All human life stems from the reality of, and the difference between, men and women.

~ Nina Power – What do Men Want? Masculinity and its Discontents

In this series of posts about the boys and men crisis described by Richard Reeves (Of Boys and Men), I have detailed eleven problems and conditions faced by men and boys and fourteen solutions offered by Reeves to address these problems. One of Reeves’s most important contributions is “naming” and elucidating the “twelfth” problem of how the political Left and Right are unhelpful and wrong in their narratives about the crisis. He critiques the views about biological differences on both sides of the political spectrum. But it is the political Left that is most problematic in this arena.

Progressives Often Deny the Neuroscience of Sex Differences

As I said in Part 3.1 (What the Political Left Gets Wrong About Boys and Men) many progressives deny the neuroscience of sex differences. “For many progressives, it is now axiomatic that sex differences or behaviors are wholly the results of socialization,” Reeves laments. (Acknowledging biological differences between the sexes is not very “woke.”)

As part of its mission, Mating Straight Talk has criticized this “standard social science model (SSSM)”* and has described research of evolutionary psychology that incorporates natural selection and sexual selection in understanding the co-evolution of culture and biological adaptation.

Let’s Review Biological Sex Differences in the Next Two Posts

Because the political Left is so resistant to acknowledging biological sex differences, Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of this series will review some differences supported by research.

First — the Caveats About Biological Differences

The idea that there is a natural basis for sex difference is, however, politically charged. So, I’d better get the caveats in right away. ~ Richard Reeves

Reeves anticipated the degree of pushback he would get for acknowledging and researching biological sex differences. He went out of his way to soften the message with the caveats listed below. All these caveats are addressed and accepted by the discipline of evolutionary psychology and mate selection science (and in the website pages and blogs of Mating Straight Talk), except for Caveat #3.

Caveats Do Not Dilute Power of Average Differences

These caveats do not dilute the power of average differences between men and women that affect our relationships and culture. We can confirm the basic “rules” of our biology represented by the middle two-thirds of the bell curve while being curious about and honoring the exceptions to the rule.

Caveat #1: Differences are dimorphic but overlapping – rather than binary.

While certain traits are more associated with one sex than the other, the distributions overlap, especially among adults. For every brain measure that showed significant sex differences, there was always an overlap.

For example, the typical male is more willing to take risks than the typical female (especially in adolescence). But some women are more risk-taking than some men. A large majority of the most aggressive people are male, but the differences in aggressiveness in the general population are much smaller.

Caveat #2: Sex differences can be magnified by culture.

The immediate environment and broader culture affect how these biological differences develop and are expressed. Sex differences can be magnified or muted by culture. Culture and biology do not develop separately from each other. They co-evolve.

“It is hard to find a responsible scientist who is either an outright determinist or an outright denier on the question of biology,” says Reeves.

But Reeves identified outright deniers in an earlier section of the book. Denial of biological differences was, for Reeves, a significant motivation for writing this book.

Neuroscientist Lou Ann Brizendine (The Female Brain and The Male Brain) writes: “Biology does represent the foundation of our personalities and behavioral tendencies. If, in the name of free will and political correctness, we try to deny the influence of biology on the brain, we begin fighting our own nature.”

Yet, as British neurobiologist Gina Rippon explains, “it is perfectly possible to believe in biology without mindlessly assuming that human nature is fixed and unchangeable or that culture and environment are irrelevant.”

Caveat #3: Sex Differences have a modest impact on our day-to-day lives.

Reeves claims sex differences typically have a modest impact on day-to-day lives in the twenty-first century. He says there is more room for other drivers of behavior. Reeves supports a three-part model of human behavior: a combination of nature (our instincts based on biology), nurture (the instructions we get from our surrounding culture), and agency (our personal initiative.) This model is an excellent starting point for understanding our behavior. No doubt, much of the drama of human life stems from the tension between these forces.

Disagreement About the Impact of Sex Differences

I argue two things related to this caveat: 1) the impact of sex differences is more than “modest” in our daily lives, and 2) culture and personal agency are interdependent with sex differences, not separate from them.

To the first point: biological sex differences have a powerful impact on our current cultural milieu – on the tone of our near-ubiquitous conversations about gender identity and sexual preference. Sex differences are revealed and impact dozens of dating apps, dating websites, dating reality television shows, and relationship coaching. It is the water that flows in nearly all cinema and literature. The difference between the sexes frames conversations about “consent” in heterosexual relationships and fuels the search for an antidote to “toxic masculinity” – and ultimately, the recovery (or creation) of “noble” masculinity that provides much needed servant leadership.

