Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we think upwards of 25% of boys are labeled as ADHD in elementary school? They grow up in an environment built for girls for 7 hours a day and are medicated to stay quieter. Our society no longer understands or appreciates little boys and this is the natural outcome.

Well, no. It's the boys (and their parents, and society's expectations/ tolerance level) that have changed. Sitting quietly and respectfully for a full school day used to be the norm. There was an ironclad expectation from schools and parents alike that children, boys included, behave themselves in class. This was true from the earliest days of congregate education, up until, well, now. Even when I was a kid, when ADHD meds were rare but corporal punishment was a thing of the past, there was nothing like the chaos that reigns in today's classrooms at every level. So it's not even that we used to beat them into compliance (though of course we did-- it just wasn't the only factor.)

So boys are no longer expected to sit quietly and do their work. And yet they still expect to win at everything, when girls following the rules and doing the work are right there modeling the behavior that used to be expected of all students. The only explanation for this is that parents have abdicated their responsibility to raise respectful humans, and communicated to their boys the sense of entitlement-- the right to be wild, to play rough, to denigrate their teachers-- and the understanding that this will not affect their futures.

Want better men? Raise better boys. Shelve the excuses.

You can say this until you’re blue in the face but until there is a shift in how society views and treats little boys (re read your own post for example), boys will continue to gravitate towards “cool men who get me!” like the idiot MRA guys.

The discussion is about how to prevent boys from becoming incels, right? So you've shot down better parenting/ more engagement, and you've shot down higher expectations. Unless you have a society-changeinator device, I guess all that's left is giving up. Tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this whole thread stemming from that Netflix show? Who knows any incels IRL? I don’t but if you listen to certain segments of the media, they’re everywhere.

It’s like satanic cults of the 1980s.

That netflix show is paranoid ridiculousness.

The Netflix show is an accurate portrayal of how something small can spiral and these boys don’t have the coping or social skills to navigate it.

Multiple violent acts have been carried out by incels, this is not that far off. Maybe pull your head out of the sand.

I mean, we’re a country with 340 million so of course there are people who fit this profile. But, I wouldn’t call it an epidemic. I have teen boys so I know a lot of boys. None are incels. I’ve never known any and I don’t know anyone who has known any.

Seems like a lot words are being spilled for something that’s partially made up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this whole thread stemming from that Netflix show? Who knows any incels IRL? I don’t but if you listen to certain segments of the media, they’re everywhere.

It’s like satanic cults of the 1980s.

That netflix show is paranoid ridiculousness.

The Netflix show is an accurate portrayal of how something small can spiral and these boys don’t have the coping or social skills to navigate it.

Multiple violent acts have been carried out by incels, this is not that far off. Maybe pull your head out of the sand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this whole thread stemming from that Netflix show? Who knows any incels IRL? I don’t but if you listen to certain segments of the media, they’re everywhere.

It’s like satanic cults of the 1980s.

That netflix show is paranoid ridiculousness.

The Netflix show is an accurate portrayal of how something small can spiral and these boys don’t have the coping or social skills to navigate it.

Multiple violent acts have been carried out by incels, this is not that far off. Maybe pull your head out of the sand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this whole thread stemming from that Netflix show? Who knows any incels IRL? I don’t but if you listen to certain segments of the media, they’re everywhere.

It’s like satanic cults of the 1980s.

That netflix show is paranoid ridiculousness.

Anonymous wrote:Is this whole thread stemming from that Netflix show? Who knows any incels IRL? I don’t but if you listen to certain segments of the media, they’re everywhere.

It’s like satanic cults of the 1980s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Uh is this satire? Like half of these are from white men. Did you even look at the list?

Yes - did YOU look at it? Virtually every classic (other than To Kill A Mockingbird) has been purged. Look at the themes of nearly all the books.

You seriously notice no pattern, imbalance, or bias?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Uh is this satire? Like half of these are from white men. Did you even look at the list?

