Human males are more physically aggressive in all cultures at all ages.

~ Richard Reeves

The crisis of men and boys is exacerbated by a political narrative unwilling to acknowledge biological sex differences (What the Political Left Gets Wrong About Boys and Men- Part 3.1). By denying these differences, we cannot reform our educational curriculums to be fairer to boys or our places of work to be fairer to women. If we deny our biological differences, it will be harder for us to “reinvent fatherhood” and embrace the progress made toward gender equality. Given the gains made by women in recent decades and the significant challenges faced by men and boys, it makes no sense to treat gender inequality as a one-way street. Quoting Richard Reeves in my last post, “the rather boring truth is that masculine traits are more useful in some contexts and feminine ones in others, and neither set is intrinsically better than the other.”

Recognizing Biological Differences is a Radical Act

Recognizing and appreciating biological differences between the sexes has become a radical act in our current social-political milieu. Reeves was resistant to providing this counter-narrative but was confronted with the necessity to do so in addressing the crisis of boys and men. Evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and sociobiology research have explored these issues for many years.

Biological Facts Don’t Deny or Suppress Sexual Preference or Gender Fluidity

Aside from the caveats to biological differences offered by Reeves in my last post, it must also be said: acknowledging basic biological facts does not deter acceptance and exploration of sexual preference fluidity or gender identities. Instead, it clarifies how evolution has built us to reproduce the species and adapt to different physical and cultural environments. For a more in-depth review of physical and behavioral differences between men and women, see Male & Female Biological Differences.

Biological Differences – Part 5.1

In my last post (Biological Differences Between the Sexes – Part 5.1), I described the differences between boys and girls related to the timing of their brain development. “By far,” says Reeves, “the biggest difference is not how female and male brains develop but when.” Boys’ brains develop more slowly, directly affecting their attention, self-regulation, and acquisition of skills and traits necessary for academic success.

Stress, Serotonin, and Aggressive Behavior

I also cited research that a stressful or unstable family environment appears to influence the capacity of the brain to metabolize serotonin. Serotonin helps to reduce aggressive behavior – and thus, a precarious home life would potentially cause boys to be more aggressive. The link between home life, serotonin, and aggression illustrates the interconnectedness of biology and “culture.”

Testosterone Has Significant Role in Behavioral Differences

This synergy of nature and nurture is further illustrated by how behavioral differences manifest between men and women — boys and girls — as a function of how androgens (testosterone) masculinize the brain. (See Appendix below.) Testosterone has a significant role in behavioral differences between the sexes related to aggression, risk, and sex drive.

Aggression, Risk, and Sex Drive

Sex differences in biology shape not only our bodies, including our brains, but also our psychology. We are not blank slates. Some of these differences are more about the timing of development rather than about the end results. But many differences are enduring. “Men are typically more aggressive, take more risks, and have a higher sex drive than girls and women,” says Reeves, reporting the research of Scott Kaufman. [1] Aggression, risk, and sex drive are co-mingled in sexual selection and reproduction. Behaviors of aggression, risk-taking, and sex drive are the most pronounced differences between men and women.

Aggression and Testosterone

One result of the testosterone bath of the male brain is a greater tendency toward physical aggression, not just in humans but in almost all primates and other mammals. Boys are five times more likely than girls to be frequently aggressive by the age of seventeen months! The gap widens until early adulthood before narrowing again. [2]

Testosterone and Aggression – It’s Complicated

According to Carole Hooven in Testosterone: The Story of the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us, it looks like testosterone does not directly trigger aggression but instead amplifies it depending on the circumstances. The relationship between testosterone, masculinity, and aggression is complex. Reeves notes that most societies have become much less violent over time, and there are significant differences in crime rates among countries today. “That all these factors matter is not evidence that the relationship between T and aggression is weak,” Hooven writes, “rather it shows us that it’s complicated.”

Socialization and Biology Matter

Nobody denies that culture and socialization matter, and it would otherwise be difficult to explain the dramatic difference in levels of male violence between different places and eras. But Reeves adds, “it is equally silly to deny that biology matters here too, not least in the differences between men and women.”

Men Have a Greater Appetite for Risk

“The traits that get passed on are the reproductively effective ones, and that is what sexual selection is all about,” Reeves explains.

