Ruth Whippman: How Is Masculinity Changing?
Ruth Whippman discusses her new book BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity.
Are the boys okay?
For much of history, parents have preferred boys, perceiving them as the providers, the family legacy, the heirs to the throne. A dark consequence of China's 36-year-long one-child policy was a 120 boy to 100 girl birth ratio. But in 21st-century America, the script seems to have been flipped. The New York Times has run headlines like "Wanting Daughters, Getting Sons" and "It's a Boy, and It's Okay to be Disappointed." Boys are falling behind in school, are more likely to display behavioral problems, and are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of violence. Shifting gender norms, changing conceptions of masculinity, and the pitched political battles around these questions have made boyhood—and parenthood—that much more complicated. Raising boys these days ain't easy.
Today's guest knows this all too well. Ruth Whippman is the author of BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity, and the mother of three young boys. The book is about her experience as a modern "BoyMom" living in the hyper-progressive Bay Area, as well as what she learned from studying the psychological and sociological research on boys and from talking to boys and men across the country and the political spectrum about their experiences and, importantly to the theme of this book, their feelings.
Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.
Sourced referenced in this conversation:
- The New York Times: Wanting Daughters, Getting Sons
- The New York Times: It's a Boy, and It's Okay to Be Disappointed
- Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM
- Poverty hurts the boys the most: Inequality at the intersection of class and gender
- Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness
- Provisional Estimates of Suicide by Demographic Characteristics: United States, 2022
- Andrew Tate's 10 Rules of Life on Rumble (discussed at 55:28)
Timestamps:
- 00:00 Intro Monologue
- 01:24 Introducing Ruth Whippman
- 02:20 Nature vs. Nurture in Boyhood
- 05:31 Emotional Vulnerability in Boys
- 06:31 Parenting Strategies for Boys
- 09:56 Cultural Shifts and Gender Preferences
- 14:01 Raising Boys in Progressive Areas
- 27:28 Challenges Boys Face in School
- 41:34 Traditional Masculinity and Emotional Connection
- 45:47 The American Psychological Association's Stance on Traditional Masculinity
- 53:16 The Hero's Journey and Masculine Expectations
- 55:28 Andrew Tate's Influence on Young Men
- 01:04:18 High Agency Worldview and Self-Help for Men
- 01:14:17 Promoting Emotional and Relational Skills in Boys
- 01:16:19 Final Thoughts and Reflections
- Producer: John Osterhoudt
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
If you're farming cattle, do you want more than one bull? Isn't it better to have a herd full of cows and steers?
More compliant and easier to manage?
Farming cattle? What kind of earth-raping climate killer are you?
What exactly did the Earth expect, wearing a sexy skirt like that?
If you want to fit into most of the jokes, you need a young bull and an old bull - - - - -
How Is Masculinity Changing?
It's going away is how it's changing.
Not going away, just transmaxing for greater social acceptance.
The idea that there wouldn't be any negative consequences to 77 percent of public school teachers being female is a textbook example of willful idiocy.
What did you think would happen?
And Liz betrays her inability to recognize that simple fact when she informs that boys have "behavior" problems and are "falling behind" in school. Boys haven't changed but have been declared toxic by an education system and culture dominated by women who have no interest in facing biological facts.
And the explosion of single mothers raising boys.
I am actually curious. Do boys raised by single moms tend to procreate more with multiple single women and never marry?
Stop being racist
You first (it's pronounced "raciss").
Sounds like common sense. There is no place no place for that kind of talk in polite society.
Boys are more difficult to control; so of course the left wants to medicate or castrate them.
Masculinity hasn't changed.
What changed is too many people pay attention to idiot women telling men what masculinity is.
It's still the same to most women. They want to marry Beta males but dream of getting ravished by a wild stallion.
Pretty sure your interpretation has some pragmatic, male, reductionist logic baked in as well.
Like, if most could bear the beta males' children without actually having to sleep with them, that would be great.
^THIS - Exactly.... +100000000000
One thing I’ve noticed. Younger men seem to have less body hair.
I mean, watch a movie from the 70s or early 80s. It's like walking carpets when you see a guy with a bare chest. But even putting aside shaving, modern men just seem to have less of it.
Chest hair looks terrible with a lacy bra.
Racist!
Get a load of the body shamer!
Leg hair in nylons is worse.
I’m not judging you guys, you are free to live your life as you please.
You don’t like Greek broads?
I might be willing to change my mind.
'The New York Times has run headlines like "Wanting Daughters, Getting Sons" and "It's a Boy, and It's Okay to be Disappointed."'
