I don’t know. Even in societies that remove boys from their mothers early on to join men’s that happens when boys are a bit older. Even boys need a more nurturing presence when that young than men are usually able to provide.
After age 7 to 12 or so is when boys need a more masculine role model.
But men today aren’t interested in becoming primary school teachers, let alone early childhood ones.
I do not deny that young children need a nurturing mom. But isn't school where you should start to get independent of that? Isn't that what part of learning is? I am not anti-woman or even anti-woman teachers but if half the school age population is male, don't they deserve role models too? If POC deserve to see people like them as teachers, and I think they do, don't boys?
Absolutely 100% true. And women probably don’t realize this, so it’s up to us (men) to make this happen. But how are men to get more control of education. This is a female dominated environment. I suggest that we need to broaden the scope of the definition of religion in the context of the First Amendment to include education and all means of learning in order to encourage more educational entrepreneurship, and thus more experiments in ways of educating boys. Certainly the one-size-fits all monopoly of public education has failed. And it has failed especially hard for boys with childhood instability. For more on my strategy see
I don't necessarily believe it's negative that 40% of college students are male compared to 60% female. College became a marker of status and social mobility in the 20th century, but a college education is not the end all of life, imo. The male/female demographic in trade schools is approximately 98% male/2% female according to College Factual. We obsess over proving the differences between males and females, but then fret when men attend college at a lower rate than females. The men are very smartly going to trade schools instead, usually graduating with much less debt and a job awaiting. I see college as an academic trade, just as electricians, plumbers, welders and mechanics are skilled trades.
This is an excellent point, and I agree with you. For men to choose another path than college is fine; perhaps even good. But why are men choosing the non college path? Or similarly, why are women choosing the college path in such great numbers? I believe a big part of it, has to do with the innate differences between men and women. Joyce Benenson illustrates many of these differences in her book Warriors and Worriers—one of the 31 books on Rob Henderson’s Secret Psychology Reading List available here. https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/rob-hendersons-reading-list?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
But the even bigger problem here that would help boys with childhood instability is the preponderance of female teachers in K-12. Boys are not doing well in K-12. We need more male teachers. As Rob points out it was the male teachers that really helped him. This is because male teachers know better what boys unique needs are.
For more on this please see my comment here in which I suggest an approach for creating better incentives in education to help boys.
Thank you and I agree with the need for more male teachers. Our youngest was a bit difficult when trying to get him to follow structure, so we didn't start him in kindergarten until he turned 6, and then we found a Montessori and the best teacher at this school was a male. He managed to get our son through kindergarten (and he had shop tools and projects for the children) and prepare him for a more structured classroom. I do believe there are innate differences that can be applied generally and lead to divergent paths, although of course there are outliers.
I worked as a teacher at a high quality private school and noticed that the boys struggled to sit still and be respectful. Boys need less structure and more rough outdoor play.
“I graduated and then landed at Cambridge, where I obtained a Ph.D. in Psychology. I suspect I was the only person at the university who was living out of garbage bags at age seven and smoking weed at nine.” I’m grateful for Rob Henderson.
I once watched a documentary on how baby birds learn the songs of their species. The study had set up various situations controlling if and when the developing birds heard adults of their species “singing”. There were several variations on the point in their development when they were exposed, as well as groups who only heard the song of a different species. The results were fascinating and seemed to conclusively demonstrate that there is a specific timeframe within which the brain records the song. If exposure was withheld during that timeframe but provided before and after, they would grow up having a very disjointed song. If they only heard another species’ song, they would grow up producing a ‘garbled’ mix. I’ve often wondered how “timeframe” dynamic of specific needs being met (or not) occurs in human development.
I understand and hold empathy for all people forced to live a life so lacking in the emotional and psychological needs of reasonable parenting. It is clear that this, almost more than anything else, is the key to improving everything about the overall human condition. Stable two-parent families are the platinum standard, but more importantly, lacking it turns the standard into bottom-dwelling lead.
But it frustrates me. It frustrates me because of my own life where I overcame these things and recognize that looking back in pain over the unfulfilled childhood needs can be destructive. It is necessary to understand it... to develop the emotional intelligence to see where the gaps can suboptimize current and future life-choices.
