So? Where is this leading? Just another excuse for allocating more resources for boys. And ANY pretext for men to urge sex-segregation to men’s advantage is always welcomed by the media of discussion and seized on by policymakers.
And what do girls get for their Good Conduct Medal ? Lower pay, fewer opportunities in life, less respect, and a firm demand to keep their mouths shut about it .
And what do girls get for their Good Conduct Medal ? Lower pay, fewer opportunities in life, less respect, and a firm demand to keep their mouths shut about it .
32
I really wonder how many of these comments are written by younger men. In my time I've seen schools go from accepting behavior that is "un-girl" to medicating it away.
There is different wiring in the brain between XX and XY. It's fact. Boys and girls (by and large--wouldn't want to discount everyone's anecdotal kid who doesn't fit the mold) learn differently.
Perhaps instead of modeling education in a way that best serves girls while using that model to educate both girls and boys, we need to look into the effects of all-girl/all-boy classes until a certain grade level.
Perhaps one way we can help disadvantaged boys is to let them be boys again. A radical notion, I know. For example, not every little shoving match needs the attention of the superintendent, behavior contracts, and concerned chats with parents. I know it's sinful to suggest anything that occurred pre-1965 as being effective or good, but it's a hell of a lot easier to go to school knowing you're going to be allowed to be yourself (a boy) rather than a defective girl who needs medication or micro-managing to "correct" your behavior.
It's an overt, covert, concussions, and subliminal message public education now sends to boys from day one: You're defective. You need to act this way because that's how girls learn best.
Is it any wonder that boys who have family support (read: wealthier homes) can shake off this miasma more effectively than boys who feel isolated and alienated at school and home?
There is different wiring in the brain between XX and XY. It's fact. Boys and girls (by and large--wouldn't want to discount everyone's anecdotal kid who doesn't fit the mold) learn differently.
Perhaps instead of modeling education in a way that best serves girls while using that model to educate both girls and boys, we need to look into the effects of all-girl/all-boy classes until a certain grade level.
Perhaps one way we can help disadvantaged boys is to let them be boys again. A radical notion, I know. For example, not every little shoving match needs the attention of the superintendent, behavior contracts, and concerned chats with parents. I know it's sinful to suggest anything that occurred pre-1965 as being effective or good, but it's a hell of a lot easier to go to school knowing you're going to be allowed to be yourself (a boy) rather than a defective girl who needs medication or micro-managing to "correct" your behavior.
It's an overt, covert, concussions, and subliminal message public education now sends to boys from day one: You're defective. You need to act this way because that's how girls learn best.
Is it any wonder that boys who have family support (read: wealthier homes) can shake off this miasma more effectively than boys who feel isolated and alienated at school and home?
19
Wow. After decades, centuries, of girls getting less than boys, less education, lower salaries, lesser jobs, and women being left with less after divorce than men, except, of course for the kids (mom gets All the kids), it sure is hard to feel all broken up about how boys are more negatively affected than girls by just about anything.
31
Is there some reason why asian kids are NEVER included in these studies? It seems like asian, specifically indian, chinese, korea and japanese seem to blow everyone else out of the water whether they were born poor or rich.
32
No doubt males are the weaker sex.
13
Without Almighty God, no man can be all that he could be.
1
"Raging hormones, romantic dreams".....a skit presented on high school and junior high stages or in gyms illustrates the differences between teenage boys and girls. It should be required viewing for all students in all schools in the USA, beginning at age 11 or 12.
The huge increases in never-wed births and children being raised in single-parent families had many causes. Among the causes are our welfare system, shifts away from traditions including religious affiliation, increases in teen alcohol use, the drug use epidemic, et al. The last stats I recall were about 25% of Caucasian babies, 50% of Hispanic babies, and 75% of Black babies being born out of wedlock. There are many good outcomes from single-parent families, but the majority of children in single-parent families do not do as well in life as children who grow up with a father and mother in traditional marriage.
Before anyone says "it's because we don't do a good job with sex education", let me state the kids know that babies come from having sex. It's the raging hormones and romantic dreams that get in the way of using birth control, not lack of knowledge. It's the culture changes that make too many young people think having multiple sex partners is okay, even to the point of some of them not even knowing the last name of sex partners.
It's culture, it's morality (the lack of it), it's drugs, it's many reasons. Children are suffering because of their parents' poor choices.
The huge increases in never-wed births and children being raised in single-parent families had many causes. Among the causes are our welfare system, shifts away from traditions including religious affiliation, increases in teen alcohol use, the drug use epidemic, et al. The last stats I recall were about 25% of Caucasian babies, 50% of Hispanic babies, and 75% of Black babies being born out of wedlock. There are many good outcomes from single-parent families, but the majority of children in single-parent families do not do as well in life as children who grow up with a father and mother in traditional marriage.
Before anyone says "it's because we don't do a good job with sex education", let me state the kids know that babies come from having sex. It's the raging hormones and romantic dreams that get in the way of using birth control, not lack of knowledge. It's the culture changes that make too many young people think having multiple sex partners is okay, even to the point of some of them not even knowing the last name of sex partners.
It's culture, it's morality (the lack of it), it's drugs, it's many reasons. Children are suffering because of their parents' poor choices.
10
How do these findings and conclusions compare or contrast with studies looking into middle and upper middle class boys' and girls' performance in school? Is it possible that regardless of socio economic background, boys generally tend to have more behavioral problems, and do not perform as well as girls in school, at least the first few years of elementary school?
4
Every time this subject is discussed, the one thing we can count on is that there will be an incessant stream of generalizations about "how boys are" and "how girls are". What is so hard about this? Boys and girls are PEOPLE, unique individuals everyone, with unique personalities, temperaments, strengths and weaknesses. Neither gender is monolithic in character.
But what is universal is this: the gendered stereotypes and cultural conditioning that we foist on children on the basis of gender, from the instant of birth really (or even before). These stereotypes create expectations that children will very often seek to fulfill - that girls be polite and cooperative and boys be wild and anti-intellectual.
Instead of endlessly repeating generalities that are patently false (all boys are active, all girls like to sit still) we should be looking instead at how we acculturate our children - specifically, in the context of this discussion, how we program boys to fail academically and socially.
But what is universal is this: the gendered stereotypes and cultural conditioning that we foist on children on the basis of gender, from the instant of birth really (or even before). These stereotypes create expectations that children will very often seek to fulfill - that girls be polite and cooperative and boys be wild and anti-intellectual.
Instead of endlessly repeating generalities that are patently false (all boys are active, all girls like to sit still) we should be looking instead at how we acculturate our children - specifically, in the context of this discussion, how we program boys to fail academically and socially.
18
If everybody is an individual, then how can we program boys to fail - all we that could possibly happen is that an individual boy or girl fails for some reason. So maybe there is something to those generalizations after all...
1
It is apparently very easy to moralize about these issues, and, yes, people with a very traditional morality probably won't have these problems. But society has evolved in ways that are not conducive to family values with jobs exported, killer hours for the jobs still here, no respite for family emergencies, etc. etc.
Perhaps we should also look at the idealized image that is promoted for boys and men, and what we see is sports and fighting. We should find other values and other ways of recognizing boys beyond how well they do in sports, because sports is still mostly about winning and not about all those other character-building properties it supposedly has. If we can foster different images for boys and men and their social roles, especially lower-class boys would be served well. Unless we overcome the macho culture nurtured in the media (and in schools with pep rallies and school pride wrapped around competitive sports), we will not be able to show boys how they can find a productive place in a modern society.
Perhaps we should also look at the idealized image that is promoted for boys and men, and what we see is sports and fighting. We should find other values and other ways of recognizing boys beyond how well they do in sports, because sports is still mostly about winning and not about all those other character-building properties it supposedly has. If we can foster different images for boys and men and their social roles, especially lower-class boys would be served well. Unless we overcome the macho culture nurtured in the media (and in schools with pep rallies and school pride wrapped around competitive sports), we will not be able to show boys how they can find a productive place in a modern society.
12
Don't you think this is a commentary on people who have chosen to dispose of "traditional morality"
you seem like you almost get the point... almost.
you seem like you almost get the point... almost.
1
I've thought the current educational environment stinks for boys for a long time. Most boys have more energy than most girls. Most boys are later bloomers when it comes to the ability to attend and impulse control than most girls. Most teachers in K-5 are female, they have never been boys. It takes a different approach to grow ( most ) boys to reach appropriate milestones ( which maybe different from their female counterparts ) and reach their fullest potential. The ability to move, explore, and be allowed to * yes* be boys seems like a recipe for an ADHD diagnosis these days. I'm honestly glad I have daughters but I hope for my potential grandsons, rich or poor, that things change in the school system for boys.
18
I went to Catholic schools in the 1960s and 70s where we had to sit like little soldiers, didn't leave the classroom all day, had 1/2 hour of recess once a day IF the weather cooperated, and where the all female nuns beat the children who misbehaved. And guess what? The boys did excellent! By 8th grade, they outperformed the girls - mostly because in those days, girls were being culturally conditioned to fail.
It's all about cultural conditioning and parenting. My boys were normal boys, but they always did well in school, because they were always EXPECTED to do well. They had plenty of time for play and sports, but school was for learning, and learning was important.
Let's face it - if you've ever raised a boy, you know that most of them are perfectly capable of sitting on their butts for DAYS playing video games. It's not that they can't sit still or concentrate. It's that they're trained to think it's normal for boys to hate school. That's the crux of the matter here. I'm amazed at how few are willing to acknowledge it.
It's all about cultural conditioning and parenting. My boys were normal boys, but they always did well in school, because they were always EXPECTED to do well. They had plenty of time for play and sports, but school was for learning, and learning was important.
Let's face it - if you've ever raised a boy, you know that most of them are perfectly capable of sitting on their butts for DAYS playing video games. It's not that they can't sit still or concentrate. It's that they're trained to think it's normal for boys to hate school. That's the crux of the matter here. I'm amazed at how few are willing to acknowledge it.
41
Of course it is true that almost all women with children had them sired by men who were anything from temporary partners to long-term spouses. Excluding the sperm-bank-obtained children for the purposes of this discussion. So of course men should be responsible for their children.
But in the real world in which we must all live, women must, in all practicality, be more responsible for their choices. They must consider the long-term implications of carrying pregnancies to term. Even in what they believe to be stable marriages or partnerships, they must think about how many children it is realistic to have, given life's uncertainties.
If you can be fairly certain that you can't support more than one or two children on your own, should your partner disappear for any reason--through death, abandonment, or virtually via ill-health or incapacity or job loss--you are being foolish and irresponsible to have more than that.
We have to stop this constant whining about how things ought to be, and make decisions based on how they really are. Mothers are more than capable of teaching their sons and their daughters about personal responsibility, goals, standards of behavior and what makes a real grownup. Previous generations--where the two-parent family was the societal norm--were still full of widows and abandoned women who often nevertheless managed to raise fine men.
It always comes down to character.
But in the real world in which we must all live, women must, in all practicality, be more responsible for their choices. They must consider the long-term implications of carrying pregnancies to term. Even in what they believe to be stable marriages or partnerships, they must think about how many children it is realistic to have, given life's uncertainties.
If you can be fairly certain that you can't support more than one or two children on your own, should your partner disappear for any reason--through death, abandonment, or virtually via ill-health or incapacity or job loss--you are being foolish and irresponsible to have more than that.
We have to stop this constant whining about how things ought to be, and make decisions based on how they really are. Mothers are more than capable of teaching their sons and their daughters about personal responsibility, goals, standards of behavior and what makes a real grownup. Previous generations--where the two-parent family was the societal norm--were still full of widows and abandoned women who often nevertheless managed to raise fine men.
It always comes down to character.
22
That's silly. The murder rate and all sorts of crime are on the decline right along with the two parent family.
There is no evidence, not scientific anyway, that people were better before.
There is no evidence, not scientific anyway, that people were better before.
11
Excellent advice. I agree 100% that, like it or not, we women need to weigh child-bearing decisions much harder, simply because nature has designed things the way it has.
I wish more people took the extra step you propose, and also consider the fact that even though they may have a wonderful, supportive partner right now, there's no guarantee things will remain that way.
I always say that bearing children is not a 'right', but a massive responsibility and privilege. I go on to say that it requires planning. Much as I'd love to buy a house for myself, I know I could not realistically afford it while at the same time ensuring I have plenty of SAVINGS for all those unpredictable problems that the home might surface, down the road. I'm not going to buy a house, figuring that if I can't pay the mortgage at some point, that at least the taxpayers can temporarily help tide me over. That's never going to happen.
So why do we think it's ok for so many girls/women to mindlessly pop-out kids, with nary a consideration? We are not living in some third-world country, but yet, so many young children in the US are living at poverty levels due to poor decision-making by their mothers.
I wish more people took the extra step you propose, and also consider the fact that even though they may have a wonderful, supportive partner right now, there's no guarantee things will remain that way.
I always say that bearing children is not a 'right', but a massive responsibility and privilege. I go on to say that it requires planning. Much as I'd love to buy a house for myself, I know I could not realistically afford it while at the same time ensuring I have plenty of SAVINGS for all those unpredictable problems that the home might surface, down the road. I'm not going to buy a house, figuring that if I can't pay the mortgage at some point, that at least the taxpayers can temporarily help tide me over. That's never going to happen.
So why do we think it's ok for so many girls/women to mindlessly pop-out kids, with nary a consideration? We are not living in some third-world country, but yet, so many young children in the US are living at poverty levels due to poor decision-making by their mothers.
14
These comments amaze me. Every one is about whose fault this is, which person or class or culture is too blame for this. I had expected to see comments about what data means, what we could do in light of these findings, and every one is about who is to blame. Who is the bad person. Which means none of the commenters needs to do anything, as it's not THEIR fault. I actually felt nauseous reading them.
I'm taking what I read from this and doing what I can for my son, in the light of these findings.
I'm taking what I read from this and doing what I can for my son, in the light of these findings.
6
Let's face it, our culture just doesn't care that much about boys or young men. How many people are even aware that men comprise only 43% of college students, or that young men commit suicide at a far higher rate than young women do? As a female friend (and mother of one daughter in her 20s) said to me a couple of years ago when I expressed my concern about boys, "When Congress is 50% women, then I'll start caring about boys."
She wasn't talking about men; she was talking about boys. Children.
She wasn't talking about men; she was talking about boys. Children.
8
Ugh that is awful. I don't get the either or mentality. Our society functions best for everyone when boys and girls are cared for and respected.
Likewise both men and women are responsible for their actions (sexual assault and abuse aside) in terms of having children outside of a stable relationship.
Finally I don't think it is blaming the mother to say that perhaps, in general, it is harder for women to parent girls than boys.
Likewise both men and women are responsible for their actions (sexual assault and abuse aside) in terms of having children outside of a stable relationship.
Finally I don't think it is blaming the mother to say that perhaps, in general, it is harder for women to parent girls than boys.
3
Has the fact that the overwhelming majority of teachers been taken into account? Do women few the behaviors of boys differently than male teachers?
1
There is evidence that suggests boys do better with male teachers but not necessarily due to male acceptance of boys' negative behaviors (or acceptance of negative behaviors by girls), but their higher expectations for boys and ability to act as role models. There certainly needs to be more men in schools.
15
Sadly years ago it was decided that we would pay teaches less by hiring woman (that's one way to cut back). Sad because I imagine kids would benefit from a good mix. Maybe we need to pay woman and men more for teaching :).
13
As a mother of two whose husband left her, I don't understand why women alone are blamed for the demise of the family structure. I only know one woman who left her husband and he got the kids!
It seems like the suggested solution is forced sterilization of poor women, given that no woman can predict with 100% accuracy whether the man will stay or not.
I'm not surprised that boys without role models do worse but I am surprised that it is the women whose boyfriends / husbands / lovers *took off* are to blame.
Mom stayed. Dad left. Blame mom. What?!?!
It seems like the suggested solution is forced sterilization of poor women, given that no woman can predict with 100% accuracy whether the man will stay or not.
I'm not surprised that boys without role models do worse but I am surprised that it is the women whose boyfriends / husbands / lovers *took off* are to blame.
Mom stayed. Dad left. Blame mom. What?!?!
23
Wait where is it blamed on the woman?
I didn't see that in reading this. I just saw that woman raise the kids alone, which is hardly a new thing.
Of course it's not the woman's fault, but that is still the reality of the situation. The sad thing, if read between the lines, is that the disadvantaged boys will likely repeat the pattern.
I didn't see that in reading this. I just saw that woman raise the kids alone, which is hardly a new thing.
Of course it's not the woman's fault, but that is still the reality of the situation. The sad thing, if read between the lines, is that the disadvantaged boys will likely repeat the pattern.
8
Lets face it...women having children without being married is the root cause of this.
19
Or men siring children without any plan to take care of them...
37
You do realize that for every woman having a child without being married, there is also a man having a child without being married to its mother?
29
Support Planned Parenthood and keep abortion legal.
29
The infuriating thing in this assessment, and so many of the comments that have appeared, is that men are simultaneously being excused of responsibility for abandoning their children and then worshipped as some kind of magical solution - as if their mere presence could fix what the culture does to boys.
Fact: lesbian couples raise fine men and gay men raise fine daughters. And poor boys tend to have LOTS of male role models in their environments - just bad ones. What kids need is structure and love and MONEY. The key here is poverty, not some kind of magical ingredient that only men can provide.
Fact: lesbian couples raise fine men and gay men raise fine daughters. And poor boys tend to have LOTS of male role models in their environments - just bad ones. What kids need is structure and love and MONEY. The key here is poverty, not some kind of magical ingredient that only men can provide.
40
No one is excusing them! We are saying "deal with reality."
The fact is a woman cannot force a man to take an interest in parenthood. Nor can "society," "the government" etc. except through lame child support enforcement attempts which are far too little, far too late and don't help the kid's psychological, intellectual and emotional development from birth onward.
What she CAN do is refrain from mating with and bearing the offspring of such disinterested men, as well as those of many other types of losers. What we are saying is that a woman is in control of her reproduction, regardless of the attitudes of the men she hooks up with.
The fact is a woman cannot force a man to take an interest in parenthood. Nor can "society," "the government" etc. except through lame child support enforcement attempts which are far too little, far too late and don't help the kid's psychological, intellectual and emotional development from birth onward.
What she CAN do is refrain from mating with and bearing the offspring of such disinterested men, as well as those of many other types of losers. What we are saying is that a woman is in control of her reproduction, regardless of the attitudes of the men she hooks up with.
26
Well said. This NYT analysis reeks of problems, assumptions - the leaps taken in statistics, causes, all of it - and the insertion of "opinions" which is all they are.
Even what you said, that poor boys have only negative role models, isn't so, I don't believe, can't be - there is no generality of men that should apply here - that there are tons of poor role models walking around who are male, or the converse.
A really analysis requires a great deal more - including a true assessment of criteria - what are we looking for? The ability to hold a pencil and sit still? My god.
Even what you said, that poor boys have only negative role models, isn't so, I don't believe, can't be - there is no generality of men that should apply here - that there are tons of poor role models walking around who are male, or the converse.
A really analysis requires a great deal more - including a true assessment of criteria - what are we looking for? The ability to hold a pencil and sit still? My god.
4
Why does "deal with reality" always boil down to "blame women"?
How about we "deal with the realilty" that men need to develop some kind of responsibility about where they leave their sperm? Why is it so inconceivable that men can ever change, and that it is the job of women to either change them or be held responsible for what men do?
How about we "deal with the realilty" that men need to develop some kind of responsibility about where they leave their sperm? Why is it so inconceivable that men can ever change, and that it is the job of women to either change them or be held responsible for what men do?
6
Changing the age at which boys enter kindergarten to later than that of girls could help this problem. It is already done at some private schools.
10
Would have been terrible for my oldest son, a September baby who was the youngest - and brightest - in his class. My November born daughter could probably have used the extra year though. I am constantly amazed at how people assume all boys and all girls can be categorized. As if they weren't unique individuals with unique temperaments and personalities.
12
Wow - Single moms with many children fathered by multiple men living in poverty with few options. What could go wrong!?!?
And society embraces this stuff like it's a valid lifestyle choice rather than just bad bad choices. Look, you have the responsibility of deciding whether or not you will have a child - whether you will keep it or kill it. Men have no say in that decision. You also have the decision as to whether you will get impregnated by some man. You say men should share responsibility as to whether you get pregnant? Guess what, they don't have to suffer the consequences and so care little unless you are in a committed relationship. You are ultimately responsible for your uterus.
If you are not in a secure and committed relationship, you simply should not be having sex or you should be on birth control, which is readily available and cheap. If you cannot afford to have children, then don't have them. Be very picky about who you sleep with and don't give away the cookie. The cookie is the most powerful weapon a woman has. Sadly, many women just give it away.
This is not rocket science. Sadly, the result of your poor choices negatively affect your children who will have a much harder row to hoe.
And again, society actually embraces this like it's just a lifestyle choice. It is a choice that affects us all and we should be severely sanctioning people who make poor sexual choices.
And society embraces this stuff like it's a valid lifestyle choice rather than just bad bad choices. Look, you have the responsibility of deciding whether or not you will have a child - whether you will keep it or kill it. Men have no say in that decision. You also have the decision as to whether you will get impregnated by some man. You say men should share responsibility as to whether you get pregnant? Guess what, they don't have to suffer the consequences and so care little unless you are in a committed relationship. You are ultimately responsible for your uterus.
If you are not in a secure and committed relationship, you simply should not be having sex or you should be on birth control, which is readily available and cheap. If you cannot afford to have children, then don't have them. Be very picky about who you sleep with and don't give away the cookie. The cookie is the most powerful weapon a woman has. Sadly, many women just give it away.
This is not rocket science. Sadly, the result of your poor choices negatively affect your children who will have a much harder row to hoe.
And again, society actually embraces this like it's just a lifestyle choice. It is a choice that affects us all and we should be severely sanctioning people who make poor sexual choices.
32
The most effective birth control is neither readily available nor cheap and requires visits to the doctor. That is why we need programs which make it cheaper, more available and gynecological visits subsidized.
26
It's all well and good to say that BC should be cheaper and more readily available, but I'd be willing to be that many women in this situation aren't even using condoms (readily available, effective, and cheap. Any woman can walk into a corner store and get a box). There can't be this many 'accidental' pregnancies if women insisted on some form of birth control each and every time.
7
Lots of things hurt boys more. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-weaker-sex/
1
This could be true but I also think their is plenty of bias in this kind of research. Given the inequalities of the past we are not living in a world where the opposite could be said (an article or paper that says woman are the weaker sex). Fact is too many of those articles were published and deemed rubbish later on. In wonder if these will fair any better.
2
“The model in my mind, even though it’s not proven, is maybe boys are more likely to be subject to behavioral problems, maybe they’re born like that, and you can with parental investment and more resources fight those problems,” Ms. Bertrand said.
Born like that? Really? Larry Summers was removed as president of Harvard for saying something similar about women (that perhaps they are intrinsically less capable in math and science). This is what happens when economists try to be sociologists.
Born like that? Really? Larry Summers was removed as president of Harvard for saying something similar about women (that perhaps they are intrinsically less capable in math and science). This is what happens when economists try to be sociologists.
7
“The model in my mind, even though it’s not proven, is maybe boys are more likely to be subject to behavioral problems,"......The ratio of men to women in the prison population is more than 10 to 1. There is no maybe about the fact that boys are more likely to have behavioral problems.
9
This article is nonsense. The entire discrepancy seems to boil down to school discipline. Boys fall behind in school because they get in trouble more - because girls are socialized to follow rules and boys are not.
It has also been demonstrated that black students get disciplined more often - and suffer worse punishments - than whites.
The rational conclusion is that, since boys act out more in school, and since they are disproportionately punished for it, this exponentially increases the achievement gap between them and everyone else. You can thank our screwed up gender norms and the discrimination within our school system for this.
The idea that a "disadvantaged start" hurts boys more than girls is offensive and absurd on its face.
It has also been demonstrated that black students get disciplined more often - and suffer worse punishments - than whites.
The rational conclusion is that, since boys act out more in school, and since they are disproportionately punished for it, this exponentially increases the achievement gap between them and everyone else. You can thank our screwed up gender norms and the discrimination within our school system for this.
The idea that a "disadvantaged start" hurts boys more than girls is offensive and absurd on its face.
11
Well said!
