Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

[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.

Need is relative. I'm not saying that boys will drop dead or end up in prison if they can't play rough, but I am saying that it is very beneficial for their development.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3283567/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29069537/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29088498/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36621585/

[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:

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.

What does that have to do with your claim that "rough physical play is essential for boys?" I asked for a credible study supporting your claim and you came back with a completely different assertion.

[Anonymous]

Robert Putnam’s book “Kids” also sets a lot of these studies in context. I think his solutions at the end don’t work well, but the data is there and very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Robert Putnam’s book “Kids” also sets a lot of these studies in context. I think his solutions at the end don’t work well, but the data is there and very interesting.

Sorry, it is “Our Kids.”

I’m bored by the posters who demand studies then ignore them when provided. For goodness’ sake read a book already!

[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:

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.

Need is relative. I'm not saying that boys will drop dead or end up in prison if they can't play rough, but I am saying that it is very beneficial for their development.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3283567/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29069537/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29088498/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36621585/

You literally said it's ESSENTIAL but now you're saying it's relative. Please make up your mind.

Also, the articles you posted are all about fathers and sons and have nothing to do with how boys are expected to behave in school.

And no, rough play is no way essential or needed for the proper development of male children. You are welcome to rough play with your kids at home all you like, though. Just don't expect the school to put up with your misbehaved boys.

[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:

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.

I agree with this.

I do not believe that we need to cater to the chaos that only recently has been used to define "boy"

[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.

Love this.

[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.

How much further can we punish the dead beat fathers who abandon their children? I don't think you're incorrect here, men abandoning their families is disgusting, but if they are so quick to do that, I don't see how they will be any sort of positive role model for the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert Putnam’s book “Kids” also sets a lot of these studies in context. I think his solutions at the end don’t work well, but the data is there and very interesting.

Sorry, it is “Our Kids.”

I’m bored by the posters who demand studies then ignore them when provided. For goodness’ sake read a book already!

Thank you. Agree. It's one cantankerous, lonely SAHM.

I want you to summarize the book for us without going to Google.

I am the poster who suggested the book, but the most important part of the book is not its thesis, but the mix of studies, stories, and explanation connecting the two that Putnam does. Someone asked for information about why single mother families are relevant to this discussion at all, why male role models are important, etc. It touches on a lot of the issues raised in this thread and would be interesting and provide useful data to anyone seriously interested in this topic. It is also written by a famous progressive political scientist from Harvard. I think it also explores poverty and the growing chasm between private and public school educations and how that affects outcomes. All of which is relevant to the future of boys (and girls).

Go ahead, demand another study on a very specifically worded point, I can’t wait to ignore you.

[Anonymous]

Men have only been able to succeed for the last 3000 years because they literally built the system to preference themselves. Fifty years into allowing women to actually compete and they've been lapped and they cant handle it.

Cry me a river.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Girls didnt work harder, they were given freebies and head starts.

You're pathetic. I'm sorry you weren't smart enough to compete with girls and you banked on your mediocrity being enough because you're a man.

Calm down, sweetie. I still let women clean my house.

HAHAHAHA, sweetie, I'm sorry I touched a nerve. I doubt you have enough money to pay a woman to do anything.

Make up your mind, sweetie. I see I got you all emotional. More proof why you dont belong in the armed services. Is it that time of month?

Again, you're pathetic. I can totally see how every woman you ever encountered did much better than you in life. You're probably super short and bald too hahaha

Calm down, little lady. You're going to have a panic attack. Anyway- get back to making dinner. You REALLY don't want to get divorced as a fat middle aged woman.

NP hahaha I opened this thread on this page and OFC it's some man with a tiny d getting hysterical at a woman. God men aren't lonely enough!! MORE PLEASE!!

Nope. We all see right through you. He's got you alllllllllll worked up. Women always have such a hard time controlling their emotions!

You seem really upset. Did that crack about your tiny weeny get under your skin? I would tell you to cry about it but you're not allowed to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men have only been able to succeed for the last 3000 years because they literally built the system to preference themselves. Fifty years into allowing women to actually compete and they've been lapped and they cant handle it.

Cry me a river.

"Men built everything! We rule the world"
...
"Oh boo hoo, I can't sit still in school and it's girls' fault I'm a failure"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Robert Putnam’s book “Kids” also sets a lot of these studies in context. I think his solutions at the end don’t work well, but the data is there and very interesting.

Sorry, it is “Our Kids.”

I’m bored by the posters who demand studies then ignore them when provided. For goodness’ sake read a book already!

Thank you. Agree. It's one cantankerous, lonely SAHM.

I want you to summarize the book for us without going to Google.

I am the poster who suggested the book, but the most important part of the book is not its thesis, but the mix of studies, stories, and explanation connecting the two that Putnam does. Someone asked for information about why single mother families are relevant to this discussion at all, why male role models are important, etc. It touches on a lot of the issues raised in this thread and would be interesting and provide useful data to anyone seriously interested in this topic. It is also written by a famous progressive political scientist from Harvard. I think it also explores poverty and the growing chasm between private and public school educations and how that affects outcomes. All of which is relevant to the future of boys (and girls).

Go ahead, demand another study on a very specifically worded point, I can’t wait to ignore you.

To be clear. You didn’t provide a single study. You provided a name of a book. You are still free to post the studies from the book.

[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.

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.

Why don't you ask the "I'm done with the mediocre boys" which you rub shoulders with in the public schools? She doesn't think much of her community.

[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:

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.

What does that have to do with your claim that "rough physical play is essential for boys?" I asked for a credible study supporting your claim and you came back with a completely different assertion.

Rough and tumble play is very important for boys to learn self regulation.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3283567/

While this study is about fathers and sons, I believe that boys on the playground need to be able to play rough with other boys who want to play rough and when somebody gets hurt, there’s some correction not a punishment.

I did send my kids to a school with this model and it worked very well.

When kids in my house were playing rough and tumble all they had to say was “I’m not having fun anymore” and everybody had to freeze. This is an important part of development when it comes to regulating your emotions, turning it off immediately when I asked., and basically enjoying yourself.