"Nonetheless, some are advocating boys-only classrooms in which boys would be taught in boot-camp fashion." Article in the NY Times today: "Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate" By THOM SHANKER. So, are we helping boys or the military? With all of the concern of recruitment for the military being down, etc., I think it is very convenient that a hyper-masculine, "boot-camp" classroom is being pushed as a way to increase boy's acheivement in school.

Wait, I thought the problem was that boys were too active and creative for educational approaches that forced students to sit still and listen. Now people are suggesting that boys need boot-camp style discipline to force them to sit still and listen? I guess sitting still and listening are "masculine" if they're enforced by boot camp instructors, much like men who aren't able to control their anger aren't "emotional," because that's a feminine thing.

Felix, did you read the article? Did you have something to add concerning the points the authors bring up, or did you just want to whine about feminists?

Wait, I thought the problem was that boys were too active and creative for educational approaches that forced students to sit still and listen. Now people are suggesting that boys need boot-camp style discipline to force them to sit still and listen?

That is exactly what I thought. When people would make that claim, I'd think, "okay, that's why we should keep boys out of the military and boot camp? They can't sit still, right?". Whatever. Of course, at the same time the reason boys do better on stadardised tests and that there are more male leaders is because males they are innately more intelligent. So, no matter what, girls don't achieve anything on their own merits and when boys lag behind girls, it is everybody else's fault. With girls, women and feminists took the initiative to create programs and encourage girls to get into certain so-called "unfeminine" fields and thinkings over the years (which traditionalists bemoan). But, nope, the MRA/masculists types want everything to fall into their outstretched hands.

Anyway, glad the article finally addressed the actual crises, which is race/class.

Oh Felix. I can't help it if I love "my ass." And you know that we don't ban people for profanity, but for personal attacks.

And honestly, when did a post title become an analysis? I pointed in the direction of an article I thought was worth reading. When the authors here write longer posts about a subject I think you know that it's not just a litany of curses.

But whatever, troll-feeding is never a good idea, so I'll stop here.

Yeah, I don't recall any feminists saying that we should stop emphasizing science because girls just aren't good at it and the fault is with science. Although I have heard a few people, some feminists and some boy-crisis-mongers, argue that classrooms should be made more "girl-friendly" by discouraging competition and emphasizing feelings, which is just as bad as the boot-camp stuff. Seems like the girls can deal with competition just fine, and some people have a problem with that.

Oh, that was in response to Durga_is_my_homey.

From the article, it would be more aptly described as a black and hispanic boy crisis. But who cares about them. As long as its not white boys, there are no problems?

Keep in mind as well, that there are more boys ages 0-35 or so than there are girls, so the 104 girls graduating for every 100 boys means girls are even more likely to graduate than assuming a 50/50 ratio in the population.

It seems to me that if boys are doing poorly in school, that just goes to prove that they are naturally more stupid, and should just enjoy staying at home, doing the things that they are good at. Whatever that is. Uh, watching sports and drinking beer, I guess. And scratching.

Why can't they just accept the reality and shut up about it?

Good god, I never would have survived being 'taught in boot-camp fashion'. But I was always accused of being too 'feminized' (I grew up in an area where people would call me 'little girl' because my hair was over my ears and collar. By like an inch. Seriously.)

I understand the points the WaPo article was making, but I find it hard to swallow that the article demonstrates that the "boy crisis" is a "myth" merely by showing that middle/upper class males do okay.

The article explicitly acknowledges that minority males very well may be experiencing a "boy crisis," (among blacks, for every 100 males who graduate, 139 females do), but then goes on to merely continue its argument that the media's "boy crisis" is a sham. Or does a real "boy crisis" only exist when it happens to white kids too?

From the article, it would be more aptly described as a black and hispanic boy crisis. But who cares about them. As long as its not white boys, there are no problems?
No, not really. The point was that looking at the big picture of the issue, of men there are significantly more minority males than white males. So then it wouldn't be a gender problem, it would be a racial/class problem.
Can you imagine what the outcry would be if 60% or so of college graduates were MEN? Or if MEN lived, on average, several years longer than women rather than vice versa(another current topic posted on this board)?/And, of course, if women died earlier than men there would someone to BLAME.
Well, like somebody else posted on this board, there used to be a shorter life expectancy for women than for men in a certain area. S/he pointed out one reason, which was mid-wives remaining unclean while delivering babies. What happened then? They started to wash their hands. That's the thing, when it comes to these issues, feminists have taken initiative. They don't like the idea of their daughters growing up and being powerless and economically dependent, then to the best of their power they'd teach them otherwise and encourage them. Women were concerned about breast cancer? They set up fund-raisers, sold braclets, organized marches ... so the researchers had more money to fund it. To the best of their ability, women have done what they personally could (of course, as we see, that doesn't always work). Now the MRAs and whathaveyou should learn from that. They can start with not teaching boys to have a sense of entitlment, as apparently their parents taught them.

Bear with me, because this is the first time I've posted here.

I think the real point of the article comes in the last few paragraphs. The authors state that the solution to this problem isn't something flashy like single-sex education, but simply better schools with smaller classes and qualified teachers.

Basically, the solution here is not to specifically target the "boy crisis," but to instead try to improve the quality of education for everyone, particularly in disadvantaged urban and inner-city areas, where statistics show that graduation rates are lower in both genders than in affluent areas. Make schools better, and more boys (and girls) will succeed. It sounds quite simple to me.

As for your question, Felix: In my own experience, hearing my parents fight constantly was quite damaging. I do believe that couples turn to divorce entirely too quickly nowadays, but I don't think staying together is necessarily beneficial to children.

You will also note that the article referenced on life-expectancy does discuss the problem of lower male life-expectancy. Make no mistake, this is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here relishes the idea of all the males in their lives dying 5-10 years before them. As someone who has two younger brothers, I was highly disturbed by the idea.

1) I'm more interested in getting responses to the dilemma I posted above (about boys and girls from single parent families doing poorly)

Wait for the appropriate topic, then it will be (however, people on all sides who actually know what they‘re talking about will likely dominate it, not reactionary traditionalists like you). Until then, yes, continue spouting your guessed numbers, talking-points, and neglecting to recognize any responsibility on the part of the fathers that left the child after a break-up or divorce.

Basically, the solution here is not to specifically target the "boy crisis," but to instead try to improve the quality of education for everyone, particularly in disadvantaged urban and inner-city areas, where statistics show that graduation rates are lower in both genders than in affluent areas. Make schools better, and more boys (and girls) will succeed. It sounds quite simple to me.

Agreed. Long time have.

I can't remember where I read about this research, but marriages are much more likely to stay together when men do a fair share of the housework. So I guess that's one solution.

Felix,

Could you please post sources for your claims that

1) There is an opt-out revolution

and

2) Children of divorced parents do worse (in some way) than children of married parents?

I'm looking for specific citations, preferably peer-reviewed. Even articles that cite studies would be good, because then I can go dig them up. Thanks.
Alice

Hey, Felix. Did you find any stats on fatherless children who don't live in America? There's a whole world out there, you know. Other people exist too.

This is unfortunate. I was going to have an intellectual debate about this and was excited when I saw so many comments, but apparently I'm going to be arguing with someone who came here to prove a point instead of being willing to engage productively. And that is something I refuse to do.

Because no debater is ever out to prove a point?

Felix: I must ask exactly what those particular statistics are supposed to prove? Yes, there is a correlation, but that doesn't mean that the lack of a male parental figure in the home is the cause of the problem.

Jenna, what do you think might explain the correlations? Not asking for proof, just hypothesis generation.

Felix, I'm not whining, though maybe that's one of your tactics in "winning an Internet debate" - charging something negative and false to get a rise out of the other side. I don't know because I didn't read it because I'm not out to win. I'm here to talk. But you are concerned with making "your" thread a success, and it's quite the opposite. If you're so keen on Internet debates, you'd know that a bunch of comments don't equal success, especially when they come from you. Maybe they do equal your kind of success, but I like to learn and inspire others and make the world a better place. That's my definition of success. I don't debate with people who can't respect other people's beliefs, and you came here to do the exact opposite. That is NOT intellectual, nor is it debate.

There's a strong argument (which of course would require further study and analysis) that the reason children raised in single-parent households are not as well-off is directly correlated to the high percentage of single-mothers on welfare and other forms of public assistance. Unfortunately, society doesn't help single mothers out very well. What these statistics show me is that we should have social reform so that it is easier for the majority of single mothers to raise their children in circumstances equal to those of two parents households (recognizing that in the vast majority of two parent households, both parents work and contribute to the child-rearing). So, yes, I agree that the poor are disadvantaged. If people really cared about children (as everyone claims), why aren't we helping single mothers?
Why aren't we giving mothers-to-be pre-natal care (which I really think is so essential) and access to other health benefits (including freedom of reproductive choice, which to me also means access to birth control methods as well as abortion)? Why aren't we giving them housing and providing adequate public schools?
(Not that I am saying there aren't single fathers, but there are statistically fewer poor single fathers and statistically more poor single mothers.)
Certainly, collecting child support helps a lot but (I represent single mothers in family court frequently) child support is very meager and often so difficult to collect that the women are forced to give up.
I fail to see that these figures indicate that it's the lack of a MALE figure...arguably a child growing up in an extended family/ alternative family/ gay marriage would do as well as one raised in a traditional marriage household. I think the stats are based on "one parent" households, which shows to me something that I see is true, that single mothers who are primarily minorities and poor, lack the resources to give their children that two-parent (or multi-parent) households have.

The article authors make a good point that the numbers should be broken down by race and class.

However I would hesitate to trust their stats given their "credentials."

I think the boy crisis is real. At least it is more real than the girl crisis, which was purely a feminist invention based on phony stats from the AAUW. Is the boy crisis over blown by the media? Everything is overblown by the media, apparently that's their job, because otherwise we don't pay attention.

The main issue as I see it is that there are many programs, scholarships, and other initiatives currently in place to help girls. These were created and pushed for by feminist organizations based on their agenda and ignore any educational problems boys may have. Of course men could band together and create the same sort of biased programs. But men have no desire to create a world where it's boys vs girls, and would prefer to simply level the playing field. People like the authors of this article are simply doing their best to spin things so the girl-friendly initiatives don't get pulled.

There is no excuse for any feminists who say--"oh look, boys really are stupid" or "now it's boys turn to see how it feels." Those type of morally bankrupt comments merely reveal a deep anti-boy prejudice.

I agree with felix that this site is littered with extremist hyperbole that radiates hostility to men. Anyone who is critical is labeled a traditionalist-- as if!

Ultimately it is a bit hopeless to try and engage people in discussion here, because people are so emotionally invested in their opinions they no longer have an open mind. (Which is the first clue that someone is an ideological extremist.)

The main issue as I see it is that there are many programs, scholarships, and other initiatives currently in place to help girls.

I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out, but male applicants are strongly favored over women at many colleges now in order to create gender-balanced campuses.

I'm going to ignore most of what has been said above to comment on the article.

Ahem. "Boy Crisis."

I have a non-profit job where I work with at-risk (whatever that means) middle schoolers, and we have been reading Raising Cain and watching the documentary based on it, both of which this article seems to allude to. And frankly, I think the article is crap. Well, not crap, they have their good points too. However, the article appears to be lumping recent shock pieces on the "boy crisis" and respectable educational and psychological research together. Furthermore, they never actually reference any other articles other than "The Wonder of Boys," so they fall into the same trap of generalizing as the peopled they are supposedly arguing against.

As for the single-sex schools, I really can't see what anyone could find negative about that idea. Coming from a long feminist tradition of providing our girls with strong, wonderful role models, girl-only programs and schools where they can thrive, and any number of books on the struggles of girls in adolescence, I cannot fathom why anyone would argue with doing the same for our boys. The research I have read encouraging single-sex classrooms for boys has nothing to do with "a classroom that would de-emphasize reading and verbal skills and would rely on rote learning and discipline," but rather surrounding boys with strong male role models in their school as well as breaking away from the various ways boys are taught "masculinity" in your average public school.

Anyway, my point is that while there isnt exactly a boy "crisis" in schools right now, they are long overdue for the same amount of attention that girls have been given for years now. And as much as I hate the empty peices on the crisis that this article is reacting against, I have to say that it doesn't add a damn thing to the issue at hand. It's just more empty, angry debate.

