Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It
- Downloads：5823
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-10-31 06:52:31
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Richard V. Reeves
- ISBN：1800750544
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Of Boys and Men is a groundbreaking analysis of how the social and economic world of men has been turned upside down， leaving them adrift and underpowered。 Previous attempts to treat this condition， from all political angles， have made the same fatal mistake - of viewing the problems of men as a problem with men。 This book shows how the basic social structures defining masculine maturity and success have been shattered， and how they can -- and must -- be reinvented。
The book draws on a careful analysis of social， economic and demographic trends; the latest thinking on gender in psychology， public policy， economics and sociology; as well as on interviews with men and women， girls and boys。 In particular， it examines the worrying signs that males are less responsive to social programs and policies intended to promote economic mobility。
Of Boys and Men thus reveals to a general readership for the first time the shocking failure of many social programs to help men， even as they lift up women。 Something close to a conspiracy of silence in the social sciences has kept this a secret。 It ends with an urgent manifesto for a new model of masculinity that is both pro-male and pro-equality: for parents， for women， law-makers -- and for men themselves。
The book draws on a careful analysis of social， economic and demographic trends; the latest thinking on gender in psychology， public policy， economics and sociology; as well as on interviews with men and women， girls and boys。 In particular， it examines the worrying signs that males are less responsive to social programs and policies intended to promote economic mobility。
Of Boys and Men thus reveals to a general readership for the first time the shocking failure of many social programs to help men， even as they lift up women。 Something close to a conspiracy of silence in the social sciences has kept this a secret。 It ends with an urgent manifesto for a new model of masculinity that is both pro-male and pro-equality: for parents， for women， law-makers -- and for men themselves。
Reviews
John Stein
，
A great conversation starter - as Mr Reeves accurately focuses attention on a critical and largely overlooked societal challenge facing modern society （though his primary focus is the US）。 He does an excellent job of trying to stay non-partisan on the issue and accurately skewers both the left and the right for ignoring the substance of the challenge。 I’m not sure his policy prescriptions to address the problem make much sense， but he lays out some reasonable places to start。
Jamie
，
Excellent。 Full review here: https://americandreaming。substack。com。。。 Excellent。 Full review here: https://americandreaming。substack。com。。。 。。。more
Emily Strom
，
3。5 Stars。 Quick read。 Interesting ideas。
Larkin Tackett
，
British author and Brookings fellow Richard Reeves makes a compelling case that boys， young men， and men （at least those who are not in the upper-income bracket） are struggling。 I've seen this first hand in education programs I've supported。 College degree attainment is down and unemployment is up。 Automation is displacing more men than women。 Men have weaker social connections than women and experiencing a "friendship recession。" Neighborhoods matter more for boys than girls。 During the COVID-1 British author and Brookings fellow Richard Reeves makes a compelling case that boys， young men， and men （at least those who are not in the upper-income bracket） are struggling。 I've seen this first hand in education programs I've supported。 College degree attainment is down and unemployment is up。 Automation is displacing more men than women。 Men have weaker social connections than women and experiencing a "friendship recession。" Neighborhoods matter more for boys than girls。 During the COVID-19 pandemic， globally， men were around 50% more likely than women to die after contracting the virus。 "The gender gap in college degrees awarded is wider today than it was in the early 1970s，" Reeves writes， "but in the opposite direction。" And intersectionality means men of color are disproportionally struggling。 "Black men face not only institutional racism but gendered racism， including discrimination in the labor market and criminal justice system。"These facts do not take anything away from the challenges faced by girls， young women， and women。 Sexism continues to be rampant throughout our society。 This book is a reminder that both of these dynamics can be true。 "What is required here，" Reeves continues， "is a simple change in mindset， recognizing that gender inequalities can go in both directions。" My only criticism is that the book's structure felt overly formulaic。 Overall， however， Of Boys and Men is an important contribution to the social discourse about a scary trend we should all take more seriously。 。。。more
James Kenney
，
Book is great。 Super important。 And all of the author’s insights， observations， and arguments seem to be spot on。
Daniel
，
