To answer your question Richard Reeves, the answer is no, not at this time. Why? Because it is time to have a discussion about what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. Let's stop the polarization. Society is calling for men to be role models to their children and their sons. The number of boys growing up without father figure role models is staggering. Let's get to the core of the issue rather then skirting it through the lens of politics.
Comments here are mostly centered in politics. I get it but it just restates the problem and your beliefs- it’s not helpful. What the article is about is encouraging us to find solutions.
And let’s face it, our politicians are not really leaders these days - they follow the path that serves their goals. We need to tell these knuckleheads what we want …but we are too busy trying to prove our side is better and win. Win what?
Richard mentions one solution with more men as teachers. Role models is something we need (both for boys and girls). Right now we are short on male role models in our schools. We can fix that. I think we not only need more men but we need all kinds of men, you know? We need male teachers who are John Wayne’s , Malcom Gladwells, Charles Barkleys, Warren Buffetts and Elon Musks. I’m assuming all these people are good people at their core. They are all centrally flawed in some ways like us all. That’s fine. Kids are smart - they see the good and the bad. And the truth is kids come to school with their stuff too.
Let them see that there are lots ways to show up in the world. You don’t have to be perfect or believe all the same stuff. You have to show up and try to be a good person. That’s what life is about. Our quest should be to become a person that adds value to our community. You know, Be a good person. We do that… and we all win. Right, left…whatever.
I’ve seen some whacky behavior in the news and it seems like the world is on fire but almost every person I meet during my day is just fine. I don’t give two sh$@s about the politics - I can tell they are good people. They don’t have to be on my side politically. And hell, maybe my side is wrong anyway.
Let’s move from just naming the problems, choosing sides and pointing fingers… to rolling up our sleeves - in our communities- and fix some stuff.
What Richard is saying is, men are not going into teaching, and maybe it would help if boys could look up and see a few more men to connect the dots as they grow into the men they will be. If we have few male teachers … or just as bad … all teachers that are the same kind of men - our kids don’t see themselves or perhaps a clear path forward.
For those who have not yet read it, I suggest you get a copy of “Of Boys and Men”, by Richard Reeves. Reeves does an excellent job of digging beneath the surface of gender energy currently in our society. This short WSJ article is limited in describing the complexities that have brought us to this point. I read this article as a snapshot in time, rather than a complete contextual view. We have an opportunity to influence the educational system of the future to fully realize the contributions and role of all humans - recognizing and leveraging the unique strengths of gender.
I'm curious what you make of the role of the climate crisis in terms of gender in this election.
Woman often poll as more concerned than men about global warming. You can find a lot of men leading the denier charge (watch for dudes doing "rolling coal").
Yet climate mitigation and adaptation calls for a ton of traditionally male jobs: construction, electrical engineering. Quite a few of the leading climate sciences are dominated by men.
Is climate an issue which might have both cross-party and both-gender appeal?
That’s a very sad post Tom. Is that all you see men as, people to do the hard, physical jobs? You don’t see them as leaders in society. You don’t see them as tender hearted husbands, fathers, friends and companions. You don’t understand the creative capabilities of men, writers, poets, artists, inventors. No you just see them as tough muscle. Along with your unusual view of men you also don’t know what women are capable of either. Men and women are necessary for each other and for society. It’s so sad that all you seem to see is warfare where in reality there should be mutual appreciation, help, friendship and love.
I have to admire your sense of humour. Kill all men? Why should I deprive myself of the pleasure I feel from masculine company? Come on, men are wonderful as are most women. I definitely believe that making love ( with men) is better and more enjoyable than making war.
That's what the most extreme anti-male feminist freaks say about us. I'm not trying to be self-pitying about all this. I'm just saying we’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of hate for years now, and if we're being honest, liberals haven't even tried to address the contradictions in their own ideology. Tim Walz isn't a solution to any of this. He's emblematic of just how deep the problems that Democrats have with men go.
In some ways Tom that’s a more sensible comment from you. Demonising either men or women- or both just doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The problem is really this idea of superiority instead of harmony. Men are not the same as women or vice versa but their differences should be complementary. Educationally their needs are not the same. Females mature mentally earlier than males. Same sex education puts males at a disadvantage and many young men do not recover from the disappointment and humiliation they suffer at being behind the female members of the class. This often leads to disenchantment with education that prevents young men from even trying to become better educated. That is just one example of the differences between male and female. With reference to education, how many of the leading schools in the country are single sex, particularly in the paid for examples where the element of early competition doesn’t arise. We need to be more informed and less emotional about the differing needs and abilities of male and female. FYI, all men are not rapists and all women are not man haters.
