It's possible I see the world differently than other people, but from a past comment from a reader on this substack, my habit of trading phone numbers with strangers I meet in public places and giving them my address and inviting them to dinner regularly may seem dangerous to some people.
I'm not seeking out gang members to invite to dinner, but we're not in a low crime city or neighborhood either. We've had dinner guests from different socioeconomic backgrounds and different countries (visiting or who immigrated). Some new guests are friends of friends and some were just people I met at the library. For me, it's a blessed and rewarding life and I don't have anxiety about it. God is in charge and we feel he called us to this lived hospitality.
This seems a feminine coded risk to me, extending hospitality despite potential risks. I don't have to lift anything heavier than a casserole dish! It's a great life my husband and I have.
I was one of the few male teachers in a high poverty middle school for two years. Over that time, I broke up 22 fights in the school. Moreover since then, I’ve had the opportunity to break up two high school fights on my street and one fight between adults on a bus. I did so without weapons or violence, simply my voice and physical presence (some grabbing).
As a teacher, we were officially told not to intervene in fights, but instead to call the police or a school resource officer. But I felt it much better to not wait for armed officers of the law when I could simply step up and separate the fighting parties right away.
Teaching can be a big one, even at a safer school. My husband and brother are both teachers, and have had to think very immediately about this during lockdowns with a possible real threat on campus.
One of my (female) middle school teachers had this experience when a reptile demonstration went a little awry, and she moved immediately to be between us and the snake (everyone was fine).
My favorite example in my life, outside of my husband, of men putting themselves at risk happened while white-water rafting more than 30 years ago. My group chose to continue on to the "dangerous part" of the route at the end, with much rougher water than the earlier parts. We were not super-experienced rafters. Our boat flipped and I was caught under it, disoriented and scared. I was rescued by four teenage boys who had decided to spend their Saturday hanging out in that area by the river, watching for people to help. I find that so heroic, and I'm forever grateful to them.
That's wonderful! In the annals of not dangerous but gentlemanly: one fall, when returning to college, my mom had hurt her back and couldn't move me in.
The men of my debating circle carried everything up to my room as a group.
Which reminds me of the time my friend lost her husband to Covid. They had a 10yo still at home. Our Catholic homeschooling community came together to support her. On the day she moved back closer to her family, some 30 people arrived to clean her house and load up her UHaul. There were way more men than women, and I was amazed at how quickly and well that truck was packed up. I was wiping bathroom counters and sweeping floors while these guys were plastic-wrapping, carrying, and packing in an entire house of furniture and belongings in a minimal amount of time.
Has anyone in this debate mended a roof recently? Or built a house? I could go on. The list of ordinary occupations that are dangerous without necessarily being coded as such is lengthy and of course male dominated. I wince when I hear/read middle class folks so quick to conclude that modern life offers little chance for men to demonstrate physical courage and resilience.
The issue is that there is lots of risk in many occupations that is invisible to folks who mostly earn their money by talking and writing. How much parents encourage their children into or out of those occupations is a separate issue. That’s usually about money and prospects. If those metrics are good dads will happily see their sons take risks.
A 2023 survey of skilled tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, welders, operating engineers, etc - they count as dangerous occupations!) found *94%* would encourage their children to follow them into their trade.
This is also born out by the many third or fourth gen union members I've anecdotally encountered.
"Roofers and painters were the most at risk to suffer nonfatal falls to a lower level in 2016. The rate for roofers was 86.9 cases per 10,000 full-time workers; the rate for painters was 75.0 cases per 10,000 full-time workers. Their rates far exceeded the rate for all workers combined of 5.1 cases per 10,000 full-time workers."
"Roofers accounted for 874 out of the 2,013 (43%) fatal falls in the construction sector between 2011 and 2017 (CPWR 2019) . Additionally, U.S. roofers had the highest risk of fatal falls with 36 deaths per 100,000 full time employees (FTEs), which was ten times greater than the rate of all other construction occupations in the U.S. combined (CPWR 2019)."
Definitely! One survey in Houston found that 22% of roofers were being trafficked, and child labor/exploitation nationwide is extremely prevalent in the industry.
But this gets to another aspect of all of this - like Simon says above, when there are solid wages, benefits, job protections, pathways to have a say in mitigating risk (unions), the dangerous jobs become both safer *and more appealing* despite them being more risky than an office job.
