No way to raise a boy

[fgoodwin]

No way to raise a boy

 

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/no_way_to_raise_a_boy/

http://tinyurl.com/32y9he

 

Kevin Ryan | Friday, 3 August 2007

Do boys have to be bored, fat and dumber than their sisters?

The first in a series about educating boys today.

 

A ten year old boy, whom I watch with an eagles eye, is reading The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden. The book is teaching him how to play poker, build a go-cart from scratch, how to fold a paper glider so that it really flies, to makes a paper water bomb and much, much more. He has found his Holy Grail. Wedged in between the books black arts are spirited short essays on heroic battles, good manners and, yes, girls. Be forewarned, gentle reader, this book is definitely not politically correct, and worse, it could turn around a boys life.

 

The 10-year-old I have in my sights is a busy home-schooler whose days and heart are torn between pitching in the town baseball league and his beloved violin. While a leader on the ball field and popular with his mates, I have to admit, he is sort of "out-of-it." When the talk moves from the ballgame to video games, the kid is a wash-out. When the conversations moves on to television, as it does regularly(television and movies being the lingua franca of boys from six to that ever-moving outer boundary of adolescence), the boy is a dunce. He thinks "24" is the definition of a day. He wouldnt recognise Paris Hilton if she tried to run him over. Hes focused on learning how to step into a pitch and to do something with his violin that I dont comprehend.

 

He is clearly out of step with modern boydom. But how and when things changed for boys is hard for me to pin down. Somewhere not too long ago, boys went indoors. When they dont have their eyes glued to some screen, whether computer, TV, movie or even, yes, cell phone, they are shuffling along alone or in sullen groups at the mall. Building tree huts and shooting at squirrels with beebee guns lost out big time to the latest version of Xbox and the newest action-adventure fantasy at the Cinaplex.

 

And they look so bored! How can a 12-year-old boy be that bored unless he has been made so passive with canned pleasure that he doesnt know what else to do. He has never learned to do anything other than turn on his toys. He doesnt have the reading habit because DVDs are easier. He doesnt play outside in the neighbourhood. First, the other guys arent there. They are indoors and are stuck to their own screens. Second, he and his peers parents are convinced that if he is outside, hell be kidnapped, beaten up by bullies or meet a recruiter from the North American Man Boy Love Association.

 

Our modern boy doesnt get much exercise which you can tell from his rounded shoulders and the baby fat which he should have been shed years earlier. But how could he. He is driven or bussed to school for safety reasons. When he gets exercise it is part of an adult-saturated, over-organised sports world where physical contact between boys is only allowed when they are covered head-to-toe with enough protective gear to make movement barely possible. Arguments about whether a referee [yes, of course, they have to have referees] made the correct call is strictly verboten. A scuffle with another player could get him banned from the league and his anxious parents in the grandstands would be forced to live in infamy.

 

Other than manipulate the "on" and "off" switches, the volume controls and a few other knobs, modern boy doesnt know how to do much. He has never had to do much and the men in his life have conveniently disappeared or are too busy with their work or their own pleasures that they have never taught him to do anything. He doesnt know how to wash a car, saw wood, hammer a nail, trim a hedge, weed a garden [let alone raise a vegetable garden], bait a rat trap, or repair a punctured bike tire. Maybe with sufficient nagging, he can make his bed [sort of], take the dishes out of the dishwasher and put out the garbage, chores that in another day would have been the province of his sister.

 

Then there is school. In recent decades, no part of society has become more feminised, more boy-unfriendly. First of all, for young boys to sit quietly in desk seats for six or seven hours a day has long been contrary to the laws of nature. However, in the past, children walked to school in the morning, walked or run home for lunch and did the same at 3:00, only to get their ball and glove and work off the pent-up energy from the school day.

 

Second, there are fewer and fewer male teachers. The principalship, once the province of men, is now more and more the province of the fairer sex. Those male teachers that are left live in fear of intimacy or even putting a hand on a boys shoulder, lest they become a tort lawyers meal ticket.

 

Third, the academic ante has been raised in our schools. The stakes are higher and there is more and more pressure to get the children ready to compete in the global economy. That can be translated into students becoming more and more skilled at the manipulation of symbols, tasks at which our boys are not genetically endowed and, thus, are falling behind.

 

Most educators are scratching their heads at what is now called the "crisis of boys." On the other hand, girls are doing well. They outshine boys in all aspects of the symbol-driven world we live in. They get better grades and have higher aspirations. Girls outnumber boys in Advance Placement programs, in most math and science courses and in all extracurricular activities except sports. In 2006, girls represented 58 per cent of the student bodies at US colleges and universities.