That's so 2010. The headlines are now "How to convert you unwanted son into a righteous daughter--and get the virtue signal points you deserve."
It is interesting that humans culturally have favored males when nature favors females. Males are really needed for only one thing and one is plenty, any more a problem. I was reading over Leviticus and was struck by how religious laws call for the person to give up the prized male, ram, bull, rooster to God. It makes it appear that males are more valuable, when the reality is that the farmer can afford to give up males much more than he can afford to give up his female animals.
Human culture favors males because males have, with few exceptions, been in charge for most of history.
But history is only a tiny fraction of human existence. Favoring females has some advantages. Society knows which woman bore which child. The child's father is a matter of guess work. Women are also uniquely gifted with the means to feed infants, keeping the society alive. Pre-history is where we should be looking. All the historical records are written by men who may not be the unbiased, disinterested observers you hope they are.
Unfortunately for women, men figured out how genetics worked.
Women don't care how things work they only care about how they "feel" about it.
Women use men to figure out how things work.
Well. I’d say not even that. They just don’t care how things work period they just care about how it makes them “feel” special (self-centered socially). Course I’m painting with an awfully big brush here; there are exceptions that should be recognized.
It's become super common for women to start a sentence with "I feel like..." or "I just feel..."
Men will do so as well, but it's particularly common with women, from what I've witnessed, at least.
Human culture favors males because males have, with few exceptions, been (scratch charge insert producers) for most of history ... and still going.
Women have yet to prove to be capable of production even to the day. Always taking paper-pushing jobs (production-less), social interaction jobs (production-less) and push-the-button jobs (mindless machine-production). They still have yet to excel in STEM or actual-production at large even while being subsidized and pushed constantly to do so.
And what happens to your cute little matriarchy when a normal human society sends its army to take away all your shit?
Uh, biology would like to chat.
Nature favors both sexes, and often biases the females to be demure but judgemental about sex partners while males with a broader range of variations who compete for the chance to be selected for sex.
Sound familiar?
Nature considers almost all females valuable, and the great majority will breed. Males however must compete to breed and those that fail to breed will likely die quickly. I stand by my statement that male importance is determined by culture and not nature.
Misspelled impotence. To girl-bulliers, cowering and begging men with guns to coerce physicians and force women to carry to term pregnancies caused by unwanted biological males is NOT involuntary servitude or forced labor. To them, coercion of a lone individual by deadly force is "pro-life" and "freedom" the way Prohibition and drug bans are "free trade."
You seem to think the only importance of natural survival is reproduction. What's that; about 9-months of 80+ years?
” was reading over Leviticus and was struck by how religious laws call for the person to give up the prized male, ram, bull, rooster to God. It makes it appear that males are more valuable”
It’s always funny when Moderation4ever posts virtue signaling homilies in the comments.
Particularly since he obviously never read Leviticus at all, because if he actually had he would have noticed this:
Leviticus 4:28 “When he becomes aware of the sin he has committed, he must bring an unblemished female goat as his offering for that sin.”
And this:
Leviticus 4:32 “If, however, he brings a lamb as a sin offering, he must bring an unblemished female.”
These two requirements are immediately below the ram and bull ones, so if Mod had actually read what he claims, then he would’ve known.
And there’s nothing about Roosters. Probably because they were just getting to the Levant in the Bronze Age.
So Leviticus actually calls not just for a ram and a bull, but also a doe goat and a ewe lamb.
But that’s not all, Numbers 19 requires a physically perfect red heifer for dedicating the temple.
So his whole implication was garbage. We really do have the dumbest progressives here.
What a load of horsesh*t....
Females are way too self-centered and emotionally-centrist to ever understand men at all. Whippman goes on for hours doing nothing but trying to rub her own female "emotions" onto the character of man all along trying to pretend it's logical.
No. Men use *real* logic (not emotions) to master the universe. Women use tricks, deceit, emotions, appeal to master men to master the universe and this news articles demonstrates the difference there 100%.
You seem confused. You say in your first sentence that women are incapable of understanding men at all. Later on you say that women nevertheless use tricks and deceit to manipulate the men they don't understand at all. And you somehow think this is an example of the logic of male thinking. I suggest a re-think.
You seem to be so confused you flip logic on it’s head (U must be a miss trueman?).
Maybe, as completely inferred, their manipulation and tricks are failing them so they make up *excuses* why men apparently have problems so they can avoid actually having to *earning* their keep in the world. Followed with ‘Gov-Gun’ FORCED selfish entitlement. "The ‘Guns’ (armed-theft) will be my sugar daddy.", is apparently the feminist motto.
