Richard V. Reeves: Why Are Men Failing at School, Work, and Life?
The Of Boys and Men author documents why the modern male is struggling and suggests solutions that don't come at women's expense.

Over the past 50 years, boys and men have lost ground at school and work and they're living shorter lives. They're less likely than women to graduate from high school and college or to earn advanced degrees. They're dropping out of the labor force in record numbers and account for two-thirds of the so-called deaths of despair stemming from suicide, alcoholism, and drug overdoses.
The Brookings Institution scholar Richard V. Reeves documents these and other, equally dark developments in Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What To Do About It. He analyzes the structural factors exacerbating these trends—such as the changing nature of work in a postindustrial economy—and suggests solutions that don't come at the expense of women.
I spoke with Reeves at the Reason Speakeasy, a monthly, unscripted conversation in New York City with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an era of conformity and groupthink.
0:00 Intro
01:43 Education and Men
9:00 Work and Men
18:26 Health and Men
23:12 Gains of Men
28:08 Deindustrialization
30: 30 Decline in Education Performance
40:18 Biology and Men
43:58 Decline in Work Performance
50:04 Affect on Black Men
54:52What the Left Gets Wrong
58:17 What the Right Gets Wrong
1:03:34 Solutions
1:09:26 Nursing
1:14:15 VoTech
1:17:25 Audience Q&A
1:30:30 Masculinity in Crisis
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think reality is intruding on the dreams of a "post industrial" economy. The world is becoming a dangerous place and the ability to and wisdom of out sourcing our industry to developing nations has greatly come into question. Sadly, times are getting hard. And when hard times come, you quickly realize what is essential and what is not. Industry and makers of things are essential. HR departments and DEI directors and freelance graphic designers, not so much.
So, I wouldn't give up on the value of men just yet.
Industry and makers of things are essential. HR departments and DEI directors and freelance graphic designers, not so much.
Services don't have value?
Sure they do. They are just not essential. Not being essential doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
That is a matter of opinion.
Graphic designers produce value. There is no denying that. But the world existed for thousands of years without there being such a thing.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month (ams-05) simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
"Services don’t have value?"
Services do. DEI directors absolutely do not. HR departments seem to be useless as well.
Hmm. Isn't value a subjective quality that has meaning only between buyer and seller of a particular good or service?
Who “buys” DEI initiatives?
Pretty much everyone at my workplace, when they can speak off the record, hate them.
Same here. Though not everyone, just those of us who used to work in startups. The 20 somethings in the San Francisco office who have never worked anywhere else all think that shit is important, and they're the loudest children in the kindergarten, so upper management larps Progressive to shut them up.
We are so fucked.
The old “squeaky wheel gets the grease”..when, in fact, it’s time for timeout or a reprimand. Given the lack of maturity of these brats, seems many missed a swat to the derrière as 3 year olds.
Isn’t value a subjective quality that has meaning only between buyer and seller of a particular good or service?
You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room of government mandate and risk from government created employment law.
The mob's "protection" offered value between buyer and seller as well.
Nothing like free market decision-making!
They aren't completely useless. Someone has to deal with all the administrative stuff involved with having lots of employees. Problem is they have too much time or staff and have lots of room for bullshit.
Services don’t have value?
Depends on the service. Briggs Cunningham specifically noted HR departments, DEI directors and freelance graphic designers. Of those, I'd suggest, on net, two are probably value-destroying. They exist (HR departments at least in their current form) due to government mandate (including risk from employment law). By and large, most people outside them would happily dispense with them.
Did anyone say they did not have value?
So many assumptions in that opinion. Many, many improvements in the world have come at the price of increasing risk in other ways. Hard times didn’t just happen – they were the result of some obvious and some not-so-obvious very bad policy decisions by governments. Although hard times may reveal the necessities, that doesn’t mean the necessities are better than the improvements you have lost. It’s always wise to try to cover your necessities, but not at the cost of massive worldwide gains in wealth, security, health and happiness in my opinion.
It’s always wise to try to cover your necessities, but not at the cost of massive worldwide gains in wealth, security, health and happiness in my opinion.
Without the necessities, you don't have any of that other stuff. That is why they are called "necessities". You can only depend on the rest of the world for your necessities if you live an environment that is peaceful and stable enough for your supply of them to be stable and reliable. We likely don't live in such a world anymore or certainly not a world where the risk of depending on the rest of the world for necessities is without very significant risk.
I am sorry that that sucks but sometimes life is like that. You have to face the world as it is not as you wish it would be.
We likely don’t live in such a world anymore or certainly not a world where the risk of depending on the rest of the world for necessities is without very significant risk.
Dependency goes both ways.
