A few weeks ago the Economist had a really sad article(http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21652323-blue-collar-men-rich-countries-are-trouble-they-must-learn-adapt-weaker-sex) indicating men were now the weaker sex . They focussed particularly on low income men who were unemployed and at the bottom of the ladder. These men are not attractive to women so they get bi passed. They are probably the most angry. Higher income groups there is a more sharing responsibilities than at the lower end. As women become more able to get jobs what does she need a man for in his traditional view?
Numbers however are showing up that men are getting more involved in helping to run the domestic end of the family, not just carrying out the wife’s list but using their own initiative in making the house run smoothly.
There are implications for the kids in the se households that will benefit. On the sons side they will see dad as more available and around so there wont be the traditional separation that happens when the boy only sees dad at weekends. When that happens he gets aligned with mother. Probably feels some rejection and bitterness not getting the male support and he will grow up needy around women For the girl she gets a new role model that gives her confidence that there is a place for women in executive positions.
The shift then has to be that it is OK for her to make money he will not feel emasculated if she brings home more bucks than he does. Being ashamed of not fulfilling the traditional role is a big deal.
So if there is more a man can do he needs to ask himself what is holding him back?