Men, for example, have a greater appetite for risk. Risky behavior is not a social construct; it can be identified in every known society throughout history, according to Joyce Benenson: Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes.

“Sex differences exist in virtually every area in which risk has been studied,” Benenson reports, “with males engaging in more risk-taking than females – from hunter-gatherers to bank CEOs.”

Men Take More Risks Because of the Competition to Reproduce

Like aggression, risk-taking is one of the differences between male and female psychology rooted in our evolutionary history. Men in danger of becoming evolutionary duds will take serious risks to gain access to a mate — like committing a crime to get more resources or fighting in a potentially lucrative war. Men’s psychology shifts in ways that spark fierce male-male competition.

Reproductive Variance “Blows Your Mind”

Men take more risks because men are much less likely to reproduce than women. We have twice as many female ancestors as male ones. This difference between female and male ancestors is called “reproductive variance.” [3] DNA studies reveal that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced, compared to about 40% of men. This variance can take a minute to get your head around. Generally speaking, everyone must have a mother and father. But of course, one man can father many children with many women, while others father none at all. Genghis Khan, a direct ancestor of 1 in 200 people today, is perhaps the most famous example.

Math Problem of Too Many Men

To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a few penises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. ~ Roy Baumeister

Most human societies have been polygynous, allowing men to have multiple wives. You end up with what Harvard evolutionary psychologist Joseph Henrich calls the “math problem” of surplus men.

Men Will Risk to Save Others and Build Cities

Though male psychology is more wired for risk, antisocial forms of risk-taking (such as crime) occur only in circumstances of intense competition. Men are more willing to take risks to save others and do dangerous jobs (logging, construction, mining, fishing), which makes perfect evolutionary sense given the greater importance of female bodies for reproduction. We must be thankful for our (mostly male) firefighters, soldiers, and men who build skyscrapers. (Ninety-three percent of workplace fatalities were male in 2016, and 99.9% of military deaths are male.)

Courageous Acts by Men

Each year the Carnegie Hero Fund issues medals to civilians for courageous acts, specifically for risking their lives to save a stranger. In 2021, 66 of the 72 medals were awarded to men. As Margaret Mead wrote, “It is essential that the tasks of the future be organized [such that] dying for one’s country becomes unfeasible, and taking risks for that which is loved may still be possible” (Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World).

Men Are Just Lustier

Given that the differences between male and female psychology have emerged largely through sexual selection, it should be no surprise that the most significant difference between men and women is related to sex. As a matter of biological fact, men are just lustier and have, says anthropologist Melvin Konner, a more “driven” sexuality than women.” [4]

Female Drive and Sexual Motivation is Not as Strong

Occasionally there are articles by female bloggers asserting that the female sex drive is equal to a man’s. (It seems to be a badge of empowerment.) A recent one used evidence about rising female infidelity and described how women have a stronger “response desire” sexual motivation.

The phenomenon of “response desire” comes from Emily Nagoski, a sexuality expert and author of (Come As You Are). Nagoski disputes that sex exists as a “drive,” but she is clear that it is a motivational system in which men pursue with predominantly “spontaneous desire” and women operate primarily from “response desire” (See Spontaneous and Response Desire – the Underbelly of Heterosexual Mating.)

Response Desire is Evidence of a Less Robust Sex Drive

Response desire requires specific triggers (“a reason to have sex”) and a convergence of appropriate context to be guided into a sexual response. This is not proof of a stronger sex drive for women – quite the opposite. Response desire demonstrates a more complex and genuinely “weaker” sex drive that needs “jump-starts” out of a “neutral” gear. The spontaneous, initiating sexuality of a man is the essential condition of a higher sex drive. By definition, an always-ready spontaneous motivation for sex is “lustier’ than waiting for the right elements of context to provide a response motivation.

Using Nogaski’s research on response and spontaneous desire to make a case for a stronger female sex drive is a mischaracterization of her work.

Women Complain About Men’s Stronger Sex Drive Yet Dispute Its Existence

The fact that some women want to dispute that men have a stronger sex drive while also complaining about that very “lustiness” is silly and annoying. It is disrespectful to men to not accept the greater strength of the male sex drive as a biological fact, and it creates a pernicious double-bind for men when their sex drive is described pejoratively.