That's what the Germans thought.
It does. But that doesn't make it equal on both sides. We are dependent on China to buy our food for example. But we can go without the money a lot longer than China can go without the food.
We buy junk for China in exchange for green pieces of paper. They need those green pieces paper more than we need plastic trinkets from Walmart.
Not for long, my friend
"We likely don’t live in such a world anymore or certainly not a world where the risk of depending on the rest of the world for necessities is without very significant risk. "
Here's the problem. The country we live in is prone to the same problems and uncertainties that affect the world. Your retreat into tribalism won't guarantee anything. You have to realize the country is no longer what you want it to be.
Here’s the problem. The country we live in is prone to the same problems and uncertainties that affect the world.
We live in a country where one of our neighbors will invade us and destroy our ability to produce a vita product like fertilizer like what happened to Ukraine? Really? You must hate Mexicans and Canadians a lot because I think your statement is self evidently absurd.
"We live in a country "
Where the two closest neighbors are governed by socialists, and can and have instituted policies that adversely affect us. We rely on them for importation of fossil fuels, cheap lumber, cheap food, labor and manufacturing. I took it that you were against such globalism. Now it seems you are for it.
Where the two closest neighbors are governed by socialists, and can and have instituted policies that adversely affect us. We rely on them for importation of fossil fuels, cheap lumber, cheap food, labor and manufacturing. I took it that you were against such globalism. Now it seems you are for it.
You just made my point for me. Thanks for playing.
"You just made my point for me."
Maybe so, but you've missed my point. Entirely.
"Here’s the problem. The country we live in is prone to the same problems and uncertainties that affect the world. "
You must know that the laws and regulations put in effect by socialists in California affect your freedom to pollute the atmosphere or inflict cruelty on animals, even if you don't live there. Now it seems once again, you oppose globalism and are back to your tribalism. I'm telling you that will fail you, too.
regulations put in effect by socialists in California affect your freedom
In the land of the free We resist and flaunt such authoritarian crap. We boycott Californicate.
Eventually you run out of places to boycott, and you find yourself all alone. That's the problem with tribalism. Rather than retreating into some idyllic tribalism which is doomed to failure anyway, confront the problems of the planet head on. The kind of attitude that inspired R. Buckminster Fuller when he wrote Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, and many other books.
I did not mean to imply that you can have the massive gains the world experienced over the last hundred years without covering the necessities. I am disagreeing with your assumption that we no longer have the necessities covered because of "globalization." America has the ability to respond to emergencies by shifting back to domestic production rapidly. But shooting ourselves in the foot because of fear that we might have to do that is dumb.
We totally have the ability to cover the necessities. We are very lucky in that. A lot of countries. The other thing we have is we are connected by land to Canada and Mexico. Between the US, Canada, and Mexico, there really isn't much you can't get. And you can have a supply that is not subject to interdiction by sea. That is an enormous strategic advantage.
It is an advantage that we have squandered due to idiotic laws that you mention. We don't have to move our industry overseas. The biggest reason doing so is profitable is because we have passed laws that make it so. I completely agree with that.
I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here, if anything. "We" did not shift our industry overseas. The owners of the productive enterprises did that, partially in response to the increasing standard of living of our workforce and partially due to the increased costs and complexity resulting from stupid government regulations and mandates. The alternative would seem to be even MORE stupid government regulations pretending to protect critical defense resources and assets.
No, the alternative would be less domestic regulation making those shifts less desirable. There has to be some protection of industry and that is a hard decision to make and a slippery slope for sure. But making hard decisions and stepping on slippery slopes is what governing means. Choosing to let them go and protecting nothing has risks too. You wake up one day and your entire supply chain is dependent on your enemies or unstable countries. You can't just wish that reality away by appealing to "but the market".
35% corporate tax sent millions of jobs away. Trump cut that to 21%, probably the best thing any Prez has done in decades. SloJo and the Donkeys are trying to send more jobs away by raising it again. A-holes.
The back of my iPhone says “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” We’re still doing the hard part. Also it’s a myth that the US doesn’t make stuff. Manufacturing output in this country keeps increasing. What is decreasing is manufacturing employment due to automation. Instead of screwing in bolts, Americans design, program, and operate robots that do a better job than human hands.
"We likely don’t live in such a world anymore or certainly not a world where the risk of depending on the rest of the world for necessities is without very significant risk."
This is utterly bizarre to me. During the pandemic, the united states- and most of the western world- didn't produce shit other than food. Factories were closed. Entire businesses were destroyed.
But much of Asia stayed open. And produced tons of shit that we continued to consume. In the pre-globalist world, that would have resulted in more than toilet paper shortages. It would have resulted in pretty much the end of the United States as a functioning entity.
