BYU’s Tempest-Tossed Men And How To Rescue Them

Kimball is a sophomore at Brigham Young University studying Business and Professional Writing and Communication.

The young men of my generation are in serious trouble. I saw it in high school and on my mission, but it became most apparent when I was called to be an Elders Quorum president in my YSA ward. The so-called “epidemic of loneliness” is talked about in abstract terms, but up-close it was appalling. I watched helplessly as it ripped through my quorum, shredding self-esteem, stalling out ambition, and wrecking dreams. Women were affected by it too, but I envied how adept they were at addressing it. I once heard a sister say it was annoying how often Relief Society lessons focused on their intrinsic worth and God’s love for them. I silently wished my quorum had such a good problem.

Unfortunately, it’s not just my quorum. Young men all around the country – the entire Western world, in fact – appear to be in troubled waters. In his book “Of Boys and Men,” Richard Reeves shows how men are falling behind in education, employment, and dating. Male college enrollment is down, unemployment is rising, and shifting social norms are leaving young men lonelier than ever. A 2022 Pew study found that half of single men are seeking relationships, compared to just 35% of women. With more men competing for fewer interested women, dating has become more difficult, adding to the crisis of isolation. Most alarmingly, rising depression, addiction, and suicide rates are hitting young men particularly hard. In 1991, men and women had similar rates of “deaths of despair” (suicides and overdoses), but today, men die from them at nearly three times the rate of women.

I don’t intend to depict young men as victims or cast blame. This is reality, which I’ve experienced firsthand in my Elders Quorum and among friends. As degrees, jobs, and partners feel increasingly scarce, they withdraw into video game addictions, pornography habits, or other obsessions, procrastinating essential life steps due to low confidence and self-esteem. Meanwhile, society amplifies female empowerment while branding men as toxic or privileged. My male peers grow bitter, feeling punished for sins they didn’t commit, suspicious of the system that isn’t working for them, and entirely unsure of what to do about it.

One day, while thinking about these problems, a sign on the wall of the JKB caught my attention. It listed student resources, which I scanned with a mix of hope and desperation. It included International Student Services, the Student Health Center, the University Accessibility Center, and at the end, Women’s Services and Resources.

A wave of disappointment hit me. BYU had an entire office for women’s services but nothing for struggling men. Obviously, I understood the context and why such a disparity would be justifiable to most people. But at that moment, it didn’t feel justified. The message was clear: women’s struggles deserved help; men’s issues were either not as bad or could just be figured out alone.

I didn’t resent women for having dedicated resources. Instead, I directed my thoughts towards the university, wishing only to see something added to the list for men. Why should these problems be laid solely on the overburdened shoulders of young Elder’s Quorum presidents? Our young men are suffering in silence because they’ve been taught their whole lives that their needs will always be second to somebody else’s. I believe BYU should take action to change this, and it seems appropriate for it to begin by establishing an office of Men’s Services and Resources to work in unity with the existing office of Women’s Services and Resources.

A Simple Proposal

Some might find this proposal weak or even offensive, and I understand why. Many people have a mental gag reflex whenever they hear sympathy expressed towards men, immediately supposing the person expressing sympathy is opposed to women’s rights and progress. Discussing men’s issues often gets one labeled as “redpilled,” misogynistic, or sexist, as if feeling compassion towards men is a trade-off, and the cost is hating women. I reject the premise that helping men and helping women are mutually exclusive. This mindset bears partial blame for fueling the crisis in young men. Ignoring their plight longer will have worse ramifications than violating the precepts of political correctness.

It’s true that women have historically been on the losing end of the societal contract, but eventually we need to recognize the incredible successes of the feminist movement in correcting this. They’ve been so successful, in fact, that Women’s BA degree share rose from 43% in 1979 to 58% in 2020, which means men are further behind women today than women were behind men 50 years ago. And since 1979, women’s inflation-adjusted median wage has increased 29%, while men’s has dropped by 3%, with poorer men hit hardest. Those who celebrate the male decline risk violating the promise of gender equality that the original feminists envisioned. If such disparities back then were indicators that women needed targeted help in education and the workplace, is it a stretch to suggest men need help when the disparities now affect them? It’s for this reason I’m arguing for a paradigm shift. When women were behind, institutions stepped in to help them. Now men are behind, and institutions should be equally proactive to prevent their crisis from worsening further.

