message to partisans and a prayer before the election results

If Harris wins...

To the Dems: Congrats! You saved democracy. (Ahh, just kidding; you've been demagoguing it! But with Trump gone, maybe you won't feel like you have to do that anymore? Please? Please?!) You tried to give us Trump, but we appreciate you doing enough to avoid that. You got what you want short-term, but now it's more likely that you'll lose in 2026 and 2028. Harris will probably move to the middle, so it'll be interesting to see how much this upsets the Progressives and Identity Politics folks. 

To the GOP: Thanks for giving us Biden and now Harris. Just imagine how DeSantis or Haley would have crushed either one of them! Hopefully, your fears of her and the elites will not be validated. The good news is that you can shed the Trump baggage and have a vigorous debate between the big-govt populists (since the Dems have given up on the working poor and middle class) and your other factions (small-L libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives). Hopefully, from your relatively deep bench, someone will emerge as a Reagan-like leader for 2028. 

If Trump wins...

To the GOP: Congrats! By choosing Trump, you took a big risk that we would get Harris, but we appreciate you doing enough to avoid the latter. You got what you want short-term, but now, it's more likely that you'll lose in 2026 and 2028. Trump is a lame duck and will be a mishmash on policy, so I'd start lowering expectations ASAP. You might hope for a vigorous debate between your various factions, but your future is now more likely to be populist until current events or a charismatic candidate push you somewhere else. 

To the Dems: Thanks for choosing poor candidates who governed and campaigned poorly, resulting in Trump. Hopefully, your fears of him will not be validated. The good news is that you can start over, shedding Hillary, Biden, and Harris. What's the future of your party? Get ready for some blame-shifting between the power-mongers and the Progressives. And who's on your bench? Maybe Biden and Harris really were your best. (Ouch!) Since you've (ironically) had only one robust and fair democratic primary since 2008, it's difficult to know. But a handful of governors or a smooth/dynamic speaker will probably entice you for 2028. 

Either way: I'm praying/hoping for a split Congress/President result and a large enough victory by the new president to avoid inflaming existing idolatries and to give partisans on one of the two sides to mitigate, eliminate idolatries going forward.  

"Sign Stealers"

On the road to/from the Touchstone Conference and the ND/UL football game, I listened to this episode on Netflix. Key takeaways: 

-"Stealing signs" is allowed within bounds, including hiring people to decipher signs.

-Good sign stealing may add (significant noise) to understanding player quality. (E.g., if you're on a team with good/bad sign stealing, the quality of your play may be less/more than expected.)

-Stealing the sign is one thing, but I wasn't clear how they communicated the info to their own players.

-It was strange that the NCAA acted so quickly on the allegations in the Michigan case. 

-It's noteworthy that UM won (higher-pressure, tougher-opponent) games without the apparent benefit of sign stealing and with Harbaugh sidelined. 

-One wonders the extent to which it played head games with opponents more than making a difference. 

-Modern helmets are now allowed by the NCAA, but would have avoided much/all of this problem. (Why not before?!)

"Am I racist?"-- the movie...

Saw "Am I racist?" on Saturday with Brennan. Good if you're into the topic. Well-done, but left money on the table. Walsh gets in the way too much, especially (big-time) in the opening scene, and misses the op to let them speak for themselves and look sad/funny.

Funniest subtle moment: Walsh redefining "mansplaining" with DiAngelo.

Most powerful moment: African-American Christians talking about race as secondary to love and our identity as humans. (It's a bigger deal to those who make it a bigger part of their identity.)

Coolest question: I'm excited that my daughter loves Moana, but I don't know what to do with the cultural appropriation if she wears the costume at Halloween. What to do?

Most surprising: DiAngelo was quite reasonable/rational-- and the only person who wasn't silly or seemingly in it just for the money (a bunch of cynics or clowns).

Most provocative: DiAngelo seemingly earnest bewilderment at the reparations payment. I don't understand why she described it as "weird" rather than beautiful, interesting, etc. She said, reasonably from her perspective, that such things are systemic, so systemic solutions are required-- except that she tries to persuade individuals all the time in her training/books. (She said she would "process this"-- and again, seemed earnest. Does anyone know if she's said anything serious about this?)

thoughts and principles on responding to transgenderism

Transgender questions (from Chris): Is it genuine? Should they pursue care? Is it a function of sin nature? Puberty blockers, etc. before age 18? 