That we were able to shut down 20% - 33% of our economy for months and we didn't have mass starvation is a miracle of modern industry.
Most of Asia didn't keep their economies open. They were worse than we were. To the extent globalism saved us, it didn't save us from anything. Had we produced those things domestically and not been able to get them from abroad, the public would have never tolerated the lockdowns. Globalism enabled the lockdowns by softening the price of them to the public.
Good point. It illustrates the complexity of complex systems and makes any attempt by government to selectively improve some single aspect of the system with even the most selective regulation look silly. Nevertheless, I think it is safe to say that the more widespread productive capacity is the less vulnerable it is to single episodes or localized emergencies. Having orange production in both California and Texas makes the orange crop less vulnerable to freezes in Florida, for just one example.
"to selectively improve some single aspect of the system with even the most selective regulation look silly."
Not always. It was the actions of a London public health official that closed down a public water pump, thereby causing cholera infections and deaths in the area to drop dramatically.
"And when hard times come, you quickly realize what is essential and what is not. "
Turns out that men are not essential. Happy now?
It turns out they are. If you are too stupid to understand that, the gene pool is almost certainly better off without you.
All those men topping themselves, falling victim to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, failing at work, failing at school, dying prematurely, yet women are picking up the slack and we soldier on. Happy yet?
Been to Ukraine lately?
I understand they've come up with an interesting way of getting rid of all those non essential male service industry workers.
Yeah, that was the plan. They didn't get invaded and are now fighting a desperate war for national survival or anything. You called it dude.
"Yeah, that was the plan."
I doubt it was planned. Still, war has always been a way to trim away the non-essential. Isn't that what you want?
Simple answer. White males have been demonized to the point of expungement.
If you intentionally destroy the most productive part of your society you should disappear.
Real men don’t fail.
My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.
This is what I do.........>>> OnlineCareer1
Real men fail, then get up and do it better.
Diversity is death.
Although I can't listen to podcasts at work, I would caution to take such assertions as "losing ground" with a grain of salt. All such studies are conducted in comparison with someone or something else. The concept of losing ground itself assumes a moral judgment in the first place which may or may not be apparent. For example, college degrees are not necessarily good things and fewer men obtaining them may be a good trend. Dropping out of the work force implies that being in the work force is a good thing for every man. Comparing gains by women doesn't imply that they are doing better than men lately - women had a lot of ground to make up after having virtually no rights compared to men for a very long time in America. The more important question would be (maybe it's addressed in the book?) are more men feeling able to make non-traditional life choices now than they were in the male-dominated previous social eras, and are those choices turning out better for them? Obviously the suicide and depression data might argue against that, so it's an interesting question.
are more men feeling able to make non-traditional life choices now than they were in the male-dominated previous social eras
No. While women's roles expanded most men were still socially confined to their niches by social mores curated by women. Traditional roles for thee but not for me.
No women wants a husband staying at home and raising the kids while she ponys up for all the bills for any appreciable length of time.
I confess I'm in genuine shock right now. Because I'm 99% certain that this is the first time I've seen the Goth Fonzie Woppo willing to entertain the idea that things might be getting worse while his beloved liberal democrats were in charge.
This might be as much of a genuine indicator as anything yet of just how truly awful things are these days.
You must feel depressed due to the Durham letdown, Mikey.
Don't worry, there will be a new fake scandal soon. Hunter Biden, you know.
You're only two years behind everyone. Even the WaPo acknowledged the laptop's existence and that it might just be damning to Hunter Biden.
Oh, sure.
The laptop existed (with dirty pictures) and Hunter Biden's political career is over.
Where is the scandal?
Maybe Hunter is embarrassed but I doubt it.
You do realize that it has connections to a certain, sitting President, do you not? Or are you just denser than a black hole?
The talking point has gone out: Hunter Biden is not in government, end of story.
Sbp shrugs off photographic evidence of hunter molesting his neice as "dirty pictures.
This is why everyone wants you to kill yourself
In 20 days I and many others here are going to be relentlessly mocking and laughing at your morbidly obese, value brand Ron Jeremy lookin' incel monkey ass, you pig.
The Of Boys and Men author documents why the modern male is struggling and suggests solutions that don't come at women's expense.
Wait, who's suggesting solutions that come at women's expense?
Um, anyone who even hints that we NOT constantly elevate and celebrate women (and all those new-age genders).
It is Mary Sue's world Skeptic. We just live in it.
You ain't kidding.
Had a discussion with a (female) friend recently. She's really fucking annoyed with the trend. Great at her job, very knowledgeable, speaks multiple languages, used to teach one of our subjects of expertise, super accomplished all around. A years long journey of work and experience.
