IN THIS previous entry, Fitzgerald argues that men suffer in subtle and little-recognized ways from women who are criticial or demanding. Male fortitude is not simply self-generated. His point is similar to one I have made before: that gentleness is one of the most important forces for the good.

A recent New York Times article makes a similar argument. Men are more sensitive than is commonly believed. Gee, they even seem to need love. Could it be that men are human beings after all? Unmarried men, a major study has concluded, are more affected by unhappy romantic relationships than women:

According to the report by Robin W. Simon, a sociology professor at Wake Forest University, and Anne E. Barrett, a sociologist at Florida State University, “It appears that young men benefit more than women from support, and that they are more harmed than women by strain in ongoing romantic relationships.”

For women, whether they’re in a relationship at all — no matter how awful — is what counts.

This is startling and troubling news. It violates one of the core concepts of feminism: that men have everything, and way too much of it. This isn’t the only unsettling insight here. The authors of the study were peeved at evidence that, despite the strides of feminism, young women still want boyfriends:

“It’s a little bit pathetic,” Ms. Simon allowed. “Even though there’s been so much social change in this area, women’s self-worth is still so much tied up with having a boyfriend. It’s unfortunate.”

 Truly pathetic. Why can’t women care less about love and more about money and power?

                                   — Comments —

Nathan writes:

Despite the fact that it is partly correct, this is one of those ‘expert studies’ that highlights the deluding effect of positivism. We see countless studies on matters of family and relationships (“what is the best type of parental couple for the raising of children”, “how are men/women affected by _____”) that consists of P.h.D’s collecting sociological ‘data’ and then informing everybody of their expert conclusions.

What’s laughable is not only the wrong conclusions they frequently come to, but the flawed methodology – the assumption that these kinds of questions can only be answered by having experts gather a large number of ‘facts’ (as defined by them) in order to see the results. Romance, family relationships, social order – these are subjects of immense complexity. The idea that someone could provide rock-solid answers to these important sociological questions through this type of data gathering is absurd.

It’s not surprising then to see that the results of these studies frequently run directly counter to conservatism. While traditions provide answers to these types of questions through centuries of distilled practical wisdom, positivistic studies provide the academic ‘elite’ with the ability to formulate both the questions and answers. So you end up with a study concerning the comparative happiness of children within heterosexual couples to that of homosexual couples, where the prime data point is the opinion of the parent about the child’s happiness. The flawed methodology is obvious, but that doesn’t matter as long as its labeled scientific. Anyone who disagrees with it is just an irrational know-nothing.

Laura writes:

Well said.

The cumulative effect is to challenge the very idea of common sense or accumulated wisdom. These studies create the dizzying impression that each individual is capable of discovering wisdom and sense himself by sifting through the latest research. I think they bring some people to the brink of mental illness. Will that ever be studied?

Mostly, I think these studies are interesting not for what they say but for how they are reported. The New York Times uses social science not as part of any genuine search for truth, but to create anxiety. The anxious reader is the devoted reader. He keeps coming back for glimmers of reassurance.

Nathan responds:

“Mostly, I think these studies are interesting not for what they say but for how they are reported. The New York Times uses social science not as part of any genuine search for truth, but to create anxiety.”

Precisely. It’s a will to power. And it’s funny when they report some expert study results as some startling new finding, when it simply confirms a common sense truth. I remember seeing a news article on yahoo about how oversnacking could contribute to obesity.

Please follow and like us: