Hi. Interesting article. The notion that there are styles of learning and approaches to schooling uniquely suited to girls or to boys is demonstrably incorrect. There is no "one size fits all" educational modality that will suit people based on their "assigned at birth" sex. Also if Reeves claims that schooling has always been designed to better suit "girls" than "boys," and "has always been so," he has clearly done little to no research into the history of education. For millennia, women were denied education altogether. For centuries, their educational opportunities have been meagre at best. Now that boys are falling behind in education, some apologists are trying to blame this on the style of education rather than much more important influences that are messing up our sons. What social influences are most powerful in the lives of boys and young men? What examples are being put before them on what it is to be a successful, mature, responsible adult? Further, education itself is under fire and crumbling. Tuitions and cost of post-secondary have been jacked up to the point where someone could graduate as, for example, a veterinarian and not earn enough to pay off education debt for decades. Humanities and arts education, crucial to development of cultural literacy and development of empathy and critical thinking skills and creativity, have been decimated. NOTE: most of the creative, influential thinkers of the past were grounded in the arts, humanities, classics. Young men / boys may have difficulty with longer term focus, self-regulation if they are steeped in gaming, pornography, "Marvel Universe" fantasies of violent heroes with super powers, casual misogyny, and "influencers" (e.g. Andrew Tate), and the runaway insanity of gun culture. Narrowing the foundation of their success/failure to schooling seems naive and the notion that this culture's approach to education is designed to suit girls is utter nonsense.
Thanks Patricia, so much of this resonates with me as well. Since I am not a researcher in this area, I'm not prepared to come down on a side - all I can say is that the issue is definitely complex and it does seem reductive to focus only on schooling.
Came here to say this, how can it be better for girls when it was designed for boys. We need to raise better boys not just lower the bar for them, AGAIN.
Couple of anecdotal points from a (a) tutor and (b) man.
1. I have definitely seen the difference in organisation/sense of responsibility between my male and female students, particularly once they start hitting puberty. There is no less organised person than a 15 year old boy. I have one student who turns up without a pen every single lesson. Every. Single. Lesson. You would think that, after 2.5 years of this, he would learn that he needs a pen. He hasn't. He doesn't even think of it!
2. I like Reeve's solution to this of holding boys back a school year. Seems like it would benefit the boys without holding the girls back. Any outliers among the boys can be sent ahead a year as often happens now.
3. Seeing a lot of anger in the other comments here about how other groups were held back from educational opportunities for a long time and how we shouldn't start changing the system now because its seen as not working for boys. While I can certainly understand where it's coming from, I don't think it's really practical to let those sentiments guide policy. If we want equality of opportunity for all groups then we should try to create that, regardless of past injustices. I completely agree that we haven't lived up to this ideal in the past, or ever, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the guiding ideal. Also, if I understand Reeves properly, boys are performing worse than girls in all ethnicities/races, so its damaging other minorities groups too.
4. On difference in outcomes beyond school, I suspect that a lot of the people who make it to the top are even more homogenous than we commonly think. At first glance, one can look at top positions in government/corporations and see mostly men, yes. But even that is a tiny subsection of all men. I think those positions select for very specific personalities. People who probably score really highly on things like disagreeableness and conscientiousness and the ego required to go for those positions. This means you're looking at the top few percent on the distribution and there just tend to be more men on that side of the graph. This is not to say there isn't gatekeeping, or prejudice, or any other obstacles slowing women down, just that the system is not necessarily geared towards men, per se, but to a very particular group of people, within which men tend to be in the majority.
5. The traits I mentioned in the point (4.) are not necessarily 'good' things. Having the willingness to work 60 hour work weeks for decades, the willingness to walk over others to advance oneself, or having the ego required to think that it should be you in charge, might make one a good CEO or adept on the campaign trail, but it doesn't guarantee one a contented, fulfilled life. Seems almost trite to say this but climbing the corporate ladder might bring you more money, a larger house, fancier dinners, but it doesn't bring happiness by itself. In fact, I suspect a lot of those traits actually make that harder because you can't stop trying to climb. I imagine those people are never sated and all always looking for more status, wealth, prestige and so on.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Rae, but from your previous posts it seems like you realised you were chasing that path yourself, to an extent. Then you realised it wasn't for you, it's basically a bullshit life, so you stopped. My guess would be most people, both men and women, have the same realisation and stop trying to chase the bullshit. Because really, how many people lie on their deathbeds and think, "I wish I had made that extra promotion."
Yes, I think that you are spot on in saying that the top echelons of power are designed for the very few who possess, generally, a narrow set of traits that most of us don't have (and maybe don't want). And yes, there are some women with those traits, and there are many more men. And rethinking how people gain power in our society, I think, is a critical and lifelong question.
I tend to agree with you re: helping a struggling group is good, even if that group has historically had an advantage. I do understand the anger, though, if we consider our "helping efforts" to be zero sum. I think it's valid to be afraid that boys will now be helped at the expense of other groups, because history has shown that our culture tends to do that. Still, like you, I believe that ignoring the needs of struggling boys and men will hurt all of us, as it affect the fabric of our society.
