The Miseducation of the American Boy

[EmilyMiller]

Sub-title: Why boys crack up at rape jokes, think having a girlfriend is “gay,” and still can’t cry—and why we need to give them new and better models of masculinity

Excerpt: […] when asked to describe the attributes of “the ideal guy,” those same [16-21 year old, college or headed for college] boys appeared to be harking back to 1955. Dominance. Aggression. Rugged good looks (with an emphasis on height). Sexual prowess. Stoicism. Athleticism. Wealth (at least some day). It’s not that all of these qualities, properly channeled, are bad. But while a 2018 national survey of more than 1,000 10-to-19-year-olds commissioned by Plan International USA and conducted by the polling firm PerryUndem found that young women believed there were many ways to be a girl—they could shine in math, sports, music, leadership (the big caveat being that they still felt valued primarily for their appearance)—young men described just one narrow route to successful masculinity.*One-third said they felt compelled to suppress their feelings, to “suck it up” or “be a man” when they were sad or scared, and more than 40 percent said that when they were angry, society expected them to be combative. In another survey, which compared young men from the U.S., the U.K., and Mexico, Americans reported more social pressure to be ever-ready for sex and to get with as many women as possible; they also acknowledged more stigma against homosexuality, and they received more messages that they should control their female partners, as in: Men “deserve to know” the whereabouts of their girlfriends or wives at all times.

The above is from an article on The Atlantic. I have a subscription, but I don’t think it’s behind a paywall.

—

Here is a link, thanks to @NightPorter

https://archive.is/7wT0j

—

I found it interesting and a bit depressing. It’s not - at least in my opinion - a political article. But its comments about how young American men view sex and what norms they should adhere to are - I think - pertinent to some of the discussions we have had here.

Em

 

[MrPixel]

I don’t think it’s behind a paywall.

Sadly, it is.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Sadly, it is.

Oh - sorry

 

[RachelPost]

Having had a couple of brothers and now nephews, I unfortunately have to agree with the article. Boys (under 21) are still under the impression that toughness makes the man. I think part of this is the hero worship of American football players and professional wrestlers. Also, the violence in video games leads to the misconception that the solution to conflict is violence. And it follows along with attitudes toward sex. Violence, control, macho, and the like all seem to be part of that age's psyche. Yes it's sad and leads me to think things haven't really changed that much since my brothers were young.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Interesting…

“…young women believed there were many ways to be a girl—they could shine in math, sports, music, leadership (the big caveat being that they still felt valued primarily for their appearance)…”

“No wonder my transgender stories are so popular.” She said sarcastically.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is the kind of thing that rapidly turns into a political discussion.
That said, one of the great weaknesses of these types of surveys is in how the people taking the survey define the words being used, versus how the surveyor (or others) define the words.
For example, saying "masculinity" is a "narrow path". I suspect if you had 5 or 6 young men define the term you would get different answers. Much as being "feminine" means different things to different women.

 

[Voboy]

There's something to the idea that girls have more paths to excellence than boys do. I don't think there's any doubt that modern high school culture finds it MUCH more acceptable for girls to be intelligent and personable, versus boys. A girl can legitimately excel in sports, but she can also stand out in the arts, or academically, without paying a social penalty. A smart, mature boy who can't play sports, in many towns, is going to be taking a backseat to a functionally illiterate, immature boy who can.

It's highly unfortunate, but I find that's still the case even in the "very liberal" part of the country where I live. There's a premium placed on athletic achievement and traditional maleness that is impossible not to notice.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Can't access either the Atlantic article or the underlying survey.

Is that going to stop me talking about it? Of course not. I'm a man.

But if you're asking someone to define the "ideal guy" - then athletic is better than non-athletic, six-foot tall is better than five-four, rich is better than poor. What are they expecting them to say? I want to be a obese halfling with erectile disfunction living under a bridge. True, these things are often more interesting for what the participants don't say. (Smarter is better than stupid, but that doesn't appear here)

Let me guess, the new model of masculinity is the feminist version of Henry Higgins singing 'why can't a man be more like a woman'.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’m not looking to make any of this political. But I can’t stop people bringing political perspectives to the discussion.

The comment about not being allowed to cry is very sad.

This is not a woke / anti-woke debate. It’s about allowing our boys to be different and still OK.

