For me the difficulty for a boy starts at school where today (and rightly so) boyish behaviour (fighting, being rough etc.) is not tolerated and dealt with in rather feminin ways (not so rightly). Schools lacking male teachers does not help either.
This trend is visible all over society as well. Where I grew up with semi regular bar fights, today every physical alteration involves the police.
Not saying "the old days where better" at all. Just that society has changed to honour the feminine treats much more then the male treats, so I too worry more about the success of my son then about the success of my three daughters (who are in effect, socially & financially significantly better off, although slightly younger).
There's this weird cultural/mental divide between "Masculine" meaning being rough and fighting and "Feminine" dealing with emotions and non-aggression. This this exactly the issue worrying me about my own son. These "Masculine" traits you talk about are toxic as heck. Getting into bar fights promotes an unhealthy mentality that spreads into other parts of your life. For example, if your okay with hitting other people at a bar, you might be more prone to abusing your children by using corporal punishment.
I don't believe in toxic masculinity, but I do believe that there is a heck of a lot of toxic things men take into their identity. If you assimilate something into your identity, you no longer have the power to change that thing within yourself.
I am not well-informed on this topic, but isn't men incorporating toxic things into their identity precisely what toxic masculinity is (i.e. to me it sounds like you do believe in toxic masculinity)?
I've seen this term 'toxic masculinity' being used to describe anything from asserting yourself very firmly on discussion/debates to opening doors to your (female) partner. I'm not even sure what it means anymore.
Also certainly not an expert here, but here is a good definition I found:
> Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
It seems to be a catch all term for the problematic parts of the way men are idealized by society. IE stuff like how men can be expected to hide away their emotions or be perceived as weak. Stuff like that shows up in suicide statistics.
Part of the problem with understanding the concept, IMO, is that ideological forces have managed to sway part of the public (or at least certain echo chambers) into believing that the people talking about it really mean "all men are bad" or "traditional masculinity is bad." I think there's something real here that needs to be addressed though.
Edit: Case and point... somebody further down in this thread accused the term "toxic masculinity" of being designed by "academic Marxist feminists" who are waging culture wars in order to hyper-feminize small boys.
Because the term is bullshit. I would be willing to read the phrase in a more charitable light if there was symmetry in these discussions associating negative female traits as toxic femininity. There is no symmetry. Negative feminine traits aren’t linked to gender. They are separated and abstracted from gender. The phrase toxic masculinity is used as to bludgeon masculine things and men.
It also goes against studies that show Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing[1]
"The findings are mixed, but given the recent cultural emphasis on toxic masculinity, one result stands out: young men who, on the “Conformity to Masculine Norms” scale, more strongly endorsed the masculine ideal of “success and winning” (they agreed with statements like “In general, I will do anything to win”), tended to score higher on psychological wellbeing six months later. “Men who adhere to this norm may experience a sense of mastery and achievement through their accomplishments,” said the researchers, led by Aylin Kaya at the University of Maryland, “which can in turn boost their eudaemonic well-being.”"
Not only is the belief in a code of “true manliness” nearly universal, there are, as anthropologist Thomas Gregor puts it, “continuities of masculinity that transcend cultural differences.” While every society’s idea of what constitutes a “real man” has been molded by their unique histories, environments, and dominant religious beliefs, Gilmore found that almost all them share three common imperatives or moral injunctions — what I’ve taken to calling the 3 P’s of Manhood: a male who aspires to be a man must protect, procreate, and provide.
What is so striking is that this triad of male imperatives can be found in cultures that share little else in common. They are the “deep structures of masculinity” and are present in societies that are patriarchal as well as those that are relatively egalitarian, primitive as well as urban, bellicose as well as peaceable.
The 3 P’s are not universal, as there are a few cultures where no ideal of manhood exists at all. But these exceptions are so rare, and so, well, exceptional, that the code is, if not universal, than highly ubiquitous.
These are positive traits, it is hard to see what is so toxic about them, and therefore the phrase toxic masculinity feels like it is just attacking men for being men.
Collectively, all this toxic masculinity talk and feminising of the world has done is created an entire generation who cannot solve their own problems. Any problem they have they run off to an authority figure to resolve. You constantly read about stories like this:
Billy said something I found offensive. Kelly didn't like it. She didn't explain any of this to billy, instead she ran off to the Dean to complain.
> "Masculine" meaning being rough and fighting and "Feminine" dealing with emotions and non-aggression
There are good and bad parts of each side. For example, you can drive someone to suicide using the power of gossip... that could be called toxic feminity, I suppose.
And it is more likely to be tolerated at schools than e.g. fighting back against your bully, which is a healthy masculine behavior, but according to "zero tolerance" policy makes you exactly as bad as the bully.
This is the cultural problem, that we are only allowed to talk about the parts of masculine behavior that are considered bad, and the parts of feminine behavior that are considered good. In reality, both are a mixed bag.
>This trend is visible all over society as well. Where I grew up with semi regular bar fights, today every physical alteration involves the police.
ok, but given the studies showing that lead in the environment heightened aggression during the years when I was growing up and I suppose you too, those semi-regular bar fights might not have been that natural part of growing up a boy as we might otherwise suppose.
Social dominance hierarchies are evident in many animal species, including bonobos and humans. Displayed aggression in social settings, with and without physical altercation, serves as a way to establish said hierarchy. Ultimately, the function of hierarchy is to provide stability to the tribe, by organically placing you in a appropriate position to maximize the chance of the tribe's survival. There are clear biological differences between neurotypical human genders, such as endogenous Testosterone and Estrogen, giving rise to said behaviors. Conversely, the female's typical function in a tribe is to provide social cohesion, stability and pacification, and is driven primarily by hormones. This dynamical system generally operates in a very carefully balanced fashion. Thus, when humans intervene and introduce artificially made things like weaponized social networks that exploits and hijacks your dopaminergic system through likes or birth control pills that throws off your naturally occurring hormones and neurotransmitters, one could argue, just maybe, that it could have a potentially catastrophic long term effect on society.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't condone "bar fights", but there is both a biological and sociological reason for male aggression and the pendulum has swung quite far the other direction, demonizing it as "toxic masculinity".
I would argue that parents are better placed to train their kids in these non academic domains. It also gets around the state dictating the moral values taught to children. Each family gets to choose for themselves.
The pen is not mightier than the sword. I know a lot of intellectually inclined people like to think so. I know I used to too.
Having a real world masculine power is the only way to live a non-avoidant, full life as a male.