Acknowledging that men have a more robust sexual motivation system does not disempower women or denigrate their sexuality. Any logical analysis of sperm competition, male-on-male intrasexual competition, and reproductive variance would quickly reveal the evolutionary necessity of a more “muscular” male sex drive.

Evidence for a Stronger Male Sex Drive

As I have outlined in my blog posts and other writings, the evidence for men having a higher sex drive is shown in a review of 150 studies. Reeves summarizes some of this evidence, sourcing Roy Baumeister and colleagues. He could have also cited more recent work of Justin Lehmiller, Tell Me What You Want.

From Lehmiller, a higher male sex drive is evidenced by the following:

•  More spontaneous sexual thoughts
• More variety of sexual fantasies
• Greater power of visual triggers
• Desired frequency of intercourse
• Desired number of partners
• Frequency of masturbation
• Liking more varied sexual practices (in general)
• Unwillingness to forgo sex
• Initiating vs. refusing sex
• Making sacrifices for sex
• State of near-perpetual readiness
• Men pay for sex; women seldom do [5]

Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.
~ Billy Crystal Character, City Slickers

Women Cheat for A Variety of Reasons

Women cheat on their partners for a variety of reasons unrelated to their sex “drive.” As relationship expert Esther Perel says (Mating in Captivity and The State of Affairs), “women are often looking more for a new self than a new partner.” (Also see Why Women Have Sex).

The Issue of Sexual Variety

Male sexuality generally seeks a variety of partners. Studies show that women may want more variety of sex with the same partner. But wanting more variety of sexual activities in a monogamous relationship just proves that women need more potent triggers for their sexual desire to be activated. Yes, more women are bored with the sex they are having. Men are not nearly as bored.

Another Way to Deny Biological Difference

Asserting an equal sex drive is another way for women and proponents of “progressive” politics to deny biological differences between the sexes. It is fueled by a false belief that a lesser aggregate sex drive somehow disempowers women in their quest for economic and political equality.

Evolutionary Reason for the Stronger Male Sex Drive

“There is a good evolutionary reason for this difference in sex drive. With a much higher chance of failing to father any children, men have had to be ready to take almost any opportunity for procreation,” says Reeves.

“Physically, men in their prime are hardwired to be in a state of near-perpetual readiness to couple with any female in their environment who is likely to conceive and bear children,” writes Marianne Legato, director of the Foundation for Gender-Specific Medicine.

In Conclusion – Connecting the Dots

How do biological differences between the sexes influence the crisis of boys and men?

• By denying biological sex differences, it is easier to see the causes of the boys and men crisis as individual and not structural.
• By denying biological sex differences, it is easier to believe that gender inequality only disadvantages women.
• By denying biological sex differences, the needs of boys and men can remain invisible and not worthy of remediation through social policy and civic initiatives.

How do differences related to aggression, risk-taking, and sex drive cause or exacerbate the crisis of men and boys?

• Expressions of aggression and risk-taking by boys can be misunderstood and inappropriately vilified in our schools.
• Expressions of aggression, risk-taking and sexual motivation by boys and men can be labeled as toxic. Masculinity is thus pathologized, sending a signal to half of the population that there is something intrinsically wrong with them. Solutions based on this perception will be inappropriate, if not counter-productive.

[1] Scott Barry Kaufman, “Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously,” Scientific American, (December 2, 2019).

[2] Baillargeon, R., et al, “Gender Differences in Physical Aggression: A Prospective Population-Based Survey of Children Before and After 2 Years of Age,” Developmental Psychology February 2007).

[3] Jason Wilder et al., “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human and Females and Males,” Molecular Biology and Evolution (November 2004).

[4] Melvin Konner, Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy, 2016.

[5] About 1 million prostitutes are working in the US today. A study in New York found that opening a strip club or escort agency reduced crime in the surrounding neighborhood by 13%.

Appendix

Masculinizing the Brain

All humans start out as female. The Y chromosome of human males begins to masculinize the body during the first (prenatal) two months and the brain during the first trimester. Male brains in the second trimester are usually altered by exposure to androgens that influence psychological sex differences, predicting the degree and kind of postnatal play preferences (rough and tumble), personality traits, (thrill-seeking and aggression), and cognitive abilities (mental rotation). Psychological sex differences emerge before extensive gender socialization has taken place.

