What do you think?
Rate this book
Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It
"A landmark, one of the most important books of the year" - David Brooks, New York Times“Real, practical, solutions to create a world that would be better for all of us, across the gender spectrum." — Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO, New America and author of Unfinished Women Men Work Family A positive vision for masculinity in more equal world. Boys and men are struggling. Profound economic and social changes of recent decades have many losing ground in the classroom, the workplace, and in the family. While the lives of women have changed, the lives of many men have remained the same or even worsened. Our attitudes, our institutions, and our laws have failed to keep up. Conservative and progressive politicians, mired in their own ideological warfare, fail to provide thoughtful solutions. The father of three sons, a journalist, and a Brookings Institution scholar, Richard V. Reeves has spent twenty-five years worrying about boys both at home and work. His new book, Of Boys and Men, tackles the complex and urgent crisis of boyhood and manhood. Reeves looks at the structural challenges that face boys and men and offers fresh and innovative solutions that turn the page on the corrosive narrative that plagues this issue. Of Boys and Men argues that helping the other half of society does not mean giving up on the ideal of gender equality.
298 pages, Hardcover
First published September 27, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 744 reviews
Read
November 1, 2023I have thought about reading one of these mens’ rights books for years. My instinct is to dismiss them, but then I’ve always prided myself on being someone who is open to at least hearing differing viewpoints.
And, to be honest, I am a bit worried about what is going on with guys these days. I think we are getting to the point where we cannot continue ignoring the increasing number of boys being radicalised online and turning into Incels. Laura Bates (Men Who Hate Women) convinced me we should be concerned, and I am. While Incels are trash, I am inclined to think this is a mental health crisis playing out in the worst way. I don’t think it’s enough to call them losers and forget about them; I think they are a real problem. Plus, I have three sons and want a good world for them.
It’s hard to find sympathy for some of this, though. It’s really hard. Basically… men have spent centuries barring women from education because we are just less intelligent, our brains are just not suited to critical thinking, we should leave the learning to the men… and now that they’ve let us in, it turns out girls are outperforming boys at every level of education. We are better at the system men built. I mean… it’s hard to feel bad. But I will try.
I agree with a number of things Reeves says.
I agree that we are actively getting more women into traditionally male-dominated roles, but not balancing that with more men in traditionally female-dominated caregiving roles. Though I also believe this is because we still perceive the feminine as weak and lesser, so a woman becoming more stereotypically masculine is bettering herself, but a man taking on a stereotypically feminine role is lessening himself.
Reeves also makes a big deal out of the fact that boys seem to respect male role models more than female ones, whereas the sex of a role model doesn’t seem to matter for girls— which he seems to take as a sign that we need to get boys more male role models, not that we need to teach them to have more respect for women.
I agree that this intersects with a class issue. Upper middle class men are doing just fine— indeed, Reeves states himself that 97% of venture capital goes to male founders —but it is men at the bottom of the social order who are struggling. This is largely because the jobs they traditionally filled are now being replaced by robots. I think boys need to be prepped from a young age to deal with this changing labour market. I have a thought— and this is just observational as someone who grew up working class but would now likely be considered middle class—that it seems it is mostly working class communities who are obsessed with traditional masculinity. I see it less amongst middle and upper middle class men.
Though Reeves doesn’t acknowledge this, one of my biggest takeaways from the numbers he gave is not the rise in women’s position compared to working class men, but the extravagant (and growing) wealth of the richest men compared to the poorest. It’s hard to look at these numbers and see anything other than the rich man keeping the poor man down.
In Part III: Biology and Culture, Reeves makes a lot of arguments that I just saw very effectively dismantled in Delusions of Gender, and this is also the part of the book that I think weakens his argument the most. It is the part where I started to think that Reeves has not fully organised his own beliefs on the definition of masculinity, the role of men, and the importance of biology. His thoughts on biology are along the lines of “there are biological differences between the sexes, not too much difference and they overlap, but still very important differences like men are less nurturing and more aggressive and lustful.” (not a direct quote)
He spends some time on the impact of culture on sex differences, even mentioning the studies that have suggested cultural roles create brain differences, not the other way around (if you’ve got some time, I recommend researching this because it is fascinating stuff), but defaults back to the fundamental differences argument. Despite providing strong arguments to the contrary, he is reluctant to let go of his insistence on the importance of innate neurological differences.
His marriage to neurological differences is at odds with some of his progressive policies. Men are naturally more aggressive and sexual, but let’s put more in charge of our young kids. Men are less nurturing, less likely to prioritise caregiving, but let’s give them equal paternity leave and get more into teaching roles.
I mean: which is it? Are men beholden to their aggressive biology, or should we expect them to adapt to caregiving roles in the workplace and at home? Personally, I think it’s the second, but Reeves spends a lot of this book emphasising the importance of biological differences.
Like too many men I have read, he seems to want sex differences to be immutable when it suits his argument, but flexible when it does not. Ambition, for example, has long been considered a male trait, but now Reeves says of girls “their appetite for success is just higher”.
He also, like Hans Rosling (his self-described “hero”), carefully emphasises the importance of numbers that support his argument while downplaying others. “Strikingly” is used to describe “the proportion of girls versus boys getting high grades” which is 47% vs 32%. Then a couple paragraphs later he admits that boys still score higher on standardised tests but he dismisses this with “But this gap has narrowed sharply”.
Similarly, he says “three in ten wives now out-earn their husbands, twice as many as in 1981” like this is supposed to be a shockingly large amount. That’s seven out of ten husbands still out-earning wives— hardly reason to panic we’ve gone too far in the other direction.
While he insists he does not want to reverse the gains of women, Reeves is happy to quote misogynists (Case & Deaton) and patriarchy-deniers (Dench) when they say things he likes. He finishes one section with this: “The economic reliance of women on men held women down, but it also propped men up. Now the props have gone, and many men are falling.” I can’t believe I have to say this in 2023, but women are not your props.
My personal opinion, both as someone who has read quite widely on this and as a mother, is that the real change needs to happen in the nursery and preschools. Raise kind, sensitive boys who people will want as a partner. Sure, give them legos and tool kits, but give them drama classes, for example, to encourage interpersonal skills— which will be way more valuable in the changing labour market. And talk to them! Studies have shown that mums talk to boy babies less than girl babies (but of course men are less talkative because they’re biologically programmed that way).
Reeves says:
and
That use of “no, not seventeen years— seventeen months!” is very Hans Rosling-style. It implies, of course, that seventeen month olds are so young that they cannot possibly be exposed to culture and stereotypes (and this is a man who has kids?) Let me tell you as a parent— a LOT has happened with development by seventeen months. My youngest is currently eleven months and he already has a personality of his own. 1 year olds are absolutely picking up on gender cues all the time and it took me becoming a parent to really appreciate the sheer amount they are exposed to. The subliminal messaging goes way beyond pink princesses and blue trucks.
On the lookout for more gender-neutral clothes for my babies, I was thinking that animals would be a safe bet. Animals aren’t gendered, right? Everyone likes animals. But just go take a look at the difference between animal themed clothing in the “Boys” and “Girls” sections. We dress our newborn girls in cute kitties, puppies and bunnies— the kind of animals you keep as pets. And our boys? Tigers, crocodiles and dinosaurs. How can anyone dress a newborn boy in predators and not for one second question that boys are “naturally more aggressive”?
I am all for equal paternity leave, getting boys into caregiving careers and changing the way we see mum as the default parent. Reeves sees this latter issue as being one of dads being barred from parenting, sometimes by a gatekeeper mother when the parents are separated, but that doesn’t reflect the experiences of any of the women I know. All I ever hear from other women— together or separated —is about how little fathers are willing to do.
I am less convinced by Reeves’ argument to hold all boys back a year and start school later than girls. I think if everything else he suggested is achieved, that would not be necessary. Though I am not strongly opposed either.
So I don’t agree with all Reeves’ arguments, but I do agree there is a problem. I think it starts from birth with boys being immersed in a culture that tells them they are more aggressive, more into building things than people. In a world where, as Reeves puts it, women increasingly don’t need men, they have no reason to stay with an aggressive partner or one who puts tinkering with his toys before the kids. Women have spent a couple centuries defying the cultural stereotypes assigned to them; it is my belief men can do the same if we stop telling them these stereotypes are natural or desirable.
And, to be honest, I am a bit worried about what is going on with guys these days. I think we are getting to the point where we cannot continue ignoring the increasing number of boys being radicalised online and turning into Incels. Laura Bates (Men Who Hate Women) convinced me we should be concerned, and I am. While Incels are trash, I am inclined to think this is a mental health crisis playing out in the worst way. I don’t think it’s enough to call them losers and forget about them; I think they are a real problem. Plus, I have three sons and want a good world for them.
It’s hard to find sympathy for some of this, though. It’s really hard. Basically… men have spent centuries barring women from education because we are just less intelligent, our brains are just not suited to critical thinking, we should leave the learning to the men… and now that they’ve let us in, it turns out girls are outperforming boys at every level of education. We are better at the system men built. I mean… it’s hard to feel bad. But I will try.
I agree with a number of things Reeves says.
I agree that we are actively getting more women into traditionally male-dominated roles, but not balancing that with more men in traditionally female-dominated caregiving roles. Though I also believe this is because we still perceive the feminine as weak and lesser, so a woman becoming more stereotypically masculine is bettering herself, but a man taking on a stereotypically feminine role is lessening himself.
Reeves also makes a big deal out of the fact that boys seem to respect male role models more than female ones, whereas the sex of a role model doesn’t seem to matter for girls— which he seems to take as a sign that we need to get boys more male role models, not that we need to teach them to have more respect for women.
I agree that this intersects with a class issue. Upper middle class men are doing just fine— indeed, Reeves states himself that 97% of venture capital goes to male founders —but it is men at the bottom of the social order who are struggling. This is largely because the jobs they traditionally filled are now being replaced by robots. I think boys need to be prepped from a young age to deal with this changing labour market. I have a thought— and this is just observational as someone who grew up working class but would now likely be considered middle class—that it seems it is mostly working class communities who are obsessed with traditional masculinity. I see it less amongst middle and upper middle class men.
Though Reeves doesn’t acknowledge this, one of my biggest takeaways from the numbers he gave is not the rise in women’s position compared to working class men, but the extravagant (and growing) wealth of the richest men compared to the poorest. It’s hard to look at these numbers and see anything other than the rich man keeping the poor man down.
In Part III: Biology and Culture, Reeves makes a lot of arguments that I just saw very effectively dismantled in Delusions of Gender, and this is also the part of the book that I think weakens his argument the most. It is the part where I started to think that Reeves has not fully organised his own beliefs on the definition of masculinity, the role of men, and the importance of biology. His thoughts on biology are along the lines of “there are biological differences between the sexes, not too much difference and they overlap, but still very important differences like men are less nurturing and more aggressive and lustful.” (not a direct quote)
He spends some time on the impact of culture on sex differences, even mentioning the studies that have suggested cultural roles create brain differences, not the other way around (if you’ve got some time, I recommend researching this because it is fascinating stuff), but defaults back to the fundamental differences argument. Despite providing strong arguments to the contrary, he is reluctant to let go of his insistence on the importance of innate neurological differences.
His marriage to neurological differences is at odds with some of his progressive policies. Men are naturally more aggressive and sexual, but let’s put more in charge of our young kids. Men are less nurturing, less likely to prioritise caregiving, but let’s give them equal paternity leave and get more into teaching roles.
I mean: which is it? Are men beholden to their aggressive biology, or should we expect them to adapt to caregiving roles in the workplace and at home? Personally, I think it’s the second, but Reeves spends a lot of this book emphasising the importance of biological differences.
Like too many men I have read, he seems to want sex differences to be immutable when it suits his argument, but flexible when it does not. Ambition, for example, has long been considered a male trait, but now Reeves says of girls “their appetite for success is just higher”.
He also, like Hans Rosling (his self-described “hero”), carefully emphasises the importance of numbers that support his argument while downplaying others. “Strikingly” is used to describe “the proportion of girls versus boys getting high grades” which is 47% vs 32%. Then a couple paragraphs later he admits that boys still score higher on standardised tests but he dismisses this with “But this gap has narrowed sharply”.
Similarly, he says “three in ten wives now out-earn their husbands, twice as many as in 1981” like this is supposed to be a shockingly large amount. That’s seven out of ten husbands still out-earning wives— hardly reason to panic we’ve gone too far in the other direction.
While he insists he does not want to reverse the gains of women, Reeves is happy to quote misogynists (Case & Deaton) and patriarchy-deniers (Dench) when they say things he likes. He finishes one section with this: “The economic reliance of women on men held women down, but it also propped men up. Now the props have gone, and many men are falling.” I can’t believe I have to say this in 2023, but women are not your props.
My personal opinion, both as someone who has read quite widely on this and as a mother, is that the real change needs to happen in the nursery and preschools. Raise kind, sensitive boys who people will want as a partner. Sure, give them legos and tool kits, but give them drama classes, for example, to encourage interpersonal skills— which will be way more valuable in the changing labour market. And talk to them! Studies have shown that mums talk to boy babies less than girl babies (but of course men are less talkative because they’re biologically programmed that way).
Reeves says:
“Boys are five times more likely than girls to be frequently aggressive by the age of seventeen—seventeen months, that is.”
and
“Remember, boys under the age of 2 are five times more likely to be aggressive than girls. This is surely not because 1-year-olds have picked up gender cues from around them.”
That use of “no, not seventeen years— seventeen months!” is very Hans Rosling-style. It implies, of course, that seventeen month olds are so young that they cannot possibly be exposed to culture and stereotypes (and this is a man who has kids?) Let me tell you as a parent— a LOT has happened with development by seventeen months. My youngest is currently eleven months and he already has a personality of his own. 1 year olds are absolutely picking up on gender cues all the time and it took me becoming a parent to really appreciate the sheer amount they are exposed to. The subliminal messaging goes way beyond pink princesses and blue trucks.
On the lookout for more gender-neutral clothes for my babies, I was thinking that animals would be a safe bet. Animals aren’t gendered, right? Everyone likes animals. But just go take a look at the difference between animal themed clothing in the “Boys” and “Girls” sections. We dress our newborn girls in cute kitties, puppies and bunnies— the kind of animals you keep as pets. And our boys? Tigers, crocodiles and dinosaurs. How can anyone dress a newborn boy in predators and not for one second question that boys are “naturally more aggressive”?
I am all for equal paternity leave, getting boys into caregiving careers and changing the way we see mum as the default parent. Reeves sees this latter issue as being one of dads being barred from parenting, sometimes by a gatekeeper mother when the parents are separated, but that doesn’t reflect the experiences of any of the women I know. All I ever hear from other women— together or separated —is about how little fathers are willing to do.