I can see a situation in which physical violence among boys, instead of being productively diffused (boys being explained this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, looking into environmental clues as to why that boy has that violent behaviour, while being given tools such as counselling, sports, martial arts, to deal with this violent energy and channel it into constructive focus), is treated as a "0 tolerance policy" type thing where the boy is removed from his class/school, moved to a different environment, socially ostracised, and starts believing that he's simply a violent person as a matter of fact, and that there's nothing he can do about it. Potentially being also put together with other kids in similar situations, which eventually reinforce each other, maybe fall into a rabbit hole of petty crimes, state/police interactions, early institutionalisation, and basically put in a never ending spiral which lead to a maladjusted adult in the best scenario, and a criminal in the worse one.
This. Young boys don't necessarily have the tools to control their behavior just because they are told to --they are developing such tools and need help with that. The same impulses are likely to make them fight the consequences, and so make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> boys being explained this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, looking into environmental clues as to why that boy has that violent behaviour, while being given tools such as counselling, sports, martial arts, to deal with this violent energy and channel it into constructive focus
Is fighting back when you are assaulted a family thing?
Schools simply DO NOT take bullying seriously. Does my son deserve to be expelled because your son decided to physically bully my child, and my son punched him a couple of times for it?
My position as the adult is "Fighting is not a good thing. You can get seriously hurt. You're going to get punished for it regardless of whether you deserve it. So there had best be physical damage at stake before you start fighting. Words and name calling are insufficient."
However, zero tolerance policies are stupid. I would have been expelled on them as a child.
I was an honor student and "geek" so the "undesirables" thought they had carte blanche to pick on the "geek" group--including me (Schools do nothing about bullying, remember?) Even though I was over 6 foot and lettered in sports, I was the "brain".
About once a year, one of the idiots would take my walking away as cowardice, corner me and would actually physically assault me, and that would be my signal that it was time to clean his clock to stay safe. And I would have an in-school detention for three days (which was annoying as I had homework for three days and the dipshit just slept).
This is a reasonable response as long as nobody got seriously injured. As the geek, it's annoying, but you don't want to incentivize fighting even when it's justified. And you certainly don't want to incentivize taking the fight to real, permanent damage.
HOWEVER, the school allowing the situation to reach that point is the failure. It's not like the school didn't know who the troublemakers were and what they were doing. When you have teachers quietly thanking a student for assaulting another student, there's a systemic problem with the school administration--not the children.
Certainly it is, as well. Though only inasmuch as family is one of the building blocks of society. As they say, "it takes a village" to raise a child. Also, what to do when the family itself is part of the problem?
Nothing, it’s just a go-to item for people that want to talk about the good old days.
I think it’s effective because it’s an unexpected negative, like a clickbait headline: “Fighting is actually good for growing boys!” but the simple truth is that physically fighting with someone over a disagreement is a very bad habit to encourage.
>simple truth is that physically fighting with someone over a disagreement is a very bad habit to encourage.
I'm not sure physical altercations are worse than the alternatives. I remember as a kid you would fight with your friend and next day be friends again. No big deal really.
Would you rather have a fight or have insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization. I'm really not convinced mental pain is much better than physical pain.
> I'm really not convinced mental pain is much better than physical pain.
Yeah because it's a ridiculous conclusion you jumped to, where the only two options are violence vs "insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization". Those are not the only two options.
Teach your kids to listen to, understand and communicate their feelings properly.
I'm not sure this is a realistic expectation. Of course you want your kids to be perfect, but I have yet to see any parent succeed in such an endeavour.
I don't even think most adults can handle their emotions well enough for what you're suggesting.
Indeed. Modern society got rid of dueling to resolve disputes way before women were even allowed to vote. There is a trend that favours a more civil society and it has ties to the increased productivity of such a society as opposed to the increased effeminacy. In such a society eventually proved to offer more opportunities for women and this in turn improved the productivity of the whole society. So perhaps we're confusing cause and effect?
Throwaway! The credible threat of violence is useful and is certainly a skill to teach your sons.
Personal anecdata! My wife messed around once. We had young children who needed a mom and a non-broken home. I calmly visited the home of the other man. I told him that if my wife divorced me that was her choice and I would not stand in their way. I told him that if my wife did not divorce me and he continued to see her then I would beat the hell out of him. I left. Things turned out well for my children, over 5 years later, in that their parents remain married because the other dude stopped speaking to my wife.
This will sound tongue in cheek, but presumably, if a boy is allowed to beat other boys, then he feels better about school. I had the "opportunity" to watch how fighting and being rough played out in class where my daughter was. There were like two boys who attacked other boys, verbally or physically.
Majority of boys were unhappy about the situation, did not liked being insulted or pushed or being attacked. Their parents complained about issue, because their boys stopped liking going to school for that reason.
I really don't think the solution should be "boys are boys and therefore more aggressive one should be allowed to attack other boys". That literally harms boys that done nothing wrong. The thing about "boys fighting among themselves" is that pretty often, it is not consensual, it is one boy attacking another.
I've never been a fan of violence but as a kid I loved playing rough, especially wrestling and these days enjoy a bit of a judo; but have zero desire to get into a pub brawl. When it comes to kids I think people confuse unwanted and mutual roughhousing.
Yes, it was bullying. To the school credit, they did not just ignored the issue. They did called in psychologists etc. The kids had some kind of program about relationships / how to deal with issues / listening to each other program. It slowly got better.
Interestingly, the skills and attitudes they were teaching whole class were pretty much opposite of internet "fck the feelings, git gut looser, something bothering you is weakness" ethos.
Not OP but there was something centering about beating the shit out each other as kids. As long as you didn’t break anything or end up in the hospital it just was let be.
I’m sure if we had a PS4 or sweet gaming rig and the Internet it would have been different, but we didn’t so...
(Edit to watwut’s point this wasn’t bullying. We actually didn’t have a ton of that)
People who frown on children tussling take their young dogs to the dog park so the dog can "play" with other dogs. Because the dog needs it but the kids do not.
I'm not sure about that, I remember, as a kid, being in a lot of altercations and I am pretty sure it hasn't affected me negatively.
I'm not sure I agree with the new prerogative where anything physical = bad, so people turn to other mechanisms to cope with their emotions which may be worse long-term (e.g. bullying, mental abuse/insults, passive aggressiveness, etc.).
When boys play hard to discover the limits of their strength, balance and risk, often that is compared to how girls behave and is called violent, or Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD.) That results in punishment or expulsion for acting like a normal boy would have behaved 30 years ago. That sets back their education, causing a cycle of development problems.