3
People born in the USA are born with a privileged status of holding US citizenship. Now, if they choose to mismanage or destroy this birth advantage due to lack of discipline then they have surely gone astray. As I know from having grown up in a poor environment, the poorer you are the more drive you have to succeed. I lived with one uniform for the entire school year, in high school I had a single pair of pants that I wore daily, my mother stitched my shirts and briefs, yes sir I know poverty and I lived in a third world country. In 1980 when I arrived in the USA I had NO IDEA what is a McDonald's or Burger King. My first meal was at a Burger King. I have grown up to get multiple degrees from first world countries, had to work very hard towards getting my residencies and citizenships (I have more than one in first world countries - always want to have a backup plan), and buy my shirts at Neiman Marcus.
At the end of the day, it boils down to teaching the child discipline, always ensuring that they keep their focus on education, reading lots and lots of books (I saw on Al Jazeera that in United Arab Emirates they want all their kids to read 50 books annually - are we doing this here?), and ensuring that they understand their future lies with higher education and not in watching basket ball games, or their heads stuck in some electronic game shooting guns that is literally making them stupid.
As far as daddies are concerned, the ladies might choose to discriminate a bit.
At the end of the day, it boils down to teaching the child discipline, always ensuring that they keep their focus on education, reading lots and lots of books (I saw on Al Jazeera that in United Arab Emirates they want all their kids to read 50 books annually - are we doing this here?), and ensuring that they understand their future lies with higher education and not in watching basket ball games, or their heads stuck in some electronic game shooting guns that is literally making them stupid.
As far as daddies are concerned, the ladies might choose to discriminate a bit.
27
i like you
3
This is one of the myriad expensive studies which will do wonders for talking heads and for the authors' reputations. It will appear to have all sorts of implications for preparation and "treatment" and will give rise to expensive demonstration studies which will lead to minor statistical improvements.
These statistical improvements, however minor, will then lead to policy recommendations which will have a life of their own, regardless off whether they make any substantive difference (and if the past be any measure, they will not make any difference).
This notwithstanding, will lead to other policy recommendatiosn and then years later the discovery that the positive data had been massaged by the investigators to make the improvements, however minor, seem more important than they actually were.
Sound familiar?
These statistical improvements, however minor, will then lead to policy recommendations which will have a life of their own, regardless off whether they make any substantive difference (and if the past be any measure, they will not make any difference).
This notwithstanding, will lead to other policy recommendatiosn and then years later the discovery that the positive data had been massaged by the investigators to make the improvements, however minor, seem more important than they actually were.
Sound familiar?
5
How extraordinarily cynical. I assume you have no sons and therefore this is of no consequence to you? This should matter to all of us.
1
Ambrose Bierce suggested that the cynic sees things as they are, not as he wants them to be. The cynic is also perhaps the frustrated idealist. And it is because I do care about these matters that I am choosing to point out the manifold absurdity of much of what is stated here. And I can see in advance the manifold absurdity of the proposed solutions and those that have yet to be proposed.
1
A poor man has trouble getting women to go out with him. A poor woman has less trouble. Imagine a disadvantaged 17 yr old boy being rejected by girls because he has the wrong shoes or doesn't have enough money to pay for a movie. Now imagine a disadvantaged 17 yr old girl with ugly sneakers and no money getting hit on by college guys. The 17 yr old girl will have higher esteem than the 17 yr old boy.
Girls are not expected/required to have income. Boys are expected/required to have income.
If we equate self-esteem with dating/mating success (and lo self-esteem with dating/mating rejection), this will make sense.
Girls are not expected/required to have income. Boys are expected/required to have income.
If we equate self-esteem with dating/mating success (and lo self-esteem with dating/mating rejection), this will make sense.
6
Who do you think is impregnating all these girls? And what kind of self esteem do you think it takes for a 17 year old girl to get pregnant with a kid she can't support?
3
we're using 'self-esteem" in different ways. this is a semantic quibble. you mean 'self-respect," and I mean "vanity." a woman can be vain and high self-esteem yet have no self-respect.
assume that, for girls, the most important thing is feeling beautiful to men and that for boys the most important thing is scoring with girls. if a boy is too poor to take a girl on dates, he probably won't score, unless he's the captain of the basketball team.
i'm not talking about self-respect. i'm talking about feeling good about yourself and your romantic options.
assume that, for girls, the most important thing is feeling beautiful to men and that for boys the most important thing is scoring with girls. if a boy is too poor to take a girl on dates, he probably won't score, unless he's the captain of the basketball team.
i'm not talking about self-respect. i'm talking about feeling good about yourself and your romantic options.
1
Why doesn't the educational system of the United States eliminate the monopolies of the Democratic Party financiers and concentrate on discovering the reason boys suffer more than girls. And rather than devoting all effort to increasing pay and decreasing workloads and time to teach why not work for the benefit of the kids? Our schools are failing our kids and the nation, spending on education is among the highest in the world, yet results are among the worst of developed countries. Are the unions and the Democrat political party at partial fault and should that institution be altered?
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
2
Because the poor may live in intergenerational homes and because the children may have siblings and half siblings who are considerably older, boys with absent fathers may still have father figures present. Moreover, I suspect that the boys are shaped more than this study suggests by community values and less by the absence of a typical middle environment. Lower test scores may simply reflect lower motivation for boys since, among some, anything academic is devalued. Similarly, the failure of boys to exhibit adaptation skills may be more a matter of choice than aptitude. Certainly, mothers and grandmothers dote on their sons and grandsons as much or more than their daughters or granddaughters. From my experience, it seems that boys have superior status and that what Ms. Miller views as disadvantages are not viewed the same way in the community. Bottom line, any suggestion that girls hold the reins in disadvantaged families is contrary to my experience.
13
Sounds like a ridiculous argument and conclusion. What would be more scientific would be making suggestions to improve such situations instead of statements that are accusatory and blaming a parent. For instance making better decisions about when and if to have children, and having the ability to provide financially for their needs instead of just having children without any thought or planning.
3
This article misses the elephant in the room and completely mistakes cause and effect. We have a sub-culture in this country dominated by male machismo. The men in this subculture are shunned for their potential violence and don't have the right cultural skills be successful in modern school or work. Mothers rightly don't want these men in the house as fathers. Unfortunately sons grow up in the same sub-culture, whether or not their fathers are present. The absence of a father in the house is not the cause of sons failure but an indicator (statistically) that the mother is part of this sub-culture.
13
Surprise, surprise.
A going into the third generation of boys and teenagers of color being raised without a father, without a male teacher, without seeing responsible males taking cars of households, and we are suddenly surprised that they don't do well? Really?
There is no solution to this problem. There is little or nothing a society or government can do for boys who are brought into this world in vast numbers without fathers or any other positive male role models.
Boys can't learn to be responsible, productive men, without having responsible, productive men in their lives. Even the multi-milionair NFL and NBA black males, with all their money, invariably get into real trouble.
A going into the third generation of boys and teenagers of color being raised without a father, without a male teacher, without seeing responsible males taking cars of households, and we are suddenly surprised that they don't do well? Really?
There is no solution to this problem. There is little or nothing a society or government can do for boys who are brought into this world in vast numbers without fathers or any other positive male role models.
Boys can't learn to be responsible, productive men, without having responsible, productive men in their lives. Even the multi-milionair NFL and NBA black males, with all their money, invariably get into real trouble.
11
Athletes get into trouble because they think because they make millions they can do whatever they please. Im a single mother of a male child who knew enough to know from my own experiences in school, that boys need single gender education so they get the attention and dicipline they require. I mentioned this today to my grown son and his answer was: "we will study and learn what is interesting to us or if not interesting, if we are afraid enough of the consequences of not studying; like if our coach is teaching the subject and can make us run laps, etc.
2
I raised two responsible productive men without a man in the home. It absolutely can be done and that fatalistic attitude is a big part of the problem.
6
THIRD generation? Around these parts it's more like the sixth, regrettably.
3
Anytime I see articles like this, it makes me hate the term "baby mama" even more. Why is this a popular term? Sure society is part of the blame, but changes need to be made from the ground level up (i.e. the family).
8
In my 20 plus years living in Ft. Lee, N.J. I have yet to encounter a Korean-American baby mama. Two parent, hard working families with parallel, male/ female sibling academic mega achievement.
7
Boys are definitely falling behind . . . if this trend continues we could end up in a world where women earn as much as 80% as men.
29
ugh - complete nonsense. Multiple studies have shown that while a small gap remains, the notion that women are actually only earning 74% of what an *equivalent* male makes is basically nonsense.
Men switch jobs less, work more overtimes, commute longer, and go to school for hard science/engineering professions that pay more.
But hey, good propaganda is hard to give up, isn't it?
Men switch jobs less, work more overtimes, commute longer, and go to school for hard science/engineering professions that pay more.
But hey, good propaganda is hard to give up, isn't it?
11
No that is not what studies show at all. There is nuance but studies show significant gaps and that men are paid more even in professions in which women traditionally dominate like teaching and nursing.
5
Best comment on this thread so far
1
It has been said that the early grades were designed for little girls. Further most early grade teachers are women, and it has been my observation that while men know from an early age that they don't understand women, women think they understand men - they don't. Most women don't comprehend that men actually like to play football, and hockey, and generally like to run around and crash into things. They enjoy being physical, they need to be physical, and they need to learn how to channel that energy in a socially acceptable way. Instead most women think the physical component is bad and needs to squashed. Boys in the early grades have trouble sitting still. They need more recess and more teachers sympathetic to their needs.
12
The expectation that boys will behave like animals is WHY they so often behave like animals. Expect them to behave like intelligent human beings with hopes and dreams and guess what? That's how they behave!
Little boys from well off families do just fine sitting still and behavign in school, as boys have done throughout the centuries. Your diagnosis is misplaced.
Little boys from well off families do just fine sitting still and behavign in school, as boys have done throughout the centuries. Your diagnosis is misplaced.
9
JD, I am curious. From your initials I cannot tell your gender, but the response sounds female. Of course little boys need to learn how to sit still, but they also need some time during the day where they are allowed to run around and crash into things. Hopefully this behavior can be channeled and organized; but my point is that they are not little girls. And I was once a little boy, and I did learn to sit still (sort of), I did out perform most of the girls in school (when I got older); and even then, I still wanted to run around and crash into things; cause its fun.
4
Boys from well-off families don't always sit still and pay attention - I sent my son to an all boys private school with strict dicipline, but where they understood that boys need to run around and plan twice daily in order to sit quietly and pay attention
I have been witness to this dynamic, as a single mom myself (married at the time I had kids, but eventually abandoned as drug addiction took hold of him) who struggled financially. My sons are now grown, with advanced degrees and great careers, with the same true of my daughter. But what I observed is that, despite the lack of a male in the home, most mothers continue to pass on sick male normative values to their sons. They expect them to be wild and uncontrollable, excuse their lack of interest in school, etc.... and the boys respond to those expectations.
I think the first thing to do is to re-focus the accountability where it belongs - on the men who leave their children, not the women who stay. And the second thing is for those women to stop the cycle of enabling and perpetuating the ugliest of male stereotypes in their own kids. Expect them to be good students. Expect them to behave. Never accept bad behavior as "boys being boys". Be the strong parent, don't whine that the strong parent (actually the weaker parent) is missing.
In my experience, plenty of families that mirror this "boys will be boys" attitude turn out boys that fail academically and socially, even when the father is present. It isn't fathers that are needed per se - it's a change in those male normative values that end up creating more men who make and abandon children, while women are left behind both to do the work and to take all the blame for any failures.
I think the first thing to do is to re-focus the accountability where it belongs - on the men who leave their children, not the women who stay. And the second thing is for those women to stop the cycle of enabling and perpetuating the ugliest of male stereotypes in their own kids. Expect them to be good students. Expect them to behave. Never accept bad behavior as "boys being boys". Be the strong parent, don't whine that the strong parent (actually the weaker parent) is missing.
In my experience, plenty of families that mirror this "boys will be boys" attitude turn out boys that fail academically and socially, even when the father is present. It isn't fathers that are needed per se - it's a change in those male normative values that end up creating more men who make and abandon children, while women are left behind both to do the work and to take all the blame for any failures.
49
One question worth asking. You as a single parent was once married. How many of these other single parents were?
1
What should be the first thing is for women to choose carefully the men they decide to have children with, as no one just 'suddenly' turns bad.
11
This is true. So tired of hearing that boys and men can't help themselves. Of course they can, and women making excuses for their sons and husbands doesn't help.
13
What is left out of the article is street culture, which arises in communities where law enforcement is not effective in protecting people, and gangs (of males) take over with associated valuing of machismo over learning of the kind that enables future economic success.
7
The focus for the past decade or two has been on girls. which is good, but unfortunately, boys are being left behind. In some ways we are are giving them the impression, unintended certainly, that they do not matter as much as girls. Little kids should not be caught in the middle of adult gender wars. Little boys matter too. Everything we do for little girls we should do for little boys.
8
I am always skeptical of these discussions because they fail to discuss the biggest change for boys in the past decades which is video games. Boys now play video games instead of practically anything else, (including physical activity) and often inappropriate ones. It is a struggle keeping them off them.
This I am convinced has a lot more to do with the problems of boys than anything else. Boys who do and Boys who read are boys who succeed.
This I am convinced has a lot more to do with the problems of boys than anything else. Boys who do and Boys who read are boys who succeed.
1
My wife and I, both minorities, have observed families at the schools where my wife has taught for several years. We've often discussed the tragedy that is the modern minority family. Children simply do not nearly often enough demonstrate good attitudes or work ethics. In those poor minority families where a father is present in the household (based on our observations of parent teacher night attendees), children perform substantially better in school, in both their grades and their behavior. This is particularly true if the child is a boy. While it is good to be sympathetic to those single mothers who struggle to provide for their families, often with little assistance from the biological father, one cannot deny a basic truth which is that for children to thrive and achieve a middle class life for themselves, they need fathers. The woman mentioned in this article apparently had a fourth child out of wedlock. Poor judgement like that does not bode well for her children.
33
Not to politicize this, but if President Obama could be as straight-forward as this on this topic before he leaves office, he will have done more to combat poverty, strengthen education and reduce incarceration than any president in my lifetime.
2
Agreed. One is a mistake, but 3 more is abusive to the offspring and society who will raise them and deal with them as adults. This is much, much more than just poor judgment. Far too often, the only value young females in those communities are accorded is biblical: their ability at ever younger ages to provide sex and innumerable offspring to any male with a pulse.
8
I think this report confirms what we already knew: poverty hurts children physically, mentally and emotionally, and children need two attentive and responsible parents, preferably in the same home. Fathers matter, too.
13
Worry about the girls, who if disadvantaged and with less of a future are more likely to engage in early sexual activity, have children at a young age and not ever finish school, left to try to take care of themselves and possibly children at a lower wage than the boys will earn. Who says girls are more resilient and not as damaged by this? They may spend a large part of their childhood trying not to be molested or raped. How is this not as bad as what happens to disadvantaged boys? Girls are always more vulnerable than boys.
38
There's no competition. It's not the Victim Olympics. We can care about both boys and girls.
11
"Girls are always more vulnerable than boys."
Then why are boys more likely to be victims of violence? Why are they more likely to suffer mental illness? Why are they more likely to be seriously hurt or killed on the job? Why are they more likely to be incarcerated?
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that being born with a Y chromosome is not some magical thing that guarantees you a good life? Why is it so hard to accept that many boys do in fact have it much, much harder than many girls?
Then why are boys more likely to be victims of violence? Why are they more likely to suffer mental illness? Why are they more likely to be seriously hurt or killed on the job? Why are they more likely to be incarcerated?
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that being born with a Y chromosome is not some magical thing that guarantees you a good life? Why is it so hard to accept that many boys do in fact have it much, much harder than many girls?
The mating game is much of what life is about. In this game it is the role of the male to impress, whether they be a bird or a great ape.
This arrangement is shaped by the fact that females invest more heavily in child birth (once upon a time the role of marriage and mating) than do the males.
Therefore poorer boys very early become aware of their competitive disadvantage in this arrangement and naturally rebel against a stacked deck.
Of course, it would be made easier with a father in the house to show them how to deal with life’s realities and how to work toward building a nicer life for a family of their own down the road. But this to is undercut by a society that rewards out of wed lock intimacy and procreation. If guys can have sex without commitment they will pursue it. They are wired that way. Likewise if women can have children and get society to pick up the tab in lieu of the father, why won’t they? No one else is going to love them with the intensity of their children.
Of course the remedy is to inculcate a sense of empathy for the children and an awareness of how we all gain by giving up a little of our wishes. But with the PC mantra of satisfying our every desire that way of thinking is on hold.
This arrangement is shaped by the fact that females invest more heavily in child birth (once upon a time the role of marriage and mating) than do the males.
Therefore poorer boys very early become aware of their competitive disadvantage in this arrangement and naturally rebel against a stacked deck.
Of course, it would be made easier with a father in the house to show them how to deal with life’s realities and how to work toward building a nicer life for a family of their own down the road. But this to is undercut by a society that rewards out of wed lock intimacy and procreation. If guys can have sex without commitment they will pursue it. They are wired that way. Likewise if women can have children and get society to pick up the tab in lieu of the father, why won’t they? No one else is going to love them with the intensity of their children.
Of course the remedy is to inculcate a sense of empathy for the children and an awareness of how we all gain by giving up a little of our wishes. But with the PC mantra of satisfying our every desire that way of thinking is on hold.
7
My husband and I had all the advantages, and were still confounded with some aspects of parenting. It's just really hard raising kids.
I can only imagine what poverty, and lack of loving male authority, add to the difficulty.
I can only imagine what poverty, and lack of loving male authority, add to the difficulty.
26
How can such generalities be made across the board? Whether children are resilient is closely connected to their TEMPERAMENT.
In my own family situation, which was highly volatile, my brother went on to excel, and that was because overall things just didn't affect him that much. I, on the other hand, went on to suffer from PTSD and a multitude of mental issues including anxiety and antisocial tendencies.
In my own family situation, which was highly volatile, my brother went on to excel, and that was because overall things just didn't affect him that much. I, on the other hand, went on to suffer from PTSD and a multitude of mental issues including anxiety and antisocial tendencies.
4
They are just that though. It doesn't mean every case but in general more male children, raised in a lower income household with a single parent (almost certainly a woman), will fall behind. Given that it's statistically true (by a bit) suggests that something really is going on and should be part of the conversation we need to have in the US (it's not just the US as I understand it, but compared to the UK and other countries we've been much slower to respond to it)
1
I'm not sure how Knoblich gets from boys lacking impulse control, to boys being told not to cry being the problem. Girls in my day certainly were told not to whine and cry, and honestly, out in public, I don't see girls being allowed to do that. Not to be allowed to go on sniveling, to be told "straighten up" - does this not make a child learn self control?
I don't think that in the past, boys weren't told to grow up. I don't think teachers used to overlook out-of-control behavior in the classroom. Something has changed, but these things aren't it.
I don't think that in the past, boys weren't told to grow up. I don't think teachers used to overlook out-of-control behavior in the classroom. Something has changed, but these things aren't it.
9
A family is as much an economic undertaking as any business might be, but with greater worries, heartbreak, risk and joy. The key to a successful upbringing, regardless of whether it is a single, double or quaduple parenting situation, is the child having a wide number of experiences to find out what they like and in the process what they are like. This article seems to gloss over the harsh realities of poverty, limited resources, and the benefits of wealth. In fact it says really very little at all that is different than what the average person would have guessed. There is an old saying, though, that it's more important to know what is the right thing to do than 10 things that are wrong. We can not forget for a single second that children need watering, like the flowers in the garden, and maybe boys need a little more. That would not be too surprising in a society where so much more is expected of a male than a female, regardless of what the rhetoric is today. KIds do not need a report card for life. They know when they are failing. Our society has been swept away with sexual equality, and we can't deny that it is true, but we shouldn't over look the reality that stares us in the face that it's all still about boy meets girl, or is it the other way around and the consequences for all, especially the child, that evolve.
3
If the U.S. even came within spitting distance of sexual equality we would not have 300,000 rapes annually, mostly of young girls under the age of 18 and where 98% of rapists never see one day of jail. The hyper sexualization of children is the #1 travesty of the U.S., impacting their educational and social lives for the rest of their lives - tragically so for vulnerable females and for entitled males who become predators.
2
But so then,
if "Boys are falling behind. They graduate from high school and attend college at lower rates than girls and are more likely to get in trouble…. Girls generally enter kindergarten with skills suited to doing well in school, like sitting still and using a pencil, while many boys act younger, having trouble listening to adults and controlling their impulses, and problems in elementary school have long-term effects."
isn't it time for a girl to be President?
In reply to Rohit, W.A.Spitzer, Bohemienne
and particularly to:howcanwefixthis
if "Boys are falling behind. They graduate from high school and attend college at lower rates than girls and are more likely to get in trouble…. Girls generally enter kindergarten with skills suited to doing well in school, like sitting still and using a pencil, while many boys act younger, having trouble listening to adults and controlling their impulses, and problems in elementary school have long-term effects."
isn't it time for a girl to be President?
In reply to Rohit, W.A.Spitzer, Bohemienne
and particularly to:howcanwefixthis
9
How would having a female president fix this? That's not to say we shouldn't have a female president, just that the fix doesn't depend on the president, and certainly is not a function of the president's sex.
5
What they mean, jokingly I hope, is that clearly males are defective and we need to elect a woman.
2
Past time to find out, Ben, by about 3 or 4 decades.
1
Boys in black and hispanic single parent households often receive inappropriate messages. The oldest son may be given the message that without a husband/father in the household, he is the "man." But men don't go to elementary school, so the boy doesn't think he has to listen to what his teachers say. Hispanic mothers and perhaps some black mothers as well believe only adult men can discipline boys, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The boys intuit that their mothers don't feel effective, so they feel free to act out. When they are disciplined, it is often with physical abuse that traumatizes them. Unfortunately to address these problems you have to look at culture, and that isn't politically correct.
17
Or you have to look at the dominant cultures treatment of males in that subculture and stop incarcerating them for "crimes" that wouldn't merit incarceration had they been white males. We have people in jail for selling and smoking weed that didn't shoot anyone, or engaged in violence.
2
and one of those let out for weed, or so othe judge thought, killed a cop the other night
3
Married couples are far from a ready-made solution to the many failures this country is responsible for regarding disadvantaged children. Many poor do not marry because it's financially impossible. The stress of poverty contributes to domestic violence, which does not make for a stable home. Single mothers are blamed for lack of income and stability in a very rich country that refuses equal pay mandates, affordable (how about free?), quality child care, and out-right discrimination. The poor are employed as fast food workers, etc. that have computer programs demanding work schedules at any hour, any day and certainly without consideration of family obligations. So many say poor women should just not have babies...methinks that is a racist solution. We know what to do, but do we have the will?
12
Poor don't marry because it's "financially impossible?" How? The cost of a marriage license?
Clearly, it's much more expensive to have children without being married. Ever problem you described would be made better by being married.
Clearly, it's much more expensive to have children without being married. Ever problem you described would be made better by being married.
5
Something I have not seen studied and I think would have a greater impact on boys than girls is the fact that in many ways a family without a Father lacks the status of one with a Father. not only is the role model missing, but the finances are lower and there is less stability without a Father. While both children may feel less safe and secure without a Dad, I think sons are more affected by the relative lack of status versus families with Fathers. "My Dad" is a phrase I would venture is used more by son's than daughters. Sons, IMHO gain more status from a Father psychologically than daughters do. A girl or woman can gain that status by the significant other she may choose while a son is supposed to impart status to the significant other he links up with in our still patriarchal society. I'd like to see that issue studied.
10
Observed adult behaviour e.g. "Rolemodeling" is critical to childhood development. Quantity, quality (including reliability). variety. testability and external confirmation (others?) of and from others all play a role. Access to these depend on many factors and mothers and child care providers are almost constantly female for the earliest ages. It is little wonder on which gender this confers greatest advantage.
What about a male brought up with an abusive father and he and his brother leave home as teenagers, educate themselves - go to law school - educate their younger brohter and becuase successful in this world. Either you have the brains and guts to do for yourself or you expect to be taken care of like your single mother expects the government to take care of her and you.
This isn't just an American issue, we have the same problems in Canada. It's refreshing that people are being permitted to talk about it and draw attention to it.
15
Yes, and from what I've read the UK and Australia are also recognizing the troubles their boys are having. Many thanks to the study authors and Claire Cain Miller.
2
This is interesting and I'm glad you both brought up the commonality of this problems in two other developed countries. It would be very interesting to compare the effects of amelioration programs across countries to see if similar or different results are obtained.
1
I found an article about the problem of inter-generational poverty in China: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/opinion/chinese-perspectives/China-must-bre...
If you observe Mothers with their children in restaurants, in public, grocery stores, many do not do a good job of controlling the boys. Perhaps there is a Dad at home, perhaps not. Boys respond to the Alpha male control more than girls.
