Welcome to Book Bites. Today we're looking at a really interesting book, Richard V. Reeves, of boys and men. Why the modern male is struggling, why it matters, and what to do about it.
Right. It came out in 2022. It's definitely sparked a lot of conversation.
It really has. It uses psychology, sociology, all sorts of research to ask this big question. Why do boys and men seem to be facing more struggles today? And well, why should we care? And importantly, it tries to look beyond just the problems and towards potential solutions, or at least ways forward.
Exactly. And the author, Richard Reeves, he's a scholar at Brookings known for work on inequality, social mobility. Yeah, he comes at it with a very data-heavy approach, looking at education, jobs, family life, how gender plays into all that.
Okay, so let's maybe start with education. That seems to be one of the first big areas the book tackles. It is.
And the trend is pretty striking, globally speaking. Girls are now generally outperforming boys across the board in education. A complete reversal of how things used to be, right? Pretty much.
From elementary school right through college, we're talking grades, literacy levels, graduation rates. Girls are often ahead now. He uses Finland as an example, doesn't he? Yeah, Finland's interesting because it's known for its strong education system.
And even there, girls are significantly outperforming boys in reading, science, even math. Wow. So it's a widespread thing.
It really seems to be. A fundamental shift. And it's not something that just suddenly appears in college, is it? The book says these gaps start much earlier.
That's right. Even around age five, girls often see more school-ready, maybe stronger early literacy skills developing. Which then carries through.
It seems to. By high school, you often see girls with higher GPAs taking more of the advanced placement classes, things like that. So what's the explanation Reeves offers? Is it about the system itself? Well, that's a key part of his argument.
He suggests it might not be intentional bias, but the way schools are structured. It might just align better with how girls typically develop during adolescence. Things like impulse control, planning skills, areas where girls' brains might mature a bit faster on average during those years, crucial school skills, right? So it's less about raw ability and more about the timing and the environment.
Exactly. He's careful to make that distinction. It's about the fit between developmental timelines and the school structure, not innate intelligence differences.
OK, let's shift gears then to the labor market. What's the picture there for men, according to Reeves? Generally, a more challenging picture in the U.S. over the last few decades. He points to downward trends in skills development, employment rates, the types of jobs held, and importantly, real wages.
A decline in participation too, I gather. A significant one, yeah, especially over the last 50 years or so. It's particularly noticeable among younger men and those without college degrees.
What's driving that? Well, a mix of factors. Automation is a big one, displacing jobs, the decline of traditional manufacturing, global trade impacts. These have hit traditionally male-dominated sectors quite hard.
So structural economic changes, really. That's the argument. It's less about individual choices and more about these large-scale shifts in the economy.
And wages. You mentioned wages. Right.
So while women's wages have, thankfully, seen some progress, for most men, real wages have been pretty flat or even declined since the 1970s. Since the 70s. Wow.
Yeah. So the gender pay gap has narrowed, but not always because men's earnings soared. He also makes the point that the really big divides now are often socioeconomic, between men of different classes, not just between men and women overall.
That makes sense. It's not just about individual effort then. That's a crucial takeaway.
Reeves frames it as these big structural changes, automation, globalization, but also a shift in demand towards maybe more soft skills, where culturally, at least, women might currently have an edge. OK. So education, labor market.
What about family roles? That's another area the book explores. Definitely. He talks about how women's increased economic independence has really shaken up the traditional male breadwinner model.
Leaving some men feeling adrift. Kind of, yeah. A sense of dislocation, perhaps, as that primary role becomes less certain or less achievable for many.
There's a lag, he says. A cultural lag, yeah. Mother's roles expanded provider and caregiver, but father's roles haven't always kept pace beyond the provider idea.
This leads to what he calls a dad deficit. That's an interesting term. What does he mean by that exactly? Less about dads being absent, necessarily, but maybe less clarity or cultural support for their role beyond just bringing home a paycheck.
Less emphasis on the active, engaged side of fatherhood, perhaps. And the book connects this to men's emotional well-being. It does.
It touches on this idea that the traditional model sometimes fostered a sort of emotional dependency for men within the marriage, tied to that provider status. So when that role falters. It can contribute to isolation, maybe depression.
Tragically, he also links it to the higher suicide rates we see among some groups of men. It's a complex interplay of economic and emotional factors. The book also tackles the intersection of race and gender, which is obviously critical.
Absolutely crucial. Reeves dedicates significant attention to the unique and compounded challenges faced by Black boys and men. How does he frame that? He talks about gendered racism.
The idea that Black men face discrimination that's specifically shaped by both their race and their gender. It's not just racism plus sexism, but how those two combine. Creating specific kinds of barriers.
Exactly. Things like being stereotyped as threatening, which leads to discrimination in schools, on the job market, and especially within the criminal justice system. And these have tangible, devastating consequences.
No question. Lower income mobility, even for those starting in better off families. Higher incarceration rates.
Lower employment. The education system often failing Black boys disproportionately. He mentions the threat stereotype.
Yes, that pervasive, damaging idea that Black men are inherently dangerous. It fuels things like disproportionate police stops, arrests, convictions. It creates these cycles of disadvantage that are incredibly hard to break.
