Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should clarify that the boys are in crisis is really that white boys are in crisis. This is a new development.

Exactly. Women and minorities were told to "just work harder". They did. They surpassed the white boys. Now it's an injustice? Give me a flippin break.

Women are doing pretty well. But I don't think this is racial thing. It's not like black boys are doing great either. Black and Hispanic boys are still doing way worse than white and Asian boys.

Of course, but nobody cares about them, do they? All the white boy moms are clutching their pearls because their poor baby isn't being catered to so he can reach his highest potential. Story of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

I'm a former teacher and I would love to hear about how school has been modified to meet girls' needs at the detriment to boys. And a warning to you (since I anticipate a non answer or a lie)...everyone here went to school K-12 and remembers what it was like. If anything, schooling had a much higher standard for discipline and rote memorization. Hence, the magnet options like Arlington Traditional School. But please, enlighten us all.

If you don’t know this stuff you haven’t kept up. “The War on Boys” is a place to start. If you are a former teacher and haven’t heard of this issue, you don’t belong in the classroom.

Anyway, my boys are fine — I have removed them from public school and placed them in a more appropriate private, and they are thriving. I just feel sorry for the ones left behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

Simmer down.
I’ve got two girls and a boy. I’m just reporting what I’m seeing. In a private K-12 school as well. Very wealthy population.

Don't start a fight you can't finish. School isn't failing your son, you and your son are failing school in a way that didn't happen in previous generations.

Pin your hopes on your daughters and plan for trade school for your son. That's what happens when he can't hack the academics, and there's no shame in it. (Don't worry, you can pretend at the country club that he's an artist.) But blaming schools and girls when the only thing that changed was boys' ability to cope? Hell no.

What are you moaning about?

My son is at an Ivy. I’m the one who posted earlier. I’m just trying to offer you a counter perspective. Perhaps you can’t take a minute to open your eyes.

This is what I see with his friends and their cohort. Including one brilliant kid who recently dropped out of college. 35 ACT.

You cannot be serious. You are trying to blame these spoiled rich kids' K-12 education for their crappy behavior? Sounds like the education was just fine. The kid learned enough to score a 35 and get into college. Blame it on poor parenting or poor mental health.

Np:

Young male mental health is in crisis right now. That is Scott’s whole point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

Ranks of desks and the requirement to sit quietly at them. A single instructor delivering a lecture. Subject matter blocks. Tests. The way school has been for hundreds of years, long before girls were even allowed through the door.

When our grandparents went to school there was no milling around the room, no sitting in the beanbag to calm down, no phones/games. A transistor radio would get you suspended, and now kids openly bring their Switch to class. (My god, the crap they let boys get away with... My daughters told me about the behavior tolerated from boys in their school and I was appalled.)

The double standard is wild, and still the parents of boys complain all day. Dress code is the glaring example, but girls' tone is policed as well, and their academic work is assessed unfairly. My daughter and her boyfriend compared the notes from a teacher on a written assignment, and my daughter was docked a point for a misspelling. Her boyfriend had misspelled the same word, and the teacher let it go without comment.

Raise better boys. That's all I can tell you. I personally am DONE accommodating mediocre men.

All your moaning about dress code. Choose better schools for your kids. My boy wears a blazer and tie every day and none of this nonsense applies to his day to day experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

If anyone has any insights into international school systems I would love to hear some opinions of this. I know that most East Asian countries and the Scandinavian seem to do school better than us, do they also have this problem of unequal success between genders and the need for physicality from the boys? Do they have any solutions?

I grew up in Europe and everyone sat quietly in their seats and did their work with zero issues. Everyone was respectful, raised their hand when they wanted to speak, there was no nonsense in the classroom. There was one teacher for 40 of us most of the time. One lesson was taught to all of us at the same time. Coming to the US for college was such a shock.

Same. Although I never had a class of 40. Class sizes in my French HS were about the same as US-- 25 or so. And much smaller by terminale. But there would have been zero tolerance, at any age or level, for the kind of chaos that is standard here. Talking freely, looking at phones, leaving the room at will, sleeping...

