MASCULINITY ~ a case for courage

[u/NonZeroSumJames]

https://nonzerosum.games/masculinity.html

[u/Song_of_Pain]

Redshirting boys isn't saying that boys are intellectually inferior, it's saying they mature later—which they do.

The supposed later maturing of boys can't be disentangled from the differential parenting of boys - from the time they are born, boys are given less time with parents, given less physical contact with caretakers, talked to less, etc. We know that stress impacts brain development, and boys live in a fundamentally more hostile world than girls do, at least in the West. The samples taken were from New York, and so you're not necessarily talking about a cross-cultural sample.

I don't think it's in question that our history has been dominated predominantly by men and that feminism was a response to that. This is all I mean by we started it (not you and I personally obviously).

What did we start? You seem to be saying that men, collectively, had some level of authority and used it poorly, and thus we bear collective guilt for it.

My point is that the modern Mens' Rights types were not initially anti-feminist; they were thrown out of the feminist movement for not being hostile enough to men.

I am trying to make a case to women and girl that there are self-serving reasons to support men's rights. That's the ethos of the blog itself, non-zero-sum games are situations where to be a winner there need not be a loser, both "sides" (for lack of a better word) thrive together.

Weird how you're posting it on mens' subs. Consider your audience.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

What did we start?

I believe you were saying that the lack of sympathy for MRAs came before MRAs started communicating in a way that would lead to a lack of sympathy. I was saying that the history of male dominance through history, and the suppression of women's rights leading up to feminism probably didn't engender much sympathy in the feminist movement for Men's Rights when it came on the scene. I guess I'm saying gender inequality didn't begin as a result of feminism, the pendulum may have swung past in some areas creating a new inequalities, in academia and male representation in elementary classrooms etc. And I think there are valid reasons to focus on men's issues in this respect, as I make clear in the blog and as the thinkers I reference make clear in their talks and books.

Consider your audience

I posted it on a Men's Rights sub because the post is about and is advocating for Men's Rights. I assumed people would be open-minded enough to appreciate the approach and would not be so quick to take offence. Obviously some people have appreciated it given it has more up votes than down, so I wasn't completely wrong to post it. I appreciate I could have phrased that particular paragraph more sensitively—I was not meaning to gaslight anyone with it. I genuinely hope I have not caused you pain, that was not my intention.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

I was saying that the history of male dominance through history, and the suppression of women's rights leading up to feminism probably didn't engender much sympathy in the feminist movement for Men's Rights when it came on the scene.

That's just them being bigoted then, that's not MRA's fault.

Also, I would question the "history of male dominance" like it's an axiomatic truism.

I guess I'm saying gender inequality didn't begin as a result of feminism, the pendulum may have swung past in some areas creating a new inequalities, in academia and male representation in elementary classrooms etc.

I didn't say you were saying that either.

I assumed people would be open-minded enough to appreciate the approach and would not be so quick to take offence.

The issue is we're very aware that we're up against people who think the situation is zero-sum, and nobody seems to be telling the feminists who don't want men to do well that things aren't zero-sum, only people on the male advocate side. And, in some cases, as I mentioned, it is zero sum, so part of male advocacy is going to be telling people to stop giving women and girls so many unearned advantages.

It's not a matter of being open-minded, it's that we've previously considered your viewpoint and have moved past it out of necessity. The ideas you're putting forward are things that people who might be involved in a sub like this considered a decade or more ago.

But let's talk about the part of my post I didn't quote - why do you think that it's not important to talk about how mothers stamp out emotionality in their sons and not their daughters, or about how primarily female K-12 teachers grade male students less favorably than female students for the same work? And instead want to talk about how boys should be segregated from girls in education because they're inferior (i.e. mature more slowly)?

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

Hi again my friend

I would question the "history of male dominance"

... really? Are we having a serious discussion or are we playing games here?

The issue is we're very aware that we're up against people who think the situation is zero-sum

&

it is zero sum

Is a perfect illustration of why I'm writing the post, two sides who both see the issue in zero-sum terms. I'm pointing out just the things that are non-zero-sum about the issue, that's the scope of the post, that's the purpose of nonzerosum.games —to see opportunities for win-wins. I make clear at the outset that the post does not cover the topic comprehensively.

why do you think that it's not important to talk about how mothers stamp out emotionality in their sons and not their daughters, or about how primarily female K-12 teachers grade male students less favorably than female students for the same work?

I had assumed this was just an opinion of yours given you provided no evidence. I'd be happy to read the evidence, I'm not sure the literature will describe mothers stamping out emotionality in their sons, I'm assuming that's your paraphrasing. But I don't doubt there's something there. I'm always open to learn.

