A review by tbrnichols
Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It by Richard V. Reeves

dark informative fast-paced

3.25

Overall I thought the problem statement and the call for honesty about the problem were good. But I think actually existing masculinity among boys was deeply under theorized, leading to a set of policy prescriptions that make little sense to me. Probably would have benefitted from a narrower focus on what solutions would achieve individually (e.g. the focus on CTE seems reasonable, but what are we trying to solve with it and would we not see fewer college bound men if it succeeded?). And I think I would have been open to more facially neutral proposals that happen to fix culture among boys and therefore aid them in schools, rather than just throwing up his hands and saying that neutral proposals mostly benefit girls. Also the education portion seemed much stronger than the labor market or fatherhood portion, both of which seemed to suffer even more greatly from the absence of analysis of the mechanics of masculinity. 

Assorted more specific gripes:
It seems insane to both say that boys are underprivileged in college admissions and that private colleges select for them, why are boys self selecting out of education? Is this a policy issue or a cultural issue?

Similarly, he talks about both men and women being interested in only relationships where men make more, so clearly men are also culpable in creating an inequitable culture where low earning men have no marriage prospects (similarly true for high earning women ofc).

Also more men kill themselves because they are more likely to use violent, efficacious methods, where women are more likely to try and poison themselves and fail. 

The examinations on boys being less mobile and more prone to being negatively influenced by environs feels like solid evidence for "cultural issue" diagnosis, like boys don't reach out to friends as much, are bad at staying in touch because letting a friend know they are important is too gay, boys internalize the violent expectations they are raised around and so fare worse if they are raised in poorer zips, wealthy boys do fine because their culture is softer and more effeminate. 

While his point about gaps and overlaps is well made, the lack of applying it to social forces is confusing: is it applicable to social forces? Does society affect different men differently via their genetics? Their agency? And it seems odd as your signature policy to have a fully gapped policy, redshirting boys, instead of coming up with some metrics to acknowledge the maturity gaps within adolescent genders as well as between them. 

The other policy prescriptions seem also unclear: if one of the indicators of male underachievement and bisiegedness is their absence from higher education, how will CTE and apprenticeships help? Won't these policies lead to even fewer men in HEAL jobs? Why does he think the solution to getting men into heal jobs would be scholarships and not increased wages in those sectors? Why would anyone want to build better infrastructure for men becoming home health aides (or even elementary school teachers) when those jobs suck (recall the new majority of parents actively disfavoring their children becoming teachers)?