If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity, and thus the productivity and the mission, of the next generation of young men, and all the ones that follow.
Isn't that the point of the whole modern feminist movement? At least, that's what I thought. It's no longer vogue to be a guy in America.
On a positive note, this should turn out to be a fairly interesting social experiment. Civilization is built upon masculinity. Let's throw out millenia of history and give the ladies a whirl in the driver's seat! What's the worst that could happen? I mean, didn't men invent war, hunger, poverty, racism, sexism... ?
I mean, didn't men invent war, hunger, poverty, racism, sexism... ?
Kevin, I trust your tongue was firmly implanted in your cheek when you wrote that.
War: invented by evolution. All organisms compete, and most compete even against their own kind.
Hunger: invented by entropy. You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't stop playing. The best you can do is take advantage of the rules here and there.
Poverty: entropy wins there, too.
Racism: invented by evolution. (Too busy to explain at length. Short summary: discerning differences in your surroundings is a vital pro-survival ability; same with defending against the different and protecting your own; iterate enough times, and you get to racism. It's a sign of positive moral growth that we can even contemplate stepping outside those bounds.)
Sexism: this might be one you can blame on men; but since the feminist movement is awash with sexist females, I doubt a female-dominated system would be any better.
Civilization is built upon masculinity. Let's throw out millenia of history and give the ladies a whirl in the driver's seat!
I'm not sure this is entirely true; I believe that for much of history and many societies women have been far more powerful than we give them credit for.
I agree there's a problem, but I don't find the problem's attribution convincing. From a casual observer's point of view, school has gotten *more* interactive, rather than less, during the period of the decline of male academic performance in the US. If anyone can name a period in our history when public school included a lot of activities that would have appealed to the Huck Finn element I'd be surprised. The 'sit still and learn' approach has been around a lot longer than the problem, and his explanation of why we didn't see this as an issue with boys earlier doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm not saying this isn't any issue for anyone - it certainly was for me and I know it is for Dean - but I don't see any evidence that school was more interactive or hands-on thirty years ago.
I'd be more inclined to blame the downplaying of competition (the author mentions this briefly), the lack of interest in the concept of excellence while so much attention is given to bringing everyone up to the same mediocre standard, possibly the insertion of reading-and-writing tasks into all arenas of schooling (great thread on this recently on misc.kids), and maybe just a little bit the sad truth that any field that females can excel in, males tend to regard as less prestigious. When girls didn't shine in academia, it was a worthy field of combat for boys, but now... Probably other factors as well, and I'd tend to think that they have more to do with how much boys see education as a masculine pursuit, less to do with how hard it is for them. In other words, I see this as less a cause of the diminishment of male identity and more an effect.
Maybe single-sex education really is the answer, although on a personal level the idea makes my skin crawl. (Girls' school? Oh thank heavens I'm done.)
My first reaction was: Wow, no wonder it was so easy to get laid in college.
Regarding Civilization is built upon masculinity.
Well, yes and no. Lee Harris has pointd out that historically the greatest danger to any civilization is young men with nothing to productively harness their inherent military energies, which otherwise naturally lead them to use violence to seize power; civilizations from Rome to Sparta to America that have persisted have found a way to do this. In Sparta, there was a pederastic society built on inculcating a young man's loyalty to his cadre; in Rome, it was loyalty to the state and the office; today in America, loyalty to an idea (our Constitution).
I agree with the previous commenter that school has gotten more interactive. My wife teaches second graders, and they don't spend a lot of time doing "seat work" like we did when I was in school. The teachers (the good ones at least) know about the four types of learning styles and try to provide ways to use all of those styles in the classroom.
Unfortunately, that model may change as students advance into the higher grades. and it's not true in every school, or every classroom.
And the author is precious short on solutions. So the "industrial" classroom needs to get the boot. Then what? Are you prepared to spend the money to put students in smaller, more interactive classes?
High quality education is a lot like most things in America. We want something for nothing. (and before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying this to defend the edutocracy, just making an observation).
Just thinking... I also disagree that it's clear-cut that parents used to be more involved with their children's education. Both my parents were talking at Thanksgiving about how weird it is to them that parents *have* to be so involved with their child's education these days. When they were in school, the only time your parents got involved with your education was if something had gone Horribly Wrong.
Without women, men would be sitting around a cave eating a mammoth leg, badly burnt. Without men, women would be sitting around a field, eating berries, and making sniping comments at each others frond dresses.
