Of Boys and Men

[Josquius]

Men's rights.
A topic I've been looking at for a while which has really been brought to the forefront by the recent US election.
I've just listened to a blinkest summary of one of the main current books on the topic, Of Boys and Men.

Copying and pasting here, chapter titles are missing but the key points are there.
Its lengthy as hell.
But if you're bored I do think its a key issue.
Thoughts?

Richard Reeves. Of Boys and Men. Why the modern male is struggling, why it matters, and what to do about it. Discussions about gender often center on women.

That's understandable. For most of history, there were few greater obstacles to human flourishing than the systematic discrimination faced by women. Today, however, we face a novel crisis—a widening gender gap with boys and men, not girls and women, on the losing side. Richard Reeves hesitated to write Of Boys and Men. The topic of struggling males has, after all, tended to be associated with unsavory characters on the alt-right. But he concluded that was precisely why he should tackle this difficult subject.

As he puts it, if responsible people don't address real problems in a straightforward way, irresponsible people are going to exploit them. In this Blink, we'll delve into this crisis, following Reeves as he sheds light on the declining fortunes of American males across several life dimensions and weighs possible solutions. As we'll see, the idea that addressing male issues detracts from the advancement of women is a myth. The struggles of boys and men are intricately linked to broader societal health. To improve their prospects is to simultaneously create a better world for all of us. Boys are falling behind in education A striking shift has occurred in educational attainment across advanced economies, with girls and women not only catching up to but significantly surpassing boys and men.

This transition has unfolded rapidly, altering the landscape of gender equality in education. Historically, concerted efforts in the 1970s and 1980s aimed to close a substantial gender gap in education that favored males. These initiatives were successful to the extent that they not only eliminated the gap but led to females outperforming males. This was a development few anticipated, as the focus had been squarely on achieving gender parity.

The result is a new form of gender inequality where females lead, particularly in educational domains. In the United States, the data illustrates this reversal vividly. Girls consistently outperform boys in English by nearly a grade level and have reached parity in mathematics. At the high end of academic performance, females represent two-thirds of the top students by grade point average. Conversely, males now make up two-thirds of those at the lower end of academic achievement. This disparity extends into higher education, with females enrolling in and completing college at significantly higher rates than males.

The gap in college degree attainment has now exceeded the disparities seen in 1972, the year landmark anti-discrimination legislation was introduced to foster gender equality in education. The implications of these shifts are profound, impacting long-term educational and economic outcomes for both genders. Part of the explanation for these disparities lies in biological differences in brain development. Neuroscientific research indicates that the prefrontal cortex, critical for executive functions like planning and impulse control, matures one to two years later in girls than in boys. This difference is partly due to the earlier onset of puberty in females, which stimulates brain development. Thus, an education system that rewards skills such as task persistence, homework completion, and future planning inherently favors those whose brains developed these capabilities earlier—typically, girls.

This irony highlights a crucial oversight in the push for gender equality. By removing barriers to female education, society has inadvertently exposed an educational system that, due to biological developmental timelines, is biased against boys. This was obscured when societal norms suppressed female educational aspirations. Now, with these societal constraints largely removed, it is evident that boys are often at a disadvantage.

We need to reform the educational system to boost boys' chances. As we've seen, educational attainment outcomes have shifted over the last few decades, with girls significantly outpacing boys in many key areas. This evolution presents a need for tailored educational policies that account for differences in development between genders. So what can we do about this problem?

Well, if boys, on average, experience slower brain development compared to girls, there are reasons to think that they might benefit from starting school a year later than girls. Such a delay could align their developmental stages more closely with their female peers, potentially reducing educational disparities seen in early schooling. Additionally, the composition of the teaching workforce has seen a significant gender shift, with only 24% of K-12 teachers currently being male, a decrease from 33% in the 1980s. This trend toward a predominantly female teaching staff might influence the school environment and behavioral norms within it. Increasing the number of male teachers could provide role models for boys and offer a more balanced perspective that might better cater to their educational needs. Investment in vocational education and training is another critical area of focus.

