MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Government Caused 'the Boy Crisis’

Author Warren Farrell says welfare programs encourage fatherless households.

Warren Farrell, author of The Boy Crisis, was once associated with the feminist movement. Then he changed his views. "I don't agree with the part of feminism that says, 'Men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed,'" Farrell tells Maxim Lott, a senior producer of Stossel on Reason.

For example, men die five years earlier than women, have more dangerous jobs, and are often passed over for custody. Boys are two times more likely than girls to commit suicide. Boys are 29 percent less likely to get a college degree than girls.

So why do men earn more and have more influence in government and business? A big reason, Farrell argues, is that men are filling social expectations to become the family breadwinner.

"Our dads and our grandpas, they made sacrifices...to make more money, and then the feminist movement turned all of that sacrifice on the part of men against men," Farrell says.

Both sexes struggle, but Farrell thinks the feminist movement's single-sided focus on women's inequalities has led to an atmosphere that harms boys. A dramatic increase in fatherless households—which Farrell believes is largely responsible for boys' problems—goes ignored.

Study after study finds that having both a mother and father is best, at least for straight families. (Gay families may do just as well; Farrell notes that the overall evidence is inconclusive.) "Even when we control for the amount of money a father and mother earn, children with dads still do much better," Farrell notes.

The rate of fatherless households has increased partly because of welfare programs that "tear the family apart by giving the money to mothers when fathers are absent," Farrell argues, "and not giving money to mothers when fathers are present."

Why would fatherless households hurt boys more than girls? "Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships, at developing emotional connections," Farrell says. "So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects them more profoundly than it does their sisters."

Farrell says fathers are critical for several non-intuitive reasons. One is roughhousing, which teaches kids boundaries. Fathers roughhouse more than mothers, and when they do, "the father is creating a bond with the child, so the children don't mind discipline....The discipline is the price they pay for more fun with dad."

Many people think that mothers tend to be better parents because women are, on average, more empathetic and pay more attention to a child's needs. But Farrell says this by itself is not enough, because "an empathetic parent does not create an empathetic child. An empathetic parent is someone who's always thinking of the children's needs, which teaches the children to always have his or her needs thought of."

Requiring a child to think of others' needs is what actually build empathy, Farrell says.

Finally, Farrell says that mothers are more likely to express their love for a child by doing things like homework for the kid. They're more likely to engage in "helicopter parenting," which leads to overly dependent kids.

What's the solution to "the Boy Crisis"? Farrell says that society should offer more respect to men who focus on fathering rather than career success. He wishes there were more men in classrooms, and that schools would bring back things like recess.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    And cut out the (taxpayer-paid) welfare checks totally! Welfare workers have NEGATIVE incentive to get you off of welfare! Government-Almighty-forced "charity" doesn't work! How long will it take for us to figure this out?

  • Cy||

    "How long will it take for us to figure this out?"

    As long as rural liberals never have to live in or see the urban ghettos, they'll continue to think they're "helping" these people by taking from the "Rich."

  • NoVaNick||

    Rural liberals? I think I met one once...

  • Cy||

    Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Michigan and Oregon have A LOT of them. I grew up in those areas and the village/tribal "help people" mentality is prevalent. They tend to be not very well traveled and usually project their own beliefs and feelings on to those whom they think they're helping.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They tend to be not very well traveled and usually project their own beliefs and feelings on to those whom they think they're helping.

    The same could be said of urban liberals, only difference is they "make up for it" by also - generally speaking - being unbearably smug and elitist as well.

  • Just Say'n||

    Rural liberals also tend to "walk the walk" and donate or volunteer to charities themselves. Urban liberals are disgusted by poor people, but love them in the abstract

  • ||

    Rural liberals also tend to "walk the walk" and donate or volunteer to charities themselves.

    They're also usually more pragmatic about taking a day to teach someone to fish rather than tossing someone an extra fish every day on their way to work.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    A lot of these people just imagine themselves, but without money. Hating all the other differences that might manifest.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Urban liberals are disgusted by poor people, but love them in the abstract

    Probably because they've never really had to come in close contact or live close to poor people. Rural liberals also tend to be on the poorer side themselves. In fact, you could argue that their preference for a strong welfare state is often times an act of rational self interest. With most urban liberals it's more of a pose or virtue signaling than anything approaching general sympathy, much less empathy.

  • ||

    The village/tribal "help people" mentality is prevalent amongst conservatives as well. It is central to the Judeo-Christian ethic as well as being nigh universal across cultures.