Moreover, BYU is the institution uniquely positioned to lead out on this issue. No other university is built on a better foundation to heal divides between the sexes than one built on the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches that an essential qualifier for eternal life is harmonious and synergistic cooperation between men and women. As I will describe, an office at BYU dedicated to helping men would be a fulfillment of both BYU’s mission and its prophetic mandates. Women’s progress would not be hampered, in fact, they would benefit greatly from it. Lastly, it would be a vital lifeline, a source of help and hope to the young men who are left to face the intense tempests of our time largely alone.

Rejecting the Premise

In 1871, early feminist icons Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton made a visit to Salt Lake City. They were greeted by women and leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including General Relief Society President Eliza R. Snow. The two spent time in the Utah territory praising Latter-day Saint women for making great progress for themselves, especially in earning the right to vote. But they also had some pointed critiques, particularly of the Church, its traditions, and its male leaders. They condemned not only the concept of the priesthood but also the practice of marrying young and having many children, which they argued benefited men over women. Elizabeth Stanton even called for women to establish their own religious creeds so they wouldn’t be dependent on men for religious observance, while Susan B. Anthony said a church governed by revelation to men alone could never satisfy her.

A month later, President Eliza R. Snow wrote a speech to help the Church parse the praise and criticism. Supportive of the world’s movement towards women’s equality but alarmed by Stanton and Anthony’s attacks on her faith, Snow wrote, “In the Church and Kingdom of God, the interests of men and women are the same; man has no interests separate from that of women, however it may be in the outside world, our interests are all united.”

Today, Snow’s words stand out against a backdrop of social and gender division. How can men and women be united when the world insists there are only so many slices of “equality pie” to go around? Anthony and Stanton’s critiques are echoed by modern voices telling us men have too much of the pie – a concept known colloquially as “the patriarchy” – and women should upend the status quo to seize a bigger share. There’s also a growing reactionary movement among men, known by some as the “incel” or “ultra-masculinity” movement, who argue men should defend their slice of the pie and reject women’s gains. The fatal flaw in both arguments is their belief that it’s a zero-sum game, and this perception has filtered into the public consciousness, even in the church.

As I said earlier, I’m well aware people may have an instinctual negative reaction when they hear me expressing sympathy for men and may assume I’m opposed to women’s rights or women’s progress. On the contrary, I believe it’s possible and important to help both equally, and I argue helping our young men can lead to many benefits for women, specifically by providing them safer and better peers and, most importantly, more valuable and reliable partners. Eliza R. Snow understood this concept of mutual benefit, arguing that it would be counterproductive for women to tear down men in the pursuit of equality and pointing out men only stood to gain from the increased capacity of women as they became educated, organized, and empowered. In one Relief Society meeting, the minutes record President Snow preaching to the sisters, “I feel happy to see so many of my brethren present. It strengthens me to have them know what we are teaching their wives and daughters. The outside world [is] continually clashing, but we like the assistance of our husbands in our organized state. We stand as [helpmeets] to our husbands.”

To Snow, there were no limited resources. Not only was there enough pie to go around, there was a way to make more for everyone. If we accept this as true for today, as she believed it was in 1871, we open the door to finding win-win solutions to the problem, something not possible in the world’s framework.

Our Legacy and Mandate

The legacy we inherit from predecessors like Snow also equips the Church and BYU to handle controversies that result when we reject the world’s assumptions. In his 1975 speech The Second Century of Brigham Young University, President Spencer W. Kimball reinforced this legacy with a prophetic charge: “[W]e must be willing to break with the educational establishment (not foolishly or cavalierly, but thoughtfully and for good reason) in order to find gospel ways to help mankind. Gospel methodology, concepts, and insights can help us to do what the world cannot do in its own frame of reference.” President Shane Reese reiterated this charge for today’s generation in his 2023 inaugural address, saying, “BYU will realize President Kimball’s vision ‘only to the degree it embraces its uniqueness, its singularity . . . We must have the will to be different and to stand alone, if necessary . . .” President Reese leads by example, and I hope we can answer the call he has reiterated many times. I believe helping young men is one way BYU can “[become] the BYU of prophecy.”

