US The so-called "boy crisis" isn't real

[ledboots]

Oh, c'mon. Someone's post must have prompted you to post that.

I almost posted it here the other day, but was able to restrain myself.
It is a general statement to the world really. A lot of people irl have been whining nonstop about relatively unimportant things, plus I'm a nurse and hear LOTS of whining at work--some from patients, more from the staff.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Are we going to be following the path that only female observations are valid?

There were many occasions at VB where I would make a statement based on personal experience (or the experience of those I'm close to), and would be told that my personal experience wasn't valid because it couldn't be extrapolated to the population.

It was a joke. See the winkie there?

I was just hoping to give mlp a chuckle, since I have lost the patience needed to keep discussing this here, and she's doing most of the work.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I almost posted it here the other day, but was able to restrain myself.
It is a general statement to the world really. A lot of people irl have been whining nonstop about relatively unimportant things, plus I'm a nurse and hear LOTS of whining at work--some from patients, more from the staff.

I was taught not to whine by my father. Who's a man. So that's one bias revealed.

 

[Freesia]

http://shine.yahoo.com/secrets-to-y...omen-2013-secretary-just-1950s-181400584.html

That used t0 be me, for 10 years anyway.

I HATED IT.

 

[das_nut]

It is entirely true that uncontrolled testoserone driven impulses may be responsible for all the disasters that men bring upon others and upon themselves.

It seems empiricaly true that controlled testorone driven impulses may be exactly what is responsible for male dominance in certain spheres of life though.

I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you.

Biology is only used to explain men's failure to reach parity with women in areas they are underperforming.

It isn't used to explain why men outperform women.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Ok, so are people suggesting that, in reference to the original topic, which is why girls do better in school than boys, it's the testosterone that makes boys stupid? Because early on I was going to quip that the reason girls do better in school than boys is because we don't have penises that divert 80% of the blood flow to the brain, but I was afraid if I did that people would come in here and call me an *******.

 

[mlp]

Ok, so are people suggesting that, in reference to the original topic, which is why girls do better in school than boys, it's the testosterone that makes boys stupid? Because early on I was going to quip that the reason girls do better in school than boys is because we don't have penises that divert 80% of the blood flow to the brain, but I was afraid if I did that people would come in here and call me an *******.

Well, none of the females has suggested that, but a couple of the guys seem to be headed in that direction.

Biology hasn't actually been used to "explain" why anyone is "underperforming", unless you consider having a somewhat lower life expectancy to be "underperforming."

I think someone needs to pass das_nut some vegan cheese to go with his whine.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Well, none of the females has suggested that, but a couple of the guys seem to be headed in that direction.

Biology hasn't actually been used to "explain" why anyone is "underperforming", unless you consider having a somewhat lower life expectancy to be "underperforming."

I think someone needs to pass das_nut some vegan cheese to go with his whine.

Actually I'm pretty grateful for whatever forces keep me underperforming in the area of committing violent assault.

 

[mlp]

Actually I'm pretty grateful for whatever forces keep me underperforming in the area of committing violent assault.

You have a point there - I guess I am too.

I just didn't think that anyone would consider that an area of "underperformance."

 

[Freesia]

Perhaps there could be some biological issue,, maybe boys dont have as good attention spans as girls and are not as good at settling down to focused work. But I dont really have any evidence for this, it is just speculation.

Boys are more likely to have ADD or ADHD and also autism, which can result in attention span problems.
I have had lifelong attention problems so it is very hard to be in desk settings when you are like this.

 

[mlp]

Well, if it were testosterone or attention span problems, it wouldn't just be boys whose families are low income and/or whose fathers don't have college degrees who are affected. It appears to be primarily the message that they're getting at home, and probably the message that they're getting from their fathers that's the decisive factor.

What the studies seem to show is that girls, from whatever background, tend to apply themselves at school, while boys from higher income families and/or whose fathers have college degrees apply themselves.

 

[Freesia]

Weird. I am not sure. My experience of school was mostly drawing pictures all day and twitching unhappily at my desk waiting for the bell, and then just before exams staying up all night to cram the whole terms information into my head prior to the exam, usually getting about 60%.

 

[mlp]

My summary:

Boys get college degrees in lower percentages than girls do, but earn more than girls ----> not a boy crisis
Boys get college degrees in lower percentages than girls do, but earn equally with girls ----> not a boy crisis
Boys get college degrees in the same percentages as girls do, and earn less than girls ----> of concern, but not to the level of crisis, because the discrepancy in earnings can be explained by the discrepancy in education, so we need to encourage boys.
Boys get college degrees in higher percentages than girls do, but earn less than girls ----> boy crisis

Oops - that last one is the position girls find themselves in today. Why oh why are the people who are up in arms over the "boy crisis" not instead up in arms about this?

 

[Clueless Git]

It was a joke. See the winkie there?

I was just hoping to give mlp a chuckle, since I have lost the patience needed to keep discussing this here, and she's doing most of the work.

Oh, I see!

Now that I've seen your winkie I suppose it would only be polite to show you mine?

Actually I'm pretty grateful for whatever forces keep me underperforming in the area of committing violent assault.

If there is a God then she's a b'stard Pickle.

Both genders seem to have been giving their respective blessings but always mixed with a curse?

 

[Clueless Git]

I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you.

Biology is only used to explain men's failure to reach parity with women in areas they are underperforming.

It isn't used to explain why men outperform women.

FortyTwo covered that earlier Das.