A big difference is that they track students early on. Many students will never even begin an academic baccalaureate, having been peeled off in middle school for technical programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

I'm a former teacher and I would love to hear about how school has been modified to meet girls' needs at the detriment to boys. And a warning to you (since I anticipate a non answer or a lie)...everyone here went to school K-12 and remembers what it was like. If anything, schooling had a much higher standard for discipline and rote memorization. Hence, the magnet options like Arlington Traditional School. But please, enlighten us all.

If you don’t know this stuff you haven’t kept up. “The War on Boys” is a place to start. If you are a former teacher and haven’t heard of this issue, you don’t belong in the classroom.

Anyway, my boys are fine — I have removed them from public school and placed them in a more appropriate private, and they are thriving. I just feel sorry for the ones left behind.

form·er1
/ˈfôrmər/
adjective
1.
having previously filled a particular role or been a particular thing.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? FORMER = not in a classroom. Just because you read (and evidently, you struggle with this) does not make you an expert or even vaguely qualified to opine on this issue. I have taught and volunteered extensively in my kids' classrooms. Parents deserve the lion's share of blame when their boys aren't doing well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

If anyone has any insights into international school systems I would love to hear some opinions of this. I know that most East Asian countries and the Scandinavian seem to do school better than us, do they also have this problem of unequal success between genders and the need for physicality from the boys? Do they have any solutions?

I grew up in Europe and everyone sat quietly in their seats and did their work with zero issues. Everyone was respectful, raised their hand when they wanted to speak, there was no nonsense in the classroom. There was one teacher for 40 of us most of the time. One lesson was taught to all of us at the same time. Coming to the US for college was such a shock.

Same. Although I never had a class of 40. Class sizes in my French HS were about the same as US-- 25 or so. And much smaller by terminale. But there would have been zero tolerance, at any age or level, for the kind of chaos that is standard here. Talking freely, looking at phones, leaving the room at will, sleeping...

A big difference is that they track students early on. Many students will never even begin an academic baccalaureate, having been peeled off in middle school for technical programs.

Same where I grew up. Ours happened when they entered HS, but many knew they weren't going to college and entered a technical program in HS (dental hygiene, construction, etc.). Much better in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

Ranks of desks and the requirement to sit quietly at them. A single instructor delivering a lecture. Subject matter blocks. Tests. The way school has been for hundreds of years, long before girls were even allowed through the door.

When our grandparents went to school there was no milling around the room, no sitting in the beanbag to calm down, no phones/games. A transistor radio would get you suspended, and now kids openly bring their Switch to class. (My god, the crap they let boys get away with... My daughters told me about the behavior tolerated from boys in their school and I was appalled.)

The double standard is wild, and still the parents of boys complain all day. Dress code is the glaring example, but girls' tone is policed as well, and their academic work is assessed unfairly. My daughter and her boyfriend compared the notes from a teacher on a written assignment, and my daughter was docked a point for a misspelling. Her boyfriend had misspelled the same word, and the teacher let it go without comment.

Raise better boys. That's all I can tell you. I personally am DONE accommodating mediocre men.

All your moaning about dress code. Choose better schools for your kids. My boy wears a blazer and tie every day and none of this nonsense applies to his day to day experience.

I can't afford blazer-and-tie schools! So please, what do you advise for poor little old me, and the literal millions like me?

Never mind, I don't actually want advice from someone so snotty and out of touch, nor do I need it. My kids are doing great, and it didn't cost me a half million dollars. Public schools and full rides FTW.

[Anonymous]

We need to consider the explosion of single parent families - most of which are headed by women. Props to the women for taking care of their kids but an absent father is a real deficit for a lot of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to consider the explosion of single parent families - most of which are headed by women. Props to the women for taking care of their kids but an absent father is a real deficit for a lot of kids.

What does that even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

I'm a former teacher and I would love to hear about how school has been modified to meet girls' needs at the detriment to boys. And a warning to you (since I anticipate a non answer or a lie)...everyone here went to school K-12 and remembers what it was like. If anything, schooling had a much higher standard for discipline and rote memorization. Hence, the magnet options like Arlington Traditional School. But please, enlighten us all.