I have no sympathy with single Moms and their acting-out boys. No matter your age -- Keep your legs together and stop having kids without Dads!!! Get a dog that you probably can't control either, but not so harmful to boys or society.
Way too much political correctness regarding single Moms. Children need both parents, not to mention single households are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged. It's our collective fault.
I have no sympathy with single Moms and their acting-out boys. No matter your age -- Keep your legs together and stop having kids without Dads!!! Get a dog that you probably can't control either, but not so harmful to boys or society.
Way too much political correctness regarding single Moms. Children need both parents, not to mention single households are disproportionately poor and disadvantaged. It's our collective fault.
17
Those people are single a lot of the time because they're disadvantaged. They don't get married because sometimes the father is a dead-beat with no job and no prospects. Obviously, you can't generalize this statement.
I think you might have the cause and effect backwards here.
I think you might have the cause and effect backwards here.
3
Or maybe those men who are impregnating the "single moms" could keep it zipped and quit knocking those women up? It takes two to tango, you know. Men are just as at fault as the women are.
20
Will you also call upon men to stop impregnating women they are not married to? It takes two to make a baby.
20
While one aspect of what constitutes a "disadvantaged" household adds challenges to a boys' development, it's not the sole reason for his lack of success.
As an educator and mother to a young boy, I've always felt sensitive to the fact that the majority of parents and teachers who spend the most time with children are women, who are capable of being good role-models to males, but often aren't tolerant of a boys' natural instinct to be overly active. Many boys (and girls) learn kinetically, they need to move, they can't be constrained to a chair for 6 hours a day. Teachers and moms have little time to be creative enough to channel that energy in a positive way, and therefore boys get into more trouble. It's important for parents and schools to be mindful of boys' energy levels and not deny them this outlet, which can serve in a positive way (like helping at home or in the classroom,...)
What disturbs me is how underprivileged children (like the 4 year old in the picture) always have access to video games or mindless toys that are often expensive, and inhibit their ability to develop creatively. My son and his friends will play for days on end with acorns, leaves, and sticks, and this seems to broaden their imagination.
Finally, structure doesn't only come in the form of 2 parents in a fab neighborhood, but also in the form of routine (set bedtime and meals). Children need a sense of security, knowing what's expected of them and when.
As an educator and mother to a young boy, I've always felt sensitive to the fact that the majority of parents and teachers who spend the most time with children are women, who are capable of being good role-models to males, but often aren't tolerant of a boys' natural instinct to be overly active. Many boys (and girls) learn kinetically, they need to move, they can't be constrained to a chair for 6 hours a day. Teachers and moms have little time to be creative enough to channel that energy in a positive way, and therefore boys get into more trouble. It's important for parents and schools to be mindful of boys' energy levels and not deny them this outlet, which can serve in a positive way (like helping at home or in the classroom,...)
What disturbs me is how underprivileged children (like the 4 year old in the picture) always have access to video games or mindless toys that are often expensive, and inhibit their ability to develop creatively. My son and his friends will play for days on end with acorns, leaves, and sticks, and this seems to broaden their imagination.
Finally, structure doesn't only come in the form of 2 parents in a fab neighborhood, but also in the form of routine (set bedtime and meals). Children need a sense of security, knowing what's expected of them and when.
11
More advanced societies than ours begin educating children at the age of six. It's well-known that every few months of maturation are important in children's readiness for school.
In this country, the push is for earlier and earlier , longer-day pre-school experiences for children, and the ability of such children to successfully complete such programs often marks their future school success.
My own only child--a son--was more than ready for school; he had a long attention span; he had excellent fine-motor control; he had good self-control. He was also given the optimum conditions to thrive, even before conception. Both I and his father struggled with deficits that hampered our own school experiences and have impeded our success in life. We did not have those optimum conditions I provided for my child, avoiding conception until I knew both I and his father had excellent nutritional status and that his father had quit smoking six months before I attempted conception.
Everything matters to the wellbeing and success of children. Begin early enough and most children will have the tools to overcome later disadvantages.
In this country, the push is for earlier and earlier , longer-day pre-school experiences for children, and the ability of such children to successfully complete such programs often marks their future school success.
My own only child--a son--was more than ready for school; he had a long attention span; he had excellent fine-motor control; he had good self-control. He was also given the optimum conditions to thrive, even before conception. Both I and his father struggled with deficits that hampered our own school experiences and have impeded our success in life. We did not have those optimum conditions I provided for my child, avoiding conception until I knew both I and his father had excellent nutritional status and that his father had quit smoking six months before I attempted conception.
Everything matters to the wellbeing and success of children. Begin early enough and most children will have the tools to overcome later disadvantages.
3
Based on comparative grade school performance, college enrollment, life expectancy, special interest group funding, incarceration rates and other readily available data perhaps it is time we revisit the whole idea that women are a disadvantaged group.
8
The article doesn't suggest boys are more disadvantaged. It suggests boys are weaker in the sense of less able to cope with certain disadvantages, particularly homes with no father present, than their sisters. The implications of what to do are very different. Women are victims of rape culture, pay inequality, inequalities created by a lack of support for working families with children, etc. etc. Boys need fathers.
12
Boys are falling behind academically, yet still getting ahead financially. Even though most college grads are now female, and girls have higher scores and better skill sets for today's society, they still make less than men across the board, and black females have it the worst, even though they're apparently more prepared and capable than their brothers. How about a headline that says girls are moving ahead, rather than boys are falling behind. How about workplaces where 60% of higher positions are held by women, reflecting their graduation rates. How about a world where females are paid slightly more than males, reflecting their slightly superior skill sets and grades. How about that.
41
The wage gap is almost entirely a myth, and is mostly driven by length of experience, chosen career path, and family considerations.
6
Sure it's a myth. That's why in my industry, advertising, 97% of Creative Directors are men, even though creative departments are equally divided among men and women and most of the women I know gave up getting married and having children to dedicate their lives to an industry that demotes or fires them once they reach a certain management level. Point out any industry where 60% of CEOs are women. Show me a country where 60% of families have a stay-at-home dad, while mom, who makes more money, goes off to work every day.
31
How much longer is it going to take for girls/women to get it in their heads that...the proof is right in front of us...mindlessly popping out kids one after the other, with no plan, no finances, no stable/reliable man in your life, no stability in your life, a life full of 'drama'....none of this will bode well for you, the kid you've sired, or any siblings. It's a domino effect. A downward spiral. The statistics show that it's very difficult to come out on the other side, when you are no prepared to bear and then Properly raise children.
I am so utterly sick and tired of the recklessness and carelessness of so many girls/women producing children as if it's no big deal. It's a massive responsibility and privilege. NOT a 'right'. And who ends up suffering because of these girls'/womens' poor decision-making? Their kids, and society as a whole.
There's no way so many such pregnancies were 'accidental'. Many of these girls/women sub-consciously want or 'allow' themselves to get pregnant, because it will add meaning to their otherwise sorry lives...it will add excitement...maybe bring that loser man of theirs around. In this vein, we need to work harder to figure out how to improve girls'/women's self-esteem BEFORE they get pregnant.
I am so utterly sick and tired of the recklessness and carelessness of so many girls/women producing children as if it's no big deal. It's a massive responsibility and privilege. NOT a 'right'. And who ends up suffering because of these girls'/womens' poor decision-making? Their kids, and society as a whole.
There's no way so many such pregnancies were 'accidental'. Many of these girls/women sub-consciously want or 'allow' themselves to get pregnant, because it will add meaning to their otherwise sorry lives...it will add excitement...maybe bring that loser man of theirs around. In this vein, we need to work harder to figure out how to improve girls'/women's self-esteem BEFORE they get pregnant.
32
We have welfare programs that specifically encourage the sort of behavior you're talking about. No honest discussion of the problem can take place without acknowledging the disaster that "progressive" policies have created.
7
'... Many of these girls/women sub-consciously want or 'allow' themselves to get pregnant...'
Most of these pregnancies are intentional. There is nothing 'subconscious' about them.
Most of these pregnancies are intentional. There is nothing 'subconscious' about them.
4
Women don't "sire" children, which raises a good point: it takes two to tango. I'm not sure why there is so much more blame put on the single women having children than the single men.
9
And then these boys grow up to be young men with little education and poor impulse control who make bad choices like impregnating their girlfriends, so that the whole cycle continues on in the next generation....and that's how it never ends!
24
There are many ways to frame even so-called evidence but I was stunned to read this statement: "Boys are more sensitive than girls to disadvantage." What a crock!!
There's no evidence that boys are more "sensitive" than girls; just because girls may have better outcomes than boys, doesn't mean they are less "sensitive". This entire article could be about how girls excel despite tough odds, but instead, in keeping with current political correctness, the author frames the conclusion in a way that elevates boys over girls--i.e., that boys have worse outcomes because they are more "sensitive".
Negative outcomes do not necessarily reflect sensitivity levels. Perhaps girls are equally sensitive to disadvantage yet have superior coping skills.
There's no evidence that boys are more "sensitive" than girls; just because girls may have better outcomes than boys, doesn't mean they are less "sensitive". This entire article could be about how girls excel despite tough odds, but instead, in keeping with current political correctness, the author frames the conclusion in a way that elevates boys over girls--i.e., that boys have worse outcomes because they are more "sensitive".
Negative outcomes do not necessarily reflect sensitivity levels. Perhaps girls are equally sensitive to disadvantage yet have superior coping skills.
12
"There's no evidence that boys are more 'sensitive' than girls; just because girls may have better outcomes than boys, doesn't mean they are less 'sensitive'."
Two things:
1) The article doesn't state that boys are more sensitive than girls. It states that boys are more *sensitive to disadvantage* than girls.
2) It provides links to evidence showing exactly that.
Two things:
1) The article doesn't state that boys are more sensitive than girls. It states that boys are more *sensitive to disadvantage* than girls.
2) It provides links to evidence showing exactly that.
3
K through about the seventh or eighth grades is a feminine experience. Girls are prepared to "behave" in the manner required, boys are, generally, not. Most of the teachers when I was in those grades were women. I have no idea what the ratio is now, but females are still considered appropriate for teaching early grades by many. Additionally, women gravitate to those grades because of the association with mothering that caring for younger kids involves.
I remember enough about those years to state that there was some general sense of disappointment, bordering on resentment, toward the boys, a sense that could not be erased. A lot of the time, I did not feel welcomed. This made the occasional teacher who took a direct and obvious interest in me all the more important. My second grade teacher, Mrs. Aires, paid me a backhand compliment by questioning whether I had actually written a short paragraph that I handed in as an assignment. She later took considerable interest in me and I became a playmate with her son, who was close to my age.
My daughter attended the College of Charleston where the enrollment of young women was around 60%. By graduation day, it looked more like a beauty pageant of women, with a few men thrown into the mix. The saying around campus was that the women graduate, the boys become waiters in the local restaurants.
The problem of educating males might be much larger than economic disadvantage and could reside in the nature of the system itself.
I remember enough about those years to state that there was some general sense of disappointment, bordering on resentment, toward the boys, a sense that could not be erased. A lot of the time, I did not feel welcomed. This made the occasional teacher who took a direct and obvious interest in me all the more important. My second grade teacher, Mrs. Aires, paid me a backhand compliment by questioning whether I had actually written a short paragraph that I handed in as an assignment. She later took considerable interest in me and I became a playmate with her son, who was close to my age.
My daughter attended the College of Charleston where the enrollment of young women was around 60%. By graduation day, it looked more like a beauty pageant of women, with a few men thrown into the mix. The saying around campus was that the women graduate, the boys become waiters in the local restaurants.
The problem of educating males might be much larger than economic disadvantage and could reside in the nature of the system itself.
16
Up til at least the mid-19thc, most if not all grade-school teachers were male. If the pay, status, and autonomy of teachers improved, there might be more males who want to teach in, and change the culture of, grade schools. It's happening in nursing.
11
I'm having trouble with the 9th paragraph. If the baseline for functioning in kindergarten is being able to sit still and listen to a teacher for extended periods of time, maybe that expectation, itself, is the problem. Sitting still and listening is not natural for five year olds, especially the listening part. I'm 71 and I still can't listen to a teacher for more than five minutes without my mind wandering unless I'm extremely interested in the subject matter. And I was a career teacher!
Maybe there should be an alternative classroom where children who can't sit still and listen are engaged in activities that keep their brains busy and only a little time each day is spent training them to exhibit the placid demeanor we expect of entering kindergarteners.
Maybe there should be an alternative classroom where children who can't sit still and listen are engaged in activities that keep their brains busy and only a little time each day is spent training them to exhibit the placid demeanor we expect of entering kindergarteners.
25
College gender percentages are now approaching 60% women. Boys, it's time for you to lean in.
22
This gender disparity in college matriculation began in the 1970s and had nothing whatsoever to do with fatherless homes or boys getting their fee-fees hurt easier than their sisters. When the draft ended, middle and even upper middle class American males en masse began refusing to go to college, presuming the union blue collar salad days afforded the same wages and left them time to do drugs and dream of rock stardom. Except, they failed to notice manufacturing moving overseas and the knowledge technology economy had arrived. Whoops. Many of those males never got it together in the same numbers that their sisters - who never had those options before. A lot of those Baby Boomer males who refused to go to college in the 1970s and would never in a million years volunteer for the military track just never got it together. They did often marry young girls, get divorced and produce a lot of low income babies that then grew up to repeat that cycle. The same thing was occurring in minority communities as more males chose the wrong life path in the hyper permissive 1970s. In the 1990s, colleges began getting more minority females who realized it was college or no job and a life of low income misery single parenthood. That means a lot of those minority 18-year-olds did well in grade school in the 1980s, when the males were all high as a kite, emulating gangbangers and going to prison for their vicious stupidity.
1
Poverty is the main culprit, and until we (our nation) accept the fact that families steeped in poverty often cease to be families; nothing will be accomplished. It is easier for people to ignore poverty than to reach out to those trapped in it. Just shut your eyes and it will go away.
And for those who believe that the poor are just lazy, or stupid, or gaming the system, I invite you to join the working poor, the disabled, the poorly educated, abandoned, single working moms, the elderly, for one month, then look in your children's eyes and be thankful. And for those who made it, don't forget your raising.
And for those who believe that the poor are just lazy, or stupid, or gaming the system, I invite you to join the working poor, the disabled, the poorly educated, abandoned, single working moms, the elderly, for one month, then look in your children's eyes and be thankful. And for those who made it, don't forget your raising.
17
And one of the most forceful indicators of poverty is single parent homes.
7
And families who don't stay together are more likely to end up in poverty, it is a two way street. Uneducated teenagers having babies and starting families without the emotional maturity to make it last are far more likely to end up on the short end of the stick. Personal decisions matter.
5
Which are caused by irresponsible males refusing to even use a condom, proudly impregnating anything that stands still, then disappearing or landing themselves back in prison - dooming their many offspring. The girls *sometimes* fare better because females are more reliant all together, in nearly every species. They have to be. They don't have the option not to be. It always has been thus. Even in a near worldwide misogynist patriarchy, males cannot get it together. Does anyone doubt that were it not for heavy handed male institutions that traffic in misogyny worldwide, children and women would have better lives, including male offspring who might actually upend the systemic bonds that result in entitlement, bloody war and unending pathologic XY toxic crimes? That many fearful, small minded males doom their own sons has been happening since the dawn of human history. That these same males go out of their way to doom every female they get near but do not always succeed is a testament to the female spirit that perseveres under the sad but accurate presumption that this is just how males have always been and always will be. Good for the girls who make it to the other side after born into poverty and abuse and with little support from anyone, often their own mom who favors her sons - as most do.
8
I think we need to try a some pilot programs to see if nudging these challenged families into smaller families also helps. One thing I notice is that multiple children compete for resources and parental attention, thus the mental resources of an already stressed parent is further taxed, and as other studies on the stress of poverty have demonstrated, can lead to people to make choices that are to their & their child's detriment. Also in stressed environments, mothers often choose to focus on the child that is most likely to survive successfully. This is the reason behind infanticide in addition to gender bias in developing countries and hunter-gatherer societies like in the Amazon. A poor single mother may be making similar choices in an unconscious way by focusing on daughters and not intensely focusing on sons to compensate or overcome their son's challenges. I'll also bet that most of the negligence is unintentional because an intergenerationally poor person is not as intellectually developed someone who's been at least middle class for more generations than poor. The intergenerationally poor cannot make smart choices by virtue of their capacities, environments and unique challenges. Thus its more ethical, in my opinion, to mitigate their suffering by offering cash advantages for keeping their families small 1-2 children especially when they have sons and children with special challenges.
But of course, this has to be scientifically and ethically vetted experiment.
But of course, this has to be scientifically and ethically vetted experiment.
5
I also forgot to add: if there is an absence of a functional, positive, male model for a boy to emulate and there are no material male relatives that fit that, then the male child is doubly disadvantaged. The other side of equation is how have two female parents successfully parented male children to functional adulthood? I think the study would reveal that it's the single parenthood of a needy, low-income, multi-generational poor woman who lacked positive models herself often chooses the same type of needy, low-income mates available to her to father her children, who in turn are born to ill-prepared parents and themselves are needy in many ways.
Being a male and having experienced school from the point-of-view of a kid labeled as "trouble-maker" I have a few things to add:
When you come from an experience of neglect as a young child, any time a teacher provides individualized attention, you interpret it as having done something wrong. I remember my Kindergarten teacher showing me how to hold a pencil and I felt like I was getting in trouble. This leads to a complete lack of rapport between the teacher and student.
Once children know who is labeled as a problem they use it for entertainment because they know that the child who reacts is the one who gets punished. One thing I remember from school is sitting on the floor listening to the teacher and having someone poking me from behind. Turning around and saying "stop it!" gets me sent to the principal's office.
Teachers always believe a group of children over an individual child even if all of the children heard the story second-hand. I have witnessed this as an adult volunteering on the playground. Many children will support the story of a friend and swear it is true even if they weren't there.
When you come from an experience of neglect as a young child, any time a teacher provides individualized attention, you interpret it as having done something wrong. I remember my Kindergarten teacher showing me how to hold a pencil and I felt like I was getting in trouble. This leads to a complete lack of rapport between the teacher and student.
Once children know who is labeled as a problem they use it for entertainment because they know that the child who reacts is the one who gets punished. One thing I remember from school is sitting on the floor listening to the teacher and having someone poking me from behind. Turning around and saying "stop it!" gets me sent to the principal's office.
Teachers always believe a group of children over an individual child even if all of the children heard the story second-hand. I have witnessed this as an adult volunteering on the playground. Many children will support the story of a friend and swear it is true even if they weren't there.
16
Children need reassurance from many sources, and some more than others. My son is not neglected but still interprets being corrected as getting in trouble. He has me and his wonderful teacher to support him, but not all kids are so lucky.
I am sorry for your experience, and I completely believe it. I see it playing out the same way with my kids, only they have my support, and a shoulder to cry on. As a society we need to support all our kids.
I will say though that I have noticed that kids born to difficult circumstances are often very special individuals. You have inspired me to try to do more for kids that don't have the same support structure. Thank you!
I am sorry for your experience, and I completely believe it. I see it playing out the same way with my kids, only they have my support, and a shoulder to cry on. As a society we need to support all our kids.
I will say though that I have noticed that kids born to difficult circumstances are often very special individuals. You have inspired me to try to do more for kids that don't have the same support structure. Thank you!
1
Perhaps one issue is that in general males develop the social skills associated with school success a bit later. It may be that delaying K and 1st grade by a year would help. Clearly that isn't the only solution, but moving away from the notion that everyone SHOULD be on such a tight development schedule seems saner. Who knows? maybe young girls should be exposed to some subjects later than boys... Or maybe we could assess each child and expose him/her to school at the right time for them, not the calendar.
45
It seems like the issue here isn't that boys are simply more "sensitive" to poverty but that parents in poverty parent their sons and daughters differently. Why not teach parents to discipline and ready their sons as much as their daughters?
12
That. I have heard so many times from my friends who grew up in single-parent homes, how the girls were held to very high behavioral and academic standards and the boys got by with murder. Every excuse made for the boys' lackadaisical or outright bad behavior, and no excuses for the girls. So the girls grew up to be achievers, and the boys, ne'er-do-wells. No surprise, really.
4
If parents in poverty parent their boys differently from girls, how would that not be considered an effect of poverty? And if that difference results in more damaging upbringing for boys, how would that not be them being more sensitive to the effects of poverty? And why do you assume that boys aren't being disciplined as much as their daughters? Personal experience? My personal experience is the exact opposite.
Boys are at a disadvantage simply because of male testosterone and that there are biological roots of violence. When you live in a small town long enough, you observe families where one child from a rich home or a middle income home or even several boys from either of the above homes will end up with criminal or violent behavior and it is often also manifested in domestic violence. These are white families that I observed but there is no clearer example than O.J. Simpson in showing the roots of violence go back to birth and childhood. Then, you add the idea that single motherhood is just fine, and you are sliding into the truth that over a generation, millions of young boys that will not be able to be normal adults, and that is a fact.
10
Virtually all educators, for whatever age group, fail to take into account the physical energy which boys have and which our schools fail to provide a sound structured way of funneling. The more comfortable have a variety of resources - my son began playing T-ball at age five, had tennis lessons, played on local baseball and basketball teams through middle school and continued sports through high school into college - virtually none of these resources came through his school. Providing more avenues for physical activity would help young boys participate in team sports where cooperation is essential and bring them into contact with men who may prove role models. Certainly, not the entire solution but physical activity and playing sports could offer much.
22
We live in the age of victim-culture. In order to get the focus, resources and effort of government and non-profit organizations it helps to be seen as a victim. The reason that boys, young males, are not getting the help that they need is due to their not being seen to be among the marginalized groups that "deserve" the attention and focus of government/non-profit programs. It's as simple as that. Everyone in America is equal but due to a desire to right the wrongs of the past, some Americans are seen to be more equal than others.
16
Lack of attention to boys and lack of male role models in early childhood is a problem. Why are we not talking about how this is actually product of sexism against women, not "reverse sexism"? Despite advances in the workplace for women, childcare is still seen as women's work, and therefore less status-worthy and less valuable. Employed fathers need to stand up and demand their rights to family time instead of cowering to threats of career damage that mothers deal with all the time. Men need to be encouraged and rewarded financially for entering into early childhood education careers. Simply demanding that women marry the fathers of their children will do little. We need to work as hard to establish equality and status for men as fathers, caregivers and homemakers as we have for women to be doctors, lawyers and CEOs.
12
I have taught at a college with a majority of students of color. Many of the young men I taught did not feel comfortable asking for help and had coped by hiding learning disabilities or illiteracy from their peers and the adults around them. Youngsters who have had to depend on their own resources a lot often do not know how to get help if adults will not advocate for them. Unfortunately, many colleges put their staff in a bind by not allowing referrals for additional services, such as support for disabilities, unless a student "self-identifies" because of privacy regulations (and, likely, costs). Many of these young men came from public schools where necessary services, such as reading tutors and disability services, were not funded. I often saw these students sitting side-by-side with students from other schools who were able to access the supports they needed to succeed. It can be very hard when students, or their parents, are unaware of help that is available or an instructor is banned from approaching a student directly to get an assessment.
29
The greatest hatred in the world is to tell students that they are "disadvantaged" - Lincoln's rural poverty did not set the stage for emotional trauma, nor undermine his success. The use of data to point out learning disabilities, income levels, race, etc. is always subject to interpretation; mostly by the student, who can interpret it as a challenge to overcome, or a deficiency. Perceived deficiencies can be overcome by simple logic that you have the tools necessary to prevail - your common sense, reasoning abilities, logic and DESIRE to view your problems as having solutions is your greatest asset. Too often, we see media point to deficiencies in people's lives, asking others to solve the problem, rather than having people reach inward to themselves to find the courage, fortitude and attitude to continue pursuing remedies to obstacles. We do not teach inter-disciplinarily, therefore, children do not learn to solve problems in stages or part, but merely, to lump the problem into a pile, throwing their hands up and blaming others for their lack of ability to perceive life in a positive light. We fuel their sense of entitlement by not asking them to seek answers on their own. Poverty, in and of itself, is not the failure factor; it is the belief that they are deficient because of it that needs to be addressed.
5
"Perceived deficiencies can be overcome by simple logic that you have the tools necessary to prevail - your common sense, reasoning abilities, logic and DESIRE to view your problems as having solutions is your greatest asset."
You may not have read the article closely enough or understood its point: boys, but particularly boys who come from lower income or single parent households, tend to lack "the simple logic" and "necessary tools" to cope with stress and challenges by the time they arrive at kindergarten.
