The Diary of a CEORichard Reeves: Suicide rate is four times higher in men
Reeves links male suicide, lost provider scripts, and dating-app loneliness; he proposes a service-based masculinity that does not unwind women's gains.
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 28:30
Men’s Crisis and Why Reeves Entered Dangerous Territory
The conversation opens on the stark struggles facing boys and men—suicide, stagnating wages, and rising singlehood—and introduces Richard Reeves, his background, and why he chose to write about this fraught topic despite professional warnings. He explains that mainstream, data‑driven voices have largely abandoned the field, leaving the discourse to more extreme online influencers.
- •Partnerless, childless men fare very badly in modern societies, with high suicide and poor wellbeing.
- •Reeves founded the American Institute for Boys and Men, the first dedicated research and policy think tank on male issues in the US.
- •He was strongly warned against writing on boys and men because of reputational risk, which convinced him the space was being ceded to more extreme voices.
- •His background spans UK government strategy, think tanks, journalism, and Brookings work on race and class inequality; he approaches men’s issues as a non‑partisan social scientist.
- •COVID underlined that no one was tasked with asking, “How is this affecting boys and men?” (e.g., men’s higher death rates, male college enrollment drops).
- 28:30 – 45:00
The Cultural Revolution: Women’s Rise and the Male Identity Vacuum
Reeves describes a historic transformation: women have gained unprecedented economic power, making marriage a genuine choice rather than an economic necessity. While this is a huge victory, it has dismantled the traditional male script without offering a clear new one, leaving many men adrift about their role and value.
- •In advanced economies, boys and men lag in education; male suicide in the UK is the biggest killer of men under 45.
- •Gloria Steinem’s goal—making marriage a choice, not a necessity—has largely been achieved via women’s economic independence.
- •The old male script—breadwinner, head of household—has been dismantled; for women, a new script (“stand on your own two feet”) emerged quickly, but not for men.
- •Reeves argues we now have many “don’ts” for men but a short list of clear, socially endorsed “do’s.”
- •Many men feel uncertain of their place, role, and being needed, which underpins measurable issues in mental health, education, and employment.
- 45:00 – 55:30
Nuance, Algorithms, and Whether Men and Women Are Different
The discussion turns to how social media algorithms reward extremes, making nuanced conversations about gender roles hard to surface. Reeves then lays out a framework for thinking about sex differences via overlapping distributions, emphasizing that average differences matter for policy and practice but should never be used to stereotype individuals.
- •Online algorithms push users towards polar camps—“men should be more feminine” vs “men should be hyper‑masculine”—leaving little room for nuance.
- •Despite this, the popularity of long‑form conversations suggests a strong appetite for complexity and balance.
- •Reeves uses the example of height to explain overlapping distributions: men and women differ on average without being categorical opposites.
- •He points to average differences in risk‑taking, aggression, competitiveness, and things‑ vs people‑orientation; none justify discrimination but they do have implications.
- •These average differences underpin the business case for gender diversity—if men and women were identical in traits, diverse leadership would matter less.
- 55:30 – 1:08:30
Risk, Work, and Complementary Strengths Between the Sexes
Reeves explores how average sex differences in risk‑taking play out in real life—from wildfire “smoke jumpers” to corporate leadership—arguing that the ideal is not dominance by one sex but complementary teams. He and Bartlett reflect on their own experiences of male–female differences in work and relationships.
- •Men’s greater average risk‑taking leads to more gambling addiction, accidents, and teenage boy deaths from risky behavior.
- •Extremely risky occupations, like US “smoke jumpers” parachuting into wildfires, are almost exclusively male, likely reflecting both selection and temperament.
- •Research suggests firms with female CEO and CFO go bankrupt less often but may be slightly less profitable—implying different risk tolerances, not superiority.
- •Bartlett notes his own female executives tend to be more financially cautious, and he values the balance of perspectives.
- •Reeves argues a truly equal society is not androgynous but one where masculine and feminine virtues are treated as equal in value, rather than one being considered superior (patriarchy or matriarchy).
- 1:08:30 – 1:27:00
Chivalry, Symbolism, and Modern Equality
Using examples like holding doors and walking roadside, Reeves defends some gendered symbolic acts as still meaningful, provided they coexist with full substantive equality. He worries that in trying to purge all symbolic differences, we may lose harmless or even valuable rituals that express care and responsibility.
- •Bartlett wrestles with whether behaviors like opening doors or walking roadside are outdated or misogynistic; his partner appreciates them.
- •Reeves argues such gestures reflect deep, often unconscious protective instincts and can have value even when there’s no real danger.
- •He stresses the key test: you might hold the door for a woman who is also your boss, and she can both accept the gesture and head to the CEO office.
- •Some men now hesitate to help women with tasks (e.g., overhead luggage) for fear of offending them, though many feminists explicitly welcome such offers.
- •Reeves cautions against over‑politicizing symbols while enormous substantive issues (board representation, safety, pay equity) still need attention.
- 1:27:00 – 1:42:15
Male Suicide: Useless, Worthless, and Unseen
The conversation dives into the male suicide crisis, with stark statistics and personal anecdotes. Reeves highlights research on the language men use before dying by suicide and returns to his core thesis: the lethal danger of men feeling surplus to requirements in family, work, and community.
- •In the US, a man dies by suicide roughly every 13 minutes; male rates are four times higher than female, and rising fastest among younger men.
- •If male suicide rates matched women’s since 1999, about 545,000 fewer US men would have died.
- •Australian researcher Fiona Shand found men who died by or attempted suicide often described themselves as “useless” and “worthless.”
- •Reeves ties suicidality to feeling unneeded by family, employers, and community; other male “check‑outs” (addiction, dropping out of work) are milder expressions of the same trajectory.
- •He notes the intense shame and guilt around suicide, which leads to euphemisms like “died unexpectedly” and inhibits open grieving and discussion.
- 1:42:15 – 2:03:00
Evolution, Retirement, and the Deep Drive to Be Needed
Reeves and Bartlett speculate on evolutionary reasons humans—and men particularly—need to feel useful to a tribe. They connect this to patterns around retirement, volunteering, and the role once played by institutions like churches and stay‑at‑home mothers in giving older and mid‑life men clear communal functions.
- •Humans evolved in tribes where survival depended on mutual reliance; being unneeded historically meant being left to die.
- •Reeves relays anthropologist Anna Machin’s account of how bipedalism and big brains forced earlier births and created a niche for fathers as providers, cementing male roles.
- •Bartlett brings up data that people often die sooner after retirement; Reeves suggests both sedentary lifestyle and loss of purpose may contribute.
- •Reeves sees volunteering and community roles—school reading helpers, technical boards, charity work—as key ways older people, especially men, can remain needed.
- •De‑institutionalization (decline of churches, local associations, stay‑at‑home mums organizing community) has removed ready‑made structures that once plugged men into social service roles.
- 2:03:00 – 2:25:00
Dating, Apps, and Men Left on the Sidelines
The discussion shifts to younger men’s romantic and sexual lives in an era of dating apps and delayed coupling. Reeves argues that algorithm‑driven partner selection is resurfacing ancient patterns where a minority of high‑status men monopolize women’s attention, leaving many men feeling excluded and embittered.
- •More young men are single for longer and dating or having sex later; this extends the period in which no one explicitly needs them.
- •Bartlett notes data showing roughly the “bottom 50%” of men get very little traction on dating apps while the “top 10%” get most of the matches.
- •Reeves links this to human history: about 95% of known societies were polygamous, and genetic evidence suggests we have roughly twice as many female as male ancestors.
- •He notes that as norms around strict monogamy loosen online, female pickiness and status selection become more visible, and many men may feel chronically rejected or invisible.
- •Extreme responses include incel and “men going their own way” movements; Reeves argues that male separatism is the opposite of true masculinity, which is about being “for others.”
- 2:25:00 – 2:47:00
Marriage, Fatherhood, and Who Benefits Most
Reeves separates the institution of marriage from the function of fatherhood, arguing that while marriage is declining and diversifying, fathers remain crucial. He contends that in today’s world, marriage often benefits men even more than women in terms of health, income, and mental stability, and warns against progressive dismissals of fatherhood as optional.