Modest impact? Hardly. Whenever or wherever sexuality is involved (especially heterosexuality) – biological sex differences are salient; the impact on our daily lives is quite significant.

Caveat #4: Average sex differences do not justify the institutionalization of gender inequality.

“There is a fear that biology can be used to prove an intellectual foundation for sexism,” says Reeves. “This is well-founded given our history; it can be used to justify oppression.” Reeves does not elaborate on the historical data points of such oppression. But goes on to emphasize a thought not repeated often enough:

Denying science altogether is not useful. The rather boring truth is that masculine traits are more useful in some contexts and feminine ones in others, and neither set in intrinsically better than the other.

Reeves’s point about the institutionalization of gender inequality is well understood and accepted by credible researchers in sociology, anthropology, neuroscience, biology, and evolutionary psychology. There is no argument here, but the caveat apparently needs to be said, especially given the pernicious nature of our gender-related culture wars.

Caveat #5: Average differences between groups should not influence the view of individuals.

We should not view individuals by assumptions of aggregate difference. This caveat is obvious; it is not disputed among scientists who understand subject sampling, statistical analysis, and the range within the bell curve of individual differences.

Naturalistic and Moralistic Fallacies

Evolutionary psychology has directly addressed the problem of making assumptions about an individual based on data of aggregate difference. Because of general resistance to evolutionary psychology in some social sciences circles, the academic literature emphatically cautions against succumbing to two fallacies of reasoning.

The first is the naturalistic fallacy. This fallacy presumes that everything natural is necessarily good. That is a leap of logic not supported by evolutionary psychologists.

More problematic is the other fallacy lurking around the resistance to evolutionary psychology – the moralistic fallacy. The moralistic fallacy says what is good, or moral, ought to be true and is found in nature. This fallacy is more familiar to the political Left, such as “men and women ought to be given equal opportunities because women and men (in aggregate) can do everything equally well.”

Sex Differences in Brain Development

If, in the name of political correctness, we try to deny the influence of biology on the brain, we begin fighting our own nature. ~ Louann Brizendine (The Female Brain)

Boy’s Brains Develop More Slowly.

Boy’s brains develop more slowly, especially during the most critical years of secondary education. The parts of the brain associated with impulse control, planning, and future orientation are primarily in the prefrontal cortex, which matures about two years later in boys than in girls. As a result, almost one in four boys is categorized as having a “developmental disability,” according to a study in Pediatrics (2017).

Attention and Self-Regulation

The cerebellum reaches full size at age 11 for girls but not until age 15 for boys. The cerebellum has a modulating effect on emotional, cognitive, and regulatory capacities. The most significant difference between boys and girls related to attention and self-regulation occurs during middle adolescence.

Adolescent Male Brains Have More Accelerator and Less Brake

Adolescence is a period when it is harder to restrain ourselves. It is a battle between the sensation-seeking part of the brain (Go to the party! Forget school!) and the impulse-controlling part (I really need to study tonight). “It helps,” says Reeves, “to think of these as the accelerator and brake pedals in a car.” Boys have more acceleration and less braking power.

Adolescent Girls Have More Synapses and Connectivity

“In adolescence, on average, girls are more developed by about 2-3 years in terms of the peak of their brain synapses and their connectivity processes,” says Frances Jensen, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine. This is no surprise to most people who know 15-year-old boys and girls.

Gender Gap In Skills and Traits

The gender gap in developing skills and traits most important for academic success is the widest at precisely the time when students need to worry about their GPA, getting ready for tests, and staying out of trouble. According to a 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, “sex differences in associations between brain development and puberty are relevant for understanding prominent gender disparities during adolescence.”

The Biggest Difference is When Development Occurs

“There are certainly some biological-based differences in male and female psychology that last beyond adolescence,” Reeves explains. “But by far, the biggest difference is not how female and male brains develop, but when.”

Nature and Nurture (Culture) on Sexual Psychological Difference

The real debate is not about whether biology matters, but how it does and when it does. ~ Richard Reeves

According to Reeves, culture determines how we manage, channel, and express many natural traits (see Caveat #2 above). As has been said, both nature and nurture determine how biological differences will manifest and express themselves.

