Blue-collar men in rich countries are in trouble. Theymust learn to adapt
在發達國家的藍領男性群體正處于困境中,他們必須學會適應。
AT FIRST glance the patriarchy appears to be thriving. More than 90% of presidents andprime ministers are male, as are nearly all big corporate bosses. Men dominate finance,technology, films, sports, music and even stand-up comedy. In much of the world they stillenjoysocial and legal privileges simply because they have a Y chromosome. So it might seemodd to worry about the plight of men.
Yet there is plenty of cause for concern. Men cluster at the bottom as well as the top. They arefar more likely than women to be jailed, estranged from their children, or to kill themselves.They earn fewer university degrees than women. Boys in the developed world are 50% morelikely to flunk basic maths, reading and science entirely.
One group in particular is suffering. Poorly educated men in rich countries have had difficultycoping with the enormous changes in the labour market and the home over the past half-century. As technology and trade have devalued brawn, less-educated men have struggled tofind a role in the workplace. Women, on the other hand, are surging into expanding sectorssuch as health care and education, helped by their superior skills. As education has becomemore important, boys have also fallen behind girls in school (except at the very top). Men wholose jobs in manufacturing often never work again. And men without work find it hard to attracta permanent mate. The result, for low-skilled men, is a poisonous combination of no job, nofamily and no prospects.
Those on the political left tend to focus on economics. Shrinking job opportunities for men,they say, are entrenching poverty and destroying families. In America pay for men with only ahigh-school certificate fell by 21% in real terms between 1979 and 2013; for women with similarqualifications it rose by 3%. Around a fifth of working-age American men with only a high-school diploma have no job.
Those on the right worry about the collapse of the family. The vast majority of women wouldprefer to have a partner who does his bit both financially and domestically. But they wouldrather do without one than team up with a layabout, which may be all that is on offer: Americanmen without jobs spend only half as much time on housework and caring for others as dowomen in the same situation, and much more time watching television.
Hence the unravelling of working-class families. The two-parent family, still the norm among theelite, is vanishing among the poor. In rich countries the proportion of births outside marriagehas trebled since 1980, to 33%. In some areas where traditional manufacturing has collapsed,it has reached 70% or more. Children raised in broken homes learn less at school, are morelikely to drop out and earn less later on than children from intact ones. They are also not verygood at forming stable families of their own.
These two sides often talk past each other. But their explanations are not contradictory: botheconomics and social change are to blame, and the two causes reinforce each other.Moreover, these problems are likely to get worse. Technology will disrupt more industries,creating benefits for society but rendering workers who fail to update their skills redundant.The OECD, a think-tank, predicts that the absolute number of single-parent households willcontinue to rise in nearly all rich countries. Boys who grow up without fathers are more likely tohave trouble forming lasting relationships, creating a cycle of male dysfunction.
What can be done? Part of the solution lies in a change in cultural attitudes. Over the pastgeneration, middle-class men have learned that they need to help with child care, and havechanged their behaviour. Working-class men need to catch up. Women have learned that theycan be surgeons and physicists without losing their femininity. Men need to understand thattraditional manual jobs are not coming back, and that they can be nurses or hairdresserswithout losing their masculinity.
Policymakers also need to lend a hand, because foolish laws are making the problem worse.America reduces the supply of marriageable men by locking up millions of young males for non-violent offences and then making it hard for them to find work when they get out (in Georgia,for example, felons are barred from feeding pigs, fighting fires or working in funeral homes). Anumber of rich countries discourage poor people from marrying or cohabiting by cutting theirbenefits if they do.
Even more important than scrapping foolish policies is retooling the educational system, whichwas designed in an age when most men worked with their muscles. Politicians need to recognisethat boys'underachievement is a serious problem, and set about fixing it. Some sensiblepolicies that are good for everybody are particularly good for boys. Early-childhood educationprovides boys with more structure and a better chance of developing verbal and social skills.Countries with successful vocational systems such as Germany have done a better job thanAnglo-Saxon countries of motivating non-academic boys and guiding them into jobs, butpolicymakers need to reinvent vocational education for an age when trainees are more likely toget jobs in hospitals than factories.
More generally, schools need to become more boy-friendly. They should recognise that boys liketo rush around more than girls do: it’s better to give them lots of organised sports andenergy-eating games than to dose them with Ritalin or tell them off for fidgeting. They need toprovide more male role models: employing more male teachers in primary schools will bothsupply boys with a male to whom they can relate and demonstrate that men can be teachersas well as firefighters.
The growing equality of the sexes is one of the biggest achievements of the post-war era:people have greater opportunities than ever before to achieve their ambitions regardless oftheir gender. But some men have failed to cope with this new world. It is time to give them ahand.