    The difference is that generally the village/tribal "help people" mentality usually only applies to "our tribe" or "people like us". "People like us" are assumed to have the same mores and customs and assumed to respond to outside action the same way that "we do".

  • susancol||

    "the village/tribal 'help people' mentality usually only applies to 'our tribe' . . . "

    Um, basis for this claim? Observation indicates that conservatives donate blood (an activity that is NOT directed to any particular "tribe") substantially more frequently and in a greater proportion than liberals and moderates. And our church (LDS) has consistently been at the forefront of relief efforts globally for decades, based only on need and not a "tribe" (unless the tribe is "the human race").

  • ||

    Note my use of the word "usually" which means "not always".

    Also, until the 1930s, the LDS church was quite socialistic, partly because they controlled much of the state apparatus or were very close to the center of power in several western states and one Canadian province and also because they took to heart the teachings of Jesus.

    OTOH, their reputation as a "peculiar people" also left them very much alienated from mainstream American life so they have a strong sense of sympathy for persecuted and rejected minorities.

  • ||

    As for the "basis for this claim", it is contained in the very words, "the village/tribal 'help people' mentality".

    As I said ""People like us" are assumed to have the same mores and customs and assumed to respond to outside action the same way that "we do"." See also the Mormon idea that church welfare is extended to the "worthy poor", another way of saying "God helps those who help themselves".

    Let us keep in mind that humanitarian relief, ie help to people who need it through no fault of their own to recover from natural disasters ("acts of God", though one wonders why a loving god would act this way) are a different animal from the kind of perpetual welfare that is extended to "the poor" who some among us consider to be largely responsible for their condition.

  • ||

    I think he is thinking of suburbanliberals. But, then, urban liberals are just as bad since they also never have to live in or see the urban ghettos, living as they do in upscale high rise islands

    A rather interesting byproduct of 29th century urban planning is the concentration of the poor into a few large, and largely isolated, neighborhoods rather than living in a large number of small nrighborhoods spead throughout the city..

  • ||

    Dang, only "suburban liberals" was supposed to be italicized

  • NoVaNick||

    Yes, I meant genuine rural liberals. Although I live in a very suburban/urban area, so I don't see a lot of true rural folks, except at the farmers' market, or the ones who drive around selling firewood. The farmers' markets are great example of free market wealth transfer-you have urban, or wannabe urban progs in yoga pants overpaying for local produce to people I am sure they would never let into their house.

  • Rhywun||

    Infinity years because merely expressing the thought is racist.

  • Dadlobby||

    The problem with reasonable people is they think that government is made up of reasonable people and they listen to reason. Always follow the money to find the "why". LBJ started the war on poverty to get blacks to vote democratic, buying votes a tried and true democratic policy. Food stamps is actually a corporate welfare program, ensuring factory farms have a supply side to their demand. We had a "crisis" of 6% of fatherless households in the 70's and then guvmint subsidized single mother homes with welfare, and then went after the "deadbeat dads" (actually driven out disenfranchised dads) with Title IVd of the Social Security Act which pays states to create more single mother homes. As guvmint increased regulation of the family from the 70's to today we have seen a steady increase in fatherless homes, at about 50% of families today. Beat dead, driven broke, abused, and disenfranchised "deadbeat dads" are good targets and "abused, abandoned" single mothers by choice are good "victims in need of help" for the socialist "I can fix it" government. http://nymensactionnetwork.org.....rt-reform/

  • SQRLSY One||

    So Government Almighty created fatherless households by rewarding fatherlessness! Who knew?!?! Who could have imagined? (I have heard of social workers (welfare workers) inspecting single-mom's dwelling for evidence of overnight-staying men, such as men's clothing, and yanking or threatening to yank their welfare checks for such offenses).

    We'll probably not get a whole bunch of talk-back to the above, from conservatives or libertarians…

    But read on!

  • Ron||

    this also applies to housing a woman with a child can get subsidized housing but if they find a man there they are out.

  • SQRLSY One||

    But then many conservatives, and some "libertarians", will want Government Almighty to get in the way (put up roadblocks to) prospective single mom's access to abortion! Lothario has lied to prospective single mom, told her he has a vasectomy (he has none), and that he has no other girlfriends (he has 5 others). Mom-to-be only finds out these things AFTER she is pregnant! She wants to save her reproductive services for a man who is true to his word, to preserve and protect GOOD fatherhood, and all that the anti-abortion fanatics want to do, is get in her way! Via the supposedly good graces of Government Almighty's coercion and violence! Fix THIS problem too, while we are bitching about Government Almighty creating this fatherlessness problem!