I am less convinced by Reeves’ argument to hold all boys back a year and start school later than girls. I think if everything else he suggested is achieved, that would not be necessary. Though I am not strongly opposed either.
So I don’t agree with all Reeves’ arguments, but I do agree there is a problem. I think it starts from birth with boys being immersed in a culture that tells them they are more aggressive, more into building things than people. In a world where, as Reeves puts it, women increasingly don’t need men, they have no reason to stay with an aggressive partner or one who puts tinkering with his toys before the kids. Women have spent a couple centuries defying the cultural stereotypes assigned to them; it is my belief men can do the same if we stop telling them these stereotypes are natural or desirable.
October 22, 2022
I am very interested in this subject and pre-ordered a copy of the book after reading an excerpt in The Atlantic. I want to understand the "angry male" dynamic that seems to define our political conflicts and drive men and boys to extreme violence in a way that seems like a new phenomenon. Mass shootings used to be extremely rare, and now they are not only commonplace but seem to be undertaken by the same type of man. I know more people with "weird" teenaged and 20-something sons than those with seemingly functional sons. By weird I mean that they don't seem to be able to hold conversations or make friends; they lack interest in school and motivation to leave their parents' homes; they choose isolation over opportunities for togetherness. I want to understand the factors that are driving that behavior so we can create solutions.
This book couldn't deliver on that (and maybe it wasn't intended to). I support his recommendation to postpone boys' start in school to allow them more opportunities to thrive. I've seen this work in my own family. I also agree to more attention and support needs to be given to black males as our racist structures put them at a significant disadvantage.
The author spends ample time explaining how current programs designed to benefit both males and females (i.e. free college, job training, etc.) have shown tremendous improvements for women and girls but not for men and boys. He also points out the anecdotal and scholarly research on differences in ambition and motivation between males and females and says repeatedly that the reason for this is a mystery. But his proposed solutions are more programs designed to support boys and men without explaining how to solve the lack of ambition, interest and motivation. How are the programs he's proposing different than those that are failing men today? Is society failing men or are men failing to support the rest of society?
I acknowledge that there is a problem and hope there is a solution, but I didn't see it in this book. Men have always had and still have more power than women (at least white men do). And the author does acknowledge that these men created the structures that are now allowing women to catch up to them. But it appears that men have dealt themselves all of the cards and still can't win the game, so they've stopped playing. I wanted this book to show me that wasn't true, but it did more to reinforce that belief than dispel it, unfortunately.
The author mentions his sons throughout, which is nice. He implied that he was raising them to be good partners, parents and productive members of society, but never got into specifics on how to do that effectively and I think that's a huge part of what we're lacking. How are boys learning compassion and caring for others? Who is teaching them to be good partners who value equity in relationships? Who is showing them the true value of an education and to take pride in their abilities and contributions? We can create programs to benefit men but they have to do the work, and I think the author would agree that they're not today.
This book couldn't deliver on that (and maybe it wasn't intended to). I support his recommendation to postpone boys' start in school to allow them more opportunities to thrive. I've seen this work in my own family. I also agree to more attention and support needs to be given to black males as our racist structures put them at a significant disadvantage.
The author spends ample time explaining how current programs designed to benefit both males and females (i.e. free college, job training, etc.) have shown tremendous improvements for women and girls but not for men and boys. He also points out the anecdotal and scholarly research on differences in ambition and motivation between males and females and says repeatedly that the reason for this is a mystery. But his proposed solutions are more programs designed to support boys and men without explaining how to solve the lack of ambition, interest and motivation. How are the programs he's proposing different than those that are failing men today? Is society failing men or are men failing to support the rest of society?
I acknowledge that there is a problem and hope there is a solution, but I didn't see it in this book. Men have always had and still have more power than women (at least white men do). And the author does acknowledge that these men created the structures that are now allowing women to catch up to them. But it appears that men have dealt themselves all of the cards and still can't win the game, so they've stopped playing. I wanted this book to show me that wasn't true, but it did more to reinforce that belief than dispel it, unfortunately.
The author mentions his sons throughout, which is nice. He implied that he was raising them to be good partners, parents and productive members of society, but never got into specifics on how to do that effectively and I think that's a huge part of what we're lacking. How are boys learning compassion and caring for others? Who is teaching them to be good partners who value equity in relationships? Who is showing them the true value of an education and to take pride in their abilities and contributions? We can create programs to benefit men but they have to do the work, and I think the author would agree that they're not today.
September 13, 2023
This was a really frustrating read. While the author’s observations are no doubt valid, he spends WAY too much time detailing the maladies of men and boys, as well as all the initiatives that have failed to help them, without adequately addressing the wooly mammoth in the room: WHY??
The author starts by asserting that men and boys are aimless, depressed, and generally lacking in ambition. They don’t set goals the way women do, and they don’t go after markers of success the way their fathers and grandfathers did. The author asks “why” fairly often, but he never comes up with an answer. The only explanation he offers—repeatedly, and throughout the book—is “we don’t know.” He theorizes that the core problem might be the lack of a coherent identity: men don’t know who they are when women don’t need them. This makes sense until you consider his next observation: women have expanded their role to include BOTH caregiver and breadwinner. Why can’t men do the same?
The author details the countless programs that have failed to help men, while also acknowledging that women have taken advantage of those same programs and soared. He then discounts the gender pay gap by pointing out that women make the same amount of money as men when they do the same work as men in the same way, but he fails to realize that the same argument could be made in response to his book (I.e., men could be just as successful as women if they would go after success the same way women do). Lastly, he offers his own solutions, mainly redshirting boys and pushing more men into HEAL professions, despite admitting that he still doesn��t understand the problem. What makes him think that these proposals will change anything? At best, they’re band-aids covering up old wounds.
The fundamental problem with this book (and the whole discussion in general) is that no one understands the root cause of men’s malaise, which means that all solutions (including the author’s) are just guesses. Imagine trying to solve the thalidomide crisis without uncovering the role of thalidomide. You could read pages upon pages of data about limb deformities. You could study what pregnant mothers ate and how they lived and whether they had supportive partners. You could review historical records that would prove such deformities are growing exponentially. But until you pinpointed the cause—a toxic drug circulating in the wombs of pregnant mothers—you’d never be able to fix it. Until we figure out WHY men are unmoored, we will never achieve a workable HOW when it comes to helping them.
For what it’s worth, I have my own theory about why men are struggling. Years ago, I read an article about “Cardboard Man and Plastic Woman” that explained why so many men slipped into permanent unemployment during the 2008 economic downturn. Men tend to be linear and inflexible in their thinking: once they achieve mastery in a certain field, they don’t want to re-invent themselves. They’d rather be unemployed than start over at the bottom of the ladder. Women, on the other hand, tend to be cyclical and flexible: they understand that they will have to start over many times, and this will require humility while they learn a new set of skills. This stems in part from women’s greater participation in child rearing, which is a field you never quite master, and one that requires constant re-invention.
Men are struggling because they are not wired to be flexible. They are wired to be rigid and to seek status by dominating the field. This worked for them when the world was rigid and the number of competitors was artificially limited; but now the world has changed, and men must change, too. This is asking a lot, especially since embracing change runs counter to their natural wiring. But change they can, and change they must, if they want to catch up. The genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of far-right wishcasting is going to return us to the 1950s.
What men need is time and permission to grieve their loss, as well as a robust national conversation about how to modernize masculinity. They also need to figure out a way to make their biology work for them, rather than against them. Ideally, the national conversation would recast men as flexible providers who are strong enough to adapt under any and all circumstances. With this new definition, they could harness their natural urge to dominate by expanding the concept of “field” to include both work AND home. They could also reframe the concept of “dominance” to be cyclical, rather than linear. They already know how to do this—this is how sports work. The Packers aren’t permanent champions just because they win one Super Bowl. They have to start over with everyone else in the fall.
If men could rewire themselves in this way, I have no doubt that they could be just as successful as women, as well as more fulfilled than any previous generation of men. This would also make them more attractive to a greater number of partners, both male and female. Everyone wants an enthusiastic, capable co-captain who is willing to do whatever it takes to move the ball down the field. Women are only playing by themselves because men are sitting on the sidelines. The moment men get in the game, everybody wins.
The author starts by asserting that men and boys are aimless, depressed, and generally lacking in ambition. They don’t set goals the way women do, and they don’t go after markers of success the way their fathers and grandfathers did. The author asks “why” fairly often, but he never comes up with an answer. The only explanation he offers—repeatedly, and throughout the book—is “we don’t know.” He theorizes that the core problem might be the lack of a coherent identity: men don’t know who they are when women don’t need them. This makes sense until you consider his next observation: women have expanded their role to include BOTH caregiver and breadwinner. Why can’t men do the same?
The author details the countless programs that have failed to help men, while also acknowledging that women have taken advantage of those same programs and soared. He then discounts the gender pay gap by pointing out that women make the same amount of money as men when they do the same work as men in the same way, but he fails to realize that the same argument could be made in response to his book (I.e., men could be just as successful as women if they would go after success the same way women do). Lastly, he offers his own solutions, mainly redshirting boys and pushing more men into HEAL professions, despite admitting that he still doesn��t understand the problem. What makes him think that these proposals will change anything? At best, they’re band-aids covering up old wounds.
The fundamental problem with this book (and the whole discussion in general) is that no one understands the root cause of men’s malaise, which means that all solutions (including the author’s) are just guesses. Imagine trying to solve the thalidomide crisis without uncovering the role of thalidomide. You could read pages upon pages of data about limb deformities. You could study what pregnant mothers ate and how they lived and whether they had supportive partners. You could review historical records that would prove such deformities are growing exponentially. But until you pinpointed the cause—a toxic drug circulating in the wombs of pregnant mothers—you’d never be able to fix it. Until we figure out WHY men are unmoored, we will never achieve a workable HOW when it comes to helping them.
For what it’s worth, I have my own theory about why men are struggling. Years ago, I read an article about “Cardboard Man and Plastic Woman” that explained why so many men slipped into permanent unemployment during the 2008 economic downturn. Men tend to be linear and inflexible in their thinking: once they achieve mastery in a certain field, they don’t want to re-invent themselves. They’d rather be unemployed than start over at the bottom of the ladder. Women, on the other hand, tend to be cyclical and flexible: they understand that they will have to start over many times, and this will require humility while they learn a new set of skills. This stems in part from women’s greater participation in child rearing, which is a field you never quite master, and one that requires constant re-invention.
Men are struggling because they are not wired to be flexible. They are wired to be rigid and to seek status by dominating the field. This worked for them when the world was rigid and the number of competitors was artificially limited; but now the world has changed, and men must change, too. This is asking a lot, especially since embracing change runs counter to their natural wiring. But change they can, and change they must, if they want to catch up. The genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of far-right wishcasting is going to return us to the 1950s.
What men need is time and permission to grieve their loss, as well as a robust national conversation about how to modernize masculinity. They also need to figure out a way to make their biology work for them, rather than against them. Ideally, the national conversation would recast men as flexible providers who are strong enough to adapt under any and all circumstances. With this new definition, they could harness their natural urge to dominate by expanding the concept of “field” to include both work AND home. They could also reframe the concept of “dominance” to be cyclical, rather than linear. They already know how to do this—this is how sports work. The Packers aren’t permanent champions just because they win one Super Bowl. They have to start over with everyone else in the fall.
If men could rewire themselves in this way, I have no doubt that they could be just as successful as women, as well as more fulfilled than any previous generation of men. This would also make them more attractive to a greater number of partners, both male and female. Everyone wants an enthusiastic, capable co-captain who is willing to do whatever it takes to move the ball down the field. Women are only playing by themselves because men are sitting on the sidelines. The moment men get in the game, everybody wins.
October 3, 2022
Richard Reeves’ previous book Dream Hoarders is one of my favorite books about wealth and opportunity inequality, so I’ve been counting down the days until this new one came out. I was a little concerned since this topic was so different, but I should have known better. Richard Reeves did a phenomenal job, and this book should be required reading for so many people. As Reeves states in the epilogue, as he told people about the topic of this book before it came out, a ton of people are concerned about young men. This includes liberals.
I’ve been trying to find books about what’s going on with young men, but each one has disappointed. Richard Reeves’ book did it perfectly, and I don’t think I have many criticisms of it. Other books lack by just talking about how much better women have it while dismissing all of the issues women still face to this day. Richard Reeves acknowledges these issues throughout the book and regularly reminds the reader that we can care about both things at once. It’s not zero-sum.
I learned a ton from this book, and I really loved the ideas for solutions Richard presents toward the end. What’s awesome is that you can tell he’s thought deeply about the challenges we’d face implementing these ideas like having boys start school a year earlier, and he provides resolutions for those challenges.
My only criticism isn’t a big one, and it may not have even had a place in this book. The book was largely based on societal issues, but I think one of the biggest issues we face is how men talk to each other and hold up these ideas of “what it means to be a man”. For example, Richard discusses how we need more men who are teachers, nurses and social workers. The problem I see is that many men don’t do this because of what other men will say to them by saying these are “women’s jobs”. That’s an issue we really need to address.
Which reminds me, Reeves has an excellent chapter on The Manosphere, where a lot of really bad ideas of masculinity are being thrown around to young, lost men. So, there are quite a few challenges, but Reeves’ book gives readers a ton of insight into this growing issue, and I really hope this book gets the attention it deserves.
I’ve been trying to find books about what’s going on with young men, but each one has disappointed. Richard Reeves’ book did it perfectly, and I don’t think I have many criticisms of it. Other books lack by just talking about how much better women have it while dismissing all of the issues women still face to this day. Richard Reeves acknowledges these issues throughout the book and regularly reminds the reader that we can care about both things at once. It’s not zero-sum.
I learned a ton from this book, and I really loved the ideas for solutions Richard presents toward the end. What’s awesome is that you can tell he’s thought deeply about the challenges we’d face implementing these ideas like having boys start school a year earlier, and he provides resolutions for those challenges.
My only criticism isn’t a big one, and it may not have even had a place in this book. The book was largely based on societal issues, but I think one of the biggest issues we face is how men talk to each other and hold up these ideas of “what it means to be a man”. For example, Richard discusses how we need more men who are teachers, nurses and social workers. The problem I see is that many men don’t do this because of what other men will say to them by saying these are “women’s jobs”. That’s an issue we really need to address.
Which reminds me, Reeves has an excellent chapter on The Manosphere, where a lot of really bad ideas of masculinity are being thrown around to young, lost men. So, there are quite a few challenges, but Reeves’ book gives readers a ton of insight into this growing issue, and I really hope this book gets the attention it deserves.
October 4, 2022
A very helpful book which details the struggles men face today. Reeves is farther to the left than I am, but it is encouraging to read someone from a different end of the political spectrum taking our current crisis seriously. Highly recommended.