If only we could call upon "the simple logic" of seven year old children to heal themselves I'm sure we would have done so a long time ago.
You may not have read the article closely enough or understood its point: boys, but particularly boys who come from lower income or single parent households, tend to lack "the simple logic" and "necessary tools" to cope with stress and challenges by the time they arrive at kindergarten.
If only we could call upon "the simple logic" of seven year old children to heal themselves I'm sure we would have done so a long time ago.
4
Don't underestimate the importance of early exposure to tools and experience of making things to development of a secure male psyche.
19
Yeah but if not enough girls play with the tools and decide they like building things, progressives will demean them as misogynist and condemn the patriarchy of construction.
1
Highly competent women in science can make men feel insecure.
1
The gender gap has been evolving for some time. Suggesting this new data is a "starting point for educators, parents and policy makers who are trying to figure out how to help boys" makes sense if we truly acknowledge the need for policy change. We've known this information for well over a decade from researchers such as Michael Gurian and Warren Farrell who recently competed a TedX talk on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi1oN1icAYc). Despite knowing this information, the President established a White House Council on Women and Girls. No such council exists for boys and men. Having a Council on Women and Girls does great things. Encouraging girls to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) as an example. As a nation, how do we allow councils for one gender despite the overwhelming data that boys are falling further and further behind? Our policy makers enforce the same social practices that only widens our gap. We need a White House Council on Boys and Men to mirror the pioneering work of a White House Council on Women and Girls. Equality matters.
6
You may not be aware that the President has also established a program ("My Brother's Keeper") to provide mentoring and support for disadvantaged young men.
4
SD, the president's program "My Brother's Keeper" is only for young men of color. It ignores disadvantaged white youth.
Poverty is a vicious cycle in today's America. Single mothers living in poverty struggle to raise their children up right. They look around for men to help carry the burden with them, but they have too many of their own issues to deal with: too many are in jail, or have been in jail, with the resulting minimal prospects; other suffer from untreated learning disabilities, psychological ailments and addictions that plague the poor who have less access to high quality medical care. The schools should be a haven but are failing them, too. They can't afford high quality child care, and face either leaving their children in suboptimal conditions, or losing their jobs. They often work two part time jobs because there isn't full time work providing a living wage available to them. Their sons look around and see little hope for their own futures and, in a search for successful male role models, too often turn to gangs and thugs to fill the void. Instead of blaming the victims, we need to break this cycle at each level - provide the quality of education these children deserve, deter the success of gangs and illegal activity, reduce the prison population for minor offenses and focus on rehabilitating former prisoners with education and employment, grow our economy so their are more middle class jobs available, create a national system for high-quality pre-k and subsidies for childcare.
6
Poverty and illegitimacy are problems all over the world, particularly in institutional religions 2nd and 3rd world nations (and U.S. communities that genuflect to institutional religions). The U.S. black illegitimacy rate is 72%, the latino illegitimacy rate is 53%. One would think the Vatican and islamic leaders would be at the forefront to stem these depressing numbers affecting mostly their 2 billion flock. Alas.
Progressives do their best to obscure the importance of fathers and intact families, and every decade or so they succeed is driving this talk from respectable conversation on the grounds that it's racist or sexist or whatever...
Then things continue to get worse, the social destruction wrought by Progressive policies can no longer be denied, and people start talking about it again - political correctness be damned.
But make no mistake, no matter where in the cycle of Progressive denial we are, they are are doing their best to steer the conversation away from these facts.
The real question we ought to be asking is why Progressives are so hostile to the common sense truth that fathers and families matter.
It's almost as if... dare I say it... progressives deliberately try to cause the dysfunction that creates the conditions for the only solutions they know: government programs and welfare.
Then things continue to get worse, the social destruction wrought by Progressive policies can no longer be denied, and people start talking about it again - political correctness be damned.
But make no mistake, no matter where in the cycle of Progressive denial we are, they are are doing their best to steer the conversation away from these facts.
The real question we ought to be asking is why Progressives are so hostile to the common sense truth that fathers and families matter.
It's almost as if... dare I say it... progressives deliberately try to cause the dysfunction that creates the conditions for the only solutions they know: government programs and welfare.
16
However, "progressives," as opposed to conservatives, recognize the importance of contraception and family planning, which in the long run, would lead to less children born out of wedlock and give young women the opportunity to delay motherhood until they and their partners are truly ready to be parents. It's also incredibly cost-effective and would save taxpayers millions of dollars.
17
I am progressive and believe in the importance of fathers. However, I am unsure how you can legislate father involvement. What are you suggesting to mandate and/or encourage father involvement?
I believe that more progressive policies, for example more funding for education, paid parental leave, subsidized day care, single payer healthcare, paid leave etc, student loan forgivemess or even free college will encourage more father involvement.
I believe that more progressive policies, for example more funding for education, paid parental leave, subsidized day care, single payer healthcare, paid leave etc, student loan forgivemess or even free college will encourage more father involvement.
8
While Republicans seek to ban abortion to force shotgun weddings.
4
Machismo. I would say that it is responsible for a good part of the problem. And certain cultures exhibit this characteristic more than others. As a boy one of the more irritating phrases I and others of my cohort had to endure was: "Be a man!". They were fighting words when directed at me, less so when aimed at 'weaker' boys, but still galling. Being somewhere further down the totem pole makes it even worse. To avoid the whole mess I became something of a loner and watched others struggle with the problem. Most become 'successes' and others ... Well, we all know about them.
24
American men (and men from a number of other countries/cultures) are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to emotional intelligence. Thankfully however, I've noticed a sea change, at least when it comes to younger generations of men, who are starting to understand that older generations of men have been short-changed and sold a bad bill of goods (or whatever that expression is...)
The stereotypical older (hetero) American males never talk about their feelings. Never cry in public. Have no true friendships...just guys they 'meet at theh bar', where they stare at TV watching sports, and occasionally whack each other on the back. That's the extent of their 'friendships'. Beyond that, their female partners provide the only outlet they have for emotion. The females also tend to be their main connection to extended family, social gatherings, etc. Once their female mate is out of the picture, such men become emotional/social islands, to their own detriment.
Compare this to Italy, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, where men meet with friends and truly 'engage'....Egyptian men, young and old, will hang out for hours, conversing at the local hookah bar...older Greek men will go to a taverna together and sing old favorites to live rembetika music...French men will go for walks in the park with their friends (with their hands contemplatively clasped behind their backs! ;-) Men in the M.E. actually walk hand-in-hand with male friends.
Older American men lost out.
The stereotypical older (hetero) American males never talk about their feelings. Never cry in public. Have no true friendships...just guys they 'meet at theh bar', where they stare at TV watching sports, and occasionally whack each other on the back. That's the extent of their 'friendships'. Beyond that, their female partners provide the only outlet they have for emotion. The females also tend to be their main connection to extended family, social gatherings, etc. Once their female mate is out of the picture, such men become emotional/social islands, to their own detriment.
Compare this to Italy, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, where men meet with friends and truly 'engage'....Egyptian men, young and old, will hang out for hours, conversing at the local hookah bar...older Greek men will go to a taverna together and sing old favorites to live rembetika music...French men will go for walks in the park with their friends (with their hands contemplatively clasped behind their backs! ;-) Men in the M.E. actually walk hand-in-hand with male friends.
Older American men lost out.
1
The gender gap has been evolving for some time. Suggesting this new data is a "starting point for educators, parents and policy makers who are trying to figure out how to help boys" makes sense if truly acknowledge the need for policy change. We've known this information for well over a decade from researchers such as Michael Gurian and Warren Farrell who recently competed a TedX talk on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi1oN1icAYc). Despite knowing this information, the President established a White House Council on Women and Girls. No such council exist for boys and men. Having a Council on Women and Girls does great things. Encouraging girls to person STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math). As a nation, how do we allow councils for one gender despite the overwhelming data that boys are falling further and further behind? Our policy makers enforce the same social practices that only widens our gap. We need a White House Council on Boys and Men to mirror the pioneering work of a White House Council on Women and Girls. Equality matters.
10
You're confusing two completely different issues, and characterizing as a one-or-the-other decision, which it is not. Although girls are succeeding in school at higher rates than boys, as adults they still are paid less and are represented in all levels of power less than males. As a country, we are not only failing our boys growing up in poverty from Day 1 of their lives, but also failing our girls from Day 1 of their entrance into the work force. To achieve our nation's fullest success, we need to -- and can -- work on both of these problems simultaneously, to the betterment of all of society.
16
You apparently missed the whole My Brother's Keeper initiative.
1
Moynihan was right. He continues to be right.
The government can do nothing about women having children out of wedlock, and the willingness to spawn such children, often by several different women. This problem is not fixable by outsiders.
The government can do nothing about women having children out of wedlock, and the willingness to spawn such children, often by several different women. This problem is not fixable by outsiders.
17
There are many things that the government can do. It can make access to affordable birth control easier. It can make it easier for people (read men) with criminal convictions (especially non violent) to get jobs. It can make it easier for low income women to get more education which means higher wagers. There is lots the government can do. It could pay for time off for men to volunteer to be role models and mentors. if we paid teachers more, more men would go into the field and that would help. Again, lots that can be done, if there is a will.
6
"The government can do nothing about women having children out of wedlock . . ." The government can make contraceptives and family planning available to all women. This would save taxpayer money and prevent a lot of anguish. Sexually shaming poor women does no good whatsoever.
1
"The government can do nothing about women having children out of wedlock".
May I respectfully disagree. There is one very BIG thing the government could do for very little effort and very little money. Encourage and provide BIRTH CONTROL. For ALL. And provide sex education classes instead of worthless "abstinence training".
Unfortunately, these remedies have been non-starters, blocked at every turn by those who are quickest to condemn those who "spawn".
May I respectfully disagree. There is one very BIG thing the government could do for very little effort and very little money. Encourage and provide BIRTH CONTROL. For ALL. And provide sex education classes instead of worthless "abstinence training".
Unfortunately, these remedies have been non-starters, blocked at every turn by those who are quickest to condemn those who "spawn".
5
There is sadness swept through my mind and heart when i think about we are discussing the impact of adversities on children by gender. I understand that gender must be playing a role in how children respond to disadvantages. However, i concern how the conversation on a disadvantage start hurts boys MORE than girls would contribute to the improvement of all children's education, safety and health. I would think that a disadvantaged start may hurt boys and girls DIFFERENTLY, but I would never compare who gets hurt more or less. When we are talking about how children's development is impacted by either one-time or chronic stressors, it should always be a ongoing and dynamic process that needs long-term assessments and attuned responses. Instead of focusing on gender classified intervention, what about protecting all children from adversities of racism, classism and poverty and improving equal and quality resources?
14
The data is certainly interesting here but there seem to be a paucity of plausible explanations for it.
Absent the usual ensemble of social science cliches (role models, single headed families, socialization to not show emotion and the rest of the usual sociological suspects) there is nothing offered.
One possibility is that boys' psychology is configured differently from girls (cue egalitarian outrage) and thus responds differentially to the same environment and further, its developmental response curve as a function of its environment is significantly different from girls.
It is pretty clear that at all ages females are more rules compliant, more risk averse, more cooperatively inclined and more responsive to authority than males. Moreover this seems to be universal. Conversely, males are uniformly more aggressive, violent, outstanding (in both positive and negative ways), competitive, risk embracing, rule breaking and variable in their behavior.
None of this seems to be inculcated per se, by the environment, rather it can be pushed in different directions to different degrees by the environment. Extremal environments will magnify some or other of the relevant characteristics, etc.
The job of the social sciences is to come up with a plausible causal or probabilistic causal, model of these critical features, i.e. independent of any prevailing ideological beliefs about the matters.
This is a very tough assignment of course but this is what needs to be done.
Absent the usual ensemble of social science cliches (role models, single headed families, socialization to not show emotion and the rest of the usual sociological suspects) there is nothing offered.
One possibility is that boys' psychology is configured differently from girls (cue egalitarian outrage) and thus responds differentially to the same environment and further, its developmental response curve as a function of its environment is significantly different from girls.
It is pretty clear that at all ages females are more rules compliant, more risk averse, more cooperatively inclined and more responsive to authority than males. Moreover this seems to be universal. Conversely, males are uniformly more aggressive, violent, outstanding (in both positive and negative ways), competitive, risk embracing, rule breaking and variable in their behavior.
None of this seems to be inculcated per se, by the environment, rather it can be pushed in different directions to different degrees by the environment. Extremal environments will magnify some or other of the relevant characteristics, etc.
The job of the social sciences is to come up with a plausible causal or probabilistic causal, model of these critical features, i.e. independent of any prevailing ideological beliefs about the matters.
This is a very tough assignment of course but this is what needs to be done.
12
If you think that pointing to the affect of single-parent households is a cliché, you're not really paying attention:
"Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances."
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/journal_...
"Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances."
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/journal_...
1
Is it really news that boys raised by poor single mothers with no father in the home do worse in life than boys with married parents with stable finances?
46
No, but it is news that boys do much worse under those circumstances than girls raised in the same scenario.
1
Read it again: The news is that boys raised by poor single mothers with no father in the home do worse in life than GIRLS raised by poor single mothers with no father in the home.
What a euphemism-"disadvantage!" These are chaotic home environments without adult males who can model decent behavior for boys (and girls). Most of the men are involved with the drug trade and are users themselves. Blame it on racism if you like, but people are adults and can make their own decisions on how to live a decent life. Most NYT readers don't know the half of it.
12
Rates of depression are higher in women than men overall, so how can anyone state with confidence that boys/men are "hurt" more. There is also the very real possibility that girls learn to expect less and so "act out" less. The social consequences are different, i.e., criminal records for boys/men and depression for girls/women.
17
Darlagirl -- Depression is deliberately defined in female-centric ways which miss the irritability and self-medication substance abuse symptoms characteristic of depression in men. It is very easy not to treat depression in men if you just define it in a way that says they don't have it. And then when 80% of the suicides are men, you talk about how women are more depressed. Ever wonder why all those men committed suicide rather than receiving help? They were defined as not needing help. Talk to anybody in the prison system --- male mental illness, including undiagnosed depression, is rampant.
12
It's not true that women have higher rates of depression than men. They're just more likely to express it in ways that we recognize as depression.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810193
Just because a boy ends up in jail doesn't mean he isn't depressed. Beyond that, we know that men ARE more likely to experience mental health problems across the spectrum.
And of course girls suffer negative consequences from poverty. I don't think the study in any way undermines that. But the data really does suggest that outcomes are worse for boys. It's better to be depressed and free than depressed and incarcerated.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810193
Just because a boy ends up in jail doesn't mean he isn't depressed. Beyond that, we know that men ARE more likely to experience mental health problems across the spectrum.
And of course girls suffer negative consequences from poverty. I don't think the study in any way undermines that. But the data really does suggest that outcomes are worse for boys. It's better to be depressed and free than depressed and incarcerated.
Ya' think?
As a teacher, I want to once again thank the grown, predominantly rich, white men who have inflicted educational "reform" on these little boys.
As those millionaires and billionaires (like Gates, the Waltons, Broad) get richer off of tax dollars, little boys get more and more miserable.
Charter schools with prison-like structures (No Excuses! No Talking!) in order to maximize the profit for the charter operator.
Public schools stripped of arts, small classes and recess to pay for the computer platforms and bandwidth needed for the onslaught of online testing.
Teachers punished financially for teaching in high-poverty (thus low-performing) schools.
This public school teacher pulled her son out of a public school and sent him to a very expensive private school--because that's the only place these vultures haven't invaded--while also paying sky-high school taxes. Poor boys don't stand a chance.
Not. A. Chance.
As a teacher, I want to once again thank the grown, predominantly rich, white men who have inflicted educational "reform" on these little boys.
As those millionaires and billionaires (like Gates, the Waltons, Broad) get richer off of tax dollars, little boys get more and more miserable.
Charter schools with prison-like structures (No Excuses! No Talking!) in order to maximize the profit for the charter operator.
Public schools stripped of arts, small classes and recess to pay for the computer platforms and bandwidth needed for the onslaught of online testing.
Teachers punished financially for teaching in high-poverty (thus low-performing) schools.
This public school teacher pulled her son out of a public school and sent him to a very expensive private school--because that's the only place these vultures haven't invaded--while also paying sky-high school taxes. Poor boys don't stand a chance.
Not. A. Chance.
37
Anyone who has spent any amount of time around k-6 classes knows that they are a complete mismatch to a large number of boys. Those boys then find themselves terminally behind by 7th grade and well on their way to academic failure in high school.
If that boy brings any of the high risk factors to this equation they are doomed.
We are not talking about the structural inequalities of men and women here, we are talking about the unrealistic expectations for behavior, attention and brain development inherant in most elementary school curriculums and classroom structure.
If that boy brings any of the high risk factors to this equation they are doomed.
We are not talking about the structural inequalities of men and women here, we are talking about the unrealistic expectations for behavior, attention and brain development inherant in most elementary school curriculums and classroom structure.
19
We have completely lost sight of the fact that not all children are adept or need to sit in desks in classrooms all day long dealing with the abstraction of language and academic achievement. Some children, boys and girls, need a very different kind of educational experience.
What's being ignored is boys and girls are not just brains in undeveloped bodies. They are active chemistry sets impacted by their own biology that influences how they feel and act. I lost my father at a young age (7) and let me tell you it marked everything from that time on. Stress hormones are just as debilitating on children as they are on adults. Worse in a lot of ways because children don't have the mental capacity to reason through what's happening. Boys are just as needy and hormonal as girls, more so in a lot of ways. Even a good mother can't take the place of a loving father.
14
How many more studies do we need before we act?
By “we” I don’t mean the usual “educators and politicians," but we the people. “We” did this to boys. We launched the experiment with fatherless homes. We denied decades of data that showed it was a disaster. We turned away from its impact on poverty, schools and incarceration.
This is a cultural problem, not a political one. It’s our problem and we own it. Which is actually good news, because we don’t need to wait for the politicians – or another study pointing out the obvious - to fix it.
By “we” I don’t mean the usual “educators and politicians," but we the people. “We” did this to boys. We launched the experiment with fatherless homes. We denied decades of data that showed it was a disaster. We turned away from its impact on poverty, schools and incarceration.
This is a cultural problem, not a political one. It’s our problem and we own it. Which is actually good news, because we don’t need to wait for the politicians – or another study pointing out the obvious - to fix it.
78
It is a political problem when black men are more likely to be incarcerated and jobless in segregated neighborhoods with school system ruled by property taxes to the point that there aren't even proper books available.
1
Does the disadvantage arise from being from a single parent home or from being poor?
7
Several of my friends are either single-moms-by-choice or were divorced when their kids were very young and there is little contact with the father.
The women themselves are successful professionals or white-collar management workers, but every single one of their sons are faltering. Aimless, won't stay in school, violent, drugs, underachieving, etc. By contrast to our other friends whose sons from two-parent families (even families with lower income/lower parental education) are attending Ivy League and Big 10 universities, are involved in activities from hockey to advanced scuba diving to Eagle Scouts, are trustworthy in terms of being able to house-sit, pet-sit, hold down part-time jobs in their teens and early 20s, etc.
There is a huge difference between the boys raised in fatherless homes, even if their mom makes $250,000 a year and takes them to Europe every summer, and boys raised in homes with a decent father present.
The women themselves are successful professionals or white-collar management workers, but every single one of their sons are faltering. Aimless, won't stay in school, violent, drugs, underachieving, etc. By contrast to our other friends whose sons from two-parent families (even families with lower income/lower parental education) are attending Ivy League and Big 10 universities, are involved in activities from hockey to advanced scuba diving to Eagle Scouts, are trustworthy in terms of being able to house-sit, pet-sit, hold down part-time jobs in their teens and early 20s, etc.
There is a huge difference between the boys raised in fatherless homes, even if their mom makes $250,000 a year and takes them to Europe every summer, and boys raised in homes with a decent father present.
4
Your question cannot be answered in the cut-and-dry way you pose it.
Clearly TWO good parents are better than ONE good parent.
A home that has more money to provide for kids is theoretically better than a home that must struggle for food, education, a safe neighborhood to live in, etc.
Beyond that, there are many variables that come into play.
Two bad parents versus one good, strong parent. Which do you think is better for the kids?
Two parents with unlimited financial resources, but who don't spend time bonding with their kids because they are both too busy with their jobs, versus two parents who are only financially able to provide their kids with just the bare essentials, but who at the same time provide their kids with lots of affection and 1-on-1 attention. Which do you think is better for the kids?
Clearly TWO good parents are better than ONE good parent.
A home that has more money to provide for kids is theoretically better than a home that must struggle for food, education, a safe neighborhood to live in, etc.
Beyond that, there are many variables that come into play.
Two bad parents versus one good, strong parent. Which do you think is better for the kids?
Two parents with unlimited financial resources, but who don't spend time bonding with their kids because they are both too busy with their jobs, versus two parents who are only financially able to provide their kids with just the bare essentials, but who at the same time provide their kids with lots of affection and 1-on-1 attention. Which do you think is better for the kids?
1
Of course boys are falling behind. Society has ignored them for the better part of the last generation in the name of "gender equity" for girls.
Boys (men) live shorter lives, are more likely than girls (women) to be physically abused, are more inclined to suicide, are more likely to abuse drugs, fight wars, go to prison etc...
Boys (men) live shorter lives, are more likely than girls (women) to be physically abused, are more inclined to suicide, are more likely to abuse drugs, fight wars, go to prison etc...
15
Include the dissolution of organizations that once served boys and young men's needs and temperaments, channeling their instincts into socially productive directions.
4
Much of this, sadly, is their own fault. Perhaps this is due to culture? Girls are taught at an early age to exercise caution, careful consideration, self-restraint, and personal responsibility. Boys are taught this too, but generally bristle at anything resembling 'rules,' codes of behavior, or personal ethics. Is it at this point that parents usually throw up their hands and write off boys.
3
I believe that the physical and mental abuse of boys and girls is equal. Boys absorb the abuse differently. The little princess who grows up too quickly to be abused by the men in her life is about as depressed as any boy who was kicked around, ignored by his own father and becomes inclined toward risky behavior. School these days is a long slog of testing and learning to the test. The days of learning how to read simple sheet music, have a decent period for lunch/recess, or be introduced to a new language or art have changed. It can be very difficult for kids to be dragged out of bed before the sun is up and get home after it goes down. No wonder so many boys can't sit still and so many girls give up so early.
2
Maybe there's a relationship between the adaptability and resilience of girls and the millennia in which women have had to figure out how to take care of themselves and their children in male-centered societies. I agree that the difficulties of some boys in school need to be addressed, if only because society will have to deal with their problems as adults if we don't, but we need to keep in mind that girls have hard-won gifts that deserve to be valued and nurtured, not reduced to a parenthetical sentence while we wring our hands over the relative underperformance of boys.
15
Are you saying that while girls inherently deserve to be valued and nurtured, but we should only do those things with boys insofar as it prevents future problems? That boys just now being born should be held responsible for the fact that western society has been male-centered?
1
The under performance of boys as you put it, or in reality, the failure of boys is a huge problem for heterosexual girls. If there are not enough "good" men, then the woman has the choice to be single, or be with a "bad" or "underperforming" man. Then if she wants children, again be single and or be with a bad man, thus then more "underperforming" males are created and the cycle continues.
3
This comment sums up the issue: women/girls are inherently of value while men/boys are a problem that needs to be dealt with before it gets out of control. Maybe if did not demonize masculinity and stop trying to feminize males and instead accepted them as they are this gap would not be so visible?
2
This article does a disservice to an important issue by regurgitating stereotypes and presenting statistically insignificant differences as if they were of major significance. The issue is the existence of a permanent underclass - poor, undereducated, violent, and marginalized. Any gender differences within this underclass are of little consequence. There are only two ways to alleviate this problem and they have to be implemented in tandem: strengthening the social net and discouraging unchecked reproduction, both inside and outside marriage, by offering free contraception and abortion. The right won't agree to the first one; the left - to the second one, and so here we are.
14
We might start by not heavily subsidizing and thus incentivizing lower income people to live in concentrated communities of dysfunction and crime- for example the 5 or 6 hundred thousand people warehoused in public housing complexes in New York City. Look at the incentives and the disincentives society provides and start there.
4
The authors raised an important question and completely under-delivered on the answer.
Fact -- boys seem to get hurt by disadvantage more than girls. OK, got it. But why? The article says nothing about it. Is it biological (testosterone or whatever)? is it societal? And what kind of a societal impact -- compare two versions: (1) girls are forced from an early age to do what they are told but boys are allowed more freedom and (2) girls are given more love and attention than boys. Maybe both of these would produce the results this study observes, but how you solve (1) versus (2) is very different.
