by zahlman | 2025-09-18 14:32:47+00:00
The title is admittedly not great, and this is clearly a bit of political punditry and not any kind of "news". I absolutely understand why it got flagged. But I vouched for it because it's still Krugman, saying reasonable things in ways that would be well within HN guidelines if posted in comments, in apparent good faith.

That said, I think he is very wrong, and I'm puzzled as to how he starts with the premises and apparent empathy that he does while coming to those conclusions. Editing it down to the crux:

> ... the problem of white male grievance is not going away. Democrats must embrace proposals that would help makes men’s lives better. What would a real solution to men’s economic problems look like? It wouldn’t involve trying to recreate an imaginary past when men had manly jobs and women knew their place. What we can do is help men to take [jobs in] health, education, administration and literacy. Many of these occupations are female-coded and have become more so over time, partly because they’re underpaid. But they don’t have to be.... And we can help attract men into these occupations in part by increasing [salaries]...

First off, this is not about race, and Krugman knows it is not about race, because every argument he makes ignores race, and so does every piece of evidence he brings. Bringing race into it serves to reinforce a narrative that associates "American" with "white" and "immigrant" (especially illegal ones) with "not-white" and imply that right-wingers speak in code along those lines. This is an underhanded rhetorical technique, where intentional, and if Krugman is not doing it intentionally I think he really ought to know better.

Second, "women knowing their place" has nothing to do with it. Pointing out the second-order societal consequences (which Krugman acknowledges) of gender equality is not calling for it to be reverted.

Third and most importantly: yes, you absolutely can bring back "manly" jobs (by which Krugman mainly seems to mean manufacturing). As long as there are physical goods, there will be manufacturing. As long as resources are required, there will be resource extraction. Turning away from oil and drilling doesn't mean turning away from energy use (and there are any number of other useful things to mine). Solar panels need to be manufactured to be used. Electricity has to get used for something. If you want to bring in immigrants, surely you also want housing to exist for them? That housing has to be constructed. The notion that we have to abandon this market sector sounds to me a lot like the "degrowth" mindset, which is strange coming from Krugman, an economist.

Sure, technology is obviating a lot of jobs traditionally done by men. It's also creating jobs predominantly done by men. The printing press, steam engine, cotton gin, combine tractor etc. all didn't kill traditional masculinity, so why should computers and robots? The problem is that there's a culture that refuses to let anything positive or valuable become too "male-coded" (Krugman's term) lest that be lorded over everyone as evidence of male supremacy (at least, is the only motive I can understand). Which is how you get the persecution of James Damore or anyone else who defends the notion that a male-dominated workplace might not be evidence of a moral fault of the company.

Finally: speaking of gender stereotyping, you can't just make men want those jobs by making them higher paid. (I also wonder exactly how Krugman, an economist, proposes to do that, that wouldn't be counterproductive to the goal of allowing more men to do them.) In my opinion, creating that kind of market distortion would have the opposite effect in the current political climate, actually. It would come across as trying to favour women (who already have most of those jobs) over men even more.

Maybe it's not the greatest idea to associate traditional masculinity with physical toil and anti-intellectualism, either. (I wonder how masculine Krugman's self-perception is?)

If you want young men to see education as appealing, then you need to do something about the horrible stereotypes that go around about male educators, especially for the tiny minority of them in early childhood education. If you want them to see administration as appealing, then you need to do something about the perception of HR departments.

And if you want them to "provide the kind of care we traditionally associate with nurses", then you need to understand that if your idea of "traditional" goes back further than the 50s and 60s that people keep insisting the Republicans want to go back to, this is generally physically impossible (https://www.etymonline.com/word/nurse). Yes, yes, I know what Krugman means, but that's the point. Call them "doctor". Call the existing RNs doctors too. Or invent something else that accurately describes the role. But if you want cisgender men with traditional values to feel like they're doing something that men have social license to do, don't use a word for it that has since time immemorial been associated with breastfeeding.