- •About 40% of US births are now outside marriage (up from ~10% in 1970), with much higher rates among non‑college‑educated and Black Americans.
- •In Western Europe, cohabitation without marriage is more common but not as sharply class‑segmented as in the US.
- •Reeves is agnostic on marriage per se but adamant that having children creates an inextinguishable moral responsibility to be a father.
- •Data show marriage strongly correlates with better outcomes for men—higher earnings, better physical and mental health, longer life—more so than for women.
- •Divorce multiplies men’s suicide risk eightfold; Reeves argues this reflects men’s emotional dependence on women and on being embedded in a family role.
- •He rejects both conservative claims that marriage is the only route to good fathering and progressive claims that fathers are unnecessary or that pro‑father positions are “heteronormative.”
- 2:47:00 – 3:08:00
Polygamy, Enforced Monogamy, and Andrew Tate
The conversation touches on polygamy, Jordan Peterson’s controversial phrase “enforced monogamy,” and Andrew Tate’s conversion to Islam. Reeves uses these topics to illustrate how challenging and politically sensitive any discussion of marriage structures has become, and how male grievances can latch onto alternative marital and sexual systems.
- •Historically, high‑status men often had multiple wives or concubines; today, online dynamics recreate a softer form of that pattern.
- •Reeves clarifies that “enforced monogamy” in anthropology refers to legal and social bans on polygamy (e.g., bigamy laws), not forcing individuals into marriage.
- •Andrew Tate’s public embrace of Islam partly enables his polygamous ideal; Reeves notes Tate has a large following among young Muslim men.
- •He suggests debates over monogamy vs polygamy vs polyamory are complex and can’t be reduced to a simple “men want polygamy, women don’t” story.
- •Regardless of marital form, Reeves returns to the need to ensure men remain attached to family and community in ways that give them responsibility and purpose.
- 3:08:00 – 3:26:00
Toxic Masculinity, Toxic Femininity, and Mature Manhood
Reeves unpacks his critique of “toxic masculinity” and suggests a more constructive framework based on maturity. He also briefly considers what “toxic femininity” might look like, while warning against slapping the word “toxic” in front of either gender.
- •Reeves now sees “toxic masculinity” as a slur and likens it to “original sin”—an inborn stigma men can’t easily escape.
- •He notes that when asked to define non‑toxic masculinity, many people simply list traits that are indistinguishable from femininity, making masculinity either toxic or empty.
- •He proposes “immature vs mature masculinity” as a better frame, focusing on growth (e.g., channeling aggression and risk into prosocial ends).
- •On “toxic femininity,” he points to relational aggression, social exclusion, and appearance‑based bullying exemplified in films like *Mean Girls*, and how social media amplifies such behavior.
- •Reeves argues that attaching “toxic” to masculinity or femininity is intellectually weak and culturally corrosive, and that we should instead name specific harmful behaviors.
- 3:26:00 – 3:45:00
Male Loneliness and the Friendship Recession
The pair explore a steep decline in male friendships, with many young men reporting no close friends at all. Reeves connects this to changing gender roles, the loss of female‑managed social life, and male communication styles that make friendship formation harder, advocating for male‑friendly formats like shared activities and “shoulder‑to‑shoulder” interaction.
- •In the US, the share of men under 30 with no close friends rose from 3% (1990) to 15%, indicating a “male friendship recession.”
- •Men historically free‑rode on women’s social labor; as women work more and assume less responsibility for men’s social lives, men’s networks shrink.
- •Reeves describes how men often communicate better shoulder‑to‑shoulder (driving, walking, gaming, working) than face‑to‑face—explaining why traditional talk therapy can feel unnatural.
- •He praises initiatives like Australia’s government‑funded “Men’s Sheds,” where men do practical tasks together and talk indirectly.
- •He and Bartlett share personal stories of men privately admitting extreme loneliness and the visceral heartbreak that kind of suffering evokes.