October 12, 2022
I applaud the effort. And I give him kudos for attempting it. But there's a glaring hole in his theory, the most fundamental question possible. He fails to ask that question, and as a result, his effort here is merely a commentary on things as they are. He's putting a bandaid on a much deeper problem.
That problem is the fundamental structure of post-enlightenment culture and theory. The question he fails to ask and try to answer is "what is the end goal?" To be fair, almost the entirely of modern academic writing fails to ask this most basic question: where is the culture going? What's the end goal? Not asking that question is like judging the quality of a map absent defining a destination.
It is just assumed in the modern academic world that post-enlightenment goals are utopian in nature; they are not to be questioned or examined. It is a religious fervor.
To be clear, I like most of the values incorporated in Enlightenment theory, and I think humanity, in general, has made progress that is valuable. But these same values have lead to huge problems (this book highlights a symptom of those problems).
The basic question is this: is radical individualism the best end to which a community should aim? And a secondary question: Is the elimination of all tribalism a good thing?
The author makes passing reference to the idea of a division of labor, and seems to mostly agree that dividing labor (one party does one thing while a different party does another thing) is not in keeping with the values of modern society. He seems to buy into the idea that family and child labor should be roughly equal (women wash windows inside, men wash them outside, or moms for toddlers, dad's for teens). He's basically trying to repackage the modern view that both men and women should be playing the same if not similar roles.
But we've discovered that a division of labor works well in all sorts of other realms in our lives. Business has thrived by understanding this concept and implementing it. We don't ask a math professor to teach humanities. We understand that different people have different strengths and we seek to leverage that into a better functioning whole.
The problem as I've come to understand it relative to women, men and children in the modern world is not one of equal household duties. The problem is the relative security of each different role in the modern family. Women have been stuck, mostly alone, in the role of mother and housekeeper absent the security of building a life and a community.
Perhaps the most important question is whether or not our modern structure of the nuclear family is working? Whether this push to radical individualism is working? Whether the end goal of each individual should be to maximize their own individual interests? Because if that's the case, no structure of family, or community, can survive that end goal. Its failure is intrinsic to the values of the community (or rather, those individuals who pretend toward community).
We threw out Tribalism and tried to replace it with the 1) the nuclear family and 2) radical individualism. It quite simply isn't working well for large portions of humanity. Women, men or children. It's a failed philosophy, and humanity seems intent on digging the hole deeper and deeper.
This author sees the problem but fails to see the larger picture. He's describing a symptom of a larger problem. It's a valiant but futile effort.
Absent Tribal security (or if you prefer, Extended family) then nobody can feel secure enough in their lives to be fully present in either work or family life. And children are not doing well in our modern pursuit of individualistic culture.
Nor can we go back; we got here because the past formulations of community and tribe have failed the modern emergence of the individual. Looking forward, we can only chart a better course if we actually define a future that works both for building strong individuals AND strong, tribal, communities.
But alas...
That problem is the fundamental structure of post-enlightenment culture and theory. The question he fails to ask and try to answer is "what is the end goal?" To be fair, almost the entirely of modern academic writing fails to ask this most basic question: where is the culture going? What's the end goal? Not asking that question is like judging the quality of a map absent defining a destination.
It is just assumed in the modern academic world that post-enlightenment goals are utopian in nature; they are not to be questioned or examined. It is a religious fervor.
To be clear, I like most of the values incorporated in Enlightenment theory, and I think humanity, in general, has made progress that is valuable. But these same values have lead to huge problems (this book highlights a symptom of those problems).
The basic question is this: is radical individualism the best end to which a community should aim? And a secondary question: Is the elimination of all tribalism a good thing?
The author makes passing reference to the idea of a division of labor, and seems to mostly agree that dividing labor (one party does one thing while a different party does another thing) is not in keeping with the values of modern society. He seems to buy into the idea that family and child labor should be roughly equal (women wash windows inside, men wash them outside, or moms for toddlers, dad's for teens). He's basically trying to repackage the modern view that both men and women should be playing the same if not similar roles.
But we've discovered that a division of labor works well in all sorts of other realms in our lives. Business has thrived by understanding this concept and implementing it. We don't ask a math professor to teach humanities. We understand that different people have different strengths and we seek to leverage that into a better functioning whole.
The problem as I've come to understand it relative to women, men and children in the modern world is not one of equal household duties. The problem is the relative security of each different role in the modern family. Women have been stuck, mostly alone, in the role of mother and housekeeper absent the security of building a life and a community.
Perhaps the most important question is whether or not our modern structure of the nuclear family is working? Whether this push to radical individualism is working? Whether the end goal of each individual should be to maximize their own individual interests? Because if that's the case, no structure of family, or community, can survive that end goal. Its failure is intrinsic to the values of the community (or rather, those individuals who pretend toward community).
We threw out Tribalism and tried to replace it with the 1) the nuclear family and 2) radical individualism. It quite simply isn't working well for large portions of humanity. Women, men or children. It's a failed philosophy, and humanity seems intent on digging the hole deeper and deeper.
This author sees the problem but fails to see the larger picture. He's describing a symptom of a larger problem. It's a valiant but futile effort.
Absent Tribal security (or if you prefer, Extended family) then nobody can feel secure enough in their lives to be fully present in either work or family life. And children are not doing well in our modern pursuit of individualistic culture.
Nor can we go back; we got here because the past formulations of community and tribe have failed the modern emergence of the individual. Looking forward, we can only chart a better course if we actually define a future that works both for building strong individuals AND strong, tribal, communities.
But alas...
January 13, 2023
This book is fine. If you've spent any time in gender politics spaces, then I imagine very little of what is presented in this book is new. If you haven't, then this might be a more interesting read. The author is generally agreeable about how he presents his position/the issues and does so without stepping all over feminists and women, which is nice. However, some arguments and issues are shallowly presented and analyzed, and as a result, kind of frustrating to read.
He talks about how "you can't be what you don't see" and so we need to get more men into HEAL and this is demonstrated by the fact that boys don't see women as role models whereas the same effect isn't seen for girls with men as role models. Turns out, there's another solution to that problem (teach boys and men to see women as being worthy of being role models and respect them as such), but that is never considered by the author.
The majority of the book focuses on education and it's a bit unclear to me how it comes together in the end. Despite women graduating at a rate that makes the male graduation rate a huge problem in his view, he makes the point that ~30% of houses have female breadwinners. These are separate points in the book, but it's unclear how higher education attainment rates are actually benefitting women when it doesn't seem to translate to things like a higher salary relative to men. I would accept the position that education in and of itself is a virtue, but that doesn't seem to be his, as he wants there to be a significant increase in focus in tailoring schooling to more practical ends, and it seems like men are mostly doing ok on that front already, so...
Some historical data was iffy in his comparisons (e.g. he makes the point that women's wages have increased a lot over the past few decades whereas men's have seen a small decrease. This is because of the horrendous starting point of women's wages and little more).
He makes the bog standard argument that "men are valued for what they do; not who they are" which makes me want to scream when women aren't valued for who they are, but the utility they provide to men, whether that be for their personal consumption or childbearing wants.
The author also seems to completely miss the mark in terms of HEAL careers. It's great and all to want more men to go into them, but if you don't address the salary aspect and respect aspect which are both lacking, it's no wonder men don't want to go into them. But we should be doing that anyways because teachers and nurses are really important, not because he was astounded when his son had only ever met two female doctors and was shocked when his third one was male.
He also mentions that men are graded on a curve when it comes to college applications and so are currently receiving some benefits in that direction (higher admission rates than would be expected) and yet he never proposes the solution of simply encouraging boys/young men to apply to college to address the education attainment gap.
Study: if only preferences were taken into account, we would expect to see women making up 30% of engineers, but we currently see half that
He talks about how "you can't be what you don't see" and so we need to get more men into HEAL and this is demonstrated by the fact that boys don't see women as role models whereas the same effect isn't seen for girls with men as role models. Turns out, there's another solution to that problem (teach boys and men to see women as being worthy of being role models and respect them as such), but that is never considered by the author.
The majority of the book focuses on education and it's a bit unclear to me how it comes together in the end. Despite women graduating at a rate that makes the male graduation rate a huge problem in his view, he makes the point that ~30% of houses have female breadwinners. These are separate points in the book, but it's unclear how higher education attainment rates are actually benefitting women when it doesn't seem to translate to things like a higher salary relative to men. I would accept the position that education in and of itself is a virtue, but that doesn't seem to be his, as he wants there to be a significant increase in focus in tailoring schooling to more practical ends, and it seems like men are mostly doing ok on that front already, so...
Some historical data was iffy in his comparisons (e.g. he makes the point that women's wages have increased a lot over the past few decades whereas men's have seen a small decrease. This is because of the horrendous starting point of women's wages and little more).
He makes the bog standard argument that "men are valued for what they do; not who they are" which makes me want to scream when women aren't valued for who they are, but the utility they provide to men, whether that be for their personal consumption or childbearing wants.
The author also seems to completely miss the mark in terms of HEAL careers. It's great and all to want more men to go into them, but if you don't address the salary aspect and respect aspect which are both lacking, it's no wonder men don't want to go into them. But we should be doing that anyways because teachers and nurses are really important, not because he was astounded when his son had only ever met two female doctors and was shocked when his third one was male.
He also mentions that men are graded on a curve when it comes to college applications and so are currently receiving some benefits in that direction (higher admission rates than would be expected) and yet he never proposes the solution of simply encouraging boys/young men to apply to college to address the education attainment gap.
Study: if only preferences were taken into account, we would expect to see women making up 30% of engineers, but we currently see half that
December 18, 2022
A spectacular book that synthesizes a range of research in economics, education, psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology and public policy in order to document, explain and propose remedies to the problems facing boys and men in modern society.
Richard Reeves does not set out to gratuitously shock with a polemic He is at pains to say nothing in his book is about diminishing challenges facing women and girls. He works hard to bring both progressives and conservatives along with a sympathetic account of how their approaches could contribute—while also criticizing the errors they made. Nevertheless, the book is truly shocking.
Yes, I knew many of the main points: girls are increasingly successful in school and a growing majority in higher education. Male employment rates have been falling for decades (in fact, Reeves draws on some work we did at the Council of Economic Advisers on this topic). Men are increasingly lonely and often feeling without purpose. All of this is especially bad for Black men and poor men. Most randomized trials and natural experiments find that most public policies that help girls do not also help boys (e.g., preschool, mentoring, college scholarships, work subsidies, training, etc.) But I learned a number of new ones and reading them all together in such stark terms was still eye opening.
Reeves then goes on to explain these points, grounding his explanation in a combination of nature and nurture. He explains some of the evolutionary biology of masculinity and the way in which it co-developed with culture. The evidence is overwhelming that there is something different about men including risk taking (possibly the biological result of their lower rates of evolutionary success), violence, sexual drive, and more. Reeves notes that there is a lot of overlap between men and women on most of these but that men also have greater variance and thus more extremes.
This account allows Reeves to situate his analysis in a political context. He chides progressives for alienating men with their belief that all masculinity is toxic and their mistaken insistence on a “blank slate” that denies the role of biology. Conservatives have the opposite problem, over-emphasizing biology and treating feminism as itself toxic. Much of the conservative response styles itself as a response to the liberal one, in which discussions of male problems are de-emphasized so it becomes a forbidden discussion that quickly turns dark and ugly.
Finally, Reeves concludes with a set of very detailed and specific policy recommendations. The biggest one is to redshirt boys, setting the default of starting school a year later to make up for their slower biological development. This is a big idea and deserves serious thought—but I’m not sure the evidence is good enough yet that I would want to see the entire country adopt it. More modest is the suggestion of an effort to enlist more male teachers, something the evidence shows matters a lot for boys learning reading—and now only 11 percent of elementary school teachers are male. In addition he has ideas on attracting more men to HEAL professions, non-transferrable paid leave that could be used for children up to age 18, and much more.
Overall the problem Reeves is documenting is not exactly a secret, after all he cites and draws heavily on work by leading economists, sociologists, and other social scientists and biologists who have all done scholarship in the area. Then again, you wouldn’t read a book on inequality and dismiss it because it is not a newly discovered problem. Reeves puts it together nicely, tying together all of the different steps of the argument and aspects of the problem. He also shows how much it was neglected in public policy discussions (e.g., he highlights several examples of a focus on a problem for girls/men when the exact same problem, like suicide or COVID or whatever, is worse for boys/men). I don’t think he has all the solutions—no one person does—but I hope the book motivates more people to look for them.
Richard Reeves does not set out to gratuitously shock with a polemic He is at pains to say nothing in his book is about diminishing challenges facing women and girls. He works hard to bring both progressives and conservatives along with a sympathetic account of how their approaches could contribute—while also criticizing the errors they made. Nevertheless, the book is truly shocking.
Yes, I knew many of the main points: girls are increasingly successful in school and a growing majority in higher education. Male employment rates have been falling for decades (in fact, Reeves draws on some work we did at the Council of Economic Advisers on this topic). Men are increasingly lonely and often feeling without purpose. All of this is especially bad for Black men and poor men. Most randomized trials and natural experiments find that most public policies that help girls do not also help boys (e.g., preschool, mentoring, college scholarships, work subsidies, training, etc.) But I learned a number of new ones and reading them all together in such stark terms was still eye opening.
Reeves then goes on to explain these points, grounding his explanation in a combination of nature and nurture. He explains some of the evolutionary biology of masculinity and the way in which it co-developed with culture. The evidence is overwhelming that there is something different about men including risk taking (possibly the biological result of their lower rates of evolutionary success), violence, sexual drive, and more. Reeves notes that there is a lot of overlap between men and women on most of these but that men also have greater variance and thus more extremes.
This account allows Reeves to situate his analysis in a political context. He chides progressives for alienating men with their belief that all masculinity is toxic and their mistaken insistence on a “blank slate” that denies the role of biology. Conservatives have the opposite problem, over-emphasizing biology and treating feminism as itself toxic. Much of the conservative response styles itself as a response to the liberal one, in which discussions of male problems are de-emphasized so it becomes a forbidden discussion that quickly turns dark and ugly.
Finally, Reeves concludes with a set of very detailed and specific policy recommendations. The biggest one is to redshirt boys, setting the default of starting school a year later to make up for their slower biological development. This is a big idea and deserves serious thought—but I’m not sure the evidence is good enough yet that I would want to see the entire country adopt it. More modest is the suggestion of an effort to enlist more male teachers, something the evidence shows matters a lot for boys learning reading—and now only 11 percent of elementary school teachers are male. In addition he has ideas on attracting more men to HEAL professions, non-transferrable paid leave that could be used for children up to age 18, and much more.