It seems I didn't make myself clear. You have two opposing ideas. One, that women don't have the capacity to understand men. And, two, that women are able to trick and deceive men. Both cannot be true simultaneously. Ask anyone familiar with logic if you don't believe me or are still confused.
Do you thinking tricks, deceit, emotions, appeal = understanding someone? Of course you do; you think like a Woman.
Like I said; too self-centered and emotionally-centrist to ever understand men at all (or be logical for that matter).
Maybe... Just maybe men aren't emotionally guided creatures. Maybe they're guided by actual logic and pride and not silly emotional equivalents that don't exist anywhere but in Women's head. Maybe 'understanding' someone isn't about how to trick, deceive, appeal at basic-instincts and dumping emotional garbage and pretending it's logic.
"Do you thinking tricks, deceit, emotions, appeal = understanding someone? "
No, in order to trick someone, you have to have an understanding of their thinking, their habits and their expectations.
"Maybe… Just maybe men aren’t emotionally guided creatures."
Sure they are. They just tend to be guided to different things. Like beer, for example. Ever see a beer commercial? Do you imagine them to be logical disquisitions on the superiority of the product, or rather to play on fulfilling the male audience's emotional needs? Is beer too trivial an example for you? Then watch a car commercial. Cars represent one of the largest commitments of resources that men make in their lifetimes, and you're telling me that emotions play no part? You're not smart enough or old enough to play this game with me.
No. Manipulating, Tricking and deceiving is not actually a factor of understanding anyone to a significant extent. Not to mention just 'trying' and failing is of no-extent what-so-ever.
No. Men aren't emotionally guided for the most part. You're self-projecting just like Whippman did. Men are guided by the pursuit of knowledge (how things work), pride of accomplishment (an emotion but not an emotional one) and being useful (i.e. Quality & Quantity). You might BS the two into being an emotion but they aren't generally recognized as "emotional" motivators.
You're not logical enough to play this game with me because you're "too self-centered" to actually try and look past your own "emotionally-centric" feelings about being right about it ... Just like Whippman did.
"No. Manipulating, Tricking and deceiving is not actually a factor of understanding anyone to a significant extent. "
You're still not getting it. In order to trick or manipulate someone, it's necessary to understand their thinking.
" Men aren’t emotionally guided for the most part. "
?
"an emotion but not an emotional one"
?
What is a non emotional emotion?
"In order to trick or manipulate someone, it’s necessary to understand their thinking. "
No. It's not. Do you think politicians know how everyone in their district thinks every-time they con them?
A positive emotion from an accomplishment isn't by general terms considered just an 'emotional' response because the emotion has foundation in something legitimate instead of by just emotions of it's own sake. (i.e. No one would call pride "just an emotional response" to the situation of a major accomplishment.)
"Do you think politicians know how everyone in their district thinks every-time they con them?'
They don't need to know everyone. A plurality is adequate.
"Are the boys okay?"
Yes, except they are not as masculine as they once were. This comes from measurements of the distance between the anus and base of the penis. The distance is growing shorter, which translates to feminization of males. If it makes you feel any better, the same phenomenon is observed in females, using the distance between the anus and the clitoris. It results in masculinity in females, as well as more infertility and miscarriages, lower sperm counts, and greater incidence of cancer in the reproductive organs. One hypothesis is an environmental cause - the ubiquitous presence of endocrine disruptors in what we wear and consume.
Haven’t noticed feminization of boys so much, but from seeing my son’s swim team,12- 13 year old girls now look like 17 year olds when I was his age 40 years ago. Something is definitely going on.
It results in masculinity in FEMALES, as well as more infertility and miscarriages, lower SPERM counts, and greater incidence of cancer in the reproductive organs.
I don't know if you meant the lower sperm counts part to apply to males, but accidentally included it with your list of effects on females, or if you just naturally include transwomen as females, but I'd hope females have no sperm count, or we as a society are way more fucked up than either of us know.
'As well as' is the term I use to introduce additional reproductive problems. Some are specific to males, some to females, some to both. A declining sperm count is definitely a sign that masculinity is changing. It's a world wide phenomenon and has been observed now for decades. It's not a fashionable topic of discussion as is evident in your comment where you'd prefer to discuss transwomen.
Anyone asking a woman about being a man is a fucking idiot.