Currently, BYU places in the middle of the pack in how it addresses men’s and women’s issues. Most schools have resources for women, and any who have them for men almost always clarify that they exist only for men with diverse racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation backgrounds, not men as a whole. To have an office that exists to uplift men generally, without any further qualifiers, would be unique. The only one like this I’ve been able to find was founded recently, in 2024, when the University of Tennessee partnered with the American Institute for Men and Boys (AIBM) with the goal of addressing declining male enrollment rates. The opportunity is still wide open for BYU to assume moral leadership in the cause of seeking to elevate men and women with equal vigor.

In addition to our history and prophetic leadership, we should consider how the gospel of Jesus Christ empowers us to take action. Fundamental to our doctrine is the belief that within each man and woman are the seeds of godhood, which can only blossom in the context of co-equal and co-eternal union with one another. With this at its heart, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and certainly its schools, has the best doctrinal vantage point to help both young men and young women fulfill their potential. We are unhindered by the false doctrine that says women and men can’t or shouldn’t be helped at the same time. As we embrace our history, our prophetic mandates, and our doctrine, we can be examples to the world of the truth: that the salvation of the human family depends on men and women loving and supporting each other, now and forever.

Now, let’s take a closer look at what’s happening on the ground. What is actually causing men to struggle so much, and what can BYU do to help? While trying to understand the difficulties of modern gender dynamics, I spoke with Jenet Erickson from Religious Education at BYU. She was able to connect my personal experiences to the wider conversation happening in the academic world. I’ll attempt to distill a few key facts to explain the situation, what we can do about it, and why everyone stands to benefit from taking action. To do this, I want to focus on two main problems I believe an office for men could be effective at addressing: one, the problem of loneliness, and two, the problem of identity.

The Problem of Loneliness

The first problem we need to understand is how society’s shifting standards around sex, marriage, and dating have derailed the social development of men and contributed to an epidemic of loneliness. One might think society’s views of sex wouldn’t greatly affect the culture of the Church or the culture at BYU, where abstinence until marriage is still the norm. Sadly, the body of the Church is not perfectly inoculated from the culture it exists in. If America catches a cold, the Church will cough too. This is why many of the issues I’m about to discuss are just as relevant to Provo men as they are to the rest of the country.

It began with the sexual revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s, which upended American courtship norms by decoupling sex from marriage. Sociologist Mark Regnerus, author of Cheap Sex, argues this shift stripped boys of a key incentive to mature into men, who now have access to sex and romance without needing to pay the traditional economic ‘costs’ like commitment and stability. Unfortunately, despite their gains in education and the workplace, women still generally want the ‘whole package’ from men: good genes, good money, and good behavior. In fact, women still desire to “marry up” in all three aspects. Both of these factors mean the pool of “marriageable men” is dwindling.

This contributes to the phenomenon encountered in studies on dating apps, where researchers find “the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women, and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.” One data analyst evaluated a variety of such studies on dating behaviors. He said, “It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true.” Add this to the fact that 50% of men are in the dating market, as opposed to only 35% of women, and we can see just how dismal men’s chances really are.

So, in summary, a minority of high-value men enjoy a monopoly on romantic and sexual experiences with women, but the destruction of marriage has removed their incentive to offer commitment and mature into adulthood. The remaining men are frustrated both sexually and romantically, contributing to the loneliness epidemic they face today. This opens the door to coping mechanisms like pornography, drugs, and other distractions that stunt progress romantically, spiritually, educationally, and economically. Meanwhile, women are more educated and financially well off but continue to look for men who will offer stability and who are better off than they are–a demand increasingly harder for men to fulfill. Understandably, they are frustrated with the shortage of these men and put off by the surplus of juvenile, non-committal, poorly behaved men. Some women don’t even feel safe anymore, with the American Survey Center reporting that more than one in three single women believe that most men or all men would take sexual advantage of a woman if given the opportunity. Some of this trepidation is also affecting BYU, where women report being more wary of dating and marriage than men.

