Listen now | It was a great honor to have Richard V. Reeves on the podcast this week. Reeves is the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. He's also the author of the acclaimed book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It
Reeves' idea of building a society without marriage is untenable and a bit horrifying. I can't wish him success on that project. It was a bit rich when he said pro-marriage policies have been shown to have no effect. We haven't had a net pro-marriage policy framework in a generation or more.
I appreciate Richard Reeves' work to publish statistics related to men's problems. However, his solution is to accommodate feminism. That won't work.
There isn't space here to outline the sound basis for rejecting feminism, so instead I'll just make one simple observation: when we had a patriarchal system, men and women were much happier and marriages were mostly stable. The benefits to society were immense, even if they were not fully recognized at the time. Now in our benighted time we think we know better than preceding generations; instead we are just deluded by the spirit of the times.
For more than a century, men have acquiesced to feminist demands. As a consequence, families have unraveled, men and women are at odds, and the gulf between men and women is getting worse. Feminism is the primary causative agent. It is no good to say that we cannot turn back the clock on society's structure and must instead find ways to somehow embrace feminism. This is nonsense. Feminism hurts both men and women because of the distortions it creates. If the solution is to "turn back the clock," then let's find a way to do it, rather than settling for treating symptoms. If a drug were known to cure a disease but it was expensive to make, it would be no good to say, "Well, we can't make it so let's find an alternative which makes us feel better." No, the solution is to pull out all the stops to find a way to make the drug. Similarly, we must find a way to eliminate feminism since that is the cure. It is not impossible to do this. It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done. Sure, laws would need to be changed, but if enough men formed a movement, it would happen. If it takes a revolution, let's have one. The alternative is the end of our civilization. And that is not hyperbole. Our current trajectory is off the cliff.
>It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done.
I agree with a lot of these observations, but I always have to push back on the narrative that says something like, "Feminism happened because weak men allowed it, and if strong men had not allowed it, it would not have happened, and we just need to persuade people to undo it and then it will be undone."
I suppose I'm more inclined to look at the role of impersonal forces and the individual incentives and pressures that people are placed under -- above all, technological change. If you want to change behavior, change the incentive structure.
There's a universal human tendency, observable in hunter-gatherer societies on up, for marriage and family to be weaker in societies in which women are able to procure enough resources for themselves and a replacement level of progeny without the economic input of a husband. We became this kind of society, in economic terms -- and what do you know, the family became weaker, just like everywhere else.
Our society has drifted in a feminist direction for at least two reasons:
1. The marketplace value of women's strengths (i.e. conscientiousness, agreeableness) has increased relative to the marketplace value of male handiness and upper-body strength. Note that many of these female-favored jobs are not economically useful -- but many of them are.
2. The welfare state has expanded, as it has a tendency to do in all societies that are rich enough to pay for one, which further renders the dedicated "breadwinner" role superfluous.
Here's a great article on the Baby Boom. The basic argument is that society was drifting in a feminist direction prior to the Baby Boom, precisely because women were gaining economic power relative to men. Men then saw an improvement in economic power and saw a burst of gains in education due to the GI Bill, and in response women wanted to marry them.
If you want to weaken feminism, the best path is economic. Change the incentive structure and boost the relative status of men. A lot of this is also related to "cost disease". Inflation in education has been so high, for example, because of the proliferation of useless administrative jobs that are disproportionately staffed by women. But I suspect you'll find effects like this in industries all over the place.
Still, I don't think you'll ever get back to the "good old days", because I think opportunities for women in economically useful jobs have also increased a great deal. The "good old days" contained a lot of inertia from the time -- which ended not so long ago! -- when most people were farmers and only a man could be expected to operate a heavy plow.
This is one of the best comments that I have read in a long time. Thank you for it!
I live in the NE USA and I’m surrounded with many yuppie couples. I have always been amazed by how many of the men are ok living under the woman’s timelines. These elite men have been taught to prioritize the careers of their wives and girlfriends OVER quicker family formation. It is now no surprise that the most common age for first time mothers in NYC is 33-34.
Elite male accommodation of feminism has brought us to where we are today. Richard Reeves is part of the same accommodationist group.
I appreciate that Reeves is doing work here and trying to bring awareness to these issues impacting men. But ultimately, I think his solutions are no less utopian than saying men should be Ward Cleaver again. For example, at one point he says we can't assume that parents are going to be/stay together and that we have to think of fatherhood as mattering independent of the mom. That is utterly insane. That's breaking apart family bonds even more, requiring even stronger programs and government/institutional interventions... in other words, you need even weaker men and weaker families.
Generally agree, Michael. His policy solutions don't make much sense to me. But I still think it's very good to have some people like him more or less on our side.
I think the real difference he can make is to maybe convince some on the cultural left to stop digging deeper in the hole they've created. Make dads the butt of fewer jokes in advertising, for example.
The MSM won't listen to us, but they might listen to the former LibDem operative and male feminist with an erudite British accent.
I agree with that. I'd rather have him than not, talking to people in places that are way out of my reach. He said people criticize him for going to feminist conferences or other places like that and I completely disagree with that criticism of him. Let him go there and get whatever form of the message preached there that he can.
