NYT: "Boys Are Falling Behind"

[Stockmann]

It seems pretty simple.  Boys have been the historically entitled gender, with girls securely under the patriarchal thumb.  Girls, to meet the challenge of patriarchal hegemony, have had to depend on social cohesion and hard work to achieve independence from drudgery...

I'd also say this has to do with the American glorification of male dominance, particularly with Trump.  The emphasis on male dominance is a backlash against the realisation that you know what, women can do most things that men can, and they are just as smart, and just as able.  women are losing reproductive rights, and we are wringing our hands over the underperforming boys? 

This is a prime example of two wrongs not making a right. Boys, underperforming or otherwise, don't elect the government anywhere - and in the US, the current incumbent won among white women three times and over 40% of women overall who voted voted for him. One can support both reproductive rights and trying to reduce underperformance among boys.


It seems to me to be a global trend that sexism, etc were getting better but are now getting worse. Men used to be increasingly involved fathers (even if far too many were deadbeats, etc), took on a greater share of housework (even if women were doing most of it still), etc, while women were joining the professions in greater numbers, rising through the ranks, etc (even if still facing lots of barriers, including from women in positions of authority), etc. Now things are moving in the wrong direction almost everywhere (including rising "reverse" sexism in certain niches, not least my campus), which harms almost everyone.

[dismalist]

For contemporary men -- white, black, brown, or green -- we can paraphrase Frederick Douglas' wish for Negroes:

Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!
 [1865]                                                         

[Wahoo Redux]

It seems pretty simple.  Boys have been the historically entitled gender, with girls securely under the patriarchal thumb.  Girls, to meet the challenge of patriarchal hegemony, have had to depend on social cohesion and hard work to achieve independence from drudgery...

I'd also say this has to do with the American glorification of male dominance, particularly with Trump.  The emphasis on male dominance is a backlash against the realisation that you know what, women can do most things that men can, and they are just as smart, and just as able.  women are losing reproductive rights, and we are wringing our hands over the underperforming boys? 

This is a prime example of two wrongs not making a right. Boys, underperforming or otherwise, don't elect the government anywhere - and in the US, the current incumbent won among white women three times and over 40% of women overall who voted voted for him. One can support both reproductive rights and trying to reduce underperformance among boys.


It seems to me to be a global trend that sexism, etc were getting better but are now getting worse. Men used to be increasingly involved fathers (even if far too many were deadbeats, etc), took on a greater share of housework (even if women were doing most of it still), etc, while women were joining the professions in greater numbers, rising through the ranks, etc (even if still facing lots of barriers, including from women in positions of authority), etc. Now things are moving in the wrong direction almost everywhere (including rising "reverse" sexism in certain niches, not least my campus), which harms almost everyone.

Is it possible to be both sympathetic to those fighting the patriarchy and to those who take the brunt of this battle but did not create the patriarchy (and probably resist it)?

I am thinking of Barbie, the movie. It's very clever in some ways and has moments of truly good humor----Robbie and Gosling are great comic actors and the dialogue is very witty----but the whole point of the movie is that men, allegorized by "Ken," are immature, oafish, and dependent on Barbies. 

Granted, there are plenty of toxic men out there, and Barbie is a satire of just that behavior.  "Barbie" the doll is still plenty sexist despite decades spent attempting to counteract its own 'dumb blond bombshell' image.  And it must be nice to see the tables turned.  The Male Gaze has been retooled as The Female Gaze with all its cognitive biases.

But the problem is the same that we see in DEI efforts on campus: the movie's targets are soft targets.  I congratulate Greta Gerwig on her success, but she will not influence the toxic idiots (Boomers et al.) who simply cannot vote for a women for president no matter how qualified she is; this demographic will not even see this film. 

The audience for Barbie was under 35, composed of 2x as many women as men, and composed of 2x as many Democrats as Republicans----no surprise there.  But these numbers means that Barbie is simply shooting at its own awkward allies. 

[Minervabird]

It seems pretty simple.  Boys have been the historically entitled gender, with girls securely under the patriarchal thumb.  Girls, to meet the challenge of patriarchal hegemony, have had to depend on social cohesion and hard work to achieve independence from drudgery...

I'd also say this has to do with the American glorification of male dominance, particularly with Trump.  The emphasis on male dominance is a backlash against the realisation that you know what, women can do most things that men can, and they are just as smart, and just as able.  women are losing reproductive rights, and we are wringing our hands over the underperforming boys? 

This is a prime example of two wrongs not making a right. Boys, underperforming or otherwise, don't elect the government anywhere - and in the US, the current incumbent won among white women three times and over 40% of women overall who voted voted for him. One can support both reproductive rights and trying to reduce underperformance among boys.


