The reason to care about the plight of men

A few days ago, I finished Richard Reeves’ very good book, Of Boys and Men. It’s a compelling account of how far boys are falling behind girls in school, how unstable many men feel as women now compete with them in the workforce, and how, specifically, black men are facing uniquely troubling barriers to success. Reeves thinks the left should care about the plight of boys and men, and advance specific policies that help address the malaise that has befallen many American males.

The book reflects many of the themes I wrote about in my own book, The Violence Inside Us, and so when I put Reeves’ book down, I took to Twitter and wrote a short thread about the need to take Reeves’ challenge seriously.

My 14-year-old follows me on Twitter, and a few nights ago, he expressed some concerns. “It just feels like we aren’t ready for this yet,” he said, noting that the most important fights right now are about reproductive choice and LGBTQ equality. “Haven’t men had enough focus already? Shouldn’t we fix problems for women and gay people before we go back to men again?”

His approbation was wise, and he noted for me that my Twitter comments did not suggest people were backing me up. And, of course, he’s right: the highly organized campaigns to ban abortions, criminalize women who seek reproductive health care, and roll back all the progress we’ve made on gay and transgender rights is a red alert moment. I support access to safe and legal abortions, as well as birth control. I believe there should be no quarter for discrimination against LGBTQ Americans, and I think our schools should welcome kids of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

But I’ve seen enough hard evidence of the declining mental state of male America to believe that we should try to do two things at once – fight for the equality of women and gay people, while also trying hard to figure out why so many boys are struggling and why so many men are feeling shitty.

At the heart of this discussion is the question of biology and male identity. First, we just need to admit that men are different biologically than women. In general, men are more physically aggressive and more likely to take risks than women, but less attuned to how other people feel and slower to develop intellectually than females. Of course, this is a broad generalization – there are tons of women who are more aggressive than some men and some men who have higher emotional intelligence than women. But to deny the biological differences is a plan to fail when it comes to finding policies that help both men and women. We are different, and thus gender-blind policies won’t always work.

As for male identity, I just don’t think it’s wise to gloss over the culture-shattering end to the social and economic patriarchy in America. As Reeves explains, for our entire species’ history, men have defined themselves, in large part, through their role as breadwinners and physical protectors of the family. In fifty short years, that paradigm has been upended. The year I was born, men were the primary earner in 85 percent of two-parent families. Since then, that percentage has been plummeting. Today that number is 55 percent, and it stands to reason that by the end of this decade, we may achieve full parity.

This is a good thing, of course! We are a better society with women moving to take an equal place next to men. But it’s understandable that after thousands of years of Western cultural norms reinforcing one form of male identity, a quick transition away from those norms has been a shock to the system. It’s not constructive for the left to just tell men that they had it good for a long time and now that things have finally changed, they just need to deal with it. We need look no further than Charlottesville, January 6th, the prevalence of violence against women, and the rising threat of domestic extremism to see the potential consequences of allowing this resentment to fester.

The challenge then becomes twofold: First, follow Reeves’ advice and create a policy that acknowledges the biological uniqueness of men. One of his suggestions, for instance, is to delay when boys start Kindergarten by a year, in order to allow their brain development to catch up to their faster peer girls. Second, create a purposeful, progressive policy to help men find positive identity and meaning other than the old construct of man=provider/woman=caregiver. That model isn’t coming back, and though some men will still find identity as a primary earner, many more are going to need other sources of positive meaning.

According to a study on the State of American Men, two-thirds of men feel that “no one really knows me well,” and almost 30 percent reported not spending time with someone outside their household in the past week. Recently, I have made the case about the importance of rebuilding healthy churches and social clubs, and local sports leagues. These organizations can help men (and women, of course) find connection and identity. Men can also find more identity through their work if we can shift our economy away from a short-term return, where people are viewed as “human capital,” and instead incentivize companies to invest in the long-term development and retention of their employees. And Reeves has a few good suggestions, like making it easier for men to find identity and value in fatherhood and caregiving.

Whatever path we choose, I don’t think we can deny that a lot of men are in crisis today. Men are committing suicide at a rate four times higher than women. Ten percent more women are enrolled in college today than men, and the gap is growing. Seventy percent of drug overdose deaths in America today are males. We can ignore these growing disparities, and decide that men have had it good for a long time and they don’t deserve any extra attention. Or we can decide that the projects of protecting the rights of women and LGBTQ individuals and helping men in crisis aren’t mutually exclusive.