I played little league. I was a pitcher and played almost every other position. I had zero errors for the year, and was batting over 500. I had a 70 MPH fastball at at 12. My parents fought and then divorced and to stick it to my father, I stopped playing baseball. Now, my life is good today. Maybe I would have had a long professional baseball career if I had stuck it out. If my parents had stayed together and my father continued to support me... maybe. Who knows?
The point is that I know people that have a similar story without a good life and continue to lament their missing parental support as being the reason. They have not yet figured out that today is the first day in the rest of their life and they need to grow up and put their broken childhood experiences behind them. I know, easier said that done.
I wish I had the money and time to help more people in what I see as a remedy to almost everything. I call it "becoming your own mother and father". Interesting when people ask me who mentored me in my life, I come up blank. Yes there have been people that have helped me, but then not really. I helped myself by observing everyone else's behavior and then decided what was good and what was bad, and then try to model only what was good.
I do think the loving and nurturing mother is the most important need that children have that otherwise thwarts their development to well-functioning adult. I had that for the most part, although my mother fell apart after the divorce and remarried a tyrant that I mostly had fist fights with. Today I have a good relationship with that man after my mother died in 2008 of brain cancer. The reason that I have a good relationship with him, and not my brother, is that unlike my brother I forgave him for his shortcomings.
This journey to become our own mother and father starts with forgiveness... both of the people that failed us and for us too... for making bad decisions clouded by the emotional pain we shouldered from the abuse, neglect and trauma of a dysfunctional childhood.
Gawd I hate the standard Hollywood narrative of the character being afflicted with unresolved mommy and daddy issues! I get it. I really do. But I think back to not too long ago in the history of human existence where children where largely ignored and then kicked out of the nest to fend for themselves. I really wonder which of these two paths, the nurturing helicopter parents or the parents that expects quick independence and maturation of the child, is the better path with respect to basic Darwinist human psychology. The evidence today is that the former seems to result in better economic outcomes, but then that same cohort seems to be more beset with mental health diagnosis.
My view is that the best optimized circumstance is early childhood nurturing and unconditional love of a mother figure, and then father-run boot camp. I think we are missing enough of both.
Frank -- Very thoughtful and provocative comment. But a little confused in your articulation of it. When your articulation becomes clear, I look forward to reading your book. Your experience is invaluable. Have you listed to David Goggins extraordinary experience?
It is time to take a big picture look at what an ideal public education system should look like. It should not look like the monopolized politicized mess it has become.
Instead of pouring money from a variety of sources into local monopolies and hoping for good results, the ideal system would be funded by a simple Educational Endowment bestowed on each individual student.
Provision of educational services should look like what the demonopolized telecommunications industry has become, large intensively competitive high tech providers. These providers would be competing to offer educational services that worked, and that parents and students wanted
This ideal system would protect its users from poor teaching performance. If a student failed to exhibit minimum educational achievement, payment would not be made. Instead, it would accrue in the student account, providing twice the amount the next year to the provider who could catch the student up.
Seriously underperforming students would accrue several years of catch-up funding, providing extra incentive for the type of personalized attention that would benefit them. Military veteran servicemen and women teaching small groups of students, developing personal relationships, can change lost kids into enthusiastic young adults.
The funds would remain in the student account indefinitely, allowing dropouts to get an education as age and experience created the desire. The endowment would also provide funding for prison schooling, attracting providers who would adapt to the requirements.
Home schoolers whose students exhibited the required achievement would be paid.
Special needs students would still receive extra funding but at an individual level.
Opening educational services to the free market would allow for practical job-related instruction, and college level courses, to be included as providers fought for market share.
Competition among educational providers would make full use of technology, would provide useful training for actual jobs, and would deliver far more education for the same money. Gamification would keep students involved in ways that existing K-12 material can't touch. The use of AI would allow the tracking of each bit of knowledge and understanding to be monitored at the individual student level and presented in various ways until understood.
The late 1970's in the United States was a time of surprising deregulation. It was the beginning of the end for the telephone monopolies. Those inside the regulated industries, and the regulatory agencies, warned of doom and disaster if competition were allowed. The doomsayers were wrong. The free market provided solutions that were impossible to forecast. Competition and the profit motive brought out the best that humans can create.
