"Demonising Men Is Not A Good Strategy" - Richard Reeves

TL;DR

Richard Reeves argues the feminist movement is slowly recognizing that dismissing men backfires, and that boys and men deserve care unconditionally, not instrumentally.

Key Points

• 1.Feminist spaces are slowly shifting toward acknowledging men's struggles. Reeves observes leaders at feminist conferences now saying they must do better by boys and men, though he objects to the framing that men matter only because helping them benefits women.
• 2.Reeves insists care for men must be unconditional, not transactional. The American Institute for Boys and Men' position is that boys and men deserve to flourish period — just as women's wellbeing isn't justified by economic utility, men's shouldn't be either.
• 3.Political polarization is damaging dating and mating by encouraging mutual blame. The left tells young women their problems are men's fault; the right tells young men feminists are to blame — Reeves calls this a 'colossal waste of political energy' harming relational development.
• 4.Paul Eastwick's 'Bonded by Evolution' argues mate value flattens as you know someone better. Reeves partially agrees that personality, kindness, and character traits revealed over time complicate simple mate-value rankings, but rejects the idea that no one is more or less preferable after years of acquaintance.
• 5.Marriage success is less about who you choose than who you become. Reeves argues the 'marketplace' model fails because it treats matching as the endpoint, whereas long-term relationships are shaped by how partners evolve and treat each other over decades.