You might have seen my Tiktok about this article from the New Yorker: what’s the matter with men? Or rather, these two men? The author of the book, and the reviewer. The latter calls this book cogent (logical, convincing), let’s remember that for the remainder of this little analysis.
The core of the article is that women are doing very well in school, while men are falling behind or dropping out, are becoming incels, “are powering the new brand of reactionary Republican politics”, and that according to them, this perceived imbalance is an “affront to biological determinism” and a “threat to an entire social order”. In other words, women are good in school which leads to misogyny. I thought it would go further than that, it doesn’t. However, according to Richard Reeves, the author of the book reviewed in the article, now that women have “taken over”, it’s time to shift the focus for gender equality from girls to boys.
Reeves says men drop out of school more, go to work less, and fail to perform their paternal obligations. Interesting idea. But exactly what paternal obligations were they performing in the past are they not adequately perfoming today? Were women not always taking care of the home and the family? The burden of child rearing has always, and still does, fall to women. Then, only a bit farther in the article, this quote appears: “domestic arrangements favor men. Within occupations, there’s often no wage gap until women have children and reduce their work hours”. Reeves then argues that having kids usually changes nothing for men at work. A lot of contradictions in very little time.
The main problem is that the article focuses almost entirely on the fact that women outperform men in school. And that’s it. That’s their whole argument as to why women are now ahead of men. And how could it not be? Because in reality, women do not dominate in the higher spheres of society. It even says so in the article. They don’t do better at work (wages are lower for women, as previously said), they’re not most CEOs or politicians. But somehow, since women now earn more degrees, the fight has been won.
And this is my favorite quote from the book author : “as far as I can tell, nobody predicted that women would overtake men so rapidly, so comprehensively, or so consistently around the world.” Of course not. Because men don’t think women are smart and capable. Or that women are people. Also, around the world? Did we collectively dream what is currently happening in Iran? I wonder if Richard Reeves knows anything about history outside of the United States. Or anything on current events.
The fact of the matter is, you want men to do better? How about asking them to help themselves and each other? You think women got here today by magic? It’s called feminism. It’s called working hard to achieve liberation. It’s still happening today, no matter what these two men think. Nowhere in the article do they mention feminism or patriarchy, except when Reeves points out that we live in a “postfeminist world”. The reviewer also never suggests that perhaps men should reflect on themselves.
Because we do better in school, incel and white supremacy terrorism is on the rise. men love to say they’re not feminists, that patriarchy doesn’t exist, but then ask us to do the work again to help them? When your reaction to women doing better than before is more violence and renewed oppression? It’s time men take accountability for themselves and their peers.
--
view on the blog