You point to some important problems with the education of boys. So why is nothing being done about it? Why is all the focus in politics on women and their issues? When was the last time you saw a political debate about an issue that is particular to men and boys, that is anywhere near as “important” as those that are particular to women, such as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action?
Democrats have nothing to offer men, seriously. Tim Walz is what feminists think men should want, but he appeals to the coalition of the cat ladies for the same reason he doesn't appeal to men.
He's a feminized loser whose sole job is to “get out of the way” for women to take their proper, ostensibly, rightful place at the top of society. Please pay no attention to all the redistributing of wealth and opportunity that the state does for them. In reality, he's an entirely cucked loser who abandoned his unit to pretend he was a hero to people who don't appreciate any of the things that men do for them while simultaneously talking about how useless/backward/weird men are.
I'd love to see feminists take over the military/police/firefighters/every dangerous job in society. I'm sure they would do a better job than all those loser men. It's funny how feminists are never interested in solving that kind of equality. I guess the inequality in which men fight and die for women is the good kind.
Stop all the politicians and media talking heads trying to normalize the restitution of slavery. That's an actual meaningful yet gendered issue, not these purely aesthetic concerns.
Great e-mail. I’m an older white male and to me, it’s very disappointing to hear that younger men are moving to the right. I think that part of the reason is that men have been marginalized over the last several decades like you’ve written about in the past. I see how my grandsons have it so difficult in school because they're male. I don't dispute the need for STEM efforts for the girls but the boys have just been ignored and left behind for years. No wonder they're not going to college, not getting married, and have difficulty getting decent jobs. We need to focus on BOTH genders, not just one at the expense of the other!
Hello Richard. I saw your piece in the WSJ this morning and stopped reading at the first line. However, since you asked people to read the entire essay and to provide feedback, I did and I am.
Overall, I suggest avoiding politics. I stopped reading because I already get the NYT and The Atlantic. Both are killing me with idiotic and repetitive political articles. They are also breathlessly creating cartoonish caricatures of the latest politicians that are only suitable for the gullible. I cannot wait for the elections to be over. As far as the political parties go, I feel completely disenfranchised.
That said, we are probably 80% aligned in our concerns. I do have a different perspective on sex and politics, keeping in mind that I did not watch the Republican convention and have no interest in Hulk Hogan or men hitting each other in the head for entertainment.
Pew released a poll April 9, showing that overall, registered voters are almost equally divided between men and women, 49% to 48% respectively. The big divide is over commitment to marriage. 59% of married men and 50% of married women lean Republican. 60% of men living with a partner vote Democratic and 64% of women living with a partner. Only 33% of unmarried women living with a partner are Republicans. For never-married women it is just 24%.
The implications for men and women are enormous. The jails are filled with men who did not have a mom and dad living together. So too are the graveyards. Since our society no longer has a clear role for boys, there is a tragic shortage of suitable husbands. Melissa Carney’s book The Two-Parent Privilege does a good job of putting data behind this human catastrophe.
Your crack about “what families should look like” doesn’t help. You are mixing two different issues together. One is a civil-rights issue and the other is a question of what is important for society overall as a matter of public policy.
Wealthy and educated people teach their children the importance of marriage through example, even if their political views do not match their lifestyles. There is a simple formula for success. Get married and stay married. Have children after marriage. Save more than you spend. Love each other. You will be rich in every way.
I was materially poor as a child but I was culturally rich, with two loving parents who set a good example. Eventually, my parents brought us into the middle class. Through their love and example I have gone beyond that for my family.
How do we provide for our children the types of families that rich people have? I have eschewed politics in favor of supporting a local organization that provides safe classrooms after school for disadvantaged children. There, kids can get some of of the safety and love that I had. They can learn computers, math, science, and history. They have a From Boys to Men program that will help them become good fathers and husbands.
These are state and local issues after all, so avoid the politics if you want to hit a large audience with an important message.