 

It is little wonder that junior is in a funk. He is not living according to his nature, and while he may not know it, he can feel it. Somehow we have changed the way we live and while there appear to be many benefits, the way we are living is having disastrous effects on our boys. Given all the other crises facing the world, getting excited and making serous changes in how we raise our boys may not vault to the top of our collective priority list. But think about it. A nation without men, with only pleasure-saturated, spineless screen-watchers is a truly frightening prospect.

 

Kevin Ryan founded the Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character at Boston University, where he is professor emeritus. He has written and edited 20 books. He has appeared recently on CBS's "This Morning", ABC's "Good Morning America", "The OReilly Factor", CNN and the Public Broadcasting System speaking on character education. He can be reached at kryan@bu.edu

[packsaddle]

I could well argue that this outcome is, in fact, a logical and predictable outcome resulting from a male-dominate past and, for the time-being, present. In this sense, those lazy, tube-watching, bloated pustules of junk food are expressing precisely their nature...they are the pinnacle of maleness. Have I offended anyone yet?

 

I for one am glad to see more women as school principals because it usually accompanies greater ambition, drive, and competence. And it usually makes a better overall school. So much for my bias...heh, heh.

And from my vantage, near the end of the educational process, I'm delighted to see women take a commanding lead in nearly all aspects of academics (except engineering, if you call that an academic exercise). Women are brighter, quicker, more willing to explore alternatives, they have greater sense of direction and initiative, and they are less likely to engage in counterproductive or dangerous social activities. In short, for a mentor whose time is precious, women are a surer bet for successful degree completion. And when this mentor eventually gets replaced by a talented young woman, I will be quite secure in the knowledge that she will be even better than I was.

 

That said, I am also reminded that the Y-chromosome only has about 27 of its original 1000 or so genes left and it is slowly shrinking. The clock may be ticking on maleness. Tough luck guys.

So go ahead guys, sit on the couch eating potato chips and watching TV. Go ahead and let your minds as well as your cojones shrivel away. The time is bearing down on you like a locomotive and you're frozen in stunned stupification by the glare of those video screens. You're on the edge of superfluity, maybe even over it already, and deservedly so. Bye, bye.

[fgoodwin]

Don't hold back, packsaddle -- tell us what you REALLY think!

[Aquila]

Our public school system is geared for girls. Any parent with both genders knows they are vastly different from the time they're in the womb. It's one reason Scouts is so important; because it lets boys be boys.

 

We have The Dangerous Book. It's a little mild, but a good introduction to various topics. It's a lot less "dangerous" than our old chemistry sets used to be ;-).

[scoutingagain]

Pack,

 

I will agree with your observations completely with one exception that I will get to.

 

In my position a tend to work with a fair number of young professionals, mostly engineers and scientists. The ratio is about 50/50 with respect to gender and Pack's observations about women in college also tend to carry over into their professional lives. Except, if I need a decision. Someone who can make a call based on limited information, now, I mean right now, without time to research the thing to death. More often than not, it's one of those young males, who have spent countless hours infront of those games that seem to have the ability to do that. Do they make the right decision all the time? No, but they are willing to make it and are correct in their assessments of a situation and what to do about it much more often than not.

 

Don't ask me why. It's just something I observe in the young folks that I run into.

 

SA

 

 

[fgoodwin]

Here are a few choice quotes from packsaddle's post:those lazy, tube-watching, bloated pustules of junk food are expressing precisely their nature

 

I for one am glad to see more women as school principals because it usually accompanies greater ambition, drive, and competence.

 

I am also reminded that the Y-chromosome only has about 27 of its original 1000 or so genes left and it is slowly shrinking. The clock may be ticking on maleness. Tough luck guys.

 

You're on the edge of superfluity, maybe even over it already, and deservedly so. Bye, bye.Now dictionary.com defines misandry as the hatred of males or men, and a misandrist as one who hates men

 

Does the shoe fit?

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, you couldn't hear me chuckling the whole time, could you? No, if I hated males I wouldn't work with them as a volunteer. On the contrary, I deeply sympathize with the boys as I remember well my own mistakes and stumbles.

 

I stand by my observations of women and their growing dominance in academia. I like women. I don't apologize for it.

 

Heh, heh, the junk food quote was a logical explanation of one of the observations in the original post. I merely posed it as one possibility. But it was a good shot, wasn't it?

 

The Y-chromosome thing is well-known in biology and has been for quite some time. I merely described the current state of our knowledge.

 

On the other hand, I have contempt for sloth, ignorance, wanton waste, and a few other characteristics that you might have detected in my original post. In as much as some males seem to embrace these with pride, I direct my comments at them.

