"Are We Raising Sexist Sons?" is the front page teaser, with the subheading: "We’ve pushed our daughters to excel. But have we failed to teach inclusion to our boys?"
"Do We Need to Change the Way We Raise Boys?" is the title at the page where the forum begins (which is also marked "Updated"). When you click through to the individual essays — there are 5 — the sidebar gets us back to the title of the forum that appears on the front-page teaser: "Are We Raising Sexist Sons?" The subheading is different: "We've come so far in redefining gender roles and raising our daughters' expectations, but have we failed to teach inclusion to our boys?"
There's an interesting difference between pushing our daughters to excel (and the relationship to some failure to teach the boys to be inclusive (which might suggest that boys should back off on their own efforts to excel) and redefining gender roles (which doesn't seem to be squarely about striving to win in a competitive field that, when girls arrive, includes more players).
I haven't read all the essays yet, but I note the inclusion of Christina Hoff Sommers, a name that I think will prompt some clicks from some people who otherwise shun the NYT. Sommers says, "Rather than try to change the basic nature of boys, why not work with who they are?
[I]ntegrating football teams in junior high so girls have more options is hardly the most pressing equity issue in education. Boys are now the have-nots in education. The real challenge for the nation’s schools is to make the classroom more inclusive — for boys.(The forum is kicked off by an anecdote about a boy who mocked a girl who wanted to play football.)
Posts
67 comments:
Sorry, I don't do NY Times.
Althouse, I'd like to know if you think that in a state of nature, this special snowflake stuff would continue;
in a self-organizing, post-zombie/post-meterorite/post-Yellowstone Caldera/post-EMP/post-San Andreas or New Madrid/post-other-disaster world,
--basically in a post-SHTF world, do you think the remnants of society would continue on this path because merit, or would the waste in resources of all kinds dictate a return to what I will call, and what you will understand if not accept as, reality?
Since she won't likely answer, others may.
"Are We Raising Sexist Sons?" is the front page teaser, with the subheading: "We’ve pushed our daughters to excel. But have we failed to teach inclusion to our boys?"
Ugh. Note that the writer doesn't say anything about teaching boys to excel.
Oddly enough, the writer is probably correct, but that's because feminism has caused men to respect women less. Feminists can blame themselves.
Boys are now less likely to attend college, and more likely to have a criminal record, become a crime victim and die younger. You would think the leftists would be concerned about this growing problem, or at least have the grace to stop going on about how much this all proves we need to do more to help girls instead of boys.
But we're living in a world where nothing makes sense, and our best bet is to embrace the decline. Fortunately we have whiskey!
Boys are now less likely to attend college, and more likely to have a criminal record, become a crime victim and die younger. You would think the leftists would be concerned about this growing problem, or at least have the grace to stop going on about how much this all proves we need to do more to help girls instead of boys.
Leftists deeply hate boys. I don't get it, but they HATE boys and men. And I'm going to raise my sons to not fall for the bullshit of feminism and to not accept the insults assumed of them.
Hell, why was the spike in white male suicide starting in 1999 JUST NOTICED about a week ago? I don't know what a racist patriarchy looks like, but white dudes offing themselves more than anybody else isn't it.
I have long stopped mocking MRA because, honestly, a lot of them have quite genuine and legitimate criticisms that feminists mock.
There's an interesting difference between pushing our daughters to excel (and the relationship to some failure to teach the boys to be inclusive (which might suggest that boys should back off on their own efforts to excel)
When the problem is defined as a "gap" inevitably those concerned will try to bring down the high achievers. We see the same thing today where the scholastic racial achievement gap is causing schools to drop tracking. It's much harder to improve the lower performers than it is to retard those with higher potential, and if there's one thing a bureaucracy does well it's find the path of least resistance.
When a group or team is stressed and resource constrained, they are forced to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each member and use them accordingly.
When a group or team feels like they unlimited resources, an unclear goal, and no time constraints or serious pressure, interest groups form and create issues they want to address.
"There's an interesting difference"
It's so nice of you to look for "interesting"differences. But you do recall, don't you, that the question was whether "we" have failed to teach inclusion to boys. The correct answer, regardless of any interesting differences, is yes, and the correct response to the answer is to support any means necessary to put boys in their place.
> Sorry, I don't do NY Times.
I've tried, but I cannot get interested in women's magazines either. Must be something wrong with me...
Rick said, "When the problem is defined as a "gap" inevitably those concerned will try to bring down the high achievers. We see the same thing today where the scholastic racial achievement gap is causing schools to drop tracking. It's much harder to improve the lower performers than it is to retard those with higher potential, and if there's one thing a bureaucracy does well it's find the path of least resistance."