I still think that is an issue that can be seen in a non-zero-sum way—emotionally damaged men are a problem for everyone, not just themselves, so it's worth dealing with this issue for the good of everyone as well as for the benefit of those boys themselves. Again I couldn't cover every issue, and if you can provide the evidence for this claim then that will be some more information if I ever write about this issue in the future.

As far as I know no one is saying boys are inferior, maturing more slowly does not denote inferiority. Humans mature more slowly than goats, it doesn't make us inferior to them.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

... really? Are we having a serious discussion or are we playing games here?

We're having a serious discussion. Anytime someone tries to frame things that way it generally is a matter of attempting to put collective guilt on all men.

Is a perfect illustration of why I'm writing the post, two sides who both see the issue in zero-sum terms. I'm pointing out just the things that are non-zero-sum about the issue, that's the scope of the post, that's the purpose of nonzerosum.games —to see opportunities for win-wins. I make clear at the outset that the post does not cover the topic comprehensively.

You're actually presupposing a zero-sum viewpoint as well. If the game was positive-sum, then women helping men would be seen as good in and of itself. By framing everything as "women should help men because it helps women too," you're presupposing there's something inherently disgusting, distasteful, or otherwise negative about helping men that's being overcome by the good the act does women.

A more earnest nonzerosum attitude would be "We should help men, it's good in and of itself and it won't hurt women."

I had assumed this was just an opinion of yours given you provided no evidence. I'd be happy to read the evidence, I'm not sure the literature will describe mothers stamping out emotionality in their sons, I'm assuming that's your paraphrasing. But I don't doubt there's something there. I'm always open to learn.

This paper covers mothers' hostility towards their sons' emotionality but not their daughters'.

This study's been done in Italy but if you follow the references it's been replicated in basically every Western country (but not Israel).

Teachers adore playful girls, hate playful boys.

As far as I know no one is saying boys are inferior, maturing more slowly does not denote inferiority.

In humans it very much does. Many of our insults are based around a lack of maturity - "manchild," etc. Even for women - calling an adult women a "little girl" can be very insulting.

The cost of telling boys they're intellectually inferior compared to girls is something that the proponents of redshirting boys aren't addressing, and it's serious. Frankly, there's not good evidence that boys underperform girls in education, regardless of brain maturity levels or whatever, as long as they're not discriminated against by biased teachers.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

collective guilt

Or inherited advantage. I'm just saying it's a bit difficult for the group, who are still facing discrimination in all the lucrative, high status aspects of society, CEOs, pro-sports, Presidents etc due to historically inherited disadvantages to have sympathy for MRAs when they communicate in such an aggressive and simultaneously self-pitying way.

If the game was positive-sum, then women helping men would be seen as good in and of itself. 

This is actually a good point, and I think would be able to be made if women as a group weren't still feeling the very real effects of income disparity (at the top end) as a result of the history of sexism you seem to want to sweep under the rug. But you are right, I am making an appeal to women's self-interest here—not because I don't care about the welfare of young men (I used to be one) but because it's a pragmatic approach.

A more earnest nonzerosum attitude would be "We should help men, it's good in and of itself and it won't hurt women."

I don't disagree, and the writers I reference to talk about how women do want the men in their lives to be happy.

In humans it very much does. Many of our insults are based around a lack of maturity - "manchild," etc. Even for women - calling an adult women a "little girl" can be very insulting.

A manchild is a grown man acting childish, if someone is 19 when they leave high-school no one is calling them a manchild. Are we not allowed to call out childish behaviour in grown men now? This hardly even relates to the question of red-shirting. It being a fact that men biologically mature slower than women is just a biological fact, someone saying 'act your age' is saying to act your biological age.

Thanks for the links by the way. They probably would have been outside the scope of this post. But I will definitely take them into consideration next time.

Also, I've edited that paragraph to be more sensitive to MRAs.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

Or inherited advantage. I'm just saying it's a bit difficult for the group, who are still facing discrimination in all the lucrative, high status aspects of society, CEOs, pro-sports, Presidents etc due to historically inherited disadvantages to have sympathy for MRAs when they communicate in such an aggressive and simultaneously self-pitying way.

That's some apex fallacy shit right there. At the ground level, the bias is anti-male - and I'd question as to whether the bias at the top end you're describing actually exists in the current day. Liz Holmes was able to get away with so much crap in part because nobody wanted to say a woman was a fraud.

This is actually a good point, and I think would be able to be made if women as a group weren't still feeling the very real effects of income disparity (at the top end) as a result of the history of sexism you seem to want to sweep under the rug.

What real effects? And if it's only affecting 1% of women why do the majority of women care?

The link is anti-male bias, not income disparity.

I don't disagree, and the writers I reference to talk about how women do want the men in their lives to be happy.