This is called the feminization of boys. An extreme example of this was recently when teensage boys in juvenile halls were injected with estrogen to "control" them:
Boys and men are being accused of "toxic masculinity" by academic (Marxist) feminists, where they really mean "being born as men." If you're more than 10 years older than your gf, you're labelled "creepy." It's an attempt to further seize power from men by discrediting them. So it's not just boys that should be concerned, it's all men in the West.
If you're not aware of this, you really should find out more. It's a culture war against men that will not turn out well for Western society in the long run.
As someone who grew up in the 80's as a nerd mostly playing video games and never took part in these stupid "boy things", I welcome this new world. I can't understand a world where it is normal to have a bar fights.
> I can't understand a world where it is normal to have a bar fights
OP was giving an extreme example.
When I was young, I made catapults with friends. One weekend we took our five-foot trebuchets and bombarded a neighbour’s house.
I don’t recall the exact damage we did. It wasn’t major, no broken windows. But it wasn’t insignificant either: garden shredded, porcelain gnomes destroyed. We had the riot act read to us. In exchange for not telling our parents we agreed to work their garden for the summer. It never occurred to the angry German man to call the cops and I am to this day friendly with his children.
If that happened in America today, we were in Switzerland, one of us would have been charged with juvenile delinquency. Maybe my friend, now a senior software engineer, who was the oldest of the group. Maybe me, who has the darkest skin.
I am not saying we need eight-year olds laying siege to their village to experience life. But almost every male friend of mine has a story in this genre. It might have been fights. It might have been practical jokes. It might have been my high school acquaintance and Eagle Scout who was expelled for guessing the system-wide one-factor Fremont Union High School District password (Zhongguo). His grand crime: running the printers at our rival high school on loop.
Hah! This brings me back to my teen years when we would bike over the border (NL->BE) to get fireworks in Liège. Those people sold everything that was illegal in the Netherlands and sold it all to us kids, too.
We would cut them open and use the powders to create larger and strung together bombs to blow up everything we could find from post boxes to old TVs to some cabinets we found on the streets.
Some off duty fireman found us and forced us to tell him were we lived. I can still feel his hand pinching on my ear as he dragged me back home to my parents.
Biking from The Netherlands to Liège is quite some distance, regardless whether its from Eijsden or Maastricht.
Its possible fireworks are going to be illegal this December (normally, you're allowed to fire them around New Year's Eve). Why, too much weight on health care sector already due to COVID-19.
Up till age 12 or so, parents are legally responsible for their children. So if you're 11 and use a catapult to destroy gnomes in a garden, your parents are liable.
I'm concerned about my children for a different reason. We're both nerds. We got nothing with fireworks and all that. I'm worried my children will be outcasts and get bullied, just like we both were. Additionally, for our boy I am worried about staying on the right path. Statistics show men are more likely to commit crime than women. Furthermore, women achieve better education than men, nowadays. To put it bluntly: I don't want my son to become alt-right white trash. I believe all of these concerns being normal for parents, and of all time. Being concerned or worried about your children is normal, as long as its reasonable. Its of all ages, except that women achieve better education than men; that is actually a relatively recent change.
I sure hope your children grow up to not use a persons skin colour as an insult.
> Statistics show men are more likely to commit crime than women.
A bunch of comments here have expressed the suspicion that this might be partly caused by the bias against "typical boy behaviour" resulting in a feeling of inferiority, making me wonder how much of that statistical discrepancy is caused by failed attempts at fixing it.
> I sure hope your children grow up to not use a persons skin colour as an insult.
Heh I didn't know it was racist. From my PoV it is an accurate assessment though, so I'll use the term "alt-right trailer trash" instead (second part alternative term by Wikipedia [1])
> A bunch of comments here have expressed the suspicion that this might be partly caused by the bias against "typical boy behaviour" resulting in a feeling of inferiority, making me wonder how much of that statistical discrepancy is caused by failed attempts at fixing it.
Except the statistic that men are more likely to commit crime isn't a recent development whereas the bias against "typical boy behaviour" (left undefined) is supposedly recent.
True, I should've said the Province of Liège. We usually biked to Visé or took the old train to Liège city. It depended a bit on where police would have checks. They were always on the lookout for kids crossing the border by them selves in November/December.
As children no one listened to the rules about when fireworks were allowed, but I don't remember it being as bad as today.
I, too, think it's the most normal thing ever to be concerned for your children. And the fact that you worry about this stuff already makes you a good parent. :)
As someone who grew up similar to you, I now realize the advantages of aggression. A few friends of mine took up coaching in boxing or MMA and the difference in confidence and dealing with completely unrelated situtations was visible. They were less afraid to be confrontational and more likely to get their way at work and other places. They got more dates and a lot more sex. Women and people in general will demonize some kinds of aggression but reward people who engage in it.
It seems that my comment was misinterpreted as if I grew up never doing any sport or social things. On the contrary, I was doing sports from the early age, first table-tennis, then throughout my primary and high school basketball and then I've discovered martial arts in my 30's and trained karate, judo and jujutsu. I just commented that we shouldn't normalize things like bar fights (just like OP said).
And you'd be wrong, because it's extremely hypocritical. I too grew up a nerd. I got very in shape in my 40s, and the amount of respect I got after less than a year of diligent weight lifting was incredible -- and that was from people who would praise the feminized society, too.
> I can't understand a world where it is normal to have a bar fights.
I have to say, it has to be a very American thing. I remember two American guys telling me they were surprised to never see a bar fight in Paris, and I was shocked to hear such a thing existed. I thought it was a Western movie trope, 19th century frontier thing. But apparently not.
The way you treat your body tells a lot about your character as well.
Besides, most of it is subconscious (see studies on how more attractive candidates get the job, are perceived as more trustwhorthy or capable, get shorter jail sentences)
You live in that world lol, read one of the thousands of studies on beauty and how it affects work, relationships, confidence, happiness, wealth, etc. etc. etc....
Are you telling me if you see someone in great shape running and someone morbidly obese in a scooter, your reaction to both will be the same? Maybe I am cynical but I don't believe that.
every human being deserves the same respect and love regardless of their appearance, and making any difference is something that i deeply reject, and i feel ashamed if i catch myself with such a thought.
Not that it's a good thing (it's not), but this is the reality we live in thanks to millions of years of evolution. Culture can distort and twist our genetic imperatives, but can never actually roll them back.
Well, you're not entitled to any respect whatsoever. If someone is going to respect certain things that don't apply to you, it's you who has no business complaining about that.
Where does the comment you responded to even talk about random strangers?
