Anonymous wrote:This is a lazy white man problem. I'm first gen immigrant and have two sons - one is in med school, the other one sophomore at MIT. In my house I didn't allow Bs and laziness. They both know how to cook, clean after themselves, and fix things around the house. They are happy, well adjusted young adults with friends and they have girlfriends. I have 3 brothers and 8 male cousins and the only one who is single is broke and a drunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering most college students are women and most college drop outs are men, I don't really expect to see this reverse any time soon. Most of the jobs that men fell back to are becoming automated so that they need fewer humans doing the same amount of work.

At this point, I think it might be prudent to figure out a solution to these problems. Maybe start all boys in Kindergarten at 6 or 7 instead of 5 or 6. Then by the time they reach college they can actually be mature enough to complete it.

Have you thought about the impact this will have on the girls who are 5 and 6 in kindergarten? Or ready to be in kindergarten at 5 and 6. We don't want our girls to have to wait on your boys, or be bullied by your older boys. My girls were ready to start K at 5, and my first grader especially is in class full of boys who turned 7 before winter break and it's just a mess. Boys starting Kindergarten later is NOT the answer, trust me.

Anonymous wrote:Considering most college students are women and most college drop outs are men, I don't really expect to see this reverse any time soon. Most of the jobs that men fell back to are becoming automated so that they need fewer humans doing the same amount of work.

At this point, I think it might be prudent to figure out a solution to these problems. Maybe start all boys in Kindergarten at 6 or 7 instead of 5 or 6. Then by the time they reach college they can actually be mature enough to complete it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

You're not fooling anyone. That list was a bunch of code words for act more like a woman. That is not the answer. We don't need a weird, dystopian sexless androgyzoid society. No thanks.

You are 100% wrong. I don’t know whether you are a man or a woman but the majority of American women are desperate for male partners who are more empathetic, more supportive, more helpful, less angry. All the anecdotal and statistical evidence bears that our. We are exhausted doing all the emotional work in the family. The largest problem these young men have is that they have not been given the tools to succeed in today’s workplace or in Romantic relationshios with today’s young women. We’ve failed them by raising them for a world that doesn’t exist any more. I’m not saying androgynous or “feminine”—my son plays sports, camps with Boy Scouts, and is into robotics. My brothers are very traditional men who ALSO know how to cook, are phenomnenal with babies and kids, are empathetic to others, and generally know how to communicate and cooperate. It’s not an impossibility.

Anonymous wrote:I am all for supporting women and encouraging them to be leaders. However, I hate what we are doing in society today, forgetting about the boys and younger men sometimes. The old white guys seem to women out in the old generation. But they are different than the young males who are struggling right now.

In my company (in a field that was formerly considered male dominant), 65% of the leadership is women. We were told specifically to promote women into these positions, and once the women are in they continue to push other women into leadership positions. It's like the good old boys network except the other direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

You're not fooling anyone. That list was a bunch of code words for act more like a woman. That is not the answer. We don't need a weird, dystopian sexless androgyzoid society. No thanks.

I didn't make that list.
Don't you guys know any mensches or gentlemen? I certainly do. They're the furthest thing from "effeminate".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

You're not fooling anyone. That list was a bunch of code words for act more like a woman. That is not the answer. We don't need a weird, dystopian sexless androgyzoid society. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

White men were the toughest bastards on the planet for awhile. They got soft.

White men still run the world. It just so happens that a bunch of them are now doing poorly as well. Apex fallacy is rampant in these discussions.

I think I saw you mention “apex fallacy” in a prior post. From context I think I know what that means —- maybe attributing qualities of the top of the group to the group as a whole. Is that more or less the idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

You're not fooling anyone. That list was a bunch of code words for act more like a woman. That is not the answer. We don't need a weird, dystopian sexless androgyzoid society. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I notice that articles like these always frame the issue as some deficiency or failing with men, whereas when a demographic trend is unfavorable for women it is usually externalized, attributed to some outside force or...blamed on men again.

We need to start being honest about how held-preferences, individual action and societal forces are combining to foment these trends.

It's easy to just resort to bludgeoning men, but I don't think it's the answer long term.

+1 this is bad for both genders

I hate how some of the reactions are a bit gleeful as well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? Women had to work like crazy to break into professional careers, network, wear power suits and work there a$$es off. We had to learn all the rules of the men’s club in order to get a foot in (after centuries of being treated like chattel). Give me an effing break with this nonsense that men can no longer figure out how to be successful.

Okay.

Just ignore the mass shootings, overdoses. Also ignore the lousy women managers and unhappy single parents. You worked hard and got yours.

WHAT DO YOU WANT WOMEN TO DO?

They want women to revert back to property instead of doing any work themselves. That's it.

True of many men. Look, dudes in America (esp white men) had a good run being at the top of the food chain, even if they didn't do anything to earn it other that being a dude. this is no longer the case. As the first PP noted, we (women) had to put up with a lot and fight tooth and nail to get those things. If we can do it, the poor men can figure out how to deal with it.

As for the "mass shootings, overdoses. . . . lousy woman mangers" etc. . . . it says alot about the poster who said it that they some how attribute to women. F you.

Only 100 years ago, I couldn't vote. 40 years ago, I couldn't get credit in my own name. Not only can I do these things now, but much more. I'm not property

White men were the toughest bastards on the planet for awhile. They got soft.

White men still run the world. It just so happens that a bunch of them are now doing poorly as well. Apex fallacy is rampant in these discussions.

Anonymous wrote:I notice that articles like these always frame the issue as some deficiency or failing with men, whereas when a demographic trend is unfavorable for women it is usually externalized, attributed to some outside force or...blamed on men again.

We need to start being honest about how held-preferences, individual action and societal forces are combining to foment these trends.

It's easy to just resort to bludgeoning men, but I don't think it's the answer long term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.

Since when is a helpful, respectful, decent man "effeminate"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we need to be more intentional about how we raise boys. For the last generation or two, we’ve been increasingly thoughtful about how we raise girls—don’t focus on their looks; get them toys like legos that help them develop tech skills; encourage them to play sports and do debate so they aren’t shrinking violets. We give our girls boys names and buy them clothes from the boy’s department. But what about our boys? What are we doing to encourage them to be more nurturing/caring, more expressive with their emotions, more cooperative, more outgoing socially? Are we buying them dollhouses, signing them up for clubs that require cooperative communication, avoiding emphasizing their strength/stoicism, praising them for being helpful, nurturing, empathetic?
As much as “shrinking violet” disease was harmful to our girls, “strong and silent” disease is destroying our boys. We need to raise boys that will be helpmates and partners to the girls we are raising. And I will say it is damn tough. I thought counteracting society’s messages to girls would be hard but it really hasn’t been that bad. But the constraint stream of violent and sexist stuff directed at boys is just overwhelming.

So we've made girls into boys, now let's make boys into girls? No thanks.

Jeez, this pretty much illustrates the problem in one DCUM exchange. Thoughtful post about how boys can be raised to be more well-rounded, empathetic and happy. Response is, what, you want to make them sissies? (NP)

Women do not like those sorts of effeminate men as partners; nor do other men like them. It's a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work. We need to start living in reality and acknowledge the revealed preferences of women through their actions, and not what they say.