Reply to Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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

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?[/quote]

Are you a toddler? Do you not understand the difference between a want and a need?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [b]They may WANT a man, but they do not NEED one[/b]. I can't believe that I had to spell that out for you.[/quote]
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."[/quote]

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, [b]society would likely be better off [/b]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. [/quote]
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. [/quote]

But see, when men fail, they make it everyone's problem. How can we limit men's ability to wreck OUR lives when they have big feelings? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics