Richard Reeves describes himself as a feminist yet positions himself as an advocate for men and boys. It’s a ridiculous position because feminism is (as we all know) the pursuit of female supremacy and inevitably results in harm to men and boys (and most women and girls, come to that).
In 2022 Janice Fiamengo published an excellent article on her Substack channel, a critique of Reeves’s then recently-published Of Boys and Men. It was titled, Saving Men from Feminism in order to Save Feminism Is a Lousy Idea. An extract should give you a flavour of her piece:
“What is required, according to Reeves, “is a simple change in mindset, recognizing that gender inequalities can go in both directions.” While acknowledging that such a change will not be easy, Reeves calls on those he claims to be “the strongest advocates for gender equality, many of whom are on the liberal side of the political spectrum, to take a more balanced view.” Ouch. Here the woeful inadequacy – even incoherence – of Reeves’ blinkered perspective becomes sadly evident. While I heartily commend Reeves for his compassion for boys, his inability or unwillingness to admit that feminism and progressivism are the problems – not the solutions, as he suggests – is an all-too-familiar fatal flaw.”
Which brings me to Is there hope for gender equality? A conversation with Richard V. Reeves and Gloria Steinem. It’s just been published on the website of the innocuous-sounding American Institute for Boys and Men, of which Reeves is the President.
Against my better judgement I started to read the typescript of the discussion between Reeves and Steinem but gave up after this:
Richard Reeves: Yeah. Stephanie Stan Cheever’s work suggests a rise in zero-sum thinking. In other words: if one group rises, that must mean another group falls. So if you want women to do better, then it means you have to be indifferent to—or even celebrate—the struggles of men, because it’s like one or the other, right? And then the same the other way around.
And that’s not the spirit of the women’s movement that you’re the leader of.
Gloria Steinem: No, absolutely not.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Gloria Steinem is a bitter, man-hating, unhappy, hypocritical and discontented old hag that has been a sworn enemy of men and traditional families for many decades. Gloria’s mommie spent many years in mental institutions. Richard Reeves strikes me as a pretty boy cuck. No, there’s no hope for gender equality because men and women are DIFFERENT!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I followed the link to his substack, where he shared that his neighbour had said Steinem had inspired them to become an Opera Singer. Which summed up the sense of upper class smugness that exudes from the interview (so familiar from the Guardian and BBC). The interview seemed to me to be from an old fashioned world. Reminded me of my youth and exploration of feminism at Uni. in the late 70s. When at least on the surface the idea of “liberating” both men and women from sex roles and expectations appeared attractive. To such as Warren Farrell for instance in NOW. Farrell took the step of applying the “feminist” theory to the facts and experiences of men and found, like Reeves, that men as an entire sex don’t have “power”. Producing the Myth of Male Power in 1993.
Way back in the 1970s there may have been some element of truth in the notion of liberating both sexes. But the feminist movement and its establishment as an orthodoxy shows that in fact the cosy view of Reeves is entirely a delusion. A recent example of this is the repeal of the Law, in Australia, that established equal rights and responsibilities for mothers and fathers as a starting point. This didn’t mean Australian fathers fared very much better than those in the UK in their family courts in reality but at least in statute recognised that in theory as a “presumption” this was established. It was recently repealed after a concerted feminist campaign in Australian media and lobby groups. The hypocrisy is astounding, given the supposed feminist demand men take up equal roles in looking after children, it is clearly simply to exclude fathers and treat them as second class with regard to their children. And lets be honest its also to strengthen the mother’s hand in the bargaining for resources in divorce. What it isn’t, is a commitment to gender equality, liberation or even choice. This is of course only one of many instances over the past 40 years where that naive belief that feminism or “gender equality” actually follows its own analysis or stated aims.
The actuality is a constant stream of policies etc. that privilege girls and women and discriminates against boys and men. Frequently explicitly and actually denying their supposed human rights (for instance the right to Jury trial). So considering what they do, rather than say, its pretty clear that the result is a sort of turning women into a sort of aristocracy who have entitlements, rights and privileges based solely on their sex (as the TERFs keep reminding us).
Reeves is sort of stuck in the late 70s naivete and seems oblivious to the fact that the issues he raises are decades old and the opposition to doing anything has been strongest from “gender advocates”!
LikeLiked by 2 people