I absolutely agree w you on the importance & value of 2 loving, caring, committed parents. The inherent problem with the "simple" "get married & stay married" formula for success is that it takes 2 people committed to that vision; if either of them lose or can't continue w that, it falls apart & it doesn't do our kids, parents, our culture much good to ignore that reality. That's why I really appreciate Richard's thoughts on parents & parenthood as well: Support parent involvement, at every step of the way, regardless of parental marital status. (For context: I started out w the simply formula for success. Get married. Have children after marriage. Planned to stay married. That didn't happen for reasons beyond my control. My former spouse & I both remained very involved parents & our now young adult children are thriving, despite the fact that their parents are not married to each other)
Don't cast this as a women vs. men election. It is a contest between democracy as we know it and fascism led by an execrable madman. Be grateful for a candidate who can beat the rapacious person who plans to become a dictator. Kamala is the thin blue line. Most thinking people understand this.
I liked your comment until "Kamala is the thin blue line." To me, this just accentuates the male vs. female images. If only you had said "Kamala and Tim are the thin blue line.
You are right. Kamala and Tim together are the thin blue line. We are fortunate in both fine candidates, excellent in their own right. I look forward to their administration. They're also what stands between us and the alternative, which is not conservatism, but authoritarianism. I also applaud the male Joe Biden who similarly saved us four years ago and has, in my opinion, performed well as president. I feel sorry disease and accelerated aging caught up with him, am glad he did the right thing, and am thrilled Kamala so ably stepped into the breach, demonstrating good judgment in her first major decision, choosing a running mate. Joe, likewise, demonstrated good judgment in his first major decision as a candidate, choosing Kamala as Vice President.
Why Democrats and not Republicans? Democrats have demonising men for decades. "The Future is Female", "Kill All Men", "Toxic Masculinity"... all that came from the left. We will NOT trust the one that hated us. And you are just supporting them.
Terrific piece, and great job at getting your perspective into the WSJ. I wish I could read more. But it seems to me that the Democrats are the ones with the real opportunity here, and the chance to make a difference. After all they are the ones who are (at least perceived) to have abandoned men. No such perception among Republican-leaning voters.
But to this point Harris has done nothing to change that perception by appealing directly to men – certainly not disaffected men, the way Trump does by default. And that’s only because men sense that Trump does not consider them to be the source of all evil and oppression in the world, the way the progressive left does.
She may have thought Walz would do that, but in an oh-so-Democratic way – by relying on identity politics. Meaning, he LOOKS like the kind of person progressive Democrats think would appeal to men. But voting patterns in his state of Minnesota show that his primary appeal is to urban female progressives and not rural male Republicans.
Either way, what Harris needs to do is something no one has done in the political realm for decades, if ever. To some extent, she needs to make the problems of men an issue in the election. That would be seismic. Because to this point in the campaign and over the last many decades, there has never been an issue particular to men that was part of the political debate, the way issues like: reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action are particular to women.
But she will never do that, because her feminist progressive left would revolt. Because it is inconceivable to them that men should ever receive any kind of help or even attention, the way help and attention are constantly being heaped upon women, in the political realm and in the media.
"She may have thought Walz would do that, but in an oh-so-Democratic way – by relying on identity politics. Meaning, he LOOKS like the kind of person progressive Democrats think would appeal to men. But voting patterns in his state of Minnesota show that his primary appeal is to urban female progressives and not rural male Republicans."
--- He appealed to urban male progressives so there's your male vote right there.
Exactly. He only appeals to those progressive men who are perfectly happy to vote for issues that are solely of concern to women, and so would vote for Harris no matter who her VP was.
You mean like mental health issues? College debt? Unemployment? These are affecting women too. I don't know what issues there are that affect men specificially?
As far as not going to college at all, you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. If they don't want to go to college... it's nobody else's fault.
I’m talking about issues like the fact that men are 4x as likely to die from suicide or drug overdose, 4x as likely to be homeless, and 9x as likely to be incarcerated. Can you name a single issue which shows as much female suffering as ANY of these, and is not being addressed in the political realm and in the media?
I don't agree with the previous replies/comments. I think that we should focus on one of your paragraphs that I think is right on:
"To some extent, she needs to make the problems of men an issue in the election. That would be seismic. Because to this point in the campaign and over the last many decades, there has never been an issue particular to men that was part of the political debate".
I believe that one of the reasons that Hillary lost in 2016 was that she ignored white men. She and her team made it clear that they didn't think that they needed white men to win.