She sees the millennial girls begging for front of the line privileges and feels like the Mary Sue world means people think she is a diversity hire. Sees herself getting assigned lower level work, for instance, as though she's "one of those children." In her words.
It smells like a pre-apology out of the gate. Like he came to phase 3: Ok, there is a problem, it's as bad as you say, but I've got the way to fix it. It's like he's jumping on the bandwagon that was started by researchers such as Bettina Arndt (and many others-- almost all of whom have been wrongly accused of misogyny or internalized misogyny (in Bettina Arndt's case)) but is saying "I'm not like those other creeps... I come from Public Radio where we're down with women's lib, man". Like he's winking and nodding at them while saying "Don't worry ladies, I'm a male feminist".
Which means cover your drinks ladies.
While I can’t speak for the author, I think the presumption that all social gains are “zero-sum” is the norm these days, even when it’s not true. Women and others did not gain rights and power at the expense of males. There are many different forms of power, only two of which are political power and the right to make your own choices and life decisions. In some ways a woman’s right to own property and divorce are zero-sum with some man no longer having the power over the woman’s property as an example. Likewise, men can make some gains in power without taking it away from women.
Your comment was well thought, articulate and succinct.
However, it didn't answer my question. I smell something going on here. There is a pretty good grab bag of people that are on this beat, and don't offer solutions at the expense of women. The headline could have merely read:
The Of Boys and Men author documents why the modern male is struggling and suggests solutions
But it added the "but that don't come at the expense of women" which is a not-so-subtle suggestion that the grab bag is full of people who suggest it does. I mean, I wouldn't expect Nick to sully his reputation by pulling Jordan Peterson (falsely accused of making suggestions 'at the expense of women') and interviewing him. But there are still plenty of others. Bettina Arndt would have been a great interview. There's another women's studies professor I'm trying to google (I can't remember his name at the moment) who recognized there was a crisis happening with young males and got canceled AF. He would have been a great interview.
There are many different forms of power, only two of which are political power and the right to make your own choices and life decisions.
Right, which is why so many people in my grab bag of names have been falsely accused of suggesting solutions that are "at the expense of women". They dip their toe into that dangerous territory of suggesting that sometimes men and women make different choices so 'equity' is something that you can't force, and if you do, you're going to achieve at the expense of someone else.
As an aside... that's kind of my bugaboo here. "Equity" is one of the most toxic ideologies to completely capture the mainstream, and Reason should have been riding this hobby horse to death. It's been a boat they not only missed, they didn't even entertain buying a ticket on it.
Equity is evil.
It is the marxism in the movement. It is taking from and giving to to create outcomes. Seems all good and fine, until you see folks like Kendi, BLM, etc... defining people entirely by race and demanding equity on skin color, and getting rich off of their racism.
And that's ONE example. It leads entirely to division and bickering over what's there, and incentivizes nothing for creating the new. The greatest social liberator on earth is wealth creation. Jobs leading to skills leading to better jobs, small businesses. Innovations leading to more efficient working, leading to more productivity... zero sum philosophies are as outdated and wrong as hereditary titles and slavery.
Women and others did not gain rights and power at the expense of males.
Except I'm not completely sure that's entirely true. It doesn't take a huge effort to find cases where standards were adjusted to accommodate women. To the extent those standards existed to serve real needs, then lowering the standards only serves to offset the consequences of a lack of competence on others. I mean, consider the case of maternity leave. The absent worker's workload pretty much has to be laid off on her peers. I'm hard-pressed to say that isn't at their expense.
Or look at firefighters. The physical requirements are lowered for women only and given a finite budget, their slot on the force either comes at the expense of a man who qualifies under the old requirements or proportionate to candidates who would apply under the new standard if offered to men as well.
“Or look at firefighters. The physical requirements”
Last time I heard, the moral requirements aren’t faring any better. During the recent wild fires, they dragoon prisoners into the fire brigade and send them, ill equipped, into the wilderness. Yet here you are, wringing your hands over a few women on the team.
Dragooning in prisoners is what your gal Kamala Harris was infamous for in California.
"your gal Kamala Harris was infamous for in"
Behind every infamy, there's the woman who's responsible for it, smiling.
Jesus told us as much when he wrote about Adam and Eve.
I think this is attempting to disassociate from more fringey versions of this discussion. Men Going Their Own Way and such. There's certain religious groups that are resurging towards a TradWife style view of things as well.