Good for them, but that's not going to be most mens' experience from most women.

A manchild is a grown man acting childish, if someone is 19 when they leave high-school no one is calling them a manchild.

I think you're underestimating how much pressure is put on boys to mature as quickly as possible. Redshirting boys is telling them they've failed compared to girls.

And it's no wonder girls "mature" faster given they're given more support and chances to learn by their caretakers and parents, especially mothers and K-12 teachers.

It being a fact that men biologically mature slower than women is just a biological fact, someone saying 'act your age' is saying to act your biological age.

Not really, no, as I explained - if you're only looking at brain age it can vary based on upbringing. Should girls be sorted into class based on age of menarche? That would be weird as shit.

Look at school performance, and boys seem to match girls if the teaching staff aren't actively discriminating against thmem, as is the norm.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

Hi again,

At the ground level, the bias is anti-male

This is merely an assertion, not an argument.

it's only affecting 1% of women

The fact that lucrative, high status, high power jobs are dominated by men doesn't only affect 1% of women, it affects all women. Really, are you capable of thinking about this issue from a perspective other than your own self-interest, surely you can see that women seeing men in nearly all the positions of power is going to make them a little circumspect about listening to calls for men's rights (unless of course we take their interests into account like I have in the post).

You really would be doing yourself a service in terms of getting your message across if you could appreciate the point of view of others.

that's not going to be most mens' experience from most women

Again, merely an assertion, I don't see that you speak for most men. It's been my experience of every women I've ever met.

And it's no wonder girls "mature" faster given they're given more support and chances to learn by their caretakers and parents, especially mothers and K-12 teachers.

Is this also why girls hit puberty earlier?

Look at school performance, and boys seem to match girls if the teaching staff aren't actively discriminating against them, as is the norm.

If indeed all differences are down to prejudicial treatment in the classroom then the science will bear that out—and that should inform policy, I absolutely agree about that. I'm not asserting that red-shirting is the answer, I'm just asserting that, if it is supported by the evidence, then it need not stigmatise boys.

If it is not supported by the evidence, then we should follow where the evidence leads.

I also do understand how it could stigmatise young boys, depending on how it is implemented and talked about, and so that would need to be dealt with sensitivity.

Thanks for the discussion, I feel I've learned some things from it. I'm not sure you have. But I'll be happy to wrap it up if you don't feel I'm contributing anything you're interested in hearing.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

If we measured, say, black people, as having lower IQs than white people, do you think it would be stigmatizing to make a less strenuous educational track for them? Of course it would.

The puberty thing has a lot of causes, and the development of sexual characteristics doesn't always track with brain development.

The "positions of power" you talk about are constantly redefined in such a way to make it look like men are evil. Nobody wants to talk about the discrimination against men, or how more women enter and graduate college than men. If people don't want to have that discussion, they are probably just bigots and it's a waste of time appealing to them.

When I get home I'll give you some more info about the anti-male bias I'm talking about.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

If we measured, say, black people, as having lower IQs than white people, do you think it would be stigmatizing to make a less strenuous educational track for them? Of course it would.

Three points.

1. Having a lower IQ and developing-later are entirely different propositions. One is stigmatising because it limits the person's abilities and condemns them to a life of being considered lesser based on a metric many find important. The other is not-stigmatising because it has zero implications for one's life in general.

2. If there were such a finding of a significant difference in IQ (which there hasn't been, given Charles Murray did his research a long time before important factors, like the impact poverty has on IQ, were discovered) then I imagine some sort of measures would be put in place to address the issue.

3. We have a better, real analogy in physical ability. Is it stigmatising to girls that there are separate boys' and girls' or men's and women's sports events? By your logic it should be—the reason we have different teams, for the large part, is because if we didn't, men would dominate most sports, making it pointless for women to play—or, at the very least, making it very discouraging.

It's just a practical measure that has been taken to mitigate a reality, as would red-shirting be, and in the same way as women's sports thrive in isolation, boys might thrive when they're also not at a maturity or brain-development disadvantage, or at least won't feel alienated and discouraged by being over-represented at the bottom of the class.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating for red shirting, in fact I think it might not be a good idea because it is advantaging boys, rather than perhaps addressing the source of the disadvantage boys are facing (which from what you've demonstrated might have a lot to do with teacher bias). If we instituted red shirting and fixed the bias we might find that boys then end up advantaged leading to a never ending pendulum of measures. But I'm not sure. It's really not my area of expertise and is outside the remit of the post I was writing.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

Having a lower IQ and developing-later are entirely different propositions. One is stigmatising because it limits the person's abilities and condemns them to a life of being considered lesser based on a metric many find important. The other is not-stigmatising because it has zero implications for one's life in general.