The current U.S. education system predominantly favors an academic route to success, which may not serve all students well, particularly boys and men, who often thrive in more hands-on practical learning environments. Enhancing vocational training and apprenticeships could provide more pathways to success, especially beneficial for boys and men who are less inclined toward traditional academic routes. This need for a diversified approach to education is particularly pressing for males lower down the economic ladder, who may not see the benefits of current educational strategies that are designed with a one-size-fits-all mentality. While those at the top of the economic ladder may not perceive these disparities, they are a significant challenge for working-class men, who often find themselves disadvantaged by a system that does not recognize their unique needs or potential pathways to success. Addressing educational disparities requires a nuanced understanding of developmental psychology, a strategic reshaping of the teaching workforce, and an expansion of educational pathways that go beyond traditional academia. These changes are essential for creating a more inclusive educational system that supports all students, regardless of gender.

Men are also falling behind economically. So far, we've focused on the ways in which males are struggling within education systems. But what's the broader picture? Unfortunately, economic and social trends have drastically impacted men in recent decades, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Four key dimensions have worsened for men—wages, employment, occupational stature, and skill acquisition. First, wage stagnation has been significant, with most men today earning less than their counterparts in 1979. This decrease in earning power reflects broader economic shifts that have particularly disadvantaged men in the workforce. Second, there has been a noticeable decline in male labor force participation. Approximately nine million American men of prime working age are currently not employed, marking an 8% drop in participation. This disengagement from the workforce is both a symptom and a cause of broader economic vulnerabilities.

Third, the occupational stature of men has declined. More men now find themselves in jobs considered lower in status than in past decades. This shift reflects changes in the economic landscape, which has seen a decrease in traditional roles that once provided stable employment for men. Fourth, there is a significant drop in skill acquisition among men. Educational attainments and skill developments are crucial for securing good jobs in a competitive market. Without adequate education and skills, men struggle to find stable, well-paying jobs.

These trends not only exacerbate gender inequality but also deepen class divides. While men and women at the top of the economic ladder continue to prosper, those from lower-income and working-class backgrounds, particularly Black boys and men, face amplified challenges. These challenges highlight the intersection of gender and socioeconomic status as critical components of inequality. On the employment front, while there is a substantial push to integrate more women into science, technology, engineering, and math fields—STEM for short—there is a lack of effort to balance gender representation in HEAL jobs—health, education, administration, and literacy. That's especially concerning when you look at economic trends. The health and education sectors, for example, are projected to create three times as many jobs as the STEM fields by 2030.

However, these fields are becoming increasingly gender-segregated, with a notable decline in male participation. This trend is especially stark in fields like psychology. Today, only 5% of professional psychologists and psychiatrists under the age of 30 are male, suggesting the emergence of an almost entirely female-dominated profession in the near future. This gender segregation in professions that are vital for societal well-being underscores the need for intentional efforts to attract men into these areas.

Addressing these disparities requires a multifaceted approach that considers both the unique challenges facing men and the broader economic and social dynamics that influence these trends. Increasing male participation in HEAL jobs, which are crucial for societal health and increasingly central to the economy, should be a strategic priority. Any effort to achieve greater gender balance in all professional fields is essential for building a more equitable and diverse workforce.

There's a society-wide dad deficit. Let's shift our focus to the family. Here, too, boys and men are struggling. In fact, many experts now talk about a societal dad deficit.

This term refers to the growing phenomenon of fatherlessness and its implications for both individual families and broader social contexts. Currently, 1 in 4 fathers in the United States does not live with their children. This separation often results in a significant loss of parental contact post-divorce or separation, with 1 in 3 children ceasing to see their father a few years after their parents part ways. This trend is compounded by the fact that 4 in 10 children are born outside of marriage, predominantly among less-educated parents, demanding a re-evaluation of the traditional paternal role. The economic landscape for women has meanwhile dramatically shifted. More than two-fifths of households in the United States now have a woman as the main breadwinner, and 40% of American women earn more than the average man.

These shifts are liberating for women, providing unprecedented choices regarding family and career. However, they also pose challenging questions about the evolving role of fathers within families. The traditional model of the father as the primary breadwinner is becoming outdated. Many men find themselves either unable or unwilling to fulfill this role, leading to increased disengagement from family life. This shift is not just a matter of personal or isolated family issues. It has deep societal implications, particularly for male children.

