Men's rights/issues thread- Grab 'em right by the willy

[Jo498]

2 hours ago, Mikael said:

I'd still be interested in hearing what kind of individualisation people think would help boys in school. Personally, I think that the opposite is true, kids need to fall in line and do what's asked of them more, not less. In my experience, boys' problems aren't that they are "rowdy", it's that they don't value education.

As I said many times, I am puzzled by this development (boys doing worse than girls at almost all levels of education) because it is a very recent phenomenon. It was definitely not that way when I was in school in the 1980s. (From my anecdotal evidence boys were doing slightly better at a somewhat "preppy" high school but not by much and my experiences also fit with relatively more boys at the top and the bottom and more girls in the "middle". In any case, the official doctrine back then was that girls needed and deserved extra encouragement.)

Of course I can vent a host of possible explanations but without data this is futile. But one possible cause for me would be that "kids need to fall in line and do what's asked of them more". If classroom discipline is not a big issue and there is not a big difference in unruliness between girls and boys because any major unruliness will be punished, there might still be a few more boys getting into trouble for misbehavior but it will not be a major issue. If unruliness is not controlled, boys will succumb more and suffer from not being attentive and being a pita for the teacher, so advantage girls. Maybe also computer games and attention deficit disorders both of which seem to affect boys more.

As for "valuing education" what age are we taling about? In my experience (which was middle class Germany 25-35 years ago, not inner city US today) the most desirable state for teenagers at school is to have decent grades despite being a lazy slacker. If one is not intelligent enough for that it is still more desirable to at least pass without problems than to fail or get kicked out. A nerdy striver is not popular but neither is the complete loser (unless he has some major coolness to make up for it).

[Jo498]

3 hours ago, Mikael said:

I must say that it seems entirely crazy to try and bind someone down with a child in a society where you can do fine on your own, and if you are a woman, even have a child on your own. That said, there's lots of crazy to go around..

It was quite common until the 1960s when it was basically an obligation to marry if the girl got pregnant. Either the woman tried to force the man to commit to her by getting pregnant or (maybe more frequently) the couple forced parents who would not like the prospective partner to accept that now they "had to marry". (My mother told me several stories of the latter kind from slightly older people she knew or knew about.)

Of course before the pill became widespread it often was simply failing contraception but when my parents got married in 1970 the the marriage registrar in the village (pop. ca. 2000) supposedly said that they were the first couple in years who married without the woman being already pregnant.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

As I said many times, I am puzzled by this development (boys doing worse than girls at almost all levels of education) because it is a very recent phenomenon. It was definitely not that way when I was in school in the 1980s. (From my anecdotal evidence boys were doing slightly better at a somewhat "preppy" high school but not by much and my experiences also fit with relatively more boys at the top and the bottom and more girls in the "middle". In any case, the official doctrine back then was that girls needed and deserved extra encouragement.)

Of course I can vent a host of possible explanations but without data this is futile. But one possible cause for me would be that "kids need to fall in line and do what's asked of them more". If classroom discipline is not a big issue and there is not a big difference in unruliness between girls and boys because any major unruliness will be punished, there might still be a few more boys getting into trouble for misbehavior but it will not be a major issue. If unruliness is not controlled, boys will succumb more and suffer from not being attentive and being a pita for the teacher, so advantage girls. Maybe also computer games and attention deficit disorders both of which seem to affect boys more.

As for "valuing education" what age are we taling about? In my experience (which was middle class Germany 25-35 years ago, not inner city US today) the most desirable state for teenagers at school is to have decent grades despite being a lazy slacker. If one is not intelligent enough for that it is still more desirable to at least pass without problems than to fail or get kicked out. A nerdy striver is not popular but neither is the complete loser (unless he has some major coolness to make up for it).

