I appreciate Mr Reeves thoughtful article. I would add that with the insidious, implicit discrimination against men from DEI in traditionally male dominated fields; the trend has and will continue. Women are given preferential treatment in male dominated jobs, medical schools, etc. However, there is no reciprocal effort made to give men preferential treatment in traditionally female jobs. Feminist (female & male) conveniently overlook the elephant in the room.
I suspect that if you polled many women in the workplace, they would have no issue with giving a "sister" a hand up. Because someone did that for them. A more subtle result of sexism is what happens when females enter male dominated fields. They (and HR) demand the culture be changed to accommodate women. Instead of women adapting to the existing male culture. Just look at changes in what's considered "harassment".
The problem with sexism or racism is that once it becomes ingrained in a culture, it's extremely difficult to change course. At what point has it become "enough"? When does preferential treatment for women in government, academia and healthcare/business end. An arbitrary percentage or number? I think not!
There are plenty of men working in education--they are the principals and assistant principals. The message to children then becomes "men are in charge, and women do what they say." I can't think of anything more sexist. Yes, men should go back to teaching middle school and high school (I'm not sure about elementary school) but also, more women should be principals and administrators.
"Men are driven out of elementary school teaching, women most affected"
Do you even hear yourself? There are a lot of reasons why men, despite being wildly underrepresented in these fields are overrepresented in leadership positions.
Very few of them are sexism. If your are actually interested in the reasons, instead of just affirming your own agenda, maybe read up on them.
I am not debating you, nor am I interested in changing your mind.
The information is literally one google search away, if you were curious about the actual reasons you would look it up, instead of spreading your uninformed takes.
It's clear what informs your opinion, and its not facts.
I am simply pointing out how ridiculous you sound to someone not captured by your ideological bubble. I have my own.
He's right not to debate you. You vomited up a bunch of nonsense that you clearly made up and asserted as fact. If you cared about Truth, you would have done some investigation first, and never made the statement that you did in the first place.
Women -- such as yourself -- go on-and-on about lived experience, but never seem to care about men's lived experiences.
Here's an article about men's lived experiences in the Psychology training pipeline. I'd be surprised if the pipeline to become a teacher isn't similar at this point.
I didn't have time to peruse all the recommendations, but this person's personal behavior was immature. He should have left the inappropriate social conversation instead of contributing to it. He's offended that the women weren't more friendly to him. This is graduate school not junior high. And no one with common sense puts their incendiary political views on social media under their own name.
Conflating statistics with culture so directly entirely misses the point. For 35 years I have observed two critical social policy. Institutions become completely abstracted and disconnected from the material needs of people, particularly boys and men. The feminization of the culture was established long before the super majority of women emerged as a statistical fact.
Your wrong dead wrong I've surveyed, I've got research, I've got male female lawyers , chef of police and a high court judge who strongly say that law is feminised and serves females way better. In domestic violence, SA, child custody it's scued against men completely !
What’s missing here is “feminization” is a process through which women enter a field, it’s made safe / acceptable for women, parity or near parity is reached and then the field loses prestige/status and male flight begins. I have serious doubts that sex equality is possible, because of how sex hierarchy works. There aren’t enough middle class paid “male coded” jobs to go around, so the process is starting to drive women out of middle class professional jobs.
I don't think it has anything to do with prestige/status; but perhaps that's correct. To me, that narrative simply feeds the feminist rhetoric that whatever women do isn't prestigious. -- more evidence of sexism.
The reality is that if a man wants to have a wife and family, he needs to strive to earn more money than average in order to stand out. When both genders are interested in the same field, the wages become stagnant. The men who are high achievers are going to pursue something else.
That isn't a conspiracy to keep women's wages down. It's just a reality related to supply and demand.
The other thing not mentioned, is that as the number of women increase, the space becomes increasingly more hostile to men. Misandry is a real thing, and more women in the space, the more misandrist women show up, and the more they're able to engage in malicious and petty behavior.
I don't care if the space is "safe for women", I care about the hostility and thought policing.
It comes with stuff like "ice breakers" in meetings, and all kinds of other stuff that put men on the spot. I'm not interested in forming relationships with coworkers. I'm there to do my work, get paid, and leave. I don't want anyone else to know anything about my personal life at work. It inevitably turns into gossip.