The problems with and for men and boys is a very serious issue that isn't being discussed nearly enough， and when it is discussed， it's often the man's fault。 Richard Reeves describes what we're up against in great detail， and offers some very realistic solutions that we should be looking at。 The problems with and for men and boys is a very serious issue that isn't being discussed nearly enough， and when it is discussed， it's often the man's fault。 Richard Reeves describes what we're up against in great detail， and offers some very realistic solutions that we should be looking at。 。。。more
devin
，
I REALLY wanted to like this book， but it's sooooo dry and pedantic that it was an absolute slog to get through。 There is no passion in the writing here :S I feel like it tries too hard to play the "both sides" card about the debate， but the fact of the matter is that most of the problems surrounding men in modern society simply come from an unnatural culture。 The nuclear family was destined to fail from the beginning because it's a religious fantasy， we are still at the point in our evolution w I REALLY wanted to like this book， but it's sooooo dry and pedantic that it was an absolute slog to get through。 There is no passion in the writing here :S I feel like it tries too hard to play the "both sides" card about the debate， but the fact of the matter is that most of the problems surrounding men in modern society simply come from an unnatural culture。 The nuclear family was destined to fail from the beginning because it's a religious fantasy， we are still at the point in our evolution where our minds are designed for tribal life。 。。。more
Frank Lindt
，
Important book that touches upon a much under-looked problem in our society。 The author touches upon varies factors that have lead to the struggles of the contemporary male and proposes solutions on how to make the future brighter。
Comaskeyk001
，
This is an important book。 Unfortunately I don’t think it will gain traction and support。 For one， women who would normally be a good source for support may feel threatened。 Two， this is not like walking and chewing gum at the same time （supporting both men and women’s special needs simultaneously。） That bifurcated support efforts is more like eating pizza and chewing gum at the same time。I hope I’m wrong。
Allie
，
2。5 stars if i could My professor brought up this book in my Gender & Development course and I figured it would be a beneficial read since I’d like a career in the policy world。 The beginning of the book is so compelling， but Chapter 2 is when my interested began to drop。 All of the research in this book is so strong and paints a picture based in actual statistical evidence。 However， so much of this book felt like “men used to be on top and we need them back on top，” despite knowing that wasn’t 2。5 stars if i could My professor brought up this book in my Gender & Development course and I figured it would be a beneficial read since I’d like a career in the policy world。 The beginning of the book is so compelling， but Chapter 2 is when my interested began to drop。 All of the research in this book is so strong and paints a picture based in actual statistical evidence。 However， so much of this book felt like “men used to be on top and we need them back on top，” despite knowing that wasn’t the author’s goal （he also makes a point to repeat this in basically every chapter）。 While I think what he’s put forth is interesting and in serious need of further studying and effective policy， this book feels incomplete。 Not to mention the lack of nuance for the LGBTQ+ community， specifically the trans community。 I know in the forward he explicitly addresses the fact he doesn’t include trans people， but then he later talks about trans people。 I think when he’s addressing the culture wars and the “issue” with biology， he’s severely lacking nuance and consideration for the LGBTQ+ community。 I also don’t think the author paid enough attention to incels and the manosphere although I know he was focused very broadly。 Really wanted this book to blow me away， but so much of it felt whiny and incomplete。 。。。more
Sema
，
Interesting arguments， nuanced， well-organized， and well-written。 I may not agree entirely with the scope or solutions proposed， but I certainly appreciate its existence。 And I can agree that there is a distinct lack of responsible leadership in addressing the concern。
Tyler Burns
，
You can check out my review here:https://youtu。be/y5D5Z_Fm4HA You can check out my review here:https://youtu。be/y5D5Z_Fm4HA 。。。more
Amy
，
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 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。 。。。more
Miles
，
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 chap 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 literary） 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 hand-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: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression， 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）This review was originally published on my blog， words&dirt。 。。。more
Randy Rasa
，
I was skeptical at first， but the author won me over with solid data and research， persuasive arguments， and reasoned conclusions。 I think this is a necessary discussion of a critical topic。 This is an important book。
Matt
，