It's deeply rooted in anti-Black racism. So it's clear these struggles aren't felt equally by all men. Class and race are huge factors.
Absolutely. Reeves stresses that the most acute problems are concentrated among boys and men already facing other inequalities, particularly class and race. He mentions deaths of despair.
Yes, the alarmingly high rates of suicide, drug overdose, alcohol-related deaths, especially among working-class men with less education. He sees these as symptoms of deeper economic dislocation, loss of status, social isolation. And this doesn't just affect the men themselves, right? It impacts families, communities.
Of course. When men struggle economically or socially, families often become more vulnerable. He talks about how childhood disadvantage seems to hit boys harder in some ways, potentially creating these intergenerational cycles of male malaise, as he puts it.
It's quite sobering. Now, one point that might surprise people is about social policies. Reeves suggests some well-meaning programs might actually benefit girls more.
Yeah, that's a really provocative part of the book. He looks at things like free college initiatives, mentoring programs, job training, and finds evidence that often girls and women seem to get more out of them. Like the Kalamazoo example? Exactly.
The free college program there boosted college completion for women significantly, but not really for men. Why would that be? Is it intentional? He doesn't argue it's intentional. It might be subtle biases in program design or how they're implemented, or maybe.
And this is his idea of an aspiration gap. Aspiration gap. Yeah, the idea that perhaps girls and women, having fought historical barriers, might have a stronger drive to seize these opportunities, making the interventions more effective for them.
It's a complex thought. So average positive results could be hiding the fact that these programs aren't working as well for boys and men. That's the concern he raises.
A significant group might be falling through the cracks of policies designed to help everyone. Okay, let's touch on the nature versus nurture debate. How does Reeves handle that? Biology versus culture.
He acknowledges biological differences. Exist average differences in things like aggression, risk-taking. Evolutionary roots, sure.
But he strongly emphasizes they aren't destiny. Culture shakes how biology is expressed. Absolutely.
Culture dictates whether aggression leads to violence or, say, competitive sports. Biology and culture co-evolve. They influence each other constantly.
It's not one or the other. And he highlights the timing of development as key. Very much so.
He argues the biggest brain difference isn't how they develop but when. Girls' brains, on average, mature earlier in certain areas relevant to school. Which creates a mismatch with age-based schooling.
Potentially, yes. If the system is built around chronological age and boys are on a slightly different developmental clock, especially in early years, it could put them at a disadvantage from the start. The book also wades into the political perspectives on all this, which can be quite polarized.
It does. He critiques perspectives from both the left and the right. What's the critique of the left's approach? He suggests there's sometimes a tendency to pathologize masculinity itself, maybe overusing terms like toxic masculinity to cover too broad a range of behaviors which can shut down conversation, and maybe a reluctance to see systemic issues affecting men, framing problems as individual failings, or downplaying biology.
Right. And on the other side, the right. He sees the right as often exploiting male grievances, offering nostalgia for traditional masculinity, but maybe lacking real, practical solutions for today's problems.
And perhaps overemphasizing biology to justify traditional roles. That's the critique, yeah. Using biology to resist gender equality, sometimes overlooking how culture and individual choices shape behavior just as much.
So navigating that political minefield is tricky. Okay, let's finish with solutions. What does Reeves actually propose? He offers a few concrete ideas.
One is redshirting boys starting them in school a year later than girls. To account for that developmental timing difference. Exactly.
To give them that extra year to mature, potentially improving focus, executive function, and ultimately academic success. He frames it as an equity measure, acknowledging different developmental paths. Interesting.
What else? Another big one is encouraging men into heel jobs, health, education, administration, literacy. Sectors that are growing. Yes.
Growth sectors offering meaningful work. Just as there's been a push for women in STEM, he argues we need a similar effort to get more men into these often female-dominated heel fields. Benefits beyond just jobs.
Potentially, yeah. Breaking down stereotypes, providing more male role models in caring professions. He also briefly touches on needing to rethink fatherhood.
How so? Seeing it as an independent social role based on the direct father-child relationship, not just dependent on the relationship with the mother. Fostering a kind of positive pro-social masculinity that values care and responsibility in today's world. So pulling it all together of boys and men really lays out these interconnected challenges in school, at work, in the family, and highlights how race and class make things even tougher for some.
It absolutely does. And the book certainly got people talking. It's praised for being Jada-driven, for trying to be balanced, for offering actual policy ideas.
But not without criticism. No, definitely not. Some feel it doesn't go deep enough into systemic issues or maybe underplays ongoing issues women face.
And there are debates about whether his proposed solutions are practical or might have unintended consequences. But it started important conversations. Unquestionably.
It tackled a timely, complex subject head-on, and whether you agree with all of it or not, it forces you to think. It definitely leaves you pondering, how do we create systems and cultural norms that truly support everyone? Acknowledging different needs and timelines. And what does success or fulfillment even mean for men today? Yeah, really big questions about equity, development, and how we adapt our understanding of gender roles for the future.
Well, that's all the time we have for this Book Bites discussion. If you found this look at of boys and men valuable, please subscribe for more explorations of big ideas. And if you enjoyed it, a five-star review would be fantastic.
It helps other listeners find the show. Thanks for tuning in.