It’s a sad fact that men make up 7 in 10 Americans who say they have been rejected in courtship many times, nearly every time, or every time, and as an Elders Quorum president, this certainly held true in my quorum. Interviews and conversations consisted of reassuring members of my quorum of their value, reminding them they were needed, reassuring them it all would work out, and discussing with them the difficulties of being alone. This is where pornography habits, addictions, and other distractions wrought the most havoc. I often found myself wishing there was more I could do to get these young men help.

I know myself and many others in that situation—Bishoprics, young quorum presidencies, ministering brothers—would welcome BYU’s institutional might as a godsend. With so many young men in one place, I’m not sure if there is another opportunity to do so much good for so many people at so little cost. If BYU had an office of men’s resources and services, it could address loneliness by creating opportunities for young men to foster relationships with each other. It could address hardships in dating by providing resources such as mentoring or seminars aimed at helping men develop self-mastery, learn good behavior, and develop proactive patience. It could address procrastination and stagnation by advocating for men to work on their passions and could offer resources and networking for them to get started. It could also campaign against video-game addiction and other distractions and offer support to those dealing with hopelessness. Lastly, an office for men could address perhaps the biggest factor feeding into loneliness and stalled development: pornography.

In 2007, a study done at BYU found that 48% of male students view pornography at least once a week, with 3% of women reporting the same. 1 in 5 men even reported viewing it nearly once a day. These numbers align with national averages from the last few years, so it’s likely they are roughly the same today (if not much higher). Using these numbers, there are likely more than 10,000 young men in Provo struggling with a pornography habit right now. This can be overwhelming to the ward and stake leaders, who often serve as the only institutional line of defense. With so many resources at its disposal, BYU has a great opportunity to launch a positive, healthy, and gospel-centered attack on the pornography problem young men in the church face, and an office of men’s resources and services, working in tandem with BYU Counseling and Psychological Services, could be the tip of the spear. There are many ways this could be done, but one I propose would be to host monthly live-streamed seminars, which could be joined both anonymously and in person, to educate men about the psychology of their pornography habits, provide strategies for quitting, offer help rebuilding self-esteem, and coach them on how to get back on their feet. As someone on the front lines with struggling men, I believe a recurring service matching this description would be well-attended every month if properly advertised.

The possible ways the loneliness crisis among men could be helped by a dedicated institutional resource at BYU are plentiful, and there are more areas to explore. For instance, it could address the aforementioned fact that the broken dating market is partially a result of men’s overall decline in educational and career success compared to women. Perhaps, to help solve this, more needs to be done to offer men scholarships to graduate programs or advancement opportunities in certain fields, such as nursing or education. Perhaps we need to look at the rate of men dropping out of school. Perhaps we need to do more to foster networking and mentorship among male students. Much remains to be investigated, but as of right now, no effort to move in the direction of helping young men find connection would be wasted.

The Problem of Identity

The second problem is that young men haven’t been properly taught who they are. When it comes to understanding what masculinity is, how it should be channeled, and if it’s even a good thing or not, they are at a complete loss. This lack of identity comes down to a series of widespread societal failures in how we have educated and communicated with our young men for the past several decades. We can even see a side-effect of this here on campus.

If you google “men’s resources at BYU,” the current top result is, no joke, a page from the BYU Women’s Services and Resources website (WSR). It offers three paragraphs for men, inviting them to all activities hosted by WSR. On a couple of other web pages and in some of their advertising, WSR tries to appear as if it exists to help both “women and men.” Yet, their ‘About Page’ lists their goals as “[to] provide opportunities for women to help, befriend, and network with other women” and “[to] develop women as future leaders in their families, communities, and worldwide.”

