One of America’s great success stories has been the gradual opening of opportunities for women in nearly every field, from athletics to higher education. Nowhere has the change been more profound than in the workplace. In 1970, just over 15 percent of all management jobs were held by women. According to McKinsey, that figure has now risen to 40 percent in 2024. That kind of change isn’t easy, linear, or particularly fast, but it’s a significant social and economic achievement nonetheless.

The story for men at work is more complicated. While college-educated men continue to prosper in our service- and information-based economy, men without a college degree have faced declining job prospects and growing social and health risks. Richard Reeves, founder of the American Institute of Boys and Men (AIBM) and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explores these issues in his report The State of Working-Class Men, which examines the economic and health impacts of men’s gradual withdrawal from the US workforce over the past few decades.

Reeves finds that since the late 1970s, employment rates for these men have dropped by nearly 10 percent, and wages for those still employed have stagnated. Structural changes in the economy, according to Reeves, are a key driver of these trends, especially the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries like manufacturing, which once provided family-sustaining jobs for high school graduates.

The decline in employment rates among men, particularly those without a college degree, has occurred alongside a rise in social isolation and negative social outcomes like suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths, along with higher risks of workplace injuries. Of particular concern is the decline of marriage rates among these men, a key marker for social connection, stronger employment outcomes, and better physical and mental health.

Many of Reeves’ findings mirror AEI’s recent survey on social behavior in the workplace, which highlighted the struggles of non-college-educated men compared to the successes of college-educated women. This gulf in workplace experiences follows the pattern of strained gender relations in other areas of American life, culture, and politics.

These differences between men and women in the workplace are likely to grow over time as noncognitive or “soft” skills grow in importance while manual, repetitive tasks—once common in traditional manufacturing—continue to decline. Even manufacturing jobs now demand higher levels of training, in addition to technical and noncognitive skills, further complicating things for men who prefer this type of work.

AEI’s survey found that women have thrived in light of the growing emphasis on social skills at work. College-educated women have emerged as leaders of social engagement in the workplace. They form deeper connections with colleagues and actively plan and participate in workplace social events. Additionally, they are more likely to confide in their coworkers about personal matters. This stronger social connection translates into higher job satisfaction and better career advancement opportunities. Looking at the data, it’s clear an “old girls network” is evolving alongside the “old boys network.”

In contrast, non-college-educated men report having fewer workplace friendships and are less likely to benefit from mentoring and professional development. This reduces job satisfaction and advancement and contributes to feelings of loneliness, thus adding to broader trends of male social isolation noted above.

As Reeves highlights, this divide between college-educated women and non-college men starts early. It takes the form of disparate developmental patterns between boys and girls, too few male teachers in schools, and a pedagogy that plays to female strengths while being out of sync with males, who happen to develop more slowly. It should come as no surprise, then, that boys—especially those from working-class backgrounds—who struggled through the K–12 system would be less inclined to pursue post-secondary education. And make no mistake: Some education and training after high school is essential to securing higher-skilled and better-paid jobs.

Legal changes banning discrimination based on sex, along with public investments to help women “catch up” in terms of education, training, and opportunity, have been a real success story, and should be celebrated. And, as Reeves argues, more success for women hasn’t come at the price of fewer opportunities for men. If men adopt a defensive posture toward women’s success, they won’t find their own path any easier.

At the same time, the structural barriers to male success, especially for men without college degrees, are also a problem for society. Just as America’s potential was limited when women, blacks, and other minorities faced formal and informal discrimination, systemic disadvantages to men’s success pose a serious risk to national well-being. Implementing the policy changes Reeves recommends to enhance opportunities for boys and men would be an important step toward addressing this issue, so that young working-class men can pave a better future for themselves in the workforce.