What Is Causing Men To Fall Behind Women?

[Storm Rider]

A couple of things I didn't understand.

 

The second study you sited indicated that as far as test scores go, boys were showing mastery of the skills they were getting bad grades for.  The next study you sited indicated that standardized tests were worsening the academic downfall of boys. 

 

Those two findings seem contradictory.

 

Also, is the school day longer than it used to be?  One of the studies stated that making boys sit still for 6-7 hours a day is part of the reason they don't do well in school.  This makes me wonder, was that not required of them in the 50's, for example?   Did boys NOT have to sit still and be quiet then for 6-7 hours a day? 

 

And one more thing, most schools have been co-ed for decades (or longer).  Does history agree that co-ed schools are more beneficial to girls than boys?  Historically, have boys always suffered in co-ed school environments?

 

I don't personally believe that history supports that assertion, given that this new 'girls are doing better than boys and it's ruining men', attitude seems to be fairly new, while co-ed schools seem to be fairly old, but as I've never studied the subject I would love to understand the relationship better.

 

As a mother of sons (no daughters) I'm very invested in how current education trends affect boys. Personally, I think it is our current societal culture, where men are shown to be idiotic buffoons which women have to suffer through and keep the family going in spite of rather than in partnership with, as well as the huge amount of absentee fathers and lack of positive male role models, and not elementary teaching models, that are causing most of the damage. 

 

But I'm not going to lament the strides that girls have achieved, especially considering it's been an all uphill battle for women, and men have been, generally speaking, a privileged class for millennia.

I only have time to address one point. In the 50s and 60s, the school day was broken up with opportunities for each student to be active. They were not obligated to stay seated all day long. This kind of environment seems to suit more girls than boys.

The studies speak for themselves. The educational experience has changed and girls have become the focus. It is not that boys have suddenly become stupid, it is that the educational environment is hostile to them and their needs. For those with boys, it is strongly recommended to closely watch who is teaching their boys and how aware they are of the differences between boys and girls. More importantly, how they plan on meeting the needs of these boys. Ritalin is not the answer.

[sunstoned]

What a shame that women finally moving toward their potential isn't seen as something to celebrate.

 

I can't agree more.  This is something that should be looked at as very positive trend. It is a signal in part that our society is maturing.  That old stereotypes and barriers to gender equity are being overcome.

[Storm Rider]

A couple of things I didn't understand.

 

The second study you sited indicated that as far as test scores go, boys were showing mastery of the skills they were getting bad grades for.  The next study you sited indicated that standardized tests were worsening the academic downfall of boys. 

 

Those two findings seem contradictory.

 

I understood from the two articles is that early on there is not a difference in standardized testing. The third study was not clear, but I suspect that as boys continue to go through our current hostile system they evolve from keeping up to giving up and this results in progressively lower test scores the older they get.  In this understanding there is not a contradiction. 

 

Working in a system where there is blatant bias toward girls and consistently being graded lower results in a challenging educational experience.  Some boys do well regardless of the challenges, but it would appear that there is a significant percentage of boys that fail in this system.

[Storm Rider]

did they bother to test for this or just ignored it? If the latter, how can one conclude it has not as much effect?

 

From what I read it does not appear that the gender of teachers was taken into account. Are you alleging the results would be different if all the teachers were male?

[Tacenda]

I only have time to address one point. In the 50s and 60s, the school day was broken up with opportunities for each student to be active. They were not obligated to stay seated all day long. This kind of environment seems to suit more girls than boys.

The studies speak for themselves. The educational experience has changed and girls have become the focus. It is not that boys have suddenly become stupid, it is that the educational environment is hostile to them and their needs. For those with boys, it is strongly recommended to closely watch who is teaching their boys and how aware they are of the differences between boys and girls. More importantly, how they plan on meeting the needs of these boys. Ritalin is not the answer.

I regularly sub teach in the classrooms. They are constantly moving. One typical day is computers like Successmaker, two recesses, prep time which would be 1 of 4, Art, Music, PE & Computers. They are constantly moving, add in many assemblies, some fire/earthquake, and now intruder danger (not sure what it's called) drills. And teachers usually set up a corner with a rug and pillows near bookshelves that they can go to after their assignment is finished. In all the years of subbing, I honestly have never seen any boys taking Ritalin, though they would probably take it at home. In some classes they sit on big exercise balls instead if chairs, maybe to help sore bums, don't know. And many schools rotate to different teachers for different subjects.