Overall the problem Reeves is documenting is not exactly a secret, after all he cites and draws heavily on work by leading economists, sociologists, and other social scientists and biologists who have all done scholarship in the area. Then again, you wouldn’t read a book on inequality and dismiss it because it is not a newly discovered problem. Reeves puts it together nicely, tying together all of the different steps of the argument and aspects of the problem. He also shows how much it was neglected in public policy discussions (e.g., he highlights several examples of a focus on a problem for girls/men when the exact same problem, like suicide or COVID or whatever, is worse for boys/men). I don’t think he has all the solutions—no one person does—but I hope the book motivates more people to look for them.
January 8, 2024
Five big stars. A fantastic book.
When I first mentioned that I was diving into "Of Boys & Men" by Richard Reeves, the reactions I received were unexpected, to say the least. Several women in my life, individuals I deeply respect and whose opinions I value, raised eyebrows. There were concerns, subtle hints, and in some cases, outright suggestions that my choice of book was in some way indicative of a diminished commitment to women’s rights. A few even went so far as to gingerly insinuate that I might harbor misogynistic tendencies.
The very idea that reading a book exploring masculinity could be equated with a rejection of feminism or women's rights took me aback. This experience made me shake my head on the polarization when we talk about gender issues. How did we reach a point where seeking understanding about one gender is perceived as a betrayal or rejection of the other? Its such a shame that this whole issue has been weaponized by the politicians and the pundits.
Reeves' work, for those who take the time to actually engage with it, is far from a celebration of toxic masculinity or a dismissal of the challenges faced by women. Instead, it offers a deep dive into the intricacies of the male experience, illustrating that understanding masculinity does not detract from supporting women's rights.
The misconception lies in the belief that championing the rights and understanding of one gender necessitates sidelining the other. It's a zero-sum gain mentality. By understanding the pressures, challenges, and societal expectations placed upon men, all of us, women included, are better equipped to challenge gender stereotypes holistically.
From the outset, it's clear that Reeves has taken the time to listen and learn from a wide variety of male experiences. He avoids the pitfalls of generalization and, instead, grants his readers access to deeply personal stories that illuminate the intricate shades of manhood. Each chapter feels like a brief yet meaningful journey into a different life, shedding light on universal themes while celebrating individuality.
Reeves doesn’t just scratch the surface; he delves deep. The extensive research presented in this book is great. From historical contexts to contemporary studies, from societal norms to personal narratives, the wealth of information Reeves has woven into the narrative speaks volumes about his dedication to the subject.
One of the biggest revelations for me was just how far behind males are in the entire world of learning. From primary education through university and into job training, boys and men have a greater tendency to lag behind. He provides meticulous detail including lower academic performances, higher dropout rates, and ineffective adult job training programs. We’ve done a pretty good job figuring out how to teach girls, but we seem pretty clueless on how to help boys.
The book's language is approachable without compromising depth. Reeves has a way of speaking directly to the reader, making you feel like you're in the midst of a thoughtful conversation rather than simply digesting words on a page. The clarity and fluidity of his prose allow the content to shine.
The book is also thoughtfully laid out. Each section complements the next, creating a seamless flow. However, the beauty lies in the fact that every chapter can stand on its own. Whether you're dedicating an afternoon to cover-to-cover reading or just dipping in for a single chapter during a commute, it’s an inviting read.
Another of the elements I genuinely appreciated was Reeves' humility. He doesn't assert that this book is the ultimate manual on masculinity. Rather, it's an invitation to explore, to understand, and most importantly, to reflect. This encourages readers to engage actively with the material, fostering personal growth and understanding.
Reading "Of Boys & Men" was a fascinating experience, not just for the read itself, but the deeply suspect reaction I received from those who knew I was reading it.
It served as a potent reminder of the dangers of generalizations. Just as it's a fallacy to assume all women or all members of a particular group experience the world in a uniform way, it's equally flawed to view men through a monolithic lens.
This was a great book, my favorite so far this year. I highly recommend it for both men and women alike.
When I first mentioned that I was diving into "Of Boys & Men" by Richard Reeves, the reactions I received were unexpected, to say the least. Several women in my life, individuals I deeply respect and whose opinions I value, raised eyebrows. There were concerns, subtle hints, and in some cases, outright suggestions that my choice of book was in some way indicative of a diminished commitment to women’s rights. A few even went so far as to gingerly insinuate that I might harbor misogynistic tendencies.
The very idea that reading a book exploring masculinity could be equated with a rejection of feminism or women's rights took me aback. This experience made me shake my head on the polarization when we talk about gender issues. How did we reach a point where seeking understanding about one gender is perceived as a betrayal or rejection of the other? Its such a shame that this whole issue has been weaponized by the politicians and the pundits.
Reeves' work, for those who take the time to actually engage with it, is far from a celebration of toxic masculinity or a dismissal of the challenges faced by women. Instead, it offers a deep dive into the intricacies of the male experience, illustrating that understanding masculinity does not detract from supporting women's rights.
The misconception lies in the belief that championing the rights and understanding of one gender necessitates sidelining the other. It's a zero-sum gain mentality. By understanding the pressures, challenges, and societal expectations placed upon men, all of us, women included, are better equipped to challenge gender stereotypes holistically.
From the outset, it's clear that Reeves has taken the time to listen and learn from a wide variety of male experiences. He avoids the pitfalls of generalization and, instead, grants his readers access to deeply personal stories that illuminate the intricate shades of manhood. Each chapter feels like a brief yet meaningful journey into a different life, shedding light on universal themes while celebrating individuality.
Reeves doesn’t just scratch the surface; he delves deep. The extensive research presented in this book is great. From historical contexts to contemporary studies, from societal norms to personal narratives, the wealth of information Reeves has woven into the narrative speaks volumes about his dedication to the subject.
One of the biggest revelations for me was just how far behind males are in the entire world of learning. From primary education through university and into job training, boys and men have a greater tendency to lag behind. He provides meticulous detail including lower academic performances, higher dropout rates, and ineffective adult job training programs. We’ve done a pretty good job figuring out how to teach girls, but we seem pretty clueless on how to help boys.
The book's language is approachable without compromising depth. Reeves has a way of speaking directly to the reader, making you feel like you're in the midst of a thoughtful conversation rather than simply digesting words on a page. The clarity and fluidity of his prose allow the content to shine.
The book is also thoughtfully laid out. Each section complements the next, creating a seamless flow. However, the beauty lies in the fact that every chapter can stand on its own. Whether you're dedicating an afternoon to cover-to-cover reading or just dipping in for a single chapter during a commute, it’s an inviting read.
Another of the elements I genuinely appreciated was Reeves' humility. He doesn't assert that this book is the ultimate manual on masculinity. Rather, it's an invitation to explore, to understand, and most importantly, to reflect. This encourages readers to engage actively with the material, fostering personal growth and understanding.
Reading "Of Boys & Men" was a fascinating experience, not just for the read itself, but the deeply suspect reaction I received from those who knew I was reading it.
It served as a potent reminder of the dangers of generalizations. Just as it's a fallacy to assume all women or all members of a particular group experience the world in a uniform way, it's equally flawed to view men through a monolithic lens.
This was a great book, my favorite so far this year. I highly recommend it for both men and women alike.
November 2, 2022
A compelling, well-researched book that calls attention to the struggles of boys and men in today’s post-feminist US society. Though Reeves claims that he “abstains” from the culture wars, he actually leans hard into them here, helpfully so. He admonishes the cultural left for ignoring the plight of boys and promoting the harmful idea of “toxic masculinity.” He symmetrically admonishes the cultural right for providing an outlet for lost boys and men that is largely backward looking and ultimately anti-women’s progress. He rightly and usefully promotes a center way - one that acknowledges biological differences between the sexes, names the struggles facing boys and men, and works to create a positive, modern script and path for boys, men, and fathers. Kudos to Reeves on an excellent and necessary book!
October 6, 2022
Poor & working class men (especially black men) are suffering horrifically from a lack of support and direction when it comes to "being a man" without being their family's primary breadwinner.
This is not a crisis effecting high earning men (or their sons). This is a crisis affecting poor and working class men and boys.
This is a CLASS issue among men and boys, NOT an issue among men and boys in general.
Among women and girls, prostitution is a CLASS issue as well. But Reeves is blind to this fact.
As a trafficking survivor, Reeves' support for decriminalized sex buying was familiar, predictable,and disgusting.
Despite his claim to be a "wonk" he managed to be ignorant of the fact that decriminalized sex buying leads to increased demand (a demand which willing "supply" has never been able to meet). The gap between supply and demand leads to the increased sex trafficking of poor women & girls (not middle class girls - poor women and girls).
The London School of Economics did an extensive study establishing this fact, although common sense would have made it fairly obvious as well.
Reeves tried really really hard not to come across as a misogynist, but he failed when he supported the legal right of men to rent women's bodies as if they were appliances. (He probably supports commercial surrogacy as well).
Reeves also compared carvings and drawings of naked ladies to pornography. He managed to forget that actual porn can involve unwilling participants, often underage and coerced. Actual living feeling human beings.
Reeves' hapless misogyny is disappointing, because poor and working class man are uniquely victimized by a lack of living wage jobs that don't require a college education.
These men are in pain, and we need to do whatever we can to help them.
But if men & boys were outperforming women & girls in school the way women & girls are outperforming men & boys, evolutionary psychologists would claim that men are just a bit more intelligent than women and leave it at that. They would claim that women were just better suited for homemaking than for practicing law or medicine, etc (there is a great deal of historical precedent for this).
Reeves seems outraged by the fact that women appear to be much more booksmart than men, and that an extraordinary amount of help should be poured into helping male students to keep up with their female peers.
But why do we overvalue booksmarts in the first place?
EMT's, firemen, policemen, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, maintenance crews, roofers, garbage men, repairmen, truck drivers, delivery men, etc are MUCH more important to the functioning of society than stock brokers and software engineers.
Perhaps we should start putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to "essential workers" and start to PAY THEM breadwinner wages.
Most women still want to marry a man they can look up to, and most women won't look up to a man who is financially dependent upon them.
If men suck at school, then we need to PAY HIGHER WAGES for vitally important jobs that don't require a college degree.
Most women still want to be the primary caregivers for their children, and most men would prefer to be the primary breadwinner for their families. Yes, men and women can meet in the middle on these roles and be flexible, but these basic preferences continue to persist. It's for THIS reason that poor and working class men feel so hopeless and depressed. They see most paths to becoming a breadwinner closed off to them. This may also explain why poor and working class women are more ambitious when it comes to jobs and education: most women want children, and if they are poor or working class, they know that their male peers will not be able to provide for those children.
Men and boys don't need to perform better in school; men need to be PAID breadwinner wages for essential work that does not require a college degree.
Being booksmart is not the most important form of intelligence, and it should not be valued more than other forms of intelligence that do not require a college degree.
This is not a crisis effecting high earning men (or their sons). This is a crisis affecting poor and working class men and boys.
This is a CLASS issue among men and boys, NOT an issue among men and boys in general.
Among women and girls, prostitution is a CLASS issue as well. But Reeves is blind to this fact.
As a trafficking survivor, Reeves' support for decriminalized sex buying was familiar, predictable,and disgusting.
Despite his claim to be a "wonk" he managed to be ignorant of the fact that decriminalized sex buying leads to increased demand (a demand which willing "supply" has never been able to meet). The gap between supply and demand leads to the increased sex trafficking of poor women & girls (not middle class girls - poor women and girls).
The London School of Economics did an extensive study establishing this fact, although common sense would have made it fairly obvious as well.
Reeves tried really really hard not to come across as a misogynist, but he failed when he supported the legal right of men to rent women's bodies as if they were appliances. (He probably supports commercial surrogacy as well).
Reeves also compared carvings and drawings of naked ladies to pornography. He managed to forget that actual porn can involve unwilling participants, often underage and coerced. Actual living feeling human beings.
Reeves' hapless misogyny is disappointing, because poor and working class man are uniquely victimized by a lack of living wage jobs that don't require a college education.
These men are in pain, and we need to do whatever we can to help them.
But if men & boys were outperforming women & girls in school the way women & girls are outperforming men & boys, evolutionary psychologists would claim that men are just a bit more intelligent than women and leave it at that. They would claim that women were just better suited for homemaking than for practicing law or medicine, etc (there is a great deal of historical precedent for this).
Reeves seems outraged by the fact that women appear to be much more booksmart than men, and that an extraordinary amount of help should be poured into helping male students to keep up with their female peers.
But why do we overvalue booksmarts in the first place?
EMT's, firemen, policemen, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, maintenance crews, roofers, garbage men, repairmen, truck drivers, delivery men, etc are MUCH more important to the functioning of society than stock brokers and software engineers.
Perhaps we should start putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to "essential workers" and start to PAY THEM breadwinner wages.
Most women still want to marry a man they can look up to, and most women won't look up to a man who is financially dependent upon them.
If men suck at school, then we need to PAY HIGHER WAGES for vitally important jobs that don't require a college degree.
Most women still want to be the primary caregivers for their children, and most men would prefer to be the primary breadwinner for their families. Yes, men and women can meet in the middle on these roles and be flexible, but these basic preferences continue to persist. It's for THIS reason that poor and working class men feel so hopeless and depressed. They see most paths to becoming a breadwinner closed off to them. This may also explain why poor and working class women are more ambitious when it comes to jobs and education: most women want children, and if they are poor or working class, they know that their male peers will not be able to provide for those children.
Men and boys don't need to perform better in school; men need to be PAID breadwinner wages for essential work that does not require a college degree.
Being booksmart is not the most important form of intelligence, and it should not be valued more than other forms of intelligence that do not require a college degree.
January 6, 2023
This was good but not as good as Dream Hoarders. This is a very wonky book that nonetheless uses insights from critical theory/gender studies to assess the problems of men/boys today. Reeves argues that structural forces in American society and economics have disadvantaged men in numerous ways, creating a paradoxical situation: men continue to dominate the higher reaches of society and politics, and women remain oppressed in many ways, but men at the middle and lower levels are increasingly suffering and under-performing. They are economically stagnant, suffering from 'deaths of despair,' feeling marginalized and useless, and are way behind educationally. Reeves presents reams of data on how women continue to advance and thrive while men remain stagnant, and he shows this is feeding a variety of male pathologies, including political extremism (Trump, after all, dominated the male vote, esp the white male vote).
