What the ‘Men Are Falling Behind’ Panic Is Really About

Too often, it’s not about genuinely helping men and boys at all

Image licensed from Shutterstock

The Noösphere is an entirely reader-supported publication that brings social sciences research into frequently overlooked topics. If you read it every week and value the labour that goes into it, consider liking or sharing this essay or becoming a paid subscriber! You can also buy me a coffee instead.

---

‘School has changed in ways that favor girls, and work has changed in ways that favor women,’ writes Claire Cain Miller in one of the first paragraphs of a recent New York Times article titled It’s Not Just a Feeling: Data Shows Boys and Young Men Are Falling Behind.

This is hardly a new idea. For the past decade or so, there’s been no shortage of think pieces and online posts painting a picture of girls and young women surging ahead — and ‘taking over’ — while their male peers lag behind, struggling to catch up in a society that now, supposedly, gives women the upper hand in nearly every area. Increasingly, young men themselves share this belief, too.

And so do people with some of the loudest megaphones in the world. Earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat down with podcaster Joe Rogan and lamented the decline of ‘masculine energy’ in the corporate world, implying, much like Miller, that workplaces have shifted too far in accommodating women. Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign carried a similar message, built around the idea that American society has become ‘too feminised’, to the detriment of men.

But does the data actually support the idea that boys and men are now falling behind women in employment, education, and life? And do the proposed solutions even address the root causes of their struggles today?

---

One of my biggest issues with Miller’s piece, and many others like it that confidently claim boys and young men are now worse off than their female peers, is that they frequently rely on cherry-picked statistics or data that don’t even support the sweeping conclusions being drawn.

Miller’s article does both. Take the US Bureau of Labor Statistics figures on median weekly earnings she cites, for example:

(…) while women still earn less than men, their median weekly earnings have climbed 19 percent since 2000, while men’s have increased just 7 percent in that period.

According to this data, women earned an average of $300 per week in 2000, which has increased to $358 today. Men, on the other hand, earned $402 per week in 2000, climbing to $429. The key takeaway here shouldn’t be that women are pulling ahead, but rather that their wages, which remain 16.5% lower based on these figures, haven’t risen fast enough. If women were truly favoured in the workplace, it certainly isn’t reflected in how much they’re paid. In the US, full-time working women earn just 83 cents for every dollar men earn. Globally, that figure drops to 80 cents. Even among younger workers, young women still only earn 92 cents for every dollar their male peers make.

Yet, according to Robb Willer, a professor of sociology at Stanford, quoted in Miller’s article, ‘the contemporary American economy is not rewarding a lot of the characteristics associated with men and masculinity.’ In reality, it’s when women enter previously male-dominated professions, both the pay and prestige of those roles decline — a phenomenon known as ‘occupational feminisation’ — not vice versa. Meanwhile, recent studies show that in high-status sectors like technology and finance, it’s precisely the performance of masculinity, not the quality of the work or ideas, that still tends to be the most valued. The same goes for decision-making roles.

Overall, women are also less likely to succeed in salary and promotion negotiation — despite asking just as frequently as men— less likely to receive recognition for overwork, less likely to have their contributions acknowledged, and less likely to be invited to job interviews than their equally qualified male counterparts, a bias now further amplified by AI tools increasingly used in recruitment.

Then there’s the often-cited fact that more women are now in full-time employment than in the past. On this point, Miller references data showing that men’s labour force participation has declined from 94% in 1975 to 89% today, while for women, it rose from 55% to 78%. But how exactly does this prove that women are ‘thriving?’ Although women are no longer systematically excluded from some types of paid work, they are still paid less and valued less, with female-dominated sectors remaining among the lowest-paid. Even women who are breadwinners or work in typically male fields don’t have it easy, and they continue to shoulder the bulk of unpaid domestic and caregiving labour on top of everything else. One survey found that 45% of female breadwinners still do the majority of such work.

What’s also rarely mentioned is that fewer men are in full-time paid employment because more are becoming stay-at-home fathers. In the US, nearly 20% of stay-at-home parents are now dads — up from 11% in 1989. The UK has seen a similar trend. If anything, more men wanting to take care of their home and family should be cause for celebration, not alarm. So why isn’t it?

