Emily May's Reviews > Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It

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.

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.