I think it's all connected, too, ya know? If we let men fall down in this area due to "historical" reasons, we're going to foster a whole new generation of men who are less equipped to be good men for women. This just reinforces a toxic cycle which we've been trying to get out of for decades.
Two things to toss into the intersection of this discussion.
1. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Gen Z, or whoever is babysitting my 1-year-old daughter, is also pushing the effort around human-centric (aka feeling, relatable, in touch) workplaces AND we are seeing the slow trickle of women rising in the ranks of corporate leadership. The ultra top is crowded with men still which is curious, but look who’s right right right below them. It’s women who are getting the masses to cooperate and not jump ship.
2. I read an article the other day (probably on Psychology.com) where a therapist offers a theory about why women are disproportionately unhappy in marriages to men. (He kept his illustration to straight couples, but the point I want to share I *think* speaks to a problematic structure.) The therapist hypothesized that, as a general rule, there’s an age when boys are swept out of the loving, nurturing home environment and pushed into projects, objects and anything with a competitive perspective. While young girls aren’t rushed into much of anything that doesn’t involve home care taking, nurturing or relationships. He said when these same boys and girls meet an age when they’re “supposed” to start pairing off, it’s no wonder that boys are so ill prepared to relate to a human being. They’ve been practicing their whole lives to conquer an invisible object while girls have been practicing how to connect, create space and so on. The writer circled back to his married female patients who almost universally complain about their husbands’ lack of emotional intimacy or self disclosure. And he points to the tracks being laid long ago for such dissatisfaction.
If I explore this scenario in my imagination, where boys are primed for robots and competition while girls are primed for relationships, I’d argue that the school system is actually returning power where it wants to belong. (Thus the flurry of “let’s fix the system” for boys!) I think about all the girls who turned in their homework on time (Hi! It’s me!) as being highly motivated to establish and maintain a positive relationship with a teacher/authority figure. That relationship building and alliance forging is what folks like my software spouse are trying to figure out.
Some days I really do feel like we rewarded a certain gender for behaving like robots and now that the robots are here, we are left with a real crisis in leadership. Shock and awe: We don’t need boys to be robots. We need boys to be humans.
2. This relates to Patricia's comment below, about the fact that there are tons of factors outside of school that may cause boys to struggle in school. I think your point relating handing in homework on time and maintaining positive relationships is super interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but it definitely resonates. I felt so guilty if I was ever late with something, like I had really let the teacher down.
1. I really hope you're right about this! I know my view is short, but I just could not believe how many of my fellow high achieving women exited the game alongside me. I felt a lot of guilt about it--who would represent all of womenkind if not me? (yes, humble too). But it was the only option for me, and is for so many women. I think I felt a little tricked--I grew into a young adult believing this had all changed, only to spend ten years realizing that actually I was had to relinquish my power willingly to save myself from suffering in the system any more.
I have three girls ages 19-21 (set of twins). All three are in college. Boys are a holy mess right now. I think I agree with the writer who commented, " how can it be better for girls when it was designed for boys. We need to raise better boys not just lower the bar for them, AGAIN."
One thing not covered in the research for the article (unless I missed it) is why have boys been dropping out of college? Why aren't they applying to college in the number that girls are (60/40 now). What are they doing?
Recently, someone, somewhere said regarding one of the latest school shootings: "wake up parents!" We parents do need to clue in to what our kids are doing.
If your boy is playing hours and hours of video games, guess what? Not good for the kid. The internet machine is causing our girls eating disorders and our boys extreme anxiety. I'm no scientist but getting kids away from devices might help a lot. Go Utah! And, yes for a lot of boys starting school a year later than girls might help, but that's a case by case basis. We keep pointing at the problem but I don't hear many sensible answers. Where have all the boys gone from higher education?
The higher education question is interesting, and I do think Reeve's goes into this a bit. He talks about data showing that boys' outcomes being more affected by adverse experiences, whether that be COVID, a divorce, poverty. I mentioned this somewhere else on this thread, but the gender performance gap apparently grows as you add in intersectional disadvantages like poverty or race. So I think his conclusion is generally that boys are more easily thrown off track before they get to college. Also, he points out that as colleges place more emphasis on GPA over SATs, that favors girls, who tend to have better GPAs and perform about the same on SATs. Anyways, I'm not the expert, just regurgitating some of his points based on his research :).
What happened in Utah?! The kids/devices question is definitely a huge one that, as a parent of a 1.5 yo, I know I'll be thinking about for a looooong time.
Utah passed laws giving parents some rights regarding their kids and the internet...someday we are all going to look back at this time like we do now about seat belts and smoking...like, what the...? How did we think it was ok for a little kid to be able to see hard core porn on a phone...or game etc...