  • Longtobefree||

    If only women had access to cheap effective birth control.
    Oh, wait. Over the counter condoms do exist. And reduce the chance of disease as well. Whodathunkit?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Now if they only ALSO had access to reliable and affordable mind-reading tech, to detect lying Lotharios who lie to them! Under our current schemes, for lack of the mind-reading tech, if we go and add an inability to access abortion, in another few generations, we will have generated many men who are good at being lying Lotharios, and very few who are capable of being good fathers. We'll be like wild male horses and male elephant seals, fighting over breeding rights, and doing nothing to raise the young. This is not a future of the human species, that I'm looking forward to.

  • Rhywun||

    So you think a world that creates good fathers is one where there's endless consequence-free sex everywhere? And any mistakes that happen, well snip them out and go have more sex? You have noticed, perhaps, a correlation between easy access to abortion and the prevelence of men who are terrible fathers? Or you're choosing to ignore it for some reason.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Short and sweet: Women get tricked and deceived. When this happens, abortion is their way out of the man having broken a contract, stated or implied. Abortion is veto power for women, over scumbucket men!

    Longer version: In an ideal or perfect world, everyone would behave themselves sexually. This isn't our world. We have to fight dirty in a dirty world, at times. Abortion isn't a "good" thing, and I really-actually do wish more people would keep their dicks in their pants more often, literally and figuratively both. But abortion is part of the dirty world, and if we outlaw our hamper it too much, the world gets even dirtier!

  • ||

    Short and sweet: Women get tricked and deceived.

    And are not, themselves capable of deception?

    Abortion is veto power for women, over scumbucket men!

    The scumbucket men and women occupying their uterus', yes. Abortion does literally nothing and actually, by proxy, empowers the men to do what they did. Leaving grants women a form of heckler's veto. She could tell the kid his Dad named him Sue and let nature take it's course.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Abortion does literally nothing and actually, by proxy, empowers the men to do what they did. "

    Ha! Abortion prevents scumbucket men from passing on their scumbucket genes, AND frees up women to reproduce with more responsible men instead!

  • ||

    Ha! Abortion prevents scumbucket men from passing on their scumbucket genes, AND frees up women to reproduce with more responsible men instead!

    OK, I'm about 95% sold on Poe's Law at this point. This has got to be some manner of satire.

  • Dadlobby||

    "terrible fathers"? Actually the vast majority of child abuse and neglect is committed by mothers, with the non biological live in boyfriend number two. Fathers rank low on the list of perpetrators. Child support (Title IVd SSA) defines "good father" as one who pays child support (which in the case of welfare moms goes back into government coffers, which makes it an excise tax and not child support). Sanford Braver in Divorced Dads: shattering the myth's (a federal study of the issue) debunked the "deadbeat dad" myth as he is actually a disenfranchised dad. The number one reason a non residential father doesn't spend more time with his children is a limiting court order, number two is a mother who interferes with his time. The issue of reproductive choice, or lack thereof for men, is an issue. Stop government subsidies for "single mothers" and allow men the right to choose (making women responsible for their reproductive status) and watch the single mother rate drop.

  • ||

    We'll be like wild male horses and male elephant seals, fighting over breeding rights, and doing nothing to raise the young. This is not a future of the human species, that I'm looking forward to.

    So, if we let SQRLSY One get the reins women will either be rendered mindless reproductive vessels or granted omniscience and men will be relegated to the role of stud animal. And, while I admit the false dichotomy does sound slightly tempting, I'm going to have to take whatever side wants to keep your hands off the reins. Some of us actually prefer the nuance and anthropomorphism that takes place between genderless demigod and mindless sex organ.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So mad.casual wants to burn down the galaxy with an endless army of straw men? I say don't let him do it! We need to raise an army of snowmen to go and melt all over his straw men! Right away!

  • mpercy||

    And no woman has ever said "it's ok, I'm on the pill"? No woman has ever lied about having multiple boyfriends? No woman has ever gotten pregnant intentionally with the intent to "trap" a man?

    You've got some points, but men are not always the one's in the wrong.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Agreed, amen...

  • The Last American Hero||

    So you endorse making the pill OTC? Glad to hear we have another convert.

  • Mickey Rat||

    What are these insurmountable roadblocks to abortion?