Reeves' idea of building a society without marriage is untenable and a bit horrifying. I can't wish him success on that project. It was a bit rich when he said pro-marriage policies have been shown to have no effect. We haven't had a net pro-marriage policy framework in a generation or more.
Fascinating that he's been awarded an MF-G grant, which is progress in itself.
I appreciate Richard Reeves' work to publish statistics related to men's problems. However, his solution is to accommodate feminism. That won't work.
There isn't space here to outline the sound basis for rejecting feminism, so instead I'll just make one simple observation: when we had a patriarchal system, men and women were much happier and marriages were mostly stable. The benefits to society were immense, even if they were not fully recognized at the time. Now in our benighted time we think we know better than preceding generations; instead we are just deluded by the spirit of the times.
For more than a century, men have acquiesced to feminist demands. As a consequence, families have unraveled, men and women are at odds, and the gulf between men and women is getting worse. Feminism is the primary causative agent. It is no good to say that we cannot turn back the clock on society's structure and must instead find ways to somehow embrace feminism. This is nonsense. Feminism hurts both men and women because of the distortions it creates. If the solution is to "turn back the clock," then let's find a way to do it, rather than settling for treating symptoms. If a drug were known to cure a disease but it was expensive to make, it would be no good to say, "Well, we can't make it so let's find an alternative which makes us feel better." No, the solution is to pull out all the stops to find a way to make the drug. Similarly, we must find a way to eliminate feminism since that is the cure. It is not impossible to do this. It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done. Sure, laws would need to be changed, but if enough men formed a movement, it would happen. If it takes a revolution, let's have one. The alternative is the end of our civilization. And that is not hyperbole. Our current trajectory is off the cliff.
>It was men who acquiesced and permitted feminism. If all men (and noble women) now decided feminism needed to be eradicated, it could be done.
I agree with a lot of these observations, but I always have to push back on the narrative that says something like, "Feminism happened because weak men allowed it, and if strong men had not allowed it, it would not have happened, and we just need to persuade people to undo it and then it will be undone."
I suppose I'm more inclined to look at the role of impersonal forces and the individual incentives and pressures that people are placed under -- above all, technological change. If you want to change behavior, change the incentive structure.
There's a universal human tendency, observable in hunter-gatherer societies on up, for marriage and family to be weaker in societies in which women are able to procure enough resources for themselves and a replacement level of progeny without the economic input of a husband. We became this kind of society, in economic terms -- and what do you know, the family became weaker, just like everywhere else.
Our society has drifted in a feminist direction for at least two reasons:
1. The marketplace value of women's strengths (i.e. conscientiousness, agreeableness) has increased relative to the marketplace value of male handiness and upper-body strength. Note that many of these female-favored jobs are not economically useful -- but many of them are.
2. The welfare state has expanded, as it has a tendency to do in all societies that are rich enough to pay for one, which further renders the dedicated "breadwinner" role superfluous.
Here's a great article on the Baby Boom. The basic argument is that society was drifting in a feminist direction prior to the Baby Boom, precisely because women were gaining economic power relative to men. Men then saw an improvement in economic power and saw a burst of gains in education due to the GI Bill, and in response women wanted to marry them.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-baby-boom
If you want to weaken feminism, the best path is economic. Change the incentive structure and boost the relative status of men. A lot of this is also related to "cost disease". Inflation in education has been so high, for example, because of the proliferation of useless administrative jobs that are disproportionately staffed by women. But I suspect you'll find effects like this in industries all over the place.
Still, I don't think you'll ever get back to the "good old days", because I think opportunities for women in economically useful jobs have also increased a great deal. The "good old days" contained a lot of inertia from the time -- which ended not so long ago! -- when most people were farmers and only a man could be expected to operate a heavy plow.
The marketplace values women's strengths largely to the extent that those strengths aren't operative within households and extended families.
This is one of the best comments that I have read in a long time. Thank you for it!
I live in the NE USA and I’m surrounded with many yuppie couples. I have always been amazed by how many of the men are ok living under the woman’s timelines. These elite men have been taught to prioritize the careers of their wives and girlfriends OVER quicker family formation. It is now no surprise that the most common age for first time mothers in NYC is 33-34.
Elite male accommodation of feminism has brought us to where we are today. Richard Reeves is part of the same accommodationist group.
You're very kind.
I appreciate that Reeves is doing work here and trying to bring awareness to these issues impacting men. But ultimately, I think his solutions are no less utopian than saying men should be Ward Cleaver again. For example, at one point he says we can't assume that parents are going to be/stay together and that we have to think of fatherhood as mattering independent of the mom. That is utterly insane. That's breaking apart family bonds even more, requiring even stronger programs and government/institutional interventions... in other words, you need even weaker men and weaker families.
Generally agree, Michael. His policy solutions don't make much sense to me. But I still think it's very good to have some people like him more or less on our side.
I think the real difference he can make is to maybe convince some on the cultural left to stop digging deeper in the hole they've created. Make dads the butt of fewer jokes in advertising, for example.
The MSM won't listen to us, but they might listen to the former LibDem operative and male feminist with an erudite British accent.
I agree with that. I'd rather have him than not, talking to people in places that are way out of my reach. He said people criticize him for going to feminist conferences or other places like that and I completely disagree with that criticism of him. Let him go there and get whatever form of the message preached there that he can.