So many folks in these comments rush to point out how @Richard V Reeves “missed the point,” yet in their comments, they completely missed the point of his writing (which, by the way, did not miss the point as much as he just said something those folks just didn’t want to hear).
Reeves' entire mission is to make men's issues palatable to liberals. The problem with that is that he has to avoid certain topics/truths in order to do that, and therefore his mission has no shot at succeeding.
There is a difference between Richard Reeves and Jonathan Haidt. One thinks he is impartial but really doesn't understand people. The other appears partial but understands people more. Richard Reeves does have an agenda. Richard Reeves will miss the point because he is funded by people who have a victim mentality, not the mentality to actually resolve issues that impact people (men and women).
I admire your work, but have to agree with others saying you're missing the point, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. Fundamentally, due to what I'll call the "equality presumption."
Your assumption is there cannot be a real issue in occupations like law in regards to increased feminization simply because it is not (yet) female majority. But this falsely presumes that equal representation is a sort of neutral balance or ideal within a given profession.
For example, if a traditionally female profession such as nursing or childcare became 50% male, it's quite possible--even likely imo--that it would represent something undesirable had changed in the profession, in the direction of 'masculinization', without men necessarily being the majority. Given innate average sex differences, I'd have to think this would be suboptimal for the services provided by these professions.
I would ask - why does that shortage exist? Could it relate to a longer narrative of men being constantly asserted a threat, because certain things were falsely gendered?
Does "equalization" in numeric terms equate to cultural balance within a profession? Is balance to be preferred in each profession, or does the mission of some institutions demand the culture be skewed male in some cases, female in others?
Good... Now the message is "we need ro build better men... Because of women". This is the truly evidence that the USA is a gynocracy where you have to even convence women to save men from their crisis...
I have fully understood your possition, now, Reeves.
You are not talking to men. You never were. You have been all the time talking to women. So they agree to relinquish their power.
Trying to get more men in low-paid “caring” professions is terrible advise. Many of those occupations already have far too many employees.
We need more men in engineering, entrepreneurship, finance, and blue-collar jobs that support society’s infrastructure.
Don’t dwell on the gender representation in any given occupation and let individuals make their own choices. Men and women are different, so it should not be a surprise that they make different choices.
A medical/surgical nurse makes more than any trades and has a pathway to move into management. A nurse anesthetist, physicians assistant, or nurse practitioner is a pathway for anyone who is good but not great at STEM. And the pathway to engineering or finance is much narrower than most jobs in healthcare.
Yes, some medical professions make good money (but they already tend to have the most men), but the focus of this article seemed to be much more on education and mental health.
As for "nurse anesthetist, physicians assistant, or nurse practitioner", I don't think we should be concerned about their gender, only their performance.
Pharmacist are majority female. Physical therapist are majority female. Nurses anesthetist are major female. PA school is 80% female. Even most x-ray techs are female these days. And no one cares about the gender of pharmacist. That is why the right avoids talking about them.
You seem to be missing the point of my comments (likely deliberately). My point is that we should not be pushing men or women into any specific profession, particularly not those that pay lower than average.
I am not on the Right.
And the author of this article did not specifically state that men should go into the fields of pharmacy, physical therapy, or nursing anesthetists.
Unfortunately, it is not true that "no one cares about the gender" of various occupations. You and the author obviously do.
More importantly, DEI and affirmative action force employers and hiring managers to care, and until 2025 such practices were mandated by law.
First, why is one commenting on Richard Reeve's Substack when one has obviously never heard anything he has written or listened to any of his talks. And also seem to know so little about the state of career and education data in 2025.
The issue is that males are missing out on good paying careers in healthcare because they see the jobs as female coded when they are not. The point is that men should be encouraged to follow pathways to good paying jobs that are currently dominated by women.
And the Civil Rights Act still prevents discrimination in the workplace.
The feminists in HR openly discriminate against men. As a result, I have received 4 employment settlements for sex discrimination against men. But the fact that the feminists in HR openly practice discrimination shows that they are not afriad of the law.
Just because there are exceptions to the general rule, which I already acknowledged, does not invalidate the general rule itself.
Using BLS 2024–25 benchmarks and standard cutoffs, a reasonable ballpark is that 25–35% of female-dominated, BA+-dominated occupations pay above the BA+ median, while 70–85% of male-dominated, BA+-dominated occupations do.
