In some comment, someone mentioned to denial/minimization of boys and men being the victims of sexual abuse. Just wanted to say I have seen this en masse as a counselor, male survivors i mean.
Gosh, so many of these comments go off the rails and take Reeves’ argument for helping men and turn it into an attack on women and feminism- which it very explicitly is not. It’s really disappointing to witness this important work being misunderstood and misused.
I’m a longtime, sometimes angry feminist, and Reeves’ work appeals to me because me because it appeals to the core principle of feminism: equality. IMHO Reeves’ work overall points out the consequences of a mismatch between traditional masculinity and contemporary culture. An Office of Men’s Health that is responsive to the problems caused by that mismatch could be a very good thing.
I also suspect that many people might resist it precisely because men are supposed to be tough and not need help, and because it’s an expansion of government. I can hear Josh Hawley going on about how Democrats want men to be soft....
Thank you so much Matthew. So true the untapped power in coupling. I agree, healing as a political act, the energy of our heart rippling out. warm wishes in the darkness.
I have noticed, as have many others, there is a war on white men. It’s goal, like feminism, is to destroy the healthy empowered male-female relationship. Because united sacred masculine and feminine coupling would be greater than the shadow forces that run the country.
This is a 66 year-old white woman talking, growing up in the second or third wave of feminism that absolutely emphasized “the disposable male,” promiscuous uncommitted sex and anger toward the “ruling white men.” Now we (me) are alone, lonely, unhappy and without family.
It is preposterous there is no Office of Men’s Health considering as the author says men are at a higher risk of dying and the number of deaths due to the number one and two causes of American death (heart disease and cancer) are equal and more than women.
Is it an indicator of men’s health and happiness that they shoot themselves (men are serious about suicide) to the tune of 40,000 per year? As author said, as many deaths as woman’s breast cancer and I would also like to add that men die of prostrate cancer at the rate of 40k per year also.
There has been greater awakening to the intentional destruction of the masculine with the equal force of the “transgender movement,” where children are coddled independently from their parent to commit the terrifing metaphorical act to cut off their male genitalia all leading to a post-human era.
I've been advocating for men and their families for more than fifty years. The times are shifting (finally) and more people are paying attention. Thank you Richard for your work, your fine book, your passion, and clear and balanced graphic expressions of the facts of life. Our Moonshot for Mankind launched in July. Hope you'll all check it out. www.MoonshotforMankind.com.
Oh, I agree entirely about the need of men for a healthy identity. As I've said elsewhere, a healthy identity must rely on the ability to make at least one contribution to society that is (a) distinctive; (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. For men, that would making at least on contribution that (a) women do not make; (b) society cannot do without; and (c) confers at least symbolic prestige.
The problem is that women already do almost everything that men do--earning money, protecting themselves and their children--if not by themselves then with help from the state and its many agencies. That leaves only one thing that no woman, and certainly no state bureaucracy, can do. That's fatherhood. For society to value fathers, however, would require common agreement that fatherhood is not the same as motherhood (let alone assistant motherhood)--in other words, that the function of fathers is not only very different from that of mothers but also just as necessary. We have much empirical evidence to support this claim, but few people, either men or women, are ready to take it seriously. Too many men (and some women) assume that good fathers are simply fathers who do their share of diaper duty. Too many women (along with some men and almost all transgender people) believe that sexual "equality" means sexual "sameness" or that taking fathers seriously as essential features of family life would undermine the political interests mothers, especially single mothers, and gay couples. Consequently, we have divorce and custody laws that, in effect, make children the property of their mothers and therefore millions of fatherless children (all of whom are at far great risk of every social, economic, psychological and even physical pathologies than children who live with both their mothers and their fathers).
So, I'd conclude by suggesting that "gender equality" is not unambiguously good--not if it prevents people from seeing the obvious fact that men and women are different enough to make their functions within family life both distinctive and equal.
--or, to put it a slightly different way, that men are something other than women.
Male social worker here. Can’t argue with the need for more support for men & boys. It’s so tempting to seek a singular source of mens despair and yet most of us know it’s more complex than that. It does seem men are fighting against their biological determinism in a modern world. So many of the general qualities that got us here aren’t the ones most needed to keep us here. We aren’t at risk of extinction but men and boys often need additional relational support to initiate and maintain relationships (a key health indicator). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in mens groups watching men struggle with connection and looked out the window and seen women just out walking and talking in small groups getting exercise!
Since World War II the world of work has changed--and men haven't. The share of employment in goods producing industries (male dominated) has shrunk from 48% in 1948 to 15% today. The share of employment in private service industries (female dominated) has grown from 41% in 1948 to 71% today. The best paid jobs in service industries require substantial higher education. Women are getting that education and men have been falling ever farther behind women in collegiate enrollment since the early 1980s. I study higher education enrollments, and the boys arrive at college too often poorly prepared and unready to take on the requirements of success in college. Girls come through the existing K-12 system better prepared to succeed in college than do their brothers (from the same families, attending the same schools). The worlds of children--home and school life--serve one gender far better than the other. This is a global problem, and Richard's recommendation for an Office of Men's Health would be a very useful start if its scope and charge were substantially broadened to include K-12 education.