Co-opting WSR to also be BYU’s main resource for male students (considering the lack of any others) creates more problems than it solves. First, and I say this respectfully, the language in the website comes across as insincere, hollow, and semi-disrespectful, as if men were an afterthought. It feels like a group of children reluctantly including a younger child in activities after being scolded. Second, Women’s Services and Resources has a right to be just for women and shouldn’t need to include men. Women are entitled to spaces for themselves. Third, men generally don’t react the same to messaging geared towards women, so communication to struggling young men coming from the women’s office will likely go unheeded. Finally, men and women have a variety of different problems, and they tend to solve problems differently, such as in relationship formation and responding to stress. This means a single office splitting its focus is inefficient; a better system would be two specialized offices united in an overarching purpose to serve the student body of BYU.

Unfortunately, BYU’s lack of an effective way to communicate with men is a microcosm of a complex problem permeating society, where a systemic lack of productive messaging on the issue of masculinity has exacerbated the crisis. This includes the shortage of male teachers in public education, the collapse of male-centric institutions such as the Boy Scouts of America, the cultural neglect of male achievement in favor of promoting female advancement, and the demonization of men by Hollywood, pundits, and politicians. Many underestimate how harmful this has been to boys. For instance, the idea that masculinity is “toxic” has done real harm to how young boys think of themselves. This modern notion, an invention of high-minded academics, has even undermined the feminist movement, with 24% of women now saying that “feminists are anti-men.” Richard Reeves argues, “In the rush to condemn the dark side of masculine traits, [progressives] are in grave danger of pathologizing the traits themselves … And to the boy or man who feels lusty or restless, the message, implicit or explicit, is all too often, there is something wrong with you.”

Similarly, the idea that men exist in a “patriarchy” and have “male privilege” has been damaging to young men’s sense of worth. These concepts are often used to justify discriminatory practices against men. Over 50% of young men in America say they face discrimination because of their gender, and a majority of Gen-Z men report they don’t identify as “feminist.” In laying the supposed sins of their forefathers at the feet of our newest generation of young men and refusing them atonement, we have sown the seeds of resentment, distrust, and pessimism in our next cohort of fathers, builders, creatives, and leaders.

By putting up artificial barriers around masculinity, important questions such as ‘what does a good man act like?’ or ‘how should I channel my masculine tendencies?’ are hard to answer, so young men are turning elsewhere for help. This has led to the creation of the ‘manosphere’, the overlapping collection of online men’s support communities which attempt to fill the gaps young men have been left with. Researchers Eva Bujalka and Ben Rich explain that “the ‘manosphere’ appeals to its audience because it speaks to the very real lives of young men [experiencing] romantic rejection, alienation, economic failure, loneliness, and a dim vision of the future.” The popularity of Andrew Tate, who attracts lost men with some sensible ideas before introducing them to his abhorrent and amoral view of the world, stands as a warning to parents and institutions everywhere that if we don’t raise our young men well, someone worse will do it for us. And while there are some very good voices out there that many young men are heeding (I would argue Jordan Peterson and Richard Reeves are among these), we are essentially leaving the development of our young men entirely up to chance – unless we start taking a stand in the cultural mainstream.

At BYU, the social haze around masculinity serves as a weakening force on campus. Men are falling victim to voices in the manosphere, adopting views and behavior unbecoming of Latter-day Saints. Others adopt a victim mentality, reinforced by the internet, and blame women or other cultural forces for their problems. Most commonly, I see men accepting what they hear online so they have excuses to check-out from reality, procrastinate important life steps, or prolong childish behavior. It’s no wonder women are noticing a painful shortage of mature, eligible men, the existing incentive structure has made every force acting on men a downward one.

The solution, of course, is to start filling the vacuum with something better. Rather than telling men their masculinity is toxic, we should help men understand the truth: that masculinity is a complex basket of natural and neutral characteristics and tendencies which can be used for good or for evil. We then teach them that ‘healthy’ or ‘mature’ masculinity is the careful channeling of these base elements towards honorable pursuits, such as education, talents, providing for a family, and serving God. As Richard Reeves put it, “It is one thing to point out that there are aspects of masculinity that in an immature or extreme expression can be deeply harmful, quite another to suggest that a naturally occurring trait in boys and men is intrinsically bad.” This approach, rather than blaming young men for being men, seeks to educate men about who they are while encouraging them to be the best version of themselves.

