Pauline GrosjeanGuestTim PhillipsHostPauline, what do we actually mean by masculinity norms? Are we talking about something that's different to the gender role norms that we often discuss?

Masculinity norms are specifically the social expectations about how men should behave, and when I say this, it's really more colloquially known as how real men should behave.

And so they're separate from expectations about what men should do relative to women, which is what economists have studied until now.

What economists have studied until now is really about gender role norms, so what men and women should do relative to one another.

So men should work and women should stay at home, or women should take care of the household and children and men should hang out with friends more or something like this.

So the difference here is that the gender roles are always defining men relative to women.

Whereas the social expectations about how men should behave, it includes how men should behave relative to women or about women or what they should do to women, but it also essentially consists a lot on how men should behave relative to one another, right? So what defines a real man is not so much what they do relative to what a woman is doing because it's a done deal, you know, being a real man compared to a woman.

Right? What defines whether you're a real man is how you act compared to other men and your standing in the hierarchy of men.
Well, this is something that outside economics we're talking about a great deal at the moment with, uh, all the controversy around the manosphere.
In economics however, why has there not been more attention given to these masculinity norms?

Economics took a long time to look at culture per se, and it's really the allegory of the fish in the water.

You know, someone asks the fish, "How's the water, guys?" And the fish go like, "What the heck is water?"

Culture determines our behavior, conditions our behavior, but we don't see it.

Economists really started studying the gender role norms that we were talking about in the context of gender gaps, and in this context we noticed inequalities between men and women, but the thing to be explained for our economies was really what women were doing, and men were always considered the default economic agent.

You know, and now I think we're understanding that men also respond to social imperatives and social norms.

It took a long time because men were just considered as a default and also the rational agent that models were considering.
Pauline, what do we actually mean by masculinity norms? Are we talking about something that's different to the gender role norms that we often discuss?

Masculinity norms are specifically the social expectations about how men should behave, and when I say this, it's really more colloquially known as how real men should behave.

And so they're separate from expectations about what men should do relative to women, which is what economists have studied until now.

What economists have studied until now is really about gender role norms, so what men and women should do relative to one another.

So men should work and women should stay at home, or women should take care of the household and children and men should hang out with friends more or something like this.

So the difference here is that the gender roles are always defining men relative to women.

Whereas the social expectations about how men should behave, it includes how men should behave relative to women or about women or what they should do to women, but it also essentially consists a lot on how men should behave relative to one another, right? So what defines a real man is not so much what they do relative to what a woman is doing because it's a done deal, you know, being a real man compared to a woman.

Right? What defines whether you're a real man is how you act compared to other men and your standing in the hierarchy of men.
Well, this is something that outside economics we're talking about a great deal at the moment with, uh, all the controversy around the manosphere.
In economics however, why has there not been more attention given to these masculinity norms?

Economics took a long time to look at culture per se, and it's really the allegory of the fish in the water.

You know, someone asks the fish, "How's the water, guys?" And the fish go like, "What the heck is water?"

Culture determines our behavior, conditions our behavior, but we don't see it.

Economists really started studying the gender role norms that we were talking about in the context of gender gaps, and in this context we noticed inequalities between men and women, but the thing to be explained for our economies was really what women were doing, and men were always considered the default economic agent.

You know, and now I think we're understanding that men also respond to social imperatives and social norms.

It took a long time because men were just considered as a default and also the rational agent that models were considering.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.