Short answers: 

Is it "genuine": I think most of it is genuine (at least in its perception), but especially for adults (and especially before the recent social push). 

Should they pursue "care"? I can't recommend it (especially if more intrusive/permanent), but I'm not terribly opposed. 

Should they be allowed to pursue care? Yes. 

Is it a function of sin nature? Well, yes, everything is influenced by sin nature. Putting it differently and borrowing from Kyle: we're all broken sexually (and in other ways too). As always, a failure to understand this is going to lead to all sorts of different (and often unfortunate) inferences and choices. 

Treatment before 18? Probably, with parental consent (especially if the science indicates little/no long-term harm from reversing course later). 

Key principles in play for me: 

-Our temptations and sinful responses always come from some combination of Sin Nature, the World (system), and the Devil. In this realm, the Devil has been happy/gleeful to use recent changes in the World to interact with Sin Nature. 

-Is it sin nature and/or biology, etc.? Yes. As always, it's *much* more important to consider what is done with various "orientations" (from biology, environment, etc.) than having the orientations. 

-Identity is a crucial issue in Christianity. The top priority for a Christian is to have one's identity "in Christ". Other aspects of identity are important, including race, sex, gender, and class (e.g., Gal 3:28, Rev 5:9). But if they occupy the top position (or too high of a priority), then this is idolatry, is damaging to the human person and others, etc. If my top identity is anything else, I'm not in the Kingdom (I Cor 6:9-11) or struggling with idolatry and not comfortable in the goodness of God's Kingdom. 

-Similarly, our bodies and our feelings matter, but can be emphasized too little or too much. 

-We identify with Jesus, in part, through sufferings. We follow Jesus, in large part, through self-denial, sacrifice, putting others first, taking up our cross, etc. Any behaviors or worldviews that reject this out of hand-- or de-emphasize it too much-- are not consistent with following Jesus. 

-Throughout Scripture, there is an emphasis on character over circumstance, finding blessing and contentedness where we are vs. where we imagine we want to be, joy over happiness, staying in circumstances vs. escapism, etc. I Cor 7 is strong on this. My favorite passage/story on this is Dan 3:16-18. There is a time to leave, to change, to flee, etc. (Eccl 3), but we have an unfortunate (albeit understandable) bent toward escapism, grass is greener, utopianism. 

-Likewise, if someone does pursue treatment, then the ideal response going forward is the same: do the best you can with where you are now. 

-In terms of public policy, we draw big distinctions between adults and "children" at various ages-- and we also (almost always) defer to parents over other authorities in raising children. I'm reasonably happy with those policy decisions. That said, the ages are somewhat arbitrary; there are differences in the extent to which science is invoked; good people can disagree on such things; and so on. So, I'm open to various conceptions of where to draw these lines-- as long as people are reasonably consistent. For example, it seems asinine to allow surgeries but to ban conversion therapy-- or vice versa. And it seems ridiculous to allow children full discretion here (especially going around parents), when we don't allow this in many/any other realms. 

-This lines up with Shrier who is fine with transgenderism in adults, but quite worried about it in teen girls. 

brief review of Jean Twenge's "IGen"

-easy read and somewhere between common sense and provocative at times; but a 2017 book; how dated?

-p. 3's summary of topics; p. 9's data sources

-p. 19's less sex, HW, reading, work, and sleep; less dating; less alcohol until college; later driver's license and ask for money vs. allowance; more TV/videos and fewer movies; less time with friends (more likely to be with parents-- and vice versa); less religion (except blacks-- 133; similar #'s with college-ed dad-- 134). Related, see: Derek Thompson in The Atlantic on the decline in "hanging out".

--> activity: internet and social media, especially for girls (self-present, less happy, lonelier, depression, anxiety-- despite more anti-depressants), less homicide but more suicide; for boys, video games; See: my review of Abigail Shrier's excellent book on this in the context of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and transgenderism, especially in young girls. Shrier has written a follow-up on the connection of therapy and kids failing to "grow up" (reviewed here).

