High School Boys Struggling at our Big 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a son and daughter. Both were exposed to discussions about racism, sexism, classism, antisemetism, islamaphobia, homophobis, etc. They learned at school that history shows that race, gender, religion, etc. have been used to structure society and often times in ways that advantage some groups over others and to vest power in certain groups over others. We discussed these issues at home too. Maybe because I have both a son and a daughter I wanted my son and my daughter to be aware of toxic beliefs and social/cultural norms that are harmful. Here’s a simple one—boys don’t/shouldn’t cry. That’s actually harmful to men and boys. Holding in emotions and disconnecting from your feelings can cause physical harm to the body like increased heart disease, high blood pressure, and depression for example. Men should be the bread winner and being able to support your family determines whether you are really a man or not. Responsibilities can be shared. You and your spouse can decide how to structure things.

I have helped women escape domestic abuse. You know what drives a lot of this abuse? The husband/boyfriend’s belief that he has the right to control his wife/girlfriend because he is a man and is top dog in the hierarchy. Do all men abuse women? No they don’t but how do you stop it? You raise your boys to be good men. Men that not only don’t abuse women but work to end the violence against women.

At my old school all the parents who said my son comes home feeling bad never had the types of conversations we had at our house and some of the families of the other boys in the class had. I’m white and some white parents would talk about how conversations about race made their white kids feel uncomfortable or bad. They thought the school shouldn’t talk about race in a way that made their white kids uncomfortable. I said what about the black and brown students? Should our children’s comfort be more important than their’s. I told them that I was decidely uncomfortable with making my kid feel better at the expense of their black and brown classmates and friends so we talk about uncomfortable issues like race in our house.

Maybe the school needs to do a better job of guiding these discussions but maybe you could help your son look at what’s making him uncomfortable. It bothers my son that my safety talk with his sister includes how to try to protect yourself from sexual assault. Our talk with our son was to look out for his friends including his female friends. If you notice a young women drunk or high, keep an eye out and make sure she gets home safe. We talk about these issues so that he doesn’t grow up to be one of the guys from Mad Men like Don Draper. We want him to be a respectful, thoughtful, empathetic, resposible adult male. Part of that is talking about how some beliefs or values around masculity can be toxic. He’s not damaged by those discussions.

I have older teen boys so I appreciate much of what you wrote - but - in the end, it is not my son's personal responsibility to take care of his friends, male or female, every time they go out and most of them have too much to drink. I think it is wrong and dangerous to put that level of burden on teens' shoulders. How about you also teach your daughter not to get hammered every time she goes out, so that her friends don't have to assume responsibility for her safety. How is that fair?

[Anonymous]

Empirically speaking it’s mostly the boys who are hammered beyond the loss of executive functions at these parties. However they are victims of unwanted advances rarely and it’s even more rare for them to speak up. Just saying in case you’re not a troll but a malevolent dimwit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a son and daughter. Both were exposed to discussions about racism, sexism, classism, antisemetism, islamaphobia, homophobis, etc. They learned at school that history shows that race, gender, religion, etc. have been used to structure society and often times in ways that advantage some groups over others and to vest power in certain groups over others. We discussed these issues at home too. Maybe because I have both a son and a daughter I wanted my son and my daughter to be aware of toxic beliefs and social/cultural norms that are harmful. Here’s a simple one—boys don’t/shouldn’t cry. That’s actually harmful to men and boys. Holding in emotions and disconnecting from your feelings can cause physical harm to the body like increased heart disease, high blood pressure, and depression for example. Men should be the bread winner and being able to support your family determines whether you are really a man or not. Responsibilities can be shared. You and your spouse can decide how to structure things.

I have helped women escape domestic abuse. You know what drives a lot of this abuse? The husband/boyfriend’s belief that he has the right to control his wife/girlfriend because he is a man and is top dog in the hierarchy. Do all men abuse women? No they don’t but how do you stop it? You raise your boys to be good men. Men that not only don’t abuse women but work to end the violence against women.