The main forces that have set men back include: 1. Economics. Mostly male jobs, especially ones requiring physical strength/endurance, have declined dramatically while jobs in health, mangement, and education, etc that require education and social skills (stereotypically more feminine traits) have exploded. Men have done a poor job adapting to these changes, either in terms of identity or training. 2. Education continues to treat boys and girls as interchangable, failing to recognize that boys systematically develop more slowly than girls. Having educated high schoolers for 4 years, I'm not terribly sympathetic to male immaturity, but it is definitely a thing. Reeves proposes holding boys back a year in general to allow for more maturation, although I'm not sure that's a feasible move. 3. Family. The old family structure of male breadwinner and female nurturer has collapsed. Women have both thrived and suffered from this; they have seized new economic and social opportunities while also remaining primary caregivers. Men, however, have increasingly found themselves isolated from the family and the job market, being more superfluous to the functioning of a family unit than they once were. Again, I'm not terribly sympathetic to men in these regards, but whether you blame them or sympathize with them, it's still a problem. No society succeeds when it is full of angsty and isolated young men.
Reeves definitely lost me at a few points. He calls Jordan Peterson a "serious intellectual," which, no, no he is not (at least he hasn't been for a long time). The larger hole in the book is that, as a wonky polisci guy, Reeves isn't very good at rethinking masculinity in a qualitative sense. He doesn't put forward a normative vision of the "new man" should look like, even though he suggests that this is one of the goals of the book. He also strays too far from politics; no individual has set a worse example for masculinity than the sexist, racist, bloviating, fake-macho, DJT, and Reeves should have called out the horrendous example he sets. I think he also should have discussed more positive concrete examples of modern masculinity (Obama, maybe?). I know that he's trying to pitch this to a wide audience, but I think these are significant gaps for his book.
My other beef with this book is that Reeves is too sympathetic to men. Many of men's wounds are self-inflicted; yes, structural forces have gone against them, but for any social problem there is no substitute for responsibility. He uses language like "men have been excluded from the family," but these are weasel words; who has excluded them? Women, who do the majority of child-raising work, often alone? Not really. It has mostly been irresponsible, childish men excluding themselves from the family. Reeves also should have called out men more for things like sexual harassment, domestic violence, social violence, political extremism, etc. I think some people could read this book and see men as victims of women and of large social forces; that's not what Reeves intended, but the tone of the book lends itself to that counterproductive interpretation.
That being said, this is a useful and mostly non-ideological look at a real problem, and therefore worth checking out. One of the book's strengths is that both conservatives and liberals can find ideological grounds for more policies designed to help men (without disadvantaging women), and he calls out mistakes in the thinking of both sides about men and gender issues in general.
The main forces that have set men back include: 1. Economics. Mostly male jobs, especially ones requiring physical strength/endurance, have declined dramatically while jobs in health, mangement, and education, etc that require education and social skills (stereotypically more feminine traits) have exploded. Men have done a poor job adapting to these changes, either in terms of identity or training. 2. Education continues to treat boys and girls as interchangable, failing to recognize that boys systematically develop more slowly than girls. Having educated high schoolers for 4 years, I'm not terribly sympathetic to male immaturity, but it is definitely a thing. Reeves proposes holding boys back a year in general to allow for more maturation, although I'm not sure that's a feasible move. 3. Family. The old family structure of male breadwinner and female nurturer has collapsed. Women have both thrived and suffered from this; they have seized new economic and social opportunities while also remaining primary caregivers. Men, however, have increasingly found themselves isolated from the family and the job market, being more superfluous to the functioning of a family unit than they once were. Again, I'm not terribly sympathetic to men in these regards, but whether you blame them or sympathize with them, it's still a problem. No society succeeds when it is full of angsty and isolated young men.
Reeves definitely lost me at a few points. He calls Jordan Peterson a "serious intellectual," which, no, no he is not (at least he hasn't been for a long time). The larger hole in the book is that, as a wonky polisci guy, Reeves isn't very good at rethinking masculinity in a qualitative sense. He doesn't put forward a normative vision of the "new man" should look like, even though he suggests that this is one of the goals of the book. He also strays too far from politics; no individual has set a worse example for masculinity than the sexist, racist, bloviating, fake-macho, DJT, and Reeves should have called out the horrendous example he sets. I think he also should have discussed more positive concrete examples of modern masculinity (Obama, maybe?). I know that he's trying to pitch this to a wide audience, but I think these are significant gaps for his book.
My other beef with this book is that Reeves is too sympathetic to men. Many of men's wounds are self-inflicted; yes, structural forces have gone against them, but for any social problem there is no substitute for responsibility. He uses language like "men have been excluded from the family," but these are weasel words; who has excluded them? Women, who do the majority of child-raising work, often alone? Not really. It has mostly been irresponsible, childish men excluding themselves from the family. Reeves also should have called out men more for things like sexual harassment, domestic violence, social violence, political extremism, etc. I think some people could read this book and see men as victims of women and of large social forces; that's not what Reeves intended, but the tone of the book lends itself to that counterproductive interpretation.
That being said, this is a useful and mostly non-ideological look at a real problem, and therefore worth checking out. One of the book's strengths is that both conservatives and liberals can find ideological grounds for more policies designed to help men (without disadvantaging women), and he calls out mistakes in the thinking of both sides about men and gender issues in general.
March 5, 2023
A valuable book for this mother of 3 boys (coming from a line of similar books in the genre, which he acknowledges at the beginning.) Though farther to the left than myself, Reeves is mostly levelheaded & evenhanded in his assessments of the various factors. He includes a TON of reasrch data, which is great. Overall a worthwhile look into the problems and solutions of the modern male. Reeves acknowledges his bent toward the left (and I appreciated his self-awareness). He was also quick to point out the weaknesses of both the "left" and "right" (if those are even helpful categories) when it comes to confronting the multifaceted problems of our modern social, educational, and economic climate.
One thing that did start to grate on me was his casual acceptance of how obsolete or archaic the "breadwinner" model of family provision is. For all the (needed & helpful) emphasis on research data, the ones on women seemed incomplete. "Women have made major gains in their ability to be financially independent if they so choose!" Great! "This percentage of women are in the workforce full time!" Okay. "Therefore, the single breadwinner model is obsolete and parents' choice of professions shouldn't take that into account, because who supports a family on one income anymore!?" Uhhhhh.
Everywhere I turn there are women saying they wish they didn't *have* to work full time while their children are young. There's helpful studies out there documenting the actual vs. preferred employment status' of mothers. Working (oftentimes full time) is commonly the case not because mothers of young children desire this, but out of necessity. Out of intellectual honestly, I wish he would have parsed that out more. Instead, it was "Here's the data! Look at all these money-making mothers!"
This comes into play in his discussion of the professions chosen by men (which was honestly very fascinating & helpful!) The discussion of the distribution of STEM vs HEAL jobs for men and women was a needed one. It just seems the glaring omission was that there ARE men who choose certain jobs not out of a stigma against others but because..... they pay better, which helps support a family.
His insistence that the breadwinner model is obsolete helps his case that men (rightfully) should be in more HEAL professions, but didn't really grapple with the fact that there are families out there who truly do value having one parent more available (especially during the younger years) and therefore make certain education/employment choices accordingly.
So yes, more men should be in HEAL professions (because there are men who would thrive there, and would benefit the patients/students/etc they'd be serving!) But the reality is those jobs pay much less on average. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. I'm kinda shocked this fact was brought up..... as an afterthought.
*I was prompted to read this book by two people I respect who think/teach/write/generally care about these issues in one way or another:
- Dr. Anthony Bradley
Recently listened to this episode where he recommends this book, as well as The Boy Crisis:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1fd6...)
and
- Leah Libresco Sargeant
Her substack has hosted lively conversation surrounding two themes from the book:
1. Redshirting boys in school: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
2. Encouraging HEAL professions for men: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
Fascinating stuff there to stir up additional thoughts!
One thing that did start to grate on me was his casual acceptance of how obsolete or archaic the "breadwinner" model of family provision is. For all the (needed & helpful) emphasis on research data, the ones on women seemed incomplete. "Women have made major gains in their ability to be financially independent if they so choose!" Great! "This percentage of women are in the workforce full time!" Okay. "Therefore, the single breadwinner model is obsolete and parents' choice of professions shouldn't take that into account, because who supports a family on one income anymore!?" Uhhhhh.
Everywhere I turn there are women saying they wish they didn't *have* to work full time while their children are young. There's helpful studies out there documenting the actual vs. preferred employment status' of mothers. Working (oftentimes full time) is commonly the case not because mothers of young children desire this, but out of necessity. Out of intellectual honestly, I wish he would have parsed that out more. Instead, it was "Here's the data! Look at all these money-making mothers!"
This comes into play in his discussion of the professions chosen by men (which was honestly very fascinating & helpful!) The discussion of the distribution of STEM vs HEAL jobs for men and women was a needed one. It just seems the glaring omission was that there ARE men who choose certain jobs not out of a stigma against others but because..... they pay better, which helps support a family.
His insistence that the breadwinner model is obsolete helps his case that men (rightfully) should be in more HEAL professions, but didn't really grapple with the fact that there are families out there who truly do value having one parent more available (especially during the younger years) and therefore make certain education/employment choices accordingly.
So yes, more men should be in HEAL professions (because there are men who would thrive there, and would benefit the patients/students/etc they'd be serving!) But the reality is those jobs pay much less on average. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. I'm kinda shocked this fact was brought up..... as an afterthought.
*I was prompted to read this book by two people I respect who think/teach/write/generally care about these issues in one way or another:
- Dr. Anthony Bradley
Recently listened to this episode where he recommends this book, as well as The Boy Crisis:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1fd6...)
and
- Leah Libresco Sargeant
Her substack has hosted lively conversation surrounding two themes from the book:
1. Redshirting boys in school: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
2. Encouraging HEAL professions for men: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
Fascinating stuff there to stir up additional thoughts!
May 10, 2023
Whew boy. I really wanted to like this book. I went into it with an open mind. In general, I'm fairly moderate and can understand all sides of an argument. This book addresses fails to address how women are underreprestented in committing mass shootings and in sexual assault. It also failed to mention that men are overrepresented in Fortune 500 company CEO jobs (for the first time ever, women outnumber Fortune 500 CEOs named John), in government, and in leadership of companies and nations globally. Men literally created, and still control, the systems in which they are failing and falling behind. At the same time, they are passing regressive policies to literally keep women in the home and maintain their control of other peoples' bodies (legislating against trans people, moving to remove protections for LGBTQ+ marraige equality, etc etc etc). Women still do not have control over our own healthcare or reproduction in vast swaths of the US. Really hard to take this book seriously when it leaves out so many glaringly obvious things.
August 4, 2023
One of the better “what’s going on with boys” books out there. Much less anecdotal and opinionated than many. The author points to educational differences as a core driver of outcomes, which I don’t really buy ultimately. It seems like it’s looking at another symptom, and saying that the symptoms is causative of yet another symptom. It’s setting boys up to be Cro-Magnon football players who are “Too busy having ADHD, and hitting things to sit down and pay attention in school.” It’s cultural socialization masquerading as biology. And it’s everywhere around this topic (not just in this book) and I think most people get it wrong.
I don’t have the answers. Seems like it’s a combination of several different factors all coming together to create a great new problem. I thought this guy did a good job searching for the answers even if I’m not completely convinced with his conclusions.
I don’t have the answers. Seems like it’s a combination of several different factors all coming together to create a great new problem. I thought this guy did a good job searching for the answers even if I’m not completely convinced with his conclusions.
February 13, 2023
This book feels important because it takes the existing scholarship and frames the conversation and brings it to the kitchen table. Super impressed with Reeves and his very balanced approach and the mix of candor and citation. It definitely highlights the dangers of pathologizing masculinity and the negative impact that also has on feminism. Gave me a ton to think about and a new view on gender equity. The sections about how America has specifically failed black men were harrowing. Also, very sold on his proposed redshirting in education policy.
June 25, 2023
Men are having a hard time, but honestly so am I and no one’s written a book of solutions for that yet.
But in all seriousness, “We need a positive vision of masculinity for a post-feminist world” is such a great thesis and, yes, I agree.
But in all seriousness, “We need a positive vision of masculinity for a post-feminist world” is such a great thesis and, yes, I agree.
January 23, 2023
A lot of people would benefit greatly from reading "Of Boys and Men."
I just put it down and my own immediate take on Reeves' book is an overall positive one. I do not think he hit his head on the nail in everything, neither in outlining some of the issues, nor with his solutions. He came about as close as I've found in the area of pop-science though, and the book deserves a better review than I think I'm up for at the moment, so I'll likely revisit this one.
Doing a quick scan of the reviews here, it's pretty clear that the author didn't quite reach everyone, and that his repeated admonition for the need of keeping two things in mind at the same time is, unfortunately, necessary (which, of course, we're not very good at as a species).
Anyway, the book primarily addresses the issue of the struggling male (or perhaps floundering male, depending on your own take) from the perspective of a political leftist. Arguably, this is also the target audience that could benefit the most from reading the book. Reeves outlines the problems as he sees them very well, paints a nuanced picture where gender inequalities are not one-way equations, and attempts to address those aspects of inequality that he justly feels are underrepresented in the discourse surrounding efforts aimed at equality. I found his arguments both well formulated and pedagogical, even in the instances where my own take diverged.
What you won't find in this book is a deep dive into concepts like the so called manosphere, incels, and/or the "angry male" trope. Personally, I found this refreshing.
Recommended!
I just put it down and my own immediate take on Reeves' book is an overall positive one. I do not think he hit his head on the nail in everything, neither in outlining some of the issues, nor with his solutions. He came about as close as I've found in the area of pop-science though, and the book deserves a better review than I think I'm up for at the moment, so I'll likely revisit this one.
Doing a quick scan of the reviews here, it's pretty clear that the author didn't quite reach everyone, and that his repeated admonition for the need of keeping two things in mind at the same time is, unfortunately, necessary (which, of course, we're not very good at as a species).
Anyway, the book primarily addresses the issue of the struggling male (or perhaps floundering male, depending on your own take) from the perspective of a political leftist. Arguably, this is also the target audience that could benefit the most from reading the book. Reeves outlines the problems as he sees them very well, paints a nuanced picture where gender inequalities are not one-way equations, and attempts to address those aspects of inequality that he justly feels are underrepresented in the discourse surrounding efforts aimed at equality. I found his arguments both well formulated and pedagogical, even in the instances where my own take diverged.
What you won't find in this book is a deep dive into concepts like the so called manosphere, incels, and/or the "angry male" trope. Personally, I found this refreshing.
Recommended!
February 7, 2023
I’m supportive of all the authors policy recommendations but I have several criticisms about the first 2/3 of the book.
1) He shares statistic after statistic about how men are falling behind women, often comparing percentage changes over time. But an obvious omission would be that women are starting from a lower base in terms of college admission rates and pay. It’s not like men and women have an even playing field and we’re trying to understand why women are suddenly charging past men.
2) There is some discussion of the additional challenges black men face. I wish there were more segmented race data to see whether the claims hold when looking at white vs Latino vs Asian men/boys. It’s not clear whether this data is unavailable or purposely excluded.
