In Part 3.1 of this series, I summarized what Richard Reeves believes the political Left gets wrong about the crisis facing boys and men. In this post, I will summarize what Reeves asserts the political Right gets wrong, as outlined in his book, Of Boys and Men, Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.

There Are Three Weaknesses to the Conservative Approach

Conservatives have paid more attention than progressives to the growing problems faced by boys and men. But their agenda turns out to be equally unhelpful. According to Reeves, there are three weaknesses in their approach.

1. The Right fuels male grievance for political gain.

Donald Trump secured the presidency in 2016 with a 24-point lead among men, the widest gender gap in the half-century history of exit polling. Trump’s margin was 30 points for white men – 62% to 32%.

When Trump said it was “a very scary time for young men in America” (speech in 2018), he was scorned by progressives, but it likely resonated with many men and at least some parents.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri gave a speech (November 2021) to the National Conservatism Conference declaring that “the attack on men has been the tip of the spear of the Left’s broader attack on America.” This hyperbole is neither accurate nor helpful.

But it should be noted: right-wing extremism and anti-feminist sentiments are a global problem. Reeves cites examples in Sweden, Germany, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and the Philippines.

Populist Anger Is Also About Gender

The anger fueling populism is about all kinds of things – demographic changes, secularization, trade, labor market shocks, and more. But it is also about gender.

A third of men of all political persuasions in the U.S. believe they are discriminated against, and the number is rising among Republicans.

Reeves says this is wrong: “while the problems of boys and men are real, they are the result of structural changes in the economy and the broader culture and the failings of our education system, rather than discrimination.” This claim seems like a bit of a half-truth. Reeves has detailed distinct biases against boys and men on many fronts: “changes in the broader culture” (as he asserts) allow for many embedded biases that may undergird real discrimination.

“Rear-Guard Machismo”

Nonetheless, the rise of what author Pankaj Mishra called “rear-guard machismo” (“The Crisis in Modern Masculinity,” The Guardian, March 2018) is being used by the political Right to fuel grievance and find a populist base of male voters. This narrative is wrong for identifying the problems of boys and men and for finding real solutions.

2. The Right gives too much importance to biological sex differences.

This is the mirror image of the progressive tendency to dismiss biological sex differences altogether, says Reeves. But Reeves’s argument here is not strong. He is in the “land of false equivalency.”

The more fervently the Left denies any innate sex differences, the more strongly many on the Right feel the need to insist on their importance.  ~ Richard Reeves

There is probably some truth to that.

The Case of Jordan Peterson

Reeves go after Jordan Peterson to present a case that conservatives put too much emphasis on biology. Peterson claims that social hierarchies are part of the natural order — that mammals are wired to know their place. Reeves says the science for this is not very good, but he does not defend this position with any references. I do not trust Reeves’ opinion on this.

Evolutionary Science Is a Provocation to the Left’s Narrative

Peterson is well-grounded in evolutionary science, even though he can be somewhat abrasive and provocative — at least, that is the label applied to him by those resisting his views. However, watching the “interviews” with Peterson by Left-wing pundits in England, you can see how he is attacked (sometimes two against one) and interrupted. His arguments are dismissed and deflected as if the interviewer did not hear them. There is even one example of an interview with Peterson that has been made into an instructional video addressing fallacious reasoning and vicious rhetorical assaults.

Sometimes Provocation Is Needed

Sometimes provocation is needed. Reeves’s entire book — declaring and further revealing the boys and men crisis, is a provocation to the feminist political framework – more so than his reprimand of the political Right.

Reeves Agrees with Peterson – Aggregate Personality Sex Differences

Peterson points out (as reported by Reeves) that women are more agreeable and conscientious than men, more into people, and more nurturing. Men are more aggressive, status-conscious, and driven by sex, Peterson says. And then Reeves admits this is all true! Peterson is correct, and Reeves agrees.

On Occupational Choice (also See Part 6 on the Pay Gap)

On the issue of occupational choice, Reeves says “Petersonian” conservatives overstate the strength of natural gender preferences. But Reeves has already outlined and made a case (in other sections of the book) for gender-specific differences in aggregate preferences.

Just Too Thin?

Reeves says, in summary, “that conservatives justify gender preference inequalities with biological explanations that are not wrong, just too thin, adding “conservative arguments for the importance of biology in human behavior seem more reasonable when their opponents deny their existence altogether.” Amen to that. But one might say it is Reeves’s argument on this topic that is “just too thin,” or a bit of veiled political cover.

The Left Is More Wrong Than the Right

Maybe the Right does give too much importance to biological differences. But the need for proportionality and the problem of false equivalency seems evident here.
The Left is more wrong than the Right on this particular issue.

3. The Right sees the solution to men’s problems as lying in the past.

Rather than envisioning a different future for men and their families, the Right sees the solutions to men’s problems as lying in the past, sometimes in traditional economic relations between male providers and female caregivers. Rather than help men adapt to the new world, conservatives seduce them with promises of the old. This is a significant error in framing the boys and men crisis and exacerbates the problem of male grievance.

Make America Great Again?

Trump’s appeal was a nostalgic one: “Make America Great Again.” Most of his voters believed that life had gotten worse since the 1950s and that gender had played an important role. Traditional ideas of femininity and masculinity are implicit in the invocation of the past.

Men As Outlaws or Exiles

As described in Part 2.2 of this series, many men are leading haphazard and lonely lives. They are demoralized, unmarriageable, and have lost their hopes and aspirations. They feel dispensable for a good reason.

As early as 1992, George Gilder (Men and Marriage) argued that feminism would render men redundant. “Once women can be both providers and procreators, the need for marriage to a man would decline, leaving them either outlaws or exiles.” This statement was quite prescient.

Unlike Women, Men Have No Role Inscribed in their Bodies

“Unlike a woman, (cautioned Gilder) a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body. The man’s role in the family is thus reversible; the woman’s role is unimpeachable and continues if the man departs. A man without a woman has a deep inner sense of dispensability.”

Not Helpful to Resist Women’s Progress

Conservatives are not helping men adapt to the new world of equality by encouraging them to resist women’s progress.

In 1958 (speaking of prescient), Arthur Schlesinger wrote in an essay titled, The Crisis of American Masculinity, that “the key to the recovery of masculinity does not lie in any wistful hope of humiliating the aggressive female and restoring old masculine supremacy.” If that was true in 1958, it is more dramatically true today.

Flaws of Patriarchy for Both Sexes

Feminism has upended patriarchy, a specific social order that had the fatal flaw of being grossly unequal, says Reeves. I will leave the definition of patriarchy to another day. Still, it is essential to note that men’s freedom has often been stifled by patriarchy — with tightly prescribed roles and oppressive expectations.

Help Men Without Hindering Women

Men do need help. But we can help men without hindering women or trying to turn back the clock. Fatherhood, in particular, should be reinvented for a more egalitarian world. (See upcoming Part 4.2 of this series.)

Conclusion: The Right’s Agenda is Equally Unhelpful

Conservatives have paid more attention to the growing problems faced by boys and men. But their agenda turns out to be equally unhelpful.