Serotonin, Aggression, and Unstable Environment

For example, growing up in a stressful or unstable family environment appears to influence the capacity of the brain to metabolize serotonin. Serotonin helps to reduce aggressive behavior. If a boy or man does not metabolize serotonin effectively, their behavior may be more aggressive.

Boys with “Sensitive Genes” Do Worse When Fathers Leave

Significant research in epigenetics identifies how gene expression can sometimes be turned on or off. Reeves reports that boys with genes sensitive to the environment do worse when their biological fathers leave the household and benefit if their father stays or rejoins the family.

Harvard evolutionary psychologist Joseph Henrich argues that it makes the most sense to think of the co-evolution of nature and nurture. “Culture rewires our brains and alters our biology,” he says, “without altering the underlying genetic code.”

Marriage is a Testosterone Suppression System

Henrich says that marriage is a “testosterone suppression system.” Testosterone levels are highest among young single men, and those with higher testosterone are more likely to become fathers. But testosterone levels fall among men who settle down with a wife and children, and the drops are sharpest among men who do more childcare. “Human males have an evolved neuroendocrine architecture shaped to facilitate their role as fathers and caregivers as a key component to reproductive success,” says Henrich.

The Nice Guy – Bad Boy Trade-off

Falling testosterone levels mean that a caregiving “nice guy” (wanted and yet not wanted by many women) has less “bad-boy power” at the neuroendocrine level. Given the common problem of “hedonic adaptation”** or boredom inside a monogamous partnership, it is doubly hard for “nice” husbands and boyfriends to compete with fantasies about “bad boys” outside the pair bond. Luckily, one might say, it is good that women tend to turn down their (already lower) sexual interest when in monogamous partnerships.

No Wonder Married with Children Means Less Sex

Directing the energy required to raise children often has the practical effect of reducing female sexual desire. When you match that with lessened male testosterone, it is no surprise that many married couples with children have a diminished sex life. Lower testosterone and mutually reduced sex drive may not be a bad thing; it may be an evolutionary adaptation for successful caregiving and parenting.

Nature and Nurture Interdependence – Proximate or Ultimate Causation?

As outlined in my previous writing and summarized by experts in evolutionary psychology and sexual selection, the issue here is about identifying proximate causes for human (or animal) behavior versus ultimate causes. Proximate causes are influences from the current environment and culture. Ultimate causes are the result of thousands of years of human adaptation.

Survival and sexual reproduction operate almost entirely by ultimate causation. That is the starting point, the infrastructure, for any exception or adaptive readjustment that may come from the current environment or culture.

There Are Limits to Evolution as a Function of Culture

There is evidence of epigenetics — the effect of environmental factors on gene expression. Cultures do indeed change, and cultures can determine how some elements of masculinity and femininity are expressed.

But, as some anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists have said, there are limits to the evolution of human behavior as a function of culture. Humans are never going to grow wings and fly around the sky.

Can We Evolve Beyond Sex for Protection and Resources?

How quickly can we evolve from a “sex traded for protection and resources” (safety and security) paradigm? Perhaps we are doing that right now… but sexual desire operates with ancient hormonal roots and physiological signals of fertility. Don’t hold your breath for this evolutionary change. Biological differences between the sexes have been around for a long time.

*The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) is a model of human development that assumes the mind was shaped primarily, if not entirely, by culture and social conditioning. SSSM is often associated with the concepts of “blank slate,” social constructivism, or cultural determinism that have dominated the social sciences throughout the 20th century (especially in the U.S.).

**Hedonic adaptation is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to stable levels of happiness despite positive or adverse events. In a romantic context, it means that humans might “get used to” their partner and not sustain initial levels of excitement and passion over time.

 

In Of Boys and Men, Richard Reeves provides solutions to address the male malaise in education, work, training, childcare, legal support, and policy inequities. The prior post (Solutions to the Crisis of Boys and Men – Part 4.1) described the first five solutions. This post covers solutions six through fourteen.

With these broad proposals, Reeves addresses counterarguments and related funding issues but does not attempt to navigate the complex politics needed for execution. Nevertheless, these are important solutions – a roadmap to consider.

