Emily Oster needs to apologize for the damage she did during COVID and the embarrassing amnesty letter she wrote. Then she’ll be listened to again. Until then, I don’t trust her ability to remain objective, do good research or apply clear judgement on family matters or community.
Your points are well heard. Especially points 2 and 3. Boys are struggling in school. Im an elementary teacher. They are really struggling, especially our youngs ones. Not only are the demands bigger in schools but when dads are not the villagers, active villagers, boys can't learn. The most dysregulated, struggling boys I see at my school (Title 1) are the boys with a single patent at home, almost always mom. Are other boys (and girls) struggling, yes but the biggest connection I see is the lack of dad involvement. We have one male, black, tall, intimidating behavior specialist at my school. He's essentially the surugate dad to all our boys who lack a strong male role model. They will work for him, they don't want to disappoint him. He's making a difference but it's small and only effective for so long. He obviously can't be the replacement.
4. Trump is not even in Office, and Democrats/ feminists are already yelling. 4b and 1000s of tick tocks crying. If you dont want people yelling, the solution is simple: stop being Democrat. Stop supporting people that yells.
If people yelling start lossing and lossing, and find they opposite side yelling as well, they may eventually stop yelling. And then, maybe just then, we migth start a helpful conversation about no zero sums policies.
You cannot win a war by just being a good person. And this is a war.
There was this organization that had boys learn life skills and bond with their peers and have a male leader.... oh yes The Boy Scouts! wait..uh... now it includes GIRLS too! and they've rebranded to be Scouts BSA b/c, ya know, it's not just for boys. hmm...
what other spaces are for boys only? hmmm. prison?
My son is soon to be an Eagle Scout and it has been one of the best experiences in his life.
The Boy Scouts still exist (although under a different name) and they are still doing an incredible job of teaching boys life skills, character, employment skills, getting out in nature and physical fitness.
Just because girls are now allowed to join does not mean that it cannot be great for boys. Most troops completely separate boys and girls except for some special events.
I think it's important to have completely separate boy and girl spaces. I've been an adult volunteer in a BS troop for several years and been on many campouts. I see the boys interact in very healthy ways, supporting younger scouts, taking on responsibility, and sometimes acting goofy when doing a skit around a campfire. I think adding girls to the troop would fundamentally alter these experiences in a negative way.
Agreed. My impression of Scouts as a parent is that the girls who join really want to do "boy stuff." I was surprised to learn that Girl Scouts (an entirely unrelated organization) doesn't do nearly as much outdoors stuff. And many other countries have had co-ed scouting programs for years, since before DEI was a thing.
As an Eagle Scout, I was excited to see Boy Scouts become Scouts. This isn't because I thought it needed to change, but because it was one of my most important formative experiences and I had always wished it was open to anyone wanting.
Parenting became a verb in the 70's, which enabled the intensive parenting trend of the 80's and 90's. Being a parent means just having children, but "parenting" means that you're doing it in an active, engaged way, while implying a "non-parenting" parent is passive and lazy.
It's weird that in today's Gen Z slang, "adulting" became a verb too. Interestingly, it seems like the consequences are opposite - the distinction makes it possible to normalize being a "non-adulting" adult (see: The Mainstreaming of Loserdom by Tell The Bees).
I so appreciate your work, Richard. I often say, until men are seen as competent carers, we will never get true gender equity. Thank you for expanding the conversation. You and some of your audience might be interested in my TEDx talk on the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7KVrxjkmic&t=2s
Period. Stop. No. What we need IS to segregate schools again. Co education was a terrible feminist idea: It has given all control over education to woman. Thats the real Matriarchy!! And you should start recognising that!!
All good stuff and all true. Boys are more likely to risk, which explains errant behavior differences. Boys are more likely to want adventure. This explains “learning disabilities.” Which is really teaching disabilities. And boys need a man in their life checking them at the door.
Here’s where it gets wild: we know that a child growing up in a non-conflict two parent home is less likely to enter the juvenile justice system. However, a child being raised by only a father is also less likely to enter the juvenile justice system to the same degree. Yup.
To your last point - which I'm not disputing, and which Warren Farrell amongst others explicitily points out in his book "Boy Crisis", it has to be taken into account the "level" of fathers who obtain custody!
Issue is a lot of these issues are not bugs but rather features. If you start from a framework concept that gender is artificial, the patriarchy is the greatest evil ever, and eliminating masculinity is the solution. You get this system. The framework that gender is a wholly social construct has and always will be flawed. It pioneer John Money attempted to prove his theory with David Reimer and it failed horribly and tragically. That is to not say that gender and gender identity is not complex. If you look at the research fMRI imaging of trans individuals matches closer to their preferred gender. So the notion started in the 1950s and expounded on in the 1960-70s that gender is a social construct is false. Yet that idea and framework influences much of social research and best practices in the field of education. This breaks the system in the very ways you are pointing out. Until and unless we deconstruct that framework nothing will change.