 

The last statement was almost a lament. I'm actually sorry (for the women if nothing else) if it is true. But men, through their past dominance have largely been in control of their fate. If this path is our choice, so be it. Like I said, tough luck.

 

Edited part: I guess I know the answer to my first question now, heh, heh. If Fred is the only one, maybe I need to try harder next time.

And I really do hate television, at least when it becomes a dominant fixture in our lives.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Ohio_Scouter]

Dont' worry, Fred's not the only one.

[fgoodwin]

Well since you brought it up (and since the thought occurred to me), let me ask: why DO you volunteer in an organization whose purpose is to raise boys to become the men you hate so much?

[packsaddle]

YOU are presuming a fact that is not in evidence.

I don''t hate men, you just think I do. I actually like most people...trying to think of someone I hate...and failing just now. Oops, just thought of a couple...but not very many.

 

But I truly AM critical of the characteristics that I see in some men, characteristics that seem to be culturally inherited in some male offspring.

So to answer your flawed question, I volunteer because I enjoy what I do. Isn''t that why nearly everyone volunteers for something? Enjoyment...for sake of mere pleasure, or recognition, or self-satisfaction, or something?

I enjoy watching the boys learn and grow. I enjoy confronting them with opportunities that they might not have otherwise and observing their responses. I enjoy confronting them with questions that cause them to think about their prejudices and their fundamental assumptions. I enjoy getting them off their sedentary, diabetes-incipient patooties and outside where they can exercise their minds and imaginations as well as convert some of that adipose tissue into muscle. So far, they enjoy it too. And, who knows, maybe someday they''ll be able to compete effectively with the girls in academics.

Have I answered your question?

[Gonzo1]

Pack is a good guy, not a man hater.

 

The way I see it, as a professor of biology, Packsaddle is an observer and is commenting on some observation. Let''s say that Packsaddle is more, umm, gee, shall we say "open minded" or "enlightened" than some of us?

 

I know Pack, he''s a great guy. The real deal.

 

[packsaddle]

Thanks Gonzo1, I appreciate the good words...but you know me...playful game of tag and all that...

Like I told you before, nothing said to me in these forums even comes close to even a tiny fraction of the wrath of my wife.

[Eamonn]

OK, if we take Kevin Ryan''s word for it, the Lads are at home watching the telly, stuffing Twinkies down at an ever increasing rate of knots.

Mean while what are the girls doing?

Walk around any school yard and there are just as many overweight girls as there are boys.

Where I live we have local teams that play baseball, softball and soccer, come sign up time the boys outnumber the girls by about two to one.

The local Girl Scout Council in our area shut up shop and moved 200 miles away!!

Having at one time many years ago been a Lad, I kinda like to think I know more about boys than women do.

Having been brought up in an education system where "Men were Men" and women were viewed as being the "Fair Sex" and in a home where Dad was the bread winner, while Mum looked after the house. I''ll admit to maybe having a hard time accepting females in what I at times seem to classify as male roles.

I''ll admit to thinking a women working on a construction site, looks out of place.But having been around HWMBO for 30 years I know how tough women can be.

Having worked with female Sea Scouts for going on 3 years I know that girls can do just about anything I ask of the male Scouts. I also know that they can be at times just as big a pain in the neck.

Spending time worrying and focusing on Boys not being boys is a waste of time.

Surely we''d be better off fixing what the problems are for both sexes.

Ea.

[fgoodwin]

So gonzo, am I to understand that posting a couple of smilies makes it OK to slander an entire gender?

[packsaddle]

It isn''t slander if it applies. And whining about it won''t change anything.

To those for whom it doesn''t apply, I apologize as I didn''t intend it for you in the first place. Maybe I didn''t express that clearly enough.

 

However, the world has been and largely still IS male-dominated. That being the case, if males choose to waste their lives flobbering around in front of a video screen, then it is a fate largely of their own making. If my observation of that fact makes anyone uncomfortable, I''m hardly responsible for their behavior nor for their discomfort, - but rather I''m merely pointing out the obvious.

 

The stuff I said about women is the result of direct observation and I''m not going to say bad things about women to balance this. I''ll say nicer things about the males when they perform in a competitive manner. They don''t.

 

The y-chromosome thing is, you know, one of those pesky facts.

 

If anyone doesn''t like my final characterization, then don''t do it. Seems a pretty simple solution to me. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you don''t like the fit or the look, get another pair.

When did this forum get so PC anyway?

 

Edited part: Oops, forgot: (This message has been edited by packsaddle)