--> big emphasis on safety (ch. 6); 312's "physically safest and most mentally fragile"

--> independent and libertarianish (ch. 10), except abortion and subsidies for child care and college

--> RX's: phone control, get out more, exercise, grow up and stretch

Jonathan Haidt has weighed in on a related topic in the past-- in a book with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind (reviewed here). And Haidt has a new book on "the anxious generation" (reviewed here and here-- and excerpted here. 

trying to meaure the impact of Covid-era restrictions on mortality

Good research that's worth a look if you understand empirical work and are interested in the topic. It's really good work, as far as it goes. The authors find that restrictions had efficacy, but some restrictions (e.g., in schools) were not likely to be a net gain. Some limits/concerns:

-They use cross-sectional data when panel data would be far superior.
-They knock out the early months/deaths of the pandemic. This makes the modeling easier, but will definitely skew the results. (As a thought experiment, imagine a world where Covid kills off all the vulnerable people in the early stages. Restrictions will have exaggerated effectiveness.)
-Their decision (and stated reasons) to drop (only) the earliest wave is arbitrary, since the later waves also had significantly lower fatality rates, treatment protocols, etc.
-The authors talk about this, but it's difficult if not impossible to tease out the impact of vaccine availability and decisions on the dependent variable here.
-The authors mention Covid being listed as "the underlying cause", but they ignore the trouble with identifying Covid as the true underlying cause.
-The estimated values of human life (p. 10) seem to be independent of age, when there is tremendous sample selection bias in the ages of those who died.

our trip to Boston and Maine

This summer, Tonia and I took Brennan and Daniel to Boston and Maine on an eight-day trip from July 30 - August 7. (We left eight days after my return from Zambia, July 12-22, so it's been a wild month!) With "the boys" getting older, it's become more challenging to do any sort of family vacation-- in terms of their interest and availability. We thought we'd do this trip as a couple, but we offered it to the boys, thinking we'd take 'em if we got two or more. We got two, so it became a family trip instead of a getaway for me and T!

I was excited to knock out the last of the contiguous states. (Tonia is still missing a few. I don't know when we'll get to those. But we hope to do Alaska next year and then maybe Hawaii on my next sabbatical.) Far beyond merely completing a list, the trip surpassed my (high) expectations. I'm not sure we can beat our trip from SF to Glacier in 2016. But this fits with other excellent vacations we've taken: New York State in 2011, SD and eastern CO in 2012, and Arizona in 2020. (We've taken many smaller trips that were roughly equivalent to each other: Chicago, NC/SC twice, Atlanta/Florida, Michigan twice [mostly southern and northern], St. Louis/Memphis, and Chattanooga.) 

I really wanted to (finally) see a game in Fenway Park. I had been to 20 major league parks and more than 200 major league games. Problem: nobody else in my family likes baseball at all. So, after we flew in on Tuesday afternoon and grabbed dinner in a Japanese restaurant, we walked the mile from our hotel to Fenway; I stayed and they spent the evening walking around downtown Boston. I got a seat on the 13th row for $100 (including $28 in Vivid Seat fees). I arrived early and walked all around the park-- from the location of Ted Williams' longest home run to the top of the Green Monster. I sat beside a couple from Nashville and a family of three from SC. Good times in a great stadium! (As for the game, Rafael Devers was impressive at the plate, but defensive gaffes by the Sox led to a Mariners' victory.)

The next morning, we did a guided tour on the "Freedom Trail". It started at "Boston Common"-- a lovely, but much smaller version of Central Park in NY. (TB&D had spent some time there the night before; Tonia and I returned on our last night.) We did the 90-minute "Walk into History"; our guide was entertaining and otherwise effective, dropping knowledge on us along the way. My favorite factoid: Georgia's gold was taken at the end of the Civil War to replace the bronze on the dome of the Massachusetts State House.

The tour ended in a light but steady rain at Faneuil Hall/Market. We went into the Hall, an historically important building with an enormous and famous painting/frame of Daniel Webster they were restoring. We got lunch across a courtyard (in an entire/large building of restaurants) and then walked to four other historical stops: Paul Revere House; Old North Church; USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides"); and Bunker Hill monument/museum. All of them were at least solid; none of them took a ton of time to see; the first two were inexpensive and the second two were free. We all agreed that the church and the ship were the most interesting. If you want a physical challenge, the 294 steps to the top of the BH monument should be on your list.

From there, we Uber'ed to the amazing Mapparium at the Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) Museum. It's a huge, stained-glass globe depicting the world in 1935. You walk through it on an elevated platform and it has cool/amazing acoustics. Then, we went across the street to Bodega-- what looks like an ordinary convenience store, but with nice clothes/shoes in a room behind a sliding door in the form of a soda machine! 