Can you point me in the directions of USA grant’s available for after school programs supporting young men in being and being seen as active contributors in their community?
You got It. Reeves fails to acknowledge the real problem here: society is biased against men. And the people funding Reeves is much responsible for that.
I assumed that your question was a retoric scam poiting out the lack of programmes for men.
But... If you were really asking for that,my apologies
I don’t think your first premise is entirely true. I think that there is a drive to make society biased against masculinity. I think Reeves and those funding him are trying to reverse that direction in an incremental as opposed to radical way. I do think they need to realize that trying to work with in that framework that seeks to bias society against masculinity is a doomed endeavor. I don’t think that a radical and reactionary response is productive. That just justifies the villainy and repression that those forces justify. I think reactionaries and both sides need to be disarmed.
1) I am legitimately looking for funding to work with young men in an after school program (in my small rural community) that is designed to get young men active in their community, celebrate their work, teach them skills, expose them to mentors, and pay them for their work to make the community a better place
2) I think society has put young people in a passive role in society and that is actively working against young men in an exponential way
3) Reeves is exposing this problem to folks in a way that is resonating and will continue to resonate. That’s a good thing-no matter which way you cut it
4) I am a democrat that respects the problem but doesn’t see the world as zero sum.
Anger is a fine emotion but anger with an active unwillingness to trust will just create more distrust and mistrust.
I hope Trump steers us out of this problem and helps young men find more success in society and more happiness in their lives. But if he doesn’t- and the only thing that happens is people are just more angry and show more violence toward one another (while the same root problems persist)- do we then continue to yell at the democrats?
I think, I know, we need to be as radical as our oppressors are. Am I angry? After 40 years of affirmative action, toxic masculinity and future is female?
Am I angry, radical and reactionary?
After 4b after a democratic election?
I am not angry enougth it seems.
And I am not prepared to be the one not radical on this: so if you know a way to be angrier, let me know.
If you want peace, prepare for war, as our enemies are. And continue to be. Even after Trump.
I am an educator. I believe that the education system you hate is one that’s virtually been in place for a hundred years. It needs to be changed but it isn’t anything new.
Men had all the power and maybe needed that power too much to sustain success in society. Now, as that power gets removed and the culture is flattened, struggle is born. That’s an entitlement problem.
I do see what you’re saying 100%. There is no infrastructure for male spaces. That was torn down when women were kept down and culturally contained.
Regardless why that infrastructure was broken, it’s important to be rebuilt. Maybe some brush back starts from all this - but if it does, me being angry and “going to war” will not help our society. It’ll just reinforce this idea that men are clinging to power at all costs and are some sort of enemy…women have infrastructure, conferences, mentorship programs, rules (title 9) to insure of their success…men have fallen so fast in society that they need the same.
It’s an equity issue. Meet the audience where they Are. That’s my plan…for a similar goal.
Teaching about privilege is a broken way of building empathy and connection. I plan on starting with those two virtues…You can’t clearly look at privilege until those two are strong. Otherwise, people just get defensive and unsettled
Correct, as usual. But two ideas to think about: (1) My parents both were physicians and my mother was an ardent feminist (for her day). Both were deeply involved in our upbringing. But my guess is that they sort of bargained through their relationship. Maybe the subtle bargaining analogy could be important in getting mothers and fathers on the same page. (2) I have been noodling with 1982 as a pivotal year. It was the year that greed became more acceptable (in August, precisely). But I have guess that it was the year (maybe approximately) that its left wing took over the women's movement and that they began to take over academia as well. They were successful. And part of their success was to create an academic world that is hostile to men. Both these trends have to be reversed or moderated. To some extent, one may have been a reaction to the other. If President Trump oversteps too much, maybe there will be a backlash against the greed side. I think the anti-DEI movement is a reaction to the other side and that, maybe, it will lead to changes in academia and more broadly.
The most common way for people who
Like
Great content. Thank you.
Emily Oster needs to apologize for the damage she did during COVID and the embarrassing amnesty letter she wrote. Then she’ll be listened to again. Until then, I don’t trust her ability to remain objective, do good research or apply clear judgement on family matters or community.
Your points are well heard. Especially points 2 and 3. Boys are struggling in school. Im an elementary teacher. They are really struggling, especially our youngs ones. Not only are the demands bigger in schools but when dads are not the villagers, active villagers, boys can't learn. The most dysregulated, struggling boys I see at my school (Title 1) are the boys with a single patent at home, almost always mom. Are other boys (and girls) struggling, yes but the biggest connection I see is the lack of dad involvement. We have one male, black, tall, intimidating behavior specialist at my school. He's essentially the surugate dad to all our boys who lack a strong male role model. They will work for him, they don't want to disappoint him. He's making a difference but it's small and only effective for so long. He obviously can't be the replacement.