    Maybe, she has not had an abortion because she is uninterested in that option.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So now we have conservatives and "libertarians" mandating respectful burials (in licensed funeral parlors) for aborted blastocycsts, and putting up other senseless legal barriers.
    Also a VERY popular obstacle that states like to put in your way, to get an abortion, is to mandate that you get ritually raped by the "shaming wand" first. (Sonograms).
    So for you pre-abortion ladies having to get ceremonially raped by the "shaming wand", read on...
    Scienfoology has a religious-freedom-based way to escape such mandated rituals! For details, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/

    See, I'm doing my part to protect REAL fatherhood from the ravages of Government Almighty!!!

  • The Narrator||

    You're doing your part to be boring as fuck.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Neither of those sound remotely "insurmountable".

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    "aborted blastocysts"
    Step one, dehumanize the victim.
    Step two, genocide.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Step three, get all self-righteous and then use Government Almighty to tell everyone else what to do and not to do.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Imagine, the nerve of ordering everyone not to defraud, steal, assault, and kill.

  • sparkstable||

    Not what TO do... just what NOT to do, in accordance to human rights.

    Based on your argument, it is also wrong to suggest people not steal, beat each other, or commit murder... because far be it from us to say you can't do those things, either.

    And seeing as how the unborn is a human at a particular stage of development, but still 100% human all the same... it's really hard to understand how anyone can see abortion as something other than a homicide.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So then human eggs and sperms, do you claim the right to tell us what to do and not to do with them as well? Where do you draw the line, and how? Did God tell you how to do this?

    What about unborn chimps, cows, elephants, rats, mice? Are they sacred life as well? Did God specially appoint you to decide these matters for all of us?

  • BYODB||

    Your knowledge of biology is so lacking that it's a wonder you manage to not shoot yourself during hunting season, but then again I'm 95% sure that you're either insane or an intentional troll.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that once a sperm and egg combine that the result is distinctly human. Before they combine, it's most certainly not a human. We don't reproduce asexually. Yet, anyway.

  • SQRLSY One||

    And these facts of biology allow you to tell us what to do, and not to do, in the one case, and not the other, why, exactly? And are you concerned about the fertilized eggs of chimps as well? Elk? Moose? Rats? Mice? What logic do you base your meddling (or lack of meddling) on, exactly?

  • DesigNate||

    Last time I checked, eggs and sperm aren't a completely separate human being until they are combined.

    And they don't combine automagically, it takes some effort on the part of the "host".*

    *sidenote: I'm anti-abortion, but the alternative world of the government being conscerned with every miscarriage that happens because abortion is illegal is not worth it to me.

  • damikesc||

    Lothario has lied to prospective single mom, told her he has a vasectomy (he has none), and that he has no other girlfriends (he has 5 others). Mom-to-be only finds out these things AFTER she is pregnant!

    Perhaps not fucking dudes she barely knows would be a better strategy for the naive waif.

  • BYODB||

    Only men have agency. This is essentially the assumption behind most of this kind of nuttiness.

  • Dadlobby||

    What a gynocentric load of claptrap from an obvious mangina. If she has an abortion how does that make her a "single mom", it makes her single. And perhaps you could tell us why (being equal after all) that men HAVE NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!?!? Your example of the Lothario is so far off base it is ludicrous. Ya, I sneak a pregnancy because I want guvmint hounding me for 21 year (or more) to pay for a child she decided to keep. Women can, and do, lie about their reproductive status and men are on the hook to PAY for children they do not want (no right to choose for men). Women can, and do, steal men's sperm from condoms and he is still on the hook to pay for children we doesn't want. Women can, and do, lie about who is the real father (over 30% of DNA paternity tests come back false), and once a man signs on as the father he is held financially responsible for children which DNA proves at a later date are not his. Please do explain how we allow choice for women and not men? Please do explain why we hold men responsible for their reproductive status but not women? Playing Jeopardy theme da, da, da, da.......

  • SQRLSY One||

    Actually, I agree with you, the deck is stacked against men. But men who earn no pay? You can't get blood out of a rock! So it is middle-income or RICH men who get messed over the most, here!

    Getting men off of the hook for having been deceived? I'd like to see that, too, but I can't see how we can ever get that to happen, the socio-political deck is WAAAY stacked against that!

  • Longtobefree||

    The real boy crisis is that they will never have the opportunity to grow into men.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Who is the "they" here? The offspring of women who allow their unfertilized eggs to remain unfertilized? We'd better be careful when we decide for others, what they should believe about who has a soul, or who doesn't! Or a "human life"! Else we could turn all fertile women into breeding slaves!