A remarkable book about an important but under-discussed problem。 As the father of two boys， I took a special interest in this book about the problems facing men and boys today。 But the problems discussed in this book go well beyond the family。 As Reeves notes， are struggling in our educational system and in the labor market， and those struggles have serious implications for our economy and politics that all of us need to take seriously。 Too much of what gets written about men’s problems is over A remarkable book about an important but under-discussed problem。 As the father of two boys， I took a special interest in this book about the problems facing men and boys today。 But the problems discussed in this book go well beyond the family。 As Reeves notes， are struggling in our educational system and in the labor market， and those struggles have serious implications for our economy and politics that all of us need to take seriously。 Too much of what gets written about men’s problems is overly ideological and unhelpful。 Many on the left dismiss a special concern with men as a distraction from the problems faced by women。 Many on the right weaponize men’s problems for purposes of a broader attack on progressivism and social justice。 So it’s especially refreshing to read a book by someone like Reeves - a self-described ‘conscientious objector in the culture wars’ - which takes a pragmatic， evidence-based approach to the topic。 Reeves discusses many of the problems facing many boys， and puts forward some promising and provocative policy suggestions for how to begin coping with them。 You might not agree with all of those policies - I have my own quibbles with some。 But whatever their merits， Reeves is to be credited with starting a conversation we desperately need to have。 Highly， highly recommended。 。。。more
Maher Razouk
，
لا تبرر الفروق المتوسطة بين الجنسين إضفاء الطابع المؤسسي على عدم المساواة بين الجنسين。 هناك خوف من استخدام البيولوجيا لتوفير أساس فكري للتمييز على أساس الجنس。 هذا خوف مبرر ، بالنظر إلى تاريخنا。 في الأيدي الخطأ ، يمكن بالفعل استخدام الأدلة على الاختلافات الطبيعية لتبرير الاضطهاد。 لكن إنكار العلم كليًا ليس مفيدًا ؛ تعود الحقيقة دائمًا لتلدغك في النهاية。 الحقيقة المملة إلى حد ما هي أن الصفات الذكورية تكون أكثر فائدة في بعض السياقات والأنوثة أكثر فائدة في سياقات أخرى ، ولا تكون أي من المجموعتين أفضل لا تبرر الفروق المتوسطة بين الجنسين إضفاء الطابع المؤسسي على عدم المساواة بين الجنسين。 هناك خوف من استخدام البيولوجيا لتوفير أساس فكري للتمييز على أساس الجنس。 هذا خوف مبرر ، بالنظر إلى تاريخنا。 في الأيدي الخطأ ، يمكن بالفعل استخدام الأدلة على الاختلافات الطبيعية لتبرير الاضطهاد。 لكن إنكار العلم كليًا ليس مفيدًا ؛ تعود الحقيقة دائمًا لتلدغك في النهاية。 الحقيقة المملة إلى حد ما هي أن الصفات الذكورية تكون أكثر فائدة في بعض السياقات والأنوثة أكثر فائدة في سياقات أخرى ، ولا تكون أي من المجموعتين أفضل من الأخرى في جوهرها。لا ينبغي أن يؤثر متوسط الفروق بين المجموعات على نظرتنا للأفراد。 هذا هو ما يسميه معظم الناس التنميط。 حتى لو كانت النساء في المتوسط مهيئات ليكونوا أكثر رعاية واهتماماً ، فهذا لا يعني أن ابني لا يمكن أن يكون مدرسًا ممتازًا ومهتمًا وعاطفيًا مع لأطفال الصغار 。 ربما يمكنك التفكير في بعض النساء اللواتي لا يتمتعن برعاية جيدة。 إذا كنت تعتمد توظيف شخص ما في وظيفة تتطلب الرعاية ، فركز على شخصية الفرد وليس جنسه。。Richard V。 ReevesOf Boys and MenTranslated By #Maher_Razouk 。。。more
JAKE
，
Rating the book is difficult。 I ultimately ended up rating it 5 stars because of the importance of the topic not the book as written。 As written it probably falls between a 3 or 4 star。Even though Reeves is significantly further left than me， I actually agreed most of his proposals for solutions to the problems。 The only one I took issue with is the Fatherhood solutions。 I think he has taken a step too far in decoupling fatherhood with marriage。 While there are plenty of good reasons to not get Rating the book is difficult。 I ultimately ended up rating it 5 stars because of the importance of the topic not the book as written。 As written it probably falls between a 3 or 4 star。Even though Reeves is significantly further left than me， I actually agreed most of his proposals for solutions to the problems。 The only one I took issue with is the Fatherhood solutions。 I think he has taken a step too far in decoupling fatherhood with marriage。 While there are plenty of good reasons to not get married or get divorced and plenty of excellent fathers that are not married to the mothers of their children I his proposals make it seem as if the future of fatherhood should be decoupled from marriage。 I did take issue with all of the apologizing throughout the book。 I think if all the preambles and 'I'm not saying。。。' were removed it could have shortened the book by 10 or 20 percent。 Just make your case dude。Jordan Pederson makes a short appearance in the book and is not given very careful examination and ultimately dismissed。 I was surprised at this because as I was reading the book it sounded like he had was quoting many of Pederson's points。 I think the dismissal of Pederson is was a nod to his more liberal audience。 。。。more
Timo
，
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 moder 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。。。 。。。more
Larry Richards
，
As man， and a father of a young son， this may be the most impactful book I've read in years。 This is a kind assessment of male identity， an informational assessment of the state of men， and pragmatic guide on how the world can be better to men （without being regressive to others）。 It's changed how I think about raising my son， and how I can be better to him （and maybe also better to myself）。 As man， and a father of a young son， this may be the most impactful book I've read in years。 This is a kind assessment of male identity， an informational assessment of the state of men， and pragmatic guide on how the world can be better to men （without being regressive to others）。 It's changed how I think about raising my son， and how I can be better to him （and maybe also better to myself）。 。。。more