I feel there’s sort of a double tangent-taking going on here. I respect Reeves’ work, but I think he’s doing himself a disservice by focusing on the argument about lower education being somehow a bad maze for boys. It’s a shitty maze for a lot of people, perhaps worse for boys... perhaps... but if we were gonna work on improving school, I wouldn’t start by trying to improve it just for boys.
Then, Rae--and I respect your work too--start by referring to his work and do a classic changing of the subject. Your point doesn’t really have much to do with what Reeves is talking about, and your argument isn’t furthered by his, or not. Maybe I’m missing the point, but why and how are they connected, aside from being about gender and acculturation?
On the first point: I agree with that, and I think it's a common criticism of his work. However, he does focus a lot on the way that the disadvantages for boys in school get worse for poorer boys and boys in disadvantaged racial groups. This was outside of the purview of this essay, but it is an important part of his research.
On the second point, here's how they relate in my mind: I have long felt that the skills that make a person good at school don't translate well into the arenas of power in the US. One of Reeves' core arguments is that boys have worse GPAs because they aren't as good at "having their act together" tasks, like handing in homework on time. My argument is that, while not being able to hand in homework on time may hurt boys in school, this deficiency doesn't seem to hurt them as they rise to power in our culture. Anyways, maybe the association is too loose for your tastes, or I didn't make the point clearly enough :)
thanks Rae :) I really appreciated your point about how more men seem to be able to succeed despite not following the rules, and hearing your experience about having been coaching to 'be more executive'. That resonates, for sure.
What I see is that, as you put it in your subtitle, the "arenas of power aren't working for almost everybody" -- and school, as an arena of power, isn't working either. Perhaps it's still working a bit better for girls, on average, because boys (and their fathers) are further along the curve of having embodied and benefits—and the costs—of patriarchal bias. Perhaps girls and women are catching up and taking over in large part by taking the reins of a system that was mostly designed by men... Men and boys are now feeling the negative impacts of that same system, while girls are (perhaps) getting much of the same ~benefit that boys once got, from the same system. Hasn't entirely trickled up yet into the C-suite... but of course Reeves and others aren't just talking about boys. There is a major mental health crisis going on for men, and in many ways it's the direct result of the system that 'we' built. What we need is an educational model—and a world of work—that doesn't depend so much on sitting in one place and following a bunch of rules.
And yeah, his idea about redshirting boy—that seems bonkers to me. We'd be way better served to put energy into creating more and different types of school experiences than trying to stuff ourselves further into the obsolete factory-worker box that we've inherited.
I definitely agree that at the deeper core of this is a question about what our education system is actually teaching and why. I think Reeve's takes the general characteristics of our current education system as a given, and I agree with you that it seems like that misses the point a bit. This has shown up a few times on this thread--seems like a lot of people's thoughts are naturally going to the question of what we actually want to teach our kids in all those hours of school.
Would you agree, Bowen, that what Rae has done is not so much a "classic changing of the subject" which rings pejorative, but rather an expansion of the scope of the inquiry?
Yeah, I didn't need that "classic," although it was meant in the sense that changing the subject is such a "classic," move, that is, something we humans, all of us, have been doing forever, and often without realizing it—not as in a 'classic Rae Katz' move.
As an alternative, I could have called "tangent!" -- and even even so, either way, what I said (obviously) reflects on how I received what Rae wrote much more than on what she wrote, let alone meant, but if we all took the time to disclaim everything we wrote in such a way, well, there wouldn't be much room for what we have to say in the first place. As for expansion of the scope of inquiry... sure, but again, I didn't really get the connection she was making, so I said so.
The "executive presence" comment is so spot on - I've been told that exact phrase in my own career and yes, it's about talking louder and talking more often even if it doesn't offer more substance.
I appreciate the argument that the fact that school isn’t working working for boys isn’t preventing the current generation of male leaders from commanding a majority of power. I think the deeper questions about the objective of schooling overall and how we are succeeding or failing (and even measuring success and failure!) have not really been asked or answered. Much of our public school system is still run like a pseudo-factory-training-ground. The fact that girls have better soft skills earlier that makes it easier for them to navigate the environment and receive a higher rating on the “How are we doing?” Emoji scale doesn’t mean school is “working” for girls either.
Yes, 100%. I think if I had pushed this essay a little further that's where I would have gone: what are we really teaching kids, and what do we want to be teaching them?
But if boys are failing and struggling in school at a young age...where will that lead? Won't that be even worse for women? Won't this just keep feeding the negative cycle we all want to end? Women and men both need help in different ways. We neglect that to our peril. That's my view.
I’ve been mulling over this article the last few days and the unresolved follow-up question I have is: if amassing power is the point of schooling (not quite, but implied by your essay, Rae) then what is the point of power? What “archetype” (stereotypical idolized ideas man vs. has-her-shit-together woman) in power serves that point better?
Of course this is a false dichotomy and different scenarios and organizations need different leaders and perspectives in power. But. I’d like to posit that the purpose of power is to improve the world while protecting human rights -- not a grand theory (yet), just an idea. And it seems that those at the top of the power food chain could certainly do better toward this goal; it makes intuitive sense that one way to do that is by having greater diversity of learners/types/genders/etc. in positions of power. But that’s the assumption I want to interrogate further: is the somewhat repugnant ideas guy actually good for the ultimate goal?