After a quick dinner, we Uber'ed to the JFK Presidential Library, which turned out to be open late and free the day we were there! It's an impressive building with beautiful surroundings on the water. It's funny that Tonia and the boys were not excited about visiting; they thought it was only a library, so their expectations were easily exceeded. It was good to read about his life and presidency.

I'd say the closest comparison is to Clinton: a mess morally (none of which is described in the museum, of course) and a mixed bag on policy, but overall relatively effective. I'd probably rate him even with Clinton, well behind Reagan, but maybe the best since then back to Coolidge. I'm not sure what to think about the Peace Corps. (They apparently do a lot of good work with minimal taxation, but is it a role for govt? Bottom line: not something that's high on my list of things to fight!). His supply-side tax cut is impressive; he was the original "supply-sider" in reducing the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. (Reagan and the Dems cut it to 28% in the 1980s.) His foreign policy is probably most notable: his stand in Berlin and his work during the Cold War vs. the Bay of Pigs fiasco and extending the effort in Vietnam.

After our time in Maine, we returned to Boston and caught the Harvard Museum of Natural History. It wasn't on my list originally, but the cooper at Strawbery Banke recommended the "Glass Flowers" exhibit highly-- and he was absolutely correct. Along with getting to see the animals, rocks, and the bias on climate change, it was definitely worth a stop, along with a bit of hanging around the campus of Harvard.

Heading out of Boston up the coast, we stopped in Portsmouth, NH. (Yes, NH has a ten-mile strip of coastland!) We saw Strawbery Banke-- a sibling of Colonial Williamsburg or Ford's Greenfield Village in Detroit-- with period buildings, furnishing, costumes, and actors. The USS Albacore Navy sub was ok-- and good if you haven't seen something like it before. (We have, so the value-added was not so high.) Portsmouth is a nice little town too, with ops for meals, shopping, and walking around.

Moving into Maine, we saw our first lighthouse in York. The Nubble LH is popular in pictures and art-- and quite lovely. You can only survey the grounds, but it's definitely worth the brief stop. From there, we drove to Ogunquit, a nice but busy beach town. Kathleen Turner was in a local theatrical production (!) and the traffic was otherwise rough. The highlight there for us was the "Marginal Way"-- a beautiful mile-long path between the homes/resorts and the ocean shore. From there, we drove to Kennebunkport, a ritzy town and home to the Bushes at "Walker's Point Estate". We didn't stop in town, but really enjoyed seeing the amazing houses on the coast.

We spent the night in Portland and then hit the Holy Donut first thing in the morning. (We were warned to go early because they can run out. We got there about 9:30 and had full choice.) They have creative flavors of potato-based donuts. Our family generally liked them, but some of us more than others. We visited the Spring Point Ledge LH-- a solid lighthouse and a breakwater where you can walk into the bay on top of huge rocks. (The purpose of the "breakwater" is to break the water that comes in from storms.) The Portland Head LH is the oldest and often rated the best. Like most of the others, you can only go on the grounds, but they also had a good museum and some good, light hiking. Then, we headed downtown for lunch and to shop at Siempre Mas and other stores.  

Just outside of town, we thoroughly enjoyed the Mackworth Island Hiking Trail-- a highly-rated light trail where you can look over the bay to Portland for half of the stroll, and enjoy quietness in the woods and on the water throughout. Then, just a bit northw, e saw "Eartha" in Yarmouth: another huge globe-- this one, modern, spinning, and employee-produced-- at the headquarters of Garmin (GPS). (They are supposedly open M-F 9-3, but we were still able to get inside at 4:30. Even if not, you can see/enjoy it from outside the building well enough to make the brief stop.) 

After Portland (and vicinity), the trip changed a bit. I'm used to miles = minutes, when traveling on highways. In Maine (and coastal areas more broadly), you can take the interstate. Or you can use "Route 1" (or somesuch), which is quick in rural areas but slow through the frequent small towns. And then you have ops to get off of Route 1 and drive to the coast to see the sites. In any case, the miles don't translate easily to minutes.

As such, we headed to Freeport, a small town with ritzy shopping. We were there for a quick visit to the original LL Bean (open 24/7). We wrapped up the day at Bailey Island with the Giant's Stairs (very cool), before getting a great seafood dinner (more later) and heading to Brunswick to spend the night. (Justin and Ashley Weece are doing a church plant there and Brennan got to have breakfast with his friend Haley the next morning.)

