Andrew Yang makes some good points in this piece, particularly about positive masculinity and role models. Whether fair or not, the perception that the left is hostile to men has driven recruitment for the far right, and that merits some reflection.
But he's also really facile about underlying economic causes. It's easy to blame problems on "our culture has been broken by the wokes!", but many of the problems of young men are not unique to them. Fewer women are entering college, also. Women are dropping out of the workforce, also. More young women are living with their parents, also. Is that because they lacked strong masculine role models?
Or is it because the rising costs of college, housing, healthcare, and living have made the traditional path much less attainable? Absent fathers didn't do that. These are the same patterns you see in any country with a shrinking economy; it's just a shock to Americans who feel they were promised better.
(In summary: Maybe Andrew Yang should spend more time talking to Bernie Sanders)
I've coached high school sports teams, both boys and girls, for the last two decades. I've seen some of these trends unfold over the years with my student athletes. My observation is girls are just more motivated than boys, even for something fun like sports practices and workouts, girls in general will show up more consistently than boys. The teachers I've spoken to at the school where I coach have confirmed the same thing with school work. What I've seen is the boys that are successful at school or sports have at least one parent pushing them at home, and from my experience it's often the mother. I'm not trying to downplay the role of positive male role models and their impact, but what it seems like many boys are missing these days is motivation and drive, and that can come from anywhere. I don't know what it is but it just seems like girls are much better at thinking about the future and putting in the work to get where they want to be, boys often need the guidance of an adult to steer them that way, and fewer of them are getting it now.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I don't think this entire trend can be blamed on a lack of fathers. I'm fortunate now that I coach at a school in a pretty affluent community, the vast majority of the kids I coach have married parents with active fathers in the house. I still see many of these young men fairly checked out by high school. I think in many of these cases boys are over protected these days, they grow up without the freedom to explore and test themselves and their parents create an environment where it's OK not to try or put forth an honest effort or finish your commitments etc.
Years ago I coached at an inner city school, lots of single moms, I've seen the results first hand. I'd like to think for many of those kids I was a positive male role model, maybe one of the only ones in their life. Unfortunately I don't live in that area anymore.
Schools are structured to benefit girls, and the deck is absolutely stacked against boys. The vast majority of teachers are female, and they mark boys worse for equivalent work. [1] Boys generally require more physical activity than girls, yet the majority of school is "sit down and stare at this whiteboard".
Of course they're less motivated, it's quite literally a rigged game.
I think you're oversimplifying what is a massive systemic issue into two points that, while true, might not contribute as large of an impact as you're assuming.
Also, just in defence of female teachers, I don't think it matters so much that they're women, but that they understand that boys will be boys. Anti-male teachers were, at least in the experience of myself and a friend who went to a different school (we discussed this once), definitely present but firmly in the minority.
High school is a pretty special timeframe where girls on average have more conscientious, adult-like mindsets that their equally-aged male peers. That's a recipe for educational success too. But it doesn't last - males do catch up eventually and might even do better.
This is speculation on my part, but I've felt that it's because women know they may want a child in their lifetime and due to their biological clock it gives them a window to plan back from.
They know they should do it between certain ages which means they need a career which means they need an education e.t.c.
There's nothing equivalent for men, no event they can see coming within a decade or two that helps anchor them in their lives.
I have two elementary-aged children, a boy and a girl. They fit the pattern you describe to a T, and I think most teachers' experience would agree.
So anecdotally, the theory that (in general) boys need more nudging than girls from someone in their life in order to be successful rings true. But what would account for a modern change? Are there fewer people pushing, now? Are boys more resistant to it now, or maybe more distracted? Are expectations of boys different now than they were in the past?
Although your reply is buried beneath a lot other comments, I do think you are right on this! People that prefer book learning and listening (passively) to a teacher have an advantage with the current teaching methodologies than people that prefer hands-on learning..
> Are boys more resistant to it now, or maybe more distracted?
Or perhaps parents are more distracted. Much has been made of how our digital age has made us, as individuals, more distracted and less connected to individuals in our life. For a parent, it doesn't seem unlikely that that would translate to being less invested in their child, or at least not as proactive in this kind of nudging.
I think it's probably some of both. Boys are definitely more distracted with stuff like video games than girls, but then again many girls are absolutely obsessed with social media (TikTok/Snapchat etc) and still manage to succeed in school and sports. I do also think it has to do with the age of maturation, girls just mature earlier than boys.
Has this ever not been the case? I remember that girls were way more mature than boys in HS quite well, it was common knowledge and nobody questioned it. They just don't mature as fast.
> But he's also really facile about underlying economic causes. It's easy to blame problems on "our culture has been broken by the wokes!", but many of the problems of young men are not unique to them. Fewer women are entering college, also. Women are dropping out of the workforce, also. More young women are living with their parents, also. Is that because they lacked strong masculine role models?