Holding boys back a year is not only fucking stupid, but also laughably misandrist and cowardly in that are trying to push a "solution" that doesn't address at all what the real issue that they acknowledge here is : That a Female dominated education system that is riddled with systemic racism and misandry sets our boys up for failure.
Their pudding brained solution is to literally take a year away from our boy's development because they would rather avoid making Feminists upset. Dafuck ?
"Now, boys are struggling, and suddenly the problem is with the system. Put that way, it’s infuriating."
Although isn't it the opposite? Not to make this too political but: The way it seems to me is that the contemporary Leftist narrative has been that minorities, women, etc (everyone minus just the group we call "men") have been failed by "the system," whereas now, with men, the idea seems to be, Oh, well, to the extent that there even IS a problem (and I'm not sure the Left broadly has fully bought in to this), it's clearly the fault of men/boys themselves. I don't think anyone with any brains would say this quite so directly on, say, MSNBC, but that seems to be the thinking behind their ideas. The idea being: Men, clearly, have always dominated education and everything else, so 1. Who cares if they're struggling; 2. Serves them right if they are; 3. IF it's actually happening in any meaningful way it's their own fault. Now, of course this conversation gets trickier when you add in things like race. But that's another topic.
Having not read the book but just finished another focused on a similar topic (bell hooks' "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love"), I wonder if these differences in aptitude between boys and girls might have more to do with how society conditions children. Maybe we just put more pressure on girls to perform well?
Yeah, that's interesting - there are a few other comments in this thread with similar points, like maybe it's not actually the schools but the culture around the schools. Makes sense to me.
Love bell hooks and need to check that one out. I know she has a lot on love, but I didn't know she had work on men and love. Thanks!
New subscriber here and loving the topics and the takes on them, Rae. Thanks for taking your writing seriously. This part of this post resonates so well: “… throughout all of history various groups have struggled in the American education system, and we have always, as a culture, found that the problem was with the people in that group. Now, boys are struggling, and suddenly the problem is with the system. Put that way, it’s infuriating.” A challenge with this mindset/approach is that it denies/ignores the capability of girls to still find a way around whatever new obstacles a revamped educational system may put in their way and emerge successful. Girls are capable, know that they are capable, and are determined to dare more and achieve more with their capabilities. Boys just have to catch up with girls by relying on more than brags or a misconception of superiority/the inherent right to be first by coercion, complicity, or docile submission. Deb Liu touched on this and also addressed the “school/work divide” in her book “Take Back Your Power: 10 New Rules for Women at Work.” It’s an easy read/listen, which I happily teased in a review. But get the book for yourself and see what you think about her analysis and recommendations.
A Mongolian Proverb says that “Men and women sleep on the same pillow, but they have different dreams.” I see this proverb play out in the way boys and girls show up in school, at work, and even at play. I see it bearing fruits from, not just biology, but the subtle acculturation that predates schools (and extends beyond school hours) that sometimes unwittingly, give boys the impression that girls have to stay back or be held back for them to shine. Yes, we should tinker with the design of the maze if it will ensure that no child gets left behind. (And that no woman gets behind in the work force). Society is not better off when achievement altitudes are preset in favor of some at the expense of others. So, in our quest for a better maze design, may the architects find the right balance between the nature and nurture beams that will embrace the aptitude and attitude of all classes of learners. Thanks again for the post. Lots more to ponder from it ....
"Girls are capable, know that they are capable, and are determined to dare more and achieve more with their capabilities. Boys just have to catch up with girls by relying on more than brags or a misconception of superiority/the inherent right to be first by coercion, complicity, or docile submission." <---- This is the stupid, misandrist shit that is part of the problem. 50 fucking years of policy that focuses and prioritizes Women/Girls in education at the expense of Men/Boys....but no...that's not what it is...it's Women/Girls inherit superiority....I guess that's why despite this Men/Boys still outperform Women/Girls in STEM....oh...wait...
No...the problem is with the system....just like the problem was with the system when Women/Girls were struggling. You can't have it both ways. The issue here is that our Female dominated public school system as well as your Universities have an obvious problem with both racism and misandry. Peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study has revealed this but no one wants to openly admit it because of the political backlash from Feminists they are sure to be a target of if they do. The part that if find galling about all of this is that there are idiots out there who think somehow this problem can be fixed by delaying boys a year. As if that will change anything as opposed to calling this shit out for what it is and doing something about it.
I think men and women both have strengths and weaknesses. Society helps and hinders both in different ways. There's the history of power, which itself is very complex for many reasons. A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't think it's a zero zum game, such as to help girls we need to take down boys, or to help boys we need to take down girls.