The next day, we hit Pemaquid Point LH, including a really nice little local art museum and an op to get out on the rocks again. Then, we went to Marshall Point LH with its famed wooden walkway to the lighthouse (recently disabled by a winter storm). Why is it famous? Forrest Gump runs to Santa Monica pier (which we happened to see on our most recent big trip!) to this lighthouse before stopping abruptly. Then, we went to Owls Head LH at Penobscot Bay. (Unfortunately, there were no volunteers staffing it that day, so we could only see it from the outside.) Then, we went to Rockland Breakwater-- a nearly-one-mile walk on huge rocks to a lighthouse at the end. The lighthouse isn't much (compared to the others), but the walk on the breakwater was crazy. (We also got to see a wedding at a resort nearby.) Prepping for Acadia NP the next day, we drove to our hotel in Trenton and on the way, saw the quirkiest thing on this trip: "Wentworth's Iron Art" (1069 Bar Harbor Rd).  

Acadia was as amazing as advertised. (In prepping the trip, I was surprised to hear about so many people going to Maine, but not getting to Acadia. Afterwards, I can only express regret at them missing it!) Beautiful in many different ways; pictures don't do it justice (as is often the case with such things). Large enough (and not always marked well enough) that it was sometimes difficult to comprehend where you were and what to do.

Bar Harbor was surprisingly good-- a lovely town with nice restaurants and shopping, not too much traffic, good views on the water. (They also have an island you can reach by foot during low tide, but we didn't do it.) On the island, we didn't stop at any other small towns except Northeast Harbor, where we encountered two rip-offs: I was over-charged at a candy store-- and they were handing out parking tickets like candy with virtually no signage. (I thought about asking the attendant how I could contribute to helping them buy more signs.) The Bass Harbor Head LH was fine (the only one with a red light) and the drive around the western part of the island had its moments.

Of (hiking) note, the Jordan Pond Trail was great and the Gorham Mountain Trail was really good. At the top of the Jordan Pond Trail, you could get to Bubble Rock. This was the highlight of the trip for the boys, but Tonia couldn't manage one part of the hike, so we had to stop short. (Approaching Bubble Rock from the other direction would have been manageable.) It's noteworthy that Acadia has such a wide range of trails. In addition to Bubble Rock, Bee Hive Loop is famous but apparently, even more "strenuous". But there were also a ton of easy trails for strolls/hikes, especially along the ocean.

From Acadia, we drove back to Boston (by interstate), enjoyed a bit more of the big city, and flew out early the next morning. Our travel arrangements were modestly interesting: non-stop flights to/from Boston with Delta, Uber and rail in Boston, and a rental car (from Hertz) when not in Boston. You can have a car in Boston, but parking is expensive overnight.

Lodging was really expensive-- in Boston and at least during the Summer in Maine (what about Fall and Spring?)-- rivaling what we found on our trip to SoCal. I usually rely on Hotels.com and then Google if needed. Knowing what I know now-- and seeing so many hotels, motels, cottages, etc. in Maine that aren't on the big websites (seemed like every 4th or 5th building)-- I probably would have pressed into the internet search with a little more granular work.

Two notables here: First, we stayed at The Arcadian in Boston three nights. It was excellent, reasonably priced, close to downtown, modern in tastes, and thus, a business model I don't fully understand. If you want to be near downtown, it was easily the best choice. Second, we stayed in an AirBnB in Appleton-- in a really nice tent at a Water Buffalo farm. (We had a rough cabin option also, but Tonia chose the tent.) We were looking at more than $300 for an ehh hotel, so I tried AirBnB-- and didn't find much, but found these. We did have modest trouble with bugs (only happened twice on the trip-- and never major.) It was a cool and memorable experience-- that would have been excellent if a bit cooler and without rain the next morning.

We also had some noteworthy food moments. We had steak (with onions) and eggs at McD's. Our second-best meal was at the Thirsty Whale in Bar Harbor. I got Clam Chowder and a Lobster Roll; the others got Blackened Fish and Chips. Our best meal was at Cook's Lobster and Ale on Bailey Island. Brennan and Daniel tried lobster and clams for the first time. (Their verdict: lobster excellent; clams ok/good.) Tonia and I had excellent side dishes to keep the bill more reasonable!

