Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It

by Richard V. Reeves

A positive vision for masculinity in a postfeminist 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.

Genres: Nonfiction, Parenting, Psychology, Sociology, Politics, Audiobook, Gender

247 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 27, 2022

Reviews

[Emily May]

I have thought about reading one of these mens’ issues books for years. My instinct is to dismiss them as it's hard to listen to men complain how hard it is for 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. Not to mention the fact that occupations traditionally held by women are notoriously underpaid.

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.

[Cindy Pham]

i have such mixed feelings on this one. i understand the arguments about why it's important for men to be supported in order to be a functional society, and how the advancements of one gender does not diminish the other. the examples and data points presented for different areas of which men and boys are lacking (education, happiness, resilience, social lives, etc) were interesting as well. but there seems to be an unwillingness to admit that men have thrived BECAUSE of sexism and oppression of women, and they are now inflexible to adjust to a more equal and fair society. the book paints men as victims in need of help, without making them more accountable for how they ended up there in the first place.

for example, the author explains part of why boys are doing worse in education than girls is because there are predominantly more female teachers and boys respect male role models more than female ones. so his solution is to give boys more male role models, more male teachers, more male figures… instead of interrogating the root issue that boys seem to not have respect for women in the first place.

he talks about how men have lower resilience to overcoming challenges by citing that divorced women are able to bounce back in life while divorced men are not. yet he does not seem to interrogate how the physical, emotional, and mental labor of women in those marriages benefitted men in the first place. of course men are “less resilient” when they are divorced from their spouses - often times their lives are better because of women, while the other way around is often the opposite. that is why studies show married men are happier than single men, yet single women are happier than married women.

he cites studies that show men have lower ambitions than women because women who are provided resources and programs (free college, job training, etc) will thrive while men will remain stagnant despite getting the same resources. he proposes how we should change these programs to better accommodate men. it is not considered how women have always been expected to outperform in order to be accepted while men who automatically get a seat at the table have not been conditioned to fight under higher standards. how will changing these programs actually help men if the core issue is the lack of ambition in the first place?

i suspect there may be discomfort with admitting the faults of patriarchy in fear of alienating men; that’s the sense i got when i reached the part where the author disagrees with the term “toxic masculinity” and doesn’t believe we should prescribe masculinity in negative language. sure, masculinity can be a healthy ideal to aim for in a perfect world, but that doesn’t change the toxicity of those standards set by and imposed on men in the real world, resulting in real consequences. let’s call a spade a spade. just changing things in order to accommodate what men lack, without questioning WHY men are like this, is only putting on a band-aid to these problems.

[Amy Strong · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Amy · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Graeme Newell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five big stars. A fantastic book.

When I first mentioned 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 but humorously 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 at 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.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Meike · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's tragically ironic how the digital manosphere condemns feminism without realizing that the roots of what they identify as male suffering is called ... the patriarchy, a concept that dehumanizes not only women, but also men and traps them in specific attitudes and roles. It's also high time that men start pondering what masculinity actually might mean in all its diverse ways of expression - and I applaud Reeves for wanting to contribute to this discussion. His main point might be summarized as this though: The traditional male role of provider and their secure place as head of a family has given men stability, and the loss of this stability that comes with women acquiring a higher freedom of choice unsettles them and drives them into the arms of lobster daddy Jordan B. Peterson.

It's a little hard to sympathize with that, because it amounts to the idea that if girls and women get the chance in the context of education, the labor market, and also in social respects, they outplay men at a game that was initially designed to keep women powerless - and frankly, they still frequently don't even get the chance to compete. Plus, Reeves fails to consider how many men have been broken by societal expectations, because they failed to fulfill a nonsensical soldier ideal (the boss bitch of male studies is still Klaus Theweleit, who advocates against turning men into war and bread-winning machines whose need for emotional support and authentic connection is treated as weakness, which alienates men from their own humanity and cripples their ability to feel anything at all). Greater male freedom of expression and choice comes with the necessity to actually act and choose though, and to negotiate with women - and that seems to be the problem.