Communications solutions today are employing far more people than the old phone monopolies, and are delivering services never dreamed of in that era. The forecasts of disastrous unemployment and system collapse if the phone monopolies were opened to competition were totally and completely wrong.
Dick -- Very intriguing ideas. As a former teacher, I understand the need for revolutionary change in American education. The only problem I have with your ideas is that history suggests that turning over services needed by everyone to capitalism too often results in the most vulnerable being left out. Other than the creation of the lagging student fund (an idea I like), how have you accounted for this problem?
I think endowing each individual student, and providing for payout only when minimum achievement is attained will protect the bottom end students. Poor students will have accrued funds to pay for educational services as long as they live. This will create a market for providers who can handle the situation of troubled students who just vanished from the normal systems, The money stays in each student account indefinitely until earned by a provider.
However, I would point out that over the last century exactly zero technologies have shown to have a significant net positive impact on student learning. Curriculum has some impact, from largely neutral to negative. It is the people that are all important. That is, quality teachers and motivated students.
Is government funding of education just? I say no, and I point to the First Amendment as my justification. I argue that religion and education are siblings; and as we’ll explore in this essay—synonyms. I believe the First Amendment should make clear that religion is synonymous with education; both are means by which we learn, and from which we gain our beliefs, habits and skills—forming our identity and individuality. Consider the following clarification to the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Religion and education are both means by which we learn, and both means by which we adopt beliefs, habits and skills. If you believe that this is true, then who should be in charge of your education? You or the state?
How diverse are the actual phone options though, Dick? Pretty limited. Precisely the same lack of choice would be the outcome. Some kids would get deluxe high end schooling and others would get bargain basement. Oh wait, that is what has already happened. You seem to be forgetting that children aren't widgets. I don't want a bidding war for who gets access to my child/ to help shape my childs character and thinking skills. Teaching is a difficult complex job that requires a diversity of skills most people can't even grasp if they have only been the student and not the teacher. If we paid teachers what we pay linebackers and capped class size at 15 students per class far more students would succeed. More men would teach if the pay didn't suck for all the BS teachers put up with. If K to 8 were sex segregated boys and girls would have more balanced outcomes.
Also college is only one measure of success. Are you a decent human? Can you treat people with respect especially when they don't share your background ot politics? Can you show up on time and get whatever your job is done? Do you have a solid core of self regard and self respect? That solid core comes from childhood stability. An Education system at the whim of the 'market' would be a disaster.
Family instability in a much less drastic sense—the frequency of divorce, sometimes repeated divorces, even in otherwise secure middle-class households—still unsettled a whole generation and beyond: the children of us baby boomers. I wrote about it in 2005, in a blog post I'm still fond of. https://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/06/staying_togethe.html
Rob - I believe a big part of the problem here is lack of good male models and state-funded K-12 education. There’s no way to know what a free-market in education would look like, but we know what it doesn’t look like. Right now we have a preponderance of female teachers in K-12. As you point out in this post, it is the male teachers that really helped you. Make teachers know what boys need more than female teachers. We need more male teachers and we need more schools that cater to boys unique needs.
Looking at the differing and diverging political views of men and women I suggest that women are naturally self-deceiving about the realities of progressivism and public education. Women are not likely to rock the boat as they are innately much more risk averse than men. Women use self-deception to protect themselves and their children. Change has to come from us (men).
The best example and explanation I’ve seen about women’s self-deception comes from Joyce Benenson. On page 177 of her book Warriors and Worries she writes
“A woman's honest belief that she never competes with other females is what allows her to do just that. Nothing works better than self-deception at permitting one to gain the upper hand in interpersonal conflicts of interest without potential retaliation [41]. By being unaware of her own competitive instincts, a woman can go about her business of pursuing her goals, so that she and her children can survive and thrive. How else to ensure that she gets the best resources, territory, allies, babysitters, mates, and status? If she didn't compete to get what she can, her female peers certainly would. She and her children would then suffer. She would be letting her genes down.”