Important issues like: Fewer men going to college; Fewer men getting married and raising families.
It's not a male versus female battle. It's a male AND female winning together issue.
We need to focus on BOTH genders and need to start in the schools from elementary through college.
--- That obviously means fewer women are doing that as well. I think it will take a few more election cycles before that issue is addressed in any meaningful, policy way.
Hi Bob. I am in the middle on this. I dislike the crassness of the Trump right, but I also detest the racism, cultural imperialism, and sexism of the hard left. For example. The new Title IX rules promoted by the Biden/Harris administration deprive boys of their most fundamental rights when at university. This is completely unacceptable and a deal killer for me. FIRE has done a great job of explaining it on their site and on their podcast.
I don’t see wearing L.L. Bean jackets and killing animals as regular dad stuff any more than Trump’s fight club image represents masculinity. I don’t shoot animals and I don’t go to boxing matches. WTF! It wasn’t that long ago that President Obama represented the kind of Dad that was pretty mainstream. Still, his administration went out of its way to deprive college boys of basic civil rights. Beyond that, as a person with no Anglo heritage, I detest the Anglophone cultural imperialism of Latinx, and what is with the “white guy taco” shtick? Most Hispanics consider themselves white, even if they don’t come from Walz’s ethnic background. I don’t come from his backyard either. I was a vegetarian for decades and mostly still am. I have made lots of vegetarian tacos. I resent the mayonnaise quip of the phony telephone skits.
Sorry for the diatribe, because I know that you are a kindly and thoughtful man. Still, it is the Democratic Party that has embraced the worst parts of the hard left, just as the worst of the hard right are attracted to Trumpism. Trying to decide who is worse makes my head spin.
"I detest the Anglophone cultural imperialism of Latinx, and what is with the “white guy taco” shtick? Most Hispanics consider themselves white, even if they don’t come from Walz’s ethnic background. I don’t come from his backyard either. I was a vegetarian for decades and mostly still am. I have made lots of vegetarian tacos. I resent the mayonnaise quip of the phony telephone skits."
--- Soy Boy!!!! Just kidding.
In Mexico and here in the States at cantinas owned by Mexicans, mayonnaise is used. I know there are jokes about mayonnaise being a white people thing, but Mexicans seem to be on it like white on rice too.
Actually Hillary Clinton didn't ignore men entirely, though she might as well have. After the Democratic convention she was encouraged to try spending a few hours appealing to men. So what was her message during that brief period? How did she try to convince men that their issues were important to her? She told them that, "Women's issues ARE men's issues." Needless to say, it didn’t work.
Nailed it. The left just cannot even consider helping men because they know people will think it means favoring men over women. To the left, it IS a zero-sum game.
As the party whose leaders have twice turned Title IX into a tool to deprive due process from men on college campuses accused of sexual assault, as the party who has continued to beat the women=good men=bad drum (especially white men) for decades, as the party who has ignored men's issues for decades (suicide, education), it's going to take a lot more than adding an old white dude as a veep pick to get me to vote Democrat.
Not saying voting R is my choice; they're a trainwreck of their own.
The gender divide is less than a zero sum game. The progress of women is diminished by the failure of men to keep up with women. For example every woman enrolled in college that I have asked has told me that she wants to marry a college educated man. Bad news: in 2020-21 men earned 860,760 bachelor's degrees while women earned 1,205,680. If women still want to marry and have children, then 344,920 will not find one--for just that one year class alone. Ultimately, unless and until women decide that male welfare is an important component of their own welfare, then disenfranchised men will look toward alternative representation to represent their interests. Turning the clock back is not an option.
You know I absolutely agree w you that male & female welfare are intertwined. I'll add one thing to this conversation: Yes, the majority of college educated women may prefer a college-educated partner. College-educated women do partner, marry, and raise kids with with non-colleged educated partners too. Perhaps another way we can support men, women, and children is by further recognizing & stress that all careers/jobs have value, and that a college degree is not a marker of worth.
"creating more jobs to fix the country’s infrastructure"
- Trump ran on that in 2015 but he never did anything.
To answer your question Richard Reeves, the answer is no, not at this time. Why? Because it is time to have a discussion about what it means to be masculine and what it means to be feminine. Let's stop the polarization. Society is calling for men to be role models to their children and their sons. The number of boys growing up without father figure role models is staggering. Let's get to the core of the issue rather then skirting it through the lens of politics.
