CHANGE MY MIND READ - NZ needs a Ministry for Men

Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It by Richard Reeves | Published: Sep 27, 2022

Message from the recommender (anonymous):

“You would probably expect this recommendation to come from a right winger, but I am a lefty. I’m a dad of three boys and I feel like all the things I am worried about for my sons are taboo to talk about. This book was a relief to read because it told me I am not the only one worrying and that other progressives see how boys are disadvantaged in many ways. I am interested to hear your take on the book as a feminist. I think we need a Ministry for Men.”

My Review:

I can understand, given my very public feminism, why this man would recommend this book to me and assume that I wouldn’t already acknowledge that there are some significant challenges faced by men today. However, a few years ago I had my one and only cover story for The Listener published and the headline the editor ran with was The War on Men: Isn’t it time it stopped? Needless to say it wasn’t received well by the lanyard-wearing class. The Listener was flooded with complaints and despite having not chosen the headline myself, I was thoroughly castigated. In reality, the article was a book review and interview with the author about a book she had written on the struggles of men.

Regardless of my previous foray into the topic, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It was an eye-opening read that exposed me to alarming statistics I was not aware of.

Like my recommender, the author of the book,

Richard V Reeves

, is a father of three boys, although they are now adults. He writes from a very progressive perspective and I was surprised by how, in many ways, the book was pretty feminist. He quotes Gloria Steinem for goodness sake! Oh and some guy called Barack Obama recommended the book for his 2024 Summer Reads.

I will set aside the infuriating disclaimer the author makes near the beginning of the book around writing for ‘cis’ boys and men only. Such ideological nonsense immediately eroded my confidence in the seriousness and accuracy of the book, but thank goodness it was quickly recovered.

My own biases about ‘men’s rights activists’ had me expecting resentment, grievance, and hatred of feminism. Instead the book is a balanced and thoughtful treatise on the challenges faced by men and boys in a world that has improved in some ways for women. Women’s rights battles are far from over on many fronts, but Of Boys And Men focuses on the areas where women and girls have left boys and men in the dust.

Reeves demands that his book not be sucked into the ‘culture wars’ vortex. He assesses that progressives and conservatives alike are failing to understand the struggles of boys and men and deal with them effectively.

“Progressives refuse to accept that important gender inequalities can run in both directions, and quickly label male problems as ‘toxic masculinity.’ Conservatives appear more sensitive to the struggles of boys and men, but only as a justification for turning back the clock and restoring traditional gender roles. The Left tells men, "‘Be more like your sister'.’ The Right says, ‘Be more like your father'.’

He also rejects that in caring about boys’ plight we are somehow suggesting that girls’ have it easy and there are no more battles to be fought for them.

“Doing more for boys and men doesn’t mean doing any less for women and girls. That’s like saying to the parent of a son and daughter: ‘You’re only allowed to care about one of them.’ And it’s the kind of zero-sum thinking that is doing so much damage to our politics and to our culture. We can think two thoughts at once. We can do two things at once.”

- author Richard Reeves -

Education is the primary focus of Reeves’ book with employment and the role of men in families also featuring prominently. The statistics alone paint a bleak story and one that should concern us all. Even those who determinedly reject the idea that in certain areas males could be doing worse than females, cannot ignore the stark evidence in Reeves’ book (although it is primarily data from the United States).

Reeves delves tentatively at first into the treacherous waters of how much we can attribute male and female behaviour to biology compared to socialisation. The gender identity wars have made this topic highly controversial and risky for an academic who wants to avoid being cancelled by his predominantly hard left colleagues. Nonetheless, Reeves considers the issue of such importance that he dives in and with growing confidence argues that we should attribute more to biology than we do.

In my own engagement in the gender wars, I have simplified my own thinking on the issue down to: sex is biology and gender is socialisation. Of Boys And Men caused me to rethink this. Sex is biology without a doubt, but I am willing to concede that I have been too definitive in assigning gender entirely to socialisation. Reeves argues strongly and compellingly that some of our gendered behaviours, preferences, and ways of thinking are determined to some degree by biology.