I doubt this has to do with girls being somehow more physically or psychologically resilient than boys. For example, it is a know fact that in teenage years, the rate of depression for girls is something like three times as high as for boys. If girls are getting more "love and attention" from their parents than do boys, as this article assumes, we would not be seeing this.
Overall, the article is very disappointing on delivering answers. Yes, the fact that boys are falling behind girls is a problem, But to solve the problem, we need to know something about the causes of it, not just the speculation of the type "I have this model in my mind even though it is not proven".
Fact -- boys seem to get hurt by disadvantage more than girls. OK, got it. But why? The article says nothing about it. Is it biological (testosterone or whatever)? is it societal? And what kind of a societal impact -- compare two versions: (1) girls are forced from an early age to do what they are told but boys are allowed more freedom and (2) girls are given more love and attention than boys. Maybe both of these would produce the results this study observes, but how you solve (1) versus (2) is very different.
I doubt this has to do with girls being somehow more physically or psychologically resilient than boys. For example, it is a know fact that in teenage years, the rate of depression for girls is something like three times as high as for boys. If girls are getting more "love and attention" from their parents than do boys, as this article assumes, we would not be seeing this.
Overall, the article is very disappointing on delivering answers. Yes, the fact that boys are falling behind girls is a problem, But to solve the problem, we need to know something about the causes of it, not just the speculation of the type "I have this model in my mind even though it is not proven".
11
The analysis doesn't seem to sufficiently acknowledge that 1) school, especially in the early grades, is set up for girls; and 2) the workplace especially at the upper levels is set up for men, especially those who have managed to navigate their ways through college.
It seems a mistake to conclude, girls are less affected by poverty at an early age, but rather, the primary institution with which they interact, school, compliments their generalized tendencies, more than it does boys from impoverished backgrounds.
Likely the coupling of poverty for boys with schools mostly well-suited for girls is the tipping point from which whole generations of boys do not recover.
It seems a mistake to conclude, girls are less affected by poverty at an early age, but rather, the primary institution with which they interact, school, compliments their generalized tendencies, more than it does boys from impoverished backgrounds.
Likely the coupling of poverty for boys with schools mostly well-suited for girls is the tipping point from which whole generations of boys do not recover.
17
If schools are set up for girls, why have so many boys succeeded in the past? It's way worse than that simplistic approach. It's how these boys are being socialized at home.
14
Many boys kick it into gear late in high school, then do well in college. Some boys would thrive in any environment. Boys mature more slowly than girls, are less able to handle school early on.
The workplace is designed for men, and women never recover from the salary disparity and other biases which favor men there. Women, do however, live longer on average, although often, with fewer resources than their male counterparts.
Socialization at home, has an effect, but even when negative, the girls are mostly overcoming it at school, because girls are well suited to the school program.
However, too many negatives in a home environment, coupled with schools better designed for girls, ends up having a devastating effect on significant portions of whole generations of little boys. These boys are pushed past the point of no return.
This was my original point.
The workplace is designed for men, and women never recover from the salary disparity and other biases which favor men there. Women, do however, live longer on average, although often, with fewer resources than their male counterparts.
Socialization at home, has an effect, but even when negative, the girls are mostly overcoming it at school, because girls are well suited to the school program.
However, too many negatives in a home environment, coupled with schools better designed for girls, ends up having a devastating effect on significant portions of whole generations of little boys. These boys are pushed past the point of no return.
This was my original point.
I know that what I am going to say here involves gross gender generalizations. However, I have been a teacher for over 20 years and I know that what I say is generally true and at the same time oversimplified. I think another part of the problem is that most schools are set up to teach the way that girls tend to learn best and ignore the needs of boys. Boys with advantages can get support -- tutors, test prep, a quiet place to study, time to study, etc., and their parents can afford to pay for private lessons (music, art) and sports. The things that tend to motivate boys like arts, music and sports are being cut out of the curriculum to make room for "sit down" activities like reading, writing and math. Boys also love social studies and science, which are not emphasized in the common core as much as reading and math. However, I know my students and I know that the boys (and lots of the girls) need to get up and move around frequently, even in high school. Teachers can help by incorporating arts and movement into lessons in all subjects as much as possible. Find out what kids love and make it happen for them.
67
There is no need to apologise for "gender generalizations". We live in a world that is almost entirely gender binary. The problems being discussed here are almost entirely the problems of the gender binary world.
4
My dad died when I was four and my mom raised me and my sister in a culture that I think is more patriarchic than most and I owe everything I am today to her. On my birthday I celebrate her, not me, especially considering she did all the work to get me out into the world and all I did was make it out. The single most important factor that worked in our favour was that we were well off IMO. I did have male role models (grandfather, uncles) but it was really the female role models around me (my mother, my aunts, other women) that have inspired me in life.
While I think it is great for kids to have two parents, I think my wife would raise our two daughters just as well, and I also know that were something to happen to my wife, I would raise my two daughters (who I'm extremely close to) well.
So if people had access to education, health, and opportunity, I don't think it matters who the parents are. While I don't think much of money, obviously being able to have the means to accomplish these goals is a good thing.
--Ram
http://ram.org
http://compbio.org
While I think it is great for kids to have two parents, I think my wife would raise our two daughters just as well, and I also know that were something to happen to my wife, I would raise my two daughters (who I'm extremely close to) well.
So if people had access to education, health, and opportunity, I don't think it matters who the parents are. While I don't think much of money, obviously being able to have the means to accomplish these goals is a good thing.
--Ram
http://ram.org
http://compbio.org
14
Having a father who died is much different from never having a father, which is the topic here.
From what you wrote, your greatest advantage was being born into a family in which marriage was valued. That's why you had the male role models, and that's why, most likely, you were well off to begin with.
From what you wrote, your greatest advantage was being born into a family in which marriage was valued. That's why you had the male role models, and that's why, most likely, you were well off to begin with.
10
It's not really the marital status of the mother as much as it is the values of the mother.
Would your mother have had multiple children with multiple men?
Would your wife?
Would your mother have chosen to marry a man with red-flags for drug/alcohol/domestic violence?
It matters very, very much what kind of mother a child has.
Would your mother have had multiple children with multiple men?
Would your wife?
Would your mother have chosen to marry a man with red-flags for drug/alcohol/domestic violence?
It matters very, very much what kind of mother a child has.
4
Statistically, marital status is most likely to indicate the values of the mother. That is, she made a conscious decision to get married before having children and chose a man who accepted those terms.
The old canard of 'what about a spouse with red flags' means nothing, as those problems are more likely to exist with an unmarried mate.
The old canard of 'what about a spouse with red flags' means nothing, as those problems are more likely to exist with an unmarried mate.
1
Nonsense.
With all the 'disadvantages' boys may face, girls still face the greatest of all disadvantages. Having a uterus. Teenage pregnancy impacts girls more negatively as compared to boys. Motherhood and wifehood takes more toil on women than men i.e. they make more sacrifices for the good of the family every. single. day. Further, still earn more than women in the workplace.
With all the 'disadvantages' boys may face, girls still face the greatest of all disadvantages. Having a uterus. Teenage pregnancy impacts girls more negatively as compared to boys. Motherhood and wifehood takes more toil on women than men i.e. they make more sacrifices for the good of the family every. single. day. Further, still earn more than women in the workplace.
42
This is a typical 'progressive' anti-male comment.
I guess we should apologise for biology then, Shaka. Boys may be attracted to boys, girls may think they are boys, along with all of the rest of the lunacy that progressives are forcing upon us, but this will never change the fact that females do in fact have a uterus. Yes, this is difficult. Yes, it presents challenges that are unique to females.
But the fact remains that girls live longer, suffer less abuse, are much less likely to abuse drugs, fight wars, or wind up in prison. They are an outright majority in college and continue to make progress in the working world.
Oh, and most of the wage gap is a myth. It's mostly attributed to years of experience, family decisions, and career choices.
I guess we should apologise for biology then, Shaka. Boys may be attracted to boys, girls may think they are boys, along with all of the rest of the lunacy that progressives are forcing upon us, but this will never change the fact that females do in fact have a uterus. Yes, this is difficult. Yes, it presents challenges that are unique to females.
But the fact remains that girls live longer, suffer less abuse, are much less likely to abuse drugs, fight wars, or wind up in prison. They are an outright majority in college and continue to make progress in the working world.
Oh, and most of the wage gap is a myth. It's mostly attributed to years of experience, family decisions, and career choices.
15
Men don't out earn women when adjusted for personal lifestyle choices that impact employment.
Per the Department of Labor study:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Repo...
Per the Department of Labor study:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Repo...
9
I know this sounds old fashioned but how about don't have children until you are in a committed relationship. Free, available, destigmatized birth control.
28
"Free" birth control is called abstinence. If you want me to pay for your pharmaceuticals, that is another discussion.
2
Joe: We pay one way or another.
And we pay for a lot of expensive 'male' pharmaceuticals that I do not personally approve of...shall we end the subsidies for those too?
And we pay for a lot of expensive 'male' pharmaceuticals that I do not personally approve of...shall we end the subsidies for those too?
2
"My girls, they've had me" says a mom.
And yes, women seem to reach out to women more readily and with greater depth. They also seem to be able to multi-task more readily. Women seem to share their concerns with other women who share their concerns right back. How many times, as a woman, when we get together we walk away feeling enlightened, supported, understood?
I'm not sure men most seem to be able, for the most part, to participate in those actions and take these endeavors to heart - and perhaps their dads, granddads, brothers or male friends do not have the benefit of the women type of described behaviors and gratification.
Is it gender thing, a DNA thing, a learned behavioral thing, a learned thing?
Perhaps if we could figure it out and fix it, these boys and men would not be disadvantaged.
And yes, women seem to reach out to women more readily and with greater depth. They also seem to be able to multi-task more readily. Women seem to share their concerns with other women who share their concerns right back. How many times, as a woman, when we get together we walk away feeling enlightened, supported, understood?
I'm not sure men most seem to be able, for the most part, to participate in those actions and take these endeavors to heart - and perhaps their dads, granddads, brothers or male friends do not have the benefit of the women type of described behaviors and gratification.
Is it gender thing, a DNA thing, a learned behavioral thing, a learned thing?
Perhaps if we could figure it out and fix it, these boys and men would not be disadvantaged.
6
I don't think it's that these young men and their dads and granddads don't know how to support each other like women do, it's that these boys and young men do not have dads and granddads period.
4
Finally researchers are focusing on boys also.We have only seen research done for girls.Do teachers,who are mostly female able to help boys from poor households.
2
No one would recommend that kids, especially boys, be raised by a single mother. No one. As we all know, the woman does the picking. So why are all of these women still becoming single parents? Why are they still making horrible personnel decisions in their life by picking poor role models for their future children? Why?
26
"So why are all of these women still becoming single parents? "
Poor women don't have easy access to birth control and good health care. Another reason may also be that they hope that by becoming pregnant, their partners may behave in a way that's more adult and commit themselves to more than a sexual relationship. Unfortunately, that usually doesn't happen and the taxpayers are left picking up the tab.
Poor women don't have easy access to birth control and good health care. Another reason may also be that they hope that by becoming pregnant, their partners may behave in a way that's more adult and commit themselves to more than a sexual relationship. Unfortunately, that usually doesn't happen and the taxpayers are left picking up the tab.
Single women have been childrearing for thousands of years. Men have elevated themselves to an entitled position of universal irresponsibility and contempt for females for thousands of years. Fix the latter and the former mitigates itself.
Could part of the problem lie in the oft repeated phrase' "Boys will be boys?" It seems that phrase is used to allow all sorts of negative behaviors in boys that girls would NEVER be allowed. So perhaps the permissiveness of society towards boys is a part of the problem and discipline (in the true sense of the word) would be more appropriate.
Also, when my best friend and I had children (39 years ago)- she boys and I girls, I told her I though raising a boy would be more difficult because girls were now allowed to be more assertive, but boys were still not allowed to be gentle and caring.
Also, when my best friend and I had children (39 years ago)- she boys and I girls, I told her I though raising a boy would be more difficult because girls were now allowed to be more assertive, but boys were still not allowed to be gentle and caring.
8
How about trying to ensure the neurobiological health of all children and especially boys, who as the article already states, are more sensitive to in-utero conditions?
Of course this is an impossibility, because few people--even better-educated ones--prepare their bodies pre-conception to provide the healthiest status for gestation. By the time of the first prenatal appointment, some deficiencies have already caused irreparable damage. And that damage is often subtle; the "healthy infant" may grow up to have poor impulse control, poor judgment, poorer motor control, etc. etc.
If every woman took a basic multivitamin beginning in adolescence, you would see a difference in how their children--especially boys--functioned in school and life.
But it won't happen, and these articles will be written over and over again.
Of course this is an impossibility, because few people--even better-educated ones--prepare their bodies pre-conception to provide the healthiest status for gestation. By the time of the first prenatal appointment, some deficiencies have already caused irreparable damage. And that damage is often subtle; the "healthy infant" may grow up to have poor impulse control, poor judgment, poorer motor control, etc. etc.
If every woman took a basic multivitamin beginning in adolescence, you would see a difference in how their children--especially boys--functioned in school and life.
But it won't happen, and these articles will be written over and over again.
4
It's pervasive male privilege and male dominance that work against disadvantaged boys, giving them mixed messages about how they should be on top when they are clearly at the bottom of society. Combined with lingering cultural mores that allow boys more leeway in misbehavior and impede mothers' ability or willingness to discipline ("Just wait until your father gets home!" "He's fine, he's a BOY" about child injuring others on a playground structure) A father in the home can teach boys to respect authority and reign in their impulses, but so can a mother, properly empowered. I don't think the answer is to disproportionately give boys even more advantages and privileges. Fund early education for all children, and make it developmentally appropriate with plenty of physical activity.
25
"A father in the home can teach boys to respect authority and reign in their impulses, but so can a mother, properly empowered."
This is true, in a manner (the key is not empowerment, but will). But one thing a mother can never teach a boy is how to be man. Women are not men, and with very few exceptions, have never been men. They cannot relate to the experience of growing up as a boy because they never did it. This is a very real issue that can't be just hand-waved away.
This is true, in a manner (the key is not empowerment, but will). But one thing a mother can never teach a boy is how to be man. Women are not men, and with very few exceptions, have never been men. They cannot relate to the experience of growing up as a boy because they never did it. This is a very real issue that can't be just hand-waved away.
47
And fathers teach sons how to treat women.
It's kind of pathetic that society chooses Public Service Announcements over fatherhood as a means to combat violence against women.
No lecture can replace what a father brings: Day after day interacting with a boy's mother in a routinely respectful manner, handling disagreements and even heated arguments nonviolently, and getting up the next day to do it all over again.
Not every husband behaves this way, but most do, and nothing can replace it.
It's kind of pathetic that society chooses Public Service Announcements over fatherhood as a means to combat violence against women.
No lecture can replace what a father brings: Day after day interacting with a boy's mother in a routinely respectful manner, handling disagreements and even heated arguments nonviolently, and getting up the next day to do it all over again.
Not every husband behaves this way, but most do, and nothing can replace it.
1
How do you feel about single fathers of girls?
There are some excellent points made in this article, but I am curious about some of the other points not addressed:
1. How do boys fair in a single parent family headed by a father (in that case they have a role model).
2. What are the developmental differences? Clearly girls mature earlier than boys, so age may matter greatly.
3. What is the impact of teachers who disproportionately women in the process? Like it or not, boys learn differently (more actively) than girls and teachers (and mothers) tend to teach in the way they preferred to learn building in a cultural bias.
4. As noted in one bitter and largely misguided comment on this site, what is the impact of an abusive parent and does the study allow for such bias? Surely there are situations where loss of an abusive parent is addition by subtraction.
5. How does educational attainment of the parent and "comfort" in terms of needed items impact single parents?
1. How do boys fair in a single parent family headed by a father (in that case they have a role model).
2. What are the developmental differences? Clearly girls mature earlier than boys, so age may matter greatly.
3. What is the impact of teachers who disproportionately women in the process? Like it or not, boys learn differently (more actively) than girls and teachers (and mothers) tend to teach in the way they preferred to learn building in a cultural bias.
4. As noted in one bitter and largely misguided comment on this site, what is the impact of an abusive parent and does the study allow for such bias? Surely there are situations where loss of an abusive parent is addition by subtraction.
5. How does educational attainment of the parent and "comfort" in terms of needed items impact single parents?
7
I work in an urban special education setting and want to advance an idea at the risk of sounding callous. The best I can figure it, having children is almost like buying a second home. It's a luxury lifestyle option. It's expensive, it's difficult, a lot of things happen, and you need two stable, high-functioning adults who know how to pull strings in the modern world to pull it off, especially when child development is atypical (as it often is...).
Honestly, the government is not well positioned to build a family out of thin air and the amount of wealth redistribution that would be required to make child rearing equitable is far beyond the scope of the current welfare system. As long as having a child is viewed as some kind of universal human right rather than a question of affordability, the pudding is going to be the proof.
Honestly, the government is not well positioned to build a family out of thin air and the amount of wealth redistribution that would be required to make child rearing equitable is far beyond the scope of the current welfare system. As long as having a child is viewed as some kind of universal human right rather than a question of affordability, the pudding is going to be the proof.
34
And on a planet with 7 billion people, forecast to be nearly double that within 80 years, we certainly don't need everyone to breed. The American economy can import as many future workers and Social Security payers as it needs, to say the least.
As a society we must begin financially rewarding those who refrain from bio reproduction, rather than the current insanity of rewarding those who thoughtlessly produce children they cannot afford to rear into productive citizens.
As a society we must begin financially rewarding those who refrain from bio reproduction, rather than the current insanity of rewarding those who thoughtlessly produce children they cannot afford to rear into productive citizens.
13
Bravo. It must be frustrating, as you do your (noble) job each day, knowing you can't speak up and perhaps save a future generation of children from pain.
Amen. I love the line that it takes 2 stable, high-functioning adults to pull it off.
And if those 2 adults have access to either personal wealth or family wealth, their children are even more advantaged.
One truth is that the human body cannot survive on 400 calories a day. Another truth is that no amount of welfare can compete with 2 stable, high-functioning parents who put their children first in their lives.
If we really, really cared about the lives of innocent children, we would stigmatize out-of-wedlock births. Cruel and unpalatable for most of us, but ultimately protective.
And if those 2 adults have access to either personal wealth or family wealth, their children are even more advantaged.
One truth is that the human body cannot survive on 400 calories a day. Another truth is that no amount of welfare can compete with 2 stable, high-functioning parents who put their children first in their lives.
If we really, really cared about the lives of innocent children, we would stigmatize out-of-wedlock births. Cruel and unpalatable for most of us, but ultimately protective.
7
Am I reading this article correctly, boys do better in households with a mother AND father? The PC police have been dispatched, code 3...
23
Happy, healthy, two-parent lesbian families with children would certainly take offense to the mention this article makes of households without fathers.
6
Someone is always offended by something. What does research say about outcomes of boys raised in two-parent lesbian families vs two parent heterosexual families? Is there any difference. Maybe, maybe not. There will always be instances that challenge the research findings.
5
Yes, duly noted, but society does not revolve around and depend upon the lesbian family unit. It depends upon families with a mother and a father in the house. There simply aren't enough gay parents to make a difference, nor are they part of the immediate problem, so focusing attention on this minuscule slice of society, would be a waste of time.
Surely in time, Progressives will succeed in undermining the 2 parent traditional family's role as the cornerstone of civilisation, but we aren't quite there yet.
Surely in time, Progressives will succeed in undermining the 2 parent traditional family's role as the cornerstone of civilisation, but we aren't quite there yet.
11
Or happy, healthy two parent gay male headed families with children.
It is hard to be a boy. It is hard to be a girl. It is very hard to be a boy or a girl and to live in poverty. Poverty increases the difficulty of all facets of life.
25
Yes, and as the article points out, poverty has bigger and longer lasting negative effects on boys. Obviously, fixing poverty would go a long way to fixing this, and other problems. But that doesn't mean we can't examine how we approach things like child care, education, and welfare to adjust things to improve outcomes, particular for those hardest hit - young boys.
So why have all our Presidents been men?
3
The male gender has a wider distribution than the female gender. The averages are about the same, but there are more male outliers. Someone who stutters or suffers from color blindness is much more likely to be male than female. On the other hand, someone who solves a difficult mathematical problem is more likely to be male than female.
Since our society has trouble coming to terms with the fact that both genders have their (different) advantages, we fail to make the best use of men and the best use of women.
For instance, Lawrence Summers was fired for saying that men are better than women at science. But he was right. The other half of the picture is that women tend to be quite good political leaders or presidents of university.
Currently, my GP, my dentist and my physiotherapist are all women and I find them very concerned with my health so I am happy as things are. Can women also be boxers? Sure. But celebrating women boxers too much can result in attention being deflected from women who succeed in more traditional ways.
Since our society has trouble coming to terms with the fact that both genders have their (different) advantages, we fail to make the best use of men and the best use of women.
For instance, Lawrence Summers was fired for saying that men are better than women at science. But he was right. The other half of the picture is that women tend to be quite good political leaders or presidents of university.
Currently, my GP, my dentist and my physiotherapist are all women and I find them very concerned with my health so I am happy as things are. Can women also be boxers? Sure. But celebrating women boxers too much can result in attention being deflected from women who succeed in more traditional ways.
6
More interesting is why have so many of our recent Presidents come from a family dominated by their mother. Obama did not live with his biological father. Clinton's father died before he was born. Reagans's father was a no- account town drunk. We heard a lot about Miss Lillian, but do you remember Carter's father's name. Ford did not live with his biological father. FDR's father was more like a grandfather figure, his mother was the dominant parent figure in his life. At a young age Hoover was sent of to live with an uncle. Lincoln did not get along with his father and left home at an early age. He did not attend his father's funeral but was solicitous of his step mother all his life. There is something going on.
19
Interesting also that two of our recent Presidents were raised by single mothers.
George Washington's father also died when he was young. Alexander Hamilton was an orphan. Jay Z's was raised without his dad.
It can certainly be a disadvantage, but can also lead to character traits that make for exceptional men.
George Washington's father also died when he was young. Alexander Hamilton was an orphan. Jay Z's was raised without his dad.
It can certainly be a disadvantage, but can also lead to character traits that make for exceptional men.
4
Boys are more sensitive than girls to expectations driven by media, especially movies, music and myths. If black, white and other youths suffer disadvantages ----- they are expected to suck it up, act like a man, toughen up or become targets for exploitation. Despite the lack of positive male role models and constant bashing of the male image and politically correct behavioral standards that change every day they are expected to handle the stress and be mentally healthy. Any disadvantage, like growing up without social skills fit for functioning in the work place is serious. Millions of boys learn behaviors more suited for surviving among gangs, addicts, rapists, pimps, corrupt politicians and religious zealots ---- even with a father such conditions can be overwhelming. Without a doubt it takes more of a toll on boys than on their sisters mostly because boys tend to travel more throughout their neighborhoods making them more at risk of being assaulted or abused or being threatened by gangs. On the other hand, the richest celebrities and businessman in the US focus on foreign charities while ignoring the factory like production of dysfunctional boys created by our society. We create dysfunctional boys that feed the prisons and drive the funding of law enforcement organizations. Of course there are bad seeds in any population but the others are driven from birth down a one way path to self destruction.
5
I have observed that in poorer families, there is more pressure on young boys to "be a man." Absent father? A five year old is now "the man of the house." While consuming exaggerated images of manhood from the media, further pressure is applied. Then, manhood is defined by the kid who has the most money--no matter from where--and the most power. Acts of bravado, having the latest Jordan's, taking responsibilities beyond his years define a boy's world. Yet, he is a child and burdened with responsibilities beyond his years. I found that families expected young boys to be adults and that they were treated more harshly than girls. There is no such pressure on young girls. Their social obligations begin post-puberty. Having a man's child is a status symbol in spite of the fact that there is no support system in place.
What I have described is neither right nor wrong yet speaks of a larger dysfunction in society as a whole. We are not inclusive of those who are different from ourselves, we prefer to judge based on our own world views. "If I wouldn't do it, then it's wrong, and maybe even immoral," exposing our inability to metaphorically walk in another's shoes.
Generally, people in "survival mode" appear irrational to us because we have never been there. I believe that this article is an important step that demands our attention about an issue that I have studied during years of experience on the front lines.
What I have described is neither right nor wrong yet speaks of a larger dysfunction in society as a whole. We are not inclusive of those who are different from ourselves, we prefer to judge based on our own world views. "If I wouldn't do it, then it's wrong, and maybe even immoral," exposing our inability to metaphorically walk in another's shoes.