This, of course, gets very complicated because a lot of women are complicit in this (not so much Men Going Their Own Way, but the TradWife thing for sure). They seem to be complicit because there is some amount of woman who does in fact want to be a homemaker. These groups can drift into active misogyny[1]. I think it's complicated too though, as some non-trivial amount of women also seem to be underserved by modern feminism's emphasis on professional existence as a means to life fulfillment.
[1] Just trying an endnote here. I mean misogyny in a pretty explicit way, not just a bunch of dudes getting together and telling jokes about their wives or bitching about women in the way people have done since antiquity.
Aha! AHA! I knew it.
As I said, cover your drinks ladies.
I was wondering Nick why pulled this name out from the rather rich, fecund grab bag of highly intelligent, thoughtful people that probably would have brought a LOT of clicks to Reason.
He was the ‘safe one’ that wouldn’t get Reason canceled.
I think it’s also that he’s at Brookings, which is the main left think tank in Washington. Nick probably knows folks there.
Edit: Clarifying this is an add-on to your statement, not meant as a rebuttal.
1. It’s not happening.2. It’s happening, but it’s not as bad as you say.
3. It’s happening, and it’s as bad as you say, let’s bring someone in to talk about this. *looks at list of names who’ve all been canceled, demonetized, been the subject of violent protests at universities* Umm, hey, intern, can you ring up the Brookings institute on this one, I don’t want to find myself in the news on this interview. We wanna keep this low key.I do think there is probably some problem that arises from them assuming this is a new issue. Underemployed, bored, angry young men is basically the oldest form of cultural difficulty. You can read the Greeks and the image of bored, underemployed, young men is there stirring up shit.
Edit: Which, from my very limited reading on him and on this area, is something Jordan Peterson talks about as well. Certainly from my Catholic viewpoint, the current push to save men has focused a lot on finding purposes and regimentation. The very popular Into The Breach series is about this.
He is very clear that the problem isn’t female success, but some men’s inability to adjust to a world where they can no longer dominate simply as a right.
I find these lines annoying. This goes into an additional frustration of mine.
A lot of groups only look at the highest levels of power, look to see who is heading those up, and then generalizes that to the group. So, you get a Black Woman as a CEO, and that is considered to represent Black Women as a whole and how they're doing. Even if statistically the group has plenty of issues and the existence of Oprah doesn't tell us much about that.
I can easily imagine the current mentality applied to something like Verdun. Male generals were leading the charge on the battlefield, and controlling the war at home, and this empowers the men in the trenches and denies strength to the women at home who are not allowed to die in the mud, forgotten, and picked apart by crows.
There is a crisis with men, and it's their fault.
I've got a young nephew who's bright, has a really great heart and good moral character who's struggling right now. this topic has been very interesting to me.
There've been some very good indicators from other researchers and experts who have pointed to things such as how 'rough and tumble' play are important in the development of young men, and young boys are suppressed in this area which-- as some argue, leads to a crisis in ADHD diagnoses. Rough and tumble play is seen as "toxic masculinity" etc. These are real issues that are worth discussing and have literally nothing to do with 'coming at the expense of women'.
It's hard. I see it in a lot of my friends, and my cousins. Though it's also complicated, and varies in big ways with each one.
But shit, I'm probably among these people. I'm a super fancy engineer now, but I was once a 25 year-old kid who spent hours each day commenting on libertarian website's comment sections. That's like 50% of mass shooters right there.
I find it interesting that this 'card-carrying liberal feminist' just so happens to have three sons and has 'recognized a problem'. While I clearly can't get inside this man's head, it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that when you're personally connected to something, you're more likely to see the problems... ie Matt Welch's pretty good stance on masking and school lockdowns. He's got kids in schools, so his fangs are coming out.
I'm guessing if this guy had three daughters, he'd be writing about something else entirely.
it’s yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that when you’re personally connected to something, you’re more likely to see the problems…I’m guessing if this guy had three daughters, he’d be writing about something else entirely.
Robert Conquest's First Law of Politics: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
"by modern feminism’s emphasis on professional existence as a means to life fulfillment."
It's the entire society that emphasizes professional existence. That's the shortest route to social prestige and where the monetary rewards and incentives are greatest.
"I mean misogyny in a pretty explicit way"
Another form of misogyny is blaming women for not being man enough to succeed in the professional world. ie unwillingness to sacrifice personal life, child rearing, for example, for devotion to the employer, Something men typically have no problem with.
Wow. I agree with you on something. Where did you and I go wrong?
lol even the Karen Men were called Karens for a reason.
good
Piss off (and do it outdoors)
The future will be a lesbian paradise.
Full of unhappy women.
Who will repair their Subaru Outbacks?
They may need to allow worker-males to exist.
Real lesbians can repair their own Outbacks. It'll be the fake, non lesbians who will be unhappy. Ie, the other 90% of women.
