requiring little or no government subvention;
Governments undertake legislative and regulatory reform to eliminate the current bias against men in cross-gender law enforcement;
Governments publicly endorse as public policy, that the present disadvantage experienced by boys and young men, is inequitable; and that equal opportunity for all is the criterion by which legislation should be assessed;
Social policy organizations and universities begin serious and well-designed research on the actual ambitions of boys, girls, men and women, so as to explicate the context of economic performance and legal treatment of citizens by gender;
Social policy organizations and universities begin serious and well-designed research comparing the social condition of boys15 raised by still-married parents, custodian mothers, and custodian fathers,
Social policy organizations and universities compile serious and well-designed research on the actual rates of violence by women in cross-gender encounters;
The burdens of proof be made to apply equally to men and women, in criminal and civil law.
The above are some ways to make the woman’s world of 2011, more equal by the end of the decade. Today we live in a woman’s world that has been developing for at least a full generation of time; but not openly16 . Thus, merely acknowledging the favouritism enjoyed by women is one first step toward gender equality. If and when women’s-interest organizations in Nice countries allege male advantage in the year 2010, I can think of two logical interpretations: They are woefully behind-the-times, or they are fraudulent17 . If they claim special funding privileges while admitting male disadvantage, they are acknowledging that beyond gender equality, they want women’s present advantage to continue for generations, centuries, millennia. So are they living in the past, ignoring social inertia? are they fraudulent? and-or, are they scheming to hold women above men economically and legally for generations to come?
Whatever the case, and it may vary from one organization to another, there is no good reason to fund women’s organizations to redress inequalities that are years out of date. It is time, it is many years overdue, that men’s and boys’ disadvantaged situation be acknowledged and that legal, political, and social policies be based on today’s reality. It is a woman’s world in the Nice Countries; and the relevant questions now are such as:
If present practises continue, what will society look like in 2020? in 2050?
who works for gender equality in law and practice?
who works for an openly gynocentric society?
what are the wider social implications of a society holding men in general as “no-count”?18
if men face pervasive inferiority legally and economically, how might we respond?
Men, let’s wake up to the fact that Nice is a four-letter word, that we have been Nicely “dismissed” from full adult standing, and that the least friendly of those Bossy Girls we remember from school have made the Nice rules we were taught there, false and abusive-to-us. Surely we can do better than play “Mother may I?” for the rest of our lives; and surely today’s boys should have better prospects than to suffer under present inequalities. The first step in “getting out from behind the 8-ball”, is to recognize and publicly admit we are currently, systematically disadvantaged—that we don’t have those advantages some women’s groups are complaining about, and women do have advantages which amount to double standards in their favour.
That acknowledged, we need colloquy: We need to share information, experience, and analysis. The changes in gender relations—social, economic, legal, and educational—since the 1950s have made many “gender arrangements” that suited the mid-20thCentury, obsolete. What are the “gender arrangements” that enable us to make the best of our current predicament? and what “gender arrangements” should we formulate as goals for our sons and grandsons to enjoy? I may write about those questions in later essays; but the answers are for men in colloquy, not any one man19 , to choose.
Anonymous, 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Anonymous, 198x. Oral expressions of Feminist ideology, especially “The world would be a better place if there were no men in it”, and “We women deserve compensation for 3,000 years of oppression.” Thunder Bay, Ontario was the place where these expressions were heard most often and in most extreme form. A Saskatchewan Feminist, who had recently moved to Thunder Bay, remarked to me during these years that the Feminist organizations into which she moved from Saskatchewan were man-hating while she herself was more of the attitude of Elaine Morgan [1973, cited below]
“Archivist”, 2010. “How to avoid a false rape claim”. False Rape Society website, December 10.
“Archivist”, 2011 “Obama Administration Risks Holding Innocent College Men Responsible for Rapes They Didn’t Commit… ” False Rape Society website, April 12, 13.
CBC Radio, 2010. News broadcasts featured women’s organizations demonstrating on “Parliament Hill” in Ottawa, complaining that Canadian Federal Government funding for their programs was decreasing. May 6.
———- News broadcasts featuring reductions in Canada’s teen pregnancy rate. May 26
———- Interviews with former and present Board members of “Assisted Human Reproduction Canada”. The Current, June 2.
Chastain, Connie, 2011. “The War on Women?” False Rape Society website, April 15.
Djilas, Milovan, 1957. The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. NY: Praeger.
Glazer, Nathan 1964. “Negroes and Jews: The Challenge to Pluralism,” Commentary, December, pp. 29-34.
Grant, George, 1969. Technology and Empire. Toronto: Anansi & “The weight of tradition carries on in an established university for several generations, with the result that the curriculum may reflect the ideas of a class which is no longer dominant outside its walls.”
Harlan, Pierce, 2011. “When Titanic Sank 99 Years Ago This Week, People Were More Honest About Gender Roles Than They Are Today”. The Spearhead, April 11.