Hi. Interesting article. The notion that there are styles of learning and approaches to schooling uniquely suited to girls or to boys is demonstrably incorrect. There is no "one size fits all" educational modality that will suit people based on their "assigned at birth" sex. Also if Reeves claims that schooling has always been designed to better suit "girls" than "boys," and "has always been so," he has clearly done little to no research into the history of education. For millennia, women were denied education altogether. For centuries, their educational opportunities have been meagre at best. Now that boys are falling behind in education, some apologists are trying to blame this on the style of education rather than much more important influences that are messing up our sons. What social influences are most powerful in the lives of boys and young men? What examples are being put before them on what it is to be a successful, mature, responsible adult? Further, education itself is under fire and crumbling. Tuitions and cost of post-secondary have been jacked up to the point where someone could graduate as, for example, a veterinarian and not earn enough to pay off education debt for decades. Humanities and arts education, crucial to development of cultural literacy and development of empathy and critical thinking skills and creativity, have been decimated. NOTE: most of the creative, influential thinkers of the past were grounded in the arts, humanities, classics. Young men / boys may have difficulty with longer term focus, self-regulation if they are steeped in gaming, pornography, "Marvel Universe" fantasies of violent heroes with super powers, casual misogyny, and "influencers" (e.g. Andrew Tate), and the runaway insanity of gun culture. Narrowing the foundation of their success/failure to schooling seems naive and the notion that this culture's approach to education is designed to suit girls is utter nonsense.
Thanks Patricia, so much of this resonates with me as well. Since I am not a researcher in this area, I'm not prepared to come down on a side - all I can say is that the issue is definitely complex and it does seem reductive to focus only on schooling.
Came here to say this, how can it be better for girls when it was designed for boys. We need to raise better boys not just lower the bar for them, AGAIN.
Couple of anecdotal points from a (a) tutor and (b) man.
1. I have definitely seen the difference in organisation/sense of responsibility between my male and female students, particularly once they start hitting puberty. There is no less organised person than a 15 year old boy. I have one student who turns up without a pen every single lesson. Every. Single. Lesson. You would think that, after 2.5 years of this, he would learn that he needs a pen. He hasn't. He doesn't even think of it!
2. I like Reeve's solution to this of holding boys back a school year. Seems like it would benefit the boys without holding the girls back. Any outliers among the boys can be sent ahead a year as often happens now.
3. Seeing a lot of anger in the other comments here about how other groups were held back from educational opportunities for a long time and how we shouldn't start changing the system now because its seen as not working for boys. While I can certainly understand where it's coming from, I don't think it's really practical to let those sentiments guide policy. If we want equality of opportunity for all groups then we should try to create that, regardless of past injustices. I completely agree that we haven't lived up to this ideal in the past, or ever, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the guiding ideal. Also, if I understand Reeves properly, boys are performing worse than girls in all ethnicities/races, so its damaging other minorities groups too.
4. On difference in outcomes beyond school, I suspect that a lot of the people who make it to the top are even more homogenous than we commonly think. At first glance, one can look at top positions in government/corporations and see mostly men, yes. But even that is a tiny subsection of all men. I think those positions select for very specific personalities. People who probably score really highly on things like disagreeableness and conscientiousness and the ego required to go for those positions. This means you're looking at the top few percent on the distribution and there just tend to be more men on that side of the graph. This is not to say there isn't gatekeeping, or prejudice, or any other obstacles slowing women down, just that the system is not necessarily geared towards men, per se, but to a very particular group of people, within which men tend to be in the majority.
5. The traits I mentioned in the point (4.) are not necessarily 'good' things. Having the willingness to work 60 hour work weeks for decades, the willingness to walk over others to advance oneself, or having the ego required to think that it should be you in charge, might make one a good CEO or adept on the campaign trail, but it doesn't guarantee one a contented, fulfilled life. Seems almost trite to say this but climbing the corporate ladder might bring you more money, a larger house, fancier dinners, but it doesn't bring happiness by itself. In fact, I suspect a lot of those traits actually make that harder because you can't stop trying to climb. I imagine those people are never sated and all always looking for more status, wealth, prestige and so on.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Rae, but from your previous posts it seems like you realised you were chasing that path yourself, to an extent. Then you realised it wasn't for you, it's basically a bullshit life, so you stopped. My guess would be most people, both men and women, have the same realisation and stop trying to chase the bullshit. Because really, how many people lie on their deathbeds and think, "I wish I had made that extra promotion."
Hey M.E.
Yes, I think that you are spot on in saying that the top echelons of power are designed for the very few who possess, generally, a narrow set of traits that most of us don't have (and maybe don't want). And yes, there are some women with those traits, and there are many more men. And rethinking how people gain power in our society, I think, is a critical and lifelong question.
I tend to agree with you re: helping a struggling group is good, even if that group has historically had an advantage. I do understand the anger, though, if we consider our "helping efforts" to be zero sum. I think it's valid to be afraid that boys will now be helped at the expense of other groups, because history has shown that our culture tends to do that. Still, like you, I believe that ignoring the needs of struggling boys and men will hurt all of us, as it affect the fabric of our society.
