Verified by 
Key points
- Men as a group still have gender advantage in American society.
- Some men, from under-resourced communities, and often from racial and ethnic minorities, struggle in today's economy.
- We should not need to lure men into jobs usually held by women by making those jobs seem tough.
Do we need gender equity policies for men?
Has the gender revolution ignored men? Are feminists so focused on improving the status of women and girls that we have ignored the needs Of Boys and Men, as argued by Richard Reeves in his new, much-heralded book of that title?
What are the facts? When it comes to traditional measures of success in our society, men still far outshine women. Men represent 85% of the CEOs of major international companies. In fact, one study suggested there are more male CEOs named John than female CEO’s altogether. In 2022, only 13% of the billionaires in the U.S. were women. Women now earn more degrees than men, but not as often in the fields that lead to high status and the most well-paying jobs.
The data are clear: Men, as a group, do not need policies to allow them equal access to jobs, economic security, or power in our society.
But some groups of men are struggling and need help to participate fully in our economy and civil society. And to give credit where it is due, Reeves actually offers an intersectional analysis in the middle of his book. Unfortunately, he then forgets that when proposing policies for men writ large. Let us be very clear: Men are not disadvantaged as a group because of their gender.
Men from minoritized racial groups, and those raised in poor neighborhoods who do not attend college, have often been left behind by structural changes in our economy. African American men are more likely to be unemployed than white men. And non-college-educated men are far more likely to be unemployed than college-educated ones. But even if employed, less-educated men, and many men of color, are working at jobs that are unstable and do not provide benefits. Without stable, decent jobs, they are not reliable co-providers for the women in their communities. We see their struggle in decreased longevity and the disproportionate number who die from opioid overdoses. And when men in a community suffer, so do their parents, their girlfriends, their wives, and their children. This is indeed a problem, as Reeves aptly describes.
It is clear, then, that some men are suffering, but not the white men whose college-educated parents expect them to graduate from college along with their sisters. In fact, college-educated white men are likely to marry college-educated women and their combined wages actually contribute to the growing inequality in American society. No need to fret over the boys who are destined to become the men who rule the world.
In his new book, Reeves suggests a number of policy solutions. One is to start boys schooling a year later than girls. He claims that boys develop cognitively slower than girls. But to be persuaded by a biological explanation for boys’ trouble in school, we need evidence of sex differences in readiness for learning across time and space, and amongst all types of boys. Such evidence simply does not exist. There is no reason to default to such an explanation, as single-sex solutions always have a way of rebounding back to supporting male privilege. If boys (or girls) are not ready for first grade, we should make developmental readiness rather than age the entry criterion for all.
Other policies suggested by Reeves in Of Boys and Men are more persuasive. With a shortage of medical workers, why are we not encouraging men to move into all kinds of caretaking jobs, from Licensed Practical nurses to home health aides, to laboratory technicians and emergency-room nurses? We are also short of teachers, and male role models can only be a positive improvement in school settings. Reeves suggests that we encourage men to move into such jobs. This is a policy that makes sense. But most men don’t currently apply for jobs as teachers or nurses, nor do they train for them.
Unfortunately, the current discussion around Reeves’s book presumes a biological gender difference in which women are and should be feminine and men are, and should be, masculine. According to this logic, we need to lure men into HEAL professions by emphasizing how nurses really need to be tough and strong, and how X-ray technicians need to be good with mechanical devices. This masculinizing of jobs in historically female-dominated fields so that men will take them is perhaps a small step forward in the right direction but not one that addresses the root of the problem.
My feminist analysis provides a different strategy to move toward a more egalitarian society. In the conclusion of my book, Where the Millennials Will Take Us, I argue rather than macho-ing up "pink" jobs, we need to get beyond gendering jobs at all. No occupation ought to be considered especially appropriate for men, nor for women. Women have jumped quickly into male-dominated professions because they pay well, but men have remained unemployed rather than apply for women’s jobs. Why do men prefer unemployment to working in a caregiving job? Because gender matters and jobs are not only segregated, they are stratified. What is male is considered more valuable than what is female, and so men resist taking a step down the ladder of respect of gender privilege. The only effective way forward is to root out gender inequality. We must socialize children to be well-rounded human beings, rather than masculine boys or feminine girls. No one should hide her aggressiveness because she is a girl, nor their nurturance because they are a boy.
But we cannot wait for the next generation; we have a problem now. Men’s jobs have more prestige and pay far better than women’s jobs. Let’s try paying caregivers and teachers a living wage and giving the respect that the work deserves. Let’s attack gender inequality in the way our economy operates. Let’s sell nursing jobs to men because they are well-paid and prestigious.
Girls and women have faced oppression throughout history. Some boys and men from under-resourced communities are having serious trouble in post-industrial society. We do not need to masculinize jobs to make them attractive to men because we no longer need our men to be tough and strong. Indeed, we live in a world where the ruling elite are neither tough, tall, nor muscled. Indeed, the elderly white men who still often run the show are none of those. So let’s de-couple masculinity and femininity from job characteristics entirely. In fact, let’s focus on our shared humanity instead.
Let’s imagine a world beyond gender.