> and the amount of respect I got after less than a year of diligent weight lifting was incredible
Sounds to me like this is mostly about friends or acquaintances. All you're doing here is trying to invalidate something someone else did that they feel somewhat proud about.
you are probably right, i read the comment as receiving respect from everyone and not just friends.
it was also not my intention to invalidate the achievement of someone improving their bodyshape, which, as someone who is overweight myself, is something i wish i could achieve too (although i am somewhat proud of the fact that i kept my weight stable for the last 20 years) and i appreciate your criticism as i realize that my comment can be read like that.
i'd like to apologize for that.
what rubbed me wrong was the implied suggestion that i should improve my body in order to get more respect from friends or anyone else.
it felt to me like doing it for the wrong reasons. again, while saying that i realize that this may not be what the comment intended to express, and i am saying this now not in order to restate or repeat any criticism on my part, but in order to explain my thought process however inadequate it may be.
finally, my comment was not meant critisize the parent at all personally but rather critisize the very idea of respecting someone for their body shape.
you seem misunderstand what i am trying to say. i am not complaining about being treated badly, but i am trying to present a model how we interact with each other.
maybe it helps to reverse the positions:
it is fine for me to compliment my friends on their achivements to loose weight because i know where they came from, but it is not acceptable to judge someone elses appearance because i don't know how it will be perceived. especially if it happens in public, congratulating someone on their body while not doing that on the nearby overweight person potentially makes that person uncomfortable.
likewise, receiving a compliment that i don't deserve makes me uncomfortable too.
we do need to consider how our messages are received. and with someone i don't know, i can't predict how that message is received, therefore it is better not to send the messsge in the first place.
if i do want to send a message i try to word it in such a way as to not be about them but about me: i would like to get my body in a shape like yours
this removes any potential misunderstanding that i might generally favor people with a certain body shape, and it won't make other overweight people in the room feel bad.
I was not talking about I was reacting to others, I was talking about how others, whom I have no control on, were reacting to me. In other words, you seem to have completely misinterpreted my rather short comment.
That's just it - "bar fights" weren't a knock-down, beat the crap out of one another event. It was more of a scuffle. No one seriously hurt. Bouncers would keep things from getting out of hand. And only certain bars would tolerate any kind of fighting.
as someone with 3 sisters I also welcome reality. Just enroll your kids to judo or some other sports if competition is what they need.
only point I find sane is that we need more male teachers but its more like a market problem assuming man can do this job well in case of high demand (good salary)
it's not only a market problem. as one schools director told me in new zealand for example parents don't trust male teachers, and it's practically impossible to get a job there working with children as a man.
Male teacher here. 37 ex amateur MMA fighter(5 fights), life time of martial arts training.
I am one of the most sought out teachers for our kindergarten classes, I'm energetic, friendly and have excellent control of the classroom resulting in students being more interested in attending.
I have an excellent record with the quiet and shy students, to the point where other teachers in our other schools are told to speak to me for advice.
My history has very little bearing as a teacher, as I do not condone any forms of violence in the classroom.
Creating blanket statements without knowledge, results in irrational fears.
Has it occurred to you that the removal of physical violence does not come for free? It is simply replaced with other types of violence (i.e. psychological / emotional / cyberbullying violence).
While I do not condone of physical violence, I would much rather a guy having beef with me to angrily yell at me in person, rather than make up stuff and invite a twitter mob to get me fired.
Bullying? murder, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, racism? All these things can be attributed one way or another to human nature because they exist in all human cultures. Should we tolerate them?
I don’t have children, but am curious - wouldn’t signing boys up to some kind of martial art solve it? It’s a well structured aggression, good exercise and there would be hardly any space for any kind of bullying there
I agree with you that the whole society have changed the framing of what is right and wrong in a way that is beneficial for women. If one look at the news nearly all the victims are women and all the perpetrators menn. Earlier this was somewhat balanced that most of the success people on tv was men but these days there is gender parity or more women in these positions as experts/politicians.
More single parent homes which in most cases means children living with their mother, means fewer male role models especially when in kindergarten and primary school is mostly women. This also affect the other children since the framing of the world is more "feminist" and children try to fit in as well as possible with other children.
I can assure you that most of the world is not moving in that direction. Partly because its not useful, partly because some things are very difficult to change. Unlike most people, I want my daughter and nieces to be able to handle themselves physically and mentally tough to chew. But that job has been given to the state to decide how I should raise kids.
The most concerning thing however, should be the danger of assuming everything will be alright.
Less lazy, more realistic, more willing to explore different opportunities. (At least that's the general case for women vs men in my family/friends circles)
I'm not sure why it should be controversial. They are talking about their individual children, whom they know, not about the male or female gender as a whole.
Men tend to score higher in disagreeableness which doesn't bode well with education. Women generally outperform men in school but not on the job market (albeit that's mainly due to the fact they used to work less hours overall because of pregnancy and older people - who had less female competition - get higher salaries).
Men are generally more assertive and better at negotiating. Anti-bias training is teaching interviewers to ignore assertiveness and communication/persuasion skills, to look beyond that and hire shy individuals (which may be fine, unless you're hiring for a leadership / sales role). Interviews reward more people who did their homework over actual job experience, which again favour an academic mindset.
"Fair pay scale" are getting more popular, which means your negotiating skills are less important in order to make money.
The HR field and the sociology field are dominated by women who of course can push and convince companies about the best way to move forward in order to be "inclusive" and look good with the general public (oh and women control 80% of consumer spending).
With hiring conditions levelling the playing fields and women natural better performance in school / academic tasks, it's easy for more women to do better.
Do you remember the pay gap? Well, of course none of those numbers can be trusted because there are tons of variables and skills differences in skills - but if you look at women and men in their 20s, women already outperform men. Older men who faced less competition are still ahead.
But it's not all about money.
Men thrive when they get responsibility. The worsening economy, the crisis doesn't help with that. Women historically had a husband to shield them from this worries; even though that is changing there is still a prevalence of non working women relying on men.
The demonisation of men and masculinity, the repression of men definitely played a role in the increasing number of suicides, which are mainly committed by men.
I guess there is a case to be make that men depression could be the cause of mass shooting and / or radicalisation of young men in terrorist organisations (eg. ISIS, Antifa, etc).
Soldiers dying in wars are primarily men.
Men tend to pursue dangerous jobs, increasing their likelihood of dying.
Divorces affect negatively primarily men.
Tribunals believe women more (see Heard vs Depp for a mainstream recent case and listen to the last phone call they exchanged before divorcing in which Heard admit hitting Depp and doesn't mention any violence in her regards) when things go wrong or when someone decide to cry wolf.