I guess there might be some differences culturally in different countries. I know growing up there was little social penalty for a boy to do badly in school, in fact the loud mouthed backtalkers were the ones who were mostly looked up to and idolised. Whereas many of the girls didn't question the need for homework or working hard. 

i have a suspicion that boys are generally more rebellious towards authority figures especially around puberty when a bunch of hormones are flying around. 

Having a much more relaxed , less authouritarian and disciplined environment is probably going to have more detrimental effects on boys who would in the past learn to respect their teachers and fall in line. 

I think there are probably a ton of factors feeding into why boys are doing worse and worse at education, but I would put lack of role models, discipline and a strong view of their future as the biggest factors.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

41 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I guess there might be some differences culturally in different countries. I know growing up there was little social penalty for a boy to do badly in school, in fact the loud mouthed backtalkers were the ones who were mostly looked up to and idolised. Whereas many of the girls didn't question the need for homework or working hard. 

i have a suspicion that boys are generally more rebellious towards authority figures especially around puberty when a bunch of hormones are flying around. 

Having a much more relaxed , less authouritarian and disciplined environment is probably going to have more detrimental effects on boys who would in the past learn to respect their teachers and fall in line. 

I think there are probably a ton of factors feeding into why boys are doing worse and worse at education, but I would put lack of role models, discipline and a strong view of their future as the biggest factors.

Maybe it's an age thing?  A lot of girls in my HS didn't want to do too well, because they lost way more cool points than the boys did.  The playing dumb thing was very real.  Let me be very clear that I was never cool

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

22 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Maybe it's an age thing?  A lot of girls in my HS didn't want to do too well, because they lost way more cool points than the boys did.  The playing dumb thing was very real.  Let me be very clear that I was never cool

Maybe, that certainly wasn't the case in my school, there was little downside for girls doing well. You could be cool and get good grades at the same time. 

Hard to know where it stems from, it could easily start early as mentioned earlier with boys developing slightly slower than girls and feeling alienated from learning.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Maybe, that certainly wasn't the case in my school, there was little downside for girls doing well. You could be cool and get good grades at the same time. 

Hard to know where it stems from, it could easily start early as mentioned earlier with boys developing slightly slower than girls and feeling alienated from learning.

Yeah - you may well be significantly younger than I am, but it was definitely different when I was in high school.  Look, I send my girls to an all-girls school, and there is an 80% chance that my son will go to an all-boys school at least through 8th grade.  So, you know, we'll see.

[Theda Baratheon]

Never noticed any difference in school. Think it was pretty equal. I left school 7 years ago 

[ljkeane]

Yeah, I'd agree with Zabzie. It was certainly the case in my school for girls as well as boys that it wasn't seen as particularly 'cool' I suppose to be too interested in school work.

[Kalbear]

Seems relevant today

 

[the Greenleif Stark]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 

I think there are probably a ton of factors feeding into why boys are doing worse and worse at education, but I would put lack of role models, discipline and a strong view of their future as the biggest factors.

Bingo

[Jo498]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

i have a suspicion that boys are generally more rebellious towards authority figures especially around puberty when a bunch of hormones are flying around. 

Having a much more relaxed , less authouritarian and disciplined environment is probably going to have more detrimental effects on boys who would in the past learn to respect their teachers and fall in line. 

I think there are probably a ton of factors feeding into why boys are doing worse and worse at education, but I would put lack of role models, discipline and a strong view of their future as the biggest factors.

sure, there are many factors. But my point is that we need some factors that changed in the last 40 years. Puberty might hit a little earlier but it did not really change between 1980 and 2016. And so on. And did the valuation of education by children and teenagers change? I'd guess that parents have stressed the importance of education since forever and likewise kids were unruly and did not care for school since forever. What could have changed gender-specifically in the last 30 years to cause the difference? What were the role models in 1985 that are lacking today? Were boys more future-oriented then? I seriously doubt that but if so, why back then and why not anymore?