Yes - did YOU look at it? Virtually every classic (other than To Kill A Mockingbird) has been purged. Look at the themes of nearly all the books.

You seriously notice no pattern, imbalance, or bias?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Uh is this satire? Like half of these are from white men. Did you even look at the list?

Yes - did YOU look at it? Virtually every classic (other than To Kill A Mockingbird) has been purged. Look at the themes of nearly all the books.

You seriously notice no pattern, imbalance, or bias?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Uh is this satire? Like half of these are from white men. Did you even look at the list?

Yes - did YOU look at it? Virtually every classic (other than To Kill A Mockingbird) has been purged. Look at the themes of nearly all the books.

You seriously notice no pattern, imbalance, or bias?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

I get that, but... do you not feel that the whole world constantly celebrates men and their achievements? Don't boys see empowerment and role models every time they turn on the TV/ pass a billboard/ watch the news? The Williams and the Rapinoes and the Collins are exceptions. We only know them because they're so exceptional. The world is awash with men being celebrated, such that when a woman finally reaches the top, she's an abberation to be pointed out.

To a 7yo? No I don't think it feels like the whole world "constantly celebrates men." You are thinking of history, statistics, CEOs etc - that's not really what younger kids are necessarily awash in, unless they are spending a lot of time watching TV or devices.

NP

But why do you think JK Rowling made her main character a boy? Because then the books would appeal to both boys and girls. If the main character was a girl the story could be exactly the same but only girls would read it.

Boys get plenty of passive reinforcement that they are the default sex.

Related to your book comment - there has been a large “outcry” recently from men that there are too many books from/about women. They actively refuse to read books with women as the main character. Girls and women grow up reading books with male protagonists basically from birth, but you want a boy to read something about a girl? Outrage!
I hadn’t even thought of this until your comment, thank you for adding it.

I believe the prevailing trend in schools is to largely disallow or discourage books authored by cisgender white males.

Is it to remove books by cis white men? Or to add more books by others? Are they removing Shel Silverstein and Maurice Sendak and Mo Willems?

I think it’s an extension of the educational effort to center other voices, and to create space or highlight authors of color, womyn authors, and LGTBQIA+ literary works.

Right. But is that exclusionary to white cis men? Or simply a balancing of the voices available? It feels like men are mad at no longer being the default voice in every space, or at the potential for having to compete on a bigger field. And there's this refusal to recognize that not being given automatic preference is not the same as being excluded.

I read a fair amount of science fiction, historically utterly dominated by men, and when women authors started getting the big awards, some men lost. their. minds. It was no longer a boys-only space. They had to compete with some amazing authors who might never have entered the space 50 years ago, or gotten an agent/ publisher if they had tried. "Because no one will buy sci fi by women. Sorry, it's just the market." And men just couldn't handle the increased competition. They wanted to keep the "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door.

Your theories sound good and appear reasonable. But that’s not the reality of what’s happening in the example of the schoolbook-list , linked above.

The school did not simply “balance” reading by adding a few BIPOC/womyn/LGTBQIA+ authored or themes.

No. They virtually excluded all cisgender white male themes and most authors. It took quite some digging to locate the list discussed in the dcum link, but this appears to be the list on page 3; see for yourself:

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Cooper-English-7-AAP-2023.pdf

Uh is this satire? Like half of these are from white men. Did you even look at the list?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem that the entire discussion in this thread is premised on an assumption that boys are almost inherently at risk of going off the rails and becoming bad. That assumption, which unfortunately has becoming deeply rooted in culture and especially in schools due to liberal political preferences, is the key driver for the problem you are worried about. Right now, girls are boosted and treated like the future at every turn, even in implausible situations. Look at the Super Bowl ads for one example, where, among other things, there was an ad where a minority female implausibly bested the entire men's football team (who were portrayed as hateful ogres throughout). Until you all learn to respect and value boys, expect bad results. Toxic femininity is real and a problem.

