Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#71

Post by JPKab »

pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

"Whats the deal with gender issues anyway in North America? I've immigrated from an Eastern-Block country as a teenager to NA and I've never seen these problems because communism required that all members of the society do essentially the same jobs"

The problem in this country is that we have identity politics, which helped to address real discrimination, but all too often is misused as a tool to obtain power and support from vocal special interest groups.

Perhaps most disturbingly is the rise of the professional identity politician/professor/activist complex, where students are brought in to universities majoring in "Women's Studies", with zero job prospects when they graduate except for teaching more classes or becoming an activist. Suddenly, you have entire groups of people who, although they won't admit it, NEED the problem they are claiming to fight to exist forever if they want an income.

The end result is a constant search for new manifestations of oppression of their chosen group, real or perceived. All too often, its perceived, and even when it's real, these folks have solutions which do nothing more than create new inequalities.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#72

Post by JPKab »

treadingvapor wrote: post #11

This article was pretty all over the place, and had too many speculative, opinion based quotes. Shouldn't this problem be handed over to the CDC? The writer briefly alludes to the fact that gender inequity may be related to gender roles, which are a construct. Yes, the CDC should study gender roles.

What I found particularly frustrating about the article was its focus on race, despite the fact that poverty and absentee fathers are the true culprits, with race simply having a correlation to the root cause condition.

I grew up in an impoverished, white rural community, and the boys without fathers go nuts. It's a common pattern that doesn't even call for data. Everyone just knows it.

My wife's father died when she was young, and her mother simply collected social security checks and lapsed into depression. Her sister and her did alright. Both of her brothers dropped out of high school, one of them committed suicide, and the other died at 21 of a medical condition while attempting to earn a GED and working for $8/hour at a gas station. Both were in and out of jail from their teen years and up.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#73

Post by wpietri »

htns wrote: post #24
wpietri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering the same thing. It might be gender, but it could also be a strongly gender-focused society.

It's actually a global phenomenon. Boys are performing worse in most of the Western world as well as much of the rest. When there are similar issues in the US, Japan, and Scandinavia you can rule out many cultural aspects as the cause.

I could rule out cultural aspects. If I wanted to ignore the long history of gendered culture in both places. As well as centuries of male dominance.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#74

Post by federico3 »

gaius wrote: post #37
woah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would there be a suspicion that this was because of sexism, if the genders were reversed?

One of the teaching unions here in the UK was asked why they weren't doing more to get men into teaching. They replied that that was sexist as it implied that female teachers weren't doing a good enough job! You can't win.

"win"?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#75

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

JPKab wrote: post #71
pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

"Whats the deal with gender issues anyway in North America? I've immigrated from an Eastern-Block country as a teenager to NA and I've never seen these problems because communism required that all members of the society do essentially the same jobs" The problem in this country is that we have identity politics, which helped to address real discrimination, but all too often is misused as a tool to obtain power and sup…

I feel like the dynamics are way too fuzzy to point at one group of people an say "this is the cause of outrage culture, and that is the dominate driver of unexpected inequality flux". The US has a host of initial conditions (heterogeneous population, very young age, combination of high overall wealth as well as extreme wealth inequality) that makes it very difficult to compare apples to apples with much of the world.

It appears that there are only ~2.5k genders studies majors matriculating at any given year [1]. I doubt that's pushing the needle appreciably in terms identity politics. IMO I'd look more too the cognitive dissonance between the gap in achievement of the wealthy vs poor and the taboo in talking about any sort of income inequality in this country as a more potent driver to the under-directed efforts to impose a slanted "equality" in the name of social good.

[1]http://www.nwsa.org/files/NWSA_CensusonWSProgs.pdf

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#76

Post by Super_Jambo »

belorn wrote: post #68
Super_Jambo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large risks imply large potential rewards (otherwise you're just being dumb). But in terms of genetics the female upside is limited by the very high costs of child bearing & the limited number of children they can physically have. The male genetic upside to risk is limited by the number of women they can have sex with. 1 / 200 men are apparently descended from Genghis Khan! This feat would simply be impossible for an…

You are describing one reproductive strategy used by males, which is not true for all men, and is defently not true when looking beyond humans. Having many low investments into offspring can be effective, but it is also risky. The more champion based a race is (one male per many females), the more energy is going to be spent on competition. The offspring will also have to depend solely on the mother, since each child…

So you would argue that men (particularly young men) do not exhibit greater risk taking behaviour than women? Or do you have some other explanation for this propensity?

Non-humans do not I think enter into the discussion, and a strategy doesn't have to be universal to have a big enough effect on our psychology to be worth worrying about at the level of education policy.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#77

Post by Lawtonfogle »

grovulent wrote: post #54
politicallines wrote: post #53

What a sexist comment. In this world where equality for men means "avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails", does equality for women means that they will start take a job and not just spend the money of men? Is the discussion so infected that we can't simply share a goal that every person should be equal in worth, be able to pursue their passion in life, and to have liberty. If we can't agree to s…

You're punching air mate. I think the point was just that if we don't help these boys - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of crime and violence - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?

It may be similar to people who take issue when someone warns another (especially a younger woman) of the dangers of walking around at night alone.

There is a legitimate increase in danger in some areas, but people often view it as victim blaming. The line between 'do this and you'll have a better chance of being safe' and 'if you had done this, you would have had a better chance of having been safe' can be fine.

There are also those who see such advice as misplaced (the whole don't teach people how to avoid X, teach other people to not do X).

Not saying I agree or disagree with either view point, only hypothesizing there could be a common trend of thought underlying the issues some are taking with the original post.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#78

Post by Lawtonfogle »

durzagott wrote: post #58
politicallines wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If we don't help these girls - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of parasitic behavior - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?" You don't see a problem with phrasing equality in that way?

Are you suggesting there are zero behavioural differences between boys and girls?

It seems that the post is suggesting the implications of the phrasing can be taken as offensive, and trying to give a different example to express the point.

To avoid gender, consider an example which uses race instead.

>It would help humanity to also give enough focus on black child development so that we could save their future, avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails.

I've only switched one word, and while some may say it is not offensive, I could clearly foresee some people finding the underlying tone as offensive.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#79

Post by Lawtonfogle »

FilterSweep wrote: post #70
politicallines wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling boys for future criminals and girls for future parasites is not going to help creating equality. It has nothing to do with "behavioural" differences from genes, and everything to do about sexism.

That's exaggerating his position. It's not sexist to acknowledge differences between males and females.

It is likely sexist to acknowledge differences as being biological in origin when they are sociological in origin. Of course, some differences are biological, but the outcome of how the biological differences result in different social trends is part sociological.

For an example of a difference which is sexist, imagine someone saying women are less fit for critical roles because they are more emotional, when in fact it is that our society works to repress male expression of emotions and both men and women are, at the core, emotional entities.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#80

Post by Lawtonfogle »

treadingvapor wrote: post #11

This article was pretty all over the place, and had too many speculative, opinion based quotes. Shouldn't this problem be handed over to the CDC? The writer briefly alludes to the fact that gender inequity may be related to gender roles, which are a construct. Yes, the CDC should study gender roles.

>Shouldn't this problem be handed over to the CDC?

I wouldn't want them handling any male issues. In the 2010 study of intimate partner violence, they specifically used a definition of rape that turned most male rape into contact sexual assault and not rape.

Then in their summary, they focused on rape and non-contact sexual assault. Anyone doing a light reading would have assumed from the study that males did not experience much sexual violence.

Personal anecdote: my experience has been this misunderstanding is the more common than not among those who have done a light reading of the study.

Post reply on HN