I’ve been praising the efforts of several governors over the past year to lift up boys and men—especially Gavin Newsom (CA), Spencer Cox (UT), Wes Moore (MD), and Gretchen Whitmer (MI). All of them have shown they were serious about it. At this point, nobody can credibly claim that policymakers are ignoring the challenges facing boys and men.
But today, I’m all about Virginia. Here the energy has come from the legislature. A bill to create a Boys and Men Advisory Commission—an advisory body within the legislative branch of the Commonwealth—has just passed.
This is a first for the nation; but I hope, and think, not the last. (A similar and promising bill in Washington State recently failed—for reasons I won’t bore you with here.)
The bill’s sponsors—especially Del. Josh Thomas—have been emphatic that the commission will complement, not compete with, the existing Council on Women.
It is striking that, in such a polarized age, this passed with bipartisan support, 40–0 in the state senate and 91-6 in the house.
That level of political unity is remarkable—and worth celebrating for that reason alone.
The Advisory Commission will have a structure similar to the existing Virginia Council on Women, with two key differences: First, it will be housing in the legislature rather than the executive branch (though it will report to both). Second, it has a three-year initial lifespan.
The new 18-member commission will include six legislative members appointed by the Virginia House of Delegates and four appointed by the Senate. The governor will appoint the remaining eight members, including representatives from K–12 schools, community colleges, pediatrics, public safety, and mental health.
The bill also includes a modest budget line of just over $40,000 per year for commissioner and member expenses. Modest though it is, it matters that funding is included through 2029. I actually like the fact that the legislation sunsets the Commission at that point: I think it’s important that these kinds of institutions have to keep showing their value over time. I imagine it will have more than proven its worth by then, but if not it should not continue to draw on taxpayer money and legislative time and energy.
The bill language sets out the work of the Commission:
1. Advise the General Assembly regarding the following issues as such issues relate to boys and men in the Commonwealth: education inequity, economic opportunities, disparity in health outcomes, family life, and the impact of social media use.
2. Undertake studies, sponsor symposiums, conduct research, and prepare factual reports in order to gather information to formulate and present recommendations to the General Assembly relating to issues of concern and importance to boys and men in the Commonwealth, with a particular focus on the issues set forth in subdivision 1.
3. Advise the General Assembly as needed regarding any statutory, regulatory, or other issues of importance to boys and men in the Commonwealth, with a particular focus on the issues set forth in subdivision 1.
4. Submit an annual report to the General Assembly and the Governor for publication as a report document as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports. The chair shall submit to the Governor and the General Assembly an annual executive summary of the interim activity and work of the Commission no later than the first day of the regular session of the General Assembly.
It is vitally important that efforts to support boys and men are not framed as a partisan issue—or as somehow in tension with the necessary work to support women and girls. That is easy to say. It is not always easy to act upon. But the leaders in Virginia just did.
The bill now awaits the signature of the new governor, Abigail Spanberger. It would be surprising indeed if she chose to veto a bill with this level of legislative support—especially one championed by members of her own party.
But I hope the governor sees this as an opportunity, too. Few governors have been as outspoken as she has about the importance of women’s rights. Gov. Spanberger dressed in suffragette white for her inaugural address, declaring:
I maintain an abiding sense of gratitude to those who worked generation after generation to ensure women could be among those casting ballots, but who could only dream of a day like today. I stand before those who made it possible for a woman to also participate in that peaceful transfer of power and take that oath.
As such a powerful advocate for women, Gov. Spanberger is ideally placed to show that supporting women does not mean ignoring men.
This is not a zero-sum game. We rise together.
Virginia gets it.
Who’s next?
This is an important first step but the dangerous period comes next. The question is who will be appointed? Will they be pro-male? Will they be experts on issues having to do with men? Having served years ago as the vice chair of the Maryland Commission for Men's Health I can tell you that those appointed were usually there for reasons other than an interest in men's health. Just a couple of feminists can ruin things very quickly. Plus the supporting staff will likely be less than enthused with the idea of a commission for men and they will respond accordingly. I saw this clearly with the Maryland Commission and that story ended up being a chapter in Janice Fiamengo's excellent book Son's of Feminism
Here's what chatgpt said comparing the Virginia women and men's commissions:
"Virginia’s treatment of these commissions reveals a striking imbalance. The long-standing Virginia Council on Women has existed since 1970 with no sunset clause, and the newer Commission on Women’s Health likewise appears to be a permanent body. By contrast, the new Virginia Boys and Men Advisory Commission is funded at a much lower level and comes with a built-in expiration date of July 2029. In other words, Virginia’s women-focused commissions appear to enjoy permanence and institutional stability, while the men’s commission is being launched on a smaller budget and on a trial basis. That difference suggests that concerns affecting women are treated as deserving an enduring public presence, whereas concerns affecting boys and men are still being approached more cautiously, more temporarily, and with fewer resources."
Congratulations. The conversation you’re leading is making a difference.