Em

 

[TheRedChamber]

Posting multiple messages on this topic is going to end up looking like I'm frothing at the mouth, but to add to my previous comment...

This new model of masculinity...are they going to make it appealing to men in any way?
"No...no...you see, in this version of manhood, you're allowed to cry."
"Oh, okay, thanks, I'm going to stick with the one that involves banging as many chicks as I can."

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’m obviously not going to post the entire article here. Not sure Laurel would appreciate the copyright infringement. But - tomorrow, not now - I might try to post my own synopsis.

Em

 

[RejectReality]

Boys quickly learn who's getting laid.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think it’s interesting how some aspects of this thread strongly support the thesis expounded by the article.

Em

 

[Rob_Royale]

All I can say is, it's not how my boys were raised.

 

[Voboy]

This new model of masculinity...are they going to make it appealing to men in any way?

I can't read the article, but is anyone trying to "make it appealing?" My impression is that this is a survey of attitudes, not an advocacy piece in favor of changing a model.

As if that would work anyhow.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it’s interesting how some aspects of this thread strongly support the thesis expounded by the article.

Em

Reminds me a bit of an exchange with someone here, not so long ago, where I commented, "Don't make such sweeping statements. My son, for example was NOT raised like that, and neither, for that matter, was I."

There's quite a few who have echoed the sentiments expressed in the article/survey: TLDR, big boys don't cry. Which is, of course, their loss.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Really sorry for sharing something that can’t be read. I wasn’t logged into The Atlantic, but maybe some cookie knows I’m a subscriber.

Em

 

[Zootonius]

My own 2 cents is both sexes get mixed messages. Boys are taught to be respectful while being encouraged to drool over girls. Girls are getting bombarded in their own way.

An interesting book from 30 years ago, The Disappearance of Childhood.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I can't read the article, but is anyone trying to "make it appealing?" My impression is that this is a survey of attitudes, not an advocacy piece in favor of changing a model.

As if that would work anyhow.

Sub-title: Why boys crack up at rape jokes, think having a girlfriend is “gay,” and still can’t cry—and why we need to give them new and better models of masculinity

Neither of us can read the article, but it is in the first line of Emily's post.

But, hey, I get it, not listening to blondes is also a common masculine trait...

 

[NightPorter]

The Miseducation of the American Boy

You are all now aware that Archiving websites exist.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The Miseducation of the American Boy

You are all now aware that Archiving websites exist.

Thank you .

Em

 

[ronde]

Sub-title: Why boys crack up at rape jokes, think having a girlfriend is “gay,” and still can’t cry—and why we need to give them new and better models of masculinity

Excerpt: […] when asked to describe the attributes of “the ideal guy,” those same [16-21 year old, college or headed for college] boys appeared to be harking back to 1955. Dominance. Aggression. Rugged good looks (with an emphasis on height). Sexual prowess. Stoicism. Athleticism. Wealth (at least some day). It’s not that all of these qualities, properly channeled, are bad. But while a 2018 national survey of more than 1,000 10-to-19-year-olds commissioned by Plan International USA and conducted by the polling firm PerryUndem found that young women believed there were many ways to be a girl—they could shine in math, sports, music, leadership (the big caveat being that they still felt valued primarily for their appearance)—young men described just one narrow route to successful masculinity.*One-third said they felt compelled to suppress their feelings, to “suck it up” or “be a man” when they were sad or scared, and more than 40 percent said that when they were angry, society expected them to be combative. In another survey, which compared young men from the U.S., the U.K., and Mexico, Americans reported more social pressure to be ever-ready for sex and to get with as many women as possible; they also acknowledged more stigma against homosexuality, and they received more messages that they should control their female partners, as in: Men “deserve to know” the whereabouts of their girlfriends or wives at all times.

The above is from an article on The Atlantic. I have a subscription, but I don’t think it’s behind a paywall.

I found it interesting and a bit depressing. It’s not - at least in my opinion - a political article. But its comments about how young American men view sex and what norms they should adhere to are - I think - pertinent to some of the discussions we have had here.

