When I was a senior in high school (early 80s), I had a meeting with my guidance counselor (male) about colleges and majors to pursue. At the not-so-mature age of 18, I said I’d like a career where I could earn a lot of money but not have to work very hard.
And the guidance counselor’s response: “Have you thought about prostitution?”
I was fortunate that two of my three high school math teachers were women who had PhDs in math. 
They really were role models for me. I never doubted for a minute that I could be an engineer.
I had one distant male cousin with a PhD who ended up teaching high school physics. I remember people asking why he had to accept a position like that.
My son’s fav teacher in HS had a PhD in physics and helped create the national AP exams in physics & upgrade them every year. His classroom was open to whatever kids wanted to hang out and he had the nerds. That was the only teacher S ever wanted to give gifts to because he was always feeding the students. I think he’s a large reason that S became an engineer.
That should be a fireable offense.
I’m only one person, but below is my perspective on your questions.
I think that women should definitely contribute to the thread. I (a woman) have no intention to stop posting.
I don’t think so. I do think that people should be particularly mindful of a few things, though. Namely:
Avoid blaming men. Saying, “Men are just lazy and irresponsible and need to stop being coddled,” would be an example of blaming men. On the other hand, indicating something like, “I’ve observed several unemployed men who did nothing but play videogames at their parents’ house while their mothers cooked and cleaned for them, and they hadn’t applied for a job or updated their resume in months,” is an observation that does not paint the particular men in the example favorably, but it’s not painting an entire gender in a negative light.
Offer constructive suggestions.
Pose questions for clarifying or informative purposes.
If someone posts something that triggers vehement negative feelings, wait a while before responding. Take a step back and do something else, then return and try to see the post from different perspectives. Then, when you feel you’ve had a chance to look at the post in a calmer frame of mind and want to respond, go on ahead and do so using language that you would use if you were having an in-person face-to-face conversation with them.
If something has been said that you are very opposed to but it has already received a couple responses that cover the gist of what you would have said, just “like” or 
those posts and refrain from posting yourself. Nobody should be hammered ad nauseum for a post/point.
On an individual basis, I don’t think so. On a statistical/general basis, I don’t know.
I think that the latter is far more harmful. Teaching EQ skills to all people is vital, and I don’t think EQ skills are restricted to one gender. Being able to identify one’s feelings and figuring out constructive ways of dealing with those feelings is important for everyone. And suppressing one’s feelings is generally not a very constructive way of dealing with them.
It likely is now, but back then I’m sure it was considered a “ joke”.
I am appalled when I think back and realize what was considered “ okay “ to say a few decades ago.
Yep.
This one might have been worse:
Dh and I worked at the same (at the time Big 8) accounting firm. I in tax and he in audit. Not long after we married we got a puppy. This, of course, was fun office news. The lead tax partner heard and said to me that getting a dog was a bad idea because he’d be alone a lot of the day. It would be better for me to just have a baby because then I’d have to stay at home. He wasn’t joking. He was a father of six. His wife stayed home. That’s what you did when you had a baby according to the head of my department. This was in 1989.
I share these not to make the thread all about me, but as examples of things men might not understand. Just like the men may share perspectives/experiences women can’t understand. Everyone should be able to weigh in on this type of thread, regardless of gender. But, I do leave room for a bit more credibility from one gender over the other depending on the thread topic.
Who we really need to hear from are actual 18-35 year old men.
@AustenNut Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I agree with this. We shouldn’t stereotype all men/boys. We shouldn’t label/blame all men/boys based on the actions/characteristics of a subset of men/boys. Even if some men/boys fit the stereotype, others do not fit the stereotype.
Yet isn’t this exactly what the pro-genetic determinism contingency wants us to do? Stereotype/ label/ blame/ praise all men/boys based on the supposed propensities of only some men/boys?
IMO chasing/imposing some pseudoscientific projection of maleness is necessarily “painting an entire gender in a negative light” simply because it is dehumanizing. It sells males short. It underestimates us. On an individual level there are no “girl” thoughts/beliefs vs. “boy” thoughts/beliefs. Each of us is a multitude, and supposed boy/girl thoughts/beliefs exist in all of us. Just like in your example, we cannot be accurately characterized by some statistical subset, and it demeans us to try.
Are you sure about that? Don’t females generally score better on emotional intelligence measures? If repressing one’s feelings is genetically male, then wouldn’t teaching EQ be “telling boys how they should think and feel?” Wouldn’t it be teaching them to “be more like girls.”
I assume you and I both agree that this is ridiculous. The net statistical difference does not negate the diversity across the range EQ of both males and females. But isn’t this as true for all the supposedly male characteristics being pushed by genetic determinists who insist some thoughts/beliefs are male and others female?
Please note that none of this is to say that genetics never plays any role in how we behave. Rather it is to say that the mix of our genes and our environment can play out in a multitude of variations, and stereotyping based on some pseudoscientific perception of some ideal male/female dichotomy necessarily fails because it doesn’t come close to fully explaining any actual human being.
It’s been a long time since my graduate work in psychology, but one thing I took away and that forms my thinking on gender issues is that there is not a clear male/female dichotomy. Every human attribute, physical, emotional, and intellectual, is present in humans of either gender. Human attributes tend to fall on a normalized curve and even when there are differences in the mean between men and women those curves overlap. So while more women may score high on empathy, men have empathy as well and some men score higher than most women, for example. The average man may be taller than the average woman, but there are plenty of women taller than the average man. An additional factor is that the curve for men tends to be flatter than the curve for women on almost everything (mentioned earlier in this thread), so there are more men at both the high and low ends proportionally. There aren’t male ways of thinking or feeling and female ways of thinking, being and feeling. There are human ways and each individual falls somewhere on the spectrum of each way. I don’t think men should be more like women. I think we are all human and should try to embody the best of humanity.