So self-deception is innate. It exists with us today because those that self-deceived survived.
Benenson calls this Strategy 1. On page 174 she writes
“How does a woman compete while minimizing the risk of retaliation? I suggest that women use a few simple strategies. Strategy 1 is that a woman does not ever let anyone else know that she is competing with them. This is an ideal strategy, since if she can disguise her intentions, the risk of retaliation is reduced. She preaches the mantra of equality for all, and sincerely believes it. This sincerity allows her to be maximally convincing to other women. Unaware of her own competitive instincts, she tries to get as much as she can for herself, while insisting that everyone else share equally.”
On page 175 she writes,
“While insisting-and believing-that she and other women do not compete, a woman then does her best to advance her own and her children's interests. If she manages to get more resources, a more worthy mate, a safer house, or a better school for her children without anyone else realizing it until it is too late, she succeeds. Her competitors are left bewildered that she got ahead of them. She was so nice.”
“This only works if a woman can convince others that she is not compet-ing. This works best when she herself is not aware that she competes [41]. Nonetheless, the outcomes of women's competitions count more than those between men. Should a woman lose, she and her children will inevitably suffer. Should a man lose, it doesn't make as much difference to the future of his genes because a woman is looking after them.”
Reference 41 is Von Hippel, W., and R. Trivers, The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2011. 34(1): pp. 1-56.
My best recommendation is to discuss the meaning of religion in the context of the First Amendment, and to persuade people that we should broaden the meaning of religion to include education and all means of learning. This will prevent crowding out of niche educational options for boys. Our one-sized-fits all educational options right now are not good for most boys. Thoughts?
Here’s the best write up I have on this so far. More to come.
So there are people who embrace hive culture. My intuition is that women are more likely to do so. Well women and men who are beholden to women. So Ms. Benenson may be describing women so inclined. But that is only a subset of women. All women do not function that way and I think it wrong to pigeon-hole people in that manner.
Benenson's cynical description of the feminine reality as she sees it is disappointing to me. The feminine spirit, which I believe this country needs to recognize and listen to, is much more than competition for survival and status. Many men and some women are ignorant and disrespectful of that spirit, which in my view is why domestic violence, especially toward women and children, is rampant. In my view, it is also the reason why the American populace has so many sheep, unable to see beyond the posturing and lies of many of its leaders. My wife always sees the lies and cons before I do as a man.
With respect to your advocacy of a greater role for religion in education (I think that's what you're saying), I am mistrustful. My belief in God has carried me through my life, but I have yet to practice or even run across a religion that can see beyond its agenda. If we are to remain a people of diversity (which I pray will be the case), religion has generally been an obstacle, more now than ever. Allowing preeminence of any religion in our educational system, whatever form it eventually takes, is not what our children need.
I like your comments, except that it is not for men to "dominate" education but rather to participate in it. In the classroom and on the field. Men as administrators are no more qualified than women, and maybe less given the patriarchal nature of our society.
I linked to this post of Rob's on Facebook. I got the following comment, and I responded to it:
"'It’s no wonder fewer men are making it to college: boys begin falling behind girls as soon as they start attending school' ... it almost seems as if it was girls' fault if boys have issues ar school.
"Interesting (and making sense) though, that a stable family environment has a much bigger impact on a kid's future than the social-economic situation."
My reply
"It's not girls' fault. It's that it's easier for girls ON AVERAGE (there are many exceptions) to behave and focus, to sit still and be regimented in the way that school does. So if you educate girls in a school setting, we will succeed in that setting. This will be taken by some as an excuse not to educate girls (because it marginalizes and discourages boys). A better question might be whether school on the industrial/office model (as a rehearsal for the 9–5 life) is a natural way to educate anybody."
I should add that the fact that it's easier for girls *on average* to sit still and be "well behaved" doesn't mean that they genuinely like it or that it's good for them. It just gets rewarded, so they (we) are trained to be phony, and then one day we explode and shock the sh*t out of everyone.
Yes! Annie, thank you so much for this comment! Our entire lives girls are Rewarded for pretending everything is 'fine' when it is not, and punished for getting angry or being boisterous or competitive because That's not feminine. As if that should even matter.