3) There’s considerable time devoted to airing men’s perceived grievances including providing airtime and legitimacy to men’s rights advocates masquerading as conservative thinkers, and using that as evidence that men are being let down. This reminds me of the saying that when all you’ve known is privilege, equality can feel like oppression. My reaction to this is that men need to be more adaptable.
4) Reeves talks about how men are collateral damage of economic changes coupled with feminism as if feminism is something being done to them. But there’s nothing about how women are succeeding despite literal centuries of systemic oppression and discrimination, not to mention the violence men continue to inflict upon women. Reeves never mentions that it was a society organized and controlled by men that kept women from attending college, entering many career fields, and owning property. Even today, the highest echelons of professional success are often closed off to women because it remains a boys’ club. So men are failing in a world they designed, and we’re meant to feel sympathy for that. Perhaps this should be structured as a book targeted at men to galvanize them and wake them up to their own predicament. Rather, it comes off as a plea for our attention and empathy.
5) Reeves mentions over and over that studies have proved inconclusive as to why boys and men are falling behind. Researchers the world over say “I don’t know.” That’s because they are trying to find some policy or systemic mistake to point to. But (white) men are not being denied opportunities and basic rights in the same way they’ve done to others. They’re instead trying to adjust to a world where women have freedom and agency. We need different cultural messaging for boys and men for sure but I’m not convinced we need what amounts to affirmative action policies for them.
6) I will admit that I do think there is some discrimination in seeing men as professional caregivers. I personally prefer to hire women to care for my dog and housesit my home. But that’s because men commit the vast majority of violent crimes and I am fearful of giving a man open access to my home. Is this stereotyping? Yes. But the responsibility also seems to lie with men to prove themselves safe and trustworthy.
I understand the falling behind of men affects us all. And as I said, I’m supportive of the policies the author proposes, but I think we could have gotten to those proposals without much of the “evidence” provided in the book. Ultimately I felt what Reeves showed was that what we’re seeing is a failure of men rather than a failure of society to provide for men.
Note: I find it interesting that upon a cursory glance thru the reviews, men rated this book much higher than women.
1) He shares statistic after statistic about how men are falling behind women, often comparing percentage changes over time. But an obvious omission would be that women are starting from a lower base in terms of college admission rates and pay. It’s not like men and women have an even playing field and we’re trying to understand why women are suddenly charging past men.
2) There is some discussion of the additional challenges black men face. I wish there were more segmented race data to see whether the claims hold when looking at white vs Latino vs Asian men/boys. It’s not clear whether this data is unavailable or purposely excluded.
3) There’s considerable time devoted to airing men’s perceived grievances including providing airtime and legitimacy to men’s rights advocates masquerading as conservative thinkers, and using that as evidence that men are being let down. This reminds me of the saying that when all you’ve known is privilege, equality can feel like oppression. My reaction to this is that men need to be more adaptable.
4) Reeves talks about how men are collateral damage of economic changes coupled with feminism as if feminism is something being done to them. But there’s nothing about how women are succeeding despite literal centuries of systemic oppression and discrimination, not to mention the violence men continue to inflict upon women. Reeves never mentions that it was a society organized and controlled by men that kept women from attending college, entering many career fields, and owning property. Even today, the highest echelons of professional success are often closed off to women because it remains a boys’ club. So men are failing in a world they designed, and we’re meant to feel sympathy for that. Perhaps this should be structured as a book targeted at men to galvanize them and wake them up to their own predicament. Rather, it comes off as a plea for our attention and empathy.
5) Reeves mentions over and over that studies have proved inconclusive as to why boys and men are falling behind. Researchers the world over say “I don’t know.” That’s because they are trying to find some policy or systemic mistake to point to. But (white) men are not being denied opportunities and basic rights in the same way they’ve done to others. They’re instead trying to adjust to a world where women have freedom and agency. We need different cultural messaging for boys and men for sure but I’m not convinced we need what amounts to affirmative action policies for them.
6) I will admit that I do think there is some discrimination in seeing men as professional caregivers. I personally prefer to hire women to care for my dog and housesit my home. But that’s because men commit the vast majority of violent crimes and I am fearful of giving a man open access to my home. Is this stereotyping? Yes. But the responsibility also seems to lie with men to prove themselves safe and trustworthy.
I understand the falling behind of men affects us all. And as I said, I’m supportive of the policies the author proposes, but I think we could have gotten to those proposals without much of the “evidence” provided in the book. Ultimately I felt what Reeves showed was that what we’re seeing is a failure of men rather than a failure of society to provide for men.
Note: I find it interesting that upon a cursory glance thru the reviews, men rated this book much higher than women.
October 17, 2022
A remarkable book about an important but under-discussed problem. As the father of two boys, I took a special interest in this book about the problems facing men and boys today. But the problems discussed in this book go well beyond the family. As Reeves notes, are struggling in our educational system and in the labor market, and those struggles have serious implications for our economy and politics that all of us need to take seriously.
Too much of what gets written about men’s problems is overly ideological and unhelpful. Many on the left dismiss a special concern with men as a distraction from the problems faced by women. Many on the right weaponize men’s problems for purposes of a broader attack on progressivism and social justice. So it’s especially refreshing to read a book by someone like Reeves - a self-described ‘conscientious objector in the culture wars’ - which takes a pragmatic, evidence-based approach to the topic.
Reeves discusses many of the problems facing many boys, and puts forward some promising and provocative policy suggestions for how to begin coping with them. You might not agree with all of those policies - I have my own quibbles with some. But whatever their merits, Reeves is to be credited with starting a conversation we desperately need to have. Highly, highly recommended.
Too much of what gets written about men’s problems is overly ideological and unhelpful. Many on the left dismiss a special concern with men as a distraction from the problems faced by women. Many on the right weaponize men’s problems for purposes of a broader attack on progressivism and social justice. So it’s especially refreshing to read a book by someone like Reeves - a self-described ‘conscientious objector in the culture wars’ - which takes a pragmatic, evidence-based approach to the topic.
Reeves discusses many of the problems facing many boys, and puts forward some promising and provocative policy suggestions for how to begin coping with them. You might not agree with all of those policies - I have my own quibbles with some. But whatever their merits, Reeves is to be credited with starting a conversation we desperately need to have. Highly, highly recommended.
October 16, 2023
This book is excellent and should be more wildly read, by everybody. You don't have to agree on the solutions (and I certainly disagree with Reeves on a couple) but it's hard to disagree on the problem and this book will get your mind working. Reeves breaks down the issues that are facing men in the present and future (and by extension, women...did you know we all live in the same world?!) without getting bogged down in political ideology (Reeves does a great job at explaining why X viewpoint from one side is good, why Y is hurtful, and then does the same thing for the other side) and without neglecting or just paying lip service to the feminist movement. The way we learn and get better as a society is by acknowledging problems and working towards solutions, and I think this book makes a compelling case.
January 23, 2023
Addresses a topic too often seen as the zero-sum companion to feminism: the position and issues facing men and boys in a modern society. A welcome antidote to men’s rights/alt right reactionary takes, this is a thoughtful and even-handed review that leaves ample space for productive discussion. Highly recommend.
March 12, 2024
Reeves is center-left, but he doesn't revert to spiteful name-calling (I'm looking at you, All the Single Ladies). He keeps a level head, explains the arguments on both sides, and points to pros and cons. He helpfully suggests some practical things we can do in education today to help boys achieve more--for example, start them in Kindergarten a year later, and promoting female dominated careers for men to also enter, like teaching and nursing. He presents useful research, and he carefully avoids a zero-sum game (that helping men will automatically harm women).
For a book that focuses on feminism specifically, and education for young boys, see The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men
For a more sociological, family-oriented take on the topic, from a Christian perspective, see Being Dad: Father as a Picture of God's Grace.
This book mentions other similar titles:
--The End of Men
--Man Out: Men on the Sidelines of American Life
--Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys
--Man, Interrupted: Why Young Men are Struggling & What We Can Do About It
--The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It
--Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City
For a book that focuses on feminism specifically, and education for young boys, see The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men
For a more sociological, family-oriented take on the topic, from a Christian perspective, see Being Dad: Father as a Picture of God's Grace.
This book mentions other similar titles:
--The End of Men
--Man Out: Men on the Sidelines of American Life
--Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys
--Man, Interrupted: Why Young Men are Struggling & What We Can Do About It
--The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It
--Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner City
May 28, 2023
Reeves tackles one of the most important issues facing Western society: men are getting left behind. It's a tricky topic to cover because the media narrative is that men need to "acknowledge their privilege" and that women are oppressed. It's hard to bring facts to an emotionally charged audience.
The book starts by pointing out that while we focus all our attention on a tiny sliver of men in power positions, we forget to look at the rest of the population. For example, far more women than men go to university, women perform better and graduate at higher rates, far fewer women go to prison, far fewer women commit suicide etc.
I appreciated the context he set, but the book goes downhill fast after that. The problem is that Reeves has a specific view of how the world should work and is willing to bend people, principles, and social policies to achieve this "good" outcome. He does so without considering whether people actually want the outcome he proposes or whether his means of achieving it are just.
His goal is a form of "gender equality" where men and women perform equally in school, university, the workplace and in terms of domestic responsibilities. Whether all men and women want this outcome is just assumed.
He even touches on the very studies that cast doubt on whether people want what he proposes. For example, he talks about the fact that in most egalitarian countries in the world (e.g. Finland) we see massive differences in genders across disciplines like teaching, nursing, engineering, and science. In fact, gender differences in career paths get bigger as countries become more egalitarian. Does considering this information casts doubt on his "gender equality" goals? Nope! He just casually forgets to consider the possible implications.
In another chapter, he makes a point of explaining the biological differences between men and women. He then references a single study that predicts the gender split we could expect across professions based on biology and uses that as his target benchmark for the rest of the book. We don't spend any time understanding the methodology the researchers used to reach their critically important conclusion. We need to accept it at face value that engineering "should" be split male-female according to a specific formula.
Finally, we get to his proposed solutions. By this stage in the book he has explained how dozens of social programs have failed to help men, but his brilliant solution is... even more social programs! At one point, he says something along the lines of "the fact that these programs haven't worked really just indicates that we haven't tried hard enough".
He doesn’t ever question that some social interventions might be causing issues. For example, he makes a big deal of the negative impact of absentee fathers but doesn't look at the causes of the massive uptick over the last 60 years. (Many economists argue this is due to social programs that pay out only to single mothers and therefore disincentivises marriage)
One of his goals is to get more men to take jobs in healthcare and education. He talks about funding government programs but ignores the status aspect of those roles. e.g. Many women perceive men in those fields (e.g. male nurses) to be lower status.
One of his big suggestions is that boys should start school one year later than girls. While there may on average be some benefits to this, my concern with this suggestion is that he wants to force *all* boys to do a specific thing that will negatively impact some portion of them. And he's doing this to achieve an outcome that isn't even necessarily what people want.
The book starts by pointing out that while we focus all our attention on a tiny sliver of men in power positions, we forget to look at the rest of the population. For example, far more women than men go to university, women perform better and graduate at higher rates, far fewer women go to prison, far fewer women commit suicide etc.
I appreciated the context he set, but the book goes downhill fast after that. The problem is that Reeves has a specific view of how the world should work and is willing to bend people, principles, and social policies to achieve this "good" outcome. He does so without considering whether people actually want the outcome he proposes or whether his means of achieving it are just.
His goal is a form of "gender equality" where men and women perform equally in school, university, the workplace and in terms of domestic responsibilities. Whether all men and women want this outcome is just assumed.
He even touches on the very studies that cast doubt on whether people want what he proposes. For example, he talks about the fact that in most egalitarian countries in the world (e.g. Finland) we see massive differences in genders across disciplines like teaching, nursing, engineering, and science. In fact, gender differences in career paths get bigger as countries become more egalitarian. Does considering this information casts doubt on his "gender equality" goals? Nope! He just casually forgets to consider the possible implications.
In another chapter, he makes a point of explaining the biological differences between men and women. He then references a single study that predicts the gender split we could expect across professions based on biology and uses that as his target benchmark for the rest of the book. We don't spend any time understanding the methodology the researchers used to reach their critically important conclusion. We need to accept it at face value that engineering "should" be split male-female according to a specific formula.
Finally, we get to his proposed solutions. By this stage in the book he has explained how dozens of social programs have failed to help men, but his brilliant solution is... even more social programs! At one point, he says something along the lines of "the fact that these programs haven't worked really just indicates that we haven't tried hard enough".
He doesn’t ever question that some social interventions might be causing issues. For example, he makes a big deal of the negative impact of absentee fathers but doesn't look at the causes of the massive uptick over the last 60 years. (Many economists argue this is due to social programs that pay out only to single mothers and therefore disincentivises marriage)
One of his goals is to get more men to take jobs in healthcare and education. He talks about funding government programs but ignores the status aspect of those roles. e.g. Many women perceive men in those fields (e.g. male nurses) to be lower status.
One of his big suggestions is that boys should start school one year later than girls. While there may on average be some benefits to this, my concern with this suggestion is that he wants to force *all* boys to do a specific thing that will negatively impact some portion of them. And he's doing this to achieve an outcome that isn't even necessarily what people want.
October 5, 2022
This is an excellent, must read book. Well researched, Reeves avoids partisanship by dispassionately describing what both progressives and conservatives get right and get wrong. He then offers practical solutions to address the problems he highlights:
Boys fall behind in school starting in kindergarten, and today the college gender gap is bigger than it was before Title IX—but favoring females over males. Men are falling behind in the workforce too, but while the medical, mental health, and education are dominated by women, there are no programs to recruit more men—though there are numerous programs to recruit women into STEM. Boys today have absorbed anti-male biases, struggling to identify anything good about men. Three-quarters of suicides and the overwhelming majority of murder victims are men, but we rarely discuss this. Men want more family time, but are still valued primarily for their incomes. Fathers' rights is a gender equality issue that society ignores.
However, there's little awareness of just how big these problems are. And while conservatives push for a return to traditional gender roles, progressives dismiss and demean boys and men for the problems they face. In a strange reversal, conservatives see these issues as systemic while progressives see them as the fault of the individual.
Worse is the zero sum thinking: supporting boys and men supposedly detracts from girls and women. But neither a return to the past nor sucking it up (because men are privileged anyway) is going to work. It's not a zero sum game. Reeves repeats the mantra that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. Though he doesn't quote Warren Farrell, I think Farrell's statement that, "when one gender loses, both genders lose" really captures it.
But this will require a political shift: men's rights activists, who have been talking about these issues for decades, need to understand that their anti-feminism is a distraction that causes people to not listen to them. And feminists will need to admit that feminist sexism is real—biases favoring women over men, and misandric rhetoric like "toxic masculinity," work against equality.