Reeves is right on track. The outcomes for boys and men are startling. In a number of educational meetings with policy makers, there is always a pause when it comes to deaths of despair (suicide, overdose, and alcohol deaths). Most policy makers do not know that 80% of suicides, 70% of overdose deaths, and 69% of alcohol deaths are male. This has happened time and time again. Policy makers are unaware because they are not educated on the subject. It's the reason an Office of Men's Health is so critical.
I tend to think we need fewer federal agencies not more. However, this doesn’t mean that the data you are sharing here isn’t distressing. Couldn’t the NIH, for example, regain some of its former credibility by taking up this project very publicly?
One of the big big big issues that needs to be grappled with is that women can not care and love men into caring and loving themselves. Trust me, I have tried. I simply work harder at my mental health than just about every man I know, save the ones who are trying to be Tony Robbins.
I love men, I care deeply about the mens health crisis as does every woman I know. But when the men in our actual lives refuse to go to the gym, on a walk, an healthy meals and go to therapy...it is really hard to continue generating the emotional energy to see this as a problem we can do anything to solve.
And just like solving women's and girl's attainment disparities took a lift from both genders...so will solving this for men. But good lord...our husbands have to do the work of participating. The everydayness of improving mental, physical and spiritual health is HARD.
Women care about the men they know and love personally but they are grossly gynocentric and indifferent to rest of the male population. Their psychology is not built to think about the public implications of just about anything unless it concerns them directly, unless it concerns womankind (and even there the thinking is pitiful feminist thinking), or unless it concerns the women and men in their personal circles. This means that the female political chivalry needed to get an Offive for Boys and Men is not going to be there.
I hope you are correct and the time has come for a National Office for Men's Health. It is so needed. There are strong forces working against this happening as I found out when I was the vice chair of the Maryland Commission for Men's Health. I know Ron Henry and his excellent group The Men's Health Network have been working to make this happen for many years.
The suicide issue is one that has gotten very little attention. I have been working on this one for a while and did a two part video series on it a while back. For anyone interested here's a link to part one: https://menaregood.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-male-suicide
In some comment, someone mentioned to denial/minimization of boys and men being the victims of sexual abuse. Just wanted to say I have seen this en masse as a counselor, male survivors i mean.
Gosh, so many of these comments go off the rails and take Reeves’ argument for helping men and turn it into an attack on women and feminism- which it very explicitly is not. It’s really disappointing to witness this important work being misunderstood and misused.
I’m a longtime, sometimes angry feminist, and Reeves’ work appeals to me because me because it appeals to the core principle of feminism: equality. IMHO Reeves’ work overall points out the consequences of a mismatch between traditional masculinity and contemporary culture. An Office of Men’s Health that is responsive to the problems caused by that mismatch could be a very good thing.
I also suspect that many people might resist it precisely because men are supposed to be tough and not need help, and because it’s an expansion of government. I can hear Josh Hawley going on about how Democrats want men to be soft....
Thank you so much Matthew. So true the untapped power in coupling. I agree, healing as a political act, the energy of our heart rippling out. warm wishes in the darkness.
I have noticed, as have many others, there is a war on white men. It’s goal, like feminism, is to destroy the healthy empowered male-female relationship. Because united sacred masculine and feminine coupling would be greater than the shadow forces that run the country.
This is a 66 year-old white woman talking, growing up in the second or third wave of feminism that absolutely emphasized “the disposable male,” promiscuous uncommitted sex and anger toward the “ruling white men.” Now we (me) are alone, lonely, unhappy and without family.
It is preposterous there is no Office of Men’s Health considering as the author says men are at a higher risk of dying and the number of deaths due to the number one and two causes of American death (heart disease and cancer) are equal and more than women.
Is it an indicator of men’s health and happiness that they shoot themselves (men are serious about suicide) to the tune of 40,000 per year? As author said, as many deaths as woman’s breast cancer and I would also like to add that men die of prostrate cancer at the rate of 40k per year also.
There has been greater awakening to the intentional destruction of the masculine with the equal force of the “transgender movement,” where children are coddled independently from their parent to commit the terrifing metaphorical act to cut off their male genitalia all leading to a post-human era.
I've been advocating for men and their families for more than fifty years. The times are shifting (finally) and more people are paying attention. Thank you Richard for your work, your fine book, your passion, and clear and balanced graphic expressions of the facts of life. Our Moonshot for Mankind launched in July. Hope you'll all check it out. www.MoonshotforMankind.com.
It's (past) time! Let's voice our support for an Office of Men's Health.