[Storm Rider]

I regularly sub teach in the classrooms. They are constantly moving. One typical day is computers like Successmaker, two recesses, prep time which would be 1 of 4, Art, Music, PE & Computers. They are constantly moving, add in many assemblies, some fire/earthquake, and now intruder danger (not sure what it's called) drills. And teachers usually set up a corner with a rug and pillows near bookshelves that they can go to after their assignment is finished. In all the years of subbing, I honestly have never seen any boys taking Ritalin, though they would probably take it at home. In some classes they sit on big exercise balls instead if chairs, maybe to help sore bums, don't know. And many schools rotate to different teachers for different subjects.

 

When I read the results of studies I think it is unwise to assume that everything they say is true. More importantly, it is unwise to assume that their findings are absolute. They studies are about the results for some boys and not all boys. Some boys do well in the current system. In addition, not every school system is identical or has the same programs.

 

I appreciated the one reporter, I think it was the Huffington Post article, where she talked about her daughter being perfectly happy to sit in one location and read to herself while she moved about the house cleaning. Though not a mother of sons, she remembered her brothers that needed an entire basement to play trucks or similar activities. Boys need space and they need to move. Too many school systems do not have PE or have significantly cut back on physical exercise as part of the school day. The studies address how these types of things have a significantly greater probability of badly affecting boys than girls.

 

Your school system may be ideal. The only thing to do is look at the performance of boys to girls in your system. Like I said in another post, we took our son out of a school because of bias (that was some 20 years ago).  We do what we must to allow our children to learn.

[AndyDnom]

Simple. The LDS church is the only group that has official sanctions against casual porn users. Men are way more likely to engage in casual porn use.

 

The #1 stigma in LDS culture is porn use, and one group is like 100x more likely to do it, and you wonder why they fall behind?

[AndyDnom]

As far as the larger world, modern tech has made a society where men's strengths ( Agression, physical exertion, etc) are now weaknesses, and women's strengths (ability to sit still, etc) tailor to the new reality.

 

If I ever have kids, I'm really hoping for girls. they will be much better off in today's world.

[BlueDreams]

When I read the results of studies I think it is unwise to assume that everything they say is true. More importantly, it is unwise to assume that their findings are absolute. They studies are about the results for some boys and not all boys. Some boys do well in the current system. In addition, not every school system is identical or has the same programs.

 

I appreciated the one reporter, I think it was the Huffington Post article, where she talked about her daughter being perfectly happy to sit in one location and read to herself while she moved about the house cleaning. Though not a mother of sons, she remembered her brothers that needed an entire basement to play trucks or similar activities. Boys need space and they need to move. Too many school systems do not have PE or have significantly cut back on physical exercise as part of the school day. The studies address how these types of things have a significantly greater probability of badly affecting boys than girls.

 

Your school system may be ideal. The only thing to do is look at the performance of boys to girls in your system. Like I said in another post, we took our son out of a school because of bias (that was some 20 years ago).  We do what we must to allow our children to learn.

 

 

So I've been reading quietly this entire thread and to be quite frank, I'm just not buying this line of thought. I grew up in a household of 6 boys ranging now from 23-3.5 (not including myself as oldest). Plus two more brothers on my bio-dad's side. Most of them are doing just fine. Many of my bro's took or are taking honors courses, the one goes to seminary, one is an art major and is planning on a mission, and they've all attended good schools, etc. And these are about as stereotypical boys as you can get: Football/basketball playing, rambunctious, brawling sorts, who love their video games. One of them is not doing well, he's stagnant, had a semester of college then had to drop out, is now stuck working retail, and inactive with church. What's the difference? Supportive male figures and family structure. It had almost nothing to do with the education (they've all gone to the same schools for the most part) and everything to do with the fact that he was floundering and there was little there to support and buoy him up that was positive where he needed it the most: the home. I was a buffer for a while....till I went to school and then his grades tanked.

 

Frankly I feel the emphasis your putting on the structure of the education system (though I won't say there aren't issues with it and that it could use a major face lift) is excessive. Think of it this way. If your little boy went and had that teacher 20+ yrs ago (p.s., I've never known a teacher who would state that....and I've gone through a ton of them). In the end I'd bank on him being just fine. It was one teacher for one year. He had two very supportive and good parents to broker her silly ideals, and I wouldn't doubt for a minute he would have still succeeded. But more and more children simply don't have that. They have single family households where (usually mother's) time is short due to needing to make the bills or blended family households, that have their own list of complicated relationships.  Often they can have a little bit of both (like my own) which the more the household changes the less stable the environment is for the kid. Households that have both parents, may have both parents working tons of hours outside the home (meaning less time for kid.....P.S. I'm not advocating that all should be stay at home moms either). And the groups that are most likely to have these environments (lower income and certain minority groups) also have the more imbalanced ratios of guys to girls succeeding in school. 

