An interesting, critical review of Richard Reeves' book by Aaron Renn: https://ifstudies.org/blog/right-diagnosis-wrong-prescription-richard-reeves-of-boys-and-

An interesting, critical review of Richard Reeves' book by Aaron Renn: https://ifstudies.org/blog/right-diagnosis-wrong-prescription-richard-reeves-of-boys-and-men https://ifstudies.org/blog/right-diagnosis-wrong-prescriptio... A couple of excerpts that summarize Renn's viewpoint: >> The directional similarity of Reeves’ recommendations to the MRA agenda shows why it won’t get much traction. The MRA vision never inspired a material number of men, and neither will Reeves. In part, this is because he wants men to become more like women, a project that will never appeal to ordinary guys. He cites David Gilmore’s very interesting book Manhood in the Making, which is an anthropological survey of how a diverse set of cultures around the world have defined manhood as a distinctive identity that builds on men’s strengths rather than seeks to minimize them. But Reeves rejects Gilmore’s insights. His agenda would be more compelling to ordinary men if he had worked with the grain of Gilmore’s findings on the common themes of manhood rather than against them. >> The second half of his book, then, exemplifies a major problem in American public life—one where ideology prevents us from honestly addressing our biggest social issues—that is not specific to Reeves’ book. The same ideological straightjacket affects pretty much every other area of society as well, from opioids to homelessness. Which is why we have not been able to successfully address any of them. As a society, we must find a way to create the space in which the real sources of and potential solutions to serious social issues can be publicly discussed and ultimately confronted if we actually want to make progress in fixing any of them.