Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

I'm the PP you called a bot. Of course men are relevant. I have a son and a wonderful husband (very liberal though). We also have two daughters. Not one of our children is looking for a partner just to procreate. Not one of our children is going to settle for a man or a woman who is not an equal to them. Where in the past, you would have been able to find a wife much easier because men had high paying jobs, were able to get credit, etc.m today you are having a hard time because women and men can provide for themselves. So you have to bring more to the table than simply your sperm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

Men can be relevant, women can want to have them in their live, and women can also live healthy, productive lives if the only men that the encounter are not good matches for them. They may WANT a man, but they do not NEED one. I can't believe that I had to spell that out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

Men can be relevant, women can want to have them in their live, and women can also live healthy, productive lives if the only men that the encounter are not good matches for them. They may WANT a man, but they do not NEED one. I can't believe that I had to spell that out for you.

That's basically Scott's whole premise. Women are doing fine without men, but men are not doing fine without women.

"If women don't have romantic relationships, they pour that energy into their friends and their work. When a man doesn't have a relationship, he pours it into conspiracy theory, porn and misogyny."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

The number of people, mostly women, raising children solo demonstrates that society most certainly HAS changed in the last 20 (really 50) years. Not very long ago, a single mother who couldn't claim a dead husband was ostracized or worse. Now people, mostly women, choose it deliberately. I cannot emphasize what a massive change this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

Men can be relevant, women can want to have them in their live, and women can also live healthy, productive lives if the only men that the encounter are not good matches for them. They may WANT a man, but they do not NEED one. I can't believe that I had to spell that out for you.

That's basically Scott's whole premise. Women are doing fine without men, but men are not doing fine without women.

"If women don't have romantic relationships, they pour that energy into their friends and their work. When a man doesn't have a relationship, he pours it into conspiracy theory, porn and misogyny."

My husband often muses on the civilizing force that women and families exert over men. How partnered men live longer than single men. How the countries with the most involved dads are the least likely to get involved in dumb, destructive wars.

Much as I hate to admit it, society would likely be better off overall if more women accepted responsibility for a man. But they-- especially the conservative ones-- make it so hard, with their weakness and whininess and solipsism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?

Umm, so? That is irrelevant. The topic being discussed is whether men are, and I can't believe I have to type this out, relevant.

Men can be relevant, women can want to have them in their live, and women can also live healthy, productive lives if the only men that the encounter are not good matches for them. They may WANT a man, but they do not NEED one. I can't believe that I had to spell that out for you.

That's basically Scott's whole premise. Women are doing fine without men, but men are not doing fine without women.

"If women don't have romantic relationships, they pour that energy into their friends and their work. When a man doesn't have a relationship, he pours it into conspiracy theory, porn and misogyny."

My husband often muses on the civilizing force that women and families exert over men. How partnered men live longer than single men. How the countries with the most involved dads are the least likely to get involved in dumb, destructive wars.

Much as I hate to admit it, society would likely be better off overall if more women accepted responsibility for a man. But they-- especially the conservative ones-- make it so hard, with their weakness and whininess and solipsism.

Nope. Men would be better off, but that just adds stress to womens lives. If they aren't capable of adulting on their own, that's kind of a "them" problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

sure you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

Sounds like you aren't very close to them and never actually speak to them. Because what you are saying is not reality. Maybe they don't talk to you because youre such a misogynistic AH? You want to mansplain late 20s straight women to other late 20s straight women? Youre a fu&king joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

Is this how you speak to your children? Yikes on a bike dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

sure you are

I am and you know it. Your only move is to call me a liar because the truth hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

Sounds like you aren't very close to them and never actually speak to them. Because what you are saying is not reality. Maybe they don't talk to you because youre such a misogynistic AH? You want to mansplain late 20s straight women to other late 20s straight women? Youre a fu&king joke.

Oh, I know you and your ilk hate me. I feel it at the grocery store, in line at Cava, etc. Fat ugly women have always hated handsome successful married men. I actually find it funny as hell. I just smirk at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Isn't it the same what Charlie Kirk said? I think that is why he got a lot of followers among the young man because he pushed the narrative that it is a happy life if you marry young, have kids, raise family. The social contract is not broken. Young men still have the same choice. The problem is that a lot of them were raised believing that marriage and family is a bad thing. And now they are lost.

I think young women see marriage and kids as high risk/high reward.

I think young women know that they don't need a man unless it is to be an equal partnership.

Are you a bot? You fail to understand biology and emotion. Finding a late 20s straight woman who doesn't want a man and child is rare af. You know the human condition didn't change in the last 20 years, right?

Wow you are so out of touch. These women are NOT rare, they are the overwhelming majority. JFC do you ever go out in the real world or leave your moms basement?

I'm a 56 yo married man with three, grad school educated daughters that live in large east coast cities. I know more about this than you ever will. You just hate men because they find you repulsive.

sure you are

I am and you know it. Your only move is to call me a liar because the truth hurts.

hahaha what truth? Our resident MAGA misogynists always like to spew their hate and call it "the truth." Nah, dude. It's just your ignorant opinion.

And yes, you are 100% lying.