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:

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.

That was your opinion. Still waiting for those credible studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

+1,000,000. End of thread.

[Anonymous]

I mean imagine it from the young woman’s perspective. They watch a bunch of their male peers goof off in school, and then whine about it later on. They are eyewitnesses to this entire situation, and clearly there is something they don’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Wow. You are just determined to show everyone how uneducated you are. Here, let me explain how you get an education degree and stay informed about topics in education.

We read books by experts in the field. Such as academics that study the field of education, pedagogy, and child psychology. What we don't do, is read books for the uneducated masses like you. The book you keep going on and on about is written by...a philosopher from a no name college who specializes in anti-feminist rhetoric. No one who is serious about education is reading this tripe. Well, I guess you and your Moms of Liberty group are serious...but still wildly uneducated. Dunning Kruger at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The social contract is broken for everyone in this country.

+1. I have no issue with highlighting the issues facing boys, but it's not just boys/men. The economic issues are facing women as well, but we don't have as much history with women being financially independent or breadwinners so it's glossed over.

As to the first question posed - whether girls have been favored or just put their heads down and have worked, uh, it's the latter. And any cursory review of the facts will bear that out over and over. If we had favored women then we'd have at least 50% representation in Congress, in board rooms, as CEOs, law partners, etc.

So I have a real problem with blaming boys' lack of progress on girls. I could write an entire essay on what I think the causes are, but girls aren't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Wow. You are just determined to show everyone how uneducated you are. Here, let me explain how you get an education degree and stay informed about topics in education.

We read books by experts in the field. Such as academics that study the field of education, pedagogy, and child psychology. What we don't do, is read books for the uneducated masses like you. The book you keep going on and on about is written by...a philosopher from a no name college who specializes in anti-feminist rhetoric. No one who is serious about education is reading this tripe. Well, I guess you and your Moms of Liberty group are serious...but still wildly uneducated. Dunning Kruger at its finest.

He very much showed his ignorance later on. He is going to show up in no time to call you all kinds of ugly names. He is very fragile on top of being super uneducated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men are unhappy because women are too picky, and women are unhappy because after being too picky they have to settle and have kids when they are too old for that frankly. FWIW I am a woman

I think that's fine. The successful and eligible people will find each other and procreate and everyone else won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Here is some information on the author of “The War on Boys," Christina Hoff Sommers, whose work is allegedly "basic literature" in field of education.

Sommers created a video "course" for the conservative website PragerU and has appeared on Red Ice's white nationalist podcast Radio 3Fourteen.

Does anyone need any more information about how unqualified she is or more proof that PP is a nutjob?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Here is some information on the author of “The War on Boys," Christina Hoff Sommers, whose work is allegedly "basic literature" in field of education.

Sommers created a video "course" for the conservative website PragerU and has appeared on Red Ice's white nationalist podcast Radio 3Fourteen.

Does anyone need any more information about how unqualified she is or more proof that PP is a nutjob?

I mean the article was in The Atlantic, it wasn’t some fringe theory. Do you think Caitlin Flanagan is a nut job? Bari Weiss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The social contract is broken for everyone in this country.

+1. I have no issue with highlighting the issues facing boys, but it's not just boys/men. The economic issues are facing women as well, but we don't have as much history with women being financially independent or breadwinners so it's glossed over.

As to the first question posed - whether girls have been favored or just put their heads down and have worked, uh, it's the latter. And any cursory review of the facts will bear that out over and over. If we had favored women then we'd have at least 50% representation in Congress, in board rooms, as CEOs, law partners, etc.

So I have a real problem with blaming boys' lack of progress on girls. I could write an entire essay on what I think the causes are, but girls aren't it.

I don't think anyone is blaming girls.

[Anonymous]

Why are you all so god damned nasty to one another?

[Anonymous]

Misandry is socially acceptable now and even encouraged. Just look at some of the posts on this thread (not all.) They echo the disdain from red pillers towards women.

- liberal mother of 3 teen/YA boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting takes on boys and technology. I think he’s right about a lot but off on some things but I think his ideas are worth discussing. Are we failing boy? Have we put girls ahead of boys or have women just put their heads down and figured it out?

Excerpt:

“ …his stats tell a worrying story. In 1950, 50 per cent of men under 30 had children; now it’s 21 per cent (and 60 per cent of young men aged 18-24 still live with their parents). The downstream effects are startling: 1 in 3 men under 30 hasn’t had sex in the past year; 45 per cent of men aged 18-25 have never approached a woman in person (as opposed to online) to ask them on a date.

“No cohort has fallen further, faster than young men,” he asserts. “You ask me about the [Tommy Robinson] march in London? History shows us fascism breeds among sad, lonely, badly educated males who are most susceptible to conspiracy theories. Trump got elected because we have a young man problem. And you want to know why his vote went up among women over 45? I believe they are concerned mothers.”

“It begins with education. Boys’ slower brain development (the male prefrontal cortex matures later than in girls) means they quickly fall behind girls at school. What’s more, higher education is now prohibitively expensive, while manual jobs have disappeared due to globalisation and AI. Even for those working, inflation has devalued wages and housing is increasingly unaffordable.

The social contract is broken,” he says. “The promise that working hard and following the rules means your life will be better than for previous generations is gone. In that landscape of despair, the temptations offered by godlike technology, porn, gambling and conspiracy theories can be irresistible.”

Full article.

https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/parenting/article/scott-galloway-how-save-teenage-boys-gckntn7t9

Did he offer a solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Misandry is socially acceptable now and even encouraged. Just look at some of the posts on this thread (not all.) They echo the disdain from red pillers towards women.

- liberal mother of 3 teen/YA boys.

What posts exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting takes on boys and technology. I think he’s right about a lot but off on some things but I think his ideas are worth discussing. Are we failing boy? Have we put girls ahead of boys or have women just put their heads down and figured it out?

Excerpt:

“ …his stats tell a worrying story. In 1950, 50 per cent of men under 30 had children; now it’s 21 per cent (and 60 per cent of young men aged 18-24 still live with their parents). The downstream effects are startling: 1 in 3 men under 30 hasn’t had sex in the past year; 45 per cent of men aged 18-25 have never approached a woman in person (as opposed to online) to ask them on a date.

“No cohort has fallen further, faster than young men,” he asserts. “You ask me about the [Tommy Robinson] march in London? History shows us fascism breeds among sad, lonely, badly educated males who are most susceptible to conspiracy theories. Trump got elected because we have a young man problem. And you want to know why his vote went up among women over 45? I believe they are concerned mothers.”

“It begins with education. Boys’ slower brain development (the male prefrontal cortex matures later than in girls) means they quickly fall behind girls at school. What’s more, higher education is now prohibitively expensive, while manual jobs have disappeared due to globalisation and AI. Even for those working, inflation has devalued wages and housing is increasingly unaffordable.

The social contract is broken,” he says. “The promise that working hard and following the rules means your life will be better than for previous generations is gone. In that landscape of despair, the temptations offered by godlike technology, porn, gambling and conspiracy theories can be irresistible.”

Full article.

https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/parenting/article/scott-galloway-how-save-teenage-boys-gckntn7t9

Did he offer a solution?

He is telling men to step up and be role models and engage with their kids and boys in their communities.