Sure boys are favored by admissions officers. (Which incidentally, is wrong.) But that is not the point. The question is why do they have to favor boys in order to create balance? And the answer is that girls have been given an educational leg up by high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, which have been operating for a decade under false assumption that girls were being "shortchanged".

If you know any kids, you should ask them, they know who the favorits are!

But that is not the point. The question is why do they have to favor boys in order to create balance?

And "the point" when we're talking about educational programs that favor girls is...? I don't think there's anything wrong with colleges taking some measures to get a more even gender balance, by the way, and I don't think most feminists do (Katha Pollitt finds it appalling, but I think she's in the minority.)

Boys are encouraged to take risks, while girls are encouraged to be organized and "well-rounded," and that's probably what's responsible for both the boy and girl "crises." The creativity of the brightest girls is being stifled, while boys don't live up to their potential because they get the message that hard work and following rules are for girls.

As far as antifeminists being "traditionalists", I agree that many are not. There have always been many men on the left whose support for women's equality is at best lukewarm.

The "boy crisis" seems to be manufactured, if only because it plays on gender stereptypes that have shifted over the years. Back before 1900, only MEN were considered smart enough to write books, read books, and produce art...the paucity of female artists is pretty obvious. Women couldn't write or read then either -- so the fact that now "creative" and "verbal" learning environments are considered "feminine" to me shows how skills like reading and writing are now being denigrated (as soon as women start to do something, it immediately become less prestigious -- ficition novels, for example, once the sole realm of men, are now considered slightly "feminine" as compared to historical or political books; as more women become teachers, the position became poorly-paid and less presitigous). How interesting now for some people to claim that "boys" want structure and military-type classrooms...this is just such a socially constructed myth. It's more a reflection of our (American/ white) society's bizarre "fear" of losing some fundamental "masculinity" that in reality is all a construction... to say that "educational programs is favoring girls" is just a round-about way of saying "now that girls have learned how to do the skills only boys used to be taught to do, we need to change what is prioritized."

If you don't teach women to read or do math (as was true in this country and is still true in many countries) or give them a paintbrush to paint with, it's impossible to write a novel, solve mathetmatical puzzles, or paint a masterpiece.
To call that "female underperformance" is an insult to the human race: what of women in many countries who will never see the written word or learn to do math? What of women who die in childbirth, at the age of 14, who will never know what they could have achieved? What of women who are mulitated, raped, abused, and condemned to live as property all over this world who will never have the resources to explore what they could have been?
Felix, I suppose you think that its the fault of African-Americans that they were slaves too? Since, after all, a really dedicated person would have figured out how to be free??
Your argument is ridiculous. I fail to see how the fact that most mass murders are male (and the profile of a serial killer is a white male, too, so are white people inherently more "serial-killer-ish" than non-whites in your world?) has anything to do with how society constructs masculinity and feminity.
Arguably, more murders (limited to intentional murders) are committed by men because masculinity has been socially constructed to view violence as a solution. So, Felix, your argument isn't the trump card you wish it was. How we as a society construct gender is a lot more complicated. Here's a question for you -- in your theory, where do transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and transgender people fit?
I think that descontructing gender norms is productive for both women and men, which is what I think feminism is all about. No one wins in your system, Felix, why are you so invested in maintaining it?

What is it exactly that you want everyone to say, Felix? That men are inherently better, or that they're more important? Please enlighten us so you won't have to post 17 times in the same thread.

YES, children from fatherless homes have problems. However, having any sort of male role model would help, so I suggest you head down to your local Big Brother office, if you haven't done so already.

Maria Agnesi can be your female mathematician, but since you suggested that no one was stopping women from doing anything:

In 1873, a young college-educated female died mysteriously. This is what her doctor wrote:

Sex in Education; or, A Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), by Dr. Edward H. Clarke
"Spending Her Force in Intellectual Labor:

"Miss G worked her way through New-England primary, grammar, and high schools to a Western college, which she entered with credit to herself, and from which she graduated, confessedly its first scholar, leading the male and female youth alike. All that need be told of her career is that she worked as a student, continuously and perseveringly, through the years of her first critical epoch, and for a few years after it, without any sort of regard to the periodical type of her organization. It never appeared that she studied excessively in other respects, or that her system was weakened while in college by fevers or other sickness. Not a great while after graduation, she began to show signs of failure, and some years later died under the writer's care. A post-mortem examination was made, which disclosed no disease in any part of the body, except in the brain, where the microscope revealed commencing degeneration.