Reeves isn't clear about that though, because while he offers many studies about the education system, and family structures, and the labor market etc. pp., most of the stats can't be explained in a meaningful way, which makes it impossible to deduct a course of action. He is correct about the fact that gender equality isn't a zero sum game, that we have to rise together, but much like there is female agency (and, although Reeves isn't aware of the concept apparently, there is also Toxische Weiblichkeit, so toxic femininity rooted in patriarchy), there is male agency which for example means realizing that the fact that the social lives of husbands have traditionally been managed by their wives was always shitty and lazy and evasive - women are not personal entertainers. The male loneliness and suicide epidemic is also rooted in the lack of social skills that can be acquired, but men have often been kept from learning them and/or didn't need to. They will have to learn them to thrive in a more equal society.

I oddly feel like Theweleit's 1977 study Männerphantasien (Male Fantasies: Volume 1: Women, Floods, Bodies, History and Male Fantasies, Vol. 2: Male Bodies - Psychoanalyzing the White Terror (Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 23)) was more prescient and clear in their analysis than Reeves' stat eldorado that comes up with "hire more male teachers" and other suggestions of this nature. No, I think Theweleit is right when he says that men need to free themselves of being perceived as mere societal functions, even if it means putting more effort into constructing one's role and paving one's own path. Sending boys to school one year later, another of Reeves' ideas, won't cut it.

[Alberto Villarreal · Rating 2 out of 5]

Desde hace unos meses y por primera vez he escuchado a mis amigos hablar sobre los planes a corto plazo que tienen para tener hijos y con estos planes me he preguntado qué papel cumpliré en la vida de esos nuevos seres humanos si permanezco en la vida de sus padres. En mis planes reales nunca ha estado ser papá, pero it takes a village. Leí este libro como parte de mi investigación: ¿qué papel ocupan los hombres en la crianza de los otros? ¿cuál es el papel de la masculinidad en la sociedad? ¿por qué los hombres parecen radicalizarse cada vez más?

Lamentablemente el problema es tan profundo que no se puede llegar a una respuesta sencilla, me parece que este libro no logra lo que se propone y las comparaciones constantes entre los hombres y las mujeres no suman a la conversación, sino que sigue alimentando la dicotomía. Pude rescatar un par de ideas que tendré que seguir analizando para encontrar mi opinión al respecto.

[Jordan B Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Brittany · Rating 3 out of 5]

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

[Jason Furman · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Katie Cosby · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Timo · Rating 3 out of 5]

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...

[Wick Welker · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s not wrong to try to help men.

As a person who leans left and decries the destructive nature of patriarchy, this was an eye opening book. Let’s just get things out of the way: this author in no way denies that sexism, patriarchy, misogyny and the gender pay gap between men and women are not real. In fact, everything he says in this book supports the fact that patriarchy is a system in control that has subjugated women. This book is about how men have also been victims of patriarchy and this book fits perfectly on the book shelf right next to anything that someone like Bell Hooks has written. It’s terrible that it has to be said, but advocating for men in the face of very real statistical disadvantages is not the same thing as not advocating for women. It is not a zero sum situation. We can, and should, advocate for both men and women.

I feel called out after reading this and rightly so. The author presents fairly irrefutable and easily referenced facts about a specific sex disparity: men are becoming less educated. Women have now clearly pulled ahead of men in almost all stages of education and as degree earners. No, this doesn’t mean we still need more gains in STEM for women and there are still big disparities there, but the facts are that the attempts at dismantling patriarchy and getting women into the workforce and school have made enormous gains over the last 50 years. Again, it needs to be stressed, women are still hugely disadvantaged when it comes to the gender pay gap and there are enormous disparities that disfavor women at the high earner bracket. But what are we talking about here: normal men. Average men. And what are average men experiencing now? Economic and job loss because of large shifts that have happened as patriarchy has slowly become dismantled over the last 50 years. Black men, in particular, are extremely disadvantaged.