  • NoVaNick||

    I think there is a dad crisis. Where I live at least, I see lots of them who seem to be highly feminized, especially the younger hipster ones who sport beards. When they talk, they sound like 10 year old boys.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    You could also call that a "real man" crisis.

    And when I say "real man" I don't mean some rough, "tuff gai," macho crap either. I mean a man who knows how to treat other people (especially women) with respect, takes responsibility for his actions (including staying in the picture when/ if he knocks some chick up), hold himself accountable, and just generally understands the concept of how to not be a complete dickhead.

  • Rhywun||

    That's just crazy talk.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Or they turn into people like Tony and Kirkland.

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait, what? The bots got to be humans?

  • El Oso||

    Maybe a bit off topic, but when the number of college degrees is brought up I always wonder: What kind of degrees. Let's have a breakdown: Engineering, Science and Math, or Wumins' Studies?

  • NoVaNick||

    Progs have been trying to get more girls to like math/science/STEM for decades now, they don't have much to show for it...

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Sure they do. More colleges with Womens' Studies programs.

  • Drake||

    True, but they really do that with everybody if you think about it. The school system in general has this whole retarded, cookie-cutter policy of forcing STEM down EVERYBODY'S throats, despite the fact that alot of people just don't have the aptitude for it period, female OR male. You've got plenty of people who just fucking suck at it, haha.

    There's this egalitarian notion that anyone can do WHATEVER they want if they just "put their minds to it", but that's just not true. Not everybody can be a pro-athlete and not everybody can be a fucking rocket scientist, or even do basic algebra for that matter, LOL. And yet they persist, wasting money on people who just don't have it, instead of gearing them up for shit they can actually do. SAD!

  • tommhan||

    One of my daughters has a degree in woman's studies. She is a bartender.

  • vek||

    Yeah, I'd be willing to bet if you tallied up all the useful degrees, and all the pointless ones that don't get anybody anywhere (women OR men), that men probably have more useful degrees.

    Let us also not forget that via an endless number of programs, and entrance requirements, men are discriminated against. Especially white and Asian men. Women get more grants, scholarships, etc, often times have lower entrance requirements, as do minorities.

    So is it any wonder that men go to college less? Not to mention that if you look at plenty of "manly" jobs, many of them pay as good or better than the types of college degrees women get. So is it rational for a so-so intelligence guy to become a welder vs get a Social Worker degree or whatever? Probably.

    So there are lots of reasons... None of them look good for women, or apparently make them more money either.

  • IceTrey||

    Drug prohibition which has separated millions of black fathers from their children hasn't helped either.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen!!! Good point!!!

  • Brian||

    That's the dirty little secret that some feminists don't want to talk about in popular media pieces:

    Many women reject feminism because there is, in fact, an advantage to playing th child/victim card whenever you want to. Men can't really do that. Not with any self-respect, at least.

    There's a reason some people don't rush into being strong, independent types, especially when they don't have to.

  • mpercy||

    There's no crying in baseball!

  • lap83||

    Study after study finds that having both a mother and father is best, at least for straight families. (Gay families may do just as well; Farrell notes that the overall evidence is inconclusive.)

    This bullshit gets tiresome. It's like everyone believes that the only choice is between "pretend gay families are perfect" or "send all the gay people to the Chik fil A religiousizing camps" We don't pretend that families with adopted or foster children or step-families are optimal. Everyone accepts that they have challenges, but it's OK because no one wants kids to be in orphanages. It isn't crazy homophobic religious extremism to accept that trade-offs exist

  • ||

    It's like everyone believes that the only choice is between "pretend gay families are perfect" or "send all the gay people to the Chik fil A religiousizing camps"

    There are plenty of people who willfully acknowledge social and cultural diversity and recognize flaws and imperfections inherent to various family structures, socio-cultural structures, and even races themselves. Those people are called racists and bigots.

  • vek||

    Or people that live in reality?

    Our species evolved to have a man and a woman BOTH actively involved in parenting. We're not some species where the man blows his wad and never is seen again.

    The default assumption should be that the default family structure of basically every culture in the history of man kind is probably the one we're best evolved to operate in.

    To take that a step further, most traditional societies ALSO actively involved grandparents and other extended family. I don't know if studies have been done, but I bet mom + dad + 1 or both sets of grandparents ALL being around are probably even better than just mom and dad.

