Yeah I dunno, man. Orenstein has been useless and counterproductive for a couple decades now. I'm no fan of danah boyd but useless as boyd is, she's an order of magnitude more useful than Orenstein. Orenstein got her start with the argument "women's lives are shit because little girls' lives are shit because men". She wrote an entire book pretending that the '60s, '70s and '80s never happened. Nobody dares criticize this account because we live in an era where trust fund kids can steal Beastie Boys music and it becomes the musicians' fault for interfering in girlSTEM But occasionally someone says "but little boys don't start out evil I love my son" so she pivoted to "boys are being destroyed by toxic masculinity because of their fathers." Don't get me wrong: these are important discussions and there is plenty of useful journalism about it. it's just that Orenstein can't be bothered to read it.
I don't really care to weigh in on whether Orenstein is a valuable source of dialogue, as I haven't read her books and don't really want to do that much research for this comment. The interview I just read talks about pressure from fathers, but it also touches on how boys influence each other. I thought her observation that the boys she interviewed were both part of the problem and bothered by the problem was insightful, and I think she said it in a way that showed sympathy for that dissonance. I dunno man. I'm not disagreeing with you because you didn't really talk about the article at all, but I thought the article has potential as a a good jumping off point for important discussions.
Start with this comment and work your way down. Work your way down allllll the way to the bottom: Here's the fundamental problem with Orenstein and her ilk: "It is a brilliant story—fake and fraud that it is. It would be absurd for me or any other editor to review the authenticity or accuracy of stories that are nominated for prizes." You weren't allowed to go outside as a kid, while I was allowed to drive a thousand miles to Dallas within a year of having my driver's license. The difference between my upbringing and yours was that by the time Jon Walsh was convincing the world that "stranger danger" was the status quo, my friends and I were already sneaking alcohol out of the liquor cabinet. Narratives matter. The intent of narratives matter. And the goal of Orenstein and those who worship Orenstein is not to solve a problem, not to investigate solutions, not to work out coping strategies, but to find a scapegoat. here she is: Thing is though they never fucking have. Sex ed in the United States has always been a rude cartoon of a sketch of a wear a condom just say no slogan. I'm old enough to be your dad and when I read the kids books of my parents it was the exact same fuckin' situation. Go read Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume and know that's teen angst as experienced forty fuckin' years ago. So what's different? We've been puzzling this shit out since 1890. And I mean it doesn't have to be in her wheelhouse? But if what gives you the in is an op-ed piece, tie it to facts. Skenazy did. But you don't know any of this, because what you have is a Vox article that, because you don't know anything around it, you think is "a good jumping off point." Not your fault - let's be clear. My beef isn't with you, it's with Orenstein, those who think like Orenstein, and those who think people like Orenstein should be given full credulous voice. 'cuz that's what killed the Equal Rights Amendment.I dunno man. I'm not disagreeing with you because you didn't really talk about the article at all, but I thought the article has potential as a a good jumping off point for important discussions.
The thing is, nobody’s talking to the boys in their lives. Their parents aren’t talking to them. Most schools aren’t doing any kind of sex education — and if they are, it’s just about risk and danger, contraception and STDs.
I’m in agreement that there is more conversation that needs to take place on this pretty much everywhere. Orenstein did a fantastic or crappy job doesn’t matter. I observe these behaviors in the middle schoolers I teach. This isn’t the largest issue that they face, both boys and girls. It is worth the time it takes to speak with them about it. My school has invested a few bucks in an online socio-emotional learning program that I teach a half hour weekly lesson to my 8th grade math classes. We’ve been building up discussions about our values and how these values can guide us around and through social issues. It’s good stuff. I see the kids recognizing the pressures around them that don’t reflect solid values as honesty, respect, responsibility, perseverance, friendship. I’m confident that my students will have a leg up on students that have not been taught similarly in their lives.
