With the economy shut down by government edict and the Wuhan Virus curve flattened discussion turns to risks to life and limb on opening up the economy. Lost in the discussion is the fact that men have this risk-benefit balancing act every day regardless of a global pandemic or not and the pandemic increases the risk to men. I’ll leave the socially constructed or genetic “nature-nurture” argument to another piece, the fact of the matter is men are expected to earn money for their family and it is the dirty and risky jobs with long hours and dangerous working conditions which pay the most.
Men accounted for about 92% of workplace accidents and deaths before the pandemic. But to put aside the “risky nature of men” argument I point out that it is married men who have much higher earnings and who work many more hours than single men. As we age, which also correlates to family formation, our fatalities at work increase, bearing this out. A single man doesn’t need the same amount of resources as a family. And it is much easier for a single man to ride out a period of low or unemployment, his personal needs far below what is required when taking care of a family. And when we look at occupational risk for men we should understand that the benefit goes to other than him.
When we look at essential work defined under the virus response guidelines it becomes apparent that the necessary work is the dirty dangerous jobs that men hold. Jobs that can’t be done staying at home. Farmers, butchers, truck drivers, deliverymen, electric linemen, police and firefighters, and on, and on. Add to this the fact that women now account for about 65% of college degrees, many fields which carry much less risk and can often be conducted from home, and we see that men in the future will be tied financially to high risk occupations. Are we setting up future generations of men for worse outcomes?
While there has been some reporting regarding higher infection and death rates for men such as 65% of front line medical personnel impacted even though men are less than 25% of that population it generally isn’t reported by sex. But coverage of male victims points to the theory that men have an inferior immune system when compared to women. And when it doesn’t point to genetics the coverage reverts to the old “blame men” game, bordering on the “toxic masculinity” myth. The view that men are put at risk due to societal expectations of them to earn for others isn’t even broached. Could the answer to why more men are infected be that more men are working longer hours in dangerous occupations and thus risking themselves to a higher chance of exposure?
It has been reported that the black and latino communities have a higher rate of infection but missing from these statistics is how many men are victims as compared to women in these minority populations? Is the issue race or is it sex? I would also look at socioeconomic conditions, especially in inner cities with government subsidized single mother homes, as a driving force which puts men of color at the bottom of the of the outcome curve of men in general. Does it benefit the minority community to move minority women up on the outcome curve while moving minority men down? Dependance and poverty breeds more poverty. Lacking opportunities to earn are we forcing these men into the dangerous jobs which increases their negative outcomes?
And one area where the working man is socially constructed is in the regulation of men by government to be financial providers for their children, regardless if they are disenfranchised from them or not. Here in the Unites States the federal government directs a large bureaucracy called the Office of Child Support which oversees Title IV-d of the Social Security Act and 50 state Offices of Child Support Enforcement. By looking at the incentive payments from the feds to the states we see it covers only financial payments fostering the sexually biased “men as financial providers” stereotype of the 1950’s. We have “deadbeat dads” but never a “mopey mom” who is chastised and persecuted for not providing for their children financially, regardless of the reason. There is also NO financial reward to the states to foster hands on caregiving fathers nor to assist in a fathers access to time with his children.
Rather than study any of this it is easier to blame men. Pointing fingers at men for being men, “it’s in their nature”, “toxic masculinity”, they’ve only themselves to blame as “they don’t take care of themselves”. But if men are prone to more risky behaviors then shouldn’t we be studying it to find out how to reduce the injuries and deaths? If men are at a higher risk to get the Wuhan Virus due to genetics then aren’t they at a greater risk for all viruses and shouldn’t we be studying that to see how to reduce the risk?
If we fail men, we fail society. The Coalition to Create a White House Council on Men and Boys has identified 5 areas where men and boys are in a nationwide crisis. Unless, and until, we get a council such as this which focuses research and policy to areas address the needs of men and boys we can expect to see men continuing to be injured and die from the toxic masculinity of working to better others and society, with or without a pandemic.