In order to substantiate the claims made in part 1, I will describe the core drivers that have had a verifiably negative effect on the economic value of the Western native ‘masculine’ man.
The technological developments which reduced the workload for women in the household were deployed after World War II.
Important technological developments – devices such as the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine and the refrigerator – made their appearance in Western households. This opened the way for women to spend large amounts of their time differently, with the result that they were in fact now competing with men on the labor market.
Competition relates in particular to jobs in ‘non-masculine’ business sectors, which focuses on people. More specifically, sectors where there is a lot of interaction with consumers. On average, women are primarily interested in doing work where they are in contact with people, while men are more interested in things/products/technology.
For a more detailed, yet accesible, explanation of this phenomenon, see the first episode of the Norwegian documentary series Hjernevask called ‘The Equality Paradox’.
We will now deal with the most important societal developments that are responsible for reducing the economic value of men.
The emergence of Human Resources as a field of study and the occupation of the HR department by mostly women. Starting in the 80s, HR became more popular as a discipline; and since the turnout, especially women have opted for this study. As mentioned earlier, women are on average more interested in and committed to people. Such a field of study appeals to women more than men. As a result, companies increasingly leave the recruitment policy to teams that consist (almost) entirely of women.
You might think that it should not matter whether a man or a woman is responsible for the recruitment policy. But since there is a stable average difference between men and women in career preference, due to an average difference in personal temperament, that personal temperament also drives the attitude and atmosphere of HR departments. The reality on the office floor shows that it really matters. This is caused, among other things, by the next driver.
This means has not only had an effect on sexual morality, but also on the recruitment policy at companies. Studies have shown that women who use the contraceptive pill feel less comfortable around men with high testosterone levels. Psysichal features of men with high testosterone levels are a relatively stronger jaw, more body and facial hair, and a lower voice. Psychological and behavioral characteristics are a lower susceptibility to negative emotions, being more inclined to take risks, and active-assertive interpersonal behavior.
Men with lower testosterone levels generally have more feminine traits (both in appearance and personality) and attach greater value to more feminine ideals like harmony as opposed to confrontation, consensus as opposed to argument, and long and frequent conversations with each other ensuring that you are friends with everyone. In short, pro-social behavior with an emphasize on harmony.
In short, a man with decisiveness and persistence, who is very goal-oriented, has a significantly lower chance of passing the sexual (and evolutionary) selection procedure due to the use of the pill. The effect of the pill is similar to women in the HR department who are in menopause. As a counter argument, one could argue that the HR staff simply have to ensure that the person who meets the job profile is taken on; perhaps this is even a very ‘masculine’ job profile. Studies show, however, that biology has a substantial influence on people’s judgment. As a result of that, the ‘masculine’ man is behind from the start.
The so-called “feminisation” of education. This involves the female-to-male ratio of the teaching profession, and the way the curriculum is offered, books are written and testing is done. Course books and assessments are often written like a novel. These days, assessments are written in a more wooly and more vague way – especially when it comes to the exact sciences. Tests of the exact sciences now have introductions to questions that cover almost half a page, in order to make them less abstract (backstory, context).
Boys (especially during puberty) do not have the ability to understand the curriculum (teaching material) as well as girls, since the curriculum was increasingly adapted to better fit the learning needs of girls, in the past five decades. This does not say anything about their respective intelligence (the sexes have the same IQ on average), but more about the specific provision of teaching material in a way that girls/boys can work with it. The result of all this, is that fewer boys than girls complete the A-levels, start university and complete it. The supply of university-educated men therefore decreases, while the supply of university-educated women increases.
This means that companies use certain quotas, for example with respect to gender. It also means that this phenomenon is seen as desirable, where quotas have not yet been implemented. In short: a predetermined number of either men or women (but de facto exclusively women) must be employed in certain positions in certain fields. This of course has a direct impact on the economic value of men in the broadest sense of the word. Women, as recipients of affirmative action do not benefit either, because in such a situation it is never really clear whether you have received your job based on your abilities or quota.
Of course, you will not see these quotas in the ‘masculine’ business sectors such as the offshore industry, road construction, contracting et cetera. A call for quotas will not occur in those sectors. Who wants to work on a drilling platform, build roads at night, collect garbage, or clean sewers?
So, rather unsurprisingly the demand for quotas only applies to office-jobs.