Words&Dirt

Summary:

Richard V. Reeves’s Of Boys and Men takes a hard look at the challenges faced by the modern American male and advocates for structural changes that can help boys and men overcome them. In Part One, Reeves describes what he calls “the male malaise,” how boys and men have fallen behind and become disengaged from school, work, and family life. In Part Two, he argues that particular boys and men are at a “double disadvantage,” especially if they are Black and/or poor. He also includes a chapter on the mysterious inability (or refusal) of men to take advantage of programs and policies that might help them. In Part Three, Reeves lays out the abundant evidence for significant sex differences between men and women, primarily that men tend to be more aggressive, have higher sex drives, and take risks more readily. He points out that these qualities are the combined products of biology and culture, and asserts that they must be properly understood and accepted if we are to provide effective aid to boys and men. Part Four covers the dysfunctional nature of our nation’s “political stalemate,” in which progressives are overly dismissive of male failures and misattribute them to a culture of “toxic masculinity,” and conservatives are sympathetic to male hardship but think the answer is to return both sexes to a regressive model of “traditional” gender roles. Part Five presents Reeves’s ideas for structural reform, which include “redshirting the boys” (delaying school enrollment for an extra year), a massive recruitment effort to get men into HEAL (health, education, administration, and literacy) professions, and new policies to support fatherhood as an “independent social institution.” Of Boys and Men a tour de force of scientific analysis, social commentary, and passionate argumentation––a brilliant and much-needed book about one of America’s most widespread and urgent problems.

Key Concepts and Notes:

