A Shocking Turn in the War on Men - Richard Reeves - #1087

**Richard Reeves** (0:00)
What has changed, or how has the debate about boys and men adapted since we last spoke? What's new? I think when we last spoke, I was still frustrated that there was no political space for this. I think people have become aware, things aren't great with boys and men, there was raised awareness of it. But I still felt, maybe particularly on the center left, that it was difficult to actually do anything about it. And that's changed. I used to say, one of my talking points used to be that it was very hard to get people, especially on the political left, to actually do anything about this problem. First of all, we have to get them to talk about it. A, it's a problem. B, we can talk about it. And then C, we can do something about it. And I can't say that anymore. We've got governors, Governor Newsom, Governor Whitmer, Governor Wesmore in Maryland, also Governor Spencer Cox in Utah. All of him have got pretty serious initiatives now to try and promote boys and men. We've got, as I'm speaking to you now, two bills have just been introduced to Congress to create a men's health strategy and office and to help men with their mental health after fatherhood, right? The Men Matter Bill. And there are a bunch of stuff happening in states. And so I can't credibly say anymore, you know what, no one's paying any attention to this. I can't sort of say it anymore, like you're shouting into the wilderness. And I used to say, like, I'm banging my head against the brick wall, especially on the Democrat side of the aisle. That is just not true anymore. And there's some politics behind that, of course. I think I have to be honest that I felt like banging my head against the brick wall with Democrats until November 2024
And then there was an election, and then my inbox started filling up with Democrats. Because they saw how much they'd fallen behind with men, especially young men. I mean, they can read a poll. And there's no question that one of the things that happened in the 24 election was that Democrats lost men, and especially young men, in a very, very big way. And I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the Democrats I've just mentioned and that we're working with are very often also mentioned as potential presidential candidates. And so they've realized that we can't win without young men. So I'm not going to lie, I think there's a political dimension to this, but unlike many people, I don't blame politicians for doing politics. Some of the more men's rightsy people have said about Governor Newsom's initiative, for example, which is a serious initiative. What is it? So he signed an executive order last year saying, telling his administration to come back to him with comprehensive plans to help boys and men in K-12 education, employment, and especially mental health. He's already done a male service challenge. He's done a call to get 10,000 more men in California into service, into mentoring, into coaching. They're following that up with a big push on getting more men into teaching, like male role models in the classroom would be a good idea. It was very interesting that the men's rightsy folks, if I can use that language for now, although I'm on the more conservative side of it, they're just like, oh, he's just doing politics. He's just realized that the Democrats have lost young men, and so he's just doing stuff to try and win their votes back.
Why is that a bad thing? Isn't that how democracies are supposed to work? I just can't say it anymore. I think there's real progress on this. It's serious, not all of it's making it into the culture war, but that doesn't mean that it's not good. In fact, most of it's not in the culture war. It's not being discussed generally, and podcasts or even on cable TV, but it doesn't mean it's not happening. How much is it? Is it a good first step, or is this a really significant move? It's a significant move in the sense that it's the first time we've seen serious political figures and policymakers making serious efforts to address the problem. Right.
It's a significant move in the same way as firing the first shot of a war is a significant move. It's the first thing that happens, and from that, it suggests that more will come after. That's right. The question is, is there substance behind it? Not sufficient yet. No. And I think part of my role and part of my Institute's role is to hold these people to account. It's to say, okay. You said you were going to do that. Yeah. You said you were going to do this. Great. Six months later, we're going to be like, did you do that? Where is the initiative to get more men into mental health care? Governor, what did happen? Did you get 10,000 more men into service? Governor Newsom? Did you increase access to mental health care and paternity leave? Governor Moore? Yes or no. I'm not certainly not saying it's enough, but it is a lot more than we had three or four years ago. I mean, three or four years ago, you couldn't even get people particularly on that side of the aisle even to talk about this problem. When did your book come out? 2022 Okay. So pretty much bang on that. When did Obama endorse it? 2024 Okay. So you're tracking this journey over time. Yeah. Honestly, it's been for us, then we suddenly got a pivot and say, okay, we've now got policy makers coming to us saying, okay, I got it. What shall I do? Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. That was on our 2029 plan, right? Didn't quite expect to catch up this quickly. That's obviously a good problem to have. But we have had to pivot and say, okay, how do we actually help these governors or these senators or these legislators do something about it? My worry honestly is that this will just have a moment. Either it will be driven by the politics or be driven by, suddenly there's this issue, right? Boys and men are being discussed in a way that they weren't before. Sexy to talk about it. Yeah. Where are we going to be five years from now? Five years from now, it might be, I don't know, something else, right? Because these things do have their moments. And the question I'm asking myself is, what will I be able to point to that's still standing, that's still here? And so actually, Virginia is a good example. Virginia is, if the new governor signs it, going to create the first commission on boys and men, to sit alongside the commission on women and girls. Now, it's just a government commission in the state. You might say, great. But what that means is that the issues of boys and men will be at the table in policymaking in Virginia in a way that they weren't before. And that will still be there five years from now if that happens. That's going to get a lion item. It's going to be real. It's going to be institutionalized. And my whole thing, I think we've talked about this before, is I want this issue to become boring. I want this issue to be mainstream. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Guys are falling behind. We've heard it. We've heard it. We know we're working on it. We've got it. Kind of. Yeah. And I want people to say, well, that's why we've got this Office of Men's Health. And that's why we've got this big push on male teachers. We're doing it. What are you talking about? It's mum coming upstairs and telling you to clean your room when you're done. You've got the Hoover in your house. Beds already made. Yeah, exactly. You said that the men's rightsy types don't actually want to win. What do you mean? Well, I've just noticed that when something does happen, something, and it was very nearly a commission in Washington state. I've mentioned the governor's moves. It's that sometimes what will happen with the folks, some of them have been in this field for a long time. And I would say that they come at this from a more conservative or sometimes even a reactionary perspective. It's like they tend to dismiss these efforts. They'll say, oh, sure, there's been an executive order. Sure, they're creating a commission on Boys & Men, but they'll put their people on it or they don't really mean it. These people inside of government, the men's rights? No, no, these are advocates. These are activists. Okay, like commentators. Yes, or people that have been like, there are various groups out there. They tend to be small and not that well-funded and honestly quite often fueled by grievances. Not necessarily illegitimate grievances. I don't want to be misunderstood. But I'm on various conversations with them. I heard this rabbi, David Walpies, his name on a podcast the other day. He said something really struck me. He said, activists are always psychologically reluctant to succeed.