We see that in income disparity as well - yes there is talk about ways to increase bottom income quintiles, but there are immediate actions aimed to be taken to reduce the income of the top quintile. Because it's better to reduce disparity than to increase all income levels but also increase income disparities
I Callahan said...
"Are We Raising Sexist Sons?" is the front page teaser, with the subheading: "We’ve pushed our daughters to excel. But have we failed to teach inclusion to our boys?"
Ugh. Note that the writer doesn't say anything about teaching boys to excel.
Nor girls to be inclusive. One essay laments the writer's daughter reveling in others making a boy who joins the girls field hockey team wear a skirt. This is how we know the goal is only to convince boys to make it easier on the girls. If this were about improving everyone this supposed character flaw would be addressed across genders.
The forum is kicked off by an anecdote about a boy who mocked a girl who wanted to play football.
He was probably just being inclusive, since he would likewise mock a significant majority of boys were they to attempt to play football.
So, the solution to addressing prejudice is to normalize prejudice. The paradox is complete. It's why morality, justice, equity, fitness, rights, etc. are shunned by "enlightened" societies.
TreeJoe said...
it's better to reduce disparity than to increase all income levels but also increase income disparities
That reminds me of Obama's statement that even if reducing the income of high earners doesn't help the poor we should do it anyway.
But he's not the ideologue.
There's a strange modern push to feminize the boys and masculinize the girls. As a result, there's much more tension between the sexes.
I like having a bit stronger girls, who are learning to compete, learning to become self-sufficient. That's a net good, as long as they don't lose their feminine side.
But, I can't stand what they're doing to boys, trying to shape them into future Beta Males. I resist this. The good news is that I'm still raising teenage kids at home, so I still have a degree of influence. The goal is to get both sexes to enjoy the spirit of life, avoid Leftist nonsense, work hard, read books, compete, play sports, display good manners, go to church and be kind. The simple straightforward stuff.
I'm pretty sure my Spouse, who had a late growth spurt, would have also been mocked by certain kids for trying to go out for football in Junior High.
Can't a kid be a jerk without getting all meta about it? (Answer: Of course not. Having a journalist mom is all about navel gazing).
As a competing anecdote, my daughter's (4th Grade) gym class just started their football unit. The coach divided the kids into beginners and intermediate children so that he could spend more time with the beginners teaching them the rules, while the intermediate kids could run their own game. My daughter said she joined the intermediate squad. As far as I know, no one batted an eye.
Call the Deep Freeze Department. Have then thaw out a couple of million Pajama Boy eggs. We have a CRISIS here.
Don't you love it when they say "we"? The hidden premise is that "they" have a right to tell you how to raise your children. Incredible.
Yes, we are doing it wrong. We are not letting them play outside enough, we are putting rubber down on the playgrounds, we are taking away the metal jungle gyms, we make them wear uniforms to play sports and adjudicate their close calls, we are telling them that everything fun is dangerous. We are spending way too much time making them as feminine as possible.
As for competition between the sexes, I am all for it. Taking away the violent sports let's have men and women compete head to head in squash, tennis, volley ball, raquetball, track, field. See what happens.
One of the big problems with Title IX is that most girls aren't interested in sports. This has resulted in the destruction of many mens minor sports like Crew and Wrestling. Some are now supported by private donation.
My middle daughter decided to look into women rugby as a possible sport for intramural activity. She went to one practice and was appalled that they all were lesbians and, moreover, she could not get rid of the overtures from some of them for months.
She is athletic and was doing Tai Kwan Do and martial arts for years. Now her sport is surfing. No Rugby.
The problem is not with society or humanity in general, but with people, groups, and cults that advocate for denigration of individual dignity and debasement of human life under the euphemistic labels of choice, planning, diversity, justice, equality, etc.
You're even more of an asshole than usual today, professor!
Generalize much? The schools I attended from the 4th grade on were segregated. That was hardly an uncommon experience. I personally don't give a shit about who competes on athletic teams - it should be the best players available. What I do resent is the whole "white male privilege" that morons are pushing - that somehow having Y chromosomes and a European ancestry magically gives all of us advantages in life. Bullshit.
Given that the story is about a college, I, wrongly, assumed you could keep up.
Are you aware that Title IX had no bearing on rec leagues, which most kids play on?
Michael K:
The problem for women to compete in physically demanding occupations is the naive inclusion of transgender/confused males. The transgender/homosexual females do not possess a physiological privilege that grants them a natural advantage over their female competitors.
The solution for your women, if it can be considered one, is to override or suppress the expression of female traits and appearance through chemical inducements.