Lord, Walter 1955. A Night to Remember. NY: Holt. Bantam Paperback 1963.
Lupri, Eugen, 2004. “Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse”, Paper presented at the Counter-Roundtable Conference on Domestic Violence, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 7
Martin, Davd, 2011. “Have Times Changed the Meaning of Self-Sacrifice?: AReflection on the 99th Anniversary of the Sinking of the Titanic.” Everyman website, April 13.
Morgan, Elaine 1973. The Descent of Woman. NY: Bantam.
Swanson, Jeremy, 2009-2010. E-mail anecdotes numbering in the hundreds, of cases of  differential law enforcement by gender;  differential reporting of criminal charges by gender;  differential treatment of divorcing spouses by gender.
Wikipedia entries, retrieved April 28, 2011: “Affirmative Action”, “Canadian Employment Equity Act”
Yohannan, K P, 2001. Revolution in World Missions. Carrolton, TX: gfa books (the publishing part of Rev. Yohannan’s organization, Gospel for Asia. This book is cited not as a classic nor unusually authoritative reference, but as an ordinarily credible one from a disciplined and successful source—which book happens to be in my library.)
1If a member of the opposite sex starts a physical fight with you—do you dare defend yourself? If you’re on a passenger ship at sea and there’s real trouble—are your chances of survival greater if you’re male or if you’re female?
2It was somehow indicated, though not with specific numbers, that the proportion of teenage girls who are sexually abstinent has not increased.
3“the Nice countries” also can be a phrase that allows for the absence of one of those listed from some particular aspect of Niceness; for instance, some ‘states’ of the USA do not bless abortion on the pregnant woman’s sole initiative.
4Women’s advantages from the mid-20th Century, such as presumptive custody of children in divorce or separation and greater protection from violence than men have ever enjoyed, were not seriously questioned, much less rectified, in the social policy activism of the latter 20th Century. Equal consideration for child custody was mentioned by some men but never seriously undertaken as a policy desideratum. No effort of which I am aware, was made either to make men less subject to violence or to reduce the special protection of women.
5Islam, however, protects women as well as sequestering them; and whether it is better to be a Muslim man or a Muslim woman depends on whether one prefers security or [risky] adventure. Much the same could have been said and was occasionally written about Canada and the United States, fifty years ago. Whether it was better to be a Canadian man or a Canadian woman depended on whether one preferred security or [risky] adventure; and the trade-off “Stateside” was much the same.
6One indicator of the existence of a “trade-off balance” was the balance of power within marriages [marriage being by far the dominant “status” of adult Canadians and Americans in 1950-70]. As an adolescent and young man, i observed a few hundred couples, married, “courting”, and among students, “living together”. My recollection is clear: The majority of couples practised approximate gender equality; about equal numbers of husbands and wives were dominant in the others. By 2000-05, I could see that male dominance was rare, and female dominance had equalled or outnumbered equality. I should add that i did not observe upper-class households, rather skilled-working-class and middle-class.
7Around 1990, twenty years ago now, a Finnish physician told me that the medical school student body at Helsinki University, the most prestigious university in that country, was two-thirds female: Two women for every man. It’s a mistake to think Canada is broadly more female-advantaged than other industrialized states, though in some ways the United States is less a woman’s world than Canada.
8The criminal lawyer who told me this is standard police practise has not given me permission to identify her. It is perhaps of some interest that i heard it first from a woman. In any case, at least two men who are in a position to know, one of them a clergyman, have confirmed it since she told me.
Canadian Prime Ministers, especially of the Liberal Party, and many other political leaders at various levels in various States, have said in various English and French phrasings that violence against women is intolerable. I do not believe i have ever heard any political leader say that violence against men is intolerable. Men are in some cases legitimate targets of violence, and not just in war; women, never: As with control over children born and unborn, this differential [in]tolerance constitutes an explicit double standard, enshrined in Nice law. The operating practice of arresting and jailing the man in domestic conflicts with equal violence on both sides, while the woman is left in possession of the home, is entirely consistent with this Double Standard. Women are privileged to attack men; men are not permitted to respond in kind even after being attacked.
This double standard existed 50-60 years ago, (and apparently, long before then.) My boyhood playmates and I would occasionally get kicked-in-the-shins, hard, by a girl who then danced away chanting “Can’t hit a gir-rul, can’t hit a gir-rul”. Most parents discouraged their daughters from this kind of aggression (some mothers seemed to believe that such aggression was a legitimate way for girls to respond to merely verbal insults); but boys who fought-back after being attacked were generally punished more harshly than girls who attacked. The double standard of childhood verbal insulting was less clear, but again, favoured girls.
9Given a human lifespan to accomplish equal economic outcomes, it would not be impossible; though if the effort were to begin today, and today’s successful girls and young women were not to be arbitrarily disadvantaged, it will be necessary to either carefully advantage boys for a time, or to accept an interim of some decades length beginning between 2015 and 2030, when men’s “economic outcomes” will be inferior. Indeed, it seems inevitable by now that “if society does not collapse”, such an interval will occur. The question today is whether men will be allowed equality later this century, or if women will remain “on top”.