Em

I don't think there's anything political about it. It's all about money. Just look at the product commercials on TV and even the social media sites. I'm not trying to minimize the LGBT+ communities, but in actuality, they're a pretty small percentage of the population. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, 7.1% of Americans identify as LGBT. There's not much money in marketing to 7% of the population, hence the product commercials all portray strong, handsome men in sports or other "manly" jobs, and soft, feminine women with the implied promise that if you use this product, you'll be the same as the actors in the commercials. A few companies have tried a different image, and most are quickly backpedaling because of lost sales and a loss of market value. Movies that try to highlight the alternative personalities of which you speak tend to do poorly at the box office for the same reason. Very few straight people are going to pay money to watch an actor portray a man who is emotional rather than aggressive. Movies with strong women tend to do pretty well, but only if she's also movie-star gorgeous.

That's not to say it's right, but it's been the same for at least the last hundred years. Boys grow up idolizing sports figures and masculine actors who always get the girl. Girls grow up watching anorexic fashion models walking down the runway and female actors doing their best to look sensuous and desirable so they can attract the man of their dreams.

 

[NightPorter]

The comment about not being allowed to cry is very sad.

Em

"Only after multiple interviews did I realize that when boys confided in me about crying—or, even more so, when they teared up right in front of me—they were taking a risk, trusting me with something private and precious: evidence of vulnerability, or a desire for it."

This quote is more insightful than the author probably realizes. You can cry in front of your mother because she loves you unconditionally. You can cry in front of your friends in some cases, as long as they're good friends and there are no women around. Everyone else, you bottle it up.

In our society, there is a stark contrast between what society tells men that they SHOULD be able to do and how they actually respond when they do it. This is especially true of woman. It's a rare woman indeed that you can cry in front of without consequences. Let the walls come down and watch her desire for you die in her eyes. Or have her use your vulnerability against you at a future date. Or tell her girlfriends about your private moment of vulnerability. That's a mistake most men make only once.

Men act in ways that work for them in dating and life. We learn very quickly what works and what doesn't. What information is actually informed on reality and what is BS and wishful thinking pushed on us by social engineers. If you really want to combat what some have termed "toxic masculinity" then the key is not to combat how men view masculinity but how woman view and respond to masculinity. If women allowed men to actually show emotion without consequences, then we would show emotion more. But as the great college philosopher once wrote, "What women say they want and what they actually respond to are two different things." That's a harsh reality for some people to stomach.

 

[MrPixel]

That's a pretty heavy read. The overall tone seems to relate a crisis of innate personal sense of decency versus peer pressure, pressure that may or may not be influenced by external forces. Frankly, I think that dichotomy is ageless, so ageless that I could read myself into much of what was discussed of young men in that demo - 50 years ago.

IOW, there was not a lot in the piece new to me, or at least my particular life experience.

 

[EmilyMiller]

"Only after multiple interviews did I realize that when boys confided in me about crying—or, even more so, when they teared up right in front of me—they were taking a risk, trusting me with something private and precious: evidence of vulnerability, or a desire for it."

This quote is more insightful than the author probably realizes. You can cry in front of your mother because she loves you unconditionally. You can cry in front of your friends in some cases, as long as they're good friends and there are no women around. Everyone else, you bottle it up.

In our society, there is a stark contrast between what society tells men that they SHOULD be able to do and how they actually respond when they do it. This is especially true of woman. It's a rare woman indeed that you can cry in front of without consequences. Let the walls come down and watch her desire for you die in her eyes. Or have her use your vulnerability against you at a future date. Or tell her girlfriends about your private moment of vulnerability. That's a mistake most men make only once.

Men act in ways that work for them in dating and life. We learn very quickly what works and what doesn't. What information is actually informed on reality and what is BS and wishful thinking pushed on us by social engineers. If you really want to combat what some have termed "toxic masculinity" then the key is not to combat how men view masculinity but how woman view and respond to masculinity. If women allowed men to actually show emotion without consequences, then we would show emotion more. But as the great college philosopher once wrote, "What women say they want and what they actually respond to are two different things." That's a harsh reality for some people to stomach.

Oh, I see now. It’s all women’s fault. Silly me.

I don’t know any woman who behaves the way you suggest. “Desire for you dies in her eyes?” In what fucked up world?

My bf cries. I hold him. Most well-adjusted guys cry. Most well-adjusted women could give a fuck. Maybe this is a generational thing. I sincerely hope so.

Em