Civilization was a joint project. And I'll stop here before I get really politically incorrect.
...and maybe just a little bit the sad truth that any field that females can excel in, males tend to regard as less prestigious. When girls didn't shine in academia, it was a worthy field of combat for boys, but now...
This may be part of it, although there's another way of looking at it. Young boys instinctively seek to distinguish themselves competitively, and an instinctive part of this seems to be an urge to impress girls. Defeating the girl blows the whole thing.
I would tend to agree that some boys would do better in all-boys' schools. That thought really offends some people though.
"I don't see any evidence that school was more interactive or hands-on thirty years ago"...perhaps a bit more. I think there was more lab science..now, much of this has been replaced, either by computer simulation or by nothing at all. And there were more shop courses, most of which have now been suppressed by the educational powers-that-be.
Yet at the same time, certain kinds of "hands-on" activities seem to have *increased*. There's a tendency to turn everything into an arts-and-crafts project (making posters, etc)
I would tend to agree that some boys would do better in all-boys' schools. That thought really offends some people though.
Well, it doesn't offend me. It's just that I'm not a very girl-like girl and most of my friends at every age of my life were male, so I get the heebie-jeebies at the whole idea of splitting up the boys and girls because I would have been WITH THE GIRLS! That's a personal problem though, not a value judgement.
Well I would think that any "one size fits all" solution would by nature be sub-optimal. I think some kids would do great in a same-sex environment and others would do better in a mixed environment. Which is just another argument for school choice programs, come to think of it.
I wonder how many of the problems have to do with how often boys who are simply "being boys" are now dosed up on Ritalin, shunned as "harassers", or excluded for being competetive? Boys don't much get shop class, or freely building with blocks (and the equally important tearing down of built blocks!), or free play during recess that doesn't involve having an overprotective adult hovering over them the whole time.
And we wonder why boys aren't much interested in more institutional learning once they finish with 12 years of school.
I have to think that simply relaxing a bit - taking a huge chill pill and letting boys be boys for a while each day would solve a world of problems pretty quickly.
It's hard to explain these macro-effects --lotta variables -- so only soft conclusions.
When I was growing up, there was a pretty simple dynamic: the boys compete against boys -- the winners get the best girls.
The feminist movement altered this equilibrium -- some for the better, some for the worse. Myself, I was fine with the old order, but adapted well to the new order.
But, whenever, there are abrupt societal changes, there's always large segments of collateral damage, ie, those folks who don't get the memo.
I'm fortunate, I guess. I gotta nice wife, who's been a great Mommy, and who earns a nice income, so I'm a little detached from current, societal Zeitgeist.
You'll be more attached once you have sons who are in school, Hank. Well, maybe you will. My younger son won't be in school for a few years, and so far my older son is doing pretty well. He is not having the horrible problems his father did--knock wood. But I watch for the signs. His kindergarten teacher, for example, tried to tell us that he might have ADD. Well, as parents Rose and I do believe that some kids may have medical conditions like that that need treatment, in the overwhelming majority of cases we believe that ADD is Latin for "Boys Acting Too Much Like Boys." The kid is now in third grade and has been an honors student for the last three years, without any treatment for "ADD."
Indeed, much to my joy, it turns out that like his father he is an advanced reader. His teacher tells us he is far and away the most advanced reader she has ever encountered at this grade level. I was the same way as a kid. Unlike him, my grades didn't reflect it.
Last night to my joy I started reading Charlotte's Web with him. I'll read a chapter aloud, and he'll read a chapter aloud. That's a great book but it's filled with advanced words like "salutations" and "trough" and "felicitous" and he could even read most of those, and the few he couldn't, he only had to be told once how to pronounce them and then got them perfectly. He only just turned 8. I'm so proud.
Isn't that the point of the whole modern feminist movement? At least, that's what I thought. It's no longer vogue to be a guy in America.
On a positive note, this should turn out to be a fairly interesting social experiment. Civilization is built upon masculinity. Let's throw out millenia of history and give the ladies a whirl in the driver's seat! What's the worst that could happen? I mean, didn't men invent war, hunger, poverty, racism, sexism... ?
Kevin, I trust your tongue was firmly implanted in your cheek when you wrote that.
War: invented by evolution. All organisms compete, and most compete even against their own kind.
Hunger: invented by entropy. You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't stop playing. The best you can do is take advantage of the rules here and there.