I am not sure but what might have changed is: less classroom discipline enforced, more female teachers, especially for younger children, rise of attention deficit and other behavioral disorders (but what are the causes for them?!). And maybe the prevailing idea that girls need special encouragement, especially but not restricted to STEM. I have seen claims that the ways of teaching and testing were more "tailored" to girls now but I seriously doubt that this is true. Probably it is a whole bunch of factors, each small but significant together.

[Kalbear]

12 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Do you have anything to back this up? The overall statistics show women swipe right roughly 18% of the time and for men its closer to 45% of the time which is a massive difference. If there are any stats demonstrate there are differences in different countries I couldn't find them. 

Mormont linked to how UK folks use tinder compared to US. There are plenty of other studies about how dating and mating are different in different countries, as are cheating. This really shouldn't be that surprising. And while 18 to 45% is a big difference, it is not remotely what you characterized it as where every man simply swipes right on anything and every woman is choosy. It means that both men and women are pretty choosy, and men are less so overall. 

12 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes the US has certain views on sex which are not quite the same as in say Europe but on the whole I've not seen anything that suggests that the above  described male behaviour is unusual in any way in terms of geography or even throughout history.

Of course you haven't. You wouldn't, because even if someone showed it to you you'd ignore it as it doesn't fit your very specific worldview.

As an example, this isn't the case in France, where people tend to be serial monogamists in flings or in longer term relationships, but almost never date more than one person at the same time. In Argentina men cheat all the time. In India there's almost nothing but very specific flings or courtships, with nothing in between. In Sweden women are the ones who approach men more often than not. This conversation talks about some of it, but really the idea that all men want to be polygamous and all women want to be monogamous is belied by absurd amounts of research and anecdotes.

[the Greenleif Stark]

56 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

sure, there are many factors. But my point is that we need some factors that changed in the last 40 years. Puberty might hit a little earlier but it did not really change between 1980 and 2016. And so on. And did the valuation of education by children and teenagers change? I'd guess that parents have stressed the importance of education since forever and likewise kids were unruly and did not care for school since forever. What could have changed gender-specifically in the last 30 years to cause the difference? What were the role models in 1985 that are lacking today? Were boys more future-oriented then? I seriously doubt that but if so, why back then and why not anymore?

I am not sure but what might have changed is: less classroom discipline enforced, more female teachers, especially for younger children, rise of attention deficit and other behavioral disorders (but what are the causes for them?!). And maybe the prevailing idea that girls need special encouragement, especially but not restricted to STEM. I have seen claims that the ways of teaching and testing were more "tailored" to girls now but I seriously doubt that this is true. Probably it is a whole bunch of factors, each small but significant together.

From the US and I'd say a big difference, in my opinion, from 30-40 years ago to now is the value of family and marriage has gone down a lot and the individual has been put above all else 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Mormont linked to how UK folks use tinder compared to US. There are plenty of other studies about how dating and mating are different in different countries, as are cheating. This really shouldn't be that surprising. And while 18 to 45% is a big difference, it is not remotely what you characterized it as where every man simply swipes right on anything and every woman is choosy. It means that both men and women are pretty choosy, and men are less so overall. 

Of course you haven't. You wouldn't, because even if someone showed it to you you'd ignore it as it doesn't fit your very specific worldview.

As an example, this isn't the case in France, where people tend to be serial monogamists in flings or in longer term relationships, but almost never date more than one person at the same time. In Argentina men cheat all the time. In India there's almost nothing but very specific flings or courtships, with nothing in between. In Sweden women are the ones who approach men more often than not. This conversation talks about some of it, but really the idea that all men want to be polygamous and all women want to be monogamous is belied by absurd amounts of research and anecdotes.

I didn't say every man, but those stats show a huge difference in behaviour. I'd say it's you who is unwilling to acknowledge it. I'm not sure why.

And did you try and tell me France; the country that has always had an incredibly lax attitude to men having mistresses is a hugely monogamous country?? 

I don't know why the idea is so upsetting to some that men and women might biologically have different dating strategies. 