This is interesting, thank you! But am uneasy about this part: "Men are supposed to make their mark in the world, not just have the world make its mark on them. This requires some degree of legitimate autonomy and agency in order to be able to decisively act. It’s important for men’s autonomy not to be denigrated."
In what way is this at all specific to men? Everyone needs legitimate autonomy and agency. This is part of what makes a care ethics framework so powerful: it disassociates autonomy from independence. We all rely on others to different degrees for our survival and well-being, care ethics says, but we all deserve to be able to exercise (age-appropriate and ability-appropriate, of course) autonomy regardless of our dependency status. This includes children, disabled people, elderly people, and, as anti-speciesists argue, non-human animals.
I agree that this is not a need specific to men. I think that Leah is pointing it out because our current cultural moment is successfully emphasizing this need for women, children, people with disabilities, etc (or at least far more successfully than in the past century), but this often comes about by excluding or denigrating men. I.e: they've had their moments to make a mark on the world, but now it's everyone else's turn. But I think this leads to men being left out of the picture. So much of the messaging I received growing up was that I, as a woman, could do anything I want, could succeed at anything I set my mind to. But I think that message has left out men who often hear "you are responsible for all the oppression and ills of society," or "masculinity is 'toxic' and not welcome." I think this is why the Andrew Tate's have become so attractive for many young men. When we fail to celebrate truly virtuous masculinity, young men are left to turn to a paltry imitation of it or to reject it entirely. The message that everyone needs legitimate autonomy and agency is important, but that agency should be for everyone, including the men who have historically held it. Basically, we shouldn't put men down to raise everyone else up, and I believe many men feel that is what we've done.
Another example of this I've seen is in the classroom. Boys used to be encouraged to raise their hands and take chances on getting the answer wrong; to come to the board to work a problem they might not fully understand; to run and roughhouse during recess. What I see in the classroom now is girls getting those messages, but not boys. I think it's partly a result of this messaging to men. Boys are now internalizing "sit down and shut up" and let the women run things. Girls are now more successful academically, more likely to go to college, and more comfortable in academic environments than boys: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/boys-are-falling-behind-girls-in-school-see-how/2025/01
What a wonderful conversation! Much wisdom on all sides.
I would add that the lack of need for men's appetite for physical risk in modern life is a function of institutionalized cowardice.
The liberation of Iraq in 2003 is important as a moment when the privileged nations chose to bring freedom to the less fortunate. The reaction against the liberation of Iraq is a function of privileged nations REALLY not wanting to admit that they're called to be brave.
I love this line "A hero is made by habit—consistently being willing to be interrupted, holding his strength in trust for others." But this is also where I find the whole conversation to be so fundamentally flawed. This is true for both men *and women*. Many women feel the call to vocations and the call to enter situations that are traditionally coded "male" and that carry some intrinsic bodily risk.
--
Ex: Reeves' flag about the firefighters who died on 9/11 being all men isn't about women being less willing to risk their lives or men being more willing, but simple stats: there were only 29 women firefighters in New York City on 9/11 - out of 11,000 firefighters in the city. That's down from the class of 40 women who were hired the first year women could be - in 1982(!!!). Why? Because of sustained harassment, discrimination, threats and violence. Other issues for women firefighters in the US: equipment that isn't designed for women's bodies and a lack of private or women's showers at stations.
I truly worry we're headed back in the direction of "well, why should we make it easier to be a woman firefighter - it's a man's profession" rather than the feminist, "of course we should do the obvious work of making this profession welcoming to people of all genders".
--
Right now the biggest invitation for bodily risk I'm seeing both men and women take is standing up to ICE. Imo being an *adult* - man, woman, otherwise - is about being willing to take a moral stand when the situation calls for it.
I'm thinking of Youman Wilder, who intervened when ICE approached the kids at his youth baseball practice, "The only thing I had that day was ... my mother in my ear, the Constitution and prayer." And I'm thinking of congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh who has been tossed to the ground and hit repeatedly while protesting outside an ICE facility in Chicago. More of us will have the opportunity to put our bodies on the line more often.
Stay tuned on this front for my podcast arguing with Helen Andrews on her "Great Feminization" argument that women ruin these career fields when they enter. I'm told it drops Thursday.
It's possible I see the world differently than other people, but from a past comment from a reader on this substack, my habit of trading phone numbers with strangers I meet in public places and giving them my address and inviting them to dinner regularly may seem dangerous to some people.