A reasonable estimate is that female-dominated, high-paying (BA+-qualified) occupations make up roughly 5–8% of the total U.S. labor force. That is hardly a large portion of the overall job market, such that getting more men into them will make much if a difference.
On the other hand, Male-dominated & above BA+ median make up 20-25% (four to five times higher).
And about 10–12 % of male workers without a four-year degree earn more than the average pay of female-dominated occupations that pay above the BA+ median (≈ $95–100 k).
I have been subscribing to his Substack for quite some time, and I did read the article. Many I agree with, but not the thrust of this argument.
Reading and agreeing with everything that he says is not the same.
This article is clearly about education and mental health care, neither of which is high paying.
The Civil Rights Act was written to prevent discrimination, but unfortunately the federal bureaucracy and DEI activists have twisted it into mandating racial and gender discrimination.
Tell that to all the boys in school being punished for simply being boys because all the authority figures are women who expect them to behave like girls.
Tell it to all the boys receiving lower grades, not because their work was inferior but because those doing the grading have a much stronger in-group bias that artificially inflates the grades of girls.
Tell it to the men struggling with substance use or mental health issues who can't find a therapist or counsellor who actually understands their struggles and can give relevant advice because none of them have any idea what its like to be a man with one of those issues.
There are countless ways that boys and men end up being disadvantaged due to the lack of males in many of those professions.
What part of not doing the homework or not turning in the homework is excusable for male students? One should actually try reading Richard Reeves before repeating memes that he has answered in the past.
One claimed that schools are "mean" to boys and the reason males have a higher failure rate is due to mean old women teachers. Yet, one failed to explain why expecting males to do their homework and turn it in is sexist or bad. Being a good students requires lots of non-cognitive skills. Too many parents refuse to try to develop those non-cognitive skills in their sons.
Since women move in and out of the workforce more than men, men in majority female occupations do not face much discrimination. There was always job openings versus heavily male occupations.
They aren't necessarily lower paying. It depends where you live and what position you're referring to . Teachers, social workers, nurses and many otber health sector workers have salaries comparable to engineers, programmers and otber STEM workers in many places. As a bonus, these fields are expected to grow while many traditionally male white collar professions are expected to shrink due to automation.
Yes, incomes vary by location and position, but the overall numbers are clear. The variation by location is largely cancelled out by housing prices. And workers cannot just choose their position, they need to earn it by years of hard work and applying for new jobs.
Engineering will not go away from automation. It is white-collar administrative jobs that are most threatened. And they have far higher representation by women that engineers do.
Gotta hand it to you. He is probably is his mamma’s boy because he definitely does act like a (mean) girl a lot of the time. That said, he is infinitely less dangerous than a totalitarian FEMALE feminist like say The Cackle would have been because there is nothing quite as chilling as the possibility of a woman running (a woke-feminist/gyno no less) totalitarian tyranny DIRECTLY. Justine Trudeau was more than bad enough as male-feminist totalitarian you-know-what carrying water for the woke-feminist/gyno mob. Let’s hope that some sort of real manhood emerges soon in our fearless leaders or we will all go down the tube together.
So... how is this... "DOES HAVING A BOYFRIEND IS EMBARRASING NOW"? (NYT dixit.)
It’s fascinating how Democrats, Soros foundations, and feminist outlets suddenly claim to “care” about men - while still ridiculing them in every other article.
The message changes depending on who’s listening, doesn’t it?
I appreciate Mr Reeves thoughtful article. I would add that with the insidious, implicit discrimination against men from DEI in traditionally male dominated fields; the trend has and will continue. Women are given preferential treatment in male dominated jobs, medical schools, etc. However, there is no reciprocal effort made to give men preferential treatment in traditionally female jobs. Feminist (female & male) conveniently overlook the elephant in the room.
I suspect that if you polled many women in the workplace, they would have no issue with giving a "sister" a hand up. Because someone did that for them. A more subtle result of sexism is what happens when females enter male dominated fields. They (and HR) demand the culture be changed to accommodate women. Instead of women adapting to the existing male culture. Just look at changes in what's considered "harassment".