- 3:45:00 – 3:59:00
Therapy, Male Therapists, and Shoulder‑to‑Shoulder Help
Reeves shares his experiences with personal and couples therapy, including how challenging it felt and how transformative one key session was. He laments the decline of male therapists, arguing that many men—and especially boys—benefit from having male practitioners who understand their communication style and can model healthy masculinity.
- •Reeves found individual therapy hard and couples therapy even harder, especially the face‑to‑face emotional exposure.
- •He notes the proportion of men entering psychology and counseling has plummeted in the US and UK, making male therapists increasingly scarce.
- •He believes therapist gender can matter, particularly for issues tied to male identity; his son did far better with a male therapist.
- •Some therapists now use walking‑talking formats that fit men’s shoulder‑to‑shoulder style and lower confrontation.
- •Reeves frames the shortage of male therapists as a serious structural problem in addressing men’s mental health.
- 3:59:00 – 4:24:00
Couples Therapy, Masculinity at Home, and Being a Man for Others
Reeves recounts a pivotal couples‑therapy moment when his wife told him the problem wasn’t that he wasn’t feminist enough, but that he wasn’t masculine enough. This forced him to reassess how he’d been suppressing his own assertiveness and responsibility in the name of feminism, and led to a more equal, flourishing relationship.
- •In couples therapy, after he listed his supportive actions, his wife said, “You seem to think the problem is that you’re not feminist enough. The problem is that you’re not masculine enough.”
- •Reeves realized he had been “at war” with his own masculinity, seeing any assertiveness or needs of his own as anti‑feminist.
- •He began being more directly assertive—saying what he wanted, disagreeing, initiating plans—which increased conflict short‑term but deepened the relationship.
- •He also accepted more economic responsibility as co‑provider, rather than assuming his wife’s high earnings exempted him from that role.
- •He stresses that many women want partners who are equals, not passive allies—someone who takes initiative without entitlement or domination.
- 4:24:00 – 4:51:00
Advice to Sons: Scripts for Modern Masculinity
Asked what he’d tell his three sons about being men today, Reeves emphasizes modeling over lecturing, then sketches key principles: accept sex differences without shame, pursue passion and agency over pure income, and orient manhood around service and responsibility to others. He closes with a simple dating‑safety rule that encapsulates his philosophy.
- •Reeves says the most powerful teaching is lived example: how he treats their mother, how he works, and how he behaves “in the thick of daily life.”
- •He would affirm that there is nothing wrong with masculinity or inherently masculine impulses, but they must be channeled toward equality and service.
- •He advises choosing work that they are passionate about and good at, not solely high‑earning roles; passion and agency are more attractive and fulfilling than a big paycheck alone.
- •He jokes that of course they should hold doors and go to the gym—but underlines that physical health and courtesy matter.
- •His dating rule for sons: have the courage to ask someone out, the grace to accept no without entitlement, and the responsibility to ensure she gets home safely either way.
- •Reeves concludes that the best antidote to toxic online influences is real, flesh‑and‑blood male role models—fathers, teachers, coaches—who embody mature masculinity.
- 4:51:00
What Leaders Should Do: Seeing and Supporting Men Without Going Backwards
In closing, Reeves outlines what he would prioritize if he led policy: not just programs but a clear, public signal that boys’ and men’s problems are real, seen, and worth addressing alongside women’s. Bartlett reflects on his own role in hosting these conversations and the importance of “calling men back in” rather than only calling them out.
- •Reeves proposes specific policies—men’s health strategies, hiring more male teachers, targeted mental‑health funding—but says the most powerful move is empathetic acknowledgment: “We see you, we hear you, we’ve got you.”
- •He stresses this can coexist with unwavering support for women’s progress; it is not a zero‑sum game.
- •Neglecting real male problems turns them into grievances and drives men toward reactionary figures who will at least validate their pain.
- •Bartlett notes that these conversations draw gratitude from women as well—mothers, sisters, partners who worry about the men in their lives.
- •They agree the public is tired of soundbites and extremes; there is a deep hunger for nuanced, good‑faith dialogues where “some day is now” in tackling unintended consequences of social progress.
- •Bartlett closes by affirming Reeves’s work as vital precisely because of its tone: non‑political, data‑grounded, and inviting everyone into the same room.