So why do I feel called out? Because the American Left largely ignores the problem of economic and job less that average men have clearly experienced. For the Left it’s not politically correct or expedient to talk about how half the population has a terrible time graduating from school and experiencing wage stagnation. And the Left ignores it to the peril. Because what is the Right doing? Capitalizing on the economic woes and perceived power loss that men are experiencing. Right wing politicians have exploited men’s real grievances and they’re doing all the wrong things with it. Right wing politicians, rather than wanting to use social democratic policy to help men (like job and education grants to get men into health, administration and education jobs where they are really lacking) they decry “wokeism” and imply or directly say we need to return back to the golden years of patriarchy and toxic masculinity. So the Left ignores the problem, disenfranchising an enormous voting block while the Right exploits and manipulates them. News alert: Trump has had the widest gender gap poll ever in 2016 at 24%. Men are super, super into neo fascism and authoritarian politics now and a big part of it is because the Left ignores their very real problems that ironically could be solved using the very same social democratic policies that have helped women. And guess what? We’re all suffering for it. Men are the greatest perpetrators of crimes, murder, rape and also suffer the most from diseases and deaths of despair. I don’t believe these disparities are necessarily natural but a consequence of a desperate population of people.

Now, this author could be called sexist. He makes the claims and one of them is that there are indeed factual biological differences between men and women. But he’s careful with how he talks about this. He correctly evokes the idea of overlapping distribution curves. He says, on average and due to clearly defined divergent hormonal and brain development differences that on average men and women tend to be a little different. But he quickly concedes that the distributions between the sexes cluster differently but that the two distributions completely overlap or are superimposed. Meaning for example, many men tend to be risk takers because of slower brain development, have high sex drives because of hormonal evolutionary biology, not really care about being a parent, care less about meaningful relationships and many women tend to exhibit these traits less so on average but there are exceptions all over the place. Can anyone really deny this? So, the author may be making sexist claims but actual biology is also kind of sexist. Additionally, the author believes that it is both natural biology, social constructs and cultural attitudes that create the advent of toxic masculinity and all the terrible outcomes previously discussed associated with men.

The author’s solutions are social democratic policies. Men should have 6 months of federally mandated paid parental leave. As well as women. Education programs should be funded to help men graduate from school and college. Men should be encouraged and helped by the state specifically to get them into nursing, healthcare, social work, education and administration. The author also believes that all boys should start school one year later because their brain development is slower than girls which is a biological fact. This, of course, is controversial which is recognized by the author. Can you imagine how many men would support social democratic policies that specifically address the exact ways in which they are currently disadvantaged? It would turn politics on its head overnight. Maybe men would stop supporting fascist politicians, too, which would kind of help everyone out including liberal democracy at large. You never know…

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the most practical, problem-solving discussion of men’s problems I’ve seen. Reeves avoids polemics over whether trying to help young men detracts from empowering women. He just presents findings from solid sociological research, which show women making strong gains in education and professional life: “While women have moved decisively into many previously male-dominated occupations, … there has been nothing like the same movement in the other direction. Gender desegregation of the labor market has been almost entirely one way.” At the same time, the studies show declines in male academic performance, and rising rates of male unemployment, loneliness, addiction, or mental illness, The chapter on challenges faced by black males is especially powerful, as it details the effects of being viewed as a threat.

In responding to such trends and challenges, Reeves doesn’t play preacher or counsellor. He develops proposals for pragmatic policy changes to enable moves toward greater equity in parenting, mentoring, career development, and care-giving. Basically, he talks like this: “Men do need help. But we can help men without hindering women or trying to turn back the clock. Fatherhood in particular can be reinvented for a more egalitarian world.”

[Melissa Kearney · Rating 5 out of 5]

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!

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Penny Adrian · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Haley Baumeister · Rating 4 out of 5]

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!