The problem with sexism or racism is that once it becomes ingrained in a culture, it's extremely difficult to change course. At what point has it become "enough"? When does preferential treatment for women in government, academia and healthcare/business end. An arbitrary percentage or number? I think not!
There are plenty of men working in education--they are the principals and assistant principals. The message to children then becomes "men are in charge, and women do what they say." I can't think of anything more sexist. Yes, men should go back to teaching middle school and high school (I'm not sure about elementary school) but also, more women should be principals and administrators.
"Men are driven out of elementary school teaching, women most affected"
Do you even hear yourself? There are a lot of reasons why men, despite being wildly underrepresented in these fields are overrepresented in leadership positions.
Very few of them are sexism. If your are actually interested in the reasons, instead of just affirming your own agenda, maybe read up on them.
If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you state these alleged reasons?
What's the point?
I am not debating you, nor am I interested in changing your mind.
The information is literally one google search away, if you were curious about the actual reasons you would look it up, instead of spreading your uninformed takes.
It's clear what informs your opinion, and its not facts.
I am simply pointing out how ridiculous you sound to someone not captured by your ideological bubble. I have my own.
What you make of that is on you.
You're arguing with me and insulting me. You're right; you're not debating me. In an actual debate, you have to support your argument.
He's right not to debate you. You vomited up a bunch of nonsense that you clearly made up and asserted as fact. If you cared about Truth, you would have done some investigation first, and never made the statement that you did in the first place.
Women -- such as yourself -- go on-and-on about lived experience, but never seem to care about men's lived experiences.
Here's an article about men's lived experiences in the Psychology training pipeline. I'd be surprised if the pipeline to become a teacher isn't similar at this point.
https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/invisible-man-my-experience-as-a-male-trainee-clinical-psychologist-in-a-female-dominated-system
I didn't have time to peruse all the recommendations, but this person's personal behavior was immature. He should have left the inappropriate social conversation instead of contributing to it. He's offended that the women weren't more friendly to him. This is graduate school not junior high. And no one with common sense puts their incendiary political views on social media under their own name.
Conflating statistics with culture so directly entirely misses the point. For 35 years I have observed two critical social policy. Institutions become completely abstracted and disconnected from the material needs of people, particularly boys and men. The feminization of the culture was established long before the super majority of women emerged as a statistical fact.
No.
Your wrong dead wrong I've surveyed, I've got research, I've got male female lawyers , chef of police and a high court judge who strongly say that law is feminised and serves females way better. In domestic violence, SA, child custody it's scued against men completely !
What’s missing here is “feminization” is a process through which women enter a field, it’s made safe / acceptable for women, parity or near parity is reached and then the field loses prestige/status and male flight begins. I have serious doubts that sex equality is possible, because of how sex hierarchy works. There aren’t enough middle class paid “male coded” jobs to go around, so the process is starting to drive women out of middle class professional jobs.
I don't think it has anything to do with prestige/status; but perhaps that's correct. To me, that narrative simply feeds the feminist rhetoric that whatever women do isn't prestigious. -- more evidence of sexism.
The reality is that if a man wants to have a wife and family, he needs to strive to earn more money than average in order to stand out. When both genders are interested in the same field, the wages become stagnant. The men who are high achievers are going to pursue something else.
That isn't a conspiracy to keep women's wages down. It's just a reality related to supply and demand.
The other thing not mentioned, is that as the number of women increase, the space becomes increasingly more hostile to men. Misandry is a real thing, and more women in the space, the more misandrist women show up, and the more they're able to engage in malicious and petty behavior.
I don't care if the space is "safe for women", I care about the hostility and thought policing.
It comes with stuff like "ice breakers" in meetings, and all kinds of other stuff that put men on the spot. I'm not interested in forming relationships with coworkers. I'm there to do my work, get paid, and leave. I don't want anyone else to know anything about my personal life at work. It inevitably turns into gossip.
So many folks in these comments rush to point out how @Richard V Reeves “missed the point,” yet in their comments, they completely missed the point of his writing (which, by the way, did not miss the point as much as he just said something those folks just didn’t want to hear).
Reeves' entire mission is to make men's issues palatable to liberals. The problem with that is that he has to avoid certain topics/truths in order to do that, and therefore his mission has no shot at succeeding.
I've been accused of "biological determinism," too. When I shared the graph showing almost all men are stronger than almost all women.