 

Frankly, all I see is basic stereotypes of how boys and girls act and how somehow a system that has catered to boys for centuries has suddenly flipped in the last 30 yrs to amazingly entirely cater to girls giving dudes the shaft, like some end-game scenario....and all of this based on a short measure of broad statistics in academic achievements, with little breakdown beyond that or controls on income, household demographics, or ethnicity, etc. It's about as persuasive to me as The Bell Curve is on exploring race and intelligence through IQ scores. All I see are incomplete synapses of stats and thus understanding them is just as equally short, heavily filtered on our own biases of what we've seen and expect to see through the data. And that's just not enough, not even close. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 16, 2013 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

It is a complex problem that's for sure. So I'll try to boil it down to a few main factors.

 

1. Men generally are more spatially oriented than women. Essentially this means that men are generally better at math than women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909401/

2. Women generally are more verbally oriented than men. So generally women have different communication skills than men.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/jakabovics/mf2.html

 

3. Men are more goal oriented, and women are more process oriented.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-ways-men-women-comminucate-differently.htm

 

4. Men are generally bigger in size than women. This means that men must be more physically active than women. As our society has changed from one of the need for physical strength to one of more mental strength the divisions of labor by sex become less pronounced.

 

All these really mean is that we need to find better ways to incorporate men, particularly young men, into socially accepted activities. While not lessening our commitment to women, particularly young women. To put it in a Gospel perspective Heaven isn't our ultimate goal, but Eternal Progession with God.

[Storm Rider]

BD, I personally am not saying, rather I am repeating the findings of some very significant studies. I doubt any study, regardless of how large the study group, is all inclusive of all reasons for a given problem.

Single parent homes are an issue, but that would impact all children rather than a single gender.

There is a number of books that address the problem of what has happened to boys in education. It is beyond dispute that there is a problem and there are reasons for this new development for boys. We can dispute what are the most relevant problems, but the studies should speak louder than our opinions.

It would be worthwhile to read a few of the experts books on the topic. There is a lot of ongoing research also.

[Questing Beast]

Simple. The LDS church is the only group that has official sanctions against casual porn users. Men are way more likely to engage in casual porn use.

 

The #1 stigma in LDS culture is porn use, and one group is like 100x more likely to do it, and you wonder why they fall behind?

In grade/elementary school??? Biology hasn't kicked in yet, so boys are not interested at all. What a weird post!...

[Storm Rider]

In grade/elementary school??? Biology hasn't kicked in yet, so boys are not interested at all. What a weird post!...

I think we have someone with wee brain saddled with an axe to grind incapable of determining any degree of applicability.

 

You are out of the thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I will give you one reason for why men are falling behind. Feminisim and the feminist movements. There you go.

[bluebell]

I will give you one reason for why men are falling behind. Feminisim and the feminist movements. There you go.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Because, for example, a person could logically say, there is only one reason that women have the right to vote:  Feminism and the feminist movement.  

 

Given that that statement is valid and true, any statement which implies 'feminism and the feminist movements' are negative could logically be interpreted to be saying that women having the right to vote is a negative thing.

 

And since I don't believe that women being able to vote is negative, that could lead me to believe that you are actually sexist for saying such a thing.  Which means that if you aren't sexist and all that, it would be a shame for me to interpret your words to be saying that.

 

Therefore, I need to understand how you are using the terms 'feminism' and 'feminist movements' before I can understand what you mean and comment on it.

[bluebell]

In grade/elementary school??? Biology hasn't kicked in yet, so boys are not interested at all. What a weird post!...

 

This is not true.

 

I have children in elementary school, and they have told me about other children having porn on their phones and such.  Statistically, I believe that the average boy is exposed to porn at age 9 (that's the third grade, generally).

 

I don't have a comment on Andy Dnom's assertions, but as for children and porn, waiting until middle school to worry about it is a few years to late in many cases.

[Storm Rider]

Can you elaborate?

 

Because, for example, a person could logically say, there is only one reason that women have the right to vote:  Feminism and the feminist movement.  

 

Given that that statement is valid and true, any statement which implies 'feminism and the feminist movements' are negative could logically be interpreted to be saying that women having the right to vote is a negative thing.

 

And since I don't believe that women being able to vote is negative, that could lead me to believe that you are actually sexist for saying such a thing.  Which means that if you aren't sexist and all that, it would be a shame for me to interpret your words to be saying that.

 

Therefore, I need to understand how you are using the terms 'feminism' and 'feminist movements' before I can understand what you mean and comment on it.

Are you proposing that the feminist movement has had no negative impacts on society? There is a large body of evidence that indicates there was a dark side to this benevolent movement that single-handed lay brought about women's right to vote.

[bluebell]

Are you proposing that the feminist movement has had no negative impacts on society? There is a large body of evidence that indicates there was a dark side to this benevolent movement that single-handed lay brought about women's right to vote.