All in all, a great trip! After the fact, I was really happy with my research and planning. Before we went, despite my work to figure it out, I was still uneasy going into it. I was never quite sure what to do with Maine, but I settled on five days and was pleased with the results. I can imagine as few as four days (a day less in Acadia or a quicker trip with fewer stops to get there) and I can imagine as many as seven days (adding another day in Acadia and going further up the coast, to the Culver/Bold Coast trail [supposed to be amazing] and then another half-hour to Lubec on the border with Canada). I hope you get there someday!

 

Maybe next time / worth considering:  

-In Boston, we didn't swing by the original Cheers bar and I don't remember seeing the Edgar Allan Poe statue. We walked by the Coolidge Corner movie theater a few times-- and the boys thought about watching Long Legs-- but it didn't pan out. I caught the game at Fenway, but couldn't swing the tour of the stadium. 

-On the way north, we didn't sample The Franklin [for its oysters], Ray's Seafood [for calamari and lobster rolls], or Petey's. We didn't catch the Art Museum in Ogunquit. We didn't do the Stephen King tour in Bangor.

-At Acadia, Tonia was struggling and the path was crowded, so we didn't do the famous "Bee Hive Loop". We went to Bar Harbor, but did not walk to the nearby island at low tide. Cadillac Mtn looked great, but would be a chunk of a day. If you go, you need a reservation and should dress really warm, especially if you're trying to see the "1st sunrise" [well, for at least much of the year vs. Mars Hill]).

Too far away: 

-We strongly considered hiking the Cutler / Bold Coast Trail and driving a bit further to Lubec (the far-eastern point of the US). But ultimately, we decided to avoid four more hours of driving and to spend more time in Acadia-- a wise choice for us, given five days. 

-There's a ton to see in the middle of the state, but we were on the coast. If we go back and range away from the coast, then we'll consider Mt. Kineo, Gulf Hagas / Katahdin, the 8 Waterfalls Loop, RoadKill Cafe in (Greenville), the South Solon Meeting House, and the Fawcett's Toy Museum in Waldsboro. 

-If we end up seeing NH and VT, we'd consider Flume Gorge (NH); the Trapp family lodge and the original Ben & Jerry's (Stowe, VT). 

-In Massachusetts, I still have Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard on the list (including the Black Dog Tavern), along with Lexington & Concord (Revolutionary War; Walden Pond), and Salem (get a tour guide).

review of Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men"

In his book Of Boys and Men, Brookings Institution scholar Richard Reeves brings welcome attention to the struggles of men and boys in contemporary society. (He focuses on American society, but sporadically notes that this is a general phenomenon in developed countries. From the limited international data and anecdotes, it seems likely that American problems are worse.) He has a clever opening line—that his concern for his own boys has bled over into his day job, into worries about boys and men in society (x). He revisits the same angle in his conclusion, noting that even staunch feminists are concerned for their own boys (183). 

Reeves hopes to add to a sporadic literature (x) and normalize the topic. In a word, he does a terrific job in discussing the problems of boys and men with respect to education, labor markets, and family. But his proposed solutions are less impressive, suffering from the inherent limits of public policy, sins of commission (unwarranted optimism about some well-intentioned proposals), and sins of omission (a reluctance to discuss certain problems/solutions).  

Reeves notes that society and elites often focus on race, class, and gender. But the focus on gender rarely includes men, despite obvious problems for men revealed by traditional metrics. Analysis, reporting, and levels of concern are wildly inconsistent between the genders. Likely reasons include inertia, ignorance, and lack of imagination. In covering his flank, Reeves cites another cause: that defense of men is often seen as an attack on women. He is careful to say (repeatedly) that one can be in support of both men and women—that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. In a word, it should be women and men, rather than women vs. men. (As an aside, Reeves argues for [only] two genders, while describing other expressions of genders as exceptions to this rule [89, 121]. It was reasonable to avoid the topic of transgenders in women's sports, but it's unfortunate that he doesn't at least mention Abigail Shrier's fine book with its focus on gender.) 

In part, this is related to a broader fallacy—conflating the win/win of economic markets with the win/lose of political markets. Ironically, people often ignorantly imagine a zero-sum economic world, while somehow perversely imagining a positive-sum political world. Although counterexamples are possible in both realms, these exceptions only serve to illustrate the rules. Given the subtle and long-term costs of government intervention, this is an easy but regrettable and immensely damaging intellectual mistake to make.  