6. Redesign jobs to be fairer for women

Reeves advocates for more jobs to be designed with time and place flexibility – jobs that are part-time and from home. He says we need to modernize career ladders away from “greedy” jobs that reward long and interrupted hours. Greedy jobs are in law, finance, and management consulting. Pharmacy is an example of an egalitarian career. There is almost no hourly wage penalty for part-time work in a pharmacy. Thus, there is virtually no gender pay gap because women do not pay the “parenting penalty” — a primary cause of the aggregate pay gap. (For more details on the pay gap, see upcoming Part 6: Pay Gap, STEM Careers and Gender Equality Paradox.)

However, Reeves provides this caution:

As long as men continue to be willing to put in long and often unpredictable hours, the prospects for structural reform remain dim.

And men will continue to work these hours because the prize is sexual access to women. “Greedy” jobs pay dividends for men in the mating marketplace. This is “undiscussable” — the elephant in the room. Reeves “politely” avoids talking about this elephant.

7. Provide more access to childcare and provision for after-school clubs

Men, women, and children are all bending their lives and schedules to fit the largely unilateral demands of the standard workday and typical career path. ~ Richard Reeves

The family has changed, but the labor market has not changed in response. Reeves supports efforts to increase childcare and provide after-school clubs. He worries that current public policy seeks to create work-friendly families rather than family-friendly work.

Our Work and Care Structures Are Relics

“We’ve reached an unprecedented era of equality between men and women economically,” writes Claudia Goldin, “but our work and care structures are relics of a past when only men both had careers and families.” (Goldin is a Harvard economist who explodes the myth of an aggregate pay gap caused by discrimination. See Part 6.)

“Mothers are caught most painfully in this trap right now,” asserts Reeves. But fathers are not necessarily okay with the tradeoff. Twice as many fathers as mothers say they spend too little time with their children (46% v. 23%), according to a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center.

Reeves’ proposals for paid leave (see below) are a step toward lessening this “pain,” but jobs must change too. “More options to work flexibly, or part-time, or from home, can at least ease the tradeoffs between earning and caring,” Reeves explains.

8. Provide six months of paid leave for each child

Mothers and fathers should be entitled to six months of paid leave for each child. Ideally, this would offer 100% wage replacement up to median earnings, paid for by higher social security contributions from employers and employees. This proposal follows the work of scholars of Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers in their 2009 essay “Institutions That Support Gender Equality in Parenthood and Employment.” They aimed to create a set of institutions allowing parents to spend real time caring for children while promoting gender equality. Gornick and Meyers envisioned a “dual-earner/dual caregiver” society, including symmetrical contributions from mothers and fathers. According to Reeves, six months of leave is necessary to allow parents to spend meaningful time with their children without losing connection to the labor market.

Choosing to Stay Home in the Early years

The labor market is still structured in favor of workers without childcare responsibilities, and those workers are primarily men. Even with access to paid leave, it is likely that mothers will choose to do more of the care in the very early years. After the vast rise in women’s employment over recent decades, most mothers with children under 3 are either out of the labor market or working part-time. By and large, this seems to be by choice; over half of the mothers working part-time (54%) say that this is their preference at this point in their life, and 14% say they would prefer not to be in a full-time job at all. The remaining 33% say they would rather be in a full-time job.

9. Reform schools to be fairer for boys

Reeves advocates that boys be held back a year (“redshirted”) from elementary school so their brain development is more amenable to the school environment. He is emphatic that male teachers are needed as role models and warns about the over-identification of boys as disruptive or learning disabled. However, Reeves falls short of describing how elementary school curriculum might be tailored or the classroom “architecture” and activities could be improved for boys. He probably knows but left that out of the book.

10. Reinvent fatherhood

The role of fathers needs to expand to include caring as well as breadwinning. ~Richard Reeves

Within six years of their parents separating, one in three children never sees their father, and a similar proportion sees him once a month or less. The social institution of fatherhood urgently needs an update to become more focused on direct relationships with children.

Culture and policy are stuck on an obsolete model of fatherhood, lagging way behind economic reality. This results in a “dad deficit.”

“Rather than looking in the rear-view mirror,” says Reeves, “we need to establish a new basis for fatherhood, one that embraces the huge progress we have made toward gender equality.”

11. Protect unmarried fathers related to custody

There are no joint custody laws for unmarried parents. That needs to change, asserts Reeves.

In every U.S. state, an unmarried mother is presumed to be the sole custodial parent.

Unmarried fathers must prove paternity and then petition for visitation and custody. For many fathers, this is a daunting process. In the meantime, a mother can bar all access to the child.