Time to start thinking about how I'm going to keep my 5-1/2 month old grandson out of the clutches of assholes like Althouse.
It's going to be a war... a war I intend to win.
Shouting Thomas:
Without attempting to divine Althouse's motives, and there is reasonable cause to believe that she does have boundaries, you must acknowledge that ignorance is not bliss. People need to know that individual dignity, intrinsic value, and natural imperatives are not respected in a progressive liberal society. It is a feudal system with strict, preconceived hierarchies.
I don't converse with you.
You seem "safe" here now, but I know when I respond directly, or especially critically, that you will be in need of deletions for ann to create you a "safe space" here.
You clearly aren't conversing with me, given your proclivity to invent nonsense.
And, let's be honest, you aren't capable of doing so.
Not saying all women can't do it. I'm just pointing out you as a woman who cannot hold a candle to me. Sorry, toots.
Surely you learned something about youth sports... of COURSE title 9 does not govern those leagues.
It was brought up...why?
Common sense does. And they are currently populated not by the children of Boomers, who grew up believing that it was "masculine" for girls to compete in sports.
I anxiously await a point in this.
I will be disappointed, I'm sure, but the anticipation --- totally there.
Most of us has moved past those days. But some Boomer women (especially those with no daughters or nieces) are still living in the past, when girls clearly did not compete with the boys in sports, even those who could.
But YOU cannot compete.
Not all women.
You specifically.
Why are you people engaging with Mary?
You're only encouraging her delusions.
There's no contradiction between competition and inclusiveness IMO. True sports allow others to compete and respect comes from the effort of everyone to do their best. Nobody wins all the time. Some have more ability than others. Sometimes the unlikely person has more talent and ability.
I notice at the golf course (one reality where there is a large degree of sexual politics) there are some men (not all) who are visibly uncomfortable with a woman around the putting green or driving range. They are probably a conservative bunch, given the usual stereotypes about golf. They get uptight and snobbish, unfriendly. Whether those guys are programed to be distracted by women or are uncomfortable about exposing their shortcomings as golfers in front of a woman, I don't know. Who knows, they might even be anti-semitic for all I know given that the place is 99.9% Wasp. But I believe the tension come from being a female in a mostly male environment. Women players are a tiny minority and lots of time the women just come to the range to sit and watch their boyfriends/husbands. Occasionally they will take a swipe but give up. It’s sad when women don’t have the nerve to learn because the truth is if they can stand up and have two arms they have just as much ability to learn as any man.
I think the benefit of the women's movement was giving women the belief that they have the right to engage in areas which were previously reserved for men. It’s not about being the same as a man. If some men are threatened by women or need women to be subordinate that's not a worthy tradition for society.
R. Chatt, you're full of shit.
The reality is that the vast majority of women don't want the shit you think (and Althouse thinks) women should want.
This notion that we must be ruled by abstract intellectual ideals, without regard to what humans want, is incredibly destructive and stupid. This notion is what makes Althouse such a fucking asshole.
She's so smart she's a fucking idiot. And so are you.
"We" are not raising our sons and grandsons, Althouse.
What I do in that regard in none of your fucking business.
Mind you own business. You got the chance to fuck up your own son. That's all you get, bitch.
Stop trying to better the world and find something worthwhile to do with your time. World savers are always demented assholes, and you are no different.
The answer to your desire to interfere in the raising of our sons and grandsons is all out war.
If this discussion is all about sports, once you get past puberty, I don't believe in many sports you'll find a competitive woman. I have three sons who are in their 20s and one in his early 30s, so feel free to render my comments untrue, but having coached baseball, football, hockey and basketball, I only saw one little girl in the grade school and pre-school levels who could compete. Even when I include soccer (which I never coached), I never saw a girl who was equal to the best boys. Sure, there were some boys who were not any better than the girls, many in fact. But the better boys were always better. Now, I've been out of the grade school coaching game, but I don't hear about many, if any girls, outperforming the boys.
What I hated was the 'let's not keep score' crowd beyond a certain age group. Somewhere around 6th grade, the kids need to know the score and keep score. My sons hated the participation medals and used to laugh when a coach would tell them, 'hey, we lost our soccer game 8 - 0, but you're all winners in my book' nonsense.
That said, my sons never complained about girls on the team or resented having to share playing time. Some boys would bitch about that, but as long as the team wasn't a 'select' team or 'A' level hockey team, play time was shared pretty evenly.
Once we get to the job market however, my opinion of all this 'can't we all get along' crap goes out the window. Our firm is in business to provide excellent service, do the right thing and MAKE MONEY. If you are a child of priviledge and think you get to do something because you're special.....forget it.