At my old school all the parents who said my son comes home feeling bad never had the types of conversations we had at our house and some of the families of the other boys in the class had. I’m white and some white parents would talk about how conversations about race made their white kids feel uncomfortable or bad. They thought the school shouldn’t talk about race in a way that made their white kids uncomfortable. I said what about the black and brown students? Should our children’s comfort be more important than their’s. I told them that I was decidely uncomfortable with making my kid feel better at the expense of their black and brown classmates and friends so we talk about uncomfortable issues like race in our house.

Maybe the school needs to do a better job of guiding these discussions but maybe you could help your son look at what’s making him uncomfortable. It bothers my son that my safety talk with his sister includes how to try to protect yourself from sexual assault. Our talk with our son was to look out for his friends including his female friends. If you notice a young women drunk or high, keep an eye out and make sure she gets home safe. We talk about these issues so that he doesn’t grow up to be one of the guys from Mad Men like Don Draper. We want him to be a respectful, thoughtful, empathetic, resposible adult male. Part of that is talking about how some beliefs or values around masculity can be toxic. He’s not damaged by those discussions.

I have older teen boys so I appreciate much of what you wrote - but - in the end, it is not my son's personal responsibility to take care of his friends, male or female, every time they go out and most of them have too much to drink. I think it is wrong and dangerous to put that level of burden on teens' shoulders. How about you also teach your daughter not to get hammered every time she goes out, so that her friends don't have to assume responsibility for her safety. How is that fair?

If everyone your son is hanging out with is in need of such protection, your son should be hanging out with different kinds of people. I also understand why your son might be struggling with school discussions about white privilege if he is running in a set of teens that are having too much to drink "every time they go out"...Typically speaking, if we are talking the private/independent school world the only kinds of teens that are drinking every time they go out are the most privileged ones. So, is your kid one of those, or a middle class one that they accept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studying laws and structures before law school doesn't make for a particular rigorous curriculum.

The notion that only those who go to law school would learn about civic and societal structures, including governance structures, is frightening. And I'm one of pp's who spoke out about how terrible these consultants are!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Studying laws and structures before law school doesn't make for a particular rigorous curriculum.

The notion that only those who go to law school would learn about civic and societal structures, including governance structures, is frightening. And I'm one of pp's who spoke out about how terrible these consultants are!

Sigh, no one said anything about not teaching civics before law school.

CRT is usually taught as an elective in the 2L or 3L year, after students have grasped certain concepts from Criminal Law, Property, and Constitutional Law (and read/briefed/analyzed the seminal cases). You think someone in middle school or high school without these foundational building blocks is in a position to learn about CRT in a meaningful way?

Of course it's appropriate to teach basic civics and important legal concepts from U.S. history at a 40,000 foot level before college. But expecting the kind of deep, critical analysis from kids to understand the underpinnings of CRT cogently (or Law and Economics, or any other theory of legal scholarship, for that matter) is not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Here’s an excerpt from a class note from one of these classes. What a claustrophobic, ideological, closed little mind this brief introduction projects to me! Students should print highlight and annotate, students should read a discredited author who based his theories about white men on interviews with Beo-Nazis and also was accused of accused of harassment and assault by several graduate students because I think he’s great…. Blah blah blah I wouldn’t let my kid take this if I had any choice; if I had to have them take I’d make sure they were fully informed and critically minded.

“From my past experience, students typically do better on their exams if they print these documents and highlight them and write notes on them!
1. Kimmel, Michael. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. New York: Nations Books.
Note: In the spirit of full transparency, there has been some controversy associated with this scholar who is now retired. You can review a brief summary of his credentials and the issue in question at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel. Because Kimmel has arguably:
a. done more to advance the subfield of men and masculinity than anyone else,
b. published more material on men and masculinities themes than anyone else,
c. and wrote an important book that deals with timely topics that speak to our
polarized society, masculinity themes,
d. and wrote another book about gendered college life
I felt it reasonable to incorporate this book, and a few chapters from another book, into the class readings. I recognize that some students would have chosen to ignore his work because of the accusations against him. However, given my intimate knowledge of the history of the field, I believe students will benefit from reading his work and develop a fuller grasp of this area of study by being exposed to Kimmel’s work.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Empirically speaking it’s mostly the boys who are hammered beyond the loss of executive functions at these parties. However they are victims of unwanted advances rarely and it’s even more rare for them to speak up. Just saying in case you’re not a troll but a malevolent dimwit

Ha! No. You have no idea what you're talking about, "empirically speaking."