    Is this bigoted against people who don't live next to their parents to point it out? NO. It just is what it is.

    That said, I'm sure some really harmonious gay couples are probably better than single parents or dysfunctional man/woman couples... But on average I would bet my ass man/woman beats man/man or woman/woman at the statistical level. I imagine if you could dig into the raw data on studies done, it probably shows this, but they don't like to talk about it because ANYTHING that doesn't fit the agenda gets buried. Like all the data that the gender pay gap is virtually non existent.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The big difference between gay couples and straight couples is adoption.

    Generally speaking, a kid with their biological parents is going to do better then a kid with adopted parents. Whether those adopted parents are a same-sex couple or opposite-sex couple doesn't seem to matter much. And two adopted parents are pretty generally better than a single parent.

    Weirdly enough, for straight couples, a bio parent and a step-parent tends to be worse then two adopted parents. There's some meat to the "evil step-mom" myth.

    For gay parents this doesn't appear to matter as much, but at that point you're also taking a (raw number) small group and subdividing it even smaller, so conclusions stay to lack much strength.

    So yes, bio-mom and bio-dad tends to be "best". But that's not the appropriate comparison for gay couples, comparing them to adoptive and step-parents is a better comparison, and in that case gay folks turn out just fine.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Addendum: everything I just wrote is based on "all else equal". In reality, all else is *seldom* equal. Elton John's kid pretty much won the parental lottery, for example.

    Which is something you often see with gay parents. We tend to be more prepared, wealthy, educated and so-on when we first become parents because there aren't any "late night drunken adoptions".

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Chik fil A religiousizing camps

    I bet they'd have a lot more success if they offered free Chick-fil-A for life to any gay person who "converts" to heterosexuality as opposed to just "praying away the gay." /sarc

  • lap83||

    Maybe that's what they really do at the camps, all while providing great customer service. Those sneaky manipulative bastards

  • Dadlobby||

    Actually, he endorses two parent families and in promoting men's rights also advocates for the rights of gay men (a matter of individual choice). The "evidence inconclusive" means that there haven't been many studies on gay men as parents in child outcome (bias and probably not a lot of them?). Of course, a system which looks down on men as valid parents probably puts gay men at the bottom of the shit list. I suspect single women (hetero or gay) and lesbians have a much easier time adopting then single men (hetero or gay) and gay couples, by far. But if biological fathers have no rights, then who does?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We invite you to educate yourself."

    But only using research material written on a sandwich board.

  • H. Farnham||

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think Stossel looks WAAAY different with the 'stache shaved off?

  • vek||

    The stuff this guy is talking about is just one small slice of the war against men.

    The main thing to keep in mind is that leftists feel that in order for women to be equal, they must tear men down... Because men and women ARE NOT equal in all ways, so they have to Harrison Bergeron that shit until men are dragged down.

    Men are naturally better at many things. Women are naturally better at many things. Every sane person knows this is true at the statistical level, with exceptions to every rule for individuals of course.

    To modern leftists equality means women being as good as men at all the things men are good at, while still being better at all the things women are actually better at. Since they can't magically make women better at things they don't have skills at, the only option is to take men down a notch. They've figured out 10,000 different ways to do this. Fortunately men are still so badass we STILL dominate basically every area of importance in the world. So good luck man haters!

  • Dadlobby||

    Here's the gynocentric hierarchy. All women on a pedestal and not responsible for any bad decisions they make in life, it's men's (the patriarchy's) fault. Way below them, All men suck (lower than whale shit), are potential rapists and abusers due to "toxic masculinity". At best irresponsible and about as needed for women as fish need bicycles. As men are "privileged" it is not discrimination to rape, pillage, beat, and abuse them. As boys are future men we need to "socially construct" them into "gendered" men and stop the toxic masculinity which is best done in "single mother" homes. This as long as men continue to produce and pay for most everything, being 95% of workplace deaths, 97% of war dead and wounded, subjected to selective service which women skip out on, pay child support (a tax actually) as ordered, pay taxes into the nanny/daddy (femi-marxist) state (as we are the vast majority of high paying and highly taxed jobs), give "single mothers" any government assistance they want (deny any to men, even those with kids). Then blame men for being "deadbeats" when disenfranchised, blame men for not being "marriageable" (code for make more money than the woman), and blame men when they stop producing income to pay the exorbitant taxes. And if men complain just label them "fascist women haters". When the canary in the toxic mine dies, there must be something wrong with that canary (toxic avianism?).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online