Have you ever met a kid? Boys are (usually) confident to the point they need to learn humility, compassion and empathy. They need to be taught a lot emotional skills in order to not end up undateable in todays modern world where women will chose to stay single rather than marry them. That’s why we’re ending up with these incels.

Girls, on the other hand, (usually) develop the emotional skills early, independently and successfully. Where they need guidance is building skills like dealing with conflict and risk taking. Skills boys seems to develop more naturally.

That’s not toxic femininity. That’s basic child development.

I have boys, and their confidence that they outwardly project is just bravado. They are deeply insecure, as are their friends. I don’t think tearing down girls is the answer. But, I do see tons of initiatives at least at the elementary level to empower girls and none to empower boys. Even our school gym has a big sign saying “girls rule!” with pictures of professional female athletes. Which is awesome. But they have nothing for boys that is similar. They have a girls coding club and a girls on the run club. Boys aren’t allowed to join either club unless they identify as nonbinary. Even my son’s Boy Scout troop has girls in it. I may get flamed but boys need spaces where they’re safe to be boys, with only other boys, and feel empowered and have strong same gender role models. Just like girls do. As it is right now it seems like girls are allowed into any space that was previously just for boys, but boys are not allowed into any of the spaces just for girls. Until we start celebrating boys for who they are and what amazing things boys can do, they’ll continue to flounder without a strong sense of identity, and that’s where the Joe Rogan types snatch them up and give them an identity- a terrible one. We need to catch them earlier and give them a better one, but as a society, the general message is “boys are bad”.

Huh? Are you delusional?
The school gym doesn’t have a poster of male athletes, because that’s literally the standard. ANY major professional sport is ruled by men, that banner is trying to encourage girls to stick with sports, as they more often drop out vs boys.
Why can’t boys start their own club? Girls were excluded (and still are) from many male spaces, so they started their own clubs where they are allowed and allowed to be themselves.

Like, it’s f***ing crazy to me that people don’t see the history behind these decisions, and now decry that their boys are being discriminated against because girls have a girls coding club. No. That’s not how it works. And you are part of the problem if you’re raising your 4 boys to feel undervalued compared to girls and aren’t celebrating them on your own.

Historically you are absolutely right. As an adult, I think it’s amazing to have these things for girls. I’m telling you that 8, 9, 10 year old boys do not have the same history that you and I do where girls couldn’t do that stuff and now they can and we love it. All they see, from when they are babies, is outward celebration of girls as a cohort, and not of boys. Yes, male athletes and male politicians are the “standard” and you’re obviously correct on your point but that’s the problem- they’re for everyone. It’s not “let’s watch boys basketball and celebrate boys and talk about how little boys can grow up to do this”, it’s just “basketball” and “kids”. Boys are not explicitly singled out the way girls are. And kids don’t get nuance, they just grow up with the message of “boys and men are just the standard that we rally against, and girls are special”. You may not like it, but failing to recognize this is why these boys are turning to MRA groups and trying to ruin the world.

So your issue is that women also watch the NBA? Your issue is that women and girls have too many “male” hobbies that are taking space away from boys?

Women’s bball has only just recently taken off to be more mainstream, mainly because of Caitlyn Clark. But otherwise, you turn on the tv, you ONLY see men. Most people would be hard pressed to name a top female athlete, aside from maybe 2-3. Ask them to name a male? You’ll get hundreds.

You’re rallying against the pendulum swing towards girls, but it’s really not even close to “even” yet. You’re rallying against boys and men being the majority of everything. They don’t want to share.

I’m trying really hard to explain to you what’s going on with little boys but you really and truly don’t want to hear it. All I know is, if boys are continually treated as lesser than girls AT YOUNG AGES and not given boys-only groups AT YOUNG AGES they will grow into teen boys who crave male role models and male spaces and the ONLY ONES AVAILABLE that “celebrate” boys and men are Tate and other losers.