Just to go into one of your points, I'm not sure if women on average perform worse in negotiations. Probably they are only expected to perform worse in a job and thus have to overcome that gap in any negotiation, which makes it harder for them than the average man.
That's a great point! I'm sure biases play a big role in any interaction we have, albeit gender is just one of the factors.
One can have a negative bias toward candidates from a certain ethnicity, or candidates with a certain height, or based off their attractiveness or a perceived "warmth".
What I was referring to was merely the competitive vs empathic nature which tends to manifest more in men vs women.
My observation is that in the adult business world, masculine traits can be advantageous. But before that, in schooling and such, masculine traits have few benefits outside of sports, and are frequently discouraged and suppressed. This causes dissonance, where men are being raised to be gentle, only to reach adulthood and realize that male privilege as advertised does not benefit them.
Women, especially attractive women, seem to receive more support, attention, and sympathy than men. In general, they have less pressure to succeed, and more options to fall back on. I suspect this leads to an easier transition from teenager to adult, though this advantage fades as they age, and they deal with unfair disadvantages otherwise.
As an aside, I'll mention that in recent years the internet has greatly magnified the amount of attention young women receive. Few talk about it, but they should, for it's the biggest change to gender differences in years.
Men are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse by women that goes politically unacknowledged as well. The numbers [1] are actually quite astonishing if you look at them:
> - Young men who want to start families are in tough luck because more and more women do not want to bear children until early to late thirties.
Basically, you are saying that males are more family oriented then women and more likely to want kids?
Around me, yes it seems that often it is man who wants more children then woman (who is more likely to not like impact another kid would have on her), but the stereotype was the opposite.
If you looked more closely, I think you would find that women are reprimanded regardless of whether their accusations are false or not. The very act of bringing an accusation triggers an incredible amount of negative publicity and hostility. No sane person would voluntarily subject themselves to that. Hence why so many sexual assaults go unreported.
>- Young men are more likely to be victims of false accusations, because women are never reprimanded for falsely accusing anyone.
If we were to compare this statistic honestly with what women experience, we'd find that women experience sexual assault at a much higher rate than men are falsely accused of it. It's hard for me to see this as a 'privilege' we afford "young women".
>because more and more women do not want to bear children until early to late thirties.
Why is "tough luck" always a bad thing? Why did you list this as a 'privilege' that women have when it's just a case of exercising reproductive agency? I'm sure we can name a myriad of things women also look for in relationships but don't get.
> If we were to compare this statistic honestly with what women experience, we'd find that women experience sexual assault at a much higher rate than men are falsely accused of it. It's hard for me to see this as a 'privilege' we afford "young women".
This is a related, but separate problem. I'm not personally a fan of Injustice Olympics so I'm not going to compare the two and see which is worse; they're both terrible and they both need to be solved (as much as any such societal problems can be "solved"), but OP was specifically referring to false accusations against men which, granted, are asymmetrically punished. Consider the punishment a man receives when he is found to have sexually harassed a woman (both societally and legally) vs. the punishment a woman receives when she is discovered to have falsely accused someone (again, both societally and legally).
I think they're both side effects of how sexual injustice and rape is managed and treated by the justice system, and they concern violations of the same laws. However, the fact that to my knowledge false accusations are dealt with under other laws (relating to perjury, lying to law enforcement, fabrication of evidence), it's a lot easier to see why falsa accusations are prosecuted as they are, and why the law in this area focuses more on the justice system more than it does the effects on the accused. Compare to libel and slander cases which occupy the other end of the spectrum.
>specifically referring to false accusations against men which, granted, are asymmetrically punished
The person who has been accused has no choice but to go through the legal system to fight it. I'm not sure how we can compare the pre-judicial offences when, for example, an instance of rape may never reach the courts at all. And this is all on the assumption that rape laws both fulfill and properly execute their intenitions, with an appropriate meaning of consent, which I no longer believe to be true.
In terms of frequency of the acts themselves, rape may be equally or less frequently punished (speaking proportionally) than false accusations are. This is because many rapes (rape defined according to how the law defines it) never reach the justice system. Almost all false accusations must go through the justice system, because the accusations are almost always reported to through the legal system (this is how they have their social effect). The accuser will be prompted to go through the justice system at every turn to prove their case.
>vs. the punishment a woman receives when she is discovered to have falsely accused someone (again, both societally and legally).
Firstly I want to question if this is empirically true or only folk observation/intuition. Are people judged to have falsely accused in a court of law treated so much better? How do we know how people respond to it?
Generally, we all lie, and sometimes to get our own way. I'm not justifying egregious and life-ruining lies at all, and they should be punished - but lying is seen as a whole lot less serious, or at least sufficiently qualitatively different, for people to react in different ways to the matter. A rape may be seen as pathological, while a lie may only be seen as extreme.
There are quite a few injustices (including ones I think are not dealt with correctly, or there shouldn't be a law at all), but some are greater than others (or perceived to be), as a matter of quality or scale. Rape is both more frequent, even though there is some disagreement if it is more serious (at least in all cases). Generally, we protect more against higher probability lower penalty events than we do against much lower probability debatably higher penalty events - and the legal system reflects that.
While I somewhat agree with GP, your two posts here make some very valid points that are a significant contribution to the discussion. I don't know who's downvoting you, but it's BS so I just wanted to point out that you are being listened to and that your argument should not be suppressed.
The great comedy is that you have provided no sources for your claims, some of which I think are false or overstated, some of which I think are true. But, a person who replied to you, with a source, about men being victims of sexual violence by women is down voted to the point that you can't reply to it!
Yes, men can't be victims of sexual assault by a woman, because having sex is the male modus operandi! I would blame HN for having a garbage community at this point but the reality is you'll see the same behavior on reddit or anywhere, society wide a male rape victim by a woman gets a high five, not trauma therapy.
Not an American, but I do agree and am seeing a perhaps a 'knee jerk' reaction in society where we've neglected girls for so long that now the pendulum has swung the other way very quickly.
Think of all the initiatives to get girls into STEM, to give them positive role models, to enrich their lives, to give them more heros and icons in media (consider every hero in recent CGI and cartoon films).
We, humans, do this a lot. We see something wrong, and we overcorrect. So, what happens then is that boys start to get left behind again. I think we're going to need to correct the correction in some way down the road to ensure we really have balance and equality.
I have a daughter and son, I'd love for them to grow up in a world where they have equal opportunity to live lives that are meaningful to them.
What's striking in this thread is the equation of masculine toughness with unhealthy things like getting in bar fights and doing drugs. Reading the report, men think their sons are less tough than their daughters.