10I write “if” because many women now retiring captured significant pension savings and entitlements from husbands they divorced between 1970 and the present. Women retiring as married-and-living-with-spouse have shared pensions, of course; they and their husbands would not properly belong in a comparison whose purpose was to show living standards rather than personally held pensions.
11Women of my age-grouping [65-70] probably have smaller pensions on average than men of the same age; but those pensions are based on earnings and “contributions” made between 1960 and 2009. Because the earliest deposits into any pension plan “grow” at compound interest for a longer time, they have much greater weight than those made later; and from 1960-1990, interest rates were much higher than they were from 1999-2009. Combine those two “influences”, and their implication is that pensions received by men and women retiring this year and during the previous decade, represent income received from 1960-1989 far more than they do income received from 1990-2009. From 1960-1979, women were much less likely to be energetic careerists than men of the same age, and much more likely to be out of the “labour force” [especially as stay-home mothers] for several of their adult years. From 1960-1975, and longer in some occupations, there may have been systematic and even deliberate preferences for male employees, men being perceived to be likely to work more diligently and less likely to quit. Data from this century, however, increasingly indicate that girls and young women are systematically advantaged, not disadvantaged.
12Recently, an Executive Order in the United States has made it less safe than before for young men to attend co-educational colleges and universities. In crude summary, given a disposition to grant women’s testimony any greater credibility at all, it imposes a “Guilty Until Proven Innocent” status on men accused of sexual harassment or rape. (The more subtle aspects of its legal reality would run this text to unwieldy length; so cf. “Archivist”, 2010, 2011; Chastain, 2011; ,)
13If and when women’s present-day advantage in education and legal treatment—and in pay for younger women vs. younger men—were “more than matched” by a preponderance of funding for men’s and boys’ needs rather than women’s and girls’; then the women’s groups might have cause to ask for more. If the men’s needs actually came to be funded in a larger ratio to the women’s, than the women’s educational advantage stands to men’s disadvantage—then they might have cause to complain. This seems vanishingly unlikely to occur any time soon!
14If people can believe they are better than other people for reasons of occupation, race, religion, or school attended, it is no great surprise some people can believe they are better than other people for reasons of gender. We should also note that not all women deem us to be inferior; and as at least a logical possibility, that some women’s organizations might realize they are taking advantage of outdated perceptions but continue in “deceitful non-acknowledgement” because they want the money.
15I do not wish to discourage nor disparage research on the social condition of girls; but my main concern here is male humans.
16The women’s organizations demonstrating on “Parliament Hill” in Ottawa in May 2010, complaining that Canadian Federal Government funding for their programs was decreasing, were not acknowledging women’s advantages.
17“The Moynihan Report” (Anonymous, 1965, citing Glaaer, 1964 and Rustin, 1965) refers to a “significant new dimension to that egalitarian ideal. It is increasingly demanded that the distribution of success and failure within one group be roughly comparable to that within other groups. It is not enough that all individuals start out on even terms, if the members of one group almost invariably end up well to the fore, and those of another far to the rear. This is what ethnic politics are all about in America, and in the main the Negro American demands are being put forth in this now traditional and established framework.” In this essay it has been shown that in family and criminal law, women experience far more success and far less failure than men; while in advanced educational attainment and entry to the professions, women once lagged behind men, but men are now behind.
18I’ll only list one example here: Skilled manual labour is much needed in “environmental restoration”, and it is a male specialty. Women’s bodies evolved to bear and nurse infants; men’s bodies evolved in co-operative hunting. Men’s bodies are far more suited to such work as selective logging, the maintenance of permanent gardens, and detailed stream and pond maintenance. (Women can drive huge machines now that many controls are power-assisted, but those huge machines very often are part of the problem.) Will society reward men for this kind of work, or try to make us do it as “latter day serfs and slaves”? Which way is morally right? Which will get the work done as well as possible?
At a societal scale, it is quite plausible that a society that gives full citizenship only to women, cannot last long. (Whether a thoroughly bureaucratic society can persist that long is also in question, after the example of the USSR and its collapse: cf. Djilas, 1957.) Industrialism is in crisis not for lack of invention but for lack of resources and for reason of ecological stress; and so, this 21st Century is “on notice” to take better care of its biological foundations. Much of the work required is heavy but skilled manual labour—men’s work by the nature of our bodies and their differences from women’s. The medieval monastic way of life included much such labour; some urban lifestyles need include none at all. If any industrial society is to have optimum prospects, it must employ men’s labour optimally; and i believe the history of slavery shows that only the best-treated slaves, if even they, can be relied-on to do long hours of high quality, exacting work.
19and definitely not for women who say, whether by mistake or fraudulently, that the Nice countries amount to a “man’s world”..