This matriarch thinks considerably more of the patriarchs need to be involved in education. That in essence the real problem is the lack of balance. Women cannot teach little boys how to become men.
Yes, I believe there is a need for more men in education. I was one, and it was a good experience for me and the students. My problem is that, in education and life, I see so many men teaching their boys only the patriarchal belief system.
Arguably the patriarchal system brought us out of the caves. And there are an abundance of issues with matriarchal systems. Many of which are demonstrated by the capture of education thereby. Shouldn't the goal be balance?
“The ongoing discussion about the gender gap in education is misguided. The effects of childhood instability suggest that, if we focus on promoting stable and secure homes for children, then more children, including boys, will flourish. Still, the fixation on college is a distraction from what really matters.” Yep. And let’s put our brains together and develop entrepreneurial solutions that create more family stability. What can we do?
Agreed. Perhaps Rob could suggest practical actions that could truly help children caught in the foster care programs? How do we offer desperately needed stability and continuity of care to these children? Churches and local community NGOs are probably better suited than government to provide these services? Emphasis on local.
At 70 I've seen several generations of lost boys - walking the streets, boys that have been told all their lives that they're a problem, that they're bad, that not only are they unloved, but that they don't really matter to anyone. Most of them learned early on that all they had to do was learn how to take a 10 minute beating and they could do anything they want.
I've been in the schools, and I've been in the jails, and I've been to the funerals. Folks, we only get a short window to help boys create an emotionally healthy foundation - 6 - 12, maybe 13. They need consistency, social skills, fairness, competition, structure, and discipline. Sadly, public institutions - education, churches, charities, and government? well how much time do you have? they have all abdicated their role in supporting these values.
I commend you mightily for speaking out. I am sure at times you must feel like you are tilting at windmills. But I think you are a beacon in a dense, dense fog. I wholeheartedly embrace your recognition of the irreplaceable value of family stability. But please reconsider the emphasis on college degrees. That, if it were ever a genuine metric of success, is SO 1970s. At least for the vast majority of degrees. Right, wrong or indifferent we have created a service economy. We no longer even demand expertise in a specific field to qualify as a CEO. Rather a ubiquitous MBA and familiarity with the concept of widgets will suffice. See any airline or automobile manufacturer if you doubt me. Tech may be the rare exception. We have destroyed the notion of American entreprenuership with the exception of food trucks, and tech start-ups. Nor does modern college education any longer provide the age old benefit of being an educated - meaning a well-informed person capable of reason. I hope it is not this way forever but I think it foolhardy to not acknowledge that college grads are a dime a dozen. The inviolate laws of supply and demand have been ignored. The trick to economic success in this environment is in skills, not degrees.
True. There are a few than don’t though. Not everyone drinks or is around drinking culture. Also, some of us that have done a lot of drunk driving never drive blackout drunk just because our bodies differ in response to alcohol.
The worst blackout driving story I am familiar with was from Ambien. People who take prescription meds need to understand that drinking is not the only thing that causes impaired driving.
“if I am honest, the teachers who had the most positive effect on me were usually men.”
The world needs more male teachers.
I think the prevalence of female elementary teachers is why boys fall behind from the start.
I don’t know. Even in societies that remove boys from their mothers early on to join men’s that happens when boys are a bit older. Even boys need a more nurturing presence when that young than men are usually able to provide.
After age 7 to 12 or so is when boys need a more masculine role model.
But men today aren’t interested in becoming primary school teachers, let alone early childhood ones.
I do not deny that young children need a nurturing mom. But isn't school where you should start to get independent of that? Isn't that what part of learning is? I am not anti-woman or even anti-woman teachers but if half the school age population is male, don't they deserve role models too? If POC deserve to see people like them as teachers, and I think they do, don't boys?
Yes!! There’s still this idea that to bleach out the male “toxicity” the women need to take over. No one says “representation matters” in such cases.