• My favorite term from this book is “prosocial masculinity,” which Reeves says we need in order to “help men adapt to the dramatic changes of recent decades without asking them to stop being men” (xiii). I’ve previously explored a few different ways of saying this––”new masculinity,” “positive masculinity,” and “humanist masculinity”––but “prosocial masculinity” is absolutely the right label. It’s the motivating and empowering antithesis to “toxic masculinity.”
• As readers will quickly learn, the scope and scale of the “male malaise” is daunting. Some of the headline statistics include:
  ––The college education gap is now wider than it was when Title IX was implemented, except it has flipped in favor of women. Men were up by 13% in 1972 and women were up by 15% in 2019.
  ––Due primarily to a combination of outsourcing and automation in male-dominated professions, male workforce participation has dropped 7% over the last half century, from 96% to 89%, with the biggest decline happening among young men aged 25-34.
  ––A third of men with only a high school diploma are now out of the workforce (about 5 million).
  ––Men who entered the workforce in 1983 will earn about 10% less, in real wages, across their working life compared to men who started working in 1967. For women, lifetime earnings have risen 33% over the same time period.
  ––The male rate of “deaths of despair” (suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related illnesses) is about three times that of women.
  ––Globally, men were about 50% more likely to die from COVID-19 compared to women, and in the USA nearly twice as many men died (184 male deaths for every 100 female deaths). Importantly, this was due to natural biological vulnerabilities in men, not lifestyle choices.
  ––The male share of American K-12 teachers is now just 24% (down from 33% in the 1980s), and only 11% of elementary teachers and 3% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers are men.
  ––For every new STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) job created by 2030, there will be more than three new HEAL jobs. HEAL jobs are the jobs of the future.
  ––An estimated 22% of positive contributions to children’s mental health, delinquency, and civil engagement are unique to men and women, with fathers adding more “human capital” and mothers specializing in “availability and closeness.”
  ––In 2020, $38 billion was collected in child support, with another $115 billion owed in arrears. For unmarried couples, child support payments can be required even if custody and visitation are restricted, and the payment amounts are often financially debilitating for low-income fathers.
• Anyone who suspects or claims that this book is somehow “anti-feminist” or “anti-women” is entirely incorrect. Throughout the text, Reeves bends over backwards to celebrate the gains of the feminist movement and push for increased gender equality in both directions. He often presents successful feminist policies and programs as models for how we can help boys and men, and readily admits the areas where gender inequalities are still suffered disproportionately by women. It’s not a zero-sum game where helping one gender means we must somehow disadvantage the other, and the promotion of prosocial masculinity is a “natural extension” of women’s liberation (184).
• Reeves’s chapter on natural sex differences is hands-down the best summary of this topic I have come across––something I wish everyone would read. Reeves balances perfectly between the biological/evolutionary realities and cultural influences that make men men and women women, insisting that these dimorphic differences matter while also eschewing “sex essentialism.” As a result, his analysis of occupational representation sidesteps the unreasonable goal of “perfect gender parity” and embraces the more modest and realistic position that extreme gender imbalances are undesirable and ought to be ameliorated.
• My main criticism of Reeves’s approach is that he overemphasizes structural problems and soft-pedals the importance of personal responsibility and male psychology. His structural analysis is sound but, in my view, incomplete. I’m sympathetic with his desire to avoid “victim-blaming,” but I also think it’s important to acknowledge that men contribute quite a lot to our own problems. Let’s not forget that men––usually elite men, who are doing great by the way––are largely responsible for creating and maintaining the systems that are disenfranchising average men and boys. There are also the countless decisions we make every day that determine whether we set ourselves up for success or failure. Reeves seems to think that it would be disempowering or unfair to point this out, but I actually think it’s disempowering to not admit that male agency plays a role here. Yes, social structures and political policies matter, and I’m in favor of pretty much all of Reeves’s recommendations. But we are not simply doomed in the absence of these reforms; there are additional avenues of exploration and flourishing we can pursue autonomously and in cooperation with other men––or not. The choice is ours.
• I agree with Reeves’s view that “toxic masculinity” has become a loose and alienating label “lacking any coherent or consistent definition,” but I disagree that it’s a completely “counterproductive term” (107). When applied appropriately, I think “toxic masculinity” is a useful way of describing a host of deplorable male behaviors, including but not limited to sexual harassment and assault, overblown physical aggression, and unjustifiable risk-taking. I think we should restrain and refine our use of this term rather than get rid of it. At the same time, we should elevate “prosocial masculinity” in our public discourse and admit that “toxic femininity” can also be a problem.
• Finally, I prefer a more expansive definition of “fatherhood” over the narrower, more traditional one that Reeves employs. I totally get that Reeves is all about helping “actual” dads and their families, but there doesn’t seem to be much room here for us childfree guys. I also fancy myself capable of “fathering,” despite not having my own kids. In my view, a crucial element of prosocial masculinity involves what Terrence Real calls the “move into fathering,” a process that “can, but need not, involve the biological begetting of children.” This occurs when a man learns to “become a true provider” by “entering into a fathering relationship to a child, a mate, an art, a cause, to the planet entire” (I Don’t Want to Talk About It, 321-2).

Favorite Quotes:

The peculiar situation of the human male requires urgent attention. We must help men adapt to the dramatic changes of recent decades without asking them to stop being men. We need a prosocial masculinity for a postfeminist world. And we need it soon. (xiii)

The liberalization of social norms and practices with regard to marriage and childbearing are in many ways a positive development. But it is vitally important that fathers are not benched as a result. Women have expanded their role, and the range of choices that they can make. Too many men are stuck with the narrow provider role, which is now badly obsolete, not only in theory but also in practice.

The result is that the separation of men from women too often means the separation of fathers from children. This is bad for men, bad for women, and bad for children. Just as women have largely broken free of the old, narrow model of motherhood, so men need to escape the confines of the breadwinner model of fatherhood. Fathers matter to children even if––perhaps especially if––they are not married to their mother. The social institution of fatherhood urgently needs an update, to become more focused on direct relationships with children. Along with the obvious challenges there is a big opportunity here too, for an expansion in men’s roles. (41)

Looked at from every angle, then, the pattern is clear. Economic and social disadvantage hurts boys more than girls. This is an extremely important fact, and one that has yet to receive nearly enough attention. The problems of men are not only fueling social and economic inequality but also being caused by it…

The dominant narrative of gender equality is framed almost exclusively in terms of the disadvantages of girls and women. But if we consider gender equality in the context of both race and class, a different picture emerges. Especially at the bottom of the economic ladder, it is boys and men who are falling behind girls and women…

Any serious effort to improve rates of upward mobility or reduce economic inequality must take into account the specific challenges being faced by boys and men. Otherwise, patterns of male disadvantage will repeat across generations. That will be bad for everyone, including women, and children, especially boys. This will require more than a policy tweak here or a quick initiative there. These problems run deep and require a commensurate response.

