We need to be able to openly say that there are things that boys/men are more likely to be better at. And not just physical things. The reverse is also true, but I don't get emails in my inbox from companies I've bought stuff from trying to convince me otherwise.
You mention that biological essentialism has a rightfully bad name and one reason is that historically (and lets face it, currently) women's biology has led us to believe they are destined to have children and be caretakers. But honestly I don't know why that's an example of biological essentialism gone bad. Women's biology and psychology does lend them to those jobs and without the luxury of the Industrial Revolution, all people did the jobs that were most needed by them.
One could also argue that biological essentialism led to my father and grandfather being drafted to fight in wars the last century. Very rarely do I see that example brought up as a sexist result of bio essentialism. Maybe it's just my family, but the men did what they needed to do to fulfill their role (manual labor/factory work), and it wasn't a choice they had. I think if we want to fight against blank slateism we need to at least acknowledge that we aren't just into biological truths because we want to keep women down and that those truths do also have negative impacts on men.
I fear that if we don't allow women (generally) to be less capable of anything than men (generally), then trying to bring back any chivalric behavior will fall on deaf ears. You can't tell young men both that they need to be extra respectful and protective of women and girls while also telling them that those same women and girls are equally capable in all ways. And the boys definitely see that the girls are not being told to be equally respectful of them. The one-way street is obvious.
Anyway, those were just some ideas I had while reading this. It's a great article tackling a subject that doesn't get much mainstream attention, but hopefully we can change that.
I really appreciate the review of puberty books for boys. They all fall short! Does the author have any recommendations for any modern books for boys that get it right?
As a parent and librarian for a small Christian school, I would greatly appreciate recommendations. Thus far, I have only begun to explore Christian based puberty books for girls and liked It's Great To Be A Girl by Gresh & Weibel. It would be nice to find solid secular titles as well that don't include gender woo and are geared specifically towards either girls or boys. There are different needs for 4th and 5th graders that just need to learn about puberty versus teenagers that need to learn about sex. Too many of the books geared towards the younger children included explicit sections on sex and relationships, which seemed a little too early for the age of the intended audience.
How right to say that being a man is not an inevitable given, but a process needing attentive fostering.
For a long time, the whole "trans" stuff has seemed to me to be HUGELY insulting to MEN: "to be a man" is a challenging and worthwhile goal, and chaps who jump into frocks and unfeasible wigs and claim they have "become women" are demeaning and insulting to other men.
What would help boys? Residential camps for a month at a time? LOTS & LOTS of physical activity & responsibility/ activities carefully selected so that the dyslexic or non-academic are not disadvantaged? Multiple roles, so those without great physical strength could shine as planners/ designers of wooden bridges/ negotiators etc? Independence - being responsible for cooking etc. Good mentoring throughout... yes, making such experiences generally available would be expensive, but maybe the costs of NOT attending to the real needs of young males is even higher.
Last summer, I saw little tents round a Buckinghamshire lake - it was lads and dads camped up, for a night's fishing...they will remember that all their days...so valuable, so quiet.
I always laughed at the British "Scouting for Boys" by Lord Baden-Powell, with its insistence on the importance of "a good daily rear"! But the scout movement has trained thousands of young men, and I have to say I was proud when my son became a Queen's Venturer (the Canadian equivalent of an American Venturer Gold Award).
But here's a thought. Much as I personally approve of girls having all the opportunities that boys have, I know they mature faster than boys and (save for physical strength) will out-compete boys of the same age. Just look at the proportion of university entrants/graduates who are female - boys are losing out! Could that be the reason that boys are giving up and failing to launch? Maybe the answer is to have single sex schools again, where they compete against their own sex and have the possibility of winning again. Of course, the girls in their school can have all the same advantages and opportunities. I also wonder whether girls should go off to college/university at 18, and boys should not until 19. The extra year need not be spent in school, but in some kind of service program. It would be interesting to see how that worked.