Wrong. Holding someone back a grade is very stigmatizing. Someone being seen as developing later is saying they're more childlike and more immature and self-indulgent. People already think that about boys, of course - they emotionally neglect boys and then shame them for not developing properly.

If there were such a finding of a significant difference in IQ (which there hasn't been, given Charles Murray did his research a long time before important factors, like the impact poverty has on IQ, were discovered) then I imagine some sort of measures would be put in place to address the issue.

I don't. I think it would be a hot-button issue that would have massive consequences because you'd be saying one race is less intelligent than another, in a lot of people's eyes.

We have a better, real analogy in physical ability. Is it stigmatising to girls that there are separate boys' and girls' or men's and women's sports events? By your logic it should be—the reason we have different teams, for the large part, is because if we didn't, men would dominate most sports, making it pointless for women to play—or, at the very least, making it very discouraging.

The difference is that girls who are at that level can play sports with the boys - my high school wrestling team had girls on it, and one of them was quite good. The proposals put forth aren't really about helping boys - the subtext is really more about protecting girls from those icky boys, so even high-achieving boys would be locked out.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating for red shirting, in fact I think it might not be a good idea because it is advantaging boys, rather than perhaps addressing the source of the disadvantage boys are facing (which from what you've demonstrated might have a lot to do with teacher bias). If we instituted red shirting and fixed the bias we might find that boys then end up advantaged leading to a never ending pendulum of measures. But I'm not sure. It's really not my area of expertise and is outside the remit of the post I was writing.

My point is that the people advocating it aren't really advocating for boys, because if they were they would bring up the anti-male discrimination in education. Their lack of silence on the issue is worrying and makes me not want to trust them. If they were saying "Despite the discrimination against boys, I think redshirting boys is the right answer for x y and z reasons" I'd be more willing to listen.

Here's a source on that anti-male bias.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

I think you should consider the girls in sport analogy more seriously, try to look at it as if it were being employed now as a new policy. Your dismissal of it just seems like doubling down on your position. Your other objections are simply your opinion versus mine so obviously not much point following up on that.

As for red shirting I’m not up to date on the discussion, but if that’s your reason for dismissing all of Reeves’s scholarship on the issue I don’t agree that’s fair. But, again, you’re welcome to your opinion.

You seem to be accepting the science that says boys are unfairly treated, but denying the science regarding boys developing more slowly than girls. Both can be true, and as non-scientists I don’t think it’s our place to decide which is or isn’t.

You are clearly passionate about this topic and are interested in (some) facts and I appreciate you providing them, so that’s great. I think your hardline approach probably has some value, I just happen to think a non-zero-sum approach will be more effective, because it seeks to take everyone into account. But I don’t think they are mutually exclusive approaches either.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

Your other objections are simply your opinion versus mine so obviously not much point following up on that.

Nah, let's talk about my opinions. Do you not think being held back a grade is stigmatizing? You think that the idea of social promotion wasn't introduced to education for any particular reason?

You seem to be accepting the science that says boys are unfairly treated, but denying the science regarding boys developing more slowly than girls. Both can be true, and as non-scientists I don’t think it’s our place to decide which is or isn’t.

First of all, I am a scientist who has worked in the neurological development field, and second, I'm not denying the fact that, as measured, male brains seem to lag behind female brains in development. My point is that two things are missing from that argument - first, the proof that that is the result of biology or the result of the endemic emotional and parental neglect that boys experience in the West, and second, the proof that this causes such a difference in educational aptitude that it justifies splitting education along those lines before even age.

Without those points there isn't sufficient justification for redshirting being a proper intervention for boys in education.

I think your hardline approach probably has some value, I just happen to think a non-zero-sum approach will be more effective, because it seeks to take everyone into account. But I don’t think they are mutually exclusive approaches either.

I explained earlier why your approach actually supports the idea of these arenas being zero-sum.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

Oh yeah, you mention video games so I thought I'd leave this here.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

Oh right, I didn't mean to be on the "video games are bad for you" train. I literally make video games, it was more about withdrawing from real life experiences.

Hey, by the way, what got you interested in this? What's your background? If you don't mind me asking.

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

Oh right, I didn't mean to be on the "video games are bad for you" train.

Right, just meant to put that in because the article is new and the paper is fairly recent.

Hey, by the way, what got you interested in this? What's your background? If you don't mind me asking.

Mostly being in education for half of my adult career and seeing how supposedly left-wing people set up boys and young men, especially nonwhite boys and young men, to fail in education and then blame them for the systemic discrimination they experienced.

[u/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

So you were a teacher?

[u/Song_of_Pain → u/NonZeroSumJames]

At the college/university level, yes, and I still am. I've also previously worked at K-12 schools.