But I think we fail to recognize and appreciate the unique struggles that boys face. Partly we fail to recognize it because men are not as likely to talk about their own plight. And partly a man will not talk about it because everyone, even his fellow men, will only laugh at him and downplay the problem.
In that way, I can pose two different questions to frame the discussion of boys in school. First, the question within the quotation marks is the empirical one: What about the boys?
The second question, expressed by the question and the quotation marks, is cultural and political: Why is the question "what about the boys? Why is the question popping up increasingly in the cultural conversation about gender?
Why has it become one of the litany of questions that compose the backlash against feminism? I believe that the answers to both questions are linked. What About the Boys? Are boys in trouble in school? At first glance, the statistics would suggest that they are. Boys drop out of school, are diagnosed as emotionally disturbed, and commit suicide four times more often than girls; they get into fights twice as often; they murder ten times more frequently and are 15 times more likely to be the victims of a violent crime.
Boys are six times more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder see, for example, Knickerbocker.
If they can manage to sit still and not get themselves killed, the argument seems to go, boys get lower grades on standardized tests of reading and writing, and have lower class rank and fewer honors than girls Kleinfeld.
One reporter tells us that if present trends continue, "the graduation line in will be all females. So, the data might seem to suggest that there are fewer and fewer boys, getting poorer grades, with increasing numbers of behavioral problems.
Three phenomena—numbers, achievement and behavior—compose the current empirical discussion about where the boys are and what they are doing.
After all, boys seem not only to be doing badly, but they are also doing worse than girls. What may be surprising, though, is the way the debate is being framed. Inside these books, we read how boys are failing at school, where their behavior is increasingly seen as a problem.
We read that boys are depressed, suicidal, emotionally shut down. But if there is a "war against boys" who has declared it? What are the sides of the conflict? What appears to be a concern about the plight of boys actually masks a deeper agenda—a critique of feminism.
And I believe that in the current climate, boys need defending against precisely those who claim to defend them; they need rescuing from precisely those who would rescue them. The arguments of these jeremiads go something like this: First, we hear, feminism has already succeeded in developing programs for girls, enabling and encouraging girls to go into the sciences, to continue education, to imagine careers outside the home.
But, in so doing, feminists have over-emphasized the problems of girls, and distorted the facts. Elementary schools, we hear, are "anti-boy," emphasizing reading and restricting the movements of young boys. They "feminize" boys, forcing active, healthy and naturally rambunctious boys to conform to a regime of obedience, "pathologizing what is simply normal for boys," as psychologist Michael Gurian put it qtd.
In The Wonder of Boys, Gurian argues that with testosterone surging through their little limbs, we demand that they sit still, raise their hands, and take naps.
At the turn of the century, for example, cultural critics were concerned that the rise of white collar businesses meant increasing indolence for men and the separation of spheres meant that women—as mothers, teachers, and Sunday school teachers—had taken primary responsibility for the socialization of children, both boys and girls.Boy George and Culture Club Formed in in London, England, synth-pop band Culture Club is composed of lead vocalist Boy George, Roy Hay, Mikey Craig and Jon Moss.
The iconic group has sold more than 50 million albums and . We live in an “anti-boy culture” Women really are on the tear through on outpacing men in modern society.
The gender which used to be superior is dramatically falling behind. Perhaps this is as it should be.
But Pearlman did change pop culture. In some respects, we live in the world Lou Pearlman created—manufactured pop stars, boy bands, reality-TV singing contests. We just don’t like to admit it. Dec 13, · Best Answer: No, we live in an Anti-Society which has yet to fully realize it's own existence.
We hate ourselves for being complacent, and yet at the same time we deny our complacency whenever we ph-vs.com: Resolved. But Pearlman did change pop culture. In some respects, we live in the world Lou Pearlman created—manufactured pop stars, boy bands, reality-TV singing contests.
We just don’t like to admit it. I dont think that we are living in a anti boy culture, honestly i think, that we are in a world, where still men have the power, just look in the business area, there are men mostly, who run the companies as a ceo or sitting in the boards.