Brilliant and wonderful. I saw a note on Substack that really crystallized it for me: "you can't get men and boys to behave by nagging them. You need to inspire them." This really made me wonder if I need to rethink my parenting and spousing style too! My (eagle scout) husband recently started a cub scout troop for our boys because we both believe the framework is essential for boys these days. I just hope they don't wreck the scouting program before we get through it.
I find it truly heartbreaking boys and young men have become so villainized many have resorted to extreme methods of existing or dying. With the exception of Karen Straughan, an earlier champion for men's rights, I've found very few women speaking out or even acknowledging the very real ostracizing men face each day. As enlightened women (note I did not say feminist), we, too, must do our part in encouraging and supporting our males from infancy to adulthood.
Time to provide some sort of masculine nurturing for adolescent boys. Here's an idea: how about doing something with them that accomplishes something and will not leave them cringing with shame for having succumbed to being seen in the company of adults?
Could be anything. Could be a rally, a car wash, some sort of social event. Something that would leave time to talk. Or not.
I hold out little hope for BSA in light of the many years of scandal that have been visited upon the scouts.
How is it that those who fancy themselves "progressive" have taken the notion of "leveling the playing field" far too literally? Boys and girls are not the same. Demonizing kids for being who they are -- in the worst case, incarcerating them -- only plants weeds in that too level field.
Ugh this post is absurdly awful. There are obvious differences between men and women, but using the Google tech bro's diatribe as an example of legitimate commentary completely misses the point that he wrote it to explain away any misogyny inherent in the tech bro environment, which starts in schools and continues upward through employment, as a deterrent to women seeking employment in fields like coding.
When coding and computer programming were considered low value jobs and professions, men were happy to relegate them to women. This is well documented and information to back it up is easy to find. That douche bag's essay completely ignored that past in order to whitewash the underlying reasons for the current sex disparity in his field. I am supremely disappointed with your essay, Joe, especially for its defense of an awful example of misogyny based on biology.
Do men and women both need ritual based guidance into man and womanhood? Yes, obviously. This is supported by the disintegration of beneficial social structures in their absence, and even shown in the disruption of dolphin and elephant adolescent male development, when their species specific social structures are fragmented by habitat destruction.
However, do we need to segregate men and women into professional fields based upon generalizations about each sex in order to provide societal guidance for the development of men and women? Coding is not contingent on brute strength, as army standards for carrying gear is. Please leave this kind of bs outside the debate if you don't want to use biological differences to enforce arbitrary social differences.
Or, do you want to return to a time when women were not allowed to study physics and medicine, or allowed to study, but denied entrance to professions in which they could practice their craft?
We've had decades of pushing women into tech/programming and everything is more distributed than ever and it's still mostly men.
A little while I got the results of a community survey back from a company that makes software development tools and they said that 95% of their users are male, and that we have a lot to do to get women into programming. I heard that same thing 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if it started before that.
Being a computer programmer isn't about brute strength, but there are differences in men and women above the neck, and we've been trying to ignore that for a while.
There seems to be less girls than boys who live and breath computers, and now with technology being so distributed and the barrier of entry being so low, I would expect to see more girls getting into it if they were interested.
Could you post a link about women being relegated to writing software? How common was this and what percentage of software was written by women? Were men also doing those kinds of jobs?
“Bartik was one of six female mathematicians who created programs for one of the world's first fully electronic general-purpose computers. Isaacson says the men didn't think it was an important job.
"Men were interested in building, the hardware," says Isaacson, "doing the circuits, figuring out the machinery. And women were very good mathematicians back then."”
“Women were welcome as computers partly because the work was viewed as a dull, low-status activity. Men with elite educations generally wanted no part in it. Not only were women hired, but so were blacks, polio survivors, Jews and others who were routinely iced out of job opportunities, Grier points out.”
We need to be able to openly say that there are things that boys/men are more likely to be better at. And not just physical things. The reverse is also true, but I don't get emails in my inbox from companies I've bought stuff from trying to convince me otherwise.
You mention that biological essentialism has a rightfully bad name and one reason is that historically (and lets face it, currently) women's biology has led us to believe they are destined to have children and be caretakers. But honestly I don't know why that's an example of biological essentialism gone bad. Women's biology and psychology does lend them to those jobs and without the luxury of the Industrial Revolution, all people did the jobs that were most needed by them.