Kamlesh
，
Could have been condensed in an article。
Jessica Schurz
，
I appreciate that Reeves calls out the worst in both “men suck” and “just follow the 12 rules for life” narratives。 He helpfully lays out the economic trends behind why more Western men are leading “haphazard and lonely lives”—withdrawing from the labor market and families at higher rates while continuing to make up the vast majority of suicides and drug overdoses。
Penny Adrian
，
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 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。 。。。more
Wade Rials
，
Richard Reeves takes on a massive cultural beast in this book。 His research and statistical work is solid。 The problem lies in the solutions offered。 Reeves holds to the same premise as those who have created this non-sensical culture。 He suggests that men should now figure out how to live in this new world。 He rejects Biblical complimentarianism and the authorial standard that anchors it。 His premise is a mixture of egalitarianism， social liberalism， and intersectionality。 The solution he offer Richard Reeves takes on a massive cultural beast in this book。 His research and statistical work is solid。 The problem lies in the solutions offered。 Reeves holds to the same premise as those who have created this non-sensical culture。 He suggests that men should now figure out how to live in this new world。 He rejects Biblical complimentarianism and the authorial standard that anchors it。 His premise is a mixture of egalitarianism， social liberalism， and intersectionality。 The solution he offers is that boys should start school a year after girls and parents should receive government funded six months leave when a child is born。 This book promised great things unfortunately it failed to deliver。 。。。more
Dave
，
This is an excellent， must read book。 Well researched， Reeves avoids partisanship by dispassionately describing what both progressives and conservatives get right and get wrong。 He then offers practical solutions to address the problems he highlights: Boys fall behind in school starting in kindergarten， and today the college gender gap is bigger than it was before Title IX—but favoring females over males。 Men are falling behind in the workforce too， but while the medical， mental health， and educ This is an excellent， must read book。 Well researched， Reeves avoids partisanship by dispassionately describing what both progressives and conservatives get right and get wrong。 He then offers practical solutions to address the problems he highlights: Boys fall behind in school starting in kindergarten， and today the college gender gap is bigger than it was before Title IX—but favoring females over males。 Men are falling behind in the workforce too， but while the medical， mental health， and education are dominated by women， there are no programs to recruit more men—though there are numerous programs to recruit women into STEM。 Boys today have absorbed anti-male biases， struggling to identify anything good about men。 Three-quarters of suicides and the overwhelming majority of murder victims are men， but we rarely discuss this。 Men want more family time， but are still valued primarily for their incomes。 Fathers' rights is a gender equality issue that society ignores。However， there's little awareness of just how big these problems are。 And while conservatives push for a return to traditional gender roles， progressives dismiss and demean boys and men for the problems they face。 In a strange reversal， conservatives see these issues as systemic while progressives see them as the fault of the individual。 Worse is the zero sum thinking: supporting boys and men supposedly detracts from girls and women。 But neither a return to the past nor sucking it up （because men are privileged anyway） is going to work。 It's not a zero sum game。 Reeves repeats the mantra that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time。 Though he doesn't quote Warren Farrell， I think Farrell's statement that， "when one gender loses， both genders lose" really captures it。 But this will require a political shift: men's rights activists， who have been talking about these issues for decades， need to understand that their anti-feminism is a distraction that causes people to not listen to them。 And feminists will need to admit that feminist sexism is real—biases favoring women over men， and misandric rhetoric like "toxic masculinity，" work against equality。 。。。more
Evan
，
Read this with fathers and mothers。Here's a great intro to Reeves and his work:https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=6ur1n。。。 Read this with fathers and mothers。Here's a great intro to Reeves and his work:https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=6ur1n。。。 。。。more
Jordan B Cooper
，
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。
Walker
，
Good entry in the "feminism as applied to men" category， which is distinct from the "men's rights" and the "men are bad" categories。 Good entry in the "feminism as applied to men" category， which is distinct from the "men's rights" and the "men are bad" categories。 。。。more
Chris Boutté
，
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 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。 。。。more
Matt Stevens
，