In terms of the rhetoric, a related issue is the inconsistent use of terms such as "systemic racism". Even when the concepts are defined in a coherent manner, they are rarely applied consistently. (When those wielding the term won't start such a discussion with government's K-12 education and the impact of welfare policies on family structure and stability, you can know that you're dealing with a rube or someone who thinks you're a rube.) In the context of gender, we might imagine a concept such as "systemic genderism". But even if so, Reeves would argue that it would usually be applied only to women.  

Reeves is also really helpful on the relevant basic statistical concepts. We often hear comparisons of averages/means, without understanding the overlap in the underlying group distributions (24). Even if group X has higher average outcomes than group Y, it can still be quite likely that any given individual in group Y will have better outcomes than any given person in group X or even the average X. Averages matter, but don't get too excited about them.  

In Chapter 1, Reeves details the struggle of boys and men with education: fewer AP courses, lower GPA's, lower graduation rates from HS and college, and fewer study abroad experiences. Women have made remarkable strides in higher ed, especially in grad school. Another concern, looking forward: males struggle more with on-line education (4). Interestingly, the federal government does not require states to report data by gender (7-8), when it does for race, class, and other factors. As for explanations of these gender gaps, Reeves emphasizes biology and the timing of brain development (8-11). But he also asserts an "aspiration gap"—a fuzzy but likely difference in the hopes and goals of men and women these days (17).   

In Chapter 2, Reeves turns to the world of work, including sobering numbers—e.g., one-third of men ages 25-54 with a high school education are not in the labor force (19). He notes that women's wages have risen while men's have declined slightly (23). While it's useful to see the contrast, ignoring other forms of compensation is a common but regrettable compromise. 

Reeves notes that the overall gender pay gap is "math not myth" (26), but then asks the more important question: why? Here, he thankfully goes beyond univariate analysis, focusing on women's frequently-intermittent labor market focus in child-bearing years. For decades, childless men and women have had equivalent labor market outcomes.  

In terms of men's labor market struggles, he points to automation and trade—causing increased labor market competition, especially in male-dominated fields. Exacerbating the problem: women have moved into male-dominated fields (notably, in STEM [science, tech, engineering, math]), while men have not returned the favor (notably, in HEAL [health, education, admin, literacy]). 

In Chapter 3, Reeves discusses family and culture, including noteworthy numbers (e.g., 30% of wives outearn their husbands) and sobering stats (e.g., 40% of all children are born into non-married households, but the percentage is much higher in lower income classes [35]). "The separation of men from women too often means the separation of fathers from children. This is bad for men, bad for women, and bad for children." (41).  

Ironically, expectations of prospective husbands have been static, especially among the lower income classes where the drop-offs have been particularly severe—what he calls "culture lagging economics" (36-37). Reeves says that women's places in society and economy have changed, while men's have remained stagnant. He argues that a change in expectations for men is appropriate given the changes for women—and thus, men.  

Reeves will discuss welfare later, but one would hope for a significant mention of this by now in the book. The fact is that government has become a substitute for men, given payment incentives to be unmarried. And there is a connection between women's welfare and men's work as well. To the extent that men can mooch on women in relationships, the incentive to work is reduced. Another omission: Reeves discussed education in chapter 2, but there is little or no effort to connect poor educational outcomes (in government schools) to the job market woes in chapter 3.  

Reeves is also interested in "intersectionality" (46)—how gender intersects with race, class, etc. in chapters 4-5. In terms of class and gender, "deaths of despair" (from Case and Deaton) are three times higher for men than women—and these problems are concentrated in the lower income classes (60). Men have 70% of the opioid deaths, with half of prime-age males out of the labor force on prescription pain medicine in 2016 (62). Men are three times as likely to commit suicide (63). Here, welfare gets a brief mention—that women see men "as just another mouth to feed, an inversion of the men's expected role." (64)  

Reeves cites Sawhill's research (65) on class, marriage, and births in/out of marriage, but he should have referenced Murray's powerful work, Coming Apart. (He does cite Murray's Human Diversity on gender later—as "a thorough, mostly balanced, summary". [125]) One irony: the women with the most independence are far more likely to get married and stay married (65). "I don't think Gloria Steinem or anyone else thought that this was how things would unfold." The impact of tough neighborhoods and peer effects is stronger for boys (70). The impact of family structure on educational outcomes is also rougher for boys (71).  