Absolutely 100% true. And women probably don’t realize this, so it’s up to us (men) to make this happen. But how are men to get more control of education. This is a female dominated environment. I suggest that we need to broaden the scope of the definition of religion in the context of the First Amendment to include education and all means of learning in order to encourage more educational entrepreneurship, and thus more experiments in ways of educating boys. Certainly the one-size-fits all monopoly of public education has failed. And it has failed especially hard for boys with childhood instability. For more on my strategy see
https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/religion-education-and-identity
“What is nearly impossible to overcome is the instability—the psychological havoc—created by broken homes. Especially for boys.” Thank you for this.
I don't necessarily believe it's negative that 40% of college students are male compared to 60% female. College became a marker of status and social mobility in the 20th century, but a college education is not the end all of life, imo. The male/female demographic in trade schools is approximately 98% male/2% female according to College Factual. We obsess over proving the differences between males and females, but then fret when men attend college at a lower rate than females. The men are very smartly going to trade schools instead, usually graduating with much less debt and a job awaiting. I see college as an academic trade, just as electricians, plumbers, welders and mechanics are skilled trades.
This is an excellent point, and I agree with you. For men to choose another path than college is fine; perhaps even good. But why are men choosing the non college path? Or similarly, why are women choosing the college path in such great numbers? I believe a big part of it, has to do with the innate differences between men and women. Joyce Benenson illustrates many of these differences in her book Warriors and Worriers—one of the 31 books on Rob Henderson’s Secret Psychology Reading List available here. https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/rob-hendersons-reading-list?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I think there are big problems with higher education. https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/mlk-jr-on-academic-freedom?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
But the even bigger problem here that would help boys with childhood instability is the preponderance of female teachers in K-12. Boys are not doing well in K-12. We need more male teachers. As Rob points out it was the male teachers that really helped him. This is because male teachers know better what boys unique needs are.
For more on this please see my comment here in which I suggest an approach for creating better incentives in education to help boys.
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/americas-lost-boys-and-me/comment/49320412?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios
Thank you and I agree with the need for more male teachers. Our youngest was a bit difficult when trying to get him to follow structure, so we didn't start him in kindergarten until he turned 6, and then we found a Montessori and the best teacher at this school was a male. He managed to get our son through kindergarten (and he had shop tools and projects for the children) and prepare him for a more structured classroom. I do believe there are innate differences that can be applied generally and lead to divergent paths, although of course there are outliers.
I worked as a teacher at a high quality private school and noticed that the boys struggled to sit still and be respectful. Boys need less structure and more rough outdoor play.
“I graduated and then landed at Cambridge, where I obtained a Ph.D. in Psychology. I suspect I was the only person at the university who was living out of garbage bags at age seven and smoking weed at nine.” I’m grateful for Rob Henderson.
I once watched a documentary on how baby birds learn the songs of their species. The study had set up various situations controlling if and when the developing birds heard adults of their species “singing”. There were several variations on the point in their development when they were exposed, as well as groups who only heard the song of a different species. The results were fascinating and seemed to conclusively demonstrate that there is a specific timeframe within which the brain records the song. If exposure was withheld during that timeframe but provided before and after, they would grow up having a very disjointed song. If they only heard another species’ song, they would grow up producing a ‘garbled’ mix. I’ve often wondered how “timeframe” dynamic of specific needs being met (or not) occurs in human development.
There is good data that outcomes are a lot better if boys start school one year later.
I understand and hold empathy for all people forced to live a life so lacking in the emotional and psychological needs of reasonable parenting. It is clear that this, almost more than anything else, is the key to improving everything about the overall human condition. Stable two-parent families are the platinum standard, but more importantly, lacking it turns the standard into bottom-dwelling lead.
But it frustrates me. It frustrates me because of my own life where I overcame these things and recognize that looking back in pain over the unfulfilled childhood needs can be destructive. It is necessary to understand it... to develop the emotional intelligence to see where the gaps can suboptimize current and future life-choices.
I played little league. I was a pitcher and played almost every other position. I had zero errors for the year, and was batting over 500. I had a 70 MPH fastball at at 12. My parents fought and then divorced and to stick it to my father, I stopped playing baseball. Now, my life is good today. Maybe I would have had a long professional baseball career if I had stuck it out. If my parents had stayed together and my father continued to support me... maybe. Who knows?