You are wise in the ways of lesbians.
He already said lesbian.
I recently learned of the term "lesbian bed death" from a female friend who was married to a woman for a while. She now seems to be decidedly not a lesbian.
Huh. Lessee, two people from the biological end of the spectrum who are traditionally less interested in (and more guarded about) sex get together and form a committed, long term relationship.
it's not scissors all the way down?
Another problem, according to my friend, is that there's no clear beginning and end to lesbian sex so eventually you just stop bothering.
Another problem, according to my friend
That lesbian friend-zone shit sucks...
I kind of have a thing for impossible women it seems.
>>impossible women
but you repeat yourself.
“We’re a generation of men raised by women…… and I’m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.”
-Tyler durden
Only "failing" when judged on the left wing social (in)justice scales.
This.
The more things women have taken over (education, social sciences, the Democratic Party), the more biased, distorted and dysfunctional they became.
Reminds me of that extrovert shitshow from several years ago, when they diddled themselves by calling out introverts as abnormal.
By the by, the left has begun to chase this bandwagon down, but for entirely different reasons.
As they realized that yes, there is a crisis among young men, and yes, it is as bad as we said it was, one of the complaints of women and feminist-leaning groups is that as men decline in education and earning potential, a "mating crisis" will emerge.
Throughout the 200+ years of the American experiment... hell, throughout pretty much all of human history, you know who complained bitterly that the problem in society was too many powerful, high earning, high status men, and too many undereducated female baristas and barmaids? Exactly no one. No one, let alone the men themselves, ever complained that yeah, sure there are a lot of comely young women about, but unfortunately they just don't earn enough money or have a high-status job. Literally no one has complained about that.
But the nanosecond women start not only out earning men, but out-educating men, suddenly, women can't find a decent mate. Gee, I wonder if there are some fundamental differences in world-outlook between men and woman that might... juuust might have a biological component?
Back when Reason could throw a punch, I remember a critique of a Maureen Dowd article in the NYT where Dowd complained bitterly that all the eligible high status men in her prospective dating pool weren't particularly interested in angry, embittered high status, strong feminist women such as herself. They all seemed perfectly happy to date younger, lower-earning barmaids and baristas, and Reason noted that the not-so-subtle suggestion was that Dowd wasn't particularly interested in dating down, only dating up.
I recall that Dowd column. She was sexy in a MILFy way though. Maybe she should have married a conservative evangelical and just fucked the pool boy whilst he watched.
*sigh*
Ok, now I need to google her.
Wasn't worth it, was it?
Ok, I'll give you a point on that one.
I think I like matronly Irish women. I kind of like Kathleen Madigan as well.
Maureen didn't understand she was midwest college prof hot not Manhattan socialite hot
There aren't enough high-earning women in high-status jobs: Women hardest hit.
Men are taking their foot off the accelerator and crawling into the back seat to take a nap, leaving the women in charge: Women hardest hit.
Bitches gonna bitch.
Thus, the "mating crisis." If you can't win the game, why bother to play?
The old adage has never been more true. If it fucks, floats, or flies, it is cheaper to rent.
At most a short term lease.
Maybe shared ownership?
Don't forget the: Wars - they displace families and the men get killed - Women hardest hit.
"you know who complained bitterly that the problem in society was too many powerful, high earning, high status men, and too many undereducated female baristas and barmaids? "
Harriet Tubman?
" Gee, I wonder if there are some fundamental differences in world-outlook between men and woman that might… juuust might have a biological component?"
I'm sure it does. Why would you doubt it? It has a social component, too. Do you also doubt that?
I’m sure it does. Why would you doubt it? It has a social component, too. Do you also doubt that?
If by "a social component" you mean one and only one possible reason and that's the systemic suppression of women's desires and the overbearing weight of the patriarchy, then no, that's not why.
"If by “a social component” you mean one "
That wasn't quite what I had in mind. I meant the non-biological components of our relationships, what we value and how society distributes what we produce among ourselves. Women, especially feminists, seem to have a less favorable view the market, which values the traditional efforts and contributions of women, child rearing, for example, less than those of men.
There may be biological reasons why women like to care for children and men like to sit in offices and make deals over the phone. The reason why the men in the Italian suits on Wall Street are paid more than the women wiping snot off the noses of little kids is social.
The reason why, when the ship is sinking, men are valued less than woman and children, who are rescued first, is also social.
Corporate pay isn’t the only measure of value that society places on individuals, and feminists focusing on only one dimension while ignoring the others is a form of self-centered manipulation.
John Jacob Astor IV was the richest man on the Titanic, and he went down with the ship because of the value society places on women and children. All his money couldn’t buy him a seat in a lifeboat.
The idea that society values men more than women seems very one-dimensional.
"The idea that society values men more than women seems very one-dimensional."
You are right, and I'm sorry if I led you to think that was what I was trying to say. To be clear it's the market and our way of distributing wealth that values men more than women. Market and society are two different things. It's the market that rewards the Wall Street broker more than the child care giver.
“Market” is just an abstraction. It doesn’t value or reward anything.
People value all sorts of things, and they value childbearing women very much. For example: John Jacob Astor IV’s wife inherited a lot, and she never had to go into a building on Wall Street at all, much less wear an Italian suit.
What I’ve always wondered about this phenomenon is: Why couldn’t ship-builders just manufacture enough lifeboats for everyone?
Oooh!-Oooh! Or better yet, make ships that really don't sink! 🙂
"Corporate pay isn’t the only measure of value that society places on individuals,"
It's not just corporate pay, it's money in general. There's also things like beauty, celebrity, influence, wisdom and other intangible things, but they can't be readily transferred between people like money can. Launch a lawsuit against someone who's hurt you. Any apology you get will come in the form of money. The deeper the sorrow, the bigger the payoff.
Problem is money doesn't necessarily end up in the pockets of those who are valued, or produce value. Often money chases money, those who are most acquisitive and manipulative. Vices rather than virtues.
Money is also a limited dimension among many.
All the money of the John Jacob Astor IV couldn’t buy him a seat on a lifeboat, because of the inherent value society places on women and children. Society chose him to die so that women and children could live, solely because he was a man, and they were women and children.
"All the money of the John Jacob Astor IV couldn’t buy him a seat on a lifeboat,"
When he died, his money didn't die with him. That's why it's of such great value. Not only does it live on, it INCREASES over time without the owner, whoever it is, having to lift a finger.
And about him buying a seat on a life boat, he could have done so easily had he thought ahead and bought the seat in Liverpool before she set sail, and not waited until 'women and children first' were the order of the day.
But that money had no value to him when he died for women and children.
Money is only one dimension of value that society places on individuals. “But money!” doesn’t bring John Jacob Astor IV back to life, and his wife (a woman) is the person in line to inherit all of it. That’s hardly the patriarchy at work.
"But that money had no value to him when he died for women and children."
Because he was in a ship. There's a captain. Only one. If the captain says abandon ship, women and children first, that's the way it is. If they're attacked by pirates, the captain say prepare to repel boarders, he's given a cutlass and told to start swinging, along with the crew and all the other able bodied men.
It's not the captain's role to do whatever the richest passenger wants. That would be the purser.
And the captain said women and children first. That’s social.
He didn’t say, “men first because patriarchy.”
Both of these things are only derivatively social. They are derived from biological components.
One man can impregnate 9 women and nearly double the population in a year.
One woman and 9 men only increases the population by 10% in the same time.
So men lay down their lives to protect women and children because there is a biological imperative to survive as a species.
——
Producing babies is a resource intensive activity that doesn’t always have good outcomes for the woman. Securing a spouse capable of providing resources necessary to the nurture and growth of a child is more important to the woman than the man. The man’s biological imperative is to secure resources necessary to the nurture and growth of offspring and the woman who gives them that offspring.
——
The war of the sexes makes sense as long as you keep in mind the imperative to reproduce. Remove that and none of it makes sense.
It makes sense that some men and women do not have a biological imperative to reproduce. While we can make the argument that they can contribute in other ways, they should not be contributing to interfering in the social structures that support the biological imperative to reproduce as a species.
“Richard V. Reeves: Why Are Men Failing at School, Work, and Life?”
According to critical theory, if a group is underperforming, it must be due to systemic bigotry.
Therefore, men are victims of the matriarchy. Also, since Asians outperform whites in math and science, whites are victims of systemic racism.
This is what passes itself off at serious issue thought for democrats.
"Also, since Asians outperform whites in math and science, whites are victims of systemic racism. "
Not in Asia. You probably don't know this, but there are a lot of stupid people in Asia. A lot. The few whites I came across there on the other hand were all pretty clever, and I have no doubt could outperform the typical local in math, science, and other intellectual pursuits.
Yeah, but that’s just due to systemic bigotry in Asia.
White supremacy runs deep!
"but that’s just due to systemic bigotry in Asia."
I knew it must have been something like that.
It always is.
Not in Asia. You probably don’t know this, but there are a lot of stupid people in Asia.
#StopAsianHate
"there are a lot of stupid people in Asia"
Sad to say, but true. True of Asia, true of anywhere. And any white people who find their way to Asia are likely to be more clever, more on the ball than the locals. More drive, initiative, courage, curiosity, imagination and so on.