[Rick Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Vincent · Rating 1 out of 5]

I checked this out from my library thinking this would actually discuss the wellbeing of people but this just wasn’t it.

First of all the author juxtaposes the argument of this book in opposition to feminism and women. Mental health issues and suicide rates are high in men and the wellbeing of masculine people is a serious concern. But to pit it against a movement advocating for the well-being or others isn’t helpful. Be better than that. Stand on your own two feet and say this group of people need help because they’re humans. But honestly this book wants to be more a antithesis to feminism than do anything helpful.

Here are multiple examples: only brings up Black men to justify points and knock back against feminism (at no point does it feel like the author actually cares about the wellbeing of Black men), doesn’t consider anyone outside of cisgender men or cisgender women and doesn’t even bother to mention intersex people, similarly no nuance in discussing LGBT+ or other racial identities, does not identify the groups these statistics represent (is the pay gap info about ALL women? Or just white women? Regardless there’s many issues with both that fail to understand nuances in intersectionality, which this book shits on for no reason, that highlight that non white women make less than white women and non white men make less than white men AND with all of this factored in women STILL make less than men), and a quick Google search highlighted that not all of the statistics were valid or reliable.

On top of this….what were these policy suggestions? Men teaching boys won’t change anything. Having a good teacher in general will change lives but that’s not what this is arguing. Also neither will having men go into trades work. If anything these are just playing into stereotypes that men need to be doing jobs that are deemed masculine further perpetuating toxic masculinity. And the author brings up HEALS (aka helping professions) but CONVENIENTLY leaves out that men CONSISTENTLY make more in these professions solely due to being men. Male nurses will be offered and often make significantly more than their female counterparts solely because they are a man and hospitals want male nurses. My policy suggestion is unpacking why you think to justify that your group needs help you have to knock down other groups? Why are you so quick to throw away toxic masculinity when the topics depicted in it, like men feeling like they cannot express their emotions, contributes to the issues that are discussed?

For me this was just a complete miss.

[Blythe Beecroft · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Philip Joubert · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Liana Williams · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only reason I finished it was because it was so short. This book is a waste of time, instead read “The Boy Crisis” by Warren Farrell.
This author is SO CLOSE to correctly identifying the reasons that men and boys are struggling in modern society, but his leftist brainwashing is blinding him to the truth.

[Sydney · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Vicky Guo · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Jennifer Jackson · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author points out some of the issues we all see with men in America/the Western World, but only alludes to the way things could be different. His solution is to encourage men to take more involved roles in parenting and encourage more men to enter the Health/education/literary professions.
I think there are better books out there—including “Real Boys”

[Aditi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is one that should be read by feminists and meninists alike. Richard Reeves writes his work by borrowing learnings from a variety of disciplines like biology, evolutionary biology, gender politics, sociology, and public policy in order to explain the situation we live in today. As a feminist, it helped me gain an insight into the minds of "angry men" who seem to think that women have it all (That's not true, but scales have tilted in our favor way too quickly for them to adjust). Women have changed and adapted quickly, learning from our mistakes and disappointments. Men, however, are yet to break away from their traditional values and think of a way to live in the world today. Reeves helps men to find a way to do so.

But men aren't the only ones who need to change. Our economic system, our expectations from men, and our social environment also need to update. As a feminist, I believe that we (women) can only be truly free and liberated when men are allowed to be free as well. This book explains how men are being weighed down by loneliness, racial inequality, biases, hormones, and the education system, but there is nothing to elevate them to equalize them with us. I knew men were disadvantaged in a few things like education and divorce courts, but I learned a number of new ones.

Reeves' combination of nature and nurture is something that appealed to me. He concludes with detailed and specific policy recommendations. The suggestions include redshirting boys and enlisting more male teachers, attracting more men to HEAL professions, making paternal leaves non-transferable for children up to age 18, and etc.

There is a lot to study and learn more about this topic. Reeves' book is naught but a drop in the ocean. But it is a wonderful start to opening our minds to helping BOTH men, and women.

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

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!