One could also argue that biological essentialism led to my father and grandfather being drafted to fight in wars the last century. Very rarely do I see that example brought up as a sexist result of bio essentialism. Maybe it's just my family, but the men did what they needed to do to fulfill their role (manual labor/factory work), and it wasn't a choice they had. I think if we want to fight against blank slateism we need to at least acknowledge that we aren't just into biological truths because we want to keep women down and that those truths do also have negative impacts on men.
I fear that if we don't allow women (generally) to be less capable of anything than men (generally), then trying to bring back any chivalric behavior will fall on deaf ears. You can't tell young men both that they need to be extra respectful and protective of women and girls while also telling them that those same women and girls are equally capable in all ways. And the boys definitely see that the girls are not being told to be equally respectful of them. The one-way street is obvious.
Anyway, those were just some ideas I had while reading this. It's a great article tackling a subject that doesn't get much mainstream attention, but hopefully we can change that.
I really appreciate the review of puberty books for boys. They all fall short! Does the author have any recommendations for any modern books for boys that get it right?
As a parent and librarian for a small Christian school, I would greatly appreciate recommendations. Thus far, I have only begun to explore Christian based puberty books for girls and liked It's Great To Be A Girl by Gresh & Weibel. It would be nice to find solid secular titles as well that don't include gender woo and are geared specifically towards either girls or boys. There are different needs for 4th and 5th graders that just need to learn about puberty versus teenagers that need to learn about sex. Too many of the books geared towards the younger children included explicit sections on sex and relationships, which seemed a little too early for the age of the intended audience.
Can you do a piece on good books for boys?
This is a very intriguing piece. And it dovetails well with several of the other explanatory theories for what is happening.
“Blank slate” sounds neutral but assumes feminine traits more as default.
“Gender neutral” isn’t neutral.
As a mother of 2 sons, I agree. As a mother of 2 sons whose father suddenly lied and started identifying as mother, I expound. But not here.
The Blank State is one of my favorite books of all time!
Such a thoughtful article, thank you.
How right to say that being a man is not an inevitable given, but a process needing attentive fostering.
For a long time, the whole "trans" stuff has seemed to me to be HUGELY insulting to MEN: "to be a man" is a challenging and worthwhile goal, and chaps who jump into frocks and unfeasible wigs and claim they have "become women" are demeaning and insulting to other men.
What would help boys? Residential camps for a month at a time? LOTS & LOTS of physical activity & responsibility/ activities carefully selected so that the dyslexic or non-academic are not disadvantaged? Multiple roles, so those without great physical strength could shine as planners/ designers of wooden bridges/ negotiators etc? Independence - being responsible for cooking etc. Good mentoring throughout... yes, making such experiences generally available would be expensive, but maybe the costs of NOT attending to the real needs of young males is even higher.
Last summer, I saw little tents round a Buckinghamshire lake - it was lads and dads camped up, for a night's fishing...they will remember that all their days...so valuable, so quiet.
I always laughed at the British "Scouting for Boys" by Lord Baden-Powell, with its insistence on the importance of "a good daily rear"! But the scout movement has trained thousands of young men, and I have to say I was proud when my son became a Queen's Venturer (the Canadian equivalent of an American Venturer Gold Award).
But here's a thought. Much as I personally approve of girls having all the opportunities that boys have, I know they mature faster than boys and (save for physical strength) will out-compete boys of the same age. Just look at the proportion of university entrants/graduates who are female - boys are losing out! Could that be the reason that boys are giving up and failing to launch? Maybe the answer is to have single sex schools again, where they compete against their own sex and have the possibility of winning again. Of course, the girls in their school can have all the same advantages and opportunities. I also wonder whether girls should go off to college/university at 18, and boys should not until 19. The extra year need not be spent in school, but in some kind of service program. It would be interesting to see how that worked.