 

I don't believe there was only one feminist movement, and no, I'm not implying that some had no negative impacts upon society.

[AndyDnom]

In grade/elementary school??? Biology hasn't kicked in yet, so boys are not interested at all. What a weird post!...

 

I clearly split my posts up into two parts. The OP asked two questions. #1 why are men falling behind in the bigger world, #2 why are more women active. I answered both in separate posts. #1 - Due to modern tech and a different need for skill sets. It is no longer a big need to have someone that can hunt a saber tooth tiger. But we do need people to be dental hygenists, Provide Elder care.

 

#2 - The LDS church is the only organization I know of that has consequences imposed on its members who admit to occasional or casual pornography usage. I don't know of other places that will punish a man publicly if he says that in the past he looked at playboy or maxim or whatever. But in the LDS church this can lead to not going on a mission, having people see you not take the sacrament, losing your calling, not being able to say a prayer, etc.  I have a friend that just married the daughter of a general authority. A year before he got engaged, he told the girl that he had occassionaly looked at softcore porn (maxim, SI swimsuit, playboy, etc.) She told him she would not marry him til he enrolled in the mormon 12 step program for porn addiction. It is the only such program that I know exists. Meaning, a program that teaches that porn addiction is a thing that exists outside of real world consequences. The rest of the medical world would only recognize a porn addiction if it was interefering with your life in significant ways. If you are bankrupt, not working, not sleeping, losing your relationships, because your whole life is sex.

 

I believe that #2 is sufficient enough to account for why more men are inactive than women, despite men getting the priesthood. It's not an axe to grind. I'm a member with a temple recommend, and when I was dealing with bishops and repentance, my preferred DOC was always marijuana, not porn, FWIW.

[AndyDnom]

I think we have someone with wee brain saddled with an axe to grind incapable of determining any degree of applicability.

 

Why would you say I have a small brain? You don't know me , and it seems like a jerk thing to say.

 

I've only been on this board a few days, but it seems that people aren't very nice. Almost everything I say gets attacked at a personal level, rather than the issue. And I wasn't even allowed to join the board the first time, because someone didn't like what I said on another board.

[Storm Rider]

Why would you say I have a small brain? You don't know me , and it seems like a jerk thing to say.

 

I've only been on this board a few days, but it seems that people aren't very nice. Almost everything I say gets attacked at a personal level, rather than the issue. And I wasn't even allowed to join the board the first time, because someone didn't like what I said on another board.

Please go back to your comment and explain its validity to the topic.

 

You are out of the thread.

[AndyDnom]

Please go back to your comment and explain its validity to the topic.

 

You are out of the thread.

 

Sorry I don't understand the rules, and as I said before, I am new. The person I was quoting said I have a small brain. Can i not respond to that?

 

Make a post report for name calling and the offender will usually be blocked from posting in the thread again.  There is a post report button at the bottom right,  please do not derail the thread by responding to taunts. 

[AndyDnom]

The Op said: "approximately 60% of LDS now are women and the gender gap in membership is growing"

 

I believe this is due to the LDS policies on pornography.

 

Do not mistake this as me being pro-porn. I believe that viewing pornography is terrible for the developing brain, and I wish that it was possible to make it so children are never exposed to it.

[bluebell]

Sorry I don't understand the rules, and as I said before, I am new. The person I was quoting said I have a small brain. Can i not respond to that?

I believe the Mods were saying that stormrider is out of the thread.

[cursor]

On Friday I was listening to an interesting radio show on KUER about how women now lead men in many significant categories.  Women now lead men in percentage of high school graduates and college graduates. Women doctors and lawyers will soon outnumber men around the year 2017. The radio show was called "The End of Men".  I know, it sounds harsh. Here it is: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/end-men-1

 

If recent statistics can be believed, approximately 60% of LDS now are women and the gender gap in membership is growing.  What do these shifting dynamics mean for LDS women? Women's traditional roles? Why are men falling behind? Are we as women and mothers failing them? What can be done to help LDS men? 

 

Thoughts?

 

1."Significant categories," as per who's evaluation/

2. "Women doctors and lawyers will soon outnumber men around the year 2017." So freakin' what. How, exactly, is that at all an issue? Who cares what the gender balance of the specific societal responsibility is? What is the difference in terms of societal needs between "doctors & lawyers", mechanics, mechanical technicians, digital technicians, or ... whatever (hell, or car salesmen/women)? Are proficient mechanics any less useful to society than "doctors or lawyers." I'll guaranty that more of the former are required than the later (as long as folks take personal responsibility for their heath). 

 

Potential real societal solutions are much more varied than most stogie folk can imagine.