Oh, I agree entirely about the need of men for a healthy identity. As I've said elsewhere, a healthy identity must rely on the ability to make at least one contribution to society that is (a) distinctive; (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. For men, that would making at least on contribution that (a) women do not make; (b) society cannot do without; and (c) confers at least symbolic prestige.
The problem is that women already do almost everything that men do--earning money, protecting themselves and their children--if not by themselves then with help from the state and its many agencies. That leaves only one thing that no woman, and certainly no state bureaucracy, can do. That's fatherhood. For society to value fathers, however, would require common agreement that fatherhood is not the same as motherhood (let alone assistant motherhood)--in other words, that the function of fathers is not only very different from that of mothers but also just as necessary. We have much empirical evidence to support this claim, but few people, either men or women, are ready to take it seriously. Too many men (and some women) assume that good fathers are simply fathers who do their share of diaper duty. Too many women (along with some men and almost all transgender people) believe that sexual "equality" means sexual "sameness" or that taking fathers seriously as essential features of family life would undermine the political interests mothers, especially single mothers, and gay couples. Consequently, we have divorce and custody laws that, in effect, make children the property of their mothers and therefore millions of fatherless children (all of whom are at far great risk of every social, economic, psychological and even physical pathologies than children who live with both their mothers and their fathers).
So, I'd conclude by suggesting that "gender equality" is not unambiguously good--not if it prevents people from seeing the obvious fact that men and women are different enough to make their functions within family life both distinctive and equal.
--or, to put it a slightly different way, that men are something other than women.
Male social worker here. Can’t argue with the need for more support for men & boys. It’s so tempting to seek a singular source of mens despair and yet most of us know it’s more complex than that. It does seem men are fighting against their biological determinism in a modern world. So many of the general qualities that got us here aren’t the ones most needed to keep us here. We aren’t at risk of extinction but men and boys often need additional relational support to initiate and maintain relationships (a key health indicator). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in mens groups watching men struggle with connection and looked out the window and seen women just out walking and talking in small groups getting exercise!
Since World War II the world of work has changed--and men haven't. The share of employment in goods producing industries (male dominated) has shrunk from 48% in 1948 to 15% today. The share of employment in private service industries (female dominated) has grown from 41% in 1948 to 71% today. The best paid jobs in service industries require substantial higher education. Women are getting that education and men have been falling ever farther behind women in collegiate enrollment since the early 1980s. I study higher education enrollments, and the boys arrive at college too often poorly prepared and unready to take on the requirements of success in college. Girls come through the existing K-12 system better prepared to succeed in college than do their brothers (from the same families, attending the same schools). The worlds of children--home and school life--serve one gender far better than the other. This is a global problem, and Richard's recommendation for an Office of Men's Health would be a very useful start if its scope and charge were substantially broadened to include K-12 education.
Reeves is right on track. The outcomes for boys and men are startling. In a number of educational meetings with policy makers, there is always a pause when it comes to deaths of despair (suicide, overdose, and alcohol deaths). Most policy makers do not know that 80% of suicides, 70% of overdose deaths, and 69% of alcohol deaths are male. This has happened time and time again. Policy makers are unaware because they are not educated on the subject. It's the reason an Office of Men's Health is so critical.
I tend to think we need fewer federal agencies not more. However, this doesn’t mean that the data you are sharing here isn’t distressing. Couldn’t the NIH, for example, regain some of its former credibility by taking up this project very publicly?
One of the big big big issues that needs to be grappled with is that women can not care and love men into caring and loving themselves. Trust me, I have tried. I simply work harder at my mental health than just about every man I know, save the ones who are trying to be Tony Robbins.
I love men, I care deeply about the mens health crisis as does every woman I know. But when the men in our actual lives refuse to go to the gym, on a walk, an healthy meals and go to therapy...it is really hard to continue generating the emotional energy to see this as a problem we can do anything to solve.
And just like solving women's and girl's attainment disparities took a lift from both genders...so will solving this for men. But good lord...our husbands have to do the work of participating. The everydayness of improving mental, physical and spiritual health is HARD.
Here’s my suggestions for such an agency: ban porn from the internet and promote (subsidize) male only groups, like what the Boy Scouts used to be.
Women care about the men they know and love personally but they are grossly gynocentric and indifferent to rest of the male population. Their psychology is not built to think about the public implications of just about anything unless it concerns them directly, unless it concerns womankind (and even there the thinking is pitiful feminist thinking), or unless it concerns the women and men in their personal circles. This means that the female political chivalry needed to get an Offive for Boys and Men is not going to be there.
I hope you are correct and the time has come for a National Office for Men's Health. It is so needed. There are strong forces working against this happening as I found out when I was the vice chair of the Maryland Commission for Men's Health. I know Ron Henry and his excellent group The Men's Health Network have been working to make this happen for many years.
The suicide issue is one that has gotten very little attention. I have been working on this one for a while and did a two part video series on it a while back. For anyone interested here's a link to part one: https://menaregood.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-male-suicide