“The closer I looked, the bleaker the picture became. The gender gap in college degrees awarded is wider today than it was in the early 1970s, but in the opposite direction. The wages of most men are lower today than they were in 1979, while women’s wages have risen across the board. One in five fathers are not living with their children. Men account for almost three out four ‘deaths of despair,’ either from a suicide or overdose.”

Of Boys and Men - Richard Reeves

“Boys brains develop more slowly, especially during the most critical years of secondary education,” Reeves writes. This, he argues, is a significant factor in why they on average lag behind their female counterparts.

“The parts of the brain associated with impulse control, planning, future orientation, sometimes labelled the ‘CEO of the brain,’ are mostly in the prefrontal cortex, which matures about 2 years later in boys than girls. The cerebellum, for example, reaches full size at the age of 11 for girls, but not until age 15 for boys.”

Keen to reassure his progressive readers that he isn’t suggesting there is a “century-old feminist conspiracy to disadvantage boys” at school, Reeves reminds readers that our education systems were designed by men for the most part. He contends that it is quite by accident that once many of the old barriers to girls receiving equal education were removed, it transpired that the structure of secondary schooling suited girls more than boys.

“Boys are less likely than girls to graduate high school. In 2018, 88% of girls graduated from high school on time (i.e. 4 years after enrolling), compared to 82% of boys. The male rate is only a little higher than the 80% among poor students.”

The gap established in secondary school is maintained, and in some cases widened, in college (what we would call university in New Zealand). Of Boys and Men lists statistic after statistic that demonstrates that we have a growing problem in the underperformance and disadvantaging of males in higher education. More than half of all bachelor’s degrees in the United States are awarded to women (57%). The rise of women’s education has been rapid and a raging policy success, but we need men to keep up.

“Women now account for almost half (47%) of undergraduate business degrees, for example, compared to fewer than one in ten in 1970. Women also receive the majority of law degrees, up from about one in twenty in 1970…Women are earning three out of five master’s degrees and associate’s degrees, and the rise has been even more dramatic for professional degrees.”

It isn’t a phenomena unique to the USA either. Reeves informs us that 40% of young women in Britain go to college at age 18, but only 29% of young men do. In fact, “in every country in the OECD, there are now more young women than young men with a bachelor’s degree.”

This is astounding considering that just half a century ago women were practically still barefoot in the kitchen not daring to dream of degrees and high-flying careers. Of course, enrolling and beginning a degree is one thing and completing it is another. Data shows that things don’t look any better for young men on that front either.

“Male students are more likely to ‘stop out,’ that is, to take a detour away from their studies, and they are also more likely to ‘drop out’ and fail to graduate at all.”

Reeves struggles to pin down an exact diagnosis for the higher education gap except to point to a continuation of the trajectory of secondary schooling. He refers to an “aspiration gap” which sees girls more focused on education and boys struggling for motivation. This is part of a more general malaise that is thematic throughout other sections of the book.

Two key areas of policy reform Reeves suggests to aid with getting boys and men to catch up in education relate to when and what. He proffers that boys should start school later than girls at age 6. They will be a year older than the girls in their class but closer in terms of brain development. For the what, he suggests that just as we ran concerted and well-resourced campaigns to get women into STEM (with much success), boys and men must be encouraged and enticed into HEAL subjects.

“Traditionally female occupations, especially in what I call the HEAL fields - in health, education, administration and literacy - have, if anything, become even more “pink collar.” Just 26% of HEAL jobs are held by men, down from 35% in 1980.” - Men can HEAL, Richard Reeves

These subjects lead to careers that are more resilient to the changes sweeping through employment at the moment, another area that Reeves demonstrates men are struggling in. He defends men against suggestions that male employment statistics have worsened because they have “suddenly become feckless or work shy”. Pointing instead to the “one-two-punch of automation and free trade.”

I won’t get into the weeds here as there is too much to cover, but Reeves addresses the matter of the ‘gender pay gap’ comprehensibly linking it to how we deal with the challenge of motherhood in relation to careers. He does not deny the gap, saying: “it is not a myth. It is math.”

“The Pay Gap is a Parenting Gap. The one-word explanation for the pay gap is: children. Among young adults, especially if they are childless, the pay gap has essentially disappeared.”