I'm not seeking out gang members to invite to dinner, but we're not in a low crime city or neighborhood either. We've had dinner guests from different socioeconomic backgrounds and different countries (visiting or who immigrated). Some new guests are friends of friends and some were just people I met at the library. For me, it's a blessed and rewarding life and I don't have anxiety about it. God is in charge and we feel he called us to this lived hospitality.
This seems a feminine coded risk to me, extending hospitality despite potential risks. I don't have to lift anything heavier than a casserole dish! It's a great life my husband and I have.
I was one of the few male teachers in a high poverty middle school for two years. Over that time, I broke up 22 fights in the school. Moreover since then, I’ve had the opportunity to break up two high school fights on my street and one fight between adults on a bus. I did so without weapons or violence, simply my voice and physical presence (some grabbing).
As a teacher, we were officially told not to intervene in fights, but instead to call the police or a school resource officer. But I felt it much better to not wait for armed officers of the law when I could simply step up and separate the fighting parties right away.
Teaching can be a big one, even at a safer school. My husband and brother are both teachers, and have had to think very immediately about this during lockdowns with a possible real threat on campus.
One of my (female) middle school teachers had this experience when a reptile demonstration went a little awry, and she moved immediately to be between us and the snake (everyone was fine).
My favorite example in my life, outside of my husband, of men putting themselves at risk happened while white-water rafting more than 30 years ago. My group chose to continue on to the "dangerous part" of the route at the end, with much rougher water than the earlier parts. We were not super-experienced rafters. Our boat flipped and I was caught under it, disoriented and scared. I was rescued by four teenage boys who had decided to spend their Saturday hanging out in that area by the river, watching for people to help. I find that so heroic, and I'm forever grateful to them.
That's wonderful! In the annals of not dangerous but gentlemanly: one fall, when returning to college, my mom had hurt her back and couldn't move me in.
The men of my debating circle carried everything up to my room as a group.
Which reminds me of the time my friend lost her husband to Covid. They had a 10yo still at home. Our Catholic homeschooling community came together to support her. On the day she moved back closer to her family, some 30 people arrived to clean her house and load up her UHaul. There were way more men than women, and I was amazed at how quickly and well that truck was packed up. I was wiping bathroom counters and sweeping floors while these guys were plastic-wrapping, carrying, and packing in an entire house of furniture and belongings in a minimal amount of time.
Has anyone in this debate mended a roof recently? Or built a house? I could go on. The list of ordinary occupations that are dangerous without necessarily being coded as such is lengthy and of course male dominated. I wince when I hear/read middle class folks so quick to conclude that modern life offers little chance for men to demonstrate physical courage and resilience.
But many men in those dangerous trades hope their kids don't follow them! So it doesn't seem like it's valued heavily, even by the people doing it.
The issue is that there is lots of risk in many occupations that is invisible to folks who mostly earn their money by talking and writing. How much parents encourage their children into or out of those occupations is a separate issue. That’s usually about money and prospects. If those metrics are good dads will happily see their sons take risks.
A 2023 survey of skilled tradespeople (electricians, plumbers, welders, operating engineers, etc - they count as dangerous occupations!) found *94%* would encourage their children to follow them into their trade.
This is also born out by the many third or fourth gen union members I've anecdotally encountered.
I think plumber and roofer don't belong rolled up into the same category!
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/roofers-and-painters-had-highest-rates-of-nonfatal-falls-to-a-lower-level-in-2016.htm
"Roofers and painters were the most at risk to suffer nonfatal falls to a lower level in 2016. The rate for roofers was 86.9 cases per 10,000 full-time workers; the rate for painters was 75.0 cases per 10,000 full-time workers. Their rates far exceeded the rate for all workers combined of 5.1 cases per 10,000 full-time workers."
See also: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2022/04/13/falls-campaign-2022/
"Roofers accounted for 874 out of the 2,013 (43%) fatal falls in the construction sector between 2011 and 2017 (CPWR 2019) . Additionally, U.S. roofers had the highest risk of fatal falls with 36 deaths per 100,000 full time employees (FTEs), which was ten times greater than the rate of all other construction occupations in the U.S. combined (CPWR 2019)."
Definitely! One survey in Houston found that 22% of roofers were being trafficked, and child labor/exploitation nationwide is extremely prevalent in the industry.
