Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,217
I think there’s something to the artificially leveled playing field of old, as you say. I don’t want to discount the nurture portion of this argument completely, because I think there is something to it.I'm genuinely interested in this perspective. Yes, we do kind of take it for granted that boys mature at a slower pace, but I don't think anyone would agree that there was a disadvantage to boys in schools 20, 30, 40 years ago. We are starting them at the same age now so to me that begs the question of what caused the gap? Do you think it is just that we were holding girls back so much that we were artificially leveling the educational playing field and now that we support girls better they've flourished? I'm totally open to the idea of starting boys later and I'm sure my husband would likely agree. I will reiterate however that he sees the biggest part of the issue in moms of boys right now. They are overwhelming these kids in a not good way with love and protectiveness. Smothering is the word that comes to mind. And the same moms are entirely less overbearing with their girls. It's kind of odd.
That being said, moms being overprotective of their boys, to me, doesn’t feel like it would be driving this crisis of masculinity. Just a hunch on my part, because I’m a son of a mom who was always a bit overbearing, but I did well in school.
Reeves brings up the fact that the vast majority of elementary education teachers are women. Could more male teachers at these levels help? I had one male teacher prior to high school.
Again, I don’t know what’s causing this. I don’t think anyone does yet. Reeves’ book does a good job of letting people know that it’s okay to examine the structures around this. Just because men have enjoyed privilege in certain parts of life and society for a long time doesn’t mean we can’t examine the disparities that are emerging in our modern time.