"This was called an instance of death from over-work. Like the preceding case, it was not so much the result of over-work as of un-physiological work. She was unable to make a good brain, that could stand the wear and tear of life, and a good reproductive system that should serve the race, at the same time that she was continuously spending her force in intellectual labor. Nature asked for a periodical remission, and did not get it. And so Miss G died, not because she had mastered the wasps of Aristophanes and Mecanique Celeste, not because she had made the acquaintance of Kant and Kelliker, and ventured to explore the anatomy of flowers and the secrets of chemistry, but because, while pursuing these studies, while doing all this work, she steadily ignored her woman's make. Believing that woman can do what man can, for she held that faith, she strove with noble but ignorant bravery to compass man's intellectual attainment in a man's way, and died in the effort...."

What is it exactly that you want everyone to say, Felix? That men are inherently better, or that they're more important? Please enlighten us so you won't have to post 17 times in the same thread.

YES, children from fatherless homes have problems. However, having any sort of male role model would help, so I suggest you head down to your local Big Brother office, if you haven't done so already.

Maria Agnesi can be your female mathematician, but since you suggested that no one was stopping women from doing anything:

In 1873, a young college-educated female died mysteriously. This is what her doctor wrote:

Sex in Education; or, A Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), by Dr. Edward H. Clarke
"Spending Her Force in Intellectual Labor:

"Miss G worked her way through New-England primary, grammar, and high schools to a Western college, which she entered with credit to herself, and from which she graduated, confessedly its first scholar, leading the male and female youth alike. All that need be told of her career is that she worked as a student, continuously and perseveringly, through the years of her first critical epoch, and for a few years after it, without any sort of regard to the periodical type of her organization. It never appeared that she studied excessively in other respects, or that her system was weakened while in college by fevers or other sickness. Not a great while after graduation, she began to show signs of failure, and some years later died under the writer's care. A post-mortem examination was made, which disclosed no disease in any part of the body, except in the brain, where the microscope revealed commencing degeneration.

"This was called an instance of death from over-work. Like the preceding case, it was not so much the result of over-work as of un-physiological work. She was unable to make a good brain, that could stand the wear and tear of life, and a good reproductive system that should serve the race, at the same time that she was continuously spending her force in intellectual labor. Nature asked for a periodical remission, and did not get it. And so Miss G died, not because she had mastered the wasps of Aristophanes and Mecanique Celeste, not because she had made the acquaintance of Kant and Kelliker, and ventured to explore the anatomy of flowers and the secrets of chemistry, but because, while pursuing these studies, while doing all this work, she steadily ignored her woman's make. Believing that woman can do what man can, for she held that faith, she strove with noble but ignorant bravery to compass man's intellectual attainment in a man's way, and died in the effort...."

Why are feminists so afraid to focus on boys' education? Whata hell, I don't agree that all feminists are anti-male lesbians, but it is getting hard to take them seriously.

The girl crisis, claimed by AAUW, was a manufectured one (see Kleinfeld's "The Myth That Schools Shortange Girls"), and yet there was no such skepticism about it. Despite the lack of data, everybody believed the poor girls were beind discriminated against.

Now it is time to focus on boys, and the concern about their educational needs is statistically supported.

I wanna belived feminism is still a movement for perfect EQUALITY, not a movement to focus only on female "poor-victims" of the oh-abusive-and-oh-so-powerful-and-indimidating patriarchy.

And yes, I blame radical feminists for what is happening to boys right now. They changed teaching methods to the advantage of girls.

Some person said that feminists encouraged girls to get into "non-particularly-feminine" fields... Please, woman, don't understimate girls' strength and boldness. They already outnumbered boys on campuses since the 80s. They don't need hysterical ultra-radical feminists to succeed.

Until then, yes, continue spouting your guessed numbers, talking-points, and neglecting to recognize any responsibility on the part of the fathers that left the child after a break-up or divorce.

Sorry, but it is a well-stablished fact. So it is the fact that divorced fathers often are obligated to pay child-support, and still are not allowed to visit their children.