I think it's all connected, too, ya know? If we let men fall down in this area due to "historical" reasons, we're going to foster a whole new generation of men who are less equipped to be good men for women. This just reinforces a toxic cycle which we've been trying to get out of for decades.
LOVE #3 my friend. Truth.
Two things to toss into the intersection of this discussion.
1. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Gen Z, or whoever is babysitting my 1-year-old daughter, is also pushing the effort around human-centric (aka feeling, relatable, in touch) workplaces AND we are seeing the slow trickle of women rising in the ranks of corporate leadership. The ultra top is crowded with men still which is curious, but look who’s right right right below them. It’s women who are getting the masses to cooperate and not jump ship.
2. I read an article the other day (probably on Psychology.com) where a therapist offers a theory about why women are disproportionately unhappy in marriages to men. (He kept his illustration to straight couples, but the point I want to share I *think* speaks to a problematic structure.) The therapist hypothesized that, as a general rule, there’s an age when boys are swept out of the loving, nurturing home environment and pushed into projects, objects and anything with a competitive perspective. While young girls aren’t rushed into much of anything that doesn’t involve home care taking, nurturing or relationships. He said when these same boys and girls meet an age when they’re “supposed” to start pairing off, it’s no wonder that boys are so ill prepared to relate to a human being. They’ve been practicing their whole lives to conquer an invisible object while girls have been practicing how to connect, create space and so on. The writer circled back to his married female patients who almost universally complain about their husbands’ lack of emotional intimacy or self disclosure. And he points to the tracks being laid long ago for such dissatisfaction.
If I explore this scenario in my imagination, where boys are primed for robots and competition while girls are primed for relationships, I’d argue that the school system is actually returning power where it wants to belong. (Thus the flurry of “let’s fix the system” for boys!) I think about all the girls who turned in their homework on time (Hi! It’s me!) as being highly motivated to establish and maintain a positive relationship with a teacher/authority figure. That relationship building and alliance forging is what folks like my software spouse are trying to figure out.
Some days I really do feel like we rewarded a certain gender for behaving like robots and now that the robots are here, we are left with a real crisis in leadership. Shock and awe: We don’t need boys to be robots. We need boys to be humans.
2. This relates to Patricia's comment below, about the fact that there are tons of factors outside of school that may cause boys to struggle in school. I think your point relating handing in homework on time and maintaining positive relationships is super interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but it definitely resonates. I felt so guilty if I was ever late with something, like I had really let the teacher down.
1. I really hope you're right about this! I know my view is short, but I just could not believe how many of my fellow high achieving women exited the game alongside me. I felt a lot of guilt about it--who would represent all of womenkind if not me? (yes, humble too). But it was the only option for me, and is for so many women. I think I felt a little tricked--I grew into a young adult believing this had all changed, only to spend ten years realizing that actually I was had to relinquish my power willingly to save myself from suffering in the system any more.
I have three girls ages 19-21 (set of twins). All three are in college. Boys are a holy mess right now. I think I agree with the writer who commented, " how can it be better for girls when it was designed for boys. We need to raise better boys not just lower the bar for them, AGAIN."
One thing not covered in the research for the article (unless I missed it) is why have boys been dropping out of college? Why aren't they applying to college in the number that girls are (60/40 now). What are they doing?
Recently, someone, somewhere said regarding one of the latest school shootings: "wake up parents!" We parents do need to clue in to what our kids are doing.
If your boy is playing hours and hours of video games, guess what? Not good for the kid. The internet machine is causing our girls eating disorders and our boys extreme anxiety. I'm no scientist but getting kids away from devices might help a lot. Go Utah! And, yes for a lot of boys starting school a year later than girls might help, but that's a case by case basis. We keep pointing at the problem but I don't hear many sensible answers. Where have all the boys gone from higher education?
The higher education question is interesting, and I do think Reeve's goes into this a bit. He talks about data showing that boys' outcomes being more affected by adverse experiences, whether that be COVID, a divorce, poverty. I mentioned this somewhere else on this thread, but the gender performance gap apparently grows as you add in intersectional disadvantages like poverty or race. So I think his conclusion is generally that boys are more easily thrown off track before they get to college. Also, he points out that as colleges place more emphasis on GPA over SATs, that favors girls, who tend to have better GPAs and perform about the same on SATs. Anyways, I'm not the expert, just regurgitating some of his points based on his research :).
What happened in Utah?! The kids/devices question is definitely a huge one that, as a parent of a 1.5 yo, I know I'll be thinking about for a looooong time.
Utah passed laws giving parents some rights regarding their kids and the internet...someday we are all going to look back at this time like we do now about seat belts and smoking...like, what the...? How did we think it was ok for a little kid to be able to see hard core porn on a phone...or game etc...
Definitely agree with you re the devices. TikTok, etc. Bad news for kids.
I feel there’s sort of a double tangent-taking going on here. I respect Reeves’ work, but I think he’s doing himself a disservice by focusing on the argument about lower education being somehow a bad maze for boys. It’s a shitty maze for a lot of people, perhaps worse for boys... perhaps... but if we were gonna work on improving school, I wouldn’t start by trying to improve it just for boys.