With Trump's choice of J.D. Vance, class will continue to be a political factor, at least from the GOP side. (If you haven't read it or seen the movie, Hillbilly Elegy is worth a look.) Still, far more could have been said here. Reeves notes the impact of family structure on children, but provides few cites about that impact, especially on boys. This is unfortunate (and telling), since the literature on single-parent households and children (especially boys) is voluminous, powerful, and not at all surprising. Reeves goes light here—and barely works to close the loop with respect to the welfare policies that have contributed significantly.  

In terms of race and gender, Reeves points to educational outcomes (50) and to prison and the War on Drugs (53). Again, the inconvenience of the simplistic ideological metrics is in play here again: "There is a real reluctance to focus on the particular challenges faced by Black boys and men...[it] doesn't fit into the binary models of racism and sexism that many are comfortable with." (58) He notes in passing that "Black boys seem to benefit even more than others from engaged fatherhood" (56), but the attention devoted to this key variable is too little. 

As with gender by itself, the cherry-picking extends into “intersectionality”. Again, the answers are "inconvenient" and thus, usually ignored. "Class warriors downplay gender concerns...gender warriors play down class concerns...But inequalities of class and gender have to be considered together, especially when they pull in opposite directions." (61) The same holds true with race and gender (along with class): when black women are doing much better than black men and even white men, what are gender or race ideologues to do?  

 

In chapter 7, Reeves turns to the role of biology. He notes that men tend to be more aggressive/violent and more likely to take risks and engage in heroism (89-92). Men are more interested in sex (93), so getting rid of "sex workers" is wishful thinking. (He recommends decriminalizing prostitution.) And then he goes "intersectional" again, noting the interplay between gender, culture, and family structure (94-95).  

 

In chapters 8-9, Reeves throws hammers at both the Left and the Right. He claims that the Left makes too little of biology, while the Right makes too much of it. The aversion to science on the Left is odd and noteworthy, given the prevailing rhetoric and conventional (incorrect) wisdom on such things. Again, differences in groups don't necessarily imply differences between individuals. Moreover, differences don't have to be universally good/bad. And even if so, bad differences for one group can easily be offset by good differences within the same group. His conclusion: "Denying science altogether is not useful...The rather boring truth is that masculine traits are more useful in some contexts and feminine ones in others." (87) 

 

Reeves finds "toxic masculinity" to be an unethical, inconsistent, and impractical term. Unethical in slandering immaturity and naturally-occurring traits. Impractical in pushing boys to the "online manosphere" instead of engaging them in dialogue—and driving men to the opposing political and ideological side. Inconsistent in that the same terminology is not applied to girls who behave badly. He also notes that the Left inverts its usual penchant for blaming external factors rather than the individual. Bottom line: the Left is only willing to talk about gender when it comes to women's disadvantages. This is intellectually dishonest and not helpful to society.  

 

Perhaps someone from the Left would critique aspects of his argument (although I didn't catch anything). In terms of the Right, it's mostly fine, except for his strange insistence on their advocacy of "traditional marriage" rather than merely marriage. I'm sure there's some of the former within the Right, but I don't see it as a major player. I'm not sure whether he sees the world this way or was merely looking for a convenient dichotomy to look unbiased. He does make an interesting point about marriage—that it worked in the past, while reducing autonomy of both men and women (34).  

 

Reeves also pokes at conservatives for not having good policy ideas. But this is mostly the pot calling the kettle black. In chapter 6, he notes that policy doesn't generally work well in this realm (77). In chapters 10-12, Reeves turns to policy in education, labor, and family, but leaves the (educated) reader feeling less than satisfied. Political leadership is bereft (184), so this should encourage more realism than wishful thinking from Reeves. In any case, there is little that government can do; these are largely cultural matters. Related: Reeves points to the possibility of Affirmative Action for men in education (14-15), but notes that this can't be a long-term solution. Another odd omission: absolutely no mention of the Church (and the relevant literatures).  

One last point: Reeves points to gains for women since Title IX (3). But it's not clear the extent to which those gains are caused by vs. merely correlated with Title IX. An irony: to the extent one thinks it's causal, then they should now be eager to advocate government remedies for men in some settings. If not, we're back to the sort of inconsistencies one often sees in these realms. 

We must do better. But the solutions are largely individual and cultural—and surely, even for a secular social scientist, the Gospel and the Church have a significant role to play. At the end of the day, Reeves' book is really good at pointing fingers, but not so much in helping us find answers. 

(Here's Aaron Renn interviewing Reeves.)