Comments here are mostly centered in politics. I get it but it just restates the problem and your beliefs- it’s not helpful. What the article is about is encouraging us to find solutions.
And let’s face it, our politicians are not really leaders these days - they follow the path that serves their goals. We need to tell these knuckleheads what we want …but we are too busy trying to prove our side is better and win. Win what?
Richard mentions one solution with more men as teachers. Role models is something we need (both for boys and girls). Right now we are short on male role models in our schools. We can fix that. I think we not only need more men but we need all kinds of men, you know? We need male teachers who are John Wayne’s , Malcom Gladwells, Charles Barkleys, Warren Buffetts and Elon Musks. I’m assuming all these people are good people at their core. They are all centrally flawed in some ways like us all. That’s fine. Kids are smart - they see the good and the bad. And the truth is kids come to school with their stuff too.
Let them see that there are lots ways to show up in the world. You don’t have to be perfect or believe all the same stuff. You have to show up and try to be a good person. That’s what life is about. Our quest should be to become a person that adds value to our community. You know, Be a good person. We do that… and we all win. Right, left…whatever.
I’ve seen some whacky behavior in the news and it seems like the world is on fire but almost every person I meet during my day is just fine. I don’t give two sh$@s about the politics - I can tell they are good people. They don’t have to be on my side politically. And hell, maybe my side is wrong anyway.
Let’s move from just naming the problems, choosing sides and pointing fingers… to rolling up our sleeves - in our communities- and fix some stuff.
What Richard is saying is, men are not going into teaching, and maybe it would help if boys could look up and see a few more men to connect the dots as they grow into the men they will be. If we have few male teachers … or just as bad … all teachers that are the same kind of men - our kids don’t see themselves or perhaps a clear path forward.
For those who have not yet read it, I suggest you get a copy of “Of Boys and Men”, by Richard Reeves. Reeves does an excellent job of digging beneath the surface of gender energy currently in our society. This short WSJ article is limited in describing the complexities that have brought us to this point. I read this article as a snapshot in time, rather than a complete contextual view. We have an opportunity to influence the educational system of the future to fully realize the contributions and role of all humans - recognizing and leveraging the unique strengths of gender.
I'm curious what you make of the role of the climate crisis in terms of gender in this election.
Woman often poll as more concerned than men about global warming. You can find a lot of men leading the denier charge (watch for dudes doing "rolling coal").
Yet climate mitigation and adaptation calls for a ton of traditionally male jobs: construction, electrical engineering. Quite a few of the leading climate sciences are dominated by men.
Is climate an issue which might have both cross-party and both-gender appeal?
I appreciate your call for both parties to offer more support to boys and men in the education system.
That’s a very sad post Tom. Is that all you see men as, people to do the hard, physical jobs? You don’t see them as leaders in society. You don’t see them as tender hearted husbands, fathers, friends and companions. You don’t understand the creative capabilities of men, writers, poets, artists, inventors. No you just see them as tough muscle. Along with your unusual view of men you also don’t know what women are capable of either. Men and women are necessary for each other and for society. It’s so sad that all you seem to see is warfare where in reality there should be mutual appreciation, help, friendship and love.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the screams of toxic masculinity, kill all men, believe all women, rape culture and patriarchy killing our society.
I have to admire your sense of humour. Kill all men? Why should I deprive myself of the pleasure I feel from masculine company? Come on, men are wonderful as are most women. I definitely believe that making love ( with men) is better and more enjoyable than making war.
That's what the most extreme anti-male feminist freaks say about us. I'm not trying to be self-pitying about all this. I'm just saying we’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of hate for years now, and if we're being honest, liberals haven't even tried to address the contradictions in their own ideology. Tim Walz isn't a solution to any of this. He's emblematic of just how deep the problems that Democrats have with men go.
In some ways Tom that’s a more sensible comment from you. Demonising either men or women- or both just doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The problem is really this idea of superiority instead of harmony. Men are not the same as women or vice versa but their differences should be complementary. Educationally their needs are not the same. Females mature mentally earlier than males. Same sex education puts males at a disadvantage and many young men do not recover from the disappointment and humiliation they suffer at being behind the female members of the class. This often leads to disenchantment with education that prevents young men from even trying to become better educated. That is just one example of the differences between male and female. With reference to education, how many of the leading schools in the country are single sex, particularly in the paid for examples where the element of early competition doesn’t arise. We need to be more informed and less emotional about the differing needs and abilities of male and female. FYI, all men are not rapists and all women are not man haters.