You're not wrong, but at the risk of drawing an unhelpful analogy, I'll point out that the "all lives matter" response to "black lives matter" missed the point in the same way. Of course the prospects of everyone is important, but describing how young men have distinct and perhaps underappreciated experiences should be a viable conversation that doesn't get bogged down before it really gets going.
I disagree, and here's why: Andrew Yang is ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not just that the concerns I brought up are another factor, it's that they are by far the dominant factor in why young men are dropping out and discontent. At least in my opinion.
To use another analogy: it's like going to the ER for a sucking chest wound and being told you should reduce your cholesterol. They're not wrong, but this is probably not the most pressing concern.
Yes, exactly. This is a recurring problem with Yang... he talks about a lot of subjects, but it's clear that he's barely scratching the surface of the problems he's talking about. My impression is that his way of engaging with a topic evolved on mainstream Twitter, and he's applying those same Twitter-oriented techniques in other avenues.
I didn't really get the sense that he was placing all the blame on "the wokes" as you put it though that is most certainly a factor in my opinion. The data he points out is relative to the state of things for women in most cases and shows that men are falling behind in dramatic ways. I don't think he is necessarily trying to say its the only issue of the day.
He ran on these core issues that the economy is failing the people (read: "A War on Normal People", it's just packed with data about what you're thinking about). This article focuses on one angle, but not doesn't encompass the entire view (which he already spent years campaigning on)
I believe he addresses the root causes more than Bernie. Free college + federal jobs, or rather should we live in a society in where corporations are so productive that people shouldn't just follow a college track + work themselves to death to stay afloat
The politics side of this scares me too. And I don't really have an answer.
Ideas for how we can push for more equality, inclusivity, opportunity, without causing this far-right reaction?
Maybe it's unavoidable since we're often talking about structural change to benefit one group, and the other side feel (wrongly) that for others to have more they have to have less. All lives matter is an example.
The same thing is happening with trans and queer rights (which also tags along with gender roles like this article talks about).
A scary % of people feel under attack or at least a group of politicians is generating/amplifying this for their gain.
I'm about to be a bit facetious but scarily not really, a lot of people truly think that a mob of commies is trying to recruit their kids to be gay/trans and that 'men/boys' (part of the issue here is their understanding of gender) will invade their bathrooms and take over their sports.
This backlash is actually producing legislation to further political agendas and harm kids.
This weeks "Don't say gay" bill in Florida is shocking to me.
Would ban LGBTQ topics in schools. And likely force counselors to out kids to their parents, lest they be sued - the TX trick that is going to be abused on all social issues from now on.
It's like one step forward culturally, two steps back legally.
As with any challenged population, blaming the victim is unfair in the majority of cases, is unproductive in finding solutions, and it creates division where it is unwarranted. But the phrase "positive masculinity" is fraught.
Ease in befriending and reaching real camaraderie with women does not depend on masculinity at all. It depends on seeing others as equals. I sure don't think about masculinity and whether I'm doing it right. What would that do?
I doubt the kind of masculinity advice Jordan Peterson is slinging helps any of the men who listen to him. Instead, they find comfort and self-justification in that advice. It isn't changing their outcomes. It isn't the on-ramp to good relationships. It is the on ramp to the "intellectual dark web" and that will keep your dick dry more reliably than anything.
> Ease in befriending and reaching real camaraderie with women does not depend on masculinity at all. It depends on seeing others as equals.
¿Por qué no los dos? A positive worldview and mindset makes it even easier to see others as equal. The negative 'woke' mindset is hardly conducive to true equality.
> ... Jordan Peterson ...
Jordan Peterson has never thought very well of seeking "comfort and justification". He's the "clean your room and get your ducks lined up instead of blaming the world for your failure" guy. I'm not sure you're familiar with his thought.
I don't understand how the phrase "positive masculinity" is fraught, males tend to seek out male role models which is only natural and these role models should be positive influences, further males should not feel that all male traits are "toxic". I don't know that the article called out Jordan Peterson and if that is your only example of "positive masculinity" than we are probably talking past each other.
But he's also really facile about underlying economic causes. It's easy to blame problems on "our culture has been broken by the wokes!", but many of the problems of young men are not unique to them. Fewer women are entering college, also. Women are dropping out of the workforce, also. More young women are living with their parents, also. Is that because they lacked strong masculine role models?
Or is it because the rising costs of college, housing, healthcare, and living have made the traditional path much less attainable? Absent fathers didn't do that. These are the same patterns you see in any country with a shrinking economy; it's just a shock to Americans who feel they were promised better.
(In summary: Maybe Andrew Yang should spend more time talking to Bernie Sanders)