Olivia: For every 100 bachelor's degrees women earn in the U.S., men earn just 74. Jackson: Whoa, hold on. Seventy-four? I knew there was a gap, but I had no idea it was that wide. That’s a massive difference. Olivia: It is. And this isn't a future projection; it's happening right now. It’s just one piece of a puzzle that suggests we've been looking at gender inequality through only one lens. That staggering statistic is at the heart of the book we're diving into today: Of Boys and Men by Richard V. Reeves. Jackson: Reeves... he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, right? I know his work is highly respected, but tackling this topic feels like walking into a minefield. The book was widely acclaimed, even making it onto President Obama's reading list, but it's also been incredibly polarizing among readers. Olivia: Exactly. And he does it as both a policy wonk and a father of three sons, which gives the book this unique blend of data-driven analysis and genuine personal concern. It's what makes it so compelling and, as you said, so controversial. He argues that the problems of boys and men are structural, not just individual failings. Jackson: Okay, so he's saying this isn't just about a few guys making bad choices. There's something bigger at play in our society. Olivia: That's the core of it. And the first place this crisis becomes glaringly obvious is in our education system. The college gap is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Jackson: I'm still stuck on that 100-to-74 number. It completely flips the script on the typical narrative we hear about who's succeeding in school. Olivia: It does. And Reeves uses a powerful story to show how deep this issue runs. It's about a program called the Kalamazoo Promise in Michigan. An anonymous group of donors decided to offer free college tuition to every student who graduated from the public school system there. Jackson: Wow. Free college for everyone. That’s the dream, right? I assume it was a massive success. Olivia: Well, that's the twist. Researchers at the Upjohn Institute did a deep dive into the results, and what they found was stunning. The program was a huge success... for women. It dramatically increased their college completion rates. For the young men of Kalamazoo? It had zero statistical effect. None. Jackson: That makes no sense. You give everyone the exact same opportunity, the same financial boost, and it only helps one gender? How is that even possible? Olivia: That's the million-dollar question the book grapples with. The researchers themselves were stumped. When they interviewed the students, the young men would say things like, "The motivation for men is just not there anymore," or "Females are just working harder." There seems to be a deeper issue around aspiration, engagement, and what young men see as their path forward. Jackson: So it's not just about money or access. There's a psychological or cultural component that's holding them back, even when the door is wide open. That's actually kind of heartbreaking. Does this crisis show up in other areas, beyond school? Olivia: Absolutely. The book connects these educational struggles to what's happening in the labor market and in public health. For men without a college degree, the economic picture is bleak. The median weekly wage for a man with only a high school diploma is 14% lower today than it was in 1979, after adjusting for inflation. Jackson: Fourteen percent lower? Over forty years? That's a huge step backward. Olivia: It's a massive economic dislocation. And it connects to an even darker statistic. Reeves highlights the work on "deaths of despair"—suicides, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related liver disease. Men account for almost three out of every four of these deaths. It's a silent epidemic, concentrated among men who feel their economic and social footing has vanished. Jackson: So we have boys falling behind in school, men losing ground in the economy, and a literal health crisis of despair. The data is pretty undeniable. Which leads me to the obvious question: if the problem is this clear, why isn't more being done? It feels like a massive political blind spot. Olivia: That's the next major pillar of the book. Reeves argues that the reason we're stuck is because both sides of the political spectrum are failing, but in completely different ways. It’s created a political stalemate where the people who need help the most are caught in the middle.

Jackson: Okay, a political stalemate. That sounds familiar. How does Reeves break down this failure? Let's start with the political Left. Olivia: Reeves argues that progressives, who are typically champions of looking at structural problems, make a critical error when it comes to men. They tend to individualize the problem and pathologize masculinity itself. The main tool for this is the term 'toxic masculinity.' Jackson: I can see that. It's a term you hear everywhere. Olivia: And Reeves tells a story that perfectly illustrates the problem with it. At a very liberal, affluent high school near Washington D.C., a teenage boy created a list ranking his female classmates by attractiveness. It was a stupid, hurtful, adolescent thing to do. Jackson: Definitely a jerk move. Olivia: Of course. But the school's reaction, and the media's, was to frame it as a clear-cut case of 'toxic masculinity.' There were protests, panel discussions, and a huge public outcry. The problem, Reeves argues, is that this label takes a specific bad action and expands it into a condemnation of masculinity itself. It leaves no room for boys to be, well, boys—immature and prone to making mistakes—without being labeled as inherently 'toxic.' Jackson: But hold on, Olivia. Some behaviors are toxic. Misogyny is real. Is Reeves saying we should just ignore that kind of thing? Olivia: That's the nuance that's so important. He’s not saying we should ignore bad behavior. He's saying that the 'toxic masculinity' frame is often too broad and imprecise. It alienates the very boys and men you want to reach. One college student in the book, when asked what he liked about being a boy, said, "I never really thought about that. You hear a lot more about what is wrong with guys." When you constantly tell a group they are the problem, it's no surprise they start to disengage. Jackson: I can see how that would be counterproductive. So the Left's approach is to blame the individual's 'toxic' nature. What about the Right? They seem to be talking more about men's issues lately. Olivia: They are, but Reeves argues their solutions are just as unhelpful. The conservative approach tends to do two things. First, it weaponizes male grievance for political gain. Think of politicians like Senator Josh Hawley, who give speeches about an 'attack on men' from the Left. It generates a lot of anger and a sense of victimhood, but offers few practical solutions. Jackson: It's more about stoking the culture war than solving the problem. Olivia: Exactly. And second, the conservative solution is almost always nostalgic. It's about returning to a past where men were the sole providers and gender roles were rigidly defined. They see the solution to men's problems as turning back the clock. Jackson: So one side says, 'You're the problem, stop being so toxic,' and the other side says, 'The world has left you behind, let's go back to the 1950s.' I can see why you called it a stalemate. Neither of those paths leads anywhere productive in the 21st century. Olivia: Precisely. And that's why the final section of the book is so refreshing. Reeves moves past the blame game and proposes some really bold, structural solutions that don't fit neatly into either political camp.