You point to some important problems with the education of boys. So why is nothing being done about it? Why is all the focus in politics on women and their issues? When was the last time you saw a political debate about an issue that is particular to men and boys, that is anywhere near as “important” as those that are particular to women, such as reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action?
Democrats have nothing to offer men, seriously. Tim Walz is what feminists think men should want, but he appeals to the coalition of the cat ladies for the same reason he doesn't appeal to men.
He's a feminized loser whose sole job is to “get out of the way” for women to take their proper, ostensibly, rightful place at the top of society. Please pay no attention to all the redistributing of wealth and opportunity that the state does for them. In reality, he's an entirely cucked loser who abandoned his unit to pretend he was a hero to people who don't appreciate any of the things that men do for them while simultaneously talking about how useless/backward/weird men are.
I'd love to see feminists take over the military/police/firefighters/every dangerous job in society. I'm sure they would do a better job than all those loser men. It's funny how feminists are never interested in solving that kind of equality. I guess the inequality in which men fight and die for women is the good kind.
cntrl+f "conscription"
no results found
Stop all the politicians and media talking heads trying to normalize the restitution of slavery. That's an actual meaningful yet gendered issue, not these purely aesthetic concerns.
Great e-mail. I’m an older white male and to me, it’s very disappointing to hear that younger men are moving to the right. I think that part of the reason is that men have been marginalized over the last several decades like you’ve written about in the past. I see how my grandsons have it so difficult in school because they're male. I don't dispute the need for STEM efforts for the girls but the boys have just been ignored and left behind for years. No wonder they're not going to college, not getting married, and have difficulty getting decent jobs. We need to focus on BOTH genders, not just one at the expense of the other!
Hello Richard. I saw your piece in the WSJ this morning and stopped reading at the first line. However, since you asked people to read the entire essay and to provide feedback, I did and I am.
Overall, I suggest avoiding politics. I stopped reading because I already get the NYT and The Atlantic. Both are killing me with idiotic and repetitive political articles. They are also breathlessly creating cartoonish caricatures of the latest politicians that are only suitable for the gullible. I cannot wait for the elections to be over. As far as the political parties go, I feel completely disenfranchised.
That said, we are probably 80% aligned in our concerns. I do have a different perspective on sex and politics, keeping in mind that I did not watch the Republican convention and have no interest in Hulk Hogan or men hitting each other in the head for entertainment.
Pew released a poll April 9, showing that overall, registered voters are almost equally divided between men and women, 49% to 48% respectively. The big divide is over commitment to marriage. 59% of married men and 50% of married women lean Republican. 60% of men living with a partner vote Democratic and 64% of women living with a partner. Only 33% of unmarried women living with a partner are Republicans. For never-married women it is just 24%.
The implications for men and women are enormous. The jails are filled with men who did not have a mom and dad living together. So too are the graveyards. Since our society no longer has a clear role for boys, there is a tragic shortage of suitable husbands. Melissa Carney’s book The Two-Parent Privilege does a good job of putting data behind this human catastrophe.
Your crack about “what families should look like” doesn’t help. You are mixing two different issues together. One is a civil-rights issue and the other is a question of what is important for society overall as a matter of public policy.
Wealthy and educated people teach their children the importance of marriage through example, even if their political views do not match their lifestyles. There is a simple formula for success. Get married and stay married. Have children after marriage. Save more than you spend. Love each other. You will be rich in every way.
I was materially poor as a child but I was culturally rich, with two loving parents who set a good example. Eventually, my parents brought us into the middle class. Through their love and example I have gone beyond that for my family.
How do we provide for our children the types of families that rich people have? I have eschewed politics in favor of supporting a local organization that provides safe classrooms after school for disadvantaged children. There, kids can get some of of the safety and love that I had. They can learn computers, math, science, and history. They have a From Boys to Men program that will help them become good fathers and husbands.
These are state and local issues after all, so avoid the politics if you want to hit a large audience with an important message.