The absence of a father figure disproportionately affects boys, potentially perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage. Boys without strong paternal figures often struggle more than their female counterparts in various aspects of life, including education and later, employment. This intergenerational transmission of disadvantage highlights the urgency of addressing the role of fathers in the modern context. To tackle the dad deficit, society must redefine what it means to be a father beyond financial provision.

Emphasizing emotional engagement, presence, and active participation in children's lives is crucial. This redefinition requires cultural, social, and possibly legislative changes to support men in fulfilling meaningful paternal roles, irrespective of their marital or economic status. The evolving role of fathers in family life is a complex issue that reflects broader economic and social changes. Addressing this issue is vital for the well-being of future generations and the overall health of societal structures, ensuring that all children have the support and guidance they need to thrive, regardless of their family circumstances.

Deaths of despair are linked to a crisis of masculinity. The escalating challenges faced by men in various spheres—education, work, family—have severe implications for their health and well-being, revealing a distressing pattern of what are termed deaths of despair. These include suicides, overdoses, and deaths linked to alcohol, with rates that are three times higher among men than women. Particularly alarming is the suicide rate, which is not only three times higher among men but is rising sharply, especially among middle-aged and younger men.

These tragic statistics reflect more than individual struggles. They are symptoms of a broader societal malaise affecting men. The underlying issues contributing to these high rates of despair are deeply rooted in men's sense of purpose and societal value. Men are increasingly feeling redundant in roles they once occupied within the family and the labor market, intensifying feelings of worthlessness and isolation. A profound study by sociologist Fiona Chan reveals the psychological depth of this crisis. Her research, focusing on the last words of men who committed or attempted suicide, found that terms like worthless and useless topped the list.

This disturbing insight underscores a grim reality. Many men feel unnecessary and undervalued, contributing significantly to mental health crises and self-destructive behavior. The opioid crisis exemplifies this issue starkly, hitting men particularly hard. The tragedy of opioid deaths is compounded by the loneliness of the users, which often results from a loss of familial roles and economic status. This isolation magnifies the lethal risk of opioid abuse, pointing to a cycle of disconnection and despair that many men find themselves trapped in. Addressing this crisis requires a cultural and societal shift that acknowledges and actively engages with the changing dynamics of men's roles in society.

It's vital that both men and women collaboratively foster an environment where men can find renewed purpose and integration. This involves redefining societal norms and expectations that currently contribute to male disenfranchisement and distress. As a society, there is a cultural responsibility to help men and boys adapt to these new realities. Failing to do so not only perpetuates the cycle of despair but also undermines the overall social fabric. This calls for comprehensive strategies that address these challenges from multiple angles, including education, labor policies, community support structures, and health care approaches that specifically target men's health and emotional well-being.

We should introduce boys to schooling later than we currently do. Solving these multifaceted problems won't be easy, but we do have one lever that we can pull today—introducing all boys to school one year later than currently standard. This practice is known as redshirting, a term borrowed from college sports, where athletes are often held out of competitive play for a season to develop their skills and extend their eligibility, metaphorically wearing a red shirt during this period to denote their status. Redshirting has garnered attention as evidence suggests that older children within a school cohort tend to excel academically and socially.

This approach is increasingly common. Recent surveys show a rise in parents opting to delay their children's school start, especially among those with resources and knowledge about its potential benefits. Data indicates that children from affluent and educated backgrounds are more likely to be redshirted than their less affluent peers. Boys, particularly those born in summer months, are often the focus of redshirting, particularly by parents who are educators themselves. Despite the potential for addressing educational disadvantages, those who are redshirted are typically not the ones at greatest educational risk, showing slightly above-average skills in literacy and math at the decision point. The proposal to redshirt all boys by default aims to mitigate the developmental gap that becomes more pronounced by middle and high school.

The advantages of starting school later are not merely about age, but about equipping boys with better maturity to handle the challenges of later schooling years. Evidence from various studies suggests significant benefits—reduced hyperactivity, higher life satisfaction, better academic performance, and lower chances of grade retention. Research also shows that older children, and especially children from lower-income and diverse backgrounds, benefited disproportionately from being older, which included improved test scores and increased likelihood of taking standardized tests like the SAT or ACT. These benefits were particularly pronounced for boys, who showed gains in all outcome measures through 8th grade. By high school, only boys exhibited benefits. Importantly, these positive outcomes are not at the expense of younger classmates.