The BubFather: "If this discussion is all about sports, once you get past puberty, I don't believe in many sports you'll find a competitive woman."
Not true.
Caitlin Jenner is as good as any male in the Decathlon.
RChatt: "I notice at the golf course (one reality where there is a large degree of sexual politics) there are some men (not all) who are visibly uncomfortable with a woman around the putting green or driving range. They are probably a conservative bunch, given the usual stereotypes about golf. They get uptight and snobbish, unfriendly. Whether those guys are programed to be distracted by women or are uncomfortable about exposing their shortcomings as golfers in front of a woman, I don't know. Who knows, they might even be anti-semitic for all I know given that the place is 99.9% Wasp."
LOL
Sure.
I'm a Boomer, and I fully support any woman trying out for any sports team she likes. But the standards for making the team should be the same. My son was not interested in playing football. He's a marathon runner, but one of his high school sweethearts was the place kicker on the football team. She was very good at it and deserved the place on the team. The thing is, though, when we make all sports teams coed, any sports team that requires size and strength is going to be predominantly male when the kids get past puberty. If you truly want a lot of women to have the opportunity to compete in a sport, develop team building skills, and build the confidence that comes from playing, your goal should be to get as many women involved as you can. I've been to watch a lot of marathons, a sport where size and strength are not the deciding factor, and while a lot of women have competed in them, no woman has ever been one of the first people to cross the finish line. Ignoring biological differences between men and women, boys and girls, doesn't make them go away. Someone like Mary, who purports to want women and girls to "get all sweaty", can't possibly believe more women would try out for sports if they had little chance of making a team, or compete in individual sports if they never had a chance at winning. As in all things there are some women who will be better than some of the men, but sports teams are formed by choosing the best players available. At the top of the curve, athletic ability favors men.
The Madison Marathon ran on Sunday. The fastest woman beat the 20th-fastest man, or something like that. Maybe it was 19th.
"...at the golf course there are some men (not all) who are visibly uncomfortable with a woman around the putting green or driving range."
That's because the main reasons men play golf are 1) to network business deals and 2) to get away from women.
It’s sad when women don’t have the nerve to learn because the truth is if they can stand up and have two arms they have just as much ability to learn as any man.
Perhaps they find golf boring, just as I do.
I'm at work. Sorry, sweetie.
Your bigotry against homosexuals is showing, dear.
But don't put your ugly words in MY mouth, please.
We're not after your little girls, really.
Oh, so you are a dyke. Thanks for sharing!
For what it's worth, on the radio the other day they asked single women to call in stating the main problem with dating men in Los Angeles. This wasn't some right wing talk radio, and almost to a women, the answer was LA men simply aren't manly enough. It wasn't that they acted like immature boys, it was that they didn't think the men would step in to protect them if something happened.
John Scott: This wasn't some right wing talk radio, and almost to a women, the answer was LA men simply aren't manly enough. It wasn't that they acted like immature boys, it was that they didn't think the men would step in to protect them if something happened.
This sort of thing always makes me think of that old ad for Emeraude perfume (yes, I'm old): "Want him to be more of a man? Try being more of a woman..."
Any others d'un certain âge around here who remember this one?
"I think the benefit of the women's movement was giving women the belief that they have the right to engage in areas which were previously reserved for men."
At Lakeside Golf Club, which has a lot of movie star members, the Sunday mixed foursome was called "The Death March." Not by the women, of course.
My middle daughter, who is tall, could have played girls volleyball early and I had a patient who coached it but she wasn't interested. My grand daughters play soccer but that is not exactly competitive.
When you blatantly favor girls over boys, of course your going to raise resentments in the boys. The problem then is that if the boys complain, it's sexist.
Soon after my oldest son graduated high school, I stopped at a Home Depot. There were two teenage workers talking near the checkout. The girl was a knockout (total jail bait), the boy average. However, as customers came and went, the boy was extremely helpful--he knew exactly where things were and impressed me with his professionalism. The girl was completely useless. She didn't know a damn thing. She was a complete waste of a paycheck. But still had a job.
My oldest son saw this all the time. Every job he applied for, the girls got picked first, even when they were awful. It pissed him off. Was he sexist for speaking up?
"We" want to keep you and your ilk as far away from our sons (and our daughters, too, actually) as we possibly can. Is there any way you leftist nincompoops could kindly move to another planet? Just a thought.......
The logic of their argument is that it is now legitimate to extrapolate from even a perceived slight against anyone in a class and pursue indoctrination efforts to change the behavior of everyone in a class irrespective of its actual expression.