Biology isn't used to explain success because that makes people uncomfortable.

At the level that it is a gross unfairness of birth it makes me uncomfortable too.

 

[Clueless Git]

Why oh why are the people who are up in arms over the "boy crisis" not instead up in arms about this?

Take up arms?

A 'war' against testoserone?

How would that work?

 

[Clueless Git]

Perhaps there could be some biological issue, maybe boys dont have as good attention spans as girls and are not as good at settling down to focused work. But I dont really have any evidence for this, it is just speculation.

The evidence (with exceptions on both sides to the general rule) is consistently superior academic acheivement by females over the last 100 years.

Part of the evidence (that there is a biological factor in play) is that 100 years ago the system would have been set up by males for males.

I wonder if this was the reason for gender segregated education. That it was not (still is not?) possible to set up a decent 'level playing feild' academic system that females would not outperform males within.

Well, if it were testosterone or attention span problems, it wouldn't just be boys whose families are low income and/or whose fathers don't have college degrees who are affected. It appears to be primarily the message that they're getting at home, and probably the message that they're getting from their fathers that's the decisive factor.

What the studies seem to show is that girls, from whatever background, tend to apply themselves at school, while boys from higher income families and/or whose fathers have college degrees apply themselves.

Socio-economic factor may be explained thusly;

Parents of higher socio-economic status have learned, and teach their sons, when to let the testoserone run rampant and when to reign it in.

Fathers would, for obvious reasons, have more direct experience than females in juggling the problems/benefits of being testoserone fueled. Also, at a certain age, boys (and Elephants) have a tendency to take their lead from adult males.

Fathers of higher socio-economic status may also be more likely to be the property of women with higher skills in controlling their testoserone fueled 'goods and chattles' too.

 

[beancounter]

My summary:

Boys get college degrees in lower percentages than girls do, but earn more than girls ----> not a boy crisis

I think this could be a matter of timing. Or put another way, a leading indicator. Because in the past, more boys received a college education, those that are still in the workforce are keeping the boy average earnings high relative to girls.

If the trend of girls going to college at a greater rate than boys continues for say another generation or two, (as the "old school" boys retire from the workforce), we could be seeing boys start to earn less than girls.

But again, we have to be cafeful to compare apples to apples, because a college educated girl is obviously going to earn more than a boy without a college degree.

And I still say the wage gap has to do with (historically) chosen professions. I chose the accounting career, my wife a secretary career. Accountants get paid more than secretaries . There's the gap. The national average doesn't adjust for profession, education, years of experience or level (e.g. staff vs. mgr).

 

[das_nut]

I didn't realize that so many people were so uninformed about female/male biological differences as they relate to longevity.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-life-expectancy-lo

You should read the article in its entirety.

You're quoting speculation: Men dying sooner than women makes sense biologically: because 105 males are born for every 100 females, it would assure that there are about the same number of men and women at reproductive ages. But even though women showed a longer life expectancy in almost every human society in the last decade of the 20th century, the size of the advantage varied greatly.

What's a major killer of younger men in traditional societies? Violence. (Which may be why many traditional societies have polygyny - less men around then women, and when your retirement plan is your children, there's an incentive for women to have children.)

What about our society? Luckily, we have retirement. But lets look at violence: For the 20-35 age range, the 2nd and 3rd leading causes of death for men are homicide and suicide. Suicide stays in the top five until the age of 55.

For women, homicide and suicide are the 2nd and 3rd leading causes of death for the 20-24 age range (but at a percentage that's less then men - the reverse of what we should expect if men's innate biology was causing them to die earlier). Suicide and homicide drops to 4th and 5th in the 25-34 age range, suicide sticks around for the 35-44 age range in the top five, but homicide drops off the list, and both are gone from the top five after age of 45.

My summary:

Boys get college degrees in lower percentages than girls do, but earn more than girls ----> not a boy crisis
Boys get college degrees in lower percentages than girls do, but earn equally with girls ----> not a boy crisis
Boys get college degrees in the same percentages as girls do, and earn less than girls ----> of concern, but not to the level of crisis, because the discrepancy in earnings can be explained by the discrepancy in education, so we need to encourage boys.
Boys get college degrees in higher percentages than girls do, but earn less than girls ----> boy crisis

Oops - that last one is the position girls find themselves in today. Why oh why are the people who are up in arms over the "boy crisis" not instead up in arms about this?

Actually, 20-something women are outearning men.

Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data crunched by the New York research firm Reach Advisors and released Wednesday. The women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight. The disparity is greatest in Atlanta, where young, childless single women earn 21% more than male counterparts.

It's when traditional gender roles kick into play (marriage and family) that women start to underperform men. Which, of course, is why I advocate for policies that treat both parents equally, regardless of gender, even though suggesting such policies seems to be unpopular with the peanut gallery here.

FortyTwo covered that earlier Das.

Biology isn't used to explain success because that makes people uncomfortable.

At the level that it is a gross unfairness of birth it makes me uncomfortable too.

For the most part, I think we tend to credit biology with far too much behavior. In the past, such biological explanations of behavior have not stood the test of time.

 

[FortyTwo]

FortyTwo covered that earlier Das.

Biology isn't used to explain success because that makes people uncomfortable.

At the level that it is a gross unfairness of birth it makes me uncomfortable too.

It was a joke. I didn't know people who thought the way about women that they have demonstrated in this thread (and elsewhere) would have the capacity to consider evolution as something possible.