It seems to me to be a global trend that sexism, etc were getting better but are now getting worse. Men used to be increasingly involved fathers (even if far too many were deadbeats, etc), took on a greater share of housework (even if women were doing most of it still), etc, while women were joining the professions in greater numbers, rising through the ranks, etc (even if still facing lots of barriers, including from women in positions of authority), etc. Now things are moving in the wrong direction almost everywhere (including rising "reverse" sexism in certain niches, not least my campus), which harms almost everyone.

Women becoming more equal is not the reason men are in trouble. But it is being framed that way. Women are being blamed for it, and punished accordingly, yet again. How about the fathers stepping in and raising their sons right?

There was a protest here in the UK about Sarah Everard...she was kidnapped and killed by a police officer who was predatory.  The police response to the women in the peaceful protest was horrific. The cops didn't like being called out, and what they really didn't like was female anger...as usual, women were punished disproportionately for it. There were unnecessary arrests and prosecutions which were later dropped. Women cannot even trust cops.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58746108

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62539973

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/13/as-the-sun-set-they-came-in-solidarity-and-to-pay-tribute-to-sarah-everard


I didn't see Barbie...didn't play with Barbies as a kids, or dolls really, so it didn't have a lot of cultural relevance to me.

[marshwiggle]

Granted, there are plenty of toxic men out there, and Barbie is a satire of just that behavior.  "Barbie" the doll is still plenty sexist despite decades spent attempting to counteract its own 'dumb blond bombshell' image. 

For those who didn't know,

Barbie is a fashion doll created by American businesswoman Ruth Handler, manufactured by American toy and entertainment company Mattel and introduced on March 9, 1959. The toy was based on the German Bild Lilli doll which Handler had purchased while in Europe.

[Minervabird]

It seems pretty simple.  Boys have been the historically entitled gender, with girls securely under the patriarchal thumb.  Girls, to meet the challenge of patriarchal hegemony, have had to depend on social cohesion and hard work to achieve independence from drudgery...

I'd also say this has to do with the American glorification of male dominance, particularly with Trump.  The emphasis on male dominance is a backlash against the realisation that you know what, women can do most things that men can, and they are just as smart, and just as able.  women are losing reproductive rights, and we are wringing our hands over the underperforming boys? 

This is a prime example of two wrongs not making a right. Boys, underperforming or otherwise, don't elect the government anywhere - and in the US, the current incumbent won among white women three times and over 40% of women overall who voted voted for him. One can support both reproductive rights and trying to reduce underperformance among boys.


It seems to me to be a global trend that sexism, etc were getting better but are now getting worse. Men used to be increasingly involved fathers (even if far too many were deadbeats, etc), took on a greater share of housework (even if women were doing most of it still), etc, while women were joining the professions in greater numbers, rising through the ranks, etc (even if still facing lots of barriers, including from women in positions of authority), etc. Now things are moving in the wrong direction almost everywhere (including rising "reverse" sexism in certain niches, not least my campus), which harms almost everyone.

I think you missed the bit out about young men being encouraged to go into the military or the equivalent of the King's Trust, or the acknowledgement men have lost their way. But if I am going to prioritise a cause, it will be women's reproductive rights, each and every time...women can die without it. Life and death seems more important to me then man trying to redefine what it is to be a man when physical strength isn't as valued.

I've spent most of my life accommodating men...bosses, people in the field, male students upset because one of eight books in the syllabus were about women (when students still read), putting extra advisory time in with male students to help them find their way.

Every day i read the papers, and see femicide...latest one was a Tik Tok influencer in Mexico who was shot point blank in the beauty salon in which she worked while she was recording...the whole thing is on tape.  she was holding a stuffed toy... a little pig when it happened...she was in her early 20s. It is doubtful there will ever be a prosecution.


I'm not surprised Barbie was created by a woman...business opportunity to make a doll of a dumb blonde...that's internalised misogyny to prop up the patriarchy. And, it was over 60 years ago. For some context, it was not until 1974 that women could apply to have a credit care in their own name.

I have a niece in her 20s, engineer, good job and bright as anything. I'm worried sick for her being in the States...we are looking into Irish ancestry visas through her mom so she can get the heck out if need be.

[ciao_yall]

^ This.

Jordan Klepper will be exploring "The Manosphere" on Comedy Central.

Not sure I will have the stomach to watch.

[Wahoo Redux]

The point is how we go about the corrective motion. 

We cannot get to the dead men who invented and enforced the patriarchy (and all the sins of racism and homophobia to boot) and there are certain generations now on the planet who are very resistant to change. 

But don't torment the boys for the sins of the fathers.  And don't blame all of us for a psychopath like Wayne Couzens who was probably neurologically abnormal from birth. Statistically, most men support equality even if they are wary of the term "feminism" because of the implications that .

Don't shoot at your awkward allies.

[Minervabird]

The point is how we go about the corrective motion. 