If you don’t know this stuff you haven’t kept up. “The War on Boys” is a place to start. If you are a former teacher and haven’t heard of this issue, you don’t belong in the classroom.

Anyway, my boys are fine — I have removed them from public school and placed them in a more appropriate private, and they are thriving. I just feel sorry for the ones left behind.

form·er1
/ˈfôrmər/
adjective
1.
having previously filled a particular role or been a particular thing.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? FORMER = not in a classroom. Just because you read (and evidently, you struggle with this) does not make you an expert or even vaguely qualified to opine on this issue. I have taught and volunteered extensively in my kids' classrooms. Parents deserve the lion's share of blame when their boys aren't doing well.

Lol. What a correction! No wonder you “retired.” Seriously, that book is widely known and has been out for 25 years, and you aren’t aware of it? Did you have no interest whatsoever in education? How do you not know the basic literature in your field? It’s like an English teacher never having read Shakespeare. Do public school kids even read Shakespeare any more? Sure, everything is fine with our education system!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically, it’s increased competition, and I don’t think young American men are taught to fight for their spot.

This is on all of us parents then. I’m teaching mine and they are just fine.

I'm not tainting mine with the ideas that all masculinity is toxic. They can be who they are and I'm not going to hamstring them or emasculate them so they can't compete.

Not all masculinity is toxic. That's why the word toxic is there. The problem is the Neanderthals who think the only way to show masculinity is pounding their chests and being a dbag.

The line has been blurred where masculinity crosses the line into toxic, so that normal behavior is called toxic. It starts early on in elementary school. Mustn't let the boys get too rowdy on the playground!

I get it but getting too “rowdy” is a liability for the school if someone gets hurt

And there you have it. No games, no fun, limit recess, sit still, be quiet, someone might get hurt. No throwing balls, no kicking balls, no tag, just stand and be quiet.

Wasn't school always like this? Or even more strict than now? Boys were able to do this in school before - what changed?

My boys go to classical school and they can sit still because their (mostly male) teachers let them be rowdy during recess and also play sports and do outside science classes etc. their attitude is yeah, your kid may break a bone, who cares. We are 100% for it.

Also there are no screens. Zero. They use paper and pencil and write in cursive.

So... it isn't society or those crazy liberal women, but rather how they're being raised and taught? Hold on, I'm taking notes over here the next time someone blames their son's hurt feelings on my very existence.

It's so dumb because it assumes that boys NEED to be rowdy and rough. Shocker, not all boys do. And if they need to get their energy out, there are certainly ways to do that without hurting someone else or hurting themselves.

Ugh. Rough physical play is essential for boys. Boys who engage in that type of play are actually less likely to be violent as adults.

I was fighting for my life the other day in the Toxic Masculinity thread trying to explain the difference between toxic and healthy masculinity to someone who suggested that liberals believe boys shouldn’t be allowed to play rough. Maybe she had a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically, it’s increased competition, and I don’t think young American men are taught to fight for their spot.

This is on all of us parents then. I’m teaching mine and they are just fine.

I'm not tainting mine with the ideas that all masculinity is toxic. They can be who they are and I'm not going to hamstring them or emasculate them so they can't compete.

Not all masculinity is toxic. That's why the word toxic is there. The problem is the Neanderthals who think the only way to show masculinity is pounding their chests and being a dbag.

The line has been blurred where masculinity crosses the line into toxic, so that normal behavior is called toxic. It starts early on in elementary school. Mustn't let the boys get too rowdy on the playground!

I get it but getting too “rowdy” is a liability for the school if someone gets hurt

And there you have it. No games, no fun, limit recess, sit still, be quiet, someone might get hurt. No throwing balls, no kicking balls, no tag, just stand and be quiet.

Wasn't school always like this? Or even more strict than now? Boys were able to do this in school before - what changed?

My boys go to classical school and they can sit still because their (mostly male) teachers let them be rowdy during recess and also play sports and do outside science classes etc. their attitude is yeah, your kid may break a bone, who cares. We are 100% for it.

Also there are no screens. Zero. They use paper and pencil and write in cursive.