Boys fall behind in school starting in kindergarten, and today the college gender gap is bigger than it was before Title IX—but favoring females over males. Men are falling behind in the workforce too, but while the medical, mental health, and education are dominated by women, there are no programs to recruit more men—though there are numerous programs to recruit women into STEM. Boys today have absorbed anti-male biases, struggling to identify anything good about men. Three-quarters of suicides and the overwhelming majority of murder victims are men, but we rarely discuss this. Men want more family time, but are still valued primarily for their incomes. Fathers' rights is a gender equality issue that society ignores.
However, there's little awareness of just how big these problems are. And while conservatives push for a return to traditional gender roles, progressives dismiss and demean boys and men for the problems they face. In a strange reversal, conservatives see these issues as systemic while progressives see them as the fault of the individual.
Worse is the zero sum thinking: supporting boys and men supposedly detracts from girls and women. But neither a return to the past nor sucking it up (because men are privileged anyway) is going to work. It's not a zero sum game. Reeves repeats the mantra that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. Though he doesn't quote Warren Farrell, I think Farrell's statement that, "when one gender loses, both genders lose" really captures it.
But this will require a political shift: men's rights activists, who have been talking about these issues for decades, need to understand that their anti-feminism is a distraction that causes people to not listen to them. And feminists will need to admit that feminist sexism is real—biases favoring women over men, and misandric rhetoric like "toxic masculinity," work against equality.
October 6, 2022
Richard Reeves takes on a massive cultural beast in this book. His research and statistical work is solid. The problem lies in the solutions offered. Reeves holds to the same premise as those who have created this non-sensical culture. He suggests that men should now figure out how to live in this new world. He rejects Biblical complimentarianism and the authorial standard that anchors it. His premise is a mixture of egalitarianism, social liberalism, and intersectionality. The solution he offers is that boys should start school a year after girls and parents should receive government funded six months leave when a child is born. This book promised great things unfortunately it failed to deliver.
June 13, 2023
2.5 for being well written & entertaining.
Reading this was frustrating. He unnecessarily sets many issues up as men vs. women, cherry picks data, and ignores the realities of misogyny. It’s obvious he only has sons. Someone with a daughter could never have written this book.
Reading this was frustrating. He unnecessarily sets many issues up as men vs. women, cherry picks data, and ignores the realities of misogyny. It’s obvious he only has sons. Someone with a daughter could never have written this book.
April 10, 2023
"Without a script, there is no choice for many men except to improvise. But improvising a successful life is a very difficult task" (67). [Enter Jordan Peterson]. In many places and for many people, the accumulated human wisdom about how to construct a meaningful life and make society function in the best way for the greatest number, often provided by models and maps of meaning like religion, are eroding quickly, before we can replace them with new ones. The result is a decline in "agency, aspiration, and motivation" (81), instability and anomie, a sense of being unmoored, adrift, and with no purpose. This has hit men particularly hard.
Reeves, a Brookings Fellow, has authored a well-researched, accessible quick read that is likely to provoke some thought. Reeves writing style is a joy to read. He tells us what the chapter will be about, presents the evidence, and summarizes. He provides more numbered lists than any author I can recall. That's an observation, not a criticism; it demonstrates he is keen on isolating and identifying factors, helpful to researchers and readers seeking clarity.
David Brooks wrote about it in the NYT, and it was on NPR, but since it disrupts The Narrative, it hasn't received as much media play as it warrants. In fact, my local county public library system has no plan to purchase it, since the publishing media haven't reviewed it, much like Irreversible Damage, by Abigail Shrier.
In Part I, The Male Malaise, Reeves presents the research which clearly indicates that boys and men are in bad shape and on the downswing relative to women in education, the labor market, and society in general. While Reeves' focus is the US, he presents data from the UK and is clear that this is a global trend, occurring every one of the OECD countries.
For some decades, women have been earning more college degrees than men. "[T]aking into account other factors, such as test scores, family income, and high school grades, male students are at a higher risk of dropping out of college than any other group, including poor students, Black students, or foreign-born students" (16). 40% of women earn more than the average man.The pay gap by sex is a parenting gap best explained in Claudia Goldin's Career and Family, which Reeves quotes and which I reviewed in 2022: "The gender pay gap results from women's actions (career interruptions and average weekly hours), rather than systemic sexism. Women prefer positions with predictable schedules and flexible hours, which offer less pay and they tend to remove themselves from the labor force to care for children, which disadvantages their careers in various ways, especially in jobs where personal relationship is important, like law and finance."
Reeves reports on the what and keeps asking why men are lagging behind, to no avail. Short answer: We don't know, a veritable refrain throughout this book.
Contemporary boys and men are casualties of rapid social change, "the erosion of key institutional frameworks" like "work, family, and religion" that "created the attachments, investments, involvements, and beliefs that guided and gave meaning to human activity in specific social domains" and "organized social activity into common patterns of behavior, [and] supplied norms, beliefs, and rituals" that legitimated such patterns" (67) [from "The Tenuous Attachments of Working-Class Men" (2019). We can identify several factors that exacerbate the challenges to men fulfilling their potential:
1. The erosion of male employment by automation and free trade. Men have been overwhelmingly employed in jobs that require physical strength like production, transportation, and construction and installation.
2. The attraction of video games. Reeves dismisses the impact of video games based on one study in 2015, but a 2020 study found "a positive influence of the popularity of video games on the unemployment rate....[and] a significant inverse relationship between income level and the effect of the popularity of video games on total and youth unemployment."
3. Abundance of initiatives that favor women. Take a look at any website for universities and summer programs and you will see special programs for Women in STEM, Women's Leadership Academies, Women in Engineering, etc., but none for men the fast-growing HEAL (health, education, administration, and literacy) sector fields that need more men. The Kalamazoo Promise (and dozens of other similar) offered all students in the city's K-12 free college and resulted in 45% more women earning bachelor's degrees and no impact for men. Same thing with work training programs (78). Why are we still throwing money at this problem when the programs don't work?
4. Sexual politics. Married fathers "will be more consistently and durably tied to the social order" (42). Men used to need to work to demonstrate their ability to provide for a family and to attract a mate, "harnessing male energy to positive social ends" (34). Now, women work and engage in sexual relations without marriage. As a result, men are less motivated to work; the external motivation is gone and no intrinsic motivation replaces it. "Economically independent women can now flourish whether they are wives or not. Wifeless men, by contrast, are often a mess. Compared to married men, their health is worse, their employment rates are lower, and their social networks are weaker" (39). Readers must continuously remind themselves that correlation is not causation.
Further, mothers earn money and care for children; fathers earn money but still aren't doing so much of the caring. Look to other primates' behavior to learn what is innate biological propensity. Women are more invested in children's well being since we incubate and feed babies with our bodies; men don't. This is self-evident and should not be controversial.
In Part II, Double Disadvantage, Reeves is rightfully quite concerned about Black males. Black women are doing quite well with similar rates of upward mobility. Black men? Not so much. "Economic disadvantage hurts boys more than girls" (71). Black women earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees "than white men of the same age" (50). Yes, there is "The Threat Stereotype" (Chapter 4) and Black men have high rates of incarceration, but (while Reeves doesn't mention it) the sad truth is that Black males, just 6% of the U.S. population, commit over half the homicides, mostly of each other, a rate that has remained stable over time (See FBI Table 43 for any year).
The economic dependency of women and children on men used to bond them; now that is gone, the family disintegrates. "A welfare system that was originally designed to compensate men for loss of earnings is slowly and messily redesigned to compensate women for the loss of men" (35).
Let's digress for a moment to deeper into some stats that Reeves alludes to on p. 56: Just 7% of births to white women with a bachelor's degree or higher occur outside of marriage. In 1950, 3.9% of births were to unmarried women of any race. Vestige of slavery? Nope. In 1938, just 11% of Black births were out of wedlock and in approximately 75% of the enslaved families, "all of the children had the same mother and father," so it cannot be attributed to slavery, as The Narrative would have us believe. Now, a whopping 72% of all Black births are out-of wedlock. We know the way out of poverty: finishing high school, working full-time, marrying before having children. Let's do that.
Part III, Biology and Culture, has a single chapter. Physiological sex differences matter and there are characteristics that are more pronounced in males than females, though culture has influence as well. Nature, nurture, and agency. Why is there such reluctance to look to other primates to see what is biological programming? Globally in humans and other primates, the "typical male has a greater willingness to take risks...than the typical female;" "males are more physically aggressive in all cultures at all ages" due to testosterone (89). To ensure the continuation of the species, wombs are needed in greater numbers than penises. In fact, "a penile surplus" leads to intense competition for resources and mates, which manifests as higher aggression and risk-taking and higher crime rates (91). The typical male has a much higher sex drive than the female, "hardwired to be in a state of near-perpetual readiness to couple with any female...likely to...conceive and bear children" (93). Reeves thinks that "Decriminalizing prostitution would be good, not least to improve conditions for sex workers themselves" (93). Since it's not the subject of this book or his field of interest, perhaps Reeves may be forgiven for such an astonishingly ill-informed statement that is opposed by experts in the field, but I'm not inclined to do so.
Here's a fun factoid to make you say, "Hunh": "Men who said they took care of their kids for at least three hours a day registered 20% less testosterone than did men who weren't involved in child-rearing."
An abject "Nope": Reeves cites an estimate that intersex people are about 1 in 100. Leonard Sax, truly an expert, puts the number at .018% or 9 in 50,000. We are encouraged to state our "preferred pronouns" for that tiny minority with a physical anomaly and encourage the epidemic of psychiatrically disturbed, particularly adolescents trying on various identities to be different and differentiate from their families.
Reeves states emphatically in Part IV, Political Stalemate, that conservatives and progressives share the blame for the sad state of boys and men. Conservatives "fuel male grievances for political gain," assign too much weight to biological differences and want to harken back to an earlier time, when males ran the roost. Progressives pathologize masculinity as toxic, attribute "structural challenges" to individual failings, "deny the neuroscience of sex differences" and presume that "gender inequality can only run one way, that is, to the disadvantage of women" (106)
Finally, in Part V, What to do, Reeves restates and elaborates on the prescriptions he mentioned earlier in the book. Reeves wants to mandate that we give boys an extra year of Pre-K, have more male teachers, invest more in vocational education, find ways to get more men to enter HEAL (health, education, administration, and literacy) professions, and develop the role of fatherhood. Further he demands equal and independent paid leave (paternity and maternity) of 6 months, a reformed child support system (the money often goes to the state, not the family), and father-friendly employment opportunities.
While I don't subscribe to all of Reeve's assertions or prescriptions, this is still an enjoyable read that is sure to provide a perspective worth considering.
Reeves, a Brookings Fellow, has authored a well-researched, accessible quick read that is likely to provoke some thought. Reeves writing style is a joy to read. He tells us what the chapter will be about, presents the evidence, and summarizes. He provides more numbered lists than any author I can recall. That's an observation, not a criticism; it demonstrates he is keen on isolating and identifying factors, helpful to researchers and readers seeking clarity.
David Brooks wrote about it in the NYT, and it was on NPR, but since it disrupts The Narrative, it hasn't received as much media play as it warrants. In fact, my local county public library system has no plan to purchase it, since the publishing media haven't reviewed it, much like Irreversible Damage, by Abigail Shrier.
In Part I, The Male Malaise, Reeves presents the research which clearly indicates that boys and men are in bad shape and on the downswing relative to women in education, the labor market, and society in general. While Reeves' focus is the US, he presents data from the UK and is clear that this is a global trend, occurring every one of the OECD countries.
For some decades, women have been earning more college degrees than men. "[T]aking into account other factors, such as test scores, family income, and high school grades, male students are at a higher risk of dropping out of college than any other group, including poor students, Black students, or foreign-born students" (16). 40% of women earn more than the average man.The pay gap by sex is a parenting gap best explained in Claudia Goldin's Career and Family, which Reeves quotes and which I reviewed in 2022: "The gender pay gap results from women's actions (career interruptions and average weekly hours), rather than systemic sexism. Women prefer positions with predictable schedules and flexible hours, which offer less pay and they tend to remove themselves from the labor force to care for children, which disadvantages their careers in various ways, especially in jobs where personal relationship is important, like law and finance."
Reeves reports on the what and keeps asking why men are lagging behind, to no avail. Short answer: We don't know, a veritable refrain throughout this book.
Contemporary boys and men are casualties of rapid social change, "the erosion of key institutional frameworks" like "work, family, and religion" that "created the attachments, investments, involvements, and beliefs that guided and gave meaning to human activity in specific social domains" and "organized social activity into common patterns of behavior, [and] supplied norms, beliefs, and rituals" that legitimated such patterns" (67) [from "The Tenuous Attachments of Working-Class Men" (2019). We can identify several factors that exacerbate the challenges to men fulfilling their potential:
1. The erosion of male employment by automation and free trade. Men have been overwhelmingly employed in jobs that require physical strength like production, transportation, and construction and installation.
2. The attraction of video games. Reeves dismisses the impact of video games based on one study in 2015, but a 2020 study found "a positive influence of the popularity of video games on the unemployment rate....[and] a significant inverse relationship between income level and the effect of the popularity of video games on total and youth unemployment."
3. Abundance of initiatives that favor women. Take a look at any website for universities and summer programs and you will see special programs for Women in STEM, Women's Leadership Academies, Women in Engineering, etc., but none for men the fast-growing HEAL (health, education, administration, and literacy) sector fields that need more men. The Kalamazoo Promise (and dozens of other similar) offered all students in the city's K-12 free college and resulted in 45% more women earning bachelor's degrees and no impact for men. Same thing with work training programs (78). Why are we still throwing money at this problem when the programs don't work?
4. Sexual politics. Married fathers "will be more consistently and durably tied to the social order" (42). Men used to need to work to demonstrate their ability to provide for a family and to attract a mate, "harnessing male energy to positive social ends" (34). Now, women work and engage in sexual relations without marriage. As a result, men are less motivated to work; the external motivation is gone and no intrinsic motivation replaces it. "Economically independent women can now flourish whether they are wives or not. Wifeless men, by contrast, are often a mess. Compared to married men, their health is worse, their employment rates are lower, and their social networks are weaker" (39). Readers must continuously remind themselves that correlation is not causation.
Further, mothers earn money and care for children; fathers earn money but still aren't doing so much of the caring. Look to other primates' behavior to learn what is innate biological propensity. Women are more invested in children's well being since we incubate and feed babies with our bodies; men don't. This is self-evident and should not be controversial.