Putting these two together suggests that the way we define toughness for men in anti-social ways may be the problem. Perhaps we need to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy ways of building toughness, and seek healthy ways for men/boys to build toughness. As one example, I (a man) have never been in a fight, but I have found that challenging myself physically, and going camping have built toughness for me. Neither of those things required me to hurt myself or other people. There is something deeply toxic to me about a definition of toughness that requires men to hurt others, or to hurt themselves.
More females go to the university these days, and according to OECD reports girls received higher marks than boys for identical work (the deck is stacked against boys from the outset). [1] Then they're more likely to go to jail and more likely to get a higher sentence for an identical crime.
If you read the article the suggestion is that grading for classes includes things like not misbehaving, following the rules, and paying attention to the parameters of the rules.
This all sounds like a cultural issue of how we socialize boys. Why is it just expected that boys can’t pay attention or not break out into fist fights constantly?
Reading that article it sounds like boys are graded fairly when you consider that it’s not just doing the work that counts, but doing the right work, the right way, at the right time, while not being an asshole. I don’t know why society bakes in the idea that boys should be jerks by default, but that’s probably a separate conversation.
Ability to get along with a team is crucial in modern workplaces just as it is in the classroom.
> Why is it just expected that boys can’t pay attention
According to this [0] boys have a 4x higher chance of being diagnosed with ADHD than girls. I think you would have a very difficult time arguing that that's because of how we socialise boys.
What would "correctly" even mean in this context? The whole point seems to be that no, society is utterly incapable of handling their behaviour and tries hard to just somehow get the to behave like girls instead, attributing all differences to social factors instead of acknowledging biological (mostly hormonal) differences and addressing them.
However a "correct" way would look like, statistics certainly indicate that the current system is far from it.
This article doesn't suggest anything about the socialization of boys:
"When it comes to teachers' marking, the study says there is a consistent pattern of girls' work being "marked up".
It suggests that "teachers hold stereotypical ideas about boys' and girls' academic strengths and weaknesses".
Teachers are said to reward "organisational skills, good behaviour and compliance" rather than objectively marking pupils' work.
The findings suggested that teachers needed to be aware of "gender bias"."
We shouldn't be saying, "boys will be boys" and we shouldn't accept boys receiving poorer grades for the same work because teachers have biases against boys. We should try to discover what is going on, and work to best educate boys and girls the best way for them. Maybe that means teaching them separately. Maybe teachers just need better training as the article suggests. Obviously there is something widespread here, happening across 60 countries.
You seem to want to blame individual male children for the failures of the system. As a person who wants all genders to be treated fairly and equally, that is pretty appalling.
It's debatable whether the work turned it was exactly the same. Even if teachers were rewarding other skills (eg: good behaviour), the teachers are setting the bar.
It's not like grades are that relevant to someone's life anyway.
To be honest, the only thing I want for my kids out of school is socialisation with kids their age and being exposed to basic scientific knowledge.
Most of the stuff I learned in school went out of my brain the second I didn't need it, anyway. What I retained is only what I still need or found interesting, and I probably remember it only because I did some personal study on it, because I liked the subject matter.
Instead of finding a gender appropriate way or fair way of grading kids, I think we should get rid of grading and the school system entirely.
It can be replaced entirely with project based learning. You can still have some form of curriculum, a selection of different projects that require different skills.
If you want to prove to a company you know classical mechanics physics, point them out to your "rocket project" in which you proved your knowledge of physics. Algebra? I developed a 2d game.
You may have a few teachers around to help but no frontal lessons. Everyone work on their projects and is surrounded by their peers and a few teachers you can turn to in case you need help.
I have observed the same but I don't get why we treat kids as slave labourers in school where they need permission to drink water, go to washroom or speak up and have mandatory work they can't refuse.
It is fascinating, because I remember conservative objections to feminization of schools being that women are too soft and wont be able to demand enough discipline. Which turned into women are too strict in demanding discipline.
I am inclined to agree with proposals to give kids more space for running around and generally using their energy. But then again, the test obseesed system which sees free time for kids as "wasting time" and "being just childcare" is enforced by politicians rather then something that school teachers themselves wanted.
Should children also get marked down for having bad personal hygiene?
If you want to score children for their behavior, you can do that separately from assessments about their reading/writing/math ability. These tests exist to measure students abilities, not whether or not you like them.
i was just about to have another kid recently. to be honest, my thoughts were: please let it be a girl. like some other people mentioned - i also grew up around bar fights, drugs, football fans, etc.
as a parent, i can only influence the kid to a certain degree. i believe most of the work is done by the environment, school, society. i just feel there's a higher chance for a boy to become an aggressive/pathological individual and hurt other people, because girls are not exposed to as much bullshit and toxicity.
>because girls are not exposed to as much bullshit and toxicity
Based on most people I know with girls, teenagers or pre-teens, as men we are no where near ready for the absolute onslaught of female bullshit and psychological terror girls will inflict on each other (and other women in general, including their mothers).
Boys apparently are less bad, sure many of them will get into trouble, but it's manageable. Most just turns goofy for 10 years.
I think boys in general are just too unaware of subtle differences in status, face, clothes, words, etc.
That makes huge difference in how you converse and behave with each other. Generic bad word insult is probably not going to affect me even if targeted. I am not going to remember it but I have noticed women do and for a long time even if minor or as a joke. My female cousin had a journal where she entered things about people and scored them.
I'd say that you're right, but in the end the outcome is there's a high chance of a girl becoming a person that gets hurt but is more or less empathetic to others, and boys becoming aggressive and hurting others. Just my subjective opinion that I came to after looking at kids growing up where I live(Spain). I'm sure it varies a lot based on where you are too. We still have a lot of thus "machismo" thing going on here.
> because girls are not exposed to as much bullshit and toxicity.
I don't agree. Males are more prone to physical conflicts, females are more prone to psychological conflicts. In our current internet age, psychological conflicts can be just as, if not more, damaging than a physical altercation. Both sexes can do plenty of damage in their own specialised ways.
It's interesting that left leaning people are worried less about boys in general, but when it comes to their own sons, are more worried about boys. I suspect that this has something to do with gender politics, which most prominently falls within the sphere of the left wing, predominantly focusing on issues affecting women. It makes sense that if you're tuned into spheres primarily amplifying issues impacting women, and not men, that you would assume that your own son's issues aren't necessarily representative of the population at large.