Brilliant and wonderful. I saw a note on Substack that really crystallized it for me: "you can't get men and boys to behave by nagging them. You need to inspire them." This really made me wonder if I need to rethink my parenting and spousing style too! My (eagle scout) husband recently started a cub scout troop for our boys because we both believe the framework is essential for boys these days. I just hope they don't wreck the scouting program before we get through it.
I find it strange that men are considered the unreliable partners when it women who cause 70% of divorces.
I find it truly heartbreaking boys and young men have become so villainized many have resorted to extreme methods of existing or dying. With the exception of Karen Straughan, an earlier champion for men's rights, I've found very few women speaking out or even acknowledging the very real ostracizing men face each day. As enlightened women (note I did not say feminist), we, too, must do our part in encouraging and supporting our males from infancy to adulthood.
Time to provide some sort of masculine nurturing for adolescent boys. Here's an idea: how about doing something with them that accomplishes something and will not leave them cringing with shame for having succumbed to being seen in the company of adults?
Could be anything. Could be a rally, a car wash, some sort of social event. Something that would leave time to talk. Or not.
I hold out little hope for BSA in light of the many years of scandal that have been visited upon the scouts.
How is it that those who fancy themselves "progressive" have taken the notion of "leveling the playing field" far too literally? Boys and girls are not the same. Demonizing kids for being who they are -- in the worst case, incarcerating them -- only plants weeds in that too level field.
Ugh this post is absurdly awful. There are obvious differences between men and women, but using the Google tech bro's diatribe as an example of legitimate commentary completely misses the point that he wrote it to explain away any misogyny inherent in the tech bro environment, which starts in schools and continues upward through employment, as a deterrent to women seeking employment in fields like coding.
When coding and computer programming were considered low value jobs and professions, men were happy to relegate them to women. This is well documented and information to back it up is easy to find. That douche bag's essay completely ignored that past in order to whitewash the underlying reasons for the current sex disparity in his field. I am supremely disappointed with your essay, Joe, especially for its defense of an awful example of misogyny based on biology.
Do men and women both need ritual based guidance into man and womanhood? Yes, obviously. This is supported by the disintegration of beneficial social structures in their absence, and even shown in the disruption of dolphin and elephant adolescent male development, when their species specific social structures are fragmented by habitat destruction.
However, do we need to segregate men and women into professional fields based upon generalizations about each sex in order to provide societal guidance for the development of men and women? Coding is not contingent on brute strength, as army standards for carrying gear is. Please leave this kind of bs outside the debate if you don't want to use biological differences to enforce arbitrary social differences.
Or, do you want to return to a time when women were not allowed to study physics and medicine, or allowed to study, but denied entrance to professions in which they could practice their craft?
We've had decades of pushing women into tech/programming and everything is more distributed than ever and it's still mostly men.
A little while I got the results of a community survey back from a company that makes software development tools and they said that 95% of their users are male, and that we have a lot to do to get women into programming. I heard that same thing 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if it started before that.
Being a computer programmer isn't about brute strength, but there are differences in men and women above the neck, and we've been trying to ignore that for a while.
There seems to be less girls than boys who live and breath computers, and now with technology being so distributed and the barrier of entry being so low, I would expect to see more girls getting into it if they were interested.
Could you post a link about women being relegated to writing software? How common was this and what percentage of software was written by women? Were men also doing those kinds of jobs?
“Bartik was one of six female mathematicians who created programs for one of the world's first fully electronic general-purpose computers. Isaacson says the men didn't think it was an important job.
"Men were interested in building, the hardware," says Isaacson, "doing the circuits, figuring out the machinery. And women were very good mathematicians back then."”
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/345799830/the-forgotten-female-programmers-who-created-modern-tech
Like I said, the information isn’t difficult to find.
“Women were welcome as computers partly because the work was viewed as a dull, low-status activity. Men with elite educations generally wanted no part in it. Not only were women hired, but so were blacks, polio survivors, Jews and others who were routinely iced out of job opportunities, Grier points out.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/history-human-computers-180972202/
This is an excellent thought provoking article. Which came first, gender ideology or the blank slate theory?
http://work4sustenance.blogspot.com/