Then, Rae--and I respect your work too--start by referring to his work and do a classic changing of the subject. Your point doesn’t really have much to do with what Reeves is talking about, and your argument isn’t furthered by his, or not. Maybe I’m missing the point, but why and how are they connected, aside from being about gender and acculturation?
Hey Bowen!
On the first point: I agree with that, and I think it's a common criticism of his work. However, he does focus a lot on the way that the disadvantages for boys in school get worse for poorer boys and boys in disadvantaged racial groups. This was outside of the purview of this essay, but it is an important part of his research.
On the second point, here's how they relate in my mind: I have long felt that the skills that make a person good at school don't translate well into the arenas of power in the US. One of Reeves' core arguments is that boys have worse GPAs because they aren't as good at "having their act together" tasks, like handing in homework on time. My argument is that, while not being able to hand in homework on time may hurt boys in school, this deficiency doesn't seem to hurt them as they rise to power in our culture. Anyways, maybe the association is too loose for your tastes, or I didn't make the point clearly enough :)
thanks Rae :) I really appreciated your point about how more men seem to be able to succeed despite not following the rules, and hearing your experience about having been coaching to 'be more executive'. That resonates, for sure.
What I see is that, as you put it in your subtitle, the "arenas of power aren't working for almost everybody" -- and school, as an arena of power, isn't working either. Perhaps it's still working a bit better for girls, on average, because boys (and their fathers) are further along the curve of having embodied and benefits—and the costs—of patriarchal bias. Perhaps girls and women are catching up and taking over in large part by taking the reins of a system that was mostly designed by men... Men and boys are now feeling the negative impacts of that same system, while girls are (perhaps) getting much of the same ~benefit that boys once got, from the same system. Hasn't entirely trickled up yet into the C-suite... but of course Reeves and others aren't just talking about boys. There is a major mental health crisis going on for men, and in many ways it's the direct result of the system that 'we' built. What we need is an educational model—and a world of work—that doesn't depend so much on sitting in one place and following a bunch of rules.
And yeah, his idea about redshirting boy—that seems bonkers to me. We'd be way better served to put energy into creating more and different types of school experiences than trying to stuff ourselves further into the obsolete factory-worker box that we've inherited.
I definitely agree that at the deeper core of this is a question about what our education system is actually teaching and why. I think Reeve's takes the general characteristics of our current education system as a given, and I agree with you that it seems like that misses the point a bit. This has shown up a few times on this thread--seems like a lot of people's thoughts are naturally going to the question of what we actually want to teach our kids in all those hours of school.
Would you agree, Bowen, that what Rae has done is not so much a "classic changing of the subject" which rings pejorative, but rather an expansion of the scope of the inquiry?
Yeah, I didn't need that "classic," although it was meant in the sense that changing the subject is such a "classic," move, that is, something we humans, all of us, have been doing forever, and often without realizing it—not as in a 'classic Rae Katz' move.
As an alternative, I could have called "tangent!" -- and even even so, either way, what I said (obviously) reflects on how I received what Rae wrote much more than on what she wrote, let alone meant, but if we all took the time to disclaim everything we wrote in such a way, well, there wouldn't be much room for what we have to say in the first place. As for expansion of the scope of inquiry... sure, but again, I didn't really get the connection she was making, so I said so.
The "executive presence" comment is so spot on - I've been told that exact phrase in my own career and yes, it's about talking louder and talking more often even if it doesn't offer more substance.
😠
I appreciate the argument that the fact that school isn’t working working for boys isn’t preventing the current generation of male leaders from commanding a majority of power. I think the deeper questions about the objective of schooling overall and how we are succeeding or failing (and even measuring success and failure!) have not really been asked or answered. Much of our public school system is still run like a pseudo-factory-training-ground. The fact that girls have better soft skills earlier that makes it easier for them to navigate the environment and receive a higher rating on the “How are we doing?” Emoji scale doesn’t mean school is “working” for girls either.
Yes, 100%. I think if I had pushed this essay a little further that's where I would have gone: what are we really teaching kids, and what do we want to be teaching them?
But if boys are failing and struggling in school at a young age...where will that lead? Won't that be even worse for women? Won't this just keep feeding the negative cycle we all want to end? Women and men both need help in different ways. We neglect that to our peril. That's my view.
I’ve been mulling over this article the last few days and the unresolved follow-up question I have is: if amassing power is the point of schooling (not quite, but implied by your essay, Rae) then what is the point of power? What “archetype” (stereotypical idolized ideas man vs. has-her-shit-together woman) in power serves that point better?
Of course this is a false dichotomy and different scenarios and organizations need different leaders and perspectives in power. But. I’d like to posit that the purpose of power is to improve the world while protecting human rights -- not a grand theory (yet), just an idea. And it seems that those at the top of the power food chain could certainly do better toward this goal; it makes intuitive sense that one way to do that is by having greater diversity of learners/types/genders/etc. in positions of power. But that’s the assumption I want to interrogate further: is the somewhat repugnant ideas guy actually good for the ultimate goal?