Over 60% of college graduates are women, and up until the age that many women choose to have a family (early 30s), women actually out-earn men. There's nothing wrong with either of those things, but certain models in our collective understanding of society need to be more cognizant of these facts, among others. People that speak about the problems with the way we conceptualize gender issues, people like Warren Farrell, Karen Straughan, Janice Fiamengo, and Christina Hoff-Sommers, actually face an embarrassing amount of vitriol from institutions, when invited to speak on these topics.
I listen to NPR a lot while driving. For several years now, I have been keeping a sort of mental rally of the topics discussed, after noticing a trend. At least 9 out of 10 segments (other than news or programs like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me) are about women, black, or homosexual success/suffering. For a straight white male there is only education of others; there is no real sense of sympathy, only empathy. I wonder what effects this may have in the long term.
I frequently listen to BBC radio, and it doesn't resonate with me. To be sure there are many non-male and non-white and non-hetero voices, but they are by no means the majority. If you take out the male requirement, the number becomes even smaller. Two days ago BBC radio 4 was broadcasting a discussion on literature. It had three men and two women, withe a male organizer. After that was the news told by a white woman. Then there was a segment on songwriting for musicals for the stage, given by a (presumably straight) older white man.
There is (sometimes) a "women's hour", but the fact that such a thing should show at least that male voices are at least slightly the norm. I couldn't tell the race of the callers (and never mind their sexuality when a partner was not mentioned), but there were male voices there too.
Could it be that we just notice non-(white, male, hetero) voices more when they come on, and assume that white, male, and hetero is the "default"?
It feels like my homepage used to be news, now it it's more heavily biased towards minorities and women.
I'm honestly burnt out on reading about women and minorities being victims and men being bad, I want to go back to reading stories about things.
I guess it bothers me and maybe I'm picking up on background radiation as to why 'that guy' got into power despite me feeling like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3gRAQUmskI
Pick up some libertarian and conservatives outlets?
I'm neither a conservative or a liberal but I read both and some libertarian stuff on top (unfortunately there is not enough around).
Liberal news are hilarious in their portrayal of reality, it feels like I'm reading someone's opinion all the time. Over years that opinion can change drastically and nobody bats an eye (eg: the russians easily hacked the election, that's why the bad guy won - it's almost impossible for someone to hack the election, that's why the bad guy lost).
They also promote all the trendy family destroying / sexual liberation stuff which was my kool aid as a teenager and that I find depressing and socially damaging nowadays.
On top of this they push for governments to hoard more money to redistribute to the people they like, which is just appaling.
In the last years they started being incredibly anti free speech and limiting personal freedom (taxes on alchohol, sugar, etc) which I find jarring and totally opposed to all the personal freedom they talk about (eg. on drugs).
Conservatives news are much more data and fact based and they have a passion for debating. I'm grossed out by how much religious they are (which is not proven by facts by definition) and by how much they like to have the government tell people what is legal and what is not (outside of someone damaging someone else). I don't see why anyone should tell
Libertarian news is again, very fact based, very coherent, nobody talks about religion, they support drugs and personal freedom, it's the perfect mix of economic freedom and personal freedom.
Too bad nobody votes for them.
And I have doubts there too. Wouldn't it make sense, though? The news is not obliged to only cover issues relating to the majority, but society as a whole, and there are more people who are not (white && straight && male) than are. Granted, that's mostly because of the 'male' part.
In what category does a discussion on literature or philosophy fit? (white && straight && male) or !(white && straight && male)? How about new Apple devices? Tech jobs? Which subgroups of the population are hardest hit by the pandemic?
I have a suspicion that the majority of the content covered on mainstream radio is actually gender, orientation, and race agnostic.
It's frustrating and unproductive to see an intelligent comment immediately down-voted, presumably demonstrating the truth of the kneejerk vitriol claim.
The comment (and others here pressing for a more nuanced or possibly even contra-feminist perspective) may be wrong but counterpoints would be more useful in challenging them than a quick fade to grey which indicates (when repeated over several different contributors) that perhaps there is some significant - if unpopular - thread to be further investigated by the independently minded.
I don't know this institute but I don't see why this would be the case as the result points as both liberals and conservatives being more worried about their sons than their daughters.
I have two daughters and a son aged 18-24. My son is 24 and is working on his Ph.D. in computer science, so he's doing alright. But my wife and I worried about him the most while he was growing up.
For starters, an alarmingly high number of his friends and classmates were diagnosed with ADHD and so were drugged. Boys need more physical engagement - especially when they're younger. Yet schools are reducing time for recess.
I taught my kids to take care of their own business and not tattle so long as: nobody was seriously hurt (no blood), no one was in immediate danger, and property wasn't being destroyed. Those aren't the rules they use at school. Kids continually tell on one another to try to get each other in trouble. Boys tend to be more "ornery" and so tend to get in trouble a lot. This creates an atmosphere where boys are viewed as being "just bad." Sadly, boys learn that girls are "sneaky." That has its own issues but that's for another post.
Bullies are another matter. I was raised to not start fights but finish them. I raised my son the same way. That's not AT ALL how schools work. They do nothing about bullies. Their "no tolerance" policies for bullies are laughable because they don't do anything about bullies. Teachers have told me their hands are tied. They know who the bullies are, but now there's such a stigma with being branded a "bully" the administrators won't let them do anything about it. Eventually the bully will get their just reward and their parents will raise holy hell with the school and the tables get reversed: the bully is the victim. It's disgusting. I've seen that happen time and time and time again. I did see a teacher once stand up to the bully's parents and the school administrators and inform them the bully was, in fact, a bully and learned an important lesson in life. Thank goodness she had a paper trail tracking parents' complaints and had the backing of all the other parents.
As part of all this is parents today won't accept that their children aren't perfect little angels. I knew my kids weren't perfect - they're kids. Their teachers appreciated that they could work with my wife and I if they were having issues. They lamented that so many parents simply wouldn't accept that their children weren't perfect and refused to work with teachers to rectify a situation.
Finally, when my son went to college he had to contend with all the so-called Social Justice Warriors blaming all men, especially white men, for all the world's ills. Never mind that my son and his friends had nothing to do with making the world what it is - just like the SJWs. The sad irony is in their eagerness to blame these young men for all the world's problems they were undermining what I was teaching him about how we came to be in the mess we're in and what steps we can take to get out. I was trying to raise my son to be a good man and the SJWs were making it clear that their world view didn't include the concept of a "good man."I could go on and on and on regarding this issue, but that would be for another post.
My daughters? They never had any of these problems. None.
Obviously things turned out okay and grad school has been completely different for my son than undergraduate school but - the whole point is my wife and I worried about him a lot more than we ever worried about our daughters.