Instead, older students in the classroom may have modest positive spillover effects on their peers. Moreover, redshirting has been shown to reduce inequalities in grade retention, which disproportionately affects Black boys and those from lower-economic backgrounds. Thus, redshirting all boys could serve as a crucial policy shift to provide boys with a stronger foundation for academic and personal success, addressing both gender and socioeconomic disparities in education. The biggest impacts are anticipated for those currently least likely to be redshirted—lower-income families and Black boys—suggesting a broader rethinking of educational entry points to foster equity and enhance outcomes. In this Blink-2 of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves, you've learned that education systems often favor girls due to their earlier brain development, which puts boys at a disadvantage as they face declining educational and economic prospects exacerbated by outdated societal norms.

Redefining male roles in education, work, and family is crucial Redefining male roles in education, work, and family is crucial for addressing these disparities, including tackling the dad deficit and promoting male engagement in booming economic sectors. One practical approach to bridging the gender gap in educational attainment and development could be delaying school start for boys, aligning their school entry more closely with their developmental readiness, which could offer them a better foundation for academic and personal success.

I'm surprised on the red shirting stuff. I always thought being able to get through school earlier would be better.
One of my boys is a summer birthday so....

[Barrister]

I'm surprised on the red shirting stuff. I always thought being able to get through school earlier would be better.
One of my boys is a summer birthday so....

So I remember my first day of law school they do a big presentation for the entire class (or about 100 students).  One of the things they made a big deal of was that this was the first time ever for this law school that there were more women than men.  This was in 1997.

My understanding is that has been true for every class since then as well.

I skipped a grade so I did the opposite of red-shirting.  I will tell you that I really appreciated getting to university a year earlier - mostly because university is a much nicer experience than high school.  For high school and lower grades though I don't think I'd recommend it.

It's a weird sort of article though.  It starts out talking about the trouble men are having in society generally - but then spends the last third saying we should start boys in school later.  That may be a good idea (I do know a couple of families that deliberately "red-shirted" their boy before starting kindergarten) but is hardly a holistic solution.

I can also see a feminist objection to it.  In middle school you can see it where girls hit puberty earlier and there's a year or two where the girls are taller than the boys.  But then boys more than catch up by high school.

So imagine a world where every boy is red-shirted.  That means in high school boys are one year older than the girls in their classroom.  The feminist objection might be around the power dynamics (and maybe physical fear) of these young girls having to be in classes with older boys all the time.

[grumbler]

OI think that girls would benefit from having classrooms that were less disrupted by boys "in over their heads."  I don't see one year's worth of additional male physical growth being at all threatening to girls.  There are already boys nearly that much older than some of the girls, with no ill-effects that I have seen reported.

It should be remembered that ages here are averages.  Some boys in the current system are already almost a year older than some of the girls, and vice-versa.

[Barrister]

OI think that girls would benefit from having classrooms that were less disrupted by boys "in over their heads."  I don't see one year's worth of additional male physical growth being at all threatening to girls.  There are already boys nearly that much older than some of the girls, with no ill-effects that I have seen reported.

It should be remembered that ages here are averages.  Some boys in the current system are already almost a year older than some of the girls, and vice-versa.

So that cuts both ways though - in a world where all boys start one year later, there will be some boys who are almost two years older than some girls.  So you could have a boy who is just about to turn 17 sharing a class with a girl who recently turned 15.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea - but that I can see that being an objection.

I have a could of different suggestions:

1. sex-segregated education.  That's right - all-boys ad all-girls education - either just separate classes, or entirely separate schools.  It spares the girls from the disruption of boys, and it spares the boys the distraction of girls.  I went to an all-boys school for my last two years and found it a good experience.

2. more physical education.  My oldest son asked two years ago to start going to a different school that would include on-ice hockey development twice per week.  He would've been 12 at the time.  I asked him why, as he certainly already had a lot of hockey in his life.  His answer surprised me - that it would then mean with both hockey and regular gym class he'd be active every school day, which then helped him to be able to focus and concentrate in class.