So... it isn't society or those crazy liberal women, but rather how they're being raised and taught? Hold on, I'm taking notes over here the next time someone blames their son's hurt feelings on my very existence.

It's so dumb because it assumes that boys NEED to be rowdy and rough. Shocker, not all boys do. And if they need to get their energy out, there are certainly ways to do that without hurting someone else or hurting themselves.

Ugh. Rough physical play is essential for boys. Boys who engage in that type of play are actually less likely to be violent as adults.

I was fighting for my life the other day in the Toxic Masculinity thread trying to explain the difference between toxic and healthy masculinity to someone who suggested that liberals believe boys shouldn’t be allowed to play rough. Maybe she had a point.

Show me credible studies that prove that boys NEED rough physical play. Please keep your dumb politics out of this discussion.

I can only assume that you will produce no such stufy because it's total BS, but I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to consider the explosion of single parent families - most of which are headed by women. Props to the women for taking care of their kids but an absent father is a real deficit for a lot of kids.

Correlation, or causation? A lot of the men who fathered these children are not fit to parent. I wonder (feelings only, no proof) if many are better off being raised by women than being exposed to their biological fathers. I guess a few generations ago, the man would have been required to marry the woman he impregnated, or face severe social censure. And that can lead to wretched abusive situations of everyone feeling trapped and taking it out on everyone else.

Relatedly, I wonder how much the general insufficiency of men contributes to the falling birth rate. As men have rejected the strictures of society and the responsibilities that come with it, women are opting out too. They've have seen how many men will blithely walk away from their responsibilities, and are avoiding that whole thing, either by becoming single parents by choice, or forgoing children altogether. I know so many women who have made their peace with being single and childless, not because they couldn't get a man, but because they didn't want to be saddled with the men they could get.

Want more babies? Make more good men.

Or, MAGA version, eliminate women's options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically, it’s increased competition, and I don’t think young American men are taught to fight for their spot.

This is on all of us parents then. I’m teaching mine and they are just fine.

I'm not tainting mine with the ideas that all masculinity is toxic. They can be who they are and I'm not going to hamstring them or emasculate them so they can't compete.

Not all masculinity is toxic. That's why the word toxic is there. The problem is the Neanderthals who think the only way to show masculinity is pounding their chests and being a dbag.

The line has been blurred where masculinity crosses the line into toxic, so that normal behavior is called toxic. It starts early on in elementary school. Mustn't let the boys get too rowdy on the playground!

I get it but getting too “rowdy” is a liability for the school if someone gets hurt

And there you have it. No games, no fun, limit recess, sit still, be quiet, someone might get hurt. No throwing balls, no kicking balls, no tag, just stand and be quiet.

Wasn't school always like this? Or even more strict than now? Boys were able to do this in school before - what changed?

My boys go to classical school and they can sit still because their (mostly male) teachers let them be rowdy during recess and also play sports and do outside science classes etc. their attitude is yeah, your kid may break a bone, who cares. We are 100% for it.

Also there are no screens. Zero. They use paper and pencil and write in cursive.

So... it isn't society or those crazy liberal women, but rather how they're being raised and taught? Hold on, I'm taking notes over here the next time someone blames their son's hurt feelings on my very existence.

It's so dumb because it assumes that boys NEED to be rowdy and rough. Shocker, not all boys do. And if they need to get their energy out, there are certainly ways to do that without hurting someone else or hurting themselves.

Ugh. Rough physical play is essential for boys. Boys who engage in that type of play are actually less likely to be violent as adults.

I was fighting for my life the other day in the Toxic Masculinity thread trying to explain the difference between toxic and healthy masculinity to someone who suggested that liberals believe boys shouldn’t be allowed to play rough. Maybe she had a point.

Show me credible studies that prove that boys NEED rough physical play. Please keep your dumb politics out of this discussion.

I can only assume that you will produce no such stufy because it's total BS, but I'll wait.

DP. Physical competition among boys has been important since the beginning of time. And it's not all about strength and skills. It's about teamwork, learning limits, self-discipline, cooperation, sociability, responsibility and all the other things boys need to learn to become good men.