4. Trump is not even in Office, and Democrats/ feminists are already yelling. 4b and 1000s of tick tocks crying. If you dont want people yelling, the solution is simple: stop being Democrat. Stop supporting people that yells.
If people yelling start lossing and lossing, and find they opposite side yelling as well, they may eventually stop yelling. And then, maybe just then, we migth start a helpful conversation about no zero sums policies.
You cannot win a war by just being a good person. And this is a war.
There was this organization that had boys learn life skills and bond with their peers and have a male leader.... oh yes The Boy Scouts! wait..uh... now it includes GIRLS too! and they've rebranded to be Scouts BSA b/c, ya know, it's not just for boys. hmm...
what other spaces are for boys only? hmmm. prison?
Do not throw out the baby with the bath water!
My son is soon to be an Eagle Scout and it has been one of the best experiences in his life.
The Boy Scouts still exist (although under a different name) and they are still doing an incredible job of teaching boys life skills, character, employment skills, getting out in nature and physical fitness.
Just because girls are now allowed to join does not mean that it cannot be great for boys. Most troops completely separate boys and girls except for some special events.
I think it's important to have completely separate boy and girl spaces. I've been an adult volunteer in a BS troop for several years and been on many campouts. I see the boys interact in very healthy ways, supporting younger scouts, taking on responsibility, and sometimes acting goofy when doing a skit around a campfire. I think adding girls to the troop would fundamentally alter these experiences in a negative way.
Agreed. My impression of Scouts as a parent is that the girls who join really want to do "boy stuff." I was surprised to learn that Girl Scouts (an entirely unrelated organization) doesn't do nearly as much outdoors stuff. And many other countries have had co-ed scouting programs for years, since before DEI was a thing.
As an Eagle Scout, I was excited to see Boy Scouts become Scouts. This isn't because I thought it needed to change, but because it was one of my most important formative experiences and I had always wished it was open to anyone wanting.
No, there are girls in prison too. But for some reason DEI stops at the prison door. Prisons are highly segregated places.
Parenting became a verb in the 70's, which enabled the intensive parenting trend of the 80's and 90's. Being a parent means just having children, but "parenting" means that you're doing it in an active, engaged way, while implying a "non-parenting" parent is passive and lazy.
It's weird that in today's Gen Z slang, "adulting" became a verb too. Interestingly, it seems like the consequences are opposite - the distinction makes it possible to normalize being a "non-adulting" adult (see: The Mainstreaming of Loserdom by Tell The Bees).
I so appreciate your work, Richard. I often say, until men are seen as competent carers, we will never get true gender equity. Thank you for expanding the conversation. You and some of your audience might be interested in my TEDx talk on the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7KVrxjkmic&t=2s
Period. Stop. No. What we need IS to segregate schools again. Co education was a terrible feminist idea: It has given all control over education to woman. Thats the real Matriarchy!! And you should start recognising that!!
Huh?
How can we foster conversations like in your fourth point? What even is a conversation like that? Thank you!
All good stuff and all true. Boys are more likely to risk, which explains errant behavior differences. Boys are more likely to want adventure. This explains “learning disabilities.” Which is really teaching disabilities. And boys need a man in their life checking them at the door.
Here’s where it gets wild: we know that a child growing up in a non-conflict two parent home is less likely to enter the juvenile justice system. However, a child being raised by only a father is also less likely to enter the juvenile justice system to the same degree. Yup.
To your last point - which I'm not disputing, and which Warren Farrell amongst others explicitily points out in his book "Boy Crisis", it has to be taken into account the "level" of fathers who obtain custody!
Issue is a lot of these issues are not bugs but rather features. If you start from a framework concept that gender is artificial, the patriarchy is the greatest evil ever, and eliminating masculinity is the solution. You get this system. The framework that gender is a wholly social construct has and always will be flawed. It pioneer John Money attempted to prove his theory with David Reimer and it failed horribly and tragically. That is to not say that gender and gender identity is not complex. If you look at the research fMRI imaging of trans individuals matches closer to their preferred gender. So the notion started in the 1950s and expounded on in the 1960-70s that gender is a social construct is false. Yet that idea and framework influences much of social research and best practices in the field of education. This breaks the system in the very ways you are pointing out. Until and unless we deconstruct that framework nothing will change.
Can you point me in the directions of USA grant’s available for after school programs supporting young men in being and being seen as active contributors in their community?
