Had anyone else heard about this? I hadn't--pretty interesting. It appears that institutions will do whatever it takes to produce the outcomes they desire. So now girls are getting shunted in favor of boys...more lawsuits, or an acknowledgement of the issues at hand?

USA Today: Affirmative Action for Boys

I don't think that affirmative action is necessary for boys yet; although, I DO feel that remedial socialization programs, on a national basis, is and has been a priority for several decades, and it's boys who stand to suffer if they don't learn to navigate the new world where women will be equal and...often their superiors.

Did you see the article about the fact that many women are the breadwinners in today's families?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/909551.asp?cp1=1

It was a cover story that posits that 30% of working women earn more than their husbands.

- - - - -

BTW: I am reading the article on U.S. dissent and 9/11. I printed it out.

Yes, I heard of this. "60Minutes" had a story on this just last Sunday. The bottom line is that boys are not doing well at all compared to girls, in elementary, junior high, high school, and college, boys are not making th egrade. Two big reasons cited. Boys focus on sports and athletics, and the fathers are not involved with their boys in things like P.T.A. meetings and such. Also mentioned was it seems that Teachers, escpecially female Teachers, favor girls in school over boys, because of the boys attitudes and aggressiveness.

I think it's all neo-conversative reactionary BS. One of the real problems is that neanderthal parents still think it's OK to cuss out and/or attack other parents, the coach, or anyone who doesn't give their kid playing time. The problem is parents who take the school baseball to a strip club (shout out to Massapequa!), or, better yet, have the stripper come to your teenage son's party (yeah, I'm talking about you, Chappaqua!).

Parents have a hand in creating a culture that stifles young boys, giving them unrealistic and unfair expectations about what it means to be a "man." Not all parents, of course.

Boys can't, and I mean CAN NOT openly talk about their feelings or emotions for fear of being labeled gay or weak. A kid a town over for me who had been struggling with depression just jumped in front of a train just over a week ago. Everyone says they couldn't see it coming. Part of the problem is that boys are taught to CONCEAL their weaknesses...and to ask for help, or admit depression...dude, that's so gay.

Seriously, boys need freedom from restrictive gender stereotypes. As long as student government and academic success are seen as "geeky" or "gay", these problems are going to continue.

In the meantime, no matter how much of a frenzy the media tries to stir up, boys won't even WANT to suceed until their peer cultures say it's OK...

Let's not forget that homophobia is the glue that holds this all together, too.

[ May 27, 2003, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: The B Man ]

posted by The B Man:
I think the B Man is right, but I would argue it is sexism that is the glue here, not necessarily homophobia. Or I should say homophobia is just another form of sexism.

Much of the women's movement was aimed at destroying stereotypes of females as passive, weak, mentally inferior to men, only able to achieve in certain professions, etc. The article referenced makes clear women have broken out of those stereotypes, by and large, and are now far more successful.

But men have not had any change in their stereotypes, and no new idea of what is "masculine" has taken hold. Men are still supposed to be strong, non-emotive and athletically gifted.

I think this is because society still values men more than women. When a woman wants to achieve in a stereotypically male field or endeavor, she is praised because she is making herself "better" by emulating the "better" gender. But when a man wants to achieve in a stereotypically female field or endeavor, he is "cheapening" himself by being like a woman.

Homophobia flows from this concept because gay men are too much like women (and we all are fairly feminine in at least one area of our lives) and lesbians have "rejected" males and male authority.

Until we stop denigrating women in this country, and value certain parts of femininity, I don't think we will solve the problems of boys.

I think these are all great points. And I do think, as a society, we are at a very difficult point in time. I think we are still very tied up by our historical views on sex, family, morals. And in many ways, we do not focus on these same issues within the more modern context. We live in a world where corporate executives can pillage companies and then rely (to some degree) on their friends in governmental roles to help shield them. However, we cannot openly deal with gay and lesbian romantic relationships on television. There is clearly a disparity in the views of right and wrong here.

I think that change is always difficult, but it is exceptionally so in our society where money and power play a huge role in determining right and wrong for people. And men have historically been the primary controllers of money and power. As women have moved into that realm, many have had to behave like men to get some acceptance and survive. So, our society has continued to value those who bully and dominate, because in some wacked out way, that signifies strength and accomplishment.

This trickles all the way down to our children. How many of us experienced difficulties as children, not because of who we were, but because other boys had to have someone to hold power over. I was one of the most accomplished students in my school, but because I was gay and most people knew that, many male students felt the need to use my sexuality as a way to bring me back down the ladder. I think that happens all the time.

The athletes in our society hold an exceptionally disproportionate amount of influence and freedom. They make a lot of money for other people and themselves, and (therefore) they wield a lot of power. It is no different than any other man in our society. Those with power and influence can literally get away with murder.

So, more parents have begun to hope that Johnny or Billy will be the next A-Rod or Tiger to bring power and money to the family. The focus is no longer on having a happy child, but having a child who can be "proud" of his achievements on the athletic field or in the boardroom.

It is a shame, because I am sure there are a lot of young men who would love to take care of people as nurses, teach kids, and do other very important jobs in our society. However, they have to overcome so much to feel comfortable doing those jobs, that it is rare to see men head in those directions today. Being smart and capable is not always valued to the degree it should be, so more boys either are making sure not to exhibit those qualities, or are not placing much emphasis on them.

Well, this is it - pretty much - but, I think that it's discrimination against anyone who doesn't fit in.

I say this because, when I was kicked off of teams in grade school and had the captains fight over who had to take me, it wasn't becuase I was non-White...and it wasn't becuase I wasn't one of the best players.

It was becuase they sensed that I was a threat to what they considered "values"; that is, I was not interested in winning, but more for the socialization (not, BTW, a word that young guys used in the 4th grade...).

Anyway, I suffered, I and I saw (as I grew up) my female friends suffer being called less than because they didn't "speak to" the values the guys were about.

- - - - -

I also think that this is where the "you're not Black enough" comes from.

Try to develop normally when you have all those pressures to deal with, and in addition, not understand how your gayness/bisexuality is going to affect your life and your livelihood.

:mad:

They would ... if they could make their student loan payments on what those jobs pay. If we think the cost of college and the resulting debt aren't skewing young people's career (and major) choices, we're kidding ourselves.

Back to the USA Today article:
I think there's some truth to this, based on reports I've seen that boys are much more likely than girls to be diagnosed with ADD or ADHD and put on Ritalin (a controlled substance in the same class as cocaine, I'm told) or other psychotropic drugs as early as preschool. eek!

Some teachers (and parents, for that matter) have always found boys hard to handle, but today medication gives teachers, parents, and other adults (especially order-obsessed administrators) a "quick fix" that doesn't require any thought or change on their part ... and the drug companies, among others, profit from it. Don't get me wrong, some kids have medically treatable disorders ... but the system can be abused.

I don't know that boys are disadvantaged necessarily, but I think they have different needs than girls, and both require attention. Let's not shortchange either to benefit the other.

It is an excellent point about parents and teachers wanting to use pharma solutions to help control the kids. I have heard some friends discussing this very issue in the past few months. As with many things in our society today, easier is the road more and more frequently traveled.

I think parents today are so frazzled and fail to prioritize their lives well. That is what makes the easy solution the most chosen one. Why choose a solution that requires you to spend time with your kid and figure him/her out? Instead plug in a video, grab a glass of wine, and call for a timeout if they do not sit there quietly and watch.

I am not intending on making a blanket statement about parenting today. I have just seen some not so good examples lately.

Ditto. Same goes for teaching and (maybe more so) day care.