I absolutely agree w you on the importance & value of 2 loving, caring, committed parents. The inherent problem with the "simple" "get married & stay married" formula for success is that it takes 2 people committed to that vision; if either of them lose or can't continue w that, it falls apart & it doesn't do our kids, parents, our culture much good to ignore that reality. That's why I really appreciate Richard's thoughts on parents & parenthood as well: Support parent involvement, at every step of the way, regardless of parental marital status. (For context: I started out w the simply formula for success. Get married. Have children after marriage. Planned to stay married. That didn't happen for reasons beyond my control. My former spouse & I both remained very involved parents & our now young adult children are thriving, despite the fact that their parents are not married to each other)
Don't cast this as a women vs. men election. It is a contest between democracy as we know it and fascism led by an execrable madman. Be grateful for a candidate who can beat the rapacious person who plans to become a dictator. Kamala is the thin blue line. Most thinking people understand this.
I liked your comment until "Kamala is the thin blue line." To me, this just accentuates the male vs. female images. If only you had said "Kamala and Tim are the thin blue line.
You are right. Kamala and Tim together are the thin blue line. We are fortunate in both fine candidates, excellent in their own right. I look forward to their administration. They're also what stands between us and the alternative, which is not conservatism, but authoritarianism. I also applaud the male Joe Biden who similarly saved us four years ago and has, in my opinion, performed well as president. I feel sorry disease and accelerated aging caught up with him, am glad he did the right thing, and am thrilled Kamala so ably stepped into the breach, demonstrating good judgment in her first major decision, choosing a running mate. Joe, likewise, demonstrated good judgment in his first major decision as a candidate, choosing Kamala as Vice President.
Why Democrats and not Republicans? Democrats have demonising men for decades. "The Future is Female", "Kill All Men", "Toxic Masculinity"... all that came from the left. We will NOT trust the one that hated us. And you are just supporting them.
Terrific piece, and great job at getting your perspective into the WSJ. I wish I could read more. But it seems to me that the Democrats are the ones with the real opportunity here, and the chance to make a difference. After all they are the ones who are (at least perceived) to have abandoned men. No such perception among Republican-leaning voters.
But to this point Harris has done nothing to change that perception by appealing directly to men – certainly not disaffected men, the way Trump does by default. And that’s only because men sense that Trump does not consider them to be the source of all evil and oppression in the world, the way the progressive left does.
She may have thought Walz would do that, but in an oh-so-Democratic way – by relying on identity politics. Meaning, he LOOKS like the kind of person progressive Democrats think would appeal to men. But voting patterns in his state of Minnesota show that his primary appeal is to urban female progressives and not rural male Republicans.
Either way, what Harris needs to do is something no one has done in the political realm for decades, if ever. To some extent, she needs to make the problems of men an issue in the election. That would be seismic. Because to this point in the campaign and over the last many decades, there has never been an issue particular to men that was part of the political debate, the way issues like: reproductive rights, sexual harassment and abuse, and affirmative action are particular to women.
But she will never do that, because her feminist progressive left would revolt. Because it is inconceivable to them that men should ever receive any kind of help or even attention, the way help and attention are constantly being heaped upon women, in the political realm and in the media.
"She may have thought Walz would do that, but in an oh-so-Democratic way – by relying on identity politics. Meaning, he LOOKS like the kind of person progressive Democrats think would appeal to men. But voting patterns in his state of Minnesota show that his primary appeal is to urban female progressives and not rural male Republicans."
--- He appealed to urban male progressives so there's your male vote right there.
Exactly. He only appeals to those progressive men who are perfectly happy to vote for issues that are solely of concern to women, and so would vote for Harris no matter who her VP was.
There are a number of other progressive issues that are not women-specific.
Of course there are. But what we are talking about here is Harris' ability to appeal to men on issues that are specific to them.
You mean like mental health issues? College debt? Unemployment? These are affecting women too. I don't know what issues there are that affect men specificially?
As far as not going to college at all, you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. If they don't want to go to college... it's nobody else's fault.
I’m talking about issues like the fact that men are 4x as likely to die from suicide or drug overdose, 4x as likely to be homeless, and 9x as likely to be incarcerated. Can you name a single issue which shows as much female suffering as ANY of these, and is not being addressed in the political realm and in the media?
I don't agree with the previous replies/comments. I think that we should focus on one of your paragraphs that I think is right on:
"To some extent, she needs to make the problems of men an issue in the election. That would be seismic. Because to this point in the campaign and over the last many decades, there has never been an issue particular to men that was part of the political debate".
