This is ... just ... so much ...
...retreats into silence...
In my sex ed classes in High School (around 2006/7) we had a wonderful teacher who didn't just focus on STDs, contraception and the like - but discussed what a healthy relationship should entail, and the signs of an unhealthy relationship. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/374526/the-pencilsword-no-i-in-sex They were particularly helpful lessons as rural New Zealand can be a difficult place to develop into an adult. You play rugby? You're a king. You bang the girls and crush tins and you'll be praised for it. "Pressure's on boy, have you rooted her yet?". Everything was a competition and I bought into it wholeheartedly because I wanted to continue to be a part of it all. It was all I knew, and all I cared about - like the above linked comic. Despite the helpfulness - it took me until my early 20s before I started treating women in the right manner (as y'know, actual people) - nearly a decade of sex-having where I saw it as a conquest rather than an experience. Now there's a whole host of young guys at our gym, 16-19 years old. Most starting a new year off, trying to get jacked for the girls. I chat to them about training and we move into life topics, eventually one will ask how I know all the "hot sluts" at the gym. My response is now "Well I don't call them sluts, that's my first bit of advice". The girls at the gym are friendly with me because they know I'm genuine and am actively not trying to sleep with them. I've introduced them to my girlfriend at the gym, I've helped them prepare for powerlifting competitions, practice lifting techniques and so on. My interest is their enjoyment of their sport and feeling comfortable in the gym, as they deserve to feel. Ogling them and referring to them as "hot sluts" is the exact opposite of what I want for them, and should be the opposite of what these young men want as well. I can speak to these boys from experience because I used to do the exact same thing as them. But one-by-one I'm going to get these young men to come around earlier than I did. Anyway it all has to start somewhere. So why not me? Why not now?
This article was not easy to read and I can relate to much of what has been written. Taking into account that these quotes are cherry picked and aim to drive a specific narrative, it doesn't change the existence of the mentioned methods. It changes our perception of their magnitude. It gives the feeling that everything the interviewee mentioned is a correct depiction of the sample of 100 boys she talked to. Which is probably not true. Nevertheless, I can relate to some of what has been said. I grew up between two worlds. The highly toxic masculine Arabic/Muslim town and the less toxic but still problematic German narrative of masculinity. And shit has been hard, no matter where I live. In my Arabic home town I was never the typical macho man. I knew that from early on. But I thought I was sick/wrong/different because everyone around me was behaving in that stereotypical way and I tried to simply fit in. Around halfway through school, I became the social outcast of the school. Including mobbing and beating. It was one of the worst things that happened to me on my teenage life, but it got me away from the people that I wanted to be like, whether I wanted or not. Letting me become whatever other weird being that is more and more influenced by the internet (12 hours a day mmorpgs back then) and less connected to the place I live in. After school I moved to Germany. It was a new start for me and I loved that I was instantly accepted the way I was back then. But, with the passing of years, and multiple oterations of shedding layers. On my quest to understand myself. I realized that the inclusive German society, male or female, was not as inclusive as I thought. It was still expected of the man to be a man, drunk beer, be stubborn, and fix the house. And of the girl to look pretty and act in a certain way. And that expectation came both from males and females. To the point where I felt that every time I was being vulnerable and opening up some cracks in my teenage Armour, I was laughed at. Mainly by my male social circle. So I drifted away from my male connections. The majority of my current friends are females. I also moved towards the hippie/burner/psychedelic scene because somehow people there are more welcoming (but only sometimes). Being vulnerable is very hard for me. Stripping naked is the hardest, and the last time I did that, I was dropped like a hot potato. So I don't know when I am doing it again. But I know that if I ever find a partner, it will be one I can be naked with.
I read this comment 20 hours ago, and it has been on my mind ever since... it bugs me. Being vulnerable is expressing trust. You don't need to be vulnerable with everyone; only with people you trust. Making a poor decision about who you are vulnerable with will lead to you being taken advantage of. The second statement doesn't have to follow the first, if you make better judgements about who you can trust with the keys to your soft insides. Vulnerability usually means being taken advantage of.
Yeah I dunno, man. Orenstein has been useless and counterproductive for a couple decades now. I'm no fan of danah boyd but useless as boyd is, she's an order of magnitude more useful than Orenstein. Orenstein got her start with the argument "women's lives are shit because little girls' lives are shit because men". She wrote an entire book pretending that the '60s, '70s and '80s never happened. Nobody dares criticize this account because we live in an era where trust fund kids can steal Beastie Boys music and it becomes the musicians' fault for interfering in girlSTEM But occasionally someone says "but little boys don't start out evil I love my son" so she pivoted to "boys are being destroyed by toxic masculinity because of their fathers." Don't get me wrong: these are important discussions and there is plenty of useful journalism about it. it's just that Orenstein can't be bothered to read it.