Holding boys back a year is not only fucking stupid, but also laughably misandrist and cowardly in that are trying to push a "solution" that doesn't address at all what the real issue that they acknowledge here is : That a Female dominated education system that is riddled with systemic racism and misandry sets our boys up for failure.
Their pudding brained solution is to literally take a year away from our boy's development because they would rather avoid making Feminists upset. Dafuck ?
"Now, boys are struggling, and suddenly the problem is with the system. Put that way, it’s infuriating."
Although isn't it the opposite? Not to make this too political but: The way it seems to me is that the contemporary Leftist narrative has been that minorities, women, etc (everyone minus just the group we call "men") have been failed by "the system," whereas now, with men, the idea seems to be, Oh, well, to the extent that there even IS a problem (and I'm not sure the Left broadly has fully bought in to this), it's clearly the fault of men/boys themselves. I don't think anyone with any brains would say this quite so directly on, say, MSNBC, but that seems to be the thinking behind their ideas. The idea being: Men, clearly, have always dominated education and everything else, so 1. Who cares if they're struggling; 2. Serves them right if they are; 3. IF it's actually happening in any meaningful way it's their own fault. Now, of course this conversation gets trickier when you add in things like race. But that's another topic.
Michael Mohr
"The Incompatibility of Being Alive"
https://reallife82.substack.com/
Having not read the book but just finished another focused on a similar topic (bell hooks' "The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love"), I wonder if these differences in aptitude between boys and girls might have more to do with how society conditions children. Maybe we just put more pressure on girls to perform well?
Yeah, that's interesting - there are a few other comments in this thread with similar points, like maybe it's not actually the schools but the culture around the schools. Makes sense to me.
Love bell hooks and need to check that one out. I know she has a lot on love, but I didn't know she had work on men and love. Thanks!
It was excellent and eye-opening. Not bad for a 20-year-old book.
New subscriber here and loving the topics and the takes on them, Rae. Thanks for taking your writing seriously. This part of this post resonates so well: “… throughout all of history various groups have struggled in the American education system, and we have always, as a culture, found that the problem was with the people in that group. Now, boys are struggling, and suddenly the problem is with the system. Put that way, it’s infuriating.” A challenge with this mindset/approach is that it denies/ignores the capability of girls to still find a way around whatever new obstacles a revamped educational system may put in their way and emerge successful. Girls are capable, know that they are capable, and are determined to dare more and achieve more with their capabilities. Boys just have to catch up with girls by relying on more than brags or a misconception of superiority/the inherent right to be first by coercion, complicity, or docile submission. Deb Liu touched on this and also addressed the “school/work divide” in her book “Take Back Your Power: 10 New Rules for Women at Work.” It’s an easy read/listen, which I happily teased in a review. But get the book for yourself and see what you think about her analysis and recommendations.
A Mongolian Proverb says that “Men and women sleep on the same pillow, but they have different dreams.” I see this proverb play out in the way boys and girls show up in school, at work, and even at play. I see it bearing fruits from, not just biology, but the subtle acculturation that predates schools (and extends beyond school hours) that sometimes unwittingly, give boys the impression that girls have to stay back or be held back for them to shine. Yes, we should tinker with the design of the maze if it will ensure that no child gets left behind. (And that no woman gets behind in the work force). Society is not better off when achievement altitudes are preset in favor of some at the expense of others. So, in our quest for a better maze design, may the architects find the right balance between the nature and nurture beams that will embrace the aptitude and attitude of all classes of learners. Thanks again for the post. Lots more to ponder from it ....
"Girls are capable, know that they are capable, and are determined to dare more and achieve more with their capabilities. Boys just have to catch up with girls by relying on more than brags or a misconception of superiority/the inherent right to be first by coercion, complicity, or docile submission." <---- This is the stupid, misandrist shit that is part of the problem. 50 fucking years of policy that focuses and prioritizes Women/Girls in education at the expense of Men/Boys....but no...that's not what it is...it's Women/Girls inherit superiority....I guess that's why despite this Men/Boys still outperform Women/Girls in STEM....oh...wait...
No...the problem is with the system....just like the problem was with the system when Women/Girls were struggling. You can't have it both ways. The issue here is that our Female dominated public school system as well as your Universities have an obvious problem with both racism and misandry. Peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study has revealed this but no one wants to openly admit it because of the political backlash from Feminists they are sure to be a target of if they do. The part that if find galling about all of this is that there are idiots out there who think somehow this problem can be fixed by delaying boys a year. As if that will change anything as opposed to calling this shit out for what it is and doing something about it.
I think men and women both have strengths and weaknesses. Society helps and hinders both in different ways. There's the history of power, which itself is very complex for many reasons. A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't think it's a zero zum game, such as to help girls we need to take down boys, or to help boys we need to take down girls.