From suicide rates to life expectancy to labor participation, men are clearly in trouble. But the crisis runs deeper than the numbers suggest. What are its roots, and how can we address them? Columnists Theodore Johnson and Shadi Hamid talk with Richard Reeves, founder of the American Institute for Boys and Men, about a hopeful way out.
Opinion ‘When men become less critical to a society’s security, masculinity takes a hit’
Men are in crisis. On the latest episode of “Impromptu,” we look for what can be done.
3 min
Use the audio player or The Post’s “Impromptu” podcast feed to listen to the entire conversation.
Play now
NaN min
Follow on
Podcast episode
Theodore Johnson: Richard, you’ve written that we need a positive vision of masculinity that is compatible with gender equality. This summer, we’ve seen different models of masculinity in our politics. There’s [Donald] Trump and his running mate, JD Vance’s brand. And then there’s what we saw recently at the [Democratic National Convention] with Tim Walz and the second gentleman, Doug Emhoff. Let’s pick apart these different models a bit.
Richard Reeves: In terms of what’s on offer right now, I think there’s the performance of different kinds of masculinity. You’re quite right that, with the Republican Party, we’re seeing a very strong bravado type of masculinity.
Up until this point, the Democrats have been really bad at suggesting — not that we need an evolution of masculinity, but sometimes they’ve sounded like we need an abolition of masculinity — that masculinity didn’t need reform, it needed obliteration. And so a lot of men just feel like there isn’t much there for them. So all the discussion right now about men, young men especially, turning to the right, could be mis-phrasing it. How about they’re actually turning away from the left?
And the reason for that could be that they don’t really see very much for them there. They don’t feel particularly tonally welcomed. Now, Tim Walz, and ironically, Kamala Harris (because she’s a woman) might have a bit more space to actually talk positively about masculinity. The question is, is that followed up by substance? Is that followed up by policy?
Johnson: I’ll just be vulnerable for a minute. My sense of men in the past — and this is the sort of the watered down nostalgic version of masculinity — is that they were providers. They provided economic security and they provided physical security. Someone wants to harm your family, a man’s not going let that happen. A man’s not going to let his kids or his spouse go hungry. And so when men become less critical to a society’s security, I think masculinity takes a hit. A crisis can ensue when you don’t feel like you’re there to provide anything, that you’re not offering anything of value.
Shadi Hamid: Ted, I think it’s really powerful what you just said. But I think there’s this concern that when you say things, when any of us says something like “men need to provide for their family and protect them and give them security,” we immediately think that that’s right-coded. Oh, conservatives say that. And that isn’t the way it should be.
Reeves: No, that’s right. But it’s also what people hear when you mention a provider and protector. And actually, today, you can still be a provider. I felt like I was a provider when I was a stay-at-home dad. Because I was providing something else. I was providing comfort to my wife, security that she could work, was doing stuff for the kids. And maybe the protection now is protecting your kids from some of these online influences or other toxic things. You have got to redefine what it means to be a provider and a protector, rather than just say, “Maybe we don’t need men at all — thanks guys, good couple of millennia, we’ll take it from here.”
Listen to the full conversation here:
Play now
NaN min
Follow on