We cannot get to the dead men who invented and enforced the patriarchy (and all the sins of racism and homophobia to boot) and there are certain generations now on the planet who are very resistant to change. 

But don't torment the boys for the sins of the fathers.  And don't blame all of us for a psychopath like Wayne Couzens who was probably neurologically abnormal from birth. Statistically, most men support equality even if they are wary of the term "feminism" because of the implications that .

Don't shoot at your awkward allies.

who said I'm shooting? And I don't torment boys or young men. First of all, I am retired. Secondly, when I was teaching, if my male students showed the slightest inkling to work, I'd encourage it and spend extra time with them, just like I would with any student of either gender. If they were failing, we'd have talks if college was the right path for them, and I'd suggest apprenticeships to learn a trade, or sometimes a change of major.  Had one pivot from engineering to pre-law, and he's now a well regarded specialist in sports law. If they had problems with study skills, I'd help.

I suggested corrective action...a military tour, a King's Trust type programs, fathers raising their sons well. My dad put in hours and hours as a Boy Scout leader and was an Eagle scout because he thought that was important. Heck, I think it was Joseph Campbell suggested that young men need a quest of some type to grow up. Fair enough, but letting the boys have that quest via video games says there is something mighty wrong with parenting, no? Where are the dads?

But I consider what is happening NOW to women as an emergency. Women fought so hard and so long just to control their reproduction, and there is an existential threat against that occurring in the USA. Wayne Couzens in the UK may have been a psychopath, but then what about the subsequent heavy handedness of the police force in the protests?  Thank goodness in the UK the police aren't generally armed except with a truncheon, but that can be bad enough. I am simply a lot more wary around men than I was when younger due to experience. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

[ciao_yall]

The point is how we go about the corrective motion. 

We cannot get to the dead men who invented and enforced the patriarchy (and all the sins of racism and homophobia to boot) and there are certain generations now on the planet who are very resistant to change. 

But don't torment the boys for the sins of the fathers.  And don't blame all of us for a psychopath like Wayne Couzens who was probably neurologically abnormal from birth. Statistically, most men support equality even if they are wary of the term "feminism" because of the implications that .

Don't shoot at your awkward allies.

Who is "tormenting" the boys?

Maybe what is really happening is that we are clearly seeing how boys and men behave and think when they think women aren't looking.

Revenge porn, doxxing, rape, murder, throwing acid, genital mutilation,  burning witches, what other horrors have women been subjected to throughout history?

If some boys are "lost" because they don't have any better ideas, or don't know how to function in a world where this is unacceptable, then maybe that's a good thing?

[Wahoo Redux]

who said I'm shooting? And I don't torment boys or young men.

Well, you have experienced the connundrum here on the thread.

I didn't say you personally were shooting at anybody.  From our limited correspondence on The Fora I can tell that you are exceptionally kind and intellectual and decorous.  But the nature of these correctives is to implicate broadly----so, I was talking about other people, but you took it personally.  That is exactly the problem.

And, for the record, I am a male feminist who is married to a feminist.  I gave up my final year of a teaching fellowship to follow my wife when she got a break on the job market and paid a huge price in my own career.  I even turned down a job in my dream city with the hope that we might both find employment there; I did not want to ruin her career, never to have that luck return. I am not the guy that you are thinking of when you post...

I suggested corrective action...a military tour, a King's Trust type programs, fathers raising their sons well. My dad put in hours and hours as a Boy Scout leader and was an Eagle scout because he thought that was important. Heck, I think it was Joseph Campbell suggested that young men need a quest of some type to grow up. Fair enough, but letting the boys have that quest via video games says there is something mighty wrong with parenting, no? Where are the dads?

You've kind of decided how to deal with the problem of men.  You're telling boys that they need a "quest" to learn how to behave.  Boys have the right to play video games.  Plenty do.  And they come out fine.  Dismalist has his point above.  Don't do anything with them.  Let them find their own way.  Don't diminish them or challenge their right to be who they are. 

But I consider what is happening NOW to women as an emergency. Women fought so hard and so long just to control their reproduction, and there is an existential threat against that occurring in the USA. Wayne Couzens in the UK may have been a psychopath, but then what about the subsequent heavy handedness of the police force in the protests?  Thank goodness in the UK the police aren't generally armed except with a truncheon, but that can be bad enough. I am simply a lot more wary around men than I was when younger due to experience. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

I totally agree about reproductive rights, although I understand the objections to abortion too but arrive on the side of Pro-Choice. 

It may surprise you, but I am a lot more wary around women (and minorities and LGBTQ folks) than I was when I was younger despite my total support of all.  I don't want to say the wrong thing or, as I've observed, have the culture wars weaponized.  I have specific anecdata and examples from the general culture, but I'll save them for now. 