The point is that I know people that have a similar story without a good life and continue to lament their missing parental support as being the reason. They have not yet figured out that today is the first day in the rest of their life and they need to grow up and put their broken childhood experiences behind them. I know, easier said that done.
I wish I had the money and time to help more people in what I see as a remedy to almost everything. I call it "becoming your own mother and father". Interesting when people ask me who mentored me in my life, I come up blank. Yes there have been people that have helped me, but then not really. I helped myself by observing everyone else's behavior and then decided what was good and what was bad, and then try to model only what was good.
I do think the loving and nurturing mother is the most important need that children have that otherwise thwarts their development to well-functioning adult. I had that for the most part, although my mother fell apart after the divorce and remarried a tyrant that I mostly had fist fights with. Today I have a good relationship with that man after my mother died in 2008 of brain cancer. The reason that I have a good relationship with him, and not my brother, is that unlike my brother I forgave him for his shortcomings.
This journey to become our own mother and father starts with forgiveness... both of the people that failed us and for us too... for making bad decisions clouded by the emotional pain we shouldered from the abuse, neglect and trauma of a dysfunctional childhood.
Gawd I hate the standard Hollywood narrative of the character being afflicted with unresolved mommy and daddy issues! I get it. I really do. But I think back to not too long ago in the history of human existence where children where largely ignored and then kicked out of the nest to fend for themselves. I really wonder which of these two paths, the nurturing helicopter parents or the parents that expects quick independence and maturation of the child, is the better path with respect to basic Darwinist human psychology. The evidence today is that the former seems to result in better economic outcomes, but then that same cohort seems to be more beset with mental health diagnosis.
My view is that the best optimized circumstance is early childhood nurturing and unconditional love of a mother figure, and then father-run boot camp. I think we are missing enough of both.
Frank -- Very thoughtful and provocative comment. But a little confused in your articulation of it. When your articulation becomes clear, I look forward to reading your book. Your experience is invaluable. Have you listed to David Goggins extraordinary experience?
Thanks. Yes, I just typed it without the benefit of review and editing. I will look up Davis Goggins.
It is time to take a big picture look at what an ideal public education system should look like. It should not look like the monopolized politicized mess it has become.
Instead of pouring money from a variety of sources into local monopolies and hoping for good results, the ideal system would be funded by a simple Educational Endowment bestowed on each individual student.
Provision of educational services should look like what the demonopolized telecommunications industry has become, large intensively competitive high tech providers. These providers would be competing to offer educational services that worked, and that parents and students wanted
This ideal system would protect its users from poor teaching performance. If a student failed to exhibit minimum educational achievement, payment would not be made. Instead, it would accrue in the student account, providing twice the amount the next year to the provider who could catch the student up.
Seriously underperforming students would accrue several years of catch-up funding, providing extra incentive for the type of personalized attention that would benefit them. Military veteran servicemen and women teaching small groups of students, developing personal relationships, can change lost kids into enthusiastic young adults.
The funds would remain in the student account indefinitely, allowing dropouts to get an education as age and experience created the desire. The endowment would also provide funding for prison schooling, attracting providers who would adapt to the requirements.
Home schoolers whose students exhibited the required achievement would be paid.
Special needs students would still receive extra funding but at an individual level.
Opening educational services to the free market would allow for practical job-related instruction, and college level courses, to be included as providers fought for market share.
Competition among educational providers would make full use of technology, would provide useful training for actual jobs, and would deliver far more education for the same money. Gamification would keep students involved in ways that existing K-12 material can't touch. The use of AI would allow the tracking of each bit of knowledge and understanding to be monitored at the individual student level and presented in various ways until understood.
The late 1970's in the United States was a time of surprising deregulation. It was the beginning of the end for the telephone monopolies. Those inside the regulated industries, and the regulatory agencies, warned of doom and disaster if competition were allowed. The doomsayers were wrong. The free market provided solutions that were impossible to forecast. Competition and the profit motive brought out the best that humans can create.
Communications solutions today are employing far more people than the old phone monopolies, and are delivering services never dreamed of in that era. The forecasts of disastrous unemployment and system collapse if the phone monopolies were opened to competition were totally and completely wrong.