The good news? Yes, you're going to worry more about your sons. That's just a fact of the times in which we're living. Raising kids has never been easy and raising sons has become harder. My advice is to persevere and raise them to be a good man: a man who respects all people regardless of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation; a man who knows it takes many different perspectives to solve today's problems. It's not easy and it never has been - but the rewards are worth it!
Does my son support the status quo that keeps the 0.01% of Americans in power and leaving millions of Americans destitute and fighting one another for the remaining scraps? No. At the same time, the self-anointed "Social Justice Warriors" shouldn't assume that a white, male, STEM major isn't "woke." Paradoxically, this toxic behavior is increasing the obnoxious "tech bro" phenomenon.
EDIT: Something you may not be aware of is these young, white males are being targeted by white supremacist groups on college campuses. Of course they don't call themselves that. When these young men are isolated from their peer group and derided solely on the basis of their sex and race (ironically enough) then they can fall prey to these groups that will take them in and tell them this derision stems from the SJW's jealousy of the white male superiority. That's how these white supremacist groups are recruiting these young men on college campuses, and according to my son it's disturbingly effective. This is not progress.
If you think we live in a society with systemic racism, can you point out anything which is systemically racist? No, a few racist individuals don't count, we'll always have plenty of those.
The status quo doesn't favour white men, it favours old white men who were doing business 50 years ago and made a fortune.
It's not white male privilege, it's a minority of old white men who made more money compared to other social groups, because of racism and because women were spending their time growing children and nurturing society instead of working.
There is plenty of poor white men.
And I'm not mentioning men soldiers, men doing dangerous jobs, men in prison, men who lose everything because of a divorce or men who commit suicide.
Why is this surprising? Sons are more likely than daughters to die a violent death, commit suicide, die young from injury, go to prison, or become homeless.
It's not surprising at all. Life in the United States is, on average, better for young women than it is for young men. They simply have more opportunity.
I don't have any resentment over it. I'm not even young anymore (let's go ahead and cap it at 26 years old, using the limit for insurance under your parents), but if I was, I wouldn't be resentful. It just is what it is.
I am somewhat annoyed by people who refuse to admit it, though. It's not strictly better, but given a choice and typical circumstances, I know which one I would take.
It's hard to describe. I have a competitive energy that drives stereotypically masculine behavior. When it was unfocused and untrained, it led to aggression and hypersexuality. When it's focused, it leads to goal- and status-oriented behavior.
When I say anti-masculine, I mean that it seems like society nowadays just seems to try to suppress this energy in boys. Rambunctiousness is shamed and considered ADHD. Competitiveness is looked down upon, replaced instead with cooperation. There was a time when I tried to suppress this side of myself, but it just made me feel bad.
Much of my transition to adulthood involved learning how to manage this masculine energy.
Not OP, but I think what OP is referring to is the whole 'men are trash' narrative that we see in media and social media sometimes. The Gillette ad comes to mind as, to me at least, it legitimises and maybe even exaggerates how many males are toxic or have issues - to the point where a razor brand feels they need to step in and tell all men, "hey guys, be better." (could you imagine the backlash if a tampon brand did something like this to females?)
Let's be critical about this, maybe those particularly toxic males are actually exhibiting tendencies that are more to do with some sort of sociopathy rather than it being their a product purely of their gender?
On top of this, men are also given a lot of conflicting messaging - particularly as far as media and pop culture is concerned - on how they should behave. Couple this with the usual stats about the troubles men face and I can understand why parents are worried.
> Women will never support men, it's simply not in their nature.
In my experience dealing with women this is very much not true.
> Speak to any woman and they're not even aware of men below them in society and disgusted by more than half of men.
The first half isn't, IME, true of women in any gender-related way (women seem less likely then men, IME, to be unaware of or unconcerned with those beneath them in society generally, and there doesn't seem to be any generalized bias against recognizing men in such a position.
> "Women will never support men, it's simply not in their nature. Speak to any woman and they're not even aware of men below them in society and disgusted by more than half of men."
This seems like a hugely generalized characterization. Without broad supporting evidence it is more likely this is a reflection of your personal perception of women then an accurate characterization of women as a whole.
> In the past men formed brotherhoods to enable them to do great things.
You will be surprised to find out who is killing all those murdered men. And who are the peers pushing them to drink more, fight other men, play computer games whole night regularly, saying them it is cool to own a gun (so they end up shooting themselves instead of trying to poison themselves which is easier to stop), etc.
26 pages of comments and all of you don't get it. You don't get the point of it now, the why and only two of you actually see a part of the coming storm.
Older couples birth more daughters so as a result of their maturity and life experiences, they are less worried.
For couples with both daughters and sons, it might be due to biological differences in progress in maturity and resilience in kids. Girls are more mature at age 10-11 than boys and the trends remain the same till early adulthood.
What about all those men who cannot reach your ideal of what a "real man" should be?
Should we worry about them or dismiss them as unadapted to the society norm du jour? There will always be people who don't fit. Nerdy types were losers a few years ago; now macho types are.
The word "progress" is quite insidius. It seems to imply there is a direction where "better" is located and we're heading towards it.
Instead we're relentlessly and half-blindly exploring the vast multidimensional space of possibility of the human condition. And this walk happens at different time-scales which are hard to fit in our everyday experience.
Please read my edit. I do not mean Real Man(TM) in that sense. I never use those two words as a fixed term, they just accidentally ended up together in my comment.
Come on. From Brookings, a think tank known weill for its conservative ideology. This concept ("fear for boys) is also framed as fear for white boys" by other conservatives, and both are exponents of a core radical conservative bogeyman: "the growing extinction of the white man."
> From Brookings, a think tank known weill for its conservative ideology.
Brookings is a center-right neoliberal think tank, aligned with the currently-dominant faction of the Democratic Party. It is economically conservative, but usually not known for being socially conservative. Indeed, the direct conclusion presented by the piece is more in line with liberal (even progressive) than conservative social thought, invoking intersectionality fairly explicitly.
I really worry about my cat. Not that I need him to be a successful cat or anything. There are so many issues these days and I just don't want him to suffer or struggle too much.
For me the difficulty for a boy starts at school where today (and rightly so) boyish behaviour (fighting, being rough etc.) is not tolerated and dealt with in rather feminin ways (not so rightly). Schools lacking male teachers does not help either.
This trend is visible all over society as well. Where I grew up with semi regular bar fights, today every physical alteration involves the police.
Not saying "the old days where better" at all. Just that society has changed to honour the feminine treats much more then the male treats, so I too worry more about the success of my son then about the success of my three daughters (who are in effect, socially & financially significantly better off, although slightly younger).