I don't think that the people crying sexism have thought through their unprincipled stance. The pro-choice doctrine is literally a death sentence that has also also been used to politically, socially, economically, and literally cannibalize innocent human lives.
I have it! Let's immediately open all sports to both sexes, and let performance determine who gets to succeed.
Change each occurrence of "boys" in the article to "african americans", and you can then see the article for what it really is.
Fritz: "I have it! Let's immediately open all sports to both sexes, and let performance determine who gets to succeed"
Needless to say we will have to "tweak" the rules a bit to ensure that our new, improved, truly "fair" contests are more reflective of the girls needs so as to ensure the gals don't feel disadvantaged, disrespected, threatened, non-validated, non-self-empowered, not listened-to, etc.
Oh, and the outcomes have to be 50-50 in terms of male/female success until such time as the rule "tweaks" result in females "winning" at a rate in excess of 50% of the time at which point we will know we are on the right track.
All this talk about men and athletics and sports, and how superior and competitive men are, etc., got me thinking about obesity rates of men versus women. After all, isn't the ultimate value of sports and physical education of our children that they carry that training on to their adulthood in order to be healthier? Who do you think is the most obese? Overweight and Obesity Rates for Adults by Gender
Here's an even better idea: instead of "working with the" as boys, how about we celebrate their coming manhood.
RChatt: "After all, isn't the ultimate value of sports and physical education of our children that they carry that training on to their adulthood in order to be healthier?"
No.
Next question please.
Drago said, "No." The ultimate value of sports for the young is ego gratification and to fulfill the narcissistic fantasies of aging men.
The irony that the rape subculture was created by the people and groups now protesting for women's rights is lost on these pretentious fools. Their advocacy for progressive morality, elective abortion, planned cannibalism, and class diversity is what lead to a minority of the population's adoption of a faith that denigrates individual dignity and debases human life.
Out of fairness to girls, boys should be raised the same way girls are raised.
R. Chatt said...
"Drago said, "No." The ultimate value of sports for the young is ego gratification and to fulfill the narcissistic fantasies of aging men."
You are such an asshole.
Is it seriously the goal of progressives to trash anything they don't like and castigate those who participate in what they don't approve of?
"After all, isn't the ultimate value of sports and physical education of our children that they carry that training on to their adulthood in order to be healthier?"
Are you joking or serious? This is so obtuse and impossibly short on empathy and understanding of others it has to be a joke.
I train both sexes of dogs the same and it seems to work out.
R. Chatt said...
Drago said, "No." The ultimate value of sports for the young is ego gratification and to fulfill the narcissistic fantasies of aging men.
It is ritualistic behavior that substitutes for battle. Traditionlly something males excel at. It is the stress and bonding that are inportant. Women don't traditionally do well in that situation.
This is just more irrational distortion on the left: the refusal to see reality. Men today put up with a lot and will continue to do so until civilization fails; shouldn't be too long now.
The ultimate value of sports for the young is ego gratification and to fulfill the narcissistic fantasies of aging men.
You're either joking, in which case it's not really funny, or you're serious, in which case your complete lack of knowledge about this area appears to be based on too much Hallmark and Lifetime Channel viewing.
It is ritualistic behavior that substitutes for battle.
Is it? Or maybe, just maybe, sports are actually fun to play and teach valuable lessons like teamwork, leadership, sportsmanship, performance under adversity, etc, etc...
"One of the big problems with Title IX is that most girls aren't interested in sports."
The problem lies not with different intensity of interest but in the proportionality test which courts have imposed as the only safe harbor for compliance with it (even though the statute itself makes no reference to proportionality). It is this which drives the mean-spirited implementation that produces "equality" by reducing male participation. The only surprise is that the hammer of proportionality hasn't (yet) come down on participation in STEM majors.
As expressed by Kurt Vonnegut, "The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal."
https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt
This is madness. You can't teach young men that it's OK to behave aggressively and violently towards young women on a football field or hockey rink and then expect them to be perfect gentlemen in a fraternity house or dormitory. This kind of Progressive fantasy may be possible to entertain in your head, but like most Progressive fantasies it is unlikely to work out well here on Earth.
Girls should be sent to college, boys to joycamps. The solution is in front of us people! I am just not sure who the women are going to get to round up the young men of military age to send them to be re-educated through labor. I am sure we can work that out though! We could set all men who don't know their place to building iPhones. Except our hands are probably too big.
Honesty though, it is almost like feminists are *trying* to make Sharia look good to men.
Scott M said...
It is ritualistic behavior that substitutes for battle.
Is it? Or maybe, just maybe, sports are actually fun to play and
I didn't say it wasn't fun.
Post a Comment