There is a difference between Richard Reeves and Jonathan Haidt. One thinks he is impartial but really doesn't understand people. The other appears partial but understands people more. Richard Reeves does have an agenda. Richard Reeves will miss the point because he is funded by people who have a victim mentality, not the mentality to actually resolve issues that impact people (men and women).
I admire your work, but have to agree with others saying you're missing the point, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. Fundamentally, due to what I'll call the "equality presumption."
Your assumption is there cannot be a real issue in occupations like law in regards to increased feminization simply because it is not (yet) female majority. But this falsely presumes that equal representation is a sort of neutral balance or ideal within a given profession.
For example, if a traditionally female profession such as nursing or childcare became 50% male, it's quite possible--even likely imo--that it would represent something undesirable had changed in the profession, in the direction of 'masculinization', without men necessarily being the majority. Given innate average sex differences, I'd have to think this would be suboptimal for the services provided by these professions.
One would think that this would be obvious. Thank you for stating it so clearly.
I would ask - why does that shortage exist? Could it relate to a longer narrative of men being constantly asserted a threat, because certain things were falsely gendered?
Exactly!
Does "equalization" in numeric terms equate to cultural balance within a profession? Is balance to be preferred in each profession, or does the mission of some institutions demand the culture be skewed male in some cases, female in others?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gavin-newsom-tells-democrats-walked-away-from-masculinity-crisis-impacting-men-boys
Good... Now the message is "we need ro build better men... Because of women". This is the truly evidence that the USA is a gynocracy where you have to even convence women to save men from their crisis...
I have fully understood your possition, now, Reeves.
You are not talking to men. You never were. You have been all the time talking to women. So they agree to relinquish their power.
Evil.
Trying to get more men in low-paid “caring” professions is terrible advise. Many of those occupations already have far too many employees.
We need more men in engineering, entrepreneurship, finance, and blue-collar jobs that support society’s infrastructure.
Don’t dwell on the gender representation in any given occupation and let individuals make their own choices. Men and women are different, so it should not be a surprise that they make different choices.
A medical/surgical nurse makes more than any trades and has a pathway to move into management. A nurse anesthetist, physicians assistant, or nurse practitioner is a pathway for anyone who is good but not great at STEM. And the pathway to engineering or finance is much narrower than most jobs in healthcare.
Yes, some medical professions make good money (but they already tend to have the most men), but the focus of this article seemed to be much more on education and mental health.
As for "nurse anesthetist, physicians assistant, or nurse practitioner", I don't think we should be concerned about their gender, only their performance.
Pharmacist are majority female. Physical therapist are majority female. Nurses anesthetist are major female. PA school is 80% female. Even most x-ray techs are female these days. And no one cares about the gender of pharmacist. That is why the right avoids talking about them.
You seem to be missing the point of my comments (likely deliberately). My point is that we should not be pushing men or women into any specific profession, particularly not those that pay lower than average.
I am not on the Right.
And the author of this article did not specifically state that men should go into the fields of pharmacy, physical therapy, or nursing anesthetists.
Unfortunately, it is not true that "no one cares about the gender" of various occupations. You and the author obviously do.
More importantly, DEI and affirmative action force employers and hiring managers to care, and until 2025 such practices were mandated by law.
We need less of it, not more of it.
First, why is one commenting on Richard Reeve's Substack when one has obviously never heard anything he has written or listened to any of his talks. And also seem to know so little about the state of career and education data in 2025.
The issue is that males are missing out on good paying careers in healthcare because they see the jobs as female coded when they are not. The point is that men should be encouraged to follow pathways to good paying jobs that are currently dominated by women.
And the Civil Rights Act still prevents discrimination in the workplace.
The feminists in HR openly discriminate against men. As a result, I have received 4 employment settlements for sex discrimination against men. But the fact that the feminists in HR openly practice discrimination shows that they are not afriad of the law.
So you think I "seem to know so little about the state of career and education data in 2025, do you?
What have I stated so far, that is factually incorrect?
In this comment section, I linked to this report. Do you disagree with this data?
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/The-Economic-Value-of-College-Majors-Full-Report-web-FINAL.pdf
Just because there are exceptions to the general rule, which I already acknowledged, does not invalidate the general rule itself.