 

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.

 

The Left tells men to be more like their sisters. The Right says to be more like your father. Neither invocation is helpful.   ~ Richard Reeves

Prior posts in this series, Parts 2.1 and 2.2, described the eleven problems and conditions faced by boys and men identified by Richard Reeves in Of Boys and Men.  In addition, Richard Reeves courageously calls out the misguided narratives espoused by the political Left and Right in naming and framing the boys and men’s crisis. These narratives are an overriding 12th problem.

Let’s first address what the Left gets wrong about boys and men in this fourth post of the series.

1. The Left tends to pathologize masculinity.

The Left tends to denigrate masculinity, often under the banner of “toxic.”  “Toxic masculinity” is rarely defined.  In current use, it signals disdain for any male behavior that the user disapproves of.  A toxic male may be blamed for everything – mass shootings, online trolling, Brexit, and refusing to wear a mask during the pandemic.

According to sociologist Carol Harrington, the phrase “toxic masculinity” was used in no more than 20 scholarly articles until around 2015; but by 2017, there were thousands of mentions of “toxic masculinity,” mainly in the mainstream media.

Reeves and other researchers (psychologists and sociologists) of American culture believe “toxic masculinity” is a counterproductive term.

It is a bad idea to send a cultural signal to half of the population that there may be something intrinsically wrong with them. ~ Richard Reeves

What does the General Public Think?

Harrington reports that nine in ten men and women describe themselves as either “completely” or “mostly” masculine or feminine.*

Fifty percent of American men and 30% of American women now think society punishes men for just acting like men (3 in 5 Republicans and about 1 in 4 Democrats – a significant difference along partisan lines).

Fewer than a third of American women now describe themselves as a feminist. But in a survey (2019) that appeared in Ipsos, 48% of Democratic women adopted the feminist label compared to just 13% of Republican women.

In a 2018 YouGov poll of women who did not identify as feminists, 48% of those women said feminists were too extreme, 47% said [current] feminism does not represent true feminism, and 24% said feminists are anti-men.

Bottomline:

Masculinity is not a pathology; it is quite literally a fact of life. ~ Richard Reeves

2. The Left sees the causes of the crisis as individual and not structural.

Pundits on the political Left couch male problems as individual failings of one kind or another, rather than a result of structural challenges.

“The problems of boys and men are structural in nature, rather than individual, but are rarely treated as such,” according to Reeves. The problem with men is typically framed as a problem of men. Men should be fixed, one man or boy at a time. Harrington says the term “toxic masculinity” focuses attention on the character flaws of individual men rather than structural problems.

For those on the political Left, victim-blaming is permitted when it comes to men.  ~ Richard Reeves

Individualist Approach is Wrong

This individualist approach is wrong.  Boys are falling behind in school and college because the educational system is structured in a way that puts them at a disadvantage.

Men struggle in the labor market because of an economic shift away from traditionally male jobs.

And fathers are dislocated because the cultural role of provider has been hollowed out.

The male malaise is not the result of a mass psychological breakdown but of deep structural challenges. ~Richard Reeves

Men’s Covid Deaths Are Their Own Fault

Globally, men were about 50% more likely to die from Covid. For every 100 deaths among women aged 45-64, there were 184 male deaths. Yet, the higher rate of male deaths received little or no attention from health institutions and the media.  When it was acknowledged, the explanations were that men had preexisting health conditions related to lifestyle factors or were less responsible concerning safety measures.

In short, men’s covid deaths were their own fault. Reeves says this is not true.

The gap in mortality is not explained by sex differences in infection rates or preexisting conditions,

The Difference in Covid Deaths is Biological and Genetic

The difference in Covid deaths between men and women is caused by biology and genetics.  A person with XX vs. XY chromosomes has more functional immunity because of the extra X.  I reported this in my post (April 7, 2020), Why More Men Than Women Die of Covid-19. 

More Gender-Specific Medicine

Reeves advocates for more gender-specific medicine. Marianne Legato (head of the Partnership for Gender-Specific Medicine at Columbia University) says, “it is now time to focus on the unique problems of men just the way we have learned to do with women.”**

Reeves says a good step would be to establish an Office of Men’s Health in the Department of Health and Human Services to mirror the existing one for women.