As Kathyrn Edin and Timothy Nelson posit in Doing the Best I Can, “at every turn, an unmarried man who seeks to be a father, not just a daddy, is rebuffed by a system that pushes him aside with one hand while reaching into his pocket with the other.”

12. Consider a father’s ability to pay child support and nonmonetary contributions

Regardless of visitation rights, unmarried fathers are typically obliged to pay child support, often at levels that low-income fathers struggle to meet. Unmarried fathers are seen as walking ATMs. In 2020, $38 billion was collected in child support, and $115 billion was owed in arrears.

Child support payments should be set with greater sensitivity to a father’s ability to pay and consider their nonmonetary contributions, including direct provision of care for their children. “If we truly believe in gender equity,” write Edin and Nelson, “we must find a way to honor fathers’ attempts to build relationships with their children just as we do mothers’ – to assign father rights along with their responsibilities.”

13. Establish an Office of Men’s Health in the Department of Health and Human Services

An HHS Office on Women’s Health already exists, and a similar one should be created for men.

14. Establish a national coalition for men and boys in education

A 2017 report by the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education recommended financial incentives to boost the number of female trainees in male-oriented careers and technical education. The report acknowledged that men might be discouraged from taking “nontraditional” courses in high-growth, high-wage fields such as nursing and paralegal work. But where are the financial incentives to boost male participation in “female-oriented” careers? Low participation by men in “nontraditional” courses has no organizational attention; there is no such organization for men. 

Reeves advocates that a coalition for men and boys be established similar to the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education to address HEAL job preparation and vocational training and one similar to the National Girls Collaborative Project that promotes gender equity in STEM education.

In Part 3.1 of this series, I summarized what Richard Reeves believes the political Left gets wrong about the crisis facing boys and men. In this post, I will summarize what Reeves asserts the political Right gets wrong, as outlined in his book, Of Boys and Men, Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.

There Are Three Weaknesses to the Conservative Approach

Conservatives have paid more attention than progressives to the growing problems faced by boys and men. But their agenda turns out to be equally unhelpful. According to Reeves, there are three weaknesses in their approach.

1. The Right fuels male grievance for political gain.

Donald Trump secured the presidency in 2016 with a 24-point lead among men, the widest gender gap in the half-century history of exit polling. Trump’s margin was 30 points for white men – 62% to 32%.

When Trump said it was “a very scary time for young men in America” (speech in 2018), he was scorned by progressives, but it likely resonated with many men and at least some parents.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri gave a speech (November 2021) to the National Conservatism Conference declaring that “the attack on men has been the tip of the spear of the Left’s broader attack on America.” This hyperbole is neither accurate nor helpful.

But it should be noted: right-wing extremism and anti-feminist sentiments are a global problem. Reeves cites examples in Sweden, Germany, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and the Philippines.

Populist Anger Is Also About Gender

The anger fueling populism is about all kinds of things – demographic changes, secularization, trade, labor market shocks, and more. But it is also about gender.

A third of men of all political persuasions in the U.S. believe they are discriminated against, and the number is rising among Republicans.

Reeves says this is wrong: “while the problems of boys and men are real, they are the result of structural changes in the economy and the broader culture and the failings of our education system, rather than discrimination.” This claim seems like a bit of a half-truth. Reeves has detailed distinct biases against boys and men on many fronts: “changes in the broader culture” (as he asserts) allow for many embedded biases that may undergird real discrimination.

“Rear-Guard Machismo”

Nonetheless, the rise of what author Pankaj Mishra called “rear-guard machismo” (“The Crisis in Modern Masculinity,” The Guardian, March 2018) is being used by the political Right to fuel grievance and find a populist base of male voters. This narrative is wrong for identifying the problems of boys and men and for finding real solutions.

2. The Right gives too much importance to biological sex differences.

This is the mirror image of the progressive tendency to dismiss biological sex differences altogether, says Reeves. But Reeves’s argument here is not strong. He is in the “land of false equivalency.”

The more fervently the Left denies any innate sex differences, the more strongly many on the Right feel the need to insist on their importance.  ~ Richard Reeves

There is probably some truth to that.

The Case of Jordan Peterson

Reeves go after Jordan Peterson to present a case that conservatives put too much emphasis on biology. Peterson claims that social hierarchies are part of the natural order — that mammals are wired to know their place. Reeves says the science for this is not very good, but he does not defend this position with any references. I do not trust Reeves’ opinion on this.