Still, it’s true, as Miller points out, that some jobs traditionally held by men — like those in manual labour — have disappeared in the US and other Western economies, while the service-oriented sector, dominated by women, expanded. It’s also true that some of today’s fastest-growing sectors — like care and education — have historically been female-dominated and that young women participate in the labour market at slightly higher rates than young men, with Gen Z women making up 53% of the Gen Z workforce. But as a recent in-depth analysis of US government data by Bloomberg News shows, the latter is because young women are more likely to accept part-time or lower-paying roles for which they are overqualified, while young men tend to hold out for higher-status, better-paid positions, often due to entrenched societal expectations.

The real problem isn’t that women are ‘snatching’ opportunities from men; it’s that the job market is increasingly challenging, with too few fairly compensated jobs that match young people’s qualifications and ambitions.

But there’s another crucial factor that’s almost always missing from these conversations, and it really shouldn’t be — patriarchal culture.

---

Women now also have access to another domain once largely reserved for men: education. And today, we’re pursuing it in equal, or even greater, numbers than them. This is a recurring point in the ongoing panic about men being ‘left behind.’ As Miller notes, using federal data on college enrollment:

Women also outnumber men in college enrollment, which is linked to broader career prospects and higher earnings. Of recent male high school graduates, about 57 percent are enrolled in college, barely up from 54 percent in 1960, federal data shows. In that same period, women’s college enrollment has surged past them — 66 percent are now enrolled, up from 38 percent.

In OECD countries, men are graduating at increasingly lower rates than women, too — in 2019, 51% of women aged 25–34 held a tertiary degree, compared to just 39% of men. But while girls in the US tend to have higher average graduation rates, other OECD nations achieve near gender parity.

Miller also highlights that boys generally score higher on math tests but lower on reading tests, earn lower grades, and are more likely to be suspended. Interestingly, one of the articles she cites, which she co-authored with reporter Kevin Quealy in 2018, includes a research-backed point that now seems to have been largely overlooked:

When boys think of academic achievement as desirable and tied to their future success, they do better.

What then happens when boys no longer see academic success as desirable or essential to their future success? What if the role models they look up to and the media they consume increasingly frame mainstream and higher education as ‘girly,’ ‘woke,’ ‘nerdy,’ or ‘emasculating?’ And what if, instead, they’re told that to be a ‘real’ man, a real ‘alpha,’ all they need is a hustle mindset and a few online courses from influencers promising wealth, dominance, and status — without the effort or discipline that education requires?

Unfortunately, research into the growing influence of online men’s communities, often referred to as the ‘manosphere,’ suggests this is precisely what’s happening. Boys and young men are being drawn toward ideologies that equate masculinity with dominance, aggression, and rebellion, while coding anything perceived as ‘feminine’ as inferior. It’s the same old patriarchal pattern: when women gravitate toward something, its perceived value and status tend to decline. We see this exact same logic with occupational feminisation, too.

Writer Celeste Davis also explores this dynamic in her brilliant article on why boys aren’t enrolling in college at the same rate as girls:

When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.

Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice.

Still, it’s not just education that’s been stamped as ‘feminine.’ It’s reading. It’s collaboration and teamwork. And it’s empathy and care, despite being essential skills in many fast-growing, traditionally female-dominated professions. Even male-dominated fields like medicine or science, where the gender gap is narrowing, start to be viewed through this ‘pink’ lens. Is it then a coincidence that we’re seeing a backlash against these areas just as women are entering them in near-equal numbers? Perhaps not.

Too often, boys, along with their parents and other adults, end up internalising all these cultural cues. A recent study by HarperCollins found that only 29% of boys aged 0–2 are read to daily or nearly daily, compared to 44% of girls the same age. Other studies also show that fathers are less likely to read to their sons than daughters, and that both parents are less likely to encourage boys to read at all. As a result, boys tend to read less, choose simpler books, and struggle to finish them, all of which affects their reading comprehension, yes, but also their academic readiness, empathy, and prosocial behaviour.