And forgive me, but what exactly did the police do?  There were confrontations with a crowd and one arrest.  I watched this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK6X0ePXa3w

It looks like the police asked the crowd to disperse.  They refused.  The vigil was now a protest.  The protestors were aggressive and confrontational.  Speakers urged the vigil to resist----it looks like their anger at a psychopath was directed at the target in front of them, the police.  This is the dynamic I am writing about.  Eventually police arrested Patsy Stevenson.  The optics all around are not great.

I would agree, based on what I've seen, that police were not sensitive to the feelings of people mourning and enraged by a horrific act of violence.  But they are cops; it's their job to keep the peace and control the situation. 

We simply live in a time in which battle lines are drawn, and even by the nicest, most well-meaning people lob thought grenades. 

[kaysixteen]

Trotting out assorted misfits and outright psychopaths both now and historically is not the best argument for your  what seems to be, ahem, reflexive refusal to deal with the question wahoo raised, and he ain't the only one raisin' it, and, as I said before and am at pains to reiterate, more or less all the social science research of the last few decades, almost none of which was authored by faculty members from Liberty or Ave Maria, shows that this is so.  The fact that great-grandpa got many advantages women in his generation were denied does not mean, and boys and young men today are keenly aware that it does not mean, that they are treated equally with their sistren today, which, of course, they really aren't, at least in high education careers and academic environments.

Much of this can in fact be traced to the disintegration of the nuclear family and corresponding creation of a generation of increasingly fatherless males.

Another reminder/ suggestion: what else did great-great-grandpa, great-grandpa, and grandpa have to do that their wives and sisters didn't? Get drafted and head on into combat.  Noting this and the difference today might well make one reevaluate whether a reintroduction of anything resembling mandatory military service 'for the King' only for flagging young men might not, ahem, increase these guys' warm and fuzzy feelings towards the fairer sex ('Aha, there's where we still get an advantage!--no need to get a scholarship to college when Uncle Sam or King Chuck is a-callin'!'

Lastly, I get that feminists are committed to women's reproductive rights (even of course to the extent that they see no need whatsover-- Quelle horreur!-- to give any corresponding reproductive rights to menfolk), but remember, most MAGAot men care not a whit about whether a woman has an abortion (really, they don't-- serious evangelical or (albeit to a noticeably lesser extent) Catholic opponents of abortion, male or, yes, female, are but a small percentage of the overall MAGA base.  Most Bubbas might well even be eager to pony up a few bucks to the MAGA babes they have knocked up, to induce the latter to head (on the QT) to the local abortion facility, however much they may well lie about abortion to their friends.  And libertarians, of course, care nothing about restricting abortion access, but quite the reverse.

[Wahoo Redux]

Who is "tormenting" the boys?

Maybe what is really happening is that we are clearly seeing how boys and men behave and think when they think women aren't looking.

That's kind of the "tormenting" I'm talking about.  B'sides, boys often behave the way they do because the girls are watching.  And, while my frat party / bar-hopping /  clubbing days are far behind me, the alfa-***hole tends to get a lot of approbation from both guys and girls. 

Plenty of us are good guys who don't do these things when people are watching and not watching. 

Revenge porn, doxxing, rape, murder, throwing acid, genital mutilation,  burning witches, what other horrors have women been subjected to throughout history?

Sure.  Horrific. Unthinkable. I agree.  Guys who are not psychopaths or religious zealots agree, and that's most of us.  None of those things are legal in our culture anyway.  These are horrors from history and other societies. Many of them happen to men too. Why throw them at me?

If some boys are "lost" because they don't have any better ideas, or don't know how to function in a world where this is unacceptable, then maybe that's a good thing?

Not sure what you are saying.

[ciao_yall]

Who is "tormenting" the boys?

Maybe what is really happening is that we are clearly seeing how boys and men behave and think when they think women aren't looking.

That's kind of the "tormenting" I'm talking about.  B'sides, boys often behave the way they do because the girls are watching.  And, while my frat party / bar-hopping /  clubbing days are far behind me, the alfa-***hole tends to get a lot of approbation from both guys and girls. 

Plenty of us are good guys who don't do these things when people are watching and not watching. 

Revenge porn, doxxing, rape, murder, throwing acid, genital mutilation,  burning witches, what other horrors have women been subjected to throughout history?

Sure.  Horrific. Unthinkable. I agree.  Guys who are not psychopaths or religious zealots agree, and that's most of us.  None of those things are legal in our culture anyway.  These are horrors from history and other societies. Many of them happen to men too. Why throw them at me?

If some boys are "lost" because they don't have any better ideas, or don't know how to function in a world where this is unacceptable, then maybe that's a good thing?

Not sure what you are saying.

Nobody is throwing anything at you.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, but you did.  I don't think you think I do those things.  But you invoked them nevertheless.