Generally, people in "survival mode" appear irrational to us because we have never been there. I believe that this article is an important step that demands our attention about an issue that I have studied during years of experience on the front lines.
1
A half of a percentage point difference in school absentee rates? What kind of difference is that?
8
The greatest disadvantage for a these minority boy is life without a father. That may not be PC to admit, but sometimes the truth isn't PC.
22
My son is 20. When he wants sympathy and nurturing, he turns to me.
As a man, when he wants guidance and a man's insight, he turns to his father. My husband, and both grandfathers, are there for my son 24/7. They reach out to him, they give him experiences, and they lead by example.
All boys need that.
As a man, when he wants guidance and a man's insight, he turns to his father. My husband, and both grandfathers, are there for my son 24/7. They reach out to him, they give him experiences, and they lead by example.
All boys need that.
1
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I think the PC people would just like for us to be willing to support parents regardless of what their family make-up is. Parenting is hard enough without the world going out of its way to shame people who aren't in ideal situations for whatever reason.
1
Why can't researchers admit that there are biological differences between boys and girls? Every parent can see this. Just try to keep a boy from being attracted to trucks, dinosaurs, robots and guns starting in their first year.
But more importantly, poor children are hugely disadvantage by growing up out of wedlock and around drug use. This has been very thoroughly documented, and is neither the fault of the state nor is the state particularly well-suited to fix this problem.
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425746/social-inequality-matters-m...
But more importantly, poor children are hugely disadvantage by growing up out of wedlock and around drug use. This has been very thoroughly documented, and is neither the fault of the state nor is the state particularly well-suited to fix this problem.
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425746/social-inequality-matters-m...
19
If the state can't fix the problem, then voters won't turn to politicians to fix the problem. Not many politicians will get elected by telling voters the problem is their choices, even if the data say it's true.
There is another possible explanation that cannot be ignored. The traumatization of boys receives little attention, investment, and support in our society. Instead we continue to insist that girls must be protected from boys, and that boys without special training will more likely than not become abusers. Even with clear and compelling data that nearly 1/2 of children who are sex trafficked are boys, and that 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before graduating high school, we continue to remain stubbornly fixated on narratives that insist that males are the perpetrators and never the victims.
Studies like the ones cited here are critically important to helping us address the toxic stereotypes that serve to magnify the harms experienced by men and boys in this society. However we have to follow this up with acknowledging that the solution can't be limited to insisting parents spend more time with boys. As a society we need to completely rethink how to deal with the fact that 60% of boys experience at least 1 potentially destabilizing form of childhood abuse or trauma (see ACES study). We need to shift how we think about and speak about these issues, starting with moving away from the toxic stereotypes that currently minimize and ignore the victimization that many boys experience on a daily basis.
Christopher M. Anderson
Executive Director, MaleSurvivor
Studies like the ones cited here are critically important to helping us address the toxic stereotypes that serve to magnify the harms experienced by men and boys in this society. However we have to follow this up with acknowledging that the solution can't be limited to insisting parents spend more time with boys. As a society we need to completely rethink how to deal with the fact that 60% of boys experience at least 1 potentially destabilizing form of childhood abuse or trauma (see ACES study). We need to shift how we think about and speak about these issues, starting with moving away from the toxic stereotypes that currently minimize and ignore the victimization that many boys experience on a daily basis.
Christopher M. Anderson
Executive Director, MaleSurvivor
9
Why this is happening is useful only to the extent it helps create remedies. The simple fix is to support parents in these communities more and to reduce the number of impoverished households. Fight for better benefits, including higher wages.
2
I appreciate this research; it seems to articulate and lend credence to an important phenomenon.
I also want to point out that I think boys can be disproportionately targeted for discipline at home, in schools, and in criminal justice because people are more intimidated by them, with or without reason, than they are by girls. It seems to me natural, though unfair, for teachers, parents, strangers, or law enforcement officers to react more strongly to perceived transgressions by boys, and for boys to notice this and feel unfairly targeted.
I also want to point out that I think boys can be disproportionately targeted for discipline at home, in schools, and in criminal justice because people are more intimidated by them, with or without reason, than they are by girls. It seems to me natural, though unfair, for teachers, parents, strangers, or law enforcement officers to react more strongly to perceived transgressions by boys, and for boys to notice this and feel unfairly targeted.
7
Maybe girls are less "sensitive" to disadvantage than boys because they are taught to be from a young age.
I think it is also incredibly ignorant to stick single parents in a category of disadvantage. Being raised by abusive or neglectful parents is a disadvantage. Being raised by a supportive, loving, single parent is not.
"They concluded that boys aren’t born this way." Of course not. It is a learned behavior internalized from what the young children observe in society around them. So what does it say that young boys learn to be upset and frustrated by what they lack but young girls just learn to accept it?
Honestly I am genuinely confused by the point of this article as it almost seems to imply that if boys are more affected by disadvantage, they should be given more access to advantages such as "high quality preschool and mentoring" than girls.
I also get very confused when I hear all these claims about "boys falling behind" when the wage gap between men and women has barely budged in the past 100 years.
I think it is also incredibly ignorant to stick single parents in a category of disadvantage. Being raised by abusive or neglectful parents is a disadvantage. Being raised by a supportive, loving, single parent is not.
"They concluded that boys aren’t born this way." Of course not. It is a learned behavior internalized from what the young children observe in society around them. So what does it say that young boys learn to be upset and frustrated by what they lack but young girls just learn to accept it?
Honestly I am genuinely confused by the point of this article as it almost seems to imply that if boys are more affected by disadvantage, they should be given more access to advantages such as "high quality preschool and mentoring" than girls.
I also get very confused when I hear all these claims about "boys falling behind" when the wage gap between men and women has barely budged in the past 100 years.
31
It has long been established that being raised in a single-parent household is a disadvantage. That is no longer a point of debate. Being raised in an abusive household of any kind is also a disadvantage. These are separate categories.
The "wage gap" is a whole other topic, and should not be used ignore the obvious, demonstrable harm being done to boys.
The "wage gap" is a whole other topic, and should not be used ignore the obvious, demonstrable harm being done to boys.
1
Research shows that the pre-birth conditions of a family effect the temperament of the child after birth. High stress for the mother or father (or even the grandmother) alters development of the child in ways that make an 'unruly temperament' more likely. Research shows we treat people differently whether we perceive them as being from a lower or a higher status group. The lower in status someone is perceived to be, the less social protection they have so more people target individuals from groups with lower social power, ie they mess with them more. This article provides a great example of that: our epigenetic profile alters whether it feels comfortable to sit quietly listening to teachers as such the 'fix' should be changing how school is done. Articles like these advocate in having the high social power group take permission to intervene into the lives of low power families to alter the children. This mental shortcut--for the high power group to feel it is reasonable to start intervening in other's lives from before birth helps ensure the world is easier for their children--forcing all children to mimic the epigenetic profile of people born into comfortable conditions defangs nature's defense mechanisms (ie the 'unruly temperament') and sets up social rewards and opportunities so behavior that is easy & even normal for the privileged group is rewarded (gold star for sitting so quietly) while 'normal' for the child biologically prepared for a dangerous world is punished.
2
The points made here are easily ignored but should be taken seriously. Different societies have different expectations for their children and our school systems reflect the expectations of the leadership class. This can lead to conflict between the expectations of the "schools" and the expectations of the home and family. Can we even discuss this difference or seek a way to accommodate both?
This is dangerously close to arguing that behaving in school is "acting white" ("the epigenetic profile of people born into comfortable conditions"). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing for different standards of behavior, one that is undeniably a lower standard than the other.
This seems like pseudoscience because we all know that gender is a social construct.
13
Not pseudoscience. Social science. Which is science. Yes, gender is largely social construct and that is just the argument the article is making.
If evidence contradicts your beliefs, maybe it is your beliefs that need to be changed--- unless there are independent reasons to brand it "pseudoscience."
Yes, but SEX is biological. One's sex determines whether you are male or female, and how you will develop. Sexual characteristics are hard-wired and fundamental to our species and go beyond the trivial transgender argument, "I feel like a boy/girl today."
5
As a mother of one of each, and someone who has read a lot about gender differences in development, I think there should be a one-year age difference between girls and boys in the same class. In general, kindergarten should be for 5-year-old girls and 6-year-old boys, and the age gap should continue through high school. BUT! Equally important is that any boy (or girl) within a year of the standard age be allowed to demonstrate readiness to start school a year early. There's way too much worship of The Calendar Age Principle in public schools. And while we're at it, let's help all children do better in school by having them spend more time learning outside and less time learning at desks.
12
I agree that calendar readiness should be dumped, and children should be more closely evaluated for kindergarten readiness. But I would remove gender entirely from the evaluation and just focus on the child. I say this as the mom of two boys who were more than ready to start kindergarten at age 5 (my oldest would have been better served by skipping kindergarten entirely and heading straight to first) and a daughter who was really not ready for kindergarten at 5.
9
That would put the girls at an even greater physical disadvantage. This idea benefits the boys and harms the girls.
1
Sarah, as the father of a boy, I have to say that this expression of "fear" of boys is actually part of the problem and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where would you rather have your girl, in a classroom full of boys who are less emotionally developed, or in a class with boys who are more on-par with the development of your girls? Look less at age and more at educational readiness. No on is suggesting putting 16 year old boys in with 8 year old girls.
4
Bottom line, as a species and a culture moving more toward intellectual pursuits, with huge sets of data to manage, being a human today and definitely in a couple of decades is very different from for instance, the Medieval Ages. Along with this, gender roles are changing too. As it stands now, women were challenged to step up to the plate to enter the working world, and they did. Now men are being challenged reciprocally. In this instance, men have a much tougher challenge than women. Women were challenged to take on all that even the most minute parts of our language tell us are superior, desired, affirmed. Not so for men who are being challenged to take on the feminine, everything about our society that is the mirror opposite of masculine and it is not going well. It is a tougher challenge to, well, lose and like it that is the challenge for men. It's shaping how boys are faring.
If we want to really make things better for boys, then we are really going to have to look more carefully at how to keep being a boy and man desireable when the role itself is changing and having to accommodate aspects that are build into the role of masculine to denigrate. Asking men to just suck it up like we have been doing clearly is not working any better than it was when women were raised to just suck it up being inferior to men.
We have to do this to maintain the momentum of technological and intellectual development less about personal might physically and more of the mind.
If we want to really make things better for boys, then we are really going to have to look more carefully at how to keep being a boy and man desireable when the role itself is changing and having to accommodate aspects that are build into the role of masculine to denigrate. Asking men to just suck it up like we have been doing clearly is not working any better than it was when women were raised to just suck it up being inferior to men.
We have to do this to maintain the momentum of technological and intellectual development less about personal might physically and more of the mind.
6
I am more than willing to believe this issue. While boys in upper income families may on average score as well as their sisters, I am willing to bet that the tails of the distribution for boys are wider. Upper income families though have the ability to step in and provide a safety net when things get bad. A few years living in your parents basement playing video games is better than a jail record.
8
I'm sure any differences between the sexes can easily be explained by children: If you get pregnant early in your life, you're going to get in trouble less and possibly focus more on child-rearing than anti-social behaviors.
If everything was equal but child rearing was solely the providence of men, you'd have the reverse of the trend.
If everything was equal but child rearing was solely the providence of men, you'd have the reverse of the trend.
1
This report validates what I've always opined. The trend in the culture is to focus on how hard girls/women have it. Men are overlooked. We never even talk about how tough it is being a guy, it's simply not done from the very start. Suck it up, we are told from the earliest years. This is also why we at times seem indifferent to the constant complaining of women in their life challenge and how unfair everything is. Unfair? It's a word that doesn't exist in most men's vernacular. Laughable if we say something is unfair. I believe everything from violence to divorce rates, and depression, can be linked to the dysfunction and immense pressure imposed on boys. I recall playing hockey as a young boy, there was a true story told about the father of a team mate who came into the locker room, told everyone to leave, coaches included, and then beat the hell out of his son for missing a goal. Not a word from any of the adults, nothing. It was called a "family matter" I should add, there's a wife that is complicate in this. She may be at home, but she married this monster and allows him to abuse her son. At 9 years old, even hearing this affects you. I had experienced similar beatings for less. I lost trust in adults at that moment. This affected my trust in relationships later in life. I wonder what became of this teammate. I would bet nothing good. I know it took me 30 years to fix myself, and I'm still at it. The indifference to this stuff simply doesn't exist in the world of women.
8
I'm very sorry that you and your teammate suffered through such terrible abuse. No one deserves to be hurt like that. Please know that there are people working to help keep both boys and girls safe. Alas, we have a long way to go..... Best wishes as you continue down a path of healing.
You are right, "this stuff" (i.e. being beat up for missing a goal in hockey) "doesn't exist in the world of women". Other stuff happens in the world of women -- not beat up, but having other no less horrible things done to you, and not for missing a goal but simply because of the way you look. So, how about we stop comparing how badly parent can abuse their children depending on gender? Abuse of children is a horrible thing, irrespective of gender. I doubt the rate of abuse of boys is much higher than the rate of abuse of girls to account for the difference describe din the article.
@kelly Thank you. I appreciate your well wishes.
As a 30 year teacher and a mother of both genders of children, I saw how female affirmative action began damaging boys in public schools, especially those in the low socio-economic level. Many programs in schools were designed to bring girls into the mainstream. That worked very well. But, in focusing on one gender we recreated the same problem in boys. I can remember in the area where I taught, there were summer courses offered like "Tech for Girls". There was no partner courses called "Tech for Boys". When I pushed for such a thing I was told that it didn't bother the people running the program. There were many other special programs for girls. My arguments for classes like "Tech for Kids" fell on deaf ears. Our society and our schools in response always fail to look at the big picture. Yes, there is disparity in salary between men and women, yes there is a glass ceiling, and yes women have been discriminated against. However, by focusing on only one factor in the equation we get the answers wrong. I know that other social and economic factors also enter into this, but the focus on girls more or less exclusively for the past 30 years has been damning for boy children, unless parents had the means to provide all of that privately, which I did for my own son and daughter. Money and class always leave children behind. The focus on one gender harms them even more. Why can't we just focus on all children?
9
As a teacher, don't you "focus on all the children" everyday? Do you think your colleagues are doing it much differently? To say the focus has been "exclusively" on girls for the past 30 years is hyperbole.
In the 1990s, large studies were done which showed that boys got called on far more than girls, that their comments were more considered and praised, and that boys were encouraged more often to work academic problems out for themselves, while girls were helped too quickly. Educators responded and corrected, and now girls have made big strides in education. while boys struggle at a disproportionate rate. Some people use this as an argument for segregating sexes for education.
In the 1990s, large studies were done which showed that boys got called on far more than girls, that their comments were more considered and praised, and that boys were encouraged more often to work academic problems out for themselves, while girls were helped too quickly. Educators responded and corrected, and now girls have made big strides in education. while boys struggle at a disproportionate rate. Some people use this as an argument for segregating sexes for education.
3
I just find it amusing that we need studies to confirm things folks have been saying for generations. Boys & girls are different & boys need discipline.
10
Our society seems to encourage single parenthood. This study show the obvious: children need both parents (on average) to be successful.
17
It's impossible for a minority's father to be present when they are sent to present for low level offenses. We need to find the root cause and attack that. Reform the prison industrial complex.
4
It's easy not to go to prison. Most minority men know how. They don't do the crime so they don't do the time.
6
Exactly right. The family is very precious.
Define "low level offense."
2
Males have to negotiate an educational system dominated by females ( about 80 percent of teachers k-12) who value the behaviors characteristic of females and provide role models for females. I don't know how we can reverse this feminization of America, and with the global stage dominated increasingly by people like Putin we probably should.
17
An odd thing to take from this story.
Boys at all levels are less able, less law-abiding, less prepared, less intrepid and less resilient than girls + Putin = pressing need to re-masculate America.
Wouldn't it be the reverse?
If girls are, on average, smarter, tougher, stabler, and harder-working than boys, and better able to cope with and overcome adversity, wouldn't girls, on average, perform better on the world stage? Particularly in adverse circumstances?
This isn't, to be clear, an argument I'm making. I'm just puzzled by your response to this particular article.
Boys at all levels are less able, less law-abiding, less prepared, less intrepid and less resilient than girls + Putin = pressing need to re-masculate America.
Wouldn't it be the reverse?
If girls are, on average, smarter, tougher, stabler, and harder-working than boys, and better able to cope with and overcome adversity, wouldn't girls, on average, perform better on the world stage? Particularly in adverse circumstances?
This isn't, to be clear, an argument I'm making. I'm just puzzled by your response to this particular article.
14
As an early childhood educator, I have been saying this forever!(except for the Putin part.)
5
Are you kidding me? Corporations own and run America. How many female CEOs can you name?
2
I take exception to the basic premise that poverty causes disadvantage. Not having money is not a reason to not discipline children, boys or girls. And poverty is absolutely no reasonable excuse not to expect good behavior, good performance in school and good study habits at home.
I was born into poverty. My parents were raised during the Great Depression. They went on to college. Mom's Brooklyn school was so crowded that it ran both a morning and afternoon session because there were too many students. She walked to school to avoid paying the nickel for the subway. My grandfather was a postal worker. No money in that profession. My father's family was struck deeply by the Great Depression and their Army Navy store didn't make a dime.
Both my parents served in WWII. Mom later worked for the FBI Immigration Administration. Dad pushed garment racks through Manhattan. Poverty? No income? Little food? Less clothing? Shoes with holes? Living in a 2 room apartment with 2 kids? Did that.
I grew up on Cypress Ave. The Bronx. Dad worked his way up. We didn't have a car. The kitchen table was so old it literally fell down.
Mom and dad did exceptionally well in school. They worked themselves to death to excel and provide for my sister and I. There were no excuses or complaints.
I rarely saw my dad because he was working. So what!
My sister and I graduated from college. Ruth went to Harvard and American University. I went to Penn State. We didn't have a dime. No excuses, just work.
I was born into poverty. My parents were raised during the Great Depression. They went on to college. Mom's Brooklyn school was so crowded that it ran both a morning and afternoon session because there were too many students. She walked to school to avoid paying the nickel for the subway. My grandfather was a postal worker. No money in that profession. My father's family was struck deeply by the Great Depression and their Army Navy store didn't make a dime.
Both my parents served in WWII. Mom later worked for the FBI Immigration Administration. Dad pushed garment racks through Manhattan. Poverty? No income? Little food? Less clothing? Shoes with holes? Living in a 2 room apartment with 2 kids? Did that.
I grew up on Cypress Ave. The Bronx. Dad worked his way up. We didn't have a car. The kitchen table was so old it literally fell down.
Mom and dad did exceptionally well in school. They worked themselves to death to excel and provide for my sister and I. There were no excuses or complaints.
I rarely saw my dad because he was working. So what!
My sister and I graduated from college. Ruth went to Harvard and American University. I went to Penn State. We didn't have a dime. No excuses, just work.
40
There's a great difference between a national economic catastrophe like the Great Depression and systemic, multi-generational poverty often abetted by racial and class structures.
Even in your tale of childhood poverty-and your circumstances were certainly straiter than mine-you reveal that both your parents worked, your grandfather was a civil servant and your other grandparents owned their own store, and you grew up with one sibling and two bedrooms. Your parents were educated and you and your sister were allowed a real education.
That is poverty on a certain scale, I suppose, but on others it really isn't it.
Even in your tale of childhood poverty-and your circumstances were certainly straiter than mine-you reveal that both your parents worked, your grandfather was a civil servant and your other grandparents owned their own store, and you grew up with one sibling and two bedrooms. Your parents were educated and you and your sister were allowed a real education.
That is poverty on a certain scale, I suppose, but on others it really isn't it.
8
You make a good point, but the people that really should learn from it are the middle class families with two SUVs in the driveway, yet complain about how hard they work, how much they struggle.
You may not have had money, but your family was intact, no SA issues, violence, so right there you were at an advantage.
You may not have had money, but your family was intact, no SA issues, violence, so right there you were at an advantage.
5
You are partly right: lack of money is not the whole picture. The household you are describing from your childhood had structure and was headed by competent adults who could hold a job. Your grandparents also had structure in their lives by holding down jobs and running a store. That is a key ingredient to raising competent children. Many people living in poverty lack that kind of structure, and were raised in households without structure. Their lives are disorganized, and they are caught in a cycle of poverty that goes far beyond lack of money.
45
From the comments here the obvious conclusion is most are women, most are irrational, and none of them have the ability to read and understand the article they are commenting on. The short answer is the system still has this glorified standard for motherhood, and will go to any lengths to maintain it in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Domestic relations courts justify themselves by supporting any woman's claim and targeting men. A male coworker went through the almost impossible process of adopting a child despite being female, then 4 years later got married, and 3 years later his wife sued for divorce. The Dutchess County court, you can't make this up, gave custody to HIS WIFE, Sean committed suicide. In Orange County a man was given custody of his child since his wife was substance addicted, but she rehabbed, then kidnapped the child and went to New Zealand. She was extradited, but the female judge decided there was no basis for a kidnapping charge since there was no criminal intent since she was a "mommy". My work with Habitat in Newburgh confirms the Miami study that most minority males consider the child support system just another institutional method of keeping men down--remember, imprisonment for debt is purportedly a relic of the past, but not if you lose your job and have no money for child support.
9
Child support is means tested...
Not much else to say to this men's rights screed. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the article
Not much else to say to this men's rights screed. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the article
3
Your information is wildly out of date. Shared custody is the norm these days in family courts, *when fathers ask for it*. It's normally granted unless there's a history of child abuse, etc.
Unfortunately, there are all too many men who are apparently happy to walk away from their children-- those who never seek custody or visitation, or who don't show up for scheduled visits (to their child's disappointment). I have some experience working in family law, and I've seen those situations often.
As far as child support being "just another institutional method of keeping men down"... Give me a break. Helping to keep a child YOU created fed, clothed, housed, etc., is not a punishment-- it's the bare minimum that any decent human being would do.
And child support amounts are often pretty minimal (say, $100 a month-- certainly not enough to keep a child alive). The mother often ends up shouldering the bulk of the financial burden, since food, clothes, etc., have to come from somewhere. You could equally argue that she's being "punished" financially.
Kidnapping is another issue altogether, but I could certainly provide you with plenty of examples of men taking children and fleeing to another country. Whether they're extradited depends more on whether the country is a signatory to the Hague convention, and not so much on the gender of the parent.
Unfortunately, there are all too many men who are apparently happy to walk away from their children-- those who never seek custody or visitation, or who don't show up for scheduled visits (to their child's disappointment). I have some experience working in family law, and I've seen those situations often.
As far as child support being "just another institutional method of keeping men down"... Give me a break. Helping to keep a child YOU created fed, clothed, housed, etc., is not a punishment-- it's the bare minimum that any decent human being would do.
And child support amounts are often pretty minimal (say, $100 a month-- certainly not enough to keep a child alive). The mother often ends up shouldering the bulk of the financial burden, since food, clothes, etc., have to come from somewhere. You could equally argue that she's being "punished" financially.
Kidnapping is another issue altogether, but I could certainly provide you with plenty of examples of men taking children and fleeing to another country. Whether they're extradited depends more on whether the country is a signatory to the Hague convention, and not so much on the gender of the parent.
1
Our educational researchers always minimize the positive effects of education in the past. For ages, little boys were taught their roles in society by their fathers. Hunting was taught to little boys by their fathers. When we were farmers it was the father who taught the boys to farm. The positive effects were obvious; when the crops grew it reflected positively on the boys, and when a boy brought down game to feed the family it was an honor to both the boy and his father. In both situations, as well as in business and trade, where fathers or masters taught the boys, the roles were clearly defined. Moreover, boys have natural, not learned, physical energy which must have an outlet. The older methods of learning provided this. The boys also had father figures to emulate. The type of school we have had for the past 120 or so years does not provide father figures to boys and is ill suited to their needs.
As Josh Hill points out in his comments, inter alia, we need to emphasize marriage, the control of out of wedlock births, and perhaps most difficult, the existence of the nuclear, isolated family. If a boy lives with uncles, grandfather, and close adult male friends, who are always there for him, as in an ancient farming or hunter gatherer community, he will become a man and a true member of society.
How long will it take America to realize that individual freedom of action in life choices isn't the best way to raise future citizens?
As Josh Hill points out in his comments, inter alia, we need to emphasize marriage, the control of out of wedlock births, and perhaps most difficult, the existence of the nuclear, isolated family. If a boy lives with uncles, grandfather, and close adult male friends, who are always there for him, as in an ancient farming or hunter gatherer community, he will become a man and a true member of society.