The good news is that the clear connection between economic inequality and the male malaise provides the possibility of bipartisan action. Conservatives worried about boys and men need to be concerned about economic inequality. But liberals worried about inequality must pay more attention to boys and men. (71-2)

Real men do not simply emerge naturally over time like butterflies from boyish cocoons; they must be assiduously coaxed from their juvenescent shells, shaped and nurtured, counseled and prodded into manhood. This is not to suggest that there is a single blueprint for making men. To say that men have to be made does not mean there is only one set of instructions. What makes for a “real man” varies greatly across cultures…

Nobody can simply break free of biology or culture to be a fully autonomous agent. Even enlightened moderns are animals underneath. All we can do is try to strike an appropriate balance. The good news is that as societies progress, first culture, and then individual agency become increasingly important. The kaleidoscope of our life choices becomes more colorful…

Culture has played a particularly important role in channeling the energy of men toward positive social ends, especially by teaching them to care for others. But “this behavior, being learned, is fragile,” warned Margaret Mead, “and can disappear rather easily under social conditions that no longer teach it effectively.” This is a warning we should heed. (96)

The failure of both Left and Right to respond to the growing problems of boys and men has created a dangerous vacuum in our political life. In the centrifugal dynamic of culture-war politics, the more the Right goes to one extreme, the more the Left must go to the other, and vice versa. The Left dismisses biology, the Right leans too heavily on it. The Left see a war on girls and women; the Right see a war on boys and men. The Left pathologizes masculinity; the Right pathologizes feminism. (129)

The goal is not to make professions like nursing, social work, mental health, or teaching seem like masculine rather than feminine ones, but to emphasize a range of opportunities that they can provide for both men and women. We don’t need to make men feel like being a nurse will somehow bolster their masculinity, just that it will not diminish it. (165)

There is a huge disconnect between obsolete mental models of fatherhood based on traditional family roles, and the reality of modern societies and economies. Fatherhood matters just as much as ever in a world of women’s economic independence, but necessarily in a reinvented form. The good news is that fathers can potentially have an even more fulfilling role, with a much closer relationship with their children. The bad news is that in much of our society, men are a very long way from being able to occupy this role as new dads. (173)

Doing more for boys and men does not require an abandonment of the ideal of gender equality. In fact, it is a natural extension of it. The problem with feminism, as a liberation movement, is not that it has “gone too far.” It is that it has not gone far enough. Women’s lives have been recast. Men’s lives have not. We need, as I said in the introduction, a positive vision of masculinity for a postfeminist world. We also need to be grown up enough as a culture to recognize that big changes, even positive ones, have repercussions. Dealing with these is not only possible, but necessary; that is simply the nature of progress. In this case, it means reforming an education system that that no longer works well for boys, and helping men adjust to the genuine dislocation caused by the loss of traditional male roles. We must tackle gender-specific challenges and inequalities in both directions.

Right now, there is a distinct lack of responsible leadership on this front. Politics has become like trench warfare, both sides fearing even the slightest loss of any ground. While moms and dads worry about their kids, our leaders are trapped in their partisan positions. Progressive see any move to provide more help to boys and men as a distraction from the fight for girls and women. Conservatives see any move to provide more help to girls and women as motivated by a desire to put men down. My hope is that away from the heat and noise of tribal politics, we can come to a shared recognition that many of our boys and men are in real trouble, not of their own making, and need help. (184)

Rating: 9/10