The problem is not only that Miller can't put her gynocentrism aside for more than a few sentences, even in an article that's not about girls, but also that neither she nor her informants have any clear insight into the underlying problem of boys.
The problem is not so much that boys have too few male "role models" or even that they see too few men at all. It's mainly that neither boys nor many of their "mentors" know what manhood means. Boys can learn what manhood does not mean--violence toward women, which can leave the impression that violence toward men is somehow okay--but that doesn't take boys very far in learning what manhood could mean (let alone what it has meant both historically and cross-culturally). I suggest that manhood--more specifically, masculine identity--must entail at least one function, or contribution, that is (a) distinctive (not what women can do), (b) necessary (not a luxury) and (c) publicly valued (not ignored or tolerated but celebrated by society). Without that, no matter how many male bodies surround them, boys will see no reason to invest heavily, specifically as men, in society and its future.
Worse, they will have no healthy masculine identity at all, which often means adopting an unhealthy one instead. Consequently, they not only drop out of school at rates far higher than those of girls (making them unemployable) but also out of society (rejecting the long-term goals of marriage, family life and communal continuity in favor of the immediate ones of crime and other social pathologies) or out of life itself (resorting to the oblivion of addiction or suicide). There can be no effective social contract between men and women on that basis, and there can be no society at all without a social contract.
I don't know how to solve this problem, which has been growing steadily (but with increasing urgency) over the past ten thousand years due to a series of cultural and technological revolutions that have all but dissolved the relation between maleness and masculinity. Only one feature of maleness can still provide a firm foundation for a healthy masculine identity, and that's the ability to become a father. Mothers cannot be fathers, because the functions of mothers and fathers are not identical. (I suggest that the primary function of mothers is to care for infants and young children in the home by offering unconditional love, and that the primary function of fathers is to care for older children as they prepare to leave home by offering earned respect).
This need of children for both fathers and mothers (as distinct from two fathers or two mothers) should be as obvious to us now as it was to our remote ancestors. But fatherhood has been severely undermined in our time. Many people (including many men) now believe that fathers are assistant mothers or walking wallets at best and burdens at worst. This explains the movement of single mothers by choice, for example, and the glorification of single mothers by default. And this, in turn, explains the widespread ridicule of fathers in popular culture and the widespread abuse of fathers in family courts.
Thanks Jim. Lots of great content!
Thank you, James. Excellent work here, as always
The problem is not only that Miller can't put her gynocentrism aside for more than a few sentences, even in an article that's not about girls, but also that neither she nor her informants have any clear insight into the underlying problem of boys.
The problem is not so much that boys have too few male "role models" or even that they see too few men at all. It's mainly that neither boys nor many of their "mentors" know what manhood means. Boys can learn what manhood does not mean--violence toward women, which can leave the impression that violence toward men is somehow okay--but that doesn't take boys very far in learning what manhood could mean (let alone what it has meant both historically and cross-culturally). I suggest that manhood--more specifically, masculine identity--must entail at least one function, or contribution, that is (a) distinctive (not what women can do), (b) necessary (not a luxury) and (c) publicly valued (not ignored or tolerated but celebrated by society). Without that, no matter how many male bodies surround them, boys will see no reason to invest heavily, specifically as men, in society and its future.
Worse, they will have no healthy masculine identity at all, which often means adopting an unhealthy one instead. Consequently, they not only drop out of school at rates far higher than those of girls (making them unemployable) but also out of society (rejecting the long-term goals of marriage, family life and communal continuity in favor of the immediate ones of crime and other social pathologies) or out of life itself (resorting to the oblivion of addiction or suicide). There can be no effective social contract between men and women on that basis, and there can be no society at all without a social contract.
I don't know how to solve this problem, which has been growing steadily (but with increasing urgency) over the past ten thousand years due to a series of cultural and technological revolutions that have all but dissolved the relation between maleness and masculinity. Only one feature of maleness can still provide a firm foundation for a healthy masculine identity, and that's the ability to become a father. Mothers cannot be fathers, because the functions of mothers and fathers are not identical. (I suggest that the primary function of mothers is to care for infants and young children in the home by offering unconditional love, and that the primary function of fathers is to care for older children as they prepare to leave home by offering earned respect).
This need of children for both fathers and mothers (as distinct from two fathers or two mothers) should be as obvious to us now as it was to our remote ancestors. But fatherhood has been severely undermined in our time. Many people (including many men) now believe that fathers are assistant mothers or walking wallets at best and burdens at worst. This explains the movement of single mothers by choice, for example, and the glorification of single mothers by default. And this, in turn, explains the widespread ridicule of fathers in popular culture and the widespread abuse of fathers in family courts.