3. The Left is unwilling to acknowledge biological sex differences.

Many conservatives deny the environmental science of climate change.  But many progressives deny the neurosciences of sex differences.  ~ Richard Reeves

This is HUGE

For many progressives, it is now axiomatic that sex differences or behaviors are wholly the results of socialization.  When it comes to masculinity, the main message from the political Left is that men are acculturated into specific ways of behaving (generally bad ways in this version), which can therefore be socialized out of them. But this is simply false. For instance:

Men do not have a higher sex drive because society overly “values” male sexuality.    They have a higher sex drive because they have more testosterone.  ~ Richard Reeves

Women Are Wonderful Effect

There is some evidence that people are more comfortable with the idea of natural differences if women come out ahead in the comparison. In recent years, most scientists identifying natural differences have, if anything, tended to stress the superiority of women. Researchers Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic call this the “WoW” (women are wonderful) effect.  Reeves says this approach allows for a discussion of biological differences, but in a way that underlies the pathologies of men and allows a warmer reception among liberal scholars and reviewers.

This is the most dangerous message of all: men are naturally different than women, but only in ways that are bad. ~ Richard Reeves 

Brain Development and Testosterone – Females and Males Are Not the Same

More detail about biological differences between the sexes noted by Reeves will be addressed in Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of this series (upcoming), including:

• Brain development of boys vs. girls and its impact on impulse control, planning, and future orientation — including attention and self-regulation during middle adolescence.
• The tremendous influence of testosterone on aggression, risk-taking, and sex “drive.” Women and men do not have a similar sex drive and it makes perfect evolutionary sense for sexual selection.
• The interplay of nature and nurture and how differences can be magnified or muted by culture.

4. The Left believes that gender inequality only disadvantages women.

The Left believes that gender inequality can only run in one direction – to the disadvantage of women – ignoring disadvantages to men.

The dominant narrative of gender equality is framed almost exclusively in terms of the disadvantages of girls and women. ~ Richard Reeves

Reeves suggests that “our policies are now so poisoned that it has become almost impossible for people on the Left to even discuss the problems of boys and men, let alone devise solutions.”

Policy Bias Against Men***

• In October 2021, the White House Gender Policy Council published a National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality. But no gender inequalities related to boys or men were addressed.  The mission statement of the Policy Council clearly states a policy focus that impacts only women and girls.
• The Council’s report did not mention how women outnumber men in college, except regarding female student debt. There was no mention of the sizable gender gaps in favor of girls in K-12 education.  Regarding discipline, there was no mention of the specific challenges of Black boys, even though they are twice as likely as Black girls to be suspended or expelled.
• White House Covid policy and nearly every think tank and international organization emphasized the negative implications of the pandemic for women while ignoring those for men. The higher risk of death from Covid-19 for men was hardly mentioned.
• The World Economic Forum also describes gender inequality in only one direction based on their methodology. Reeves reports that “no account is taken of domains where women are doing better than men.”

Gender Inequalities Run in Both Directions

The fight for gender equality has historically been synonymous with the battle for and by girls and women, and for a good reason.  But, says Reeves:

“We have reached a point where gender inequalities affecting boys and men have to be treated seriously. Many people on the political Left seem to fear that even acknowledging the problems of boys and men will somehow weaken efforts for women and girls. This is entirely false as a matter of practice and creates a dangerous political dynamic.”

This fear seems difficult for social science academics and the average feminist or “progressive” woman to overcome.  The women who most confront this fear or acknowledge that gender inequalities run in both directions have raised boys.

*Carol Harrington, “What is Toxic Masculinity and Why does it Matter?” Men and Masculinities (July 2020).

 **There are claims from some women’s advocates that medical research and some services (e.g., urological sexual health) have been more focused on men rather than women.  Reeves does not address this. The issue of gender-specific medicine (or the lack thereof) may have multiple threads of truth.  But Legato is the expert in this arena.

***This section mostly repeats Problem #11, “Professional and Academic Bias Against Men” in Problems and Conditions of Boys and Men – Part 2.2 of this series.)