The Crisis of Masculinity: A Permanent Structural Shift
The modern crisis facing boys and men is not a passing fad, but a permanent structural shift that is shaking education, the labor market, and the family model. Richard V. Reeves argues that we are facing a fundamental challenge to the capacity of modern societies for self-correction. This issue requires moving away from ideological culture wars toward pragmatic, systemic solutions. In this article, you will learn why the school system favors girls, how automation has transformed the labor market, and why supporting men is a non-zero-sum game that benefits society as a whole.
The Education System Favors the Female Developmental Timeline
The modern, bureaucratized school system has been designed as if all students matured according to a female calendar. Neuroscience confirms that the prefrontal cortex in boys matures more slowly, making self-control and planning more difficult for them. Consequently, Reeves proposes redshirting—a systemic delay of boys' school entry by one year to level their developmental playing field relative to their female peers.
Crucial to understanding these differences is the orchids and dandelions metaphor. Girls (dandelions) are resilient and can bloom even in difficult conditions, while boys (orchids) are biologically more sensitive to stress and the quality of their environment. Ignoring these facts in the name of abstract formal equality ensures that structural aid is better absorbed by women, which deepens real class inequalities.
Automation and HEAL Sectors: A New Activation for Men
Globalization and automation have permanently decimated traditional male-dominated economic sectors. The response to this phenomenon should be a massive redirection of men into HEAL sectors (Health, Education, Administration, and Literacy), which are growing dynamically in aging societies. Global business is beginning to view the crisis of men as a systemic risk within ESG frameworks, as their exclusion generates massive external costs and political instability.
Analysis of corporate models shows that the market will not solve this problem on its own. Israeli high-tech culture, rooted in a military ethos, and French parity engineering often reinforce pressure on men instead of creating space for a new model of fatherhood. Without conscious policies addressing the specific needs of boys, market dynamics will merely reproduce and export these problems worldwide.
The New Role of the Father and Barriers to Implementing Reeves' Proposals
The collapse of the sole-breadwinner model necessitates a reconstruction of fatherhood. Reeves advocates for institutional reforms: non-transferable, paid parental leave for fathers and a child support system that recognizes caregiving time as a form of contribution to a child's upbringing. Unfortunately, public debate remains paralyzed. The Left often reduces men's problems to "toxic masculinity," while the Right offers only anachronistic nostalgia for the patriarchal order.
Similar barriers are visible in EU policy, where men function primarily as allies to women or perpetrators of violence, and rarely as a group requiring support in education or health. However, it must be understood that helping men does not have to be a zero-sum game at the expense of women. It is a logically consistent strategy that strengthens the stability of the entire social system without taking away anyone's rights.
Masculinity as an Ethos of Modern Co-responsibility
Ignoring the disaffiliation of young men leads to the fraying of social bonds and a rise in radicalism. Modern societies cannot afford to produce a generation of "male outcasts" who find no place in the service economy or in egalitarian partnerships. We need the courage to design institutions where men become co-responsible partners rather than ghosts in the machine.
Reeves' vision is a transition from a paradigm of dominance to an ethos of co-responsibility. If this project succeeds, it will benefit not only the lost boy or father but also global business and democracy. Only by including men as full participants in the dialogue can we acknowledge that the great revolution of modernity has become complete.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF