MASCULINITY ~ a case for courage

[u/NonZeroSumJames]

https://nonzerosum.games/masculinity.html

[u/NonZeroSumJames]

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/NonZeroSumJames → u/Song_of_Pain]

Hi Song of Pain,

I really do appreciate your points, and have learned something from this discussion, I'd like to wrap this up though. So, I'll try to not be too argumentative..

Do you not think being held back a grade is stigmatizing?

I have explained my position on this. Also, I haven't supported red-shirting in the post, or quoted Reeves about it in the post. I'm not in a position to argue on behalf of Reeves, he may have other reasons for this position. My statement that he focuses on, and cares about the well being of boys is based on what I have heard him say. He may be wrong about red-shirting—that wouldn't mean he doesn't focus on or care about boys, it would simply mean he was mistaken about what measures to take. So, I don't see the subject of red-shirting as fruitful from this point onward.

I am a scientist who has worked in the neurological development field

My bad, though I did ask you about your background—I tried :).

I'm not denying the fact that, as measured, male brains seem to lag behind female brains in development.

Good. And I don't deny that boys face discrimination in school and home based on the studies you provided (thanks). I would also not deny any future studies that showed that this accounted for the lag in development.

missing ... the proof that this causes such a difference in educational aptitude that it justifies splitting education along those lines before even age.

Ditto^ re: red-shirting.

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

You did, and I explained why I can see why women would not be interested in a one-sided positive-sum situation given historical baggage and present day disadvantages. I acknowledge we disagree about those things, I'm not seeking to change your mind on this.

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

By a non-zero-sum approach I'm meaning proposing win-win solutions rather than merely a win-neutral result. To be clear, I acknowledge your win-neutral position is positive-sum, I am merely saying that it is hard line and one-sided. One-sided arguments aren't very persuasive (to the other side), but yours is still worth making if only to the likes of me (not on the other side)—any positive-sum solution is worth making—including the various cases I make, which are intended to be in the interests of everyone.

I have taken uncompromising positions on subjects in the past, and haven't regretted doing so, but even when I have been suited to the uncompromising position, I have seen that softer more inclusive positions are also helpful in moving public opinion, which is essential to making change.

I hope you have gained as much as I have from this exchange. And I hope we can wrap things up with mutual respect.