Reeves third chapter is called ‘Dislocated Dads: Fathers have lost their traditional role in the family’. He begins by eloquently describing the oppressive nature of marriage for women prior to just the last few decades. He reminds the reader that ‘women’s lib’ was called that because the movement is about liberation and, in particular, economic independence from men.

“This goal has been largely accomplished in advanced economies, turning marriage into a social choice rather than an economic necessity…A husband may be nice, but he is no longer necessary.”

This has resulted in a divergence of fortunes for men and women. Economic dependence tethered women to men and to the home. It held women back. But, it “also propped men up. Now the props have gone, and many men are falling.”

Both sides of the political spectrum are ruthless in their response to this kind of assessment. The Left essentially say “tough luck, lads” and shrug off male disadvantage as if it is something they are due. On the other hand, the Right are quick to prescribe an immediate sending of women back to the kitchen.

“Conservatives are right that as a social institution, marriage ‘worked’ in the past. Feminists are right that it did so by curtailing women’s autonomy. The question is what we do now and, especially, what we do with the men. Certainly, the answer is not to try to roll back the gains of the women’s movement…a reinvention of fatherhood based on a more direct relationship to children is the answer.”

Traditional marriage roles, and women’s dependency, also ensured that more men lived in the same household as their children. It prescribed men the role of ‘breadwinner’ and sometimes ‘protector’. Reeves’ data shows that now women are the main breadwinner in 41% of American households. Women’s roles have expanded and diversified to include careers and breadwinning, but men’s roles have not altered in the equal but opposite way.

Reeves quotes William Goode’s 1980 essay: “the underlying shift is toward the decreasing marginal utility of males.” Brutal, but this is how it has played out. The path for men used to be clear: work, wife, kids. What purpose do they have now? Masculinity is now either redundant or ‘toxic'.’ No wonder so many men are feeling “dislocated” and apathetic.

This male discombobulation has a negative impact on society as a whole. It results in fewer positive ways to contribute and more potential for anti-social behaviour.

“The economists Ariel Binder and John Bound, after a painstaking study of falling labor market attachment among less-educated men, conclude that ‘the prospect of forming and providing for a new family constitutes an important male labor supply incentive.’ Men who are not providers, or at least do not see themselves as such, work less.”

It is important to acknowledge that class and income play a significant part in the marginalisation of males. Working class men traditionally work the kinds of jobs that have been most disrupted by free trade and automation. They are more likely to be alienated from their children and either unmarried or divorced.

When highly-educated and, dare I say, ‘woke’ individuals wax lyrical about male privilege they forget that, as Reeves says, “most men are not part of the elite.” The privilege they attribute to males is often disappeared or diluted when class and income are considered. It is crucial that men and boys who need support from society aren’t overlooked because their wealthy equivalents are powerful.

This review is already a lot longer than I intended so I will cut myself off and wrap things up. I think it is pretty evident that I found Of Boys and Men an eye-opening read. I have been thoroughly persuaded of the need for societal adjustments and interventions to support men and boys to catch up in education, re-locate their place in employment, and redefine fatherhood.

The timing of this recommendation was perfect for me to engage with a discussion started by the ACT Party in New Zealand on the ways men are being disadvantaged.

The replies to the above X post were depressing and disappointing. They validate the necessity of books like Of Boys and Men because clearly many in society are not willing to consider that there are may ways that men and boys are suffering or disadvantaged.

ACT mention that any other group might have a “special ministry” under these circumstances. This is what I was asked to consider when reading this book: does New Zealand need a ministry for men?

I am going to give the win to my recommender, but with a caveat. Yes, my mind has been changed and I would support a Ministry for Men to address the issues explored in Of Boys and Men as well as the mental health crisis Kiwi men and boys are faced with. BUT, I don’t think that a ministry would help if it is anything like the Ministry for Women.

Our current Ministry for Women can’t even tell you what a woman is. They are more concerned about blokes who think they are women than any of the real issues facing those of us facing challenges by virtue of being born female. I would hate to see money pissed away on a Ministry for Men when it could be spent on dedicated projects for men, for example, Reeves’ suggested ‘Boys in HEAL’ promotions.

I would rather disestablish the Ministry for Women and then ensure that funds are set up throughout government that address the unique challenges of men and women.

Read this book. It is five stars and I have recommended it to several people already.