Yet many still fall into the trap of gender essentialism, attributing boys’ lower literacy skills only to supposed innate sex differences. ‘Boys mature more slowly,’ we’re told. ‘Boys can’t sit still.’ ‘Boys are just more aggressive and disruptive.’ ‘Boys will be boys.’ (For anyone still clinging to these myths, I’d recommend exploring the work of psychologist Cordelia Fine or cognitive neuroscientist Gina Rippon.) And so, the thinking goes, we should simply adjust our expectations and work around their ‘faulty’ male hardwiring. But these reductive beliefs often become self-fulfilling prophecies — shaping how boys see themselves, how others treat them, and how well they perform in school and life.

At the same time, though, there’s the deeply ingrained belief that boys and men are inherently more intelligent, innovative, and brilliant. Studies show that children as young as six still associate these traits with boys more than girls. Parents, teachers, and caregivers frequently reinforce this stereotype, too, whether consciously or not. Unsurprisingly, when girls are told boys are naturally better at math — a phenomenon known as ‘stereotype threat’ — they tend to perform worse on math tests.

I think it’s fair to say that all children, regardless of gender, continue to grow up with confusing and sometimes contradictory scripts. But while girls still face barriers rooted in outdated myths about their intellectual limitations and other rigid gender norms, they’re also increasingly encouraged not to let any of it define them or hold them back.

Why can’t we offer boys and young men the same message?

---

Boys are struggling. So are girls. And gender non-conforming youth. And young men. And young women. And a large number of adults. In reality, no single group holds a monopoly on struggle today.

And while we don’t all struggle for the exact same reasons, the root causes overlap far more than we’re often led to believe.

Rising economic inequality, exploitative capitalist systems, social disconnection, democratic backsliding, rigid gender norms, and the looming threat of climate collapse affect the well-being and lives of most people today. This is especially true for younger generations, who experience higher rates of mental health issues, loneliness, unemployment, debt, and lower homeownership than nearly any other age group. Sure, slightly more young men still live with their parents than young women, as Miller notes, but they’re also more likely to own property. More young men die by suicide, but more young women attempt it, as well as struggle with depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.

It’s disingenuous to look at the full scope of this data and insist that girls and young women are somehow ‘winning’ at the expense of men. Society hasn’t changed to favour women — it’s simply begun to include them in spaces they were systematically excluded from for centuries.

Unfortunately, the panic over ‘men falling behind’ is too often not about helping boys and men thrive or dismantling the barriers that keep them from living happy, authentic lives, but about turning back the clock to a time when their assumed superiority went unchallenged. Because the only way, really, to resurrect ‘traditional’ masculinity and the fantasy of men as sole providers is by pushing women back under the boot of patriarchy.

And we’re already seeing attempts to do just that. In the US, recent abortion bans, the criminalisation of miscarriages, efforts to suppress married female voters, and childcare funding cuts, to name a few, serve but one aim: forcing women out of the public sphere.

As writer Moira Donegan puts it:

Theirs [Trump’s administration] is an effort to shelter men from women’s economic competition, to revert to the regressive cultural modes of an imagined past, and to impose an artificially narrow vision of the capacities, aspirations, talents and desires of half of the American people.

However, encouraging men to embrace this regression — to resist gender equality and contort themselves into narrow moulds of masculinity — doesn’t serve them either. Devaluing care, empathy, feelings, and everything else coded as ‘feminine,’ while tying men’s entire self-worth to work and financial resources, has only ever served those invested in maintaining a rigid social and political order. (And so, it’s no coincidence this model emerged during the Victorian era, alongside the expansion of the British Empire.)

What would actually help is moving away from rigid gender scripts altogether. After all, the reason women are doing incrementally better isn’t because we’ve clung to or re-invented ‘femininity’ — it’s because we’ve started shedding these limiting roles altogether.

Yet the solutions offered to boys and men rarely, if ever, even question the ‘traditional’ masculine norms of behaviour.

There aren’t many actual solutions being proposed either — it’s mostly just resisting change.

---

Helping boys and young men thrive shouldn’t mean pretending their female peers have it easier. Or throwing them under the bus. Or implying there’s something inherently wrong with them.

It should mean confronting the systems that hold everyone back — and building something better, ideally more just and human.

Until we do that, we’ll just keep fighting over mere scraps and arguing about who has slightly more or slightly less.

---