Shouldn't socio-emotional learning be taking place in health class? I'm not trying to rip into you. It's great that kids are interrupting math class to gain some tools for living more grounded lives. This whole conversation and your specific observations on your students and what is being done to help them has left me in shock at what I was taught in highschool health class. Highschool health was very outside of the body. Draw a fire escape plan, don't do drugs and use a condom. Maybe you were unlucky enough to have Mr. Bolton as your health teacher. He was a compulsive lier and a straight up strange fellow. I've learned more about being a good human from my pets. I learned more about being a human in every literature class I've ever taken than I did in highschool health. Health class seems like an incredible wasted opertunity that lacked any practical focus on the totality of what really includes a healthy life. Maybe it's better now a days.
Health class? No ripping, good question. Our middle school doesn’t have the resources for that right now. Some kids do take the high school course in the 8th grade for credit, but not all of them. We settled on math as we have doubled up math and language arts and math courses. For example, I’ve got a second/third hour, fourth/fifth hour, and sixth/seventh hour math classes that are 90 minutes. One 30 minute social-emotional lesson per week barely makes a dent. I find it improves things as math is the most demanding of middle school subjects and my most socially adjusted kids end up in the advanced math courses. They’re the kids that can face setbacks, make goals, and progress toward those goals with success. Mathis patterns and puzzles waiting to be discovered and solved. Kids that see that can move math mountains. A colleague of mine, a PE teacher does teach our high school credit health class. It has evolved way beyond Mr. Bolt-dick’s scare tactics pseudoscience nonsense, like girls can get pregnant through their navel. Kids learn about personal nutrition, health habits, recognizing and managing stressors, goal setting, and psychology basics as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and personal problem resolving strategies. Much better than the old days.
Ours was called "Critical Issues in Modern Living." You didn't have to take it if you took two years of a foreign language. It was quite clearly and obviously intended for the underclass - a patronizing move by the school board to say "my kids are fine but your kids? Yeah, they're the ones we worry about." I was in there because I graduated a semester early to get out of that shithole, which meant I only had a year and a half of a foreign language, which meant I had to take it. In one 45-minute class we covered "how to escape a hotel fire" (always book rooms on the first two floors) and "how not to catch AIDS" (always wear a condom, mmmmmkay). If you were not in "Critical Issues in Modern Living" you got NOTHING. So I get how everyone's all fuckin' horrified at the state of manlymanlyness and our acceptance of vulnerability in this modern era or some shit but FUCKING HELL IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S NEW. I grew up playing "Smear the Queer" and had friends who liked to "beat up fags" for fun (spent a fine Friday evening evading the cops after he smashed up a convenience store while I was in the bathroom - everyone knew exactly who it was but because the convenience store clerk was hispanic no charges were ever filed) and things are SO MUCH BETTER now. But the kids are worse off in an entirely different direction: because so much of their lives are online they aren't learning how to deal with people face to face. And that has been studied at length, and that has the backing of science and journalism, and that is something that has definitely changed for the worse, and that is definitely something with a negative impact on women But because it's Orenstein, we get to wring our hands over "toxic masculinity."
Right? The boys are informed enough to know that they are trapped inside of this system, and that it is actively bad for them (and their partners), but they also know they have to perform according to the expected standard, and not try to improve their lives. The desperation they will feel for the rest of their narrow trapped lives is palpable.
I don't see her in this article at all... she's simply the conduit through which the boy's quotes got to me. I don't intend on reading her interpretation of their words... but the few stories she shared in the interview, and direct quotes from the boys themselves, were enough to hit me hard in the heart.
You're seeing and reacting to the quotes that were cherry-picked to drive home her narrative. It is literally the definition of yellow journalism.
Kids are always in moral peril, boys are always entirely too sexually charged, girls are always entirely too lacking in confidence, media is always to blame and no one is ever thinking of the children Shit changed ridiculously for kids growing up the minute Best Buy had modems for sale. But you can't write a book about children and their interactions with technology without having a clue or two. Wander around interviewing kids to spook their parents? You can change culture without having to justify a thing.