Why are boys in trouble?
We cannot help boys without undoing patriarchy
Last week I listened to a conversation between Ezra Klein and Richard Reeves about Reeves’ recent book, Of Boys and Men. Reeves uses data to argue that men and boys — particularly those growing up or living in poverty — are struggling. Reeves also argues that policymakers and many from the center/left are overlooking boys and men. I found the conversation interesting and frustrating at the same time.
I found the overall goal of Reeves’ research compelling. Reeves offers abundant data to show that men and boys across lines of race and class are facing a crisis that is literally killing us and that more people should be concerned. I agree that part of this crisis stems from the need to give boys and men a positive and essential role in their families and communities. I also agree with Reeves that there is generally a lack of empathy for men right now.
It’s worth noting, however, that the lack of empathy and compassion for boys and men in many spaces stems from total exhaustion from sexism and misogyny. While bell hooks and others have argued for the importance of loving men while dismantling patriarchy, I can understand why this is a difficult and unappealing undertaking for many. In the meantime, it may fall to men to carry the burden of loving one another while creating a new positive expression of masculinity. The problem is traditional masculinity has robbed us of many of the skills we need to do this. It’s a bit of a catch-22.
This leads me to what I felt was a fundamental flaw in Reeves’ analysis, which was the absence of a discussion of patriarchy. I can understand why perhaps Reeves and Klein would avoid using the term patriarchy. For many, the term conjures elite academic spaces or Women’s March protest signs. In other words, Reeves and Klein may not consider the term accessible for a “mainstream” audience. But putting aside any possible qualms about language, the fact remains that culture matters. The systems and structures that Reeves studies matter, too, of course. But you cannot discuss a crisis affecting boys and men without spending significant time talking about the cultural forces that shape gender.
It wasn’t that patriarchy was completely absent from the conversation. They talked about social and cultural pressures on boys and men to behave in certain ways. But Reeves and Klein never once named it explicitly. Their inability or unwillingness to name patriarchy, i.e., an ideology of male dominance and supremacy, left a gaping hole in the conversation. There were multiple instances where Reeves shared data about problems afflicting boys in comparison to the success of girls, and I found myself wondering, “Are girls doing better in this position because of systems and structures that support them? Or are they succeeding because they are expected to do so much more from an earlier age?”
In my experience as a teacher, I have seen educators and families place much higher expectations on girls than boys. I don’t think this explains all of the disparities we’re seeing in the data Reeves examines, but I think it is a factor. Have girls developed better study habits, for example, because of something schools are doing to favor them? Or do girls develop these habits because adults are much less permissive toward them?
Another example where patriarchy was conspicuously absent was in the conversation about men in early childhood education. Reeves says, “The fact that K-12 teachers essentially haven’t had a pay rise for 20 years matters just period, right — obviously just matters for all kinds of other reasons, but one reason it also matters is because just it is harder to get men to go into those jobs when they pay relatively poorly, especially conditional on the educational requirements to go into them.” Reeves bemoans the low numbers of men in early childhood education and rightfully argues that higher pay will help attract more men to the field. But he fails to identify that the reason early childhood education is so poorly compensated is because it’s been defined as women’s work.
Later, Reeves argued, “If we’re genuinely worried about what’s happening to Black Americans, then most of our attention should go to Black boys and Black men.” It’s an extraordinary statement to make in a country where the Black maternal death rate is 3x the rate of White women. The median wealth for single Black mothers is $0 according to one study. How can we take care of boys and men without caring for the women who birth and raise them? Boys and men don’t live in a bubble. At several points Reeves pushed policymakers to keep thinking about equity for women while thinking of specific interventions for boys and men. But this both/and thinking often felt missing from his side of the discussion.
At many times, the conversation felt limited by Reeves’ perspective on gender which felt both narrow and flat. While Klein and Reeves introduced Reeves’ research as a sort of intersectional analysis (i.e., mapping gender onto studies looking at race and class), they failed to stay with this intersectional lens for long. Throughout the conversation, Reeves mainly spoke of boys and men broadly and did not distinguish whether he was talking about Black boys or working-class men, for example. These distinctions matter, especially if you open your conversation by namedropping intersectionality.
It is especially strange to namedrop intersectionality to begin a conversation about boys and men that doesn’t once mention trans or nonbinary people. This conspicuous silence made me feel as Reeves’ understanding of gender is entirely biological. I think there is value in talking about cisgender boys and men as a particular group, but you need to be explicit and honest in doing so. Otherwise, you’re leaving a lot of assumptions unsaid.
Overall, it feels like Reeves has amassed some very valuable data about the state of boys and men but neglects the role of patriarchy as a root cause. Nonetheless, I think Reeves is sounding an important alarm. And I agree that a vital part of the work that needs to be done is offering boys and men a meaningful role to play in their families and communities. Ultimately, Reeves has identified some concerning symptoms of a crisis for boys and men. But real healing will require a deeper diagnosis.
Related Content:
Reeves argues that in the absence of a positive new identity, regressive misogynists like Andrew Tate will remain appealing to boys and men in search of a purpose. For a deeper dive into Andrew Tate, I recommend this NY Mag piece. For further commentary on the crisis of boyhood and manhood, I recommend this video by Natalie Wynn, which was mentioned in the NY Mag piece:
As the mom of a nearly 12-year-old boy, I have so many thoughts and concerns based on what I've seen from former and current students. There is a lot of important work that needs to be done here.