In Part II, Double Disadvantage, Reeves is rightfully quite concerned about Black males. Black women are doing quite well with similar rates of upward mobility. Black men? Not so much. "Economic disadvantage hurts boys more than girls" (71). Black women earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees "than white men of the same age" (50). Yes, there is "The Threat Stereotype" (Chapter 4) and Black men have high rates of incarceration, but (while Reeves doesn't mention it) the sad truth is that Black males, just 6% of the U.S. population, commit over half the homicides, mostly of each other, a rate that has remained stable over time (See FBI Table 43 for any year).
The economic dependency of women and children on men used to bond them; now that is gone, the family disintegrates. "A welfare system that was originally designed to compensate men for loss of earnings is slowly and messily redesigned to compensate women for the loss of men" (35).
Let's digress for a moment to deeper into some stats that Reeves alludes to on p. 56: Just 7% of births to white women with a bachelor's degree or higher occur outside of marriage. In 1950, 3.9% of births were to unmarried women of any race. Vestige of slavery? Nope. In 1938, just 11% of Black births were out of wedlock and in approximately 75% of the enslaved families, "all of the children had the same mother and father," so it cannot be attributed to slavery, as The Narrative would have us believe. Now, a whopping 72% of all Black births are out-of wedlock. We know the way out of poverty: finishing high school, working full-time, marrying before having children. Let's do that.
Part III, Biology and Culture, has a single chapter. Physiological sex differences matter and there are characteristics that are more pronounced in males than females, though culture has influence as well. Nature, nurture, and agency. Why is there such reluctance to look to other primates to see what is biological programming? Globally in humans and other primates, the "typical male has a greater willingness to take risks...than the typical female;" "males are more physically aggressive in all cultures at all ages" due to testosterone (89). To ensure the continuation of the species, wombs are needed in greater numbers than penises. In fact, "a penile surplus" leads to intense competition for resources and mates, which manifests as higher aggression and risk-taking and higher crime rates (91). The typical male has a much higher sex drive than the female, "hardwired to be in a state of near-perpetual readiness to couple with any female...likely to...conceive and bear children" (93). Reeves thinks that "Decriminalizing prostitution would be good, not least to improve conditions for sex workers themselves" (93). Since it's not the subject of this book or his field of interest, perhaps Reeves may be forgiven for such an astonishingly ill-informed statement that is opposed by experts in the field, but I'm not inclined to do so.
Here's a fun factoid to make you say, "Hunh": "Men who said they took care of their kids for at least three hours a day registered 20% less testosterone than did men who weren't involved in child-rearing."
An abject "Nope": Reeves cites an estimate that intersex people are about 1 in 100. Leonard Sax, truly an expert, puts the number at .018% or 9 in 50,000. We are encouraged to state our "preferred pronouns" for that tiny minority with a physical anomaly and encourage the epidemic of psychiatrically disturbed, particularly adolescents trying on various identities to be different and differentiate from their families.
Reeves states emphatically in Part IV, Political Stalemate, that conservatives and progressives share the blame for the sad state of boys and men. Conservatives "fuel male grievances for political gain," assign too much weight to biological differences and want to harken back to an earlier time, when males ran the roost. Progressives pathologize masculinity as toxic, attribute "structural challenges" to individual failings, "deny the neuroscience of sex differences" and presume that "gender inequality can only run one way, that is, to the disadvantage of women" (106)
Finally, in Part V, What to do, Reeves restates and elaborates on the prescriptions he mentioned earlier in the book. Reeves wants to mandate that we give boys an extra year of Pre-K, have more male teachers, invest more in vocational education, find ways to get more men to enter HEAL (health, education, administration, and literacy) professions, and develop the role of fatherhood. Further he demands equal and independent paid leave (paternity and maternity) of 6 months, a reformed child support system (the money often goes to the state, not the family), and father-friendly employment opportunities.
While I don't subscribe to all of Reeve's assertions or prescriptions, this is still an enjoyable read that is sure to provide a perspective worth considering.
March 1, 2023
Of Boys and Men is a meticulously sourced and argued case that the guys are not alright, and that there are clear social, legal, political, and moral grounds for doing something about it. This book is truly centrist, in that it has something to annoy everybody, while also making a case for a series of eminently reasonable policy experiments to improve matters.
The Offspring - The Kids Aren't Alright
I knew, in a vague way from Liz Plank's For the Love of Men and Seligo's Who Gets in and Why , that my fellow men were having trouble, but I didn't know how bad it was. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to drop out of school, to suffer in economic transformations, be victims and perpetrators of violent crime, or to die deaths of despair or stupidity. The extensively footnoted sources hit like hammer blows. Black men in particular are doing extremely poorly, suffering from systematic racism and police brutality. They've seen almost no rise in income since 1970. Worse, every typical policy intervention: education, training, scholarships, basic income stipends and so on, benefit women but have no effect on men.
Reeves makes three major points in the introduction. The first is that policy and social science has become systematically biased towards women. While there are active efforts to track where women are falling short and various governmental panels and non-profits to remediate those gaps, there's no similar effort for men. Even the existence of poorer outcomes for men has to be reconstructed from various social science studies, because gender is frequently not a tracked variable. As an aside, Reeves is careful to note that he does not intend an attack on women or feminism, and that motherhood still places an exceptional burden on women which is not shared with men. He just wants more symmetry in gender-based policy. Second, while there are not explicit barriers to male success, in outcomes the situation for men is about as bad as it was for women in the 1960s, before the legal triumphs of second wave feminism. And finally, if men could be removed from the statistics, America might well be an actual utopia, along the lines of Herland or Whileaway from Russ's The Female Man .
As Reeves discusses, both progressives and conservatives have failed men, under the broad rubric that progressives think boys should be more like their sisters, and that conservatives think that boys should be more like their fathers. In a departure from typical searching for systematic causes, progressives tend to see male failures through the lens of individual weakness and toxic masculinity. Without harming women, progressives should use their traditional techniques to understand uniquely male challenges. Conservatives have been more attuned to male anxieties, but have abandoned any move towards better conditions in a cynical pursuit of grievance politics. The manosphere, from Donald Trump on down to Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, suggests an every escalating attitude of anger and social disconnection which just leads men to ever darker placers, finishing in an incel mass shooting.
What is most valuable about this book is that Reeves offers what seem to me eminently sensible policy prescriptions. The first one is focusing on education, since failures in education seem to lead into a lot of later problems. Reeves argues that biologically and neurologically, boys develop slower than girls, and the simplest policy prescription is to redshirt boys, delaying their entry into school by one year by having them do an additional year of pre-K. Redshirting is most common among upper middle class white boys who need the least assistance, and making this policy universal, along with more support for early childcare. Reeves is careful to note that biological differences between genders conceal a much greater overlap, but given how much of your life can be defined by the worst day, climbing a water tower, getting in a fist fight, being arrested for drugs, being attentive to the lowest extremes in behavior is important. This matches my own experiences. As an August birth, my parents had the option of having me be the youngest kid in the class or the oldest, and being the oldest definitely benefitted me. There was also that very weird couple of years around 6th grade where the girls had gone through puberty and were distinctly young women and the boys were mostly still little kids. And across the board, young women are more emotionally mature, more attentive, and more motivated to succeed. A second change in education is better vocational training in secondary schools and more opportunities to 'think with your hands'.
A second policy thrust is a focused policy effort to get more men into HEAL careers (Health, Education, Administration, and Literacy), similar to successful efforts to get more women into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) in recent decades. HEAL careers are both some of the fastest growing and most stable sectors of the economy, and there are vanishingly few men in entire fields like nursing and early childhood education for reasons which are entirely based on false cultural stereotypes. In particular, Black boys appear to benefit greatly from English classrooms with Black male teachers, and there are almost none. There should be focused efforts to recruit, train, hire, and retain men in HEAL jobs similar to how there are focused efforts for women in STEM.
And the third area is rethinking fatherhood. Both parents should get a full six months of paid parental leave. While mothers will perforce have more to with babies (I did none of the gestation or breastfeeding of my own son), fathers can take more of the lead with older children and may have an important role in teaching healthy approaches to new experiences, risk, and boundaries. Finally, while family courts have made massive strides in recognizing the rights of divorced fathers in the past few decades, unmarried fathers are still in a 1950s legal limbo of many obligations and few rights. Black men get one of their few accolades in this book, as Reeves notes that unmarried Black fathers are notably more involved than their n0n-Black unmarried counterparts.
I added this book to my list thanks to a provocative article in The Atlantic. Having read the full book, I am strongly persuaded by Reeves' arguments and evidence. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, the clear need for a better, evidence-driven discussion on masculinity and its discontents is a urgent scholarly, social and political issue.
The Offspring - The Kids Aren't Alright
I knew, in a vague way from Liz Plank's For the Love of Men and Seligo's Who Gets in and Why , that my fellow men were having trouble, but I didn't know how bad it was. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to drop out of school, to suffer in economic transformations, be victims and perpetrators of violent crime, or to die deaths of despair or stupidity. The extensively footnoted sources hit like hammer blows. Black men in particular are doing extremely poorly, suffering from systematic racism and police brutality. They've seen almost no rise in income since 1970. Worse, every typical policy intervention: education, training, scholarships, basic income stipends and so on, benefit women but have no effect on men.
Reeves makes three major points in the introduction. The first is that policy and social science has become systematically biased towards women. While there are active efforts to track where women are falling short and various governmental panels and non-profits to remediate those gaps, there's no similar effort for men. Even the existence of poorer outcomes for men has to be reconstructed from various social science studies, because gender is frequently not a tracked variable. As an aside, Reeves is careful to note that he does not intend an attack on women or feminism, and that motherhood still places an exceptional burden on women which is not shared with men. He just wants more symmetry in gender-based policy. Second, while there are not explicit barriers to male success, in outcomes the situation for men is about as bad as it was for women in the 1960s, before the legal triumphs of second wave feminism. And finally, if men could be removed from the statistics, America might well be an actual utopia, along the lines of Herland or Whileaway from Russ's The Female Man .
As Reeves discusses, both progressives and conservatives have failed men, under the broad rubric that progressives think boys should be more like their sisters, and that conservatives think that boys should be more like their fathers. In a departure from typical searching for systematic causes, progressives tend to see male failures through the lens of individual weakness and toxic masculinity. Without harming women, progressives should use their traditional techniques to understand uniquely male challenges. Conservatives have been more attuned to male anxieties, but have abandoned any move towards better conditions in a cynical pursuit of grievance politics. The manosphere, from Donald Trump on down to Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, suggests an every escalating attitude of anger and social disconnection which just leads men to ever darker placers, finishing in an incel mass shooting.
What is most valuable about this book is that Reeves offers what seem to me eminently sensible policy prescriptions. The first one is focusing on education, since failures in education seem to lead into a lot of later problems. Reeves argues that biologically and neurologically, boys develop slower than girls, and the simplest policy prescription is to redshirt boys, delaying their entry into school by one year by having them do an additional year of pre-K. Redshirting is most common among upper middle class white boys who need the least assistance, and making this policy universal, along with more support for early childcare. Reeves is careful to note that biological differences between genders conceal a much greater overlap, but given how much of your life can be defined by the worst day, climbing a water tower, getting in a fist fight, being arrested for drugs, being attentive to the lowest extremes in behavior is important. This matches my own experiences. As an August birth, my parents had the option of having me be the youngest kid in the class or the oldest, and being the oldest definitely benefitted me. There was also that very weird couple of years around 6th grade where the girls had gone through puberty and were distinctly young women and the boys were mostly still little kids. And across the board, young women are more emotionally mature, more attentive, and more motivated to succeed. A second change in education is better vocational training in secondary schools and more opportunities to 'think with your hands'.
A second policy thrust is a focused policy effort to get more men into HEAL careers (Health, Education, Administration, and Literacy), similar to successful efforts to get more women into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) in recent decades. HEAL careers are both some of the fastest growing and most stable sectors of the economy, and there are vanishingly few men in entire fields like nursing and early childhood education for reasons which are entirely based on false cultural stereotypes. In particular, Black boys appear to benefit greatly from English classrooms with Black male teachers, and there are almost none. There should be focused efforts to recruit, train, hire, and retain men in HEAL jobs similar to how there are focused efforts for women in STEM.
And the third area is rethinking fatherhood. Both parents should get a full six months of paid parental leave. While mothers will perforce have more to with babies (I did none of the gestation or breastfeeding of my own son), fathers can take more of the lead with older children and may have an important role in teaching healthy approaches to new experiences, risk, and boundaries. Finally, while family courts have made massive strides in recognizing the rights of divorced fathers in the past few decades, unmarried fathers are still in a 1950s legal limbo of many obligations and few rights. Black men get one of their few accolades in this book, as Reeves notes that unmarried Black fathers are notably more involved than their n0n-Black unmarried counterparts.
I added this book to my list thanks to a provocative article in The Atlantic. Having read the full book, I am strongly persuaded by Reeves' arguments and evidence. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, the clear need for a better, evidence-driven discussion on masculinity and its discontents is a urgent scholarly, social and political issue.
April 29, 2023
Before their 14th birth-day, one in four Black children see a parent go to jail or prison, usually their father.
In the U.S., one in four children under 18 are being raised by a single adult, 82% of whom are mothers.
In some ways, it makes most sense to look at women at the top of the ladder, since they have the widest choices and the greatest economic power. Take women who leave Harvard with a professional or postgraduate degree, arguably members of the most elite educational group in the world. Fifteen years after graduating, only half of these women are working full time. What happened? "After facing down so many ob-stacles, after gaining countless freedoms, the obstruction that had always been there became crystal clear," writes Claudia Goldin, who has studied this group in detail 40 «The barrier is the time bind. Children require time; careers require time." Or take University of Chicago MBAs. Straight out of the business school, women earned about 12% less than their male classmates, a gap largely explained by the kind of jobs chosen. Thirteen years later, the difference had widened dramati-cally, to about 38%.41 But one subgroup of the female MBAs had not fallen further behind. By now you don't need me to tell you which: the ones without children.
In the U.S., one in four children under 18 are being raised by a single adult, 82% of whom are mothers.
In some ways, it makes most sense to look at women at the top of the ladder, since they have the widest choices and the greatest economic power. Take women who leave Harvard with a professional or postgraduate degree, arguably members of the most elite educational group in the world. Fifteen years after graduating, only half of these women are working full time. What happened? "After facing down so many ob-stacles, after gaining countless freedoms, the obstruction that had always been there became crystal clear," writes Claudia Goldin, who has studied this group in detail 40 «The barrier is the time bind. Children require time; careers require time." Or take University of Chicago MBAs. Straight out of the business school, women earned about 12% less than their male classmates, a gap largely explained by the kind of jobs chosen. Thirteen years later, the difference had widened dramati-cally, to about 38%.41 But one subgroup of the female MBAs had not fallen further behind. By now you don't need me to tell you which: the ones without children.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 744 reviews