At the risk of sounding contrary, I think women's identity crisis is more profound than men's. Men only have to look to the UN to understand their role (he for she). We constantly remind men of their obligation to serve society, provide resources and protection to women... and lay down their lives when necessary in dangerous jobs or on the battlefield. Men are acutely aware of their role every time they are taxed and the money is spent on endless programs to help and support women.

Men's role has always been adaptable - from hunting wild boar to building canals to programming software....... it's all the same basic role, to create and maintain the infrastructure and ensure women and children are provided for and protected from the harshness of nature.

Women's role used to be managing the household, and having and raising the children. The home/ garden/ allotment/ farm was itself a business enterprise and she was the boss. Her role was to manage the day to day running of this enterprise, with children by her side.

Feminism's clever trick was to reframe women's BOREDOM at home resulting from new labour saving technology (mod cons) as OPPRESSION. Had 20th century women stayed true to their identity and used their imagination they could have reinvented themselves as homemakers to the whole community, organising parks, home schooling, social projects (housing the homeless, feeding the poor etc). This would have reduced the role of government until it effectively disappeared, and this would have kept the relationship (partnership) between men and women healthy and productive as a BINARY relationship without state interference (they say three's a crowd).

I would argue that it's because of women's diminished role (essentially caricaturing men in the office 9-5) that so many women cannot assert their unique value as women, and so have to assert themselves through eternal victimhood instead.

The lie of feminism was that women's traditional (ie natural) role as mother and homemaker was (a) demeaning (b) oppression (c) unnecessary. The equivalent of women abandoning children to 'daycare' and pursuing 9-5 jobs would be men abandoning the power stations and construction sites.

Sure things would tick along for a while, but eventually the bridges would all rust and collapse, the roads would be full of potholes and the gas and oil stocks would run out. This is what we are now seeing with children's mental health in state schools and day care.

While not every woman needs to have children (just as not every man needs to maintain the infrastructure) those that do need to take care of them properly. That means stay at home motherhood and home schooling at the very least. But to point out women's unique and important (vital) role in raising children and passing on cultural/ moral values from one generation to the next is now regarded as backward, far right, misogyny.

So women cannot have an identity or a unique sense of value, because that is a violation of progressive ideology. Women's only permissible identity is to keep pushing for perpetual revolution, liberation and empowerment.. which will come in the form of artificial wombs (only 10-20 years away) which will be the new fridges and vacuum cleaners. This will further diminish women's role and induce even more depression and lack of self worth..... prompting more feminism... and on and on it goes.

I think men are not suffering an identity crisis, so much as a 'what's the point?' crisis. We demand just as much from men as we always have but without any gratitude or respect or support. Even making men a lousy sandwich for their efforts is regarded as too much gratitude. Men are expected to provide for women and children (as always) but without necessarily benefitting from having a loving wife and children as a reward and a motivation.