This is very different than the absolute dichotomy some have proposed in this thread.
“Plenty” is really not accurate terminology. The data shows that less than 3% of women are taller than the “average man”.
No one is saying that there’s an “absolute dichotomy” between men and women and that they have nothing in common. But you wouldn’t force all basketball players of whatever gender to play together, just because there is some overlap between the height distribution of men and women. You take into account that there is a difference in the statistical distributions when deciding how to play the game.
There are sports where height doesn’t matter, and others where it does. Likewise there are some activities where differences in psychology have a big effect. Far more boys than girls play, and get addicted to, video games. That doesn’t mean girls can’t play video games or that all boys enjoy them. But when we think about alternatives to gaming, we do need to understand why that’s so attractive to so many boys (the desire for heroic quests and merit-based hierarchies as discussed above).
I have fallen behind on this thread (I’m on vacation) but feel compelled to reply to your post that was directed to me.
Interesting. Actually, I for one would not take your hypothetical gender reversal as patronizing…btw patronizing was an interesting choice of words. (Definition: treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority.)
Why? Because I actually don’t feel women are superior to men. I believe there are some human traits that have been more sociably acceptable for women to express…and others that have been culturally frowned upon. This is also true for men. Imo this “genderfication” can be not only frustrating but also detrimental to much needed social connections.
“All logic” or “all emotion” have drawbacks. Human traits such as empathy and kindness can compliment assertiveness and ambition when we strive for our individual self-actualization.
As a side note I had mentioned when it came to fairytales and Disney movies, that my DD took a liking to the Disney Mulan movie. She actually asked to try taekwondo after we stumbled upon a taekwondo demonstration at our local park. DH and I said yes as long as she committed to completing the entire 10 week course. Well she not only did that but worked for a few years until she earned her black belt. The tenets of taekwondo are courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self control and indomitable spirit.
It was a co-ed class. Sparring with boys who were larger concerned me but the confidence she gained was truly transforming. This is the same girl who would go on to work hard in school, get hired by a Big 3 consulting firm, have said firm sponsor her MBA from an M7 school and now is happily employed doing something she enjoys, while getting nicely compensated it.
I think we would do well to remember that there are a plethora of reasons why “things have changed”. Industrialization, life expectancy, birth control are just a few things that come to my mind. So while I empathize with males 18-35, the changes we all have experienced necessitates the genders try to build a framework to help each other. I find it sad if that is interpreted by some as dictating how boys should think and feel.
There are over 4 billion women in the world. 3% of 4 billion is many.
If these males are struggling so badly have they thought about becoming a SAHD? That is always an option for people who don’t want to work.
I think you better amend that to say “don’t want to work outside the home.” Being a SAHD is a lot of work.
Men “don’t want to work”?!? That’s what we used to call the soft bigotry of low expectations…
"…young men will only do what’s expected of them.
And a lot did use to be expected. There were social norms to work hard, provide, take care of loved ones, and so on.
Today, these norms have largely dissolved.
Young men have responded accordingly.
…
People think that if a young guy comes from a disorderly or deprived environment, he should be held to low standards. This is misguided. He should be held to high standards. Otherwise, he will sink to the level of his environment.
In contrast, a young male from a stable and affluent background is less in need of external pressure. His options are abundant. And he has fewer harmful distractions.
You put a guy in chaotic and impoverished circumstances. And then you decide not to expect anything out of him. How can anyone possibly believe this will lead to anything other than disaster?
Of my five closest friends in high school, none went to college. Two went to prison.
Young men will only do what’s expected of them.
Which today is not much."
This article is a prime example of a very questionable position in search of someone to believe in it. It’s a festering pile of nonsense.
Of course, after all the article is written by a man, not a woman…
My H agrees with me. He’s a man. I expect that my under-35 S would also agree with me. We have discussed the topic of this thread, and he thinks that young men his age who are struggling need to stop blaming others and start doing what they need to do to take care of themselves. And he has friends from single parent homes who are doing just that.
It’s quite clear that there are some women on this thread who consider that they know best about what’s right for men and that men’s opinions are just “a festering pile of nonsense” that only an idiot or a right wing zealot would believe.
Instead women authors are entitled to speak on behalf of everyone about how “we” (ie they) need to reeducate boys from childhood and get rid of all that nonsense about being heroes and going on quests so they can be more in touch with their emotions and work in traditionally female jobs.
That is just as offensive as the people (male and female) who told us that our daughter was too smart to be a ballet dancer and she should instead aspire to work in a traditionally male profession like engineering.
And suggestions that either “men don’t want to work” (but they’d better not be a SAHP instead because that’s “a lot of work”) or that they just “need to stop blaming others” for their problems are both sexist and a demonstration of privilege.
The common thread of the articles I’ve posted is that generally boys and young men want structure and rules, with merit-based hierarchies and clarity about what they are striving for, so they can be a hero of their own story. That is harder nowadays (outside of a video game) for many reasons, only a few of which it is possible to address, and I certainly don’t have many answers either.
But this thread has convinced me that many women are no better at understanding men, than vice versa. And some don’t want to.
I don’t think it’s the man/woman thing that’s the divide in the case of the article you posted. It’s a fundamental (fundamentalist?) difference in thinking about issues.