[TerraPrime]

21 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

From the US and I'd say a big difference, in my opinion, from 30-40 years ago to now is the value of family and marriage has gone down a lot and the individual has been put above all else 

Oddly enough, 30 to 40 years ago, life for PoC, LBGTQ, and all sorts of minority members were almost universally worse. When I hear "things were better 30 to 40 years ago," I can't help ask: "better for whom"? 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

sure, there are many factors. But my point is that we need some factors that changed in the last 40 years. Puberty might hit a little earlier but it did not really change between 1980 and 2016. And so on. And did the valuation of education by children and teenagers change? I'd guess that parents have stressed the importance of education since forever and likewise kids were unruly and did not care for school since forever. What could have changed gender-specifically in the last 30 years to cause the difference? What were the role models in 1985 that are lacking today? Were boys more future-oriented then? I seriously doubt that but if so, why back then and why not anymore?

I am not sure but what might have changed is: less classroom discipline enforced, more female teachers, especially for younger children, rise of attention deficit and other behavioral disorders (but what are the causes for them?!). And maybe the prevailing idea that girls need special encouragement, especially but not restricted to STEM. I have seen claims that the ways of teaching and testing were more "tailored" to girls now but I seriously doubt that this is true. Probably it is a whole bunch of factors, each small but significant together.

I think there is some evidence that modern education suits girls due to the lack of emphasis on exams and more coursework , and a general steer away from competition. But I'm not sure I buy that as a major factor.

I honestly think disciple is a big key to it all, something that is pretty much missing in many schools now. Having more male teachers as well would be helpful. More male role models in general. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I didn't say every man, but those stats show a huge difference in behaviour. I'd say it's you who is unwilling to acknowledge it. I'm not sure why.

How? Having about 1/5th of women vs. 2/5ths of men? That's not even a majority of men! We went from 'almost all men swipe right on everyone' to 'a majority of men don't swipe right at all'. 

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

And did you try and tell me France; the country that has always had an incredibly lax attitude to men having mistresses is a hugely monogamous country?? 

It is, and per the article I linked the idea that they've had a lax attitude towards mistresses is largely a media-driven fabrication. Again, when you're presented with actual data that doesn't fit your worldview, you ignore it.

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't know why the idea is so upsetting to some that men and women might biologically have different dating strategies. 

I didn't say they don't; what I claim is that those dating strategies are not inherently biological, and they appear to be massively affected by cultural values. Which makes a lot more sense, given that cultures are what define things like gender norms and interactivity, and biology only defines wanting to fuck. Why wouldn't you have different ideas on how and when to fuck depending on how your society views men and women who want to fuck?

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I honestly think disciple is a big key to it all, something that is pretty much missing in many schools now. Having more male teachers as well would be helpful. More male role models in general. 

I think that this indicates you don't interact with schools or schoolchildren in any real way right now. Discipline is incredibly harsh in many schools, far worse than it used to be. There are schools with police in them now, there are far more expulsions and required suspensions, there are far more kids being held back. 

[HexMachina]

4 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Maybe it's an age thing?  A lot of girls in my HS didn't want to do too well, because they lost way more cool points than the boys did.  The playing dumb thing was very real.  Let me be very clear that I was never cool

My experience was much like that too. Male or female, it was just uncool to do too well in class. There was the rare exception of high achievers who were also hugely popular with others but it was always a case of "You're so cool but you're a nerd too, it's your quirk, it makes you cool." 

(And this was definitely not me, by the way...I was not especially popular with others)

[the Greenleif Stark]

35 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Oddly enough, 30 to 40 years ago, life for PoC, LBGTQ, and all sorts of minority members were almost universally worse. When I hear "things were better 30 to 40 years ago," I can't help ask: "better for whom"? 

I never said things were better 30-40 years ago.  What I said was, in America today, the emphasis and value is on the individual and no longer the family and marriage.  Not really sure how PoC or the LGBTQ community factor into my statement.