I don't really care to weigh in on whether Orenstein is a valuable source of dialogue, as I haven't read her books and don't really want to do that much research for this comment. The interview I just read talks about pressure from fathers, but it also touches on how boys influence each other. I thought her observation that the boys she interviewed were both part of the problem and bothered by the problem was insightful, and I think she said it in a way that showed sympathy for that dissonance. I dunno man. I'm not disagreeing with you because you didn't really talk about the article at all, but I thought the article has potential as a a good jumping off point for important discussions.
Start with this comment and work your way down. Work your way down allllll the way to the bottom: Here's the fundamental problem with Orenstein and her ilk: "It is a brilliant story—fake and fraud that it is. It would be absurd for me or any other editor to review the authenticity or accuracy of stories that are nominated for prizes." You weren't allowed to go outside as a kid, while I was allowed to drive a thousand miles to Dallas within a year of having my driver's license. The difference between my upbringing and yours was that by the time Jon Walsh was convincing the world that "stranger danger" was the status quo, my friends and I were already sneaking alcohol out of the liquor cabinet. Narratives matter. The intent of narratives matter. And the goal of Orenstein and those who worship Orenstein is not to solve a problem, not to investigate solutions, not to work out coping strategies, but to find a scapegoat. here she is: Thing is though they never fucking have. Sex ed in the United States has always been a rude cartoon of a sketch of a wear a condom just say no slogan. I'm old enough to be your dad and when I read the kids books of my parents it was the exact same fuckin' situation. Go read Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume and know that's teen angst as experienced forty fuckin' years ago. So what's different? We've been puzzling this shit out since 1890. And I mean it doesn't have to be in her wheelhouse? But if what gives you the in is an op-ed piece, tie it to facts. Skenazy did. But you don't know any of this, because what you have is a Vox article that, because you don't know anything around it, you think is "a good jumping off point." Not your fault - let's be clear. My beef isn't with you, it's with Orenstein, those who think like Orenstein, and those who think people like Orenstein should be given full credulous voice. 'cuz that's what killed the Equal Rights Amendment.I dunno man. I'm not disagreeing with you because you didn't really talk about the article at all, but I thought the article has potential as a a good jumping off point for important discussions.
The thing is, nobody’s talking to the boys in their lives. Their parents aren’t talking to them. Most schools aren’t doing any kind of sex education — and if they are, it’s just about risk and danger, contraception and STDs.
I’m in agreement that there is more conversation that needs to take place on this pretty much everywhere. Orenstein did a fantastic or crappy job doesn’t matter. I observe these behaviors in the middle schoolers I teach. This isn’t the largest issue that they face, both boys and girls. It is worth the time it takes to speak with them about it. My school has invested a few bucks in an online socio-emotional learning program that I teach a half hour weekly lesson to my 8th grade math classes. We’ve been building up discussions about our values and how these values can guide us around and through social issues. It’s good stuff. I see the kids recognizing the pressures around them that don’t reflect solid values as honesty, respect, responsibility, perseverance, friendship. I’m confident that my students will have a leg up on students that have not been taught similarly in their lives.
Shouldn't socio-emotional learning be taking place in health class? I'm not trying to rip into you. It's great that kids are interrupting math class to gain some tools for living more grounded lives. This whole conversation and your specific observations on your students and what is being done to help them has left me in shock at what I was taught in highschool health class. Highschool health was very outside of the body. Draw a fire escape plan, don't do drugs and use a condom. Maybe you were unlucky enough to have Mr. Bolton as your health teacher. He was a compulsive lier and a straight up strange fellow. I've learned more about being a good human from my pets. I learned more about being a human in every literature class I've ever taken than I did in highschool health. Health class seems like an incredible wasted opertunity that lacked any practical focus on the totality of what really includes a healthy life. Maybe it's better now a days.
Health class? No ripping, good question. Our middle school doesn’t have the resources for that right now. Some kids do take the high school course in the 8th grade for credit, but not all of them. We settled on math as we have doubled up math and language arts and math courses. For example, I’ve got a second/third hour, fourth/fifth hour, and sixth/seventh hour math classes that are 90 minutes. One 30 minute social-emotional lesson per week barely makes a dent. I find it improves things as math is the most demanding of middle school subjects and my most socially adjusted kids end up in the advanced math courses. They’re the kids that can face setbacks, make goals, and progress toward those goals with success. Mathis patterns and puzzles waiting to be discovered and solved. Kids that see that can move math mountains. A colleague of mine, a PE teacher does teach our high school credit health class. It has evolved way beyond Mr. Bolt-dick’s scare tactics pseudoscience nonsense, like girls can get pregnant through their navel. Kids learn about personal nutrition, health habits, recognizing and managing stressors, goal setting, and psychology basics as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and personal problem resolving strategies. Much better than the old days.