[Anonymous]

The reality is that’s it mostly the boys on the floor, out of it. The reality is also that no one is (or very rarely) dragging them off to a dark room and sexually assaulting them. It’s different for girls and one is not related to the other. Just ask our venerable Supreme Court Justice from one of these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Empirically speaking it’s mostly the boys who are hammered beyond the loss of executive functions at these parties. However they are victims of unwanted advances rarely and it’s even more rare for them to speak up. Just saying in case you’re not a troll but a malevolent dimwit

Ha! No. You have no idea what you're talking about, "empirically speaking."

Please tell me what idea you have? “She was asking for it”, that one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Studying laws and structures before law school doesn't make for a particular rigorous curriculum.

The notion that only those who go to law school would learn about civic and societal structures, including governance structures, is frightening. And I'm one of pp's who spoke out about how terrible these consultants are!

Sigh, no one said anything about not teaching civics before law school.

CRT is usually taught as an elective in the 2L or 3L year, after students have grasped certain concepts from Criminal Law, Property, and Constitutional Law (and read/briefed/analyzed the seminal cases). You think someone in middle school or high school without these foundational building blocks is in a position to learn about CRT in a meaningful way?

Of course it's appropriate to teach basic civics and important legal concepts from U.S. history at a 40,000 foot level before college. But expecting the kind of deep, critical analysis from kids to understand the underpinnings of CRT cogently (or Law and Economics, or any other theory of legal scholarship, for that matter) is not realistic.

I went to law school. My sibling is literally a law professor at a top law school and is a "crit." Your very narrow definitions around this and very narrow opinion of this is, let's just say, not the only one reasonable and informed minds could have.

[Anonymous]

I went to law school too, and actually took CRT. What aspects of it do you think are appropriate to teach in high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child is not at GDS but this does not surprise me at all. Are you mad because the teacher is doing a terrible job and actually blaming white males, or are your son and friends not understanding the topic and can’t see past their “privilege” or do you debate that our country has been set up and lead by white males for the benefit of white males and that women, people of color, lgbtq folks etc. don’t deserve to see them selves in our curriculum or have their history discussed with all students? If you figure out which it is, there would be a different action to take ranging from talking to the school about how badly the course is being taught to changing schools altogether.

+1000

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to law school too, and actually took CRT. What aspects of it do you think are appropriate to teach in high school?

slavery for one thing. and before you tell me that those are not part of CRT, go tell that to folks whining about CRT, because that's what they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the problem here is what constitutes as "toxic masculinity". I think that's your big question. if the mob agrees that it is solely based on the fact that you are a male, then you have problems. Why would you pay for a school to indoctrinate your sons that they are "less than" or inherently no good, just because they are men? isn't the reason you send them to these elite schools is that you want them to have an advantage of some sort in regards to their futures? Should your son turn down a leadership opportunity because he's a man? And we wonder why women are outpacing men in terms of college graduation and obtainment of higher degrees, particularly in medicine

Who is the mob?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s what you get at GDS….. send your kid to STA where they are taught to be proud of who they are and they can be successful.

When I read OP’s post the first thing that popped up in my mind was “this has got to be GDS”.

I don’t know if it actually is but whatever school is teaching this way is not engaging in thoughtful discussion or critical thinking for the students. Some institutions seem to have confused conviction with conversation.

My son at GDS hasn't experienced this at all. They only have seminar once a week and he feels fine about it.