I believe that one of the reasons that Hillary lost in 2016 was that she ignored white men. She and her team made it clear that they didn't think that they needed white men to win.
Important issues like: Fewer men going to college; Fewer men getting married and raising families.
It's not a male versus female battle. It's a male AND female winning together issue.
We need to focus on BOTH genders and need to start in the schools from elementary through college.
"Fewer men getting married and raising families."
--- That obviously means fewer women are doing that as well. I think it will take a few more election cycles before that issue is addressed in any meaningful, policy way.
Hi Bob. I am in the middle on this. I dislike the crassness of the Trump right, but I also detest the racism, cultural imperialism, and sexism of the hard left. For example. The new Title IX rules promoted by the Biden/Harris administration deprive boys of their most fundamental rights when at university. This is completely unacceptable and a deal killer for me. FIRE has done a great job of explaining it on their site and on their podcast.
I don’t see wearing L.L. Bean jackets and killing animals as regular dad stuff any more than Trump’s fight club image represents masculinity. I don’t shoot animals and I don’t go to boxing matches. WTF! It wasn’t that long ago that President Obama represented the kind of Dad that was pretty mainstream. Still, his administration went out of its way to deprive college boys of basic civil rights. Beyond that, as a person with no Anglo heritage, I detest the Anglophone cultural imperialism of Latinx, and what is with the “white guy taco” shtick? Most Hispanics consider themselves white, even if they don’t come from Walz’s ethnic background. I don’t come from his backyard either. I was a vegetarian for decades and mostly still am. I have made lots of vegetarian tacos. I resent the mayonnaise quip of the phony telephone skits.
Sorry for the diatribe, because I know that you are a kindly and thoughtful man. Still, it is the Democratic Party that has embraced the worst parts of the hard left, just as the worst of the hard right are attracted to Trumpism. Trying to decide who is worse makes my head spin.
"I detest the Anglophone cultural imperialism of Latinx, and what is with the “white guy taco” shtick? Most Hispanics consider themselves white, even if they don’t come from Walz’s ethnic background. I don’t come from his backyard either. I was a vegetarian for decades and mostly still am. I have made lots of vegetarian tacos. I resent the mayonnaise quip of the phony telephone skits."
--- Soy Boy!!!! Just kidding.
In Mexico and here in the States at cantinas owned by Mexicans, mayonnaise is used. I know there are jokes about mayonnaise being a white people thing, but Mexicans seem to be on it like white on rice too.
Actually Hillary Clinton didn't ignore men entirely, though she might as well have. After the Democratic convention she was encouraged to try spending a few hours appealing to men. So what was her message during that brief period? How did she try to convince men that their issues were important to her? She told them that, "Women's issues ARE men's issues." Needless to say, it didn’t work.
Nailed it. The left just cannot even consider helping men because they know people will think it means favoring men over women. To the left, it IS a zero-sum game.
Exactly. Republicans have to take the lead on this.
As the party whose leaders have twice turned Title IX into a tool to deprive due process from men on college campuses accused of sexual assault, as the party who has continued to beat the women=good men=bad drum (especially white men) for decades, as the party who has ignored men's issues for decades (suicide, education), it's going to take a lot more than adding an old white dude as a veep pick to get me to vote Democrat.
Not saying voting R is my choice; they're a trainwreck of their own.
Indees. They will NOT device us. They are lying us just because they want pur vote. MAGA!
The gender divide is less than a zero sum game. The progress of women is diminished by the failure of men to keep up with women. For example every woman enrolled in college that I have asked has told me that she wants to marry a college educated man. Bad news: in 2020-21 men earned 860,760 bachelor's degrees while women earned 1,205,680. If women still want to marry and have children, then 344,920 will not find one--for just that one year class alone. Ultimately, unless and until women decide that male welfare is an important component of their own welfare, then disenfranchised men will look toward alternative representation to represent their interests. Turning the clock back is not an option.
You know I absolutely agree w you that male & female welfare are intertwined. I'll add one thing to this conversation: Yes, the majority of college educated women may prefer a college-educated partner. College-educated women do partner, marry, and raise kids with with non-colleged educated partners too. Perhaps another way we can support men, women, and children is by further recognizing & stress that all careers/jobs have value, and that a college degree is not a marker of worth.
Here here!!! Well said.
Voting Democrats, who has created the situation you describe, is neither.