You don’t even see what you’re doing. You’re saying for example that adding books by queer , black/brown, female, etc authors to classrooms doesn’t take away any books from cisgender white male authors. You’re right! We agree! All those books should be there! (Don’t listen to the loser arguing otherwise.) But what did we do when we added girls clubs and girls groups? We SUBTRACTED boys groups. Boy Scouts is just an easy example because it’s “Girl Scouts” (no boys allowed” and “scouts of America” now (both genders). Little league is the same way- both genders, but then softball is JUST girls. You see what I’m getting at? We didn’t add girls stuff and leave the boys stuff there. We added girls stuff and took away boys stuff. That’s the problem and the young boys are turning to the only boys groups out there, which are MRA groups!! Let’s add some GOOD boy only groups back into the mix, please!

I hear you, and it's a valid point. Somewhat cherrypicked, but valid.

I think the problem I'm having is that when boys-only spaces exist, they get the best of everything. Just like with male-protagonist literature that is supposed to appeal to boys and girls alike, people of all sexes line up to support boys. They get the best field to practice on, the nicer uniforms, the bigger travel budget, and the most affirmation. The places where this has shifted are very small. Yes, there's Girls on the Run. What's the average budget of a GotR club? And is there a single school anywhere in America that has a GotR club but doesn't have a boys track team? How many people turn out to support the girls' teams, in any sport? My daughter plays tennis. She joked the other day that she doesn't know how the boys focus with all that cheering-- her team's matches are much quieter.
And then there's capital-F Football. Where entire towns support the boys, girls cheer for them, the band plays for them. No girls allowed (with the aforementioned vanishingly rare exceptions-- it's always national news when a HS girl gets to join the football team.)

And I think it comes down to parenting. Are parents of boys really so helpless that they can't explain why it is in fact "fair" (something that young kids care about a lot) and the reasons why?

I think if football is the only boys only space left for little boys, that explains a lot about how they’re turning out.

I see your points too- they’re all correct, they’re just harder for little kids to understand. I do explain to my boys why there is a girls run club but not a boys one (yes, their school alongwith many other elementary schools in our county have a girls run club but not a boys one). But what they hear, is “sports clubs used to be just for boys and that wasn’t fair, so now we have clubs for girls.” And they say- but that’s not fair either! Now it’s just for girls!

Obviously our conversations are more nuanced than that about stuff like this but I can’t expect them to understand adult level logic with gender roles , they’re kids. All they know is the teachers prefer the girls, the boys need to learn to quieter, the boys can’t play rough with the girls (or even with each other- they need to pick calmer recess games), the one after school club that focuses on being active / sporty is just for girls , and they just need to deal with it and it’s the parents job to try to even this all out for them.

“It’s on the parents” yeah no duh. You know it’s not true that teachers prefer girls, why would you let them continue to believe that? Again, it is you as the parent setting your kids up for failure.

Ok, try that argument again but with little girls in the 1950s. Same wording. Go!

They did! Why do think ANY girls succeeded in the ‘50s? By chance? No, because some girls had amazing parents who helped and encouraged and pushed.

Don’t blame your lazy parenting on other girls.

Look, no one is doing that. I am a girl. I have a girl. Girls are awesome! So are boys. Society , right now, thinks young boys are actually pretty crappy, especially within elementary school environments. I am doing my best as a mom to lift them up and help them be confident in their boyhood, the same way I do for my daughter. For my daughter, in the realm of preschool and elementary school at least, society helps me out a lot. For my sons, not so much. That’s all I’m saying. Just like how when you add literature by Maya Angelou to the high school curriculum, you aren’t taking anything away from Shakespeare. You’re just adding Angelou. By adding back boy- positive environments into childhood, and appreciating boys and their inherent differences to girls in childhood, we aren’t taking anything away from our daughters!