Of the many places in the hierarchy of causes, education is the most explanatory
"Technological society leads to increasing numbers of people who cannot adapt to the inhuman rhythm of modern life with its emphasis on specialization. A class of people is growing up who are unexploitable because they are not worth employing even for the minimum wage. Technological progress makes whole categories of people useless without making it possible to support them with the wealth produced by the progress."Jacques Ellul
I taught for 5 years at the college level. I estimate that 50% of those who make it to graduation do not have the level of learning that a freshman had during the American Founding.
My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.
This is what I do.........>>> OnlineCareer1
He is very clear that the problem isn’t female success, but some men’s inability to adjust to a world where they can no longer dominate simply as a right.
There is a crisis with young men and the problem is that women are just too strong and independent for them and thus men can’t handle it.
LOL they're told that everything is their fault, pumped full of drugs, and shrieked at all day.
Is it any wonder men are losing their drive to succeed? (That would be furthering the patriarchy, after all!)
Quiet quitting is the only non-misogynistic action available.
No, it's not.
Quiet-quitting is literally what we're seeing the results of with young men and boys. And the first thing that happens is women crap their pants as they watch men quiet-quit, that their prospects for marrying-up are beginning to evaporate.
I... I mean, they're observing a "mating crisis" emerging.
Yep. Turns out dropping out is also misogynistic.
Here I thought in the zero sum imaginations of the current culture that men needed to drop out and play video games all day, in order to make room for the ladies. That it was the brave and heroic thing to do.
Exactly. Backing away and saying "You take the helm for a bit, babydoll, I'mma go back to my bunk and read my book" leaves women bereft of what is their right: A man who'll be a reliable wage-earner so they have the options of quitting their careers for two years to *checks notes* educate the French on the wonders of Kale or deciding NOT to abort this one and raising a child who... if a boy, will not have a shred of toxic masculinity or, if thank the gods is a girl will be strong, independent and full of self-esteem.
And if it STARTS a boy, well........
I thought all the young ladies were ok with pair bonding up with other young ladies. No need for a man, man!
The abortion gendercide problem is the core problem.
Certainly so worldwide. But even in US
"Unfortunately gendercide happens in the United States. Last year, 22 states tried to pass measures to prohibit sex-selection abortions, but only eight states did. On the flip side, just last week San Francisco is the only municipality to ever have tried to outlaw a ban on gendercide. Fearing that the state bans passed last year will come to California, San Francisco Supervisor David Chiu claims that prenatal sexual profiling is really racial profiling of Asian-American women. One wonders what will happen if the gene for homosexuality is discovered in the prenatal child? Will the city allow its extreme
support for abortion rights to conflict with the rights of the city's gay population to not be aborted?
A word of caution to us feminists: Be careful what we wish for."
The only non-mysoginistic option is to take the abuses from women and society, smile and ask how you can help them emasculate and abuse you further.
Don't you mean "non birthing persons"?
What is a man?
"What is a man?"
Aren't they the ones with the declining sperm count and a pocket full of boner pills?
The more urbanized a society becomes, the more masculinity is repressed which creates a horde of emasculated beta-males.
Fertility declines as population density increases. True in men, true in women, true in plants and animals, as well. Who needs masculinity if we're giving up on reproducing the species. It's just another non-essential luxury.
You know who else was a man who failed at all three of those?
Beta O’Rourke?
Worldwide gendercide against women is the poison for male culture. India and China have a generation of sexual perverts and violent young men because there are no women to marry.
Read George Gilder on that. And then some of the military security periodicals, where this is a major problem for world peace.
Homosexual perversion of course is in the mix too.
School, work. life
School--- if you come from a broken family you have very little support to care about education
Work--- A man works because he has a family. Without that it's beer and pizza just before the nightly motorcycle ride.
Life -- this is very interesting because the uneducated and underemployed are the ones we know are actually dying now
"What was happening? As Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton first pointed out in a 2015 paper, working-age white men and women without four-year college degrees were dying of suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related liver disease — what Case and Deaton termed “deaths of despair” — at unprecedented rates. In 2017 alone, there were 158,000 deaths of despair in the US: the equivalent of “three fully loaded Boeing 737 MAX jets falling out of the sky every day for a year.”"
If ever the perversion of homosexuality (see Buttigieg kissing the "mother" of their two children) and if ever the curse of abortion were more evident (black women are 5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women) it must be now that men are failing in every area. It was already true (see George Gilder) that unmarried men 18-34 lead in almost every area of violence and crime -- now the children are destroyed and the women won't marry losers.
All downhill from here.