Ours was called "Critical Issues in Modern Living." You didn't have to take it if you took two years of a foreign language. It was quite clearly and obviously intended for the underclass - a patronizing move by the school board to say "my kids are fine but your kids? Yeah, they're the ones we worry about." I was in there because I graduated a semester early to get out of that shithole, which meant I only had a year and a half of a foreign language, which meant I had to take it. In one 45-minute class we covered "how to escape a hotel fire" (always book rooms on the first two floors) and "how not to catch AIDS" (always wear a condom, mmmmmkay). If you were not in "Critical Issues in Modern Living" you got NOTHING. So I get how everyone's all fuckin' horrified at the state of manlymanlyness and our acceptance of vulnerability in this modern era or some shit but FUCKING HELL IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S NEW. I grew up playing "Smear the Queer" and had friends who liked to "beat up fags" for fun (spent a fine Friday evening evading the cops after he smashed up a convenience store while I was in the bathroom - everyone knew exactly who it was but because the convenience store clerk was hispanic no charges were ever filed) and things are SO MUCH BETTER now. But the kids are worse off in an entirely different direction: because so much of their lives are online they aren't learning how to deal with people face to face. And that has been studied at length, and that has the backing of science and journalism, and that is something that has definitely changed for the worse, and that is definitely something with a negative impact on women But because it's Orenstein, we get to wring our hands over "toxic masculinity."
Right? The boys are informed enough to know that they are trapped inside of this system, and that it is actively bad for them (and their partners), but they also know they have to perform according to the expected standard, and not try to improve their lives. The desperation they will feel for the rest of their narrow trapped lives is palpable.
I don't see her in this article at all... she's simply the conduit through which the boy's quotes got to me. I don't intend on reading her interpretation of their words... but the few stories she shared in the interview, and direct quotes from the boys themselves, were enough to hit me hard in the heart.
You're seeing and reacting to the quotes that were cherry-picked to drive home her narrative. It is literally the definition of yellow journalism.
Kids are always in moral peril, boys are always entirely too sexually charged, girls are always entirely too lacking in confidence, media is always to blame and no one is ever thinking of the children Shit changed ridiculously for kids growing up the minute Best Buy had modems for sale. But you can't write a book about children and their interactions with technology without having a clue or two. Wander around interviewing kids to spook their parents? You can change culture without having to justify a thing.
I can't change the community tag to #relationships? Must have pressed it one too many times.
Just disappointed. These articles keep getting written and nothing changes. Apparently nothing can be learned. Her last example, the 14 year old at the party? He was sexually assaulted. He can't even see himself as a victim, because he isn't permitted to be one. My stomach was churning before I read this, why did I do this to myself? Evidently I can't learn either.
I dedicate this one to you, goob. (P.S. If you liked this, then you'll probably like Season 3, Episode 13 of Avatar: the Last Airbender. It's all about how a young, growing man reconciling with how his cultural birthright is founded on channeling all his energy from rage. When all he's tired of living a lifetime fueled on anger, he must find another way to lend his support to his newfound friends in a healthy manner.) The whole article is very pro-'men talking about feelings with other men'. Yes. It's hard even with my brothers right now - who are my best friends - to talk to when I'm down and out about striking out again [and again and again...] on what I think is leading to a Robust Pleasure Source (still love that, OB). The weirdest thing of it all? The most recent feedback that REALLY stuck with me is how assertive I have to be when making plans with a woman. NOTE: Assertive, NOT aggressive. For the people in the back, again, ASSERTIVE NOT AGGRESSIVE. I don't want to say it's 'hard' to act with that distinction - my analogy is how you'd [firmly] tell your dog to sit. It's so easy to misconstrue that ability as the 'dominance, aggression ... and conquest' mentioned in the article. In my opinion, having mastery in assertion over aggression is what makes a 'good man'. 'cause it's so fucking easy to choose anger.... Personal Anecdote regarding 'ideal man' paragraph: So, that one Pubski a while ago where I shared my dating face-plant on bluntly asking the woman (with 0 class) if she was looking for a relationship? One thing she knew of me was my interest in martial arts, and she's asked me more than once to show her some moves or go with her to a local fight rink... she's not trained in any manner. I don't know whether this was one of those 'haha show me your moves ;D' moments, and not interested in finding out. The crazy thought behind that is how it strikes a nerve in the 'male protector archetype' role --slippery slope---> men have to hold it together/suppress it all. :^)Basically, as boys grow up, the only emotion that is validated for them is happiness or anger. The whole bucket of emotions that involves sadness or betrayal or despair gets funneled into anger. One of the things that we can do with little boys is to actually label their feelings and say, “It seems like you’re really sad,” or “That must be very frustrating,” to give them a broader emotional range.
Lots of guys wanted something more connected — or even had it and would talk about their partners with great love and regard — but they tended to see that as more of a personal quirk than an aspect of humanity.