Poverty: entropy wins there, too.
Racism: invented by evolution. (Too busy to explain at length. Short summary: discerning differences in your surroundings is a vital pro-survival ability; same with defending against the different and protecting your own; iterate enough times, and you get to racism. It's a sign of positive moral growth that we can even contemplate stepping outside those bounds.)
Sexism: this might be one you can blame on men; but since the feminist movement is awash with sexist females, I doubt a female-dominated system would be any better.
I'm not sure this is entirely true; I believe that for much of history and many societies women have been far more powerful than we give them credit for.
I'd be more inclined to blame the downplaying of competition (the author mentions this briefly), the lack of interest in the concept of excellence while so much attention is given to bringing everyone up to the same mediocre standard, possibly the insertion of reading-and-writing tasks into all arenas of schooling (great thread on this recently on misc.kids), and maybe just a little bit the sad truth that any field that females can excel in, males tend to regard as less prestigious. When girls didn't shine in academia, it was a worthy field of combat for boys, but now... Probably other factors as well, and I'd tend to think that they have more to do with how much boys see education as a masculine pursuit, less to do with how hard it is for them. In other words, I see this as less a cause of the diminishment of male identity and more an effect.
Maybe single-sex education really is the answer, although on a personal level the idea makes my skin crawl. (Girls' school? Oh thank heavens I'm done.)
Regarding Civilization is built upon masculinity.
Well, yes and no. Lee Harris has pointd out that historically the greatest danger to any civilization is young men with nothing to productively harness their inherent military energies, which otherwise naturally lead them to use violence to seize power; civilizations from Rome to Sparta to America that have persisted have found a way to do this. In Sparta, there was a pederastic society built on inculcating a young man's loyalty to his cadre; in Rome, it was loyalty to the state and the office; today in America, loyalty to an idea (our Constitution).
Unfortunately, that model may change as students advance into the higher grades. and it's not true in every school, or every classroom.
And the author is precious short on solutions. So the "industrial" classroom needs to get the boot. Then what? Are you prepared to spend the money to put students in smaller, more interactive classes?
High quality education is a lot like most things in America. We want something for nothing. (and before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying this to defend the edutocracy, just making an observation).
Civilization was a joint project. And I'll stop here before I get really politically incorrect.
This may be part of it, although there's another way of looking at it. Young boys instinctively seek to distinguish themselves competitively, and an instinctive part of this seems to be an urge to impress girls. Defeating the girl blows the whole thing.
I would tend to agree that some boys would do better in all-boys' schools. That thought really offends some people though.
I would tend to agree that some boys would do better in all-boys' schools. That thought really offends some people though.
Well, it doesn't offend me. It's just that I'm not a very girl-like girl and most of my friends at every age of my life were male, so I get the heebie-jeebies at the whole idea of splitting up the boys and girls because I would have been WITH THE GIRLS! That's a personal problem though, not a value judgement.
And we wonder why boys aren't much interested in more institutional learning once they finish with 12 years of school.
I have to think that simply relaxing a bit - taking a huge chill pill and letting boys be boys for a while each day would solve a world of problems pretty quickly.
When I was growing up, there was a pretty simple dynamic: the boys compete against boys -- the winners get the best girls.
The feminist movement altered this equilibrium -- some for the better, some for the worse. Myself, I was fine with the old order, but adapted well to the new order.
But, whenever, there are abrupt societal changes, there's always large segments of collateral damage, ie, those folks who don't get the memo.
I'm fortunate, I guess. I gotta nice wife, who's been a great Mommy, and who earns a nice income, so I'm a little detached from current, societal Zeitgeist.
H Barnes
Indeed, much to my joy, it turns out that like his father he is an advanced reader. His teacher tells us he is far and away the most advanced reader she has ever encountered at this grade level. I was the same way as a kid. Unlike him, my grades didn't reflect it.
Last night to my joy I started reading Charlotte's Web with him. I'll read a chapter aloud, and he'll read a chapter aloud. That's a great book but it's filled with advanced words like "salutations" and "trough" and "felicitous" and he could even read most of those, and the few he couldn't, he only had to be told once how to pronounce them and then got them perfectly. He only just turned 8. I'm so proud.
Reading books early is a damn good sign, Poppa! You should be proud!
Also, ADD is mostly bullsh$t, so good for you for bein' skeptical.
As for my kids, Well, I'll probably send 'em to military school:)
Barnes, Hank