How long will it take America to realize that individual freedom of action in life choices isn't the best way to raise future citizens?
24
Pity the extended family (the norm for most of human history and culture) has become a tax liability.
Pity the family farm, which was a solution (both home and employment), has been divided into two problems.
Pity the family farm, which was a solution (both home and employment), has been divided into two problems.
3
Perhaps researchers can take a look at single mothers' attitudes towards men. If a woman became a single mother because her general view of men is negative, that's going to affect her children's perceptions, too.
I grew up in a troubled home where my mom constantly disrespected my dad. My three siblings and me were distanced from, and distrustful of, my dad. That attitude inflected my general view of men, when I was young.
I chose not to marry, such was the effect of those years of seeing a conflicted marriage. But I did have a child. My son, raised a single-parent, mixed-race household, has done well in life. My method was based on doing much the opposite of what I'd seen and experienced as a child. That meant lots of love, gentleness, guidance and freedom, and openly-expressed confidence that my son had it in him to do his best. One of the things I learned raising a boy on my own was that men are to be respected. I learned to love and respect my father, and men in general, as I brought up my son.
I grew up in a troubled home where my mom constantly disrespected my dad. My three siblings and me were distanced from, and distrustful of, my dad. That attitude inflected my general view of men, when I was young.
I chose not to marry, such was the effect of those years of seeing a conflicted marriage. But I did have a child. My son, raised a single-parent, mixed-race household, has done well in life. My method was based on doing much the opposite of what I'd seen and experienced as a child. That meant lots of love, gentleness, guidance and freedom, and openly-expressed confidence that my son had it in him to do his best. One of the things I learned raising a boy on my own was that men are to be respected. I learned to love and respect my father, and men in general, as I brought up my son.
10
Women are smarter in many ways! Look at this mess the world is in created by MEN! Do we need any more proof?
3
It would be easy to debate the finer points presented here about boys vs. girls. But the bigger central message is it's all about family and role models. And we don't need more studies to tell us that. We already know it. The bigger question is how do we fill that gap where it's needed? How do we get communities that have the biggest challenges to come together and work on solving this for their children?
2
Little boys need their fathers to be strong and present role models so that they can grow up successfully.
Imagine the societal damage and subsequent cost that could be avoided if we insisted on this.
Imagine the societal damage and subsequent cost that could be avoided if we insisted on this.
13
Saying boys need their fathers does nothing to address the problem. Words are cheap. Socio-economic position is the best indicator of educational success. Test scores are highest in wealthy towns. They are also Unimportant in the process because teachers know their students will do well. Poverty needs to be addressed with a positive, not punitive plan.
I used a google tool - https://books.google.com/ngrams -, to check the number of times girls vs boys, and men vs women are mentioned in a book between 1800 and 2000. Around 1990 the women and girls begin surpassing the male gender. I also searched on the word 'behavior' which skyrockets during that time.
It has been good for women, but totally ignored the boys. Of coarse this becomes more severe as you include life obstacles like poverty, cultural, physical and racial differences. It's devastating for everyone.
Numbers driven education has allowed this problem to be driven into disability, drugs, and a pipeline from school to prison. As long as it can be classified educators feel good about their job.
It has been good for women, but totally ignored the boys. Of coarse this becomes more severe as you include life obstacles like poverty, cultural, physical and racial differences. It's devastating for everyone.
Numbers driven education has allowed this problem to be driven into disability, drugs, and a pipeline from school to prison. As long as it can be classified educators feel good about their job.
3
"Sitting still and using a pencil?" Wow girls! Way to clear that high bar!
18
Very clever LG. Ha Ha. Obviously you have not been around children aged 5 or know what it means to be ready to learn at the beginning. For a child to be ready to sit still with pencil at hand is indeed a high bar for some. And for any level of educational achievement the first requirement is to be ready for it.
5
Women and girls are tougher, more resilient and more achievement-oriented than men and boys. This is widely known, particularly by men and boys.
10
The tone of this article places too much blame on the single mothers (by, for example, saying the mothers spend more time with their daughters than sons) and very little on the absentee fathers, who spend no time with either their daughters or sons. The unconscious bias against women shines bright in this article.
75
Except that the "single mothers" were 100 percent in control of whom they chose to sire their children.
As a woman myself, I believe that women who select low-quality or worse fathers for their children are despicable. No man changes his character and temperament 180 degrees between conception and the birth of the child. If, indeed, he is even around after conception, and if he isn't, why proceed with the pregnancy? Why allow it to occur in the first place? Despite the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the like, effective birth control methods are available at every ubiquitous chain drugstore, every Walmart, Target, most supermarkets and even gas stations. I defy anyone to find me a significant percentage of "struggling single moms" who didn't have regular access to those retailers and the contraceptive wares they stock.
If a woman thinks so little of her prospective offspring that she conceives them with a loser, user, abuser, abandoner, addicted, unemployable or low-intelligence man -- and the signs are ALWAYS there before the act takes place -- then I hold her 100 percent responsible for the consequences to her poor kids.
It's not bias against women, it's common sense. Women have the power to stop the cycle.
As a woman myself, I believe that women who select low-quality or worse fathers for their children are despicable. No man changes his character and temperament 180 degrees between conception and the birth of the child. If, indeed, he is even around after conception, and if he isn't, why proceed with the pregnancy? Why allow it to occur in the first place? Despite the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the like, effective birth control methods are available at every ubiquitous chain drugstore, every Walmart, Target, most supermarkets and even gas stations. I defy anyone to find me a significant percentage of "struggling single moms" who didn't have regular access to those retailers and the contraceptive wares they stock.
If a woman thinks so little of her prospective offspring that she conceives them with a loser, user, abuser, abandoner, addicted, unemployable or low-intelligence man -- and the signs are ALWAYS there before the act takes place -- then I hold her 100 percent responsible for the consequences to her poor kids.
It's not bias against women, it's common sense. Women have the power to stop the cycle.
3
Wow. You take an article about the disadvantage suffered by boys, and somehow make it about the "unconscious bias against women"? How about the explicit, conscious bias against males? Just reading the last 10 comments, I find one commenter saying: "Women and girls are tougher, more resilient and more achievement-oriented than men and boys" and another saying "Women are smarter in many ways! Look at this mess the world is in created by MEN!". Given attitudes like these, is it any wonder that boys are not served well in school?
Women are 100 percent in control of whom they choose to father their children? Unless they are raped.
Patriarchy. Question it.
Patriarchy. Question it.
2
It isn't just lack of male role models, it is lack of expectations. People who see uncomitted men all around them tend to expect the same of their sons. Girls are usually asked to help with chores and to entertain younger siblings, which helps them develop a sense of responsiblity and pride. Boys are all too often left to play video games. Even teachers don't expect much from boys - I can remember my son's kindergarten teacher's suprise when she realized he could read. "Boys don't read", she exclaimed.
54
Thank you for publishing an article about how boys are falling behind in school, even at very young ages. I grew up with sisters as did my mother before me. To my surprise and now delight, my only child is a son. On-the-job mom training taught me that boys learn and develop differently--I had to learn how to play with cars and trucks!!
Many boys are not ready to enter first grade at the same time as girls and would benefit from a pre-1st year. Others literally chafe at the physical restrictions of not being able to run at regular intervals; physical education cannot be overemphasized, especially in elementary school. More positive male models as teachers and other personnel in schools also help.
But, demonizing single mothers is shortsighted and poisonous for children; we can't make assumptions about how they came to be mothers. Nor is it helpful for children for anyone to make assumptions about nuclear families.
We can help families be as supportive as possible through communication, after-school options and cultural enrichment which is increasingly beyond the abilities of families to supply.
Through nothing that I could done to prevent it, I became a single mother when my son was twelve but we were able to live in a stellar public school system. It made all the difference. He has done very well and is amazingly well-adjusted.
Let's embrace all our boys. And figure how we can help them be the productive adults they have inside.
Many boys are not ready to enter first grade at the same time as girls and would benefit from a pre-1st year. Others literally chafe at the physical restrictions of not being able to run at regular intervals; physical education cannot be overemphasized, especially in elementary school. More positive male models as teachers and other personnel in schools also help.
But, demonizing single mothers is shortsighted and poisonous for children; we can't make assumptions about how they came to be mothers. Nor is it helpful for children for anyone to make assumptions about nuclear families.
We can help families be as supportive as possible through communication, after-school options and cultural enrichment which is increasingly beyond the abilities of families to supply.
Through nothing that I could done to prevent it, I became a single mother when my son was twelve but we were able to live in a stellar public school system. It made all the difference. He has done very well and is amazingly well-adjusted.
Let's embrace all our boys. And figure how we can help them be the productive adults they have inside.
20
This study seems to locate most of the cause of diadvantaged boys onto their mothers. It takes a moral attitude towards women having children by "multiple" fathers (unlike economically advantaged women who divorce and remarry, or single who choose to raise children on their own) and makes use of the term "missing or absent father" when refering to the male child's other parent, rather than say a father who has "abandoned" his parental duty towards his child.
Furthermore, other studies have looked at the larger cultural factors that have contributed to the decision by males to leave their families, not as much a phenomena prior to the 1970's, but one effected by institutional racism and yes, retrograde role models where boys pattern behaviors associated with male dominance, which are strongly re-enforced through media in our society.
Finally, believing that sitting still in a classroom is beneficial to young girls, that they learn better because of this "good behavior," only adds to the stereotype.
I would expect a more nuanced study to understand why boys are more disadvantaged the one has been presented here where the bias begins in the very terms used to define their subjects.
Furthermore, other studies have looked at the larger cultural factors that have contributed to the decision by males to leave their families, not as much a phenomena prior to the 1970's, but one effected by institutional racism and yes, retrograde role models where boys pattern behaviors associated with male dominance, which are strongly re-enforced through media in our society.
Finally, believing that sitting still in a classroom is beneficial to young girls, that they learn better because of this "good behavior," only adds to the stereotype.
I would expect a more nuanced study to understand why boys are more disadvantaged the one has been presented here where the bias begins in the very terms used to define their subjects.
7
Aron, what also happened post 1970? Wider access to birth control, legalized abortion, significant expansion of government financial support to single mothers coupled with a decrease in the cultural stigma of having children out of wedlock. All of that was supposed to be an unquestioned good; empowering to women and those changes have given women so many more life choices than pre-1970s. Then throw in globalization and the decline of manufacturing in the U.S.
Affluent and middle class, educated women have benefitted enormously. Poor, uneducated women, men, their children and now grandchildren, black and increasingly white have fallen far behind. And adding millions of poor, uneducated people from Latin America has only made things worse.
We can't change global forces as much as we would like to but we can control our own reproduction and our attitude towards education and advancement and that's where it needs to start.
Affluent and middle class, educated women have benefitted enormously. Poor, uneducated women, men, their children and now grandchildren, black and increasingly white have fallen far behind. And adding millions of poor, uneducated people from Latin America has only made things worse.
We can't change global forces as much as we would like to but we can control our own reproduction and our attitude towards education and advancement and that's where it needs to start.
What's this? An article in the NY Times that looks at males as needing help? How can the editors permit this?
13
Girls have easier access to relative security - through marriage, etc. - than boys. Don't know whether researchers considered. Probably non-PC.
2
If girls have "relative security" through marriage, why don't boys?
2
The world economy is still stupid even after years of a girl on the throne of the Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, there being fewer homeless girls is probably because of being cheap rather than because of being smarter.
"a girl on the thrown"??? And the queen does not control the purse strings.
But then again we cannot all have an "advantaged" start.
I don't think you can have an "advantaged" start with a "disadvantaged" start. It is nice to talk about but that is about as far as it will ever get.
Some are strong and some are weak. I even think that is in the Bible.
I don't think you can have an "advantaged" start with a "disadvantaged" start. It is nice to talk about but that is about as far as it will ever get.
Some are strong and some are weak. I even think that is in the Bible.
1
Could it be that there are biological differences between boys and girls? That there is a gap between sisters and brothers suggests that that is the case. Did they test the IQs of the children, which is an obvious place to start?
4
Here we go again in the comments section. "It's these irresponsible men!", "Why are these women sleeping around with so many men!" These responses are so trite and so useless. There is just one immediately important question: How can we help these children? Long term, let's try to address the larger societal issues, but right now, assuming the study is valid, what should we do about it?
7
Stop mass incarceration of men in at risk families. Institute a means tested guaranteed national income--not the pittance offered temporarily by TANF. Early childhood education for every child free and including transportation. I could go on . . . I don't include giving Paul Ryan more time with his kids.
4
Six years ago while a senior researcher in the U.S. Department of Education at the National Center for Education Statistics I pointed out to the commissioner the massive disparities in the minority suspension and expulsion rates.
I pointed out the School to Prison pipeline.
The careerist bureaucrats, most with bachelor degrees lacked the intelligence and research skills to understand the importance of this information and its implications.
They could have developed a strategic research plant to address this. They have the budgets to do this.
The researchers, using existing available information have done a commendable job in the analysis and presentation of the data.
America does not have a child based education and social welfare accounting systems like many european countries. It is therefore impossible to conduct analysis at the individual level and to aggregate data up to higher levels of analysis such as the community, city, state etc.
It is impossible to develop experiments to determine what can help teachers to be more effective.
The Institute for Education Science has failed miserably to help teachers.
So we see the prisons filled up with angry young men.
Arne Duncan failed Americas children and teachers in his position as the Secretary of Education
Michael Wiatrowski
I pointed out the School to Prison pipeline.
The careerist bureaucrats, most with bachelor degrees lacked the intelligence and research skills to understand the importance of this information and its implications.
They could have developed a strategic research plant to address this. They have the budgets to do this.
The researchers, using existing available information have done a commendable job in the analysis and presentation of the data.
America does not have a child based education and social welfare accounting systems like many european countries. It is therefore impossible to conduct analysis at the individual level and to aggregate data up to higher levels of analysis such as the community, city, state etc.
It is impossible to develop experiments to determine what can help teachers to be more effective.
The Institute for Education Science has failed miserably to help teachers.
So we see the prisons filled up with angry young men.
Arne Duncan failed Americas children and teachers in his position as the Secretary of Education
Michael Wiatrowski
21
Clearly, we need to attack the plague of single parenthood. That means restoring the social stigma that once attached to it and was designed to minimize just these issues -- children growing up in poverty, without the support of both parents. It also means making free long-term birth control available to poor women, since this has been shown to slash the rate of illegitimate childbirth.
Some will say that this in practice places a disproportionate burden on the mother, and they'll be right, but the urgent need here is to do something that works and it is the woman who holds the keys to her own body, so makes the ultimate decision over whether to have a child or not, and whether to demand commitment on the part of her spouse.
Finally, we have to ask ourselves to what extent current social structures encourage this dysfunction, e.g., welfare structures, high rates of unemployment among ghetto men, and a schooling system that penalizes little boys for being little boys, who are less mature than little girls of the same age, less obedient, and need time to run around.
Some will say that this in practice places a disproportionate burden on the mother, and they'll be right, but the urgent need here is to do something that works and it is the woman who holds the keys to her own body, so makes the ultimate decision over whether to have a child or not, and whether to demand commitment on the part of her spouse.
Finally, we have to ask ourselves to what extent current social structures encourage this dysfunction, e.g., welfare structures, high rates of unemployment among ghetto men, and a schooling system that penalizes little boys for being little boys, who are less mature than little girls of the same age, less obedient, and need time to run around.
44
"That means restoring the social stigma that once attached to it and was designed to minimize just these issues."
Exactly. Parents out there, and their advocates, want the village to constantly boost handouts, assistance and programs designed to ameliorate the parents' own abysmal decision making. But these days they also demand that no one "question their parenting choices!" and certainly that no one suggest they rein in their reproductive impulses until they are able to create better conditions for their offspring.
What they overlook is that in times past, the village did have a tacit say in who procreated, when and with whom -- by stigmatizing out-of-wedlock births, by influencing single mothers to turn over their kids to better-prepared parents, by "shotgun weddings" and the like. The stigma was at least as much practical as it was "moral." Now people scoff at such mores but they did have their uses.
If we resumed stigmatizing willy-nilly breeding and holding women accountable for their choices (and it is 100 percent THEIR choice, in both the men they mate with and whether or not to use birth control & abortion) instead of treating them like noble victims, we might avoid the exponential growth of this dependent underclass and the massive crop of aimless, unparented, neglected, abused and confused children that are being produced year after year after year.
We need to reward women who DON'T reproduce rather than the horribly failed policy of rewarding breeders.
Exactly. Parents out there, and their advocates, want the village to constantly boost handouts, assistance and programs designed to ameliorate the parents' own abysmal decision making. But these days they also demand that no one "question their parenting choices!" and certainly that no one suggest they rein in their reproductive impulses until they are able to create better conditions for their offspring.
What they overlook is that in times past, the village did have a tacit say in who procreated, when and with whom -- by stigmatizing out-of-wedlock births, by influencing single mothers to turn over their kids to better-prepared parents, by "shotgun weddings" and the like. The stigma was at least as much practical as it was "moral." Now people scoff at such mores but they did have their uses.
If we resumed stigmatizing willy-nilly breeding and holding women accountable for their choices (and it is 100 percent THEIR choice, in both the men they mate with and whether or not to use birth control & abortion) instead of treating them like noble victims, we might avoid the exponential growth of this dependent underclass and the massive crop of aimless, unparented, neglected, abused and confused children that are being produced year after year after year.
We need to reward women who DON'T reproduce rather than the horribly failed policy of rewarding breeders.
3
Poor women, on average, have the same number of children as other American women. Access to birth control is not the problem. The problem is the preference for having children without a spouse. The issue is largely one of underclass culture and values. We must also stigmatize men who have children and then abandon them.
5
As a widowed, single mother of two sons I am deeply offended by your reference to the "plague of single parenthood" and suggestion that a "social stigma" should be restored in regards to single parenting. I do not consider my situation exceptional compared to that of a woman who has been divorced or finds herself a single parent for any reason. My sons face many of these challenges. They are doing as well as they are due to my involvement, community and family support, a good school system and, frankly, my excellent education and economic situation. We should be supporting single parents, not demonizing them or stigmatizing them.
4
Clearly we want girls to be successful too, this should not be an either/or issue. When those girls become women, they are often disappointed in their choices of men. The issue of a lack of quality partners for women starts with these boys. By investing in the boys too, they will make better partners and fathers when they become adults.
45
From my very un-scientific observation I find that lack of parental attention, even in affluent families, affects boys more than girls. Many of my work colleagues (big law) complain about their sons having difficulties in school, a situation no amount of private tutoring seems to completely resolve.
16
The real reason is that children are easily able to manipulate the parent of the opposite sex. Daughters usually have their dads in the palms of their hands while sons are the same with mothers. It takes the parent of the same sex to keep a child in line. Lots of single mothers raising boys without input from a male is a recipe for disaster.
6
Very nice study. I agree that part of the difficulties boys face in disadvantaged families is that they often have few positive male role models AND the expectations placed on them discount their emotional vulnerabilities and needs. If these factors are very important, the same disadvantages should be seen in middle income families with absent fathers and lack of emotional support.
Terry Real wrote a very good book (I don't want to talk about it) on the difficulties men face, in particular, who have grown up in neglectful and/or abusive homes. Boys and girls, men and women, have very similar emotional needs and vulnerabilities. But our culture still discounts and can disparage the emotional needs of males.
Terry Real wrote a very good book (I don't want to talk about it) on the difficulties men face, in particular, who have grown up in neglectful and/or abusive homes. Boys and girls, men and women, have very similar emotional needs and vulnerabilities. But our culture still discounts and can disparage the emotional needs of males.
5
Let's be more precise: Males in our culture discount the emotional needs of males.
2
While this article makes some valid points about the differences between boys and girls, it is frustrating to see in an article, yet again, the concept that girls are more ready for kindergarten than boys because they can sit still and be quiet. There is ample evidence, demonstrated through study after study, and completely ignored in the article, that a major part of the problem is the the expectations placed on young students. The readiness standard for kindergarten, being able to sit still and be quiet for long stretches, is based on what is natural for many girls - but not boys. It has been shown that developing kindergarten and elementary school programs that acknowledge the different needs of boys can help them to succeed: allowing standing and even walking around during class, having more frequent and longer periods to run around outside, interrupting class regularly for everyone to do jumping jacks, switching between "quiet" time and "loud" time, etc. There are dozens of methods that are being used by progressive educators. Expecting boys to be able to sit still and be quiet at age 4 or 5 is simply setting them up for failure. One reason that boys from more affluent families do better may indeed be resources - but not for misguided therapy to make them more like girls. Affluent families can shop around for the right school for their son - one that understands his need to move, jump, make noise and be his joyful self, all while learning.
54
I did not find a school for my son because they were filled up. Other parents in similar situations enlisted an army of professionals to battle with the school to allow their child to attend class. I was frustrated that one friend did all of her 6th grade son's homework because he could not write and had a scribe in class. (This child now has an advanced degree from Cornell). The private schools did not have the staff, and probably resource was unfairly skewed to give this child an advantage. We did not fight and my son has done poorly.
I noticed small boys suffered more because the bullying is intense. Girls had better small motor coordination and the entire curriculum relied on that. I think boys grow large motor coordination, while the girls are growing small motor. The anti-boy environment only makes their behavior worse. It was a nightmare.
I noticed small boys suffered more because the bullying is intense. Girls had better small motor coordination and the entire curriculum relied on that. I think boys grow large motor coordination, while the girls are growing small motor. The anti-boy environment only makes their behavior worse. It was a nightmare.
4
Exactly! This article ignores completely the question of whether or not it is developmentally appropriate for a child to be able to sit and attend for long stretches of time by 5 years old. Why do people expect children to be able to read BEFORE kindergarten? Our expectations for "academic" learning are not based on actual brain/child development. Young children learn best through play and active learning, not sitting quietly at desks filling in worksheets!
1
I work in a preschool for impoverished children. By the time the boys reach us at age 3 the differences are clear. You can pick out the boys who have a father at home and those that are only children. The boys who struggle the most are those who have single mothers and multiple children. I believe that boys do not get enough physical affection and that their mothers believe that boys are just bad, while girls are good, but misbehave. I believe that this attitude is exaggerated in homes with single mothers who may harbor anger toward the children's father and project it onto the boys. Boys who are only children get the full measure of love their mothers have to give and are much calmer and self assured than those from large families.
This pattern continues in school where teachers will quickly soothe a girl who is upset or hurt, but will almost never pick up or hug the boys. Girls who misbehave are treated with respect, their mistake is explained to them as if they will react reasonably next time, boys are simply told to stop. I have seen boys punished for whining or sulking even when they haven't done anything wrong. Girls misbehavior is greeted with a sense of surprise, the boys misbehavior with a sense of anger.
Parents and teachers need to be taught that boys need love and sympathy as much as girls do. That they are as capable of self control as girls, given the chance. My heart grieves for these little boys, lost in a world seemingly without compassion.
This pattern continues in school where teachers will quickly soothe a girl who is upset or hurt, but will almost never pick up or hug the boys. Girls who misbehave are treated with respect, their mistake is explained to them as if they will react reasonably next time, boys are simply told to stop. I have seen boys punished for whining or sulking even when they haven't done anything wrong. Girls misbehavior is greeted with a sense of surprise, the boys misbehavior with a sense of anger.
Parents and teachers need to be taught that boys need love and sympathy as much as girls do. That they are as capable of self control as girls, given the chance. My heart grieves for these little boys, lost in a world seemingly without compassion.
186
I agree that we should show boys more affection, but I don't this will fix the problem by itself. Boys clearly don't respond the same way to affection as girls. Boys need more than male role model, they need a male role model that is part of the family structure that interacts with mom. How dad interacts with mom solve daily struggles is probably the best teaching tool for young boys.
1
There are a couple of problems with this article and the research presented so the conclusions are premature. First, there seems to be no data on boys and girls raised by fathers.This kind of mistake evidences the second problem, the thinking about gender, the differences and how well they are doing are relatively unchanged, rigid, and unquestioned.
The male attributes focused on here are "being a man" and discouraging crying. but there are other things to the major one being "boys will be boys". Their sisters are doubled down on to learn how to sit still that would be considered a brutal way to treat a boy who is also excused since boys will be boys. From this comes more and earlier focus of verbal skills, shaping control over one's attention. No one has ever really done the research to find out how much boys will be boys is cultural versus biological. My hunch is it is more cultural than we want to admit.