But this gets to another aspect of all of this - like Simon says above, when there are solid wages, benefits, job protections, pathways to have a say in mitigating risk (unions), the dangerous jobs become both safer *and more appealing* despite them being more risky than an office job.
This is interesting, thank you! But am uneasy about this part: "Men are supposed to make their mark in the world, not just have the world make its mark on them. This requires some degree of legitimate autonomy and agency in order to be able to decisively act. It’s important for men’s autonomy not to be denigrated."
In what way is this at all specific to men? Everyone needs legitimate autonomy and agency. This is part of what makes a care ethics framework so powerful: it disassociates autonomy from independence. We all rely on others to different degrees for our survival and well-being, care ethics says, but we all deserve to be able to exercise (age-appropriate and ability-appropriate, of course) autonomy regardless of our dependency status. This includes children, disabled people, elderly people, and, as anti-speciesists argue, non-human animals.
I agree that this is not a need specific to men. I think that Leah is pointing it out because our current cultural moment is successfully emphasizing this need for women, children, people with disabilities, etc (or at least far more successfully than in the past century), but this often comes about by excluding or denigrating men. I.e: they've had their moments to make a mark on the world, but now it's everyone else's turn. But I think this leads to men being left out of the picture. So much of the messaging I received growing up was that I, as a woman, could do anything I want, could succeed at anything I set my mind to. But I think that message has left out men who often hear "you are responsible for all the oppression and ills of society," or "masculinity is 'toxic' and not welcome." I think this is why the Andrew Tate's have become so attractive for many young men. When we fail to celebrate truly virtuous masculinity, young men are left to turn to a paltry imitation of it or to reject it entirely. The message that everyone needs legitimate autonomy and agency is important, but that agency should be for everyone, including the men who have historically held it. Basically, we shouldn't put men down to raise everyone else up, and I believe many men feel that is what we've done.
Completely agree.
Another example of this I've seen is in the classroom. Boys used to be encouraged to raise their hands and take chances on getting the answer wrong; to come to the board to work a problem they might not fully understand; to run and roughhouse during recess. What I see in the classroom now is girls getting those messages, but not boys. I think it's partly a result of this messaging to men. Boys are now internalizing "sit down and shut up" and let the women run things. Girls are now more successful academically, more likely to go to college, and more comfortable in academic environments than boys: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/boys-are-falling-behind-girls-in-school-see-how/2025/01
What a wonderful conversation! Much wisdom on all sides.
I would add that the lack of need for men's appetite for physical risk in modern life is a function of institutionalized cowardice.
The liberation of Iraq in 2003 is important as a moment when the privileged nations chose to bring freedom to the less fortunate. The reaction against the liberation of Iraq is a function of privileged nations REALLY not wanting to admit that they're called to be brave.
I love this line "A hero is made by habit—consistently being willing to be interrupted, holding his strength in trust for others." But this is also where I find the whole conversation to be so fundamentally flawed. This is true for both men *and women*. Many women feel the call to vocations and the call to enter situations that are traditionally coded "male" and that carry some intrinsic bodily risk.
--
Ex: Reeves' flag about the firefighters who died on 9/11 being all men isn't about women being less willing to risk their lives or men being more willing, but simple stats: there were only 29 women firefighters in New York City on 9/11 - out of 11,000 firefighters in the city. That's down from the class of 40 women who were hired the first year women could be - in 1982(!!!). Why? Because of sustained harassment, discrimination, threats and violence. Other issues for women firefighters in the US: equipment that isn't designed for women's bodies and a lack of private or women's showers at stations.
I truly worry we're headed back in the direction of "well, why should we make it easier to be a woman firefighter - it's a man's profession" rather than the feminist, "of course we should do the obvious work of making this profession welcoming to people of all genders".
--
Right now the biggest invitation for bodily risk I'm seeing both men and women take is standing up to ICE. Imo being an *adult* - man, woman, otherwise - is about being willing to take a moral stand when the situation calls for it.
I'm thinking of Youman Wilder, who intervened when ICE approached the kids at his youth baseball practice, "The only thing I had that day was ... my mother in my ear, the Constitution and prayer." And I'm thinking of congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh who has been tossed to the ground and hit repeatedly while protesting outside an ICE facility in Chicago. More of us will have the opportunity to put our bodies on the line more often.
Stay tuned on this front for my podcast arguing with Helen Andrews on her "Great Feminization" argument that women ruin these career fields when they enter. I'm told it drops Thursday.