The creativity of the brightest girls is being stifled

Do you live in America? Do you have data that support your point? Or are you another one who sees "shortchanged girls" everywhere?

Now, why couldn't you have said that in the FIRST post? 18 posts later, we get to what you really want...

To answer your question: No. If there are legitimate examples of discrimination, then abuse still exists on some level. I was merely pointing out that yes, historically, many women were held back and continue to be held back in many parts of the world. I'm here to stand up for the women who are afraid to go outside without a man, who have acid thrown in their faces for refusing someone's advances, and who are killed because someone decided that they deserved it. That's the real girl crisis.

Maria Agnesi left mathematics quite early, but I'm not sure why. Maybe she decided that taking care of others was more important? I would have liked to see what she could have done if she'd stuck to it her whole life, like, say, Newton. I'd also like to believe it was her own decision.

And please do not refer to me as babe.

Yes, there are gender differences... there are also differences within genders. It doesn't really matter, because people find things they're good at, and there's always exceptions to every rule.

Rafael: You make it sound like before radical feminists, boys succeeded because things worked to their advantage, and that's how things should be. Curriculum should not advantage ANYONE. It's there to even the educational playing field. And did the radical feminists really have an effect on it? I would say that with abstinence-only education and a lack of women's studies courses at the secondary level, they really didn't affect much at all. How exactly would one change math and science curriculum to suit feminists, anyway? (Seriously. I'm not picking on you... I want to know.)

If boys are doing badly, it's because we need better schools for everyone. Single sex education isn't going to make any sort of difference if there isn't a corresponding improvement in curriculum and standards.

The other day, I heard that in Baltimore, 1.4% of students passed the state Biology test. Now, even if every single one of those who passed was female, which would be absolutely ridiculous, almost everyone of both sexes failed. It still looks like a boy crisis, because ALL the boys failed, but the girls aren't exactly doing well.

You make it sound like before radical feminists, boys succeeded because things worked to their advantage, and that's how things should be. Curriculum should not advantage ANYONE.

Yeah, in the 80s girls already outnumbered boys on campuses. This is evidence that girls were already doing OK in school and curriculum didn't favoured one sex over another. That changed when AAUW came up with its flawed and biased study.

And did the radical feminists really have an effect on it?
Have you read "The war against boys"? I'm pretty sure you've heard about Hoff Sommers, but it looks like you don't know the book. It is essential when it comes to boys' education, even if you don't agree with it (I certainly don't agree with everything she said, but the fact that schools changed its teaching methods, especially when it comes to math and science, is well stablished -- but the statement Sommers made that feminists were aware this would harm boys' involvement in school seems a bit paranoid to me).

If boys are doing badly, it's because we need better schools for everyone.
I do agree with you, but it seems so hypocritical not to recognize that boys are not faring as well as girls (I'm not talking about education only).

When AAUW's "How Schools Shortchange Girls" came up, girls were the hot topic, and everybody was concerned about them, and ONLY about them. And then, when finally boys come to the soptlight, a bunch of radical feminists say boys are doing well and everyone concerned about them are just creating a backlash against feminism. Give me a break... Talk about sexism.

Man, I forgot to say that, while Sommers assumption that feminists are waging a war against the boys, she is right when she says schools changed their teaching methods to the advantage of girls and when she says AAUW's study was really biased against the boys.

This one is good too: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48527

Actually "boy crisis" in English speaking countries is a world-wide phenomenon, due to the gross failure of the so called "whole-word" method which was introduced in the 70s.

And yes, the predominance of female teachers during formative years has a profound impact on basic skills attained. I have observed this on a daily basis and spent many years teaching remedial reading to help overcome the disparity, without a doubt the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of female teachers.

There is a neurological shift in the male brain around the age of 17 (hence schizophrenia manifesting at this age), which once completed, boys can progress at a much faster rate, unfortunately this comes at a time when most are completing high school and so the damage is done.

Boy are very much at a disadvantage, they are not afforded the same allowances as girls, they do not receive the same level of care and nurture in a very anti-male environment, by women who by virtue of their profession have been institutionalised their entire lives. And I must say, male teachers do not exhibit these same preferences.

Sorry, but it is a well-stablished fact.

Erm, what is?