There are other differences too. Boys are excused from duties expected of girls for instance a sister's birthday party or dance recital but she is expected to attend his. Family plans are more boy focused in choice for instance of movies, trips, etc. What is more feminine focused is attended separately by the girls. From a very early age, the message is clear to boys, misbehavior will get you out of anything feminine. By the time a boy is a man, he is all but trained to duck housework by doing a half way job. He knows the drill. The same at work and school.
The male attributes focused on here are "being a man" and discouraging crying. but there are other things to the major one being "boys will be boys". Their sisters are doubled down on to learn how to sit still that would be considered a brutal way to treat a boy who is also excused since boys will be boys. From this comes more and earlier focus of verbal skills, shaping control over one's attention. No one has ever really done the research to find out how much boys will be boys is cultural versus biological. My hunch is it is more cultural than we want to admit.
There are other differences too. Boys are excused from duties expected of girls for instance a sister's birthday party or dance recital but she is expected to attend his. Family plans are more boy focused in choice for instance of movies, trips, etc. What is more feminine focused is attended separately by the girls. From a very early age, the message is clear to boys, misbehavior will get you out of anything feminine. By the time a boy is a man, he is all but trained to duck housework by doing a half way job. He knows the drill. The same at work and school.
95
Way too PC. It would be more accurate to say that we start from a different instinctual baseline and these behaviors are either reinforced or discouraged by society. But the innate differences are real and can be seen in other animals, the main one being that males are more aggressive and females more nurturing.
11
Actually, research into gender across species does not bear this out. And in many instances, the violence a female animal rivals that of a male animal to protect offspring. Big cats and fish are excellent examples. About baseline in humans, this too is much less than is made of it. In blind experiments with care of children where the sex is not known, and switched, it was discovered that caretakers tend to make a conclusion of the sex of the child based on behavior that do not correspond with the biological gender but by the behavior of the child eg, an active girl would be treated as a boy and a quieter boy would be thought to be a girl and treated like one. What has not been done is extensive research into the more longer term effects of the notions of girl and boy shapes the treatment of boys and girls. Partly because designing a "pure" experiment would be unconscionable. The truth is we really don't know but that isn't stopping us from drawing conclusions anyway.
9
I don't think your examples are representative of the population. It feels more like personal experience. Are you hinting at sexism?
2
How hard is it for men to learn to put on a condom if the are unable or unwilling to be the father of the child they might be producing?
Please don't scream eugenics if you reward single women with children for not popping out more kids via sterilization, or implants.
How well does single sex education work to mainstream the boys is a question that needs to be answered?
What man in his right mind would go into primary or secondary education?
He is assumed to be a perv.
One false accusation dreamed up by a coven of mean girls and his life is in the toilet, while they skip merrily away.
Please don't scream eugenics if you reward single women with children for not popping out more kids via sterilization, or implants.
How well does single sex education work to mainstream the boys is a question that needs to be answered?
What man in his right mind would go into primary or secondary education?
He is assumed to be a perv.
One false accusation dreamed up by a coven of mean girls and his life is in the toilet, while they skip merrily away.
10
Guys of course should use condoms, but in the pathology of these impoverished societies they don't. One strategy that has been shown to be marvelously effective is to give access to long-term birth control to poor women. It cuts the rate of single parenthood in something like half.
86
About 25 years ago, I participated in a study of menopause at a local medical school. When I would go for my monthly check-ups, I sat in a waiting room with at least 50 pregnant black women, all there for free prenatal services provided by the med school. While talking to the nurse in charge of the clinical part of the study, she commented that whenever they thought they have voluntarily sterilized every young black woman in the city, they just kept coming.
The access to free birth control or even sterilization is there and has been for a generation. But for some reason, poor black and other minority women don't use it. I think they are looking for love and see that baby as someone who will love them. Of course, when the child is no longer a loving baby, but a difficult toddler or adolescent, they're no longer very interesting to these women who have little to give in the way of nurture.
I didn't used to think this way, but I'm beginning to think that sterilization should be required for continuing welfare if the woman already has two children. I know - it sounds like China only with one more child, but what else can we do? Society cannot afford to continue to support and provide extra support service in school and the community for these totally dysfunctional units (I won't even call them families as they are not!). If they refuse to control their reproduction, then perhaps it's time for the state to step in.
The access to free birth control or even sterilization is there and has been for a generation. But for some reason, poor black and other minority women don't use it. I think they are looking for love and see that baby as someone who will love them. Of course, when the child is no longer a loving baby, but a difficult toddler or adolescent, they're no longer very interesting to these women who have little to give in the way of nurture.
I didn't used to think this way, but I'm beginning to think that sterilization should be required for continuing welfare if the woman already has two children. I know - it sounds like China only with one more child, but what else can we do? Society cannot afford to continue to support and provide extra support service in school and the community for these totally dysfunctional units (I won't even call them families as they are not!). If they refuse to control their reproduction, then perhaps it's time for the state to step in.
20
The women aren't impregnating *themselves*.
4
The article is right to point out that we have a crisis in our country for certain subgroups of children. But there is something we can do about it: teach them to read well by the third grade. 96% of children who are proficient readers by the third grade will graduate high school on time. 89% of low-income children who are proficient readers by the third grade will graduate high school on time. Third grade is the critical dividing line between learning to read and reading to learn. 85% of the curriculum in grades 4-12 is reading based. Third grade is sticky; i 2009 only 36% of 4th grade students were proficient in reading according to the NAEP; 4 years later as 8th graders only 36% were proficient in reading. The good news is that we know how to teach children to read AND that we can do it for children of all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. We can't easily solve poverty, or racial and economic segregation. We can't re-run history and change Mom's high school and postsecondary education. But we can make sure her children can read well. Oh, and let's make sure that these kids have age-appropriate books (and help Mom to read to them at least 15 min a day). According to the NAEP, the difference between having a couple of books and a bookcase full of books is enough to move a kid from below basic to proficient. Now that's a variable we can change.
11
I have two sons. It was a problem finding books that my older son liked but my younger son loved the Harry Potter series. I think Harry Potter books made a big difference for my younger son but they hadn't come out yet when my older son was that age.
We need to make more efforts to recruit male teachers, particularly minority male teachers of kids in younger grades.
These little boys need every possible opportunity to have positive male role models.
These little boys need every possible opportunity to have positive male role models.
92
A factor not mentioned here is that most grade school teachers tend to be female. While it does not change the home situation, it might help little boys if more of their early teachers were strong, stable males. There are some male teachers in early grades, but comparatively few. With absent Dads and women running their outside world, little boys truly have no one after whom to model themselves.
46
First, I have to wonder how many of the folks asking why poor women have so many children also support defunding Planned Parenthood, oppose birth control, oppose assistance to the working poor (e.g. Affordable health care), etc. Secondly, I agree that all children would benefit from growing up in an intact family. But all children would also benefit from having healthcare, enough food to eat, a safe place to live, excellent public education and some minimal economic security. It doesn't sound like the researchers could clarify which factors were causal. No surprise there. We need to continue to wage war on poverty and help all children have some reasonable chance at a productive life.
210
Maggie, if after 50 years of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty," the programs cited were functioning, even in a modest manner, the problems would be on a path to be solved but they're not. If anything, the problems have grown. It is time for some personal responsibility by single mothers with multiple children by multiple partners to take advantage of the PPACA mandated women's health coverage for birth control.
24
"defunding Planned Parenthood, oppose birth control"
I believe these two things do not belong in the same sentence. As you might know, birth control is widely practiced even by Catholics.
On the other hand, the problem with Planned Parenthood is their participation in late abortions, the videos which not everyone disbelieves, and the issue of whether pro-life taxpayers should have to pay, albeit indirectly, for such activities.
I think PP would be wiser to split itself into two organizations, one concentrating ONLY on contraception and health, which the taxpayers could whole heartedly support. The other, abortion part could be supported by private contributions from people like Maggie and others.
Recently, the Times wrote about the dishonesty of Texas describing slaves as workers. While granting this, I asked whether there might be a similar dishonesty in describing abortion as "women's health".
The Times did not publish what I wrote.
Note that abortion is banned in Ireland and Irish women have a higher life expectancy than American women. Abortion is severely restricted in South Korea, and South Korean women live about five years longer than American women.
This is a complex issue and I wish there was more dialogue and less animosity between pro-lifers (like MLK and Gandhi) and pro-choicers, like you. I know, neither MLK nor Gandhi were Republicans, but they were pro-life and their voices also should count.
I believe these two things do not belong in the same sentence. As you might know, birth control is widely practiced even by Catholics.
On the other hand, the problem with Planned Parenthood is their participation in late abortions, the videos which not everyone disbelieves, and the issue of whether pro-life taxpayers should have to pay, albeit indirectly, for such activities.
I think PP would be wiser to split itself into two organizations, one concentrating ONLY on contraception and health, which the taxpayers could whole heartedly support. The other, abortion part could be supported by private contributions from people like Maggie and others.
Recently, the Times wrote about the dishonesty of Texas describing slaves as workers. While granting this, I asked whether there might be a similar dishonesty in describing abortion as "women's health".
The Times did not publish what I wrote.
Note that abortion is banned in Ireland and Irish women have a higher life expectancy than American women. Abortion is severely restricted in South Korea, and South Korean women live about five years longer than American women.
This is a complex issue and I wish there was more dialogue and less animosity between pro-lifers (like MLK and Gandhi) and pro-choicers, like you. I know, neither MLK nor Gandhi were Republicans, but they were pro-life and their voices also should count.
4
I am a large contributor to Planned Parenthood precisely because they provide affordable birth control for women (and men) who don't have the disposable income for these services after they've paid for the basics of survival (food, housing, clothing, transportation).
Most of the people who have the time to write comments have no idea what it's like to live pay-check to pay-check, and a lot of people do.
Having a child when you're already on the margins of poverty only digs a deeper hole in this country. So, while I seriously doubt that government Pre-K helps kids with cognitive and social development as promoted, it absolutely does provide poorer households with daycare, and that's a good thing.
But a better thing is to ensure that women don't drop out of school due an unplanned pregnancy so they have a better chance of having a job that can actually fund a stable household.
Most of the people who have the time to write comments have no idea what it's like to live pay-check to pay-check, and a lot of people do.
Having a child when you're already on the margins of poverty only digs a deeper hole in this country. So, while I seriously doubt that government Pre-K helps kids with cognitive and social development as promoted, it absolutely does provide poorer households with daycare, and that's a good thing.
But a better thing is to ensure that women don't drop out of school due an unplanned pregnancy so they have a better chance of having a job that can actually fund a stable household.
7
As one who runs a school and has read a great deal about this, the phenomenon cannot be rejected. However, the primary cause is not because boys are more sensitive to disadvantage. It is that all schools, but particularly underfunded schools in poor communities, are terrible for boys. Terrible for girls too, but more terrible for boys. These schools fail to account for boys' natural energy, their active way of learning, their different development trajectory, their interests, their curiosities and other things. Girls are more able to sit still and comply, thus seeming to succeed as boys are marginalized.
The problem is in the schools, not the boys. Many fine books, including Peg Tyre's "The Trouble With Boys," make a compelling case that the design and values in schools make it much more difficult for boys to learn and result in the dismal statistics cited in this article.
The problem is in the schools, not the boys. Many fine books, including Peg Tyre's "The Trouble With Boys," make a compelling case that the design and values in schools make it much more difficult for boys to learn and result in the dismal statistics cited in this article.
119
Every time I read something like this, I wonder how boys managed in all boy schools in the past, when classroom structure was even more rigid. That this is horrible for children is true, but culture is probably a huge component here. We expect our boys to be unruly, and bingo! They are,
4
That is not the thrust of the piece - boys are already in a deep hole before they set foot in any type of school.
2
If we ran kindergarten he way we should - exploration, building, messy art, playing outside in even cold weather boys and girls would much better off. Let's no forget that kids don't go out to play and have unstructured time to be a kid with other kids learning to take turns and play according to rules.... Sorry Steve... billions will be spent and no one will listen us... Oh isn't this what is done in Scandinavia???
1
"Mothers, especially single mothers, tend to spend more time with daughters than sons. "
An article in the Times in the spring of 2012 reported that it has now become the norm for women who become mothers by the age of 30 to be single. I recall that the article attempted to stress that this is an unprecedented development in our history, and highly unusual among all nations.
The wide and continually growing gender gap in college attendance and graduation rates was the subject of my master's thesis. Approximately half of that gap can be attributed to young men not going directly into college after high school as often as young women -- bear in mind that they graduate from HS at a lower rate as well.
One place boys are increasingly unlikely to find a role model is in the classroom. Teaching is one of the most feminized professions in existence, at least in this country. The percentage of teachers who are men continues to drop, year after year. This helps to give boys the understanding that school isn't their place, and that they're not welcome there -- hardly an encouragement to go on to college.
The gap between boys and girls, favoring girls, in reading is as wide as the gap favoring boys in math, and yet the majority of attention and money is spent encouraging girls and young women to go into STEM disciplines. In spite of Thomas Newkirk's best efforts, little attention is paid to improving boys' literacy.
An excellent article, but Miller will be attacked.
An article in the Times in the spring of 2012 reported that it has now become the norm for women who become mothers by the age of 30 to be single. I recall that the article attempted to stress that this is an unprecedented development in our history, and highly unusual among all nations.
The wide and continually growing gender gap in college attendance and graduation rates was the subject of my master's thesis. Approximately half of that gap can be attributed to young men not going directly into college after high school as often as young women -- bear in mind that they graduate from HS at a lower rate as well.
One place boys are increasingly unlikely to find a role model is in the classroom. Teaching is one of the most feminized professions in existence, at least in this country. The percentage of teachers who are men continues to drop, year after year. This helps to give boys the understanding that school isn't their place, and that they're not welcome there -- hardly an encouragement to go on to college.
The gap between boys and girls, favoring girls, in reading is as wide as the gap favoring boys in math, and yet the majority of attention and money is spent encouraging girls and young women to go into STEM disciplines. In spite of Thomas Newkirk's best efforts, little attention is paid to improving boys' literacy.
An excellent article, but Miller will be attacked.
55
"The majority of the money is spent encouraging girls...." Please provide evidence for this. And how about paying people to teach? Attacks on teachers are at an all time high, their relative pay is at an all time low, and women will do lower paying jobs than men. This may encourage the disrespect boys feel for education, since women are portrayed as somehow inferior in our culture. The fact that most teachers have been women for a very long time, and the fact that boys did well in, say, the 50s, 60s, and 70sm points to culture, not the presence or absence of males in school.
62
Most day-care workers and primary-school teachers are women. Behavior perceived as "bad" in boys may be seen as "cute" or assertive in girls. It may be punished disproportionately, or equally damaging, may be shrugged off and tolerated.
Much of how caregivers' perceptions influence behavior takes place before children reach school. But still, a great part of the solution would be to recruit more young men as teachers, especially in the lower grades,
Too costly? Because men won't accept work at the salaries that women will? Because men won't put up with the conditions that elementary teachers work under? We can fix all of that. Especially in view of the costs if we fail to fix it.
Much of how caregivers' perceptions influence behavior takes place before children reach school. But still, a great part of the solution would be to recruit more young men as teachers, especially in the lower grades,
Too costly? Because men won't accept work at the salaries that women will? Because men won't put up with the conditions that elementary teachers work under? We can fix all of that. Especially in view of the costs if we fail to fix it.
21
The primary reason men won't teach in elementary school is they are afraid of being called out by the, parents, the students or the school for having touched the child No man in today's silly envirnment would dare seek employment there
2
The primary reasons need change:
Machismo and low pay for "women's work".
Machismo and low pay for "women's work".
1
While poverty and family environment play the overwhelming role in future success, even boys in better economic circumstances are too often treated like defective girls by almost exclusively female teachers and staff in elementary schools. That needs to change. 'Girl power' does not have to mean denigrating or excluding boys.
44
As a volunteer Guardian ad Litem (court-appointed advocate for children removed from the home due to abuse or neglect), I am astounded and people continue to miss the real reason children fall behind. It's the lack of family structure. Almost all of the children I deal with are from fatherless homes. They grow up in chaos. Mothers have multiple children by multiple fathers who are nowhere to be seen. Children from poor, intact families have a chance -- children from, dare I say, parents who are married. Unfortunately, many, many children are growing up with no concept of what marriage or family really is.
216
As a person who deals with the problems, I would say your perception is colored by this. Anecdotes from your life are not data. I think if you look around you see far fewer destroyed families, a lot more stable partnering. The question revolves around the disrespect for education that is so prevalent in our society.
1
Lack of family structure indeed. The responsibility falls on both men and women. But prior to more relaxed divorce laws and attitudes surrounding divorce, women were practically forced to stay with cold, unloving, abusive, irresponsible, and/or unproductive men for the sake of the children. How many women suffered in silence and paid for it with their lives? How many children also suffered in these homes? Should we return to this scenario? Men need to fix themselves and step up to the plate.
2
Statistically, the previous poster is correct:
"Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances."
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/journal_...
"Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances."
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/journal_...
2
Personal responsibility is the root cause...women who can not afford to raise children simply should not have them. Birth control has only been available and affordable for almost 50 years! Even an animal rescue would be unwilling to place an animal with someone who could not afford to maintain it! But women are rewarded by the welfare state by the number of children they have, so they continue to have more. And for all the people who will pillory me for saying this, I knew I could not afford to raise a child on my own, nor did I wish to marry, so guess what - being childless is not a punishment. It is a rational choice for many. Because fatherless boys growing up in poverty are disadvantaged, they are more likely to fall into the permanent criminal underclass as they age.
91
Such a simplistic summation of a huge problem. I highly doubt that any woman sets out to become pregnant only to rely on government support. Access to birth control most likely is not an issue either although one political party is all too happy to limit access to contraception and dare I say it, abortion.
Women/girls who have realistic hope for a future don't have children out of wedlock. How we change that mindset among young poor women (and men) is of course a political issue and disadvantaged people carry no clout in elections where money dictates absolutely everything.
Women/girls who have realistic hope for a future don't have children out of wedlock. How we change that mindset among young poor women (and men) is of course a political issue and disadvantaged people carry no clout in elections where money dictates absolutely everything.
26
As another childless woman who made the same choice as you and for the same reasons, I would like to say that those who chose differently, to have children they did not have the security to raise children is a lot more complicated than a welfare check. There is something as strong in a woman to "be a woman" and front and center is being a mother as many of the attributes of "being a man" shape the behavior of men, for instance abandoning their family, often out of a sense of personal failure they can't earn a living. It's no more right than having a child one does not have the resources to care for, but in really tough circumstances, to go against biology and cultural standards and not fulfill at least the barest facts of gender, to make or have a baby exceeds most people's abilities. And in a sense it should. If people were like you and I, we probably would not be here. And when I get right down to it, I didn't want children having been the eldest of four seeing what that did to my mom and dad my baby sister didn't have to. Now wanting children was bred in my bones in a way my sister was spared. For which I am grateful. She has 3 kids.
3
My friend's daughter recently had a child out of wedlock. Her family spent a lot of money sending her to private schools and a private college and she says she is still planning to finish her degree. She is working and the father is living with her.
I went to her baby shower. The father's grandmother was there and protested the lack of marriage saying that marriage is good for families. She is black. Most of the white middle-class guests were married but seemed OK with the out of wedlock birth, although of course it was not their family. One older middle class white woman told me she thinks that signing a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage is equivalent to marriage.
I went to her baby shower. The father's grandmother was there and protested the lack of marriage saying that marriage is good for families. She is black. Most of the white middle-class guests were married but seemed OK with the out of wedlock birth, although of course it was not their family. One older middle class white woman told me she thinks that signing a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage is equivalent to marriage.
2
"The researchers compared families based on whether the parents were single or coupled... They said they could not isolate which variable mattered most..." In other words, they did not find that single motherhood, whether among wealthy or poor women, had any significant effect.
Yet they concluded that for impoverished single mothers, being single outweighs being poor!
Sounds to me like they decided to express their disdain for poor women, despite any lack of justification for this in their findings. The sad thing is, many readers will add this to their list of Evidence of the Sins of Poor Women.
Yet they concluded that for impoverished single mothers, being single outweighs being poor!
Sounds to me like they decided to express their disdain for poor women, despite any lack of justification for this in their findings. The sad thing is, many readers will add this to their list of Evidence of the Sins of Poor Women.
23
You're so right. People should definitely have kids they can't afford to raise, and anyone who says any different is sexist or racist or something.
2
Perhaps things are so bad and cannot be worse, and hence parental marital status makes no difference whatsoever here. But really this is not the place to defend single mothers. Not to mention that there are single mothers and there are single mothers, and the differences are many and huge. The general thrust of the research, as is cited in the report, basically says biology is now destiny for boys (by saying they are more sensitive to disadvantage). That in my opinion excuses what poor women and MEN for that matter think and do in terms of their offspring.
1
BOYS who grow up in poverty get a double whammy. For the most part they grow up without a strong positive attachment to a benevolent male role model. Second, their mothers are likely to treat them as the "man" of the house. But inconsistently. Because, after all, a child can only do so much to be helpful.
Sadly, preschool and early childhood programs cannot fill the gap. First, they are largely staffed by females. Second, the pay is not so great. Third, traditional males may not perceive themselves as having the sort of interactions with children that they would encounter in working with kids.
Sadly, preschool and early childhood programs cannot fill the gap. First, they are largely staffed by females. Second, the pay is not so great. Third, traditional males may not perceive themselves as having the sort of interactions with children that they would encounter in working with kids.
5
I'm surprised at the number of people who point out boys must "be the man of the house" ignoring that fathers are less willing to shoulder maternal and wifely duties than women to take on fatherly and manly duties in the home and outside so that daughters are much more likely to pe pushed into being the "little woman" in both intact families with a mother who is sick or works than a boy is expected by a mother. The duties a girl faces take up time every day, require more emotional control and ability to delay reward than the duties pressed on boys to be a man. Sorry, but bottom line, girls are more practiced at life chores than boys and it's because we excuse them. One thing is clear: boys are given fewer examples in fathers, teachers, even TV roles etc. of men exerting effort to control their attention, focus efforts, and control over emotions other than rigidly denying them. This does short change boys learning these skills in ways that twine with cultural notions of being a man. And for it, women miss out too.
6
why do we just accept so many single parents with out questioning where are these children's fathers? Fathers are important to the development of children and the economic stability of families. Why do we turn a blind eye and accept women having children without being married to the fathers of those children? Women that do that are destroying their own family's economic stability, and quite possibility their own happiness. Take a look at the black community, that is what happens to your society when fathers are pushed to the margins of importance in a family.
115
The reason is because women are more important than their chidren. A women has the pwer to abort her child, give her chid up for adoption or surrender her child to the police. When women's rights are more important than societies rights you have a generation of boys disadvantaged. At the end of the day I don't see women changing so this disadvantage will continue. Wait for the crime stats 20 years from now. Children will be forced to be home schooled for safety reasons
22
Why do men walk away from their pregnant girlfriends?
Why do they abandon their children?
Why blame only mothers and not ask the obvious question - where are the absent fathers? How many children by how many women have they left? Why do they spill their seed then walk?
Men must be present for their families in order to be a part of them and for their families to benefit from their presence.
Why do they abandon their children?
Why blame only mothers and not ask the obvious question - where are the absent fathers? How many children by how many women have they left? Why do they spill their seed then walk?
Men must be present for their families in order to be a part of them and for their families to benefit from their presence.
213
Ellen, flip sides. How many children by how many men? Social service benefits do penalize marriage but even if benefits were structured differently, the vast majority of these women would not choose to marry these men. They then go on to new relationships where there are now competing men in the household and maybe more children. You don't have to be a sociologist to figure out how well that works particularly in already economically and socially stressed households. These women have choices. They have agency. They need to be smarter about using their own free will.
37
Due to our cultures pervasive shaping of how boys are not able to express primary emotion, they become isolated, and act out. Unable to share fear, sadness, shame they do not participate in life the same ways girls do.
No longer tolerant or reinforcing , in early child-hood school settings, of the dominant male behaviors once condoned and celebrated boys who are subjected to broad gender stereotypes of stoic masculinity fall behind. The data proves it. Boys repress their feelings of fear, sadness, rejection, shame. Our culture tells them to. They squirm, they sulk, they act-out. They are labeled attention deficit disordered (ADD). They fall behind. The cause; culturally constructed suppression of primary emotion. That suppression takes a great deal of energy that could be devoted to progressing.
As Ms. Miller notes, "our modern economy relies on cooperation, empathy and resilience." All qualities of relational emotional awareness. The very qualities that our culture inhibits in males.
Find "The Mask You Live In," for a very compelling documentary of how our culture constructs expression of emotion in boys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc45-ptHMxo