An office for men at BYU would be an effective way to communicate this to the young men on campus, acting as a filter for negative messaging about masculinity while promoting the important virtues we need our young men to value and uphold. I don’t know which methods would be best, but I can imagine a wide variety of ways to achieve this. There are many qualified guests who could be invited to speak on the classical virtues men should aspire to. Essay competitions could be organized, similar to existing ones focused on women, challenging students to write about the virtues of inspiring men like Joseph Smith or Abraham Lincoln. Staff and alumni could be invited to share lectures on leadership principles, fatherhood, or Jesus Christ’s attributes. In conjunction with the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other organizations, events could be held to honor men’s contributions to history and introduce students to male leaders in the community. A men’s office could even work in cooperation with Women’s Resources and Services to foster more cooperative and harmonious dialogue on the many gender issues that exist today.

Ultimately, solving the problem of identity comes down to two things: first, adopting a view of masculinity that inspires men to “be yourself, but always your best self,” as Karl G. Maeser said; and second, communicating that view of masculinity through authoritative sources to prevent young men from needing to look elsewhere. Using Women’s Services and Resources to communicate to young men at BYU has not been an effective way to do this, which is why creating a companion office to it, and allowing both offices to be specialized, is important to help our male students answer the question of who they are. Armed with that knowledge, they will be more prepared as they “go forth to serve.”

Conclusion

While sharing early drafts of this essay with friends, peers, and professors, I knew I was heading in a good direction when many of them expressed positive feedback and excitement. What I didn’t anticipate was the number of women who said something like, “I didn’t realize how much I cared about this.” If I have one takeaway from this experience, it’s that these issues are affecting everyone, often more than they realize. While there may be some who believe men’s issues aren’t pressing or are justified by past injustices, most women sincerely want men to be successful and happy, and they recognize how the decline in young men threatens their own well-being. Contention only seems to occur when helping men is seen as incompatible with helping women. Hopefully I’ve helped dispel that myth.

Another thing I heard repeatedly when talking about this paper was, “I know exactly what you’re talking about; here’s what happened to me,” followed by anecdotes supporting the statistics, research, and conclusions I’ve discussed. This makes clear that these issues aren’t simmering under the surface anymore, they are manifesting in people’s lives in real ways. These accounts have largely come from BYU alumni, staff, and students, demonstrating just how relevant the broader conversation is, even here in our little church bubble. My experiences, those of my friends, and those of my quorum are not unique, men are having a rough time. As you read this quote from Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, think of the boys or men in your life, perhaps a friend, roommate, cousin, nephew, son, grandson, or neighbor. “Boys are in trouble. Many have withdrawn from the real world, where they could develop the skills needed to become competent, successful, and loving men. Instead, many have been lured into an ever more appealing virtual world in which desires for adventure and for sex can be satisfied, at least superficially, without doing anything that would prepare them for later success in work, love, and marriage.”

In my mind, I picture a lonely young freshman who grew up without good male role-models and doesn’t know how to fit in, so he turns to videogames and TV to numb the pain of being disconnected, wasting his potential on meaningless endeavors. Or I think of a returned missionary who finds himself unsuccessful in dating because he’s prideful and immature, so to cope he relapses into a pornography habit which dampens his testimony and destroys his self-worth. Or I consider a brother in a YSA ward who’s about to age out and feels like a failure to his family and his church because he’s still single. So, thinking himself unworthy of love and success, he purposefully holds himself back from achieving things elsewhere in life. These individuals are real people, and there are thousands like them within reach.

We have an opportunity to do something of life-changing proportions, but we can’t do so meaningfully without being backed by our institutions, which is why BYU, built on a legacy of leadership and service, is desperately needed. On behalf of the young, suffering men, I ask that we see this as a chance to fulfill the purpose for which our university has been so carefully crafted by living prophets. And while I acknowledge that BYU is unable to solve every problem, I believe it is perfectly capable of making a big difference. By creating an official resource on campus to address men’s issues, lives will be changed, courses will be rerouted, divisions will be healed, the culture will be strengthened, and our struggling, tempest-tossed young men will finally see the flickering light of hope across the waves.