Evolutionary Science Is a Provocation to the Left’s Narrative

Peterson is well-grounded in evolutionary science, even though he can be somewhat abrasive and provocative — at least, that is the label applied to him by those resisting his views. However, watching the “interviews” with Peterson by Left-wing pundits in England, you can see how he is attacked (sometimes two against one) and interrupted. His arguments are dismissed and deflected as if the interviewer did not hear them. There is even one example of an interview with Peterson that has been made into an instructional video addressing fallacious reasoning and vicious rhetorical assaults.

Sometimes Provocation Is Needed

Sometimes provocation is needed. Reeves’s entire book — declaring and further revealing the boys and men crisis, is a provocation to the feminist political framework – more so than his reprimand of the political Right.

Reeves Agrees with Peterson – Aggregate Personality Sex Differences

Peterson points out (as reported by Reeves) that women are more agreeable and conscientious than men, more into people, and more nurturing. Men are more aggressive, status-conscious, and driven by sex, Peterson says. And then Reeves admits this is all true! Peterson is correct, and Reeves agrees.

On Occupational Choice (also See Part 6 on the Pay Gap)

On the issue of occupational choice, Reeves says “Petersonian” conservatives overstate the strength of natural gender preferences. But Reeves has already outlined and made a case (in other sections of the book) for gender-specific differences in aggregate preferences.

Just Too Thin?

Reeves says, in summary, “that conservatives justify gender preference inequalities with biological explanations that are not wrong, just too thin, adding “conservative arguments for the importance of biology in human behavior seem more reasonable when their opponents deny their existence altogether.” Amen to that. But one might say it is Reeves’s argument on this topic that is “just too thin,” or a bit of veiled political cover.

The Left Is More Wrong Than the Right

Maybe the Right does give too much importance to biological differences. But the need for proportionality and the problem of false equivalency seems evident here.
The Left is more wrong than the Right on this particular issue.

3. The Right sees the solution to men’s problems as lying in the past.

Rather than envisioning a different future for men and their families, the Right sees the solutions to men’s problems as lying in the past, sometimes in traditional economic relations between male providers and female caregivers. Rather than help men adapt to the new world, conservatives seduce them with promises of the old. This is a significant error in framing the boys and men crisis and exacerbates the problem of male grievance.

Make America Great Again?

Trump’s appeal was a nostalgic one: “Make America Great Again.” Most of his voters believed that life had gotten worse since the 1950s and that gender had played an important role. Traditional ideas of femininity and masculinity are implicit in the invocation of the past.

Men As Outlaws or Exiles

As described in Part 2.2 of this series, many men are leading haphazard and lonely lives. They are demoralized, unmarriageable, and have lost their hopes and aspirations. They feel dispensable for a good reason.

As early as 1992, George Gilder (Men and Marriage) argued that feminism would render men redundant. “Once women can be both providers and procreators, the need for marriage to a man would decline, leaving them either outlaws or exiles.” This statement was quite prescient.

Unlike Women, Men Have No Role Inscribed in their Bodies

“Unlike a woman, (cautioned Gilder) a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body. The man’s role in the family is thus reversible; the woman’s role is unimpeachable and continues if the man departs. A man without a woman has a deep inner sense of dispensability.”

Not Helpful to Resist Women’s Progress

Conservatives are not helping men adapt to the new world of equality by encouraging them to resist women’s progress.

In 1958 (speaking of prescient), Arthur Schlesinger wrote in an essay titled, The Crisis of American Masculinity, that “the key to the recovery of masculinity does not lie in any wistful hope of humiliating the aggressive female and restoring old masculine supremacy.” If that was true in 1958, it is more dramatically true today.

Flaws of Patriarchy for Both Sexes

Feminism has upended patriarchy, a specific social order that had the fatal flaw of being grossly unequal, says Reeves. I will leave the definition of patriarchy to another day. Still, it is essential to note that men’s freedom has often been stifled by patriarchy — with tightly prescribed roles and oppressive expectations.

Help Men Without Hindering Women

Men do need help. But we can help men without hindering women or trying to turn back the clock. Fatherhood, in particular, should be reinvented for a more egalitarian world. (See upcoming Part 4.2 of this series.)

Conclusion: The Right’s Agenda is Equally Unhelpful

Conservatives have paid more attention to the growing problems faced by boys and men. But their agenda turns out to be equally unhelpful.