I’ll say the same for a lot of things. If you want a good answer, you never ask a woman:
– What it is like to be man
– What men want
– What women want
– What she wants
– How you should act
– What you should wear (Good god, let a woman choose your suit and you’ll look like you’re going to the fucking prom)
– etc.
LOL….
– If it’s clean and shiny but does absolutely nothing it’s worth Millions.
– If it’s dirty but does everything under the sun it belongs in the garbage.
but, but, but .... Men only care about looks! /s
I'm not sure how such a massive group of Women ended up having such major character flaws (self-projection) but I'd bet it had something to do with building [WE] identify-gangs and Gov-Guns entitling them to what they just didn't want to *earn*.
Probably the worse humanitarian curse of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] is the [WE] ganging division bound to happen to try and define WHO will be the TAKERS and who will be the SLAVES-EARNERS.
Too bad citizens couldn't have just settle with a *real* Constitutional Republic meant to ensure Liberty and Justice for all no matter skin color, gender or ‘poor’-identity status.
Should Biden…
(a) resign from the presidency, Harris becomes president and runs as the incumbent
(b) resign from the campaign and let the Party choose another candidate
(c) stay the course
I can’t think of any other realistic options other than invoking the 25th, which would have the same effect as (a).
There is a fourth, actually a contingency plan in real life. If memory serves it was to run, win and resign so the VP takes office. A fifth actually happened: After at least two shooters killed JFK while Nixon was in Dallas, Johnson got stuck with the job and sent another 484000 cannon fodder to 'Nam. After the hit on Bobby, better judgment urged LBJ to decline another run. Nixon's gang got Tricky installed, women and kids bombed, Hoover-Anslinger prohibition fanaticism revived and the economy wrecked until Ford was installed to pardon Tricky who'd resigned to evade impeachment.
Except LBJ decided not to run three months before RFK was assasinated
(D) croak
D here would be the same as A
The donkey party really has no good options at this point. If they have an open convention, there will be lots of pressure to nominate a bipoc and/or woman candidate for both president and vp. Then you have the pro/anti-Israel issue. That doesn’t really leave anyone who can bring the party together with more than “I’m not Trump”.
Combo. I don’t want to see President Kamala Harris, but it is unacceptable that Biden is continuing to act as President. Need to invoke the 25th amendment. Then I would like to see the party competitively choose a candidate rather than rubber-stamping Kamala. It’s disgusting that unelected advisors are running the country and the party essentially rigged the primary to ensure Biden would win. And this from the party that claims it wants to save democracy.
https://x.com/BonifaceOption/status/1808992083728085436?t=5eQNSOHXHfWAYR6w0AP_nA&s=19
In ‘The Patriot,’ they let this girl give speech in church, then everyone present in the scene ended up burned alive.
Lesson there.
[Pic]
Note to foreign readers: This is the Jesus Caucus channel insinuating itself into Reason's objective journalism.
Also known as people who know what a woman is.
I hope that helps.
Incidentally, the entire Warren Commission GOP whitewash--not the Bowdlerized "summary"--is online at Gutenberg.org in searchable text formats.
https://x.com/FromKulak/status/1808859125167563051?t=V_Gqbou0wdaRtop6w6H2IQ&s=19
"I want a man who reads"
A man who reads what?
All guys who read are either biblical obsessives, WW2 obsessives, scifi obsessives... Girls get the ick from everything men read.
"I just want him to read normal books like me"
No you don't want a guy who reads rapey romance.
That double standard has always rubbed me the wrong way (phrasing...)
Guys are gross, pathetic, cheaters when they watch porn but women can read their dirty books in public as well as mention their large collection of sex toys. They can absolutely obsess over a show or movie only because they want to fuck an actor on it.
Guys are sexually gratified by looking at women of many body types. Women get off on the idea of one type of guy obsessing over them and controlling them in a way they want to be controlled.
It's fucked up
https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1809038502081724513?t=cjEWiA6AOLQBCtD4l8PumQ&s=19
An intoxicated Ashley Biden is seen grinding on her brother Hunter on the White House balcony behind Joe. What the hell is going on?
[Video]
Classy.
I dislike the Bidens as much as anyone, but it just looks like she’s dancing in place in the midst of her relatives? I’m not seeing it.
Yeah, let's ask someone named Ruth about masculinity. Isn't listening to women in the guise of feminists how we got here in the first place?
The subject is important, but consider interviewing a male writer, perhaps Richard Reeves, on the subject of masculinity. Whippman is more interested in stomping out vaporous misogyny than in helping boys grow into capable men.