November 10, 2006


Interesting article here about the problems of boys in education which notes that many of them in the US aren't the problems of men but the problems of men from lower class and ethnic minority backgrounds and very few of them have anything to do with feminist attacks on men.


edmund said...

a very unhelpfull article for one thing it has the suual femnist indiffence to/hatred of science. So for example of course it's working class / relativley underaching boys who have more trou8ble- that is exactly what you would expect. Men's bell curve of Iq is flatter than women so they will be relative stronger the higher up the intelleucal hiarchy and weaker the lower down. Moreover thier dominati of maths is easily explaiend by exhausively resarched diffences in differnt mental skills.

It also doens't look at the evidnce of hte importnace of the prescence of a father figure vs how politicaly correct the father figure is-because they don't like where the evidnce leads.

It completely fails to make its point that somehow its traditioal malliness that is the proboem for boys achievent. Rather it shows that it's the versino of maliness they bump into-but that is preciusely the point of those who worry about family breakdowwn or the attempts to feminize boys- thier biggest point is the like of male role modles or cultual models of maliness means the natural expression of bilogical manliness sentiment is expressed in anti-social, deviant and even crinal ways- rap stars become the eptimone of manliness rathe than father or john wayne ect ect

Gracchi said...

I'm not sure you've got this right. The article essentially posits that male lack of acheivement is down to class- but it doesn't reflect on the IQ point which wouldn't be germaine unless you have a study to prove IQ and class are correlated to a very high degree.

I think your example of maleness is important in one way though not in another. I think you are too harsh on what he says here- the argument is that we need to reconfigure masculinity yes- but that we need to reconfigure it to include ideas such as fatherhood. The old John Wayne figure wasn't exactly an exemplary father nor the rapstar- we need to rethink this away from presenting masculinity as something uncaring and violent.

edmund said...

you don't need to show iq is correlated with class , though it is in any case ( the cause of that is disputed) to make this point

a) if you read her article carefully it picks up on the fact the gap existss at the bottom rathe than the top , now why class correlates with that is a complicated matter but a separate issue- male female diffences can still expalin why there's a big gap at thebotom , no gap a tthe top and a gap in favour of men at the super top

male achiemn is more dispersed than women's in just about all fields- for very good evolutioanry reasons ie this isnt' necessaarily just about IQ

I agree with your point about mascanlity-but the point of even john wayne stuyle figu3s is their mascal8e violcne is as a proteocpor- rap ect represents the achilles style liberation of such norms. the point is men will alwasy have a feeling of masclilt. the problem with dengating provison, fatherhood and husbandhood is that other much more daming modles of mascilty talke over- a substnai secion of men will never abandon mascliltiyk indeed most men to a greater or lesser extent, the "lad" is the product of feminism and it's attempt to smash the more positive old models of mascinility 9and indeed most men's magazines are very femmist in much of thier ideology if you read them). This does not mean the old models were perfect-but does suggest how fooslish smashing them wholesale was-and also that the article misses the point in its babbling about how the problem is mascanltiy is not its denial-it's impossible to supress mascinality the question is what form it takes