Using BLS 2024–25 benchmarks and standard cutoffs, a reasonable ballpark is that 25–35% of female-dominated, BA+-dominated occupations pay above the BA+ median, while 70–85% of male-dominated, BA+-dominated occupations do.
A reasonable estimate is that female-dominated, high-paying (BA+-qualified) occupations make up roughly 5–8% of the total U.S. labor force. That is hardly a large portion of the overall job market, such that getting more men into them will make much if a difference.
On the other hand, Male-dominated & above BA+ median make up 20-25% (four to five times higher).
And about 10–12 % of male workers without a four-year degree earn more than the average pay of female-dominated occupations that pay above the BA+ median (≈ $95–100 k).
"obviously never heard anything he has written?"
I have been subscribing to his Substack for quite some time, and I did read the article. Many I agree with, but not the thrust of this argument.
Reading and agreeing with everything that he says is not the same.
This article is clearly about education and mental health care, neither of which is high paying.
The Civil Rights Act was written to prevent discrimination, but unfortunately the federal bureaucracy and DEI activists have twisted it into mandating racial and gender discrimination.
Tell that to all the boys in school being punished for simply being boys because all the authority figures are women who expect them to behave like girls.
Tell it to all the boys receiving lower grades, not because their work was inferior but because those doing the grading have a much stronger in-group bias that artificially inflates the grades of girls.
Tell it to the men struggling with substance use or mental health issues who can't find a therapist or counsellor who actually understands their struggles and can give relevant advice because none of them have any idea what its like to be a man with one of those issues.
There are countless ways that boys and men end up being disadvantaged due to the lack of males in many of those professions.
What part of not doing the homework or not turning in the homework is excusable for male students? One should actually try reading Richard Reeves before repeating memes that he has answered in the past.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. This has nothing to do with what I wrote.
One claimed that schools are "mean" to boys and the reason males have a higher failure rate is due to mean old women teachers. Yet, one failed to explain why expecting males to do their homework and turn it in is sexist or bad. Being a good students requires lots of non-cognitive skills. Too many parents refuse to try to develop those non-cognitive skills in their sons.
The lack f men will be self-perpetuating. Men that go into majority-female occupations will face discrimination.
Since women move in and out of the workforce more than men, men in majority female occupations do not face much discrimination. There was always job openings versus heavily male occupations.
And advising them to go into lower paying jobs is going to help them?
Hell, no!
They aren't necessarily lower paying. It depends where you live and what position you're referring to . Teachers, social workers, nurses and many otber health sector workers have salaries comparable to engineers, programmers and otber STEM workers in many places. As a bonus, these fields are expected to grow while many traditionally male white collar professions are expected to shrink due to automation.
Not at all true: engineers make far more money than "Teachers, social workers, nurses"
Just look at the data by college major:
https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/The-Economic-Value-of-College-Majors-Full-Report-web-FINAL.pdf
Yes, incomes vary by location and position, but the overall numbers are clear. The variation by location is largely cancelled out by housing prices. And workers cannot just choose their position, they need to earn it by years of hard work and applying for new jobs.
Engineering will not go away from automation. It is white-collar administrative jobs that are most threatened. And they have far higher representation by women that engineers do.
Gotta hand it to you. He is probably is his mamma’s boy because he definitely does act like a (mean) girl a lot of the time. That said, he is infinitely less dangerous than a totalitarian FEMALE feminist like say The Cackle would have been because there is nothing quite as chilling as the possibility of a woman running (a woke-feminist/gyno no less) totalitarian tyranny DIRECTLY. Justine Trudeau was more than bad enough as male-feminist totalitarian you-know-what carrying water for the woke-feminist/gyno mob. Let’s hope that some sort of real manhood emerges soon in our fearless leaders or we will all go down the tube together.
Hi Richard,
So... how is this... "DOES HAVING A BOYFRIEND IS EMBARRASING NOW"? (NYT dixit.)
It’s fascinating how Democrats, Soros foundations, and feminist outlets suddenly claim to “care” about men - while still ridiculing them in every other article.
The message changes depending on who’s listening, doesn’t it?
Screw Democrats. There is no other way.
The headline is from Vogue and is actually "Is Having a Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?" which is better grammatically than what was written above.
Thanks for the English lesson... I have made a free interpretation which keeps the sense, not a literal copy