Author and consultant Boris von Heesen claims that Germany’s men are above all an expensive problem for society. a conversation
In Germany, about 95 percent of prison inmates are male. This is also due to deeply rooted role stereotypes, says Boris von Heesen.
Mr. von Heesen, you claim that men in Germany cause social damage of 63 billion euros a year. How do you come up with this sum?
There are 63 billion that Germany spends more on men than on women. The total is the cost of jail time, white-collar crime, theft, alcohol abuse, and all the other problem areas that statistically dominate men.
How does this imbalance come about?
Men and women are shaped by role stereotypes, and this manifests itself in certain behaviors. My thesis is that the stereotypes that define men—always strong, assertive, never cry—can lead to unhealthy behavior. For example, men have almost 80 percent of the points in Flensburg (The Federal Motor Transport Authority, which also keeps records of traffic offenses, is based in the northern German city; note i.e. editorial); in four out of five cases a man’s driver’s license is revoked. Biology just doesn’t suffice as an explanation. It is the social character: risky driving is a predominantly male phenomenon.
And if you were to dismantle this imprint, would German men have fewer points in Flensburg?
Indeed, there is even evidence that the imbalances then shift. In societies where there is a higher degree of gender equity, such differences are smaller. The measure is called the Gender Equality Index. It shows that in Sweden and Norway, for example, not only women but also men over the age of 65 have more symptom-free years of life. The gap to women in terms of life satisfaction and health is practically level there. It’s different in Germany, which is also related to the fact that the men here eat a comparatively unhealthy diet, exercise less or seek medical help less often.
Men also tend to go to extremes in a positive sense. Wouldn’t this side disappear if the social characteristics changed fundamentally?
I don’t think so at all.
Why?
Because it just doesn’t make sense to me why women can’t compose epochal symphonies or make world-changing inventions when gender-equitable structures prevail in a society.
Most heads of state are male, on average men work more than women, the greatest philanthropists in history are men.
Boris von Heesen takes a critical look at masculinity.
Altruism, political success, entrepreneurial success are not typically male outcomes. We only have to look at Finland or New Zealand to see that women can be very successful in politics.
As successful as Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Bill Gates?
Wealth is a male phenomenon, true. At the top of companies there are patriarchal structures that make it easier for men to get ahead because it is more natural. In addition, many large companies not only produce profits, they also behave unethically.
In your book “What men cost: the high price of patriarchy”, you write that the so-called cum-ex tax scandal is “a symbol of male dominance in white-collar crime”. Why?
More than three quarters of all suspects in white-collar crime are men. The Wirecard case and the Cum-Ex scandal were committed by men. Interestingly, women at Cum-Ex provided clarification, a clerk at the Federal Central Tax Office and the editor-in-chief of “Correctiv”. When I see how blatantly white-collar crime is dominated by men, I say: With more women in positions of responsibility there would not have been a cum-ex scandal. And as I said, that’s just one area. Prison stays, thefts, traffic accidents, drug and gambling addictions, unhealthy eating: German men dominate wherever society has problems and they cause enormous costs.
If you do the math like this, you would have to say that women live longer, which costs the pension systems more.
I find that cynical, it’s not about social undesirable developments, but about what we all want: to have a few healthy and happy years after retirement.
Men enrich society in many ways. They are more likely to face dangers, are firefighters, police officers, lifeguards. Why are you ignoring this side of the coin?
Without the patriarchal structures, many more women would be police officers and lifeguards! I don’t ignore the other side of the coin, on the contrary. But it makes no sense to offset the social damage from which individuals ultimately suffer against supposed male achievements. There is a social problem and we have to get to it.
Then specifically: How do you want to overcome patriarchy?
A first step would be for the authorities to explicitly report the figures I am drawing attention to. A second step would be to break down the role stereotypes mentioned – in kindergartens, schools and youth welfare offices. It’s still the case that many kindergartens have a doll corner there, and that’s where the girls go. And there, the modular corner, that’s for the boys. Then you need to raise awareness of the power of the media, especially social networks. If you look at the major social media platforms, you see this rigid image of femininity and masculinity everywhere.
But everyone can post whatever they want. Do you want to regulate the platforms in a gender-sensitive way?
No, absolutely not. But it’s important to talk to young people about it so that it doesn’t just sweep over them as uncommented manipulation. Not only boys and men cause follow-up costs for everyone through unhealthy gender behavior. There is the term “beauty action”. What is meant is the pressure that girls and women feel when they emulate ideals of beauty in order to please others. Thousands of operations are performed every year because tendons are shortened or feet are deformed – due to high-heeled shoes.
Will this be your next book?
I care about critical masculinity. Someone else needs to investigate that.
The Men’s Counselor
Boris von Heesen, born in 1969, studied economics and works as a consultant for men and boys. For his book “What men cost: the high price of patriarchy” he was criticized as vigorously as he was praised.