Jackson: Okay, I'm ready for some actual solutions. What's the most provocative idea Reeves puts on the table? Olivia: By far, it's his proposal for education: we should 'redshirt' all boys. Jackson: Redshirt? Like in college sports, where an athlete sits out a year? Olivia: Exactly the same concept. He proposes that boys should start formal schooling a year later than girls. So, boys and girls would attend pre-K together, but then girls would move on to kindergarten at age five, while boys would get a second year of pre-K and start kindergarten at age six. Jackson: Wait, hold all boys back a year? Systematically? Parents would lose their minds! What about the cost of another year of childcare? Wouldn't they just be a year behind for the rest of their lives? The objections are piling up in my head. Olivia: Reeves addresses all of them. His argument is rooted in biology. The part of the brain responsible for executive functions like impulse control and planning—the prefrontal cortex—develops more slowly in boys than in girls. On average, there's about a two-year developmental gap during adolescence. Starting boys in a structured academic environment before they're developmentally ready sets many of them up for failure. They're seen as disruptive or having attention problems when, in reality, their brains just aren't there yet. Jackson: So this is about aligning the school system with biology, rather than forcing boys to fit a mold they're not ready for. What about the practical issues, like cost? Olivia: The proposal isn't to keep them home for a year. It's to give them a 'double dose' of play-based pre-K. With universal pre-K programs expanding, the cost issue becomes manageable. And the data on redshirting is compelling. Studies show that boys who start a year later have lower rates of hyperactivity, do better on tests, and are much less likely to be held back a grade later on. It gives them a chance to succeed instead of constantly feeling like they're trying to catch up. Jackson: That's a radical idea, but it's based on evidence. It's a structural solution, not just telling boys to 'try harder.' I like that. Are there other big ideas for later in life, like in the workplace? Olivia: Yes, there's a huge one. Reeves points out that the fastest-growing sectors for middle-class jobs are in what he calls HEAL occupations: Health, Education, Administration, and Literacy. Think nurses, teachers, therapists, HR managers. Jackson: Fields that are overwhelmingly dominated by women. Olivia: Overwhelmingly. And these are the jobs of the future. They require social skills, empathy, and organization—the very skills that our current education system is better at cultivating in girls. Reeves argues that one of the most important economic projects of this century is to get more men into these HEAL professions. It would be good for men, who need stable, well-paying jobs, and it would be good for the professions themselves, which would benefit from more gender diversity. Jackson: So we need to break down the social stigma that says a man can't be a nurse or an elementary school teacher. That's a cultural shift as much as an economic one. Olivia: It's a massive cultural project. And it connects to his final point about reinventing fatherhood—moving beyond the provider-only model to one based on a direct, nurturing relationship with children. But it all starts with seeing the problem clearly.

Jackson: What I'm hearing through all of this is that this isn't a zero-sum game of men versus women. It's about recognizing that the tectonic plates of our economy and culture have shifted, and the structures we have in place—from the first day of kindergarten to the modern workplace—are accidentally leaving a huge portion of the population behind. Olivia: That's it exactly. And Reeves's ultimate point, the one that makes the book so important, is that being pro-male is not anti-female. In fact, he argues you can't be for gender equality if you're only concerned with the disadvantages of one gender. True equality has to work for everyone. Jackson: It seems like the most powerful first step is just to have these conversations without fear, to look at the data honestly, even when it's uncomfortable or challenges our preconceived notions. Olivia: That's the call to action. To move beyond the political blame game and start building new structures that allow both boys and men, and girls and women, to thrive in this new world. It's a problem for all of us to solve. Jackson: This is a topic that I'm sure sparks a lot of thoughts and personal stories for our listeners. We'd love to hear your perspective. Find us on our socials and share what resonated with you. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.