Wait. He will ask democrats
I’m guessing this is some sort of snarky comment that was meaningful in some way?
You got It. Reeves fails to acknowledge the real problem here: society is biased against men. And the people funding Reeves is much responsible for that.
I assumed that your question was a retoric scam poiting out the lack of programmes for men.
But... If you were really asking for that,my apologies
I don’t think your first premise is entirely true. I think that there is a drive to make society biased against masculinity. I think Reeves and those funding him are trying to reverse that direction in an incremental as opposed to radical way. I do think they need to realize that trying to work with in that framework that seeks to bias society against masculinity is a doomed endeavor. I don’t think that a radical and reactionary response is productive. That just justifies the villainy and repression that those forces justify. I think reactionaries and both sides need to be disarmed.
By t way, 2 productive notes:
1. The ones funding Reeves are not concerned about males. They are concerned about males being angry.
2. Those funding Reeves with 20m are the same funding feminist organistions with 1,000 millions.
3. Reeves is only "controlled disidency". A way to allow men not to be so angy, but without changing anything.
Reeves spoke at the WOMEN Global Submit..IS there a MALE Global summit??
NO.
SO NO: you cannot speak of fatherhood at a WOMEN Global Submit.
I am pretty sure that Reeves intentions are sincere. But he is jus a pawn of those funding him. And those funding him continúe to play the same game.
Trump has, instead, be a great change gamer. In just one day It has make Democrats worry more about men than they have in the past 40 years.
The more radical we become, the more they will care about males. So, no, sorry, no. I love males starting to.be radical.
A few things:
1) I am legitimately looking for funding to work with young men in an after school program (in my small rural community) that is designed to get young men active in their community, celebrate their work, teach them skills, expose them to mentors, and pay them for their work to make the community a better place
2) I think society has put young people in a passive role in society and that is actively working against young men in an exponential way
3) Reeves is exposing this problem to folks in a way that is resonating and will continue to resonate. That’s a good thing-no matter which way you cut it
4) I am a democrat that respects the problem but doesn’t see the world as zero sum.
Anger is a fine emotion but anger with an active unwillingness to trust will just create more distrust and mistrust.
I hope Trump steers us out of this problem and helps young men find more success in society and more happiness in their lives. But if he doesn’t- and the only thing that happens is people are just more angry and show more violence toward one another (while the same root problems persist)- do we then continue to yell at the democrats?
Lord I hope not. For everyone’s sake.
Against masculinity, no.
Against males.
I think, I know, we need to be as radical as our oppressors are. Am I angry? After 40 years of affirmative action, toxic masculinity and future is female?
Am I angry, radical and reactionary?
After 4b after a democratic election?
I am not angry enougth it seems.
And I am not prepared to be the one not radical on this: so if you know a way to be angrier, let me know.
If you want peace, prepare for war, as our enemies are. And continue to be. Even after Trump.
I am an educator. I believe that the education system you hate is one that’s virtually been in place for a hundred years. It needs to be changed but it isn’t anything new.
Men had all the power and maybe needed that power too much to sustain success in society. Now, as that power gets removed and the culture is flattened, struggle is born. That’s an entitlement problem.
I do see what you’re saying 100%. There is no infrastructure for male spaces. That was torn down when women were kept down and culturally contained.
Regardless why that infrastructure was broken, it’s important to be rebuilt. Maybe some brush back starts from all this - but if it does, me being angry and “going to war” will not help our society. It’ll just reinforce this idea that men are clinging to power at all costs and are some sort of enemy…women have infrastructure, conferences, mentorship programs, rules (title 9) to insure of their success…men have fallen so fast in society that they need the same.
It’s an equity issue. Meet the audience where they Are. That’s my plan…for a similar goal.
Teaching about privilege is a broken way of building empathy and connection. I plan on starting with those two virtues…You can’t clearly look at privilege until those two are strong. Otherwise, people just get defensive and unsettled
Correct, as usual. But two ideas to think about: (1) My parents both were physicians and my mother was an ardent feminist (for her day). Both were deeply involved in our upbringing. But my guess is that they sort of bargained through their relationship. Maybe the subtle bargaining analogy could be important in getting mothers and fathers on the same page. (2) I have been noodling with 1982 as a pivotal year. It was the year that greed became more acceptable (in August, precisely). But I have guess that it was the year (maybe approximately) that its left wing took over the women's movement and that they began to take over academia as well. They were successful. And part of their success was to create an academic world that is hostile to men. Both these trends have to be reversed or moderated. To some extent, one may have been a reaction to the other. If President Trump oversteps too much, maybe there will be a backlash against the greed side. I think the anti-DEI movement is a reaction to the other side and that, maybe, it will lead to changes in academia and more broadly.