K-12 is the phone monopoly of our time.
Dick -- Very intriguing ideas. As a former teacher, I understand the need for revolutionary change in American education. The only problem I have with your ideas is that history suggests that turning over services needed by everyone to capitalism too often results in the most vulnerable being left out. Other than the creation of the lagging student fund (an idea I like), how have you accounted for this problem?
I think endowing each individual student, and providing for payout only when minimum achievement is attained will protect the bottom end students. Poor students will have accrued funds to pay for educational services as long as they live. This will create a market for providers who can handle the situation of troubled students who just vanished from the normal systems, The money stays in each student account indefinitely until earned by a provider.
Many good points!
However, I would point out that over the last century exactly zero technologies have shown to have a significant net positive impact on student learning. Curriculum has some impact, from largely neutral to negative. It is the people that are all important. That is, quality teachers and motivated students.
Dick - Here’s a bigger picture.
Is government funding of education just? I say no, and I point to the First Amendment as my justification. I argue that religion and education are siblings; and as we’ll explore in this essay—synonyms. I believe the First Amendment should make clear that religion is synonymous with education; both are means by which we learn, and from which we gain our beliefs, habits and skills—forming our identity and individuality. Consider the following clarification to the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Religion and education are both means by which we learn, and both means by which we adopt beliefs, habits and skills. If you believe that this is true, then who should be in charge of your education? You or the state?
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/religion-education-and-identity?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
How diverse are the actual phone options though, Dick? Pretty limited. Precisely the same lack of choice would be the outcome. Some kids would get deluxe high end schooling and others would get bargain basement. Oh wait, that is what has already happened. You seem to be forgetting that children aren't widgets. I don't want a bidding war for who gets access to my child/ to help shape my childs character and thinking skills. Teaching is a difficult complex job that requires a diversity of skills most people can't even grasp if they have only been the student and not the teacher. If we paid teachers what we pay linebackers and capped class size at 15 students per class far more students would succeed. More men would teach if the pay didn't suck for all the BS teachers put up with. If K to 8 were sex segregated boys and girls would have more balanced outcomes.
Also college is only one measure of success. Are you a decent human? Can you treat people with respect especially when they don't share your background ot politics? Can you show up on time and get whatever your job is done? Do you have a solid core of self regard and self respect? That solid core comes from childhood stability. An Education system at the whim of the 'market' would be a disaster.
The US Department of Education was formed in 1979.
Preodered!
There was a nice review of the book yesterday in The Times of London.
Family instability in a much less drastic sense—the frequency of divorce, sometimes repeated divorces, even in otherwise secure middle-class households—still unsettled a whole generation and beyond: the children of us baby boomers. I wrote about it in 2005, in a blog post I'm still fond of. https://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/06/staying_togethe.html
Rob - I believe a big part of the problem here is lack of good male models and state-funded K-12 education. There’s no way to know what a free-market in education would look like, but we know what it doesn’t look like. Right now we have a preponderance of female teachers in K-12. As you point out in this post, it is the male teachers that really helped you. Make teachers know what boys need more than female teachers. We need more male teachers and we need more schools that cater to boys unique needs.
Looking at the differing and diverging political views of men and women I suggest that women are naturally self-deceiving about the realities of progressivism and public education. Women are not likely to rock the boat as they are innately much more risk averse than men. Women use self-deception to protect themselves and their children. Change has to come from us (men).
The best example and explanation I’ve seen about women’s self-deception comes from Joyce Benenson. On page 177 of her book Warriors and Worries she writes
“A woman's honest belief that she never competes with other females is what allows her to do just that. Nothing works better than self-deception at permitting one to gain the upper hand in interpersonal conflicts of interest without potential retaliation [41]. By being unaware of her own competitive instincts, a woman can go about her business of pursuing her goals, so that she and her children can survive and thrive. How else to ensure that she gets the best resources, territory, allies, babysitters, mates, and status? If she didn't compete to get what she can, her female peers certainly would. She and her children would then suffer. She would be letting her genes down.”
So self-deception is innate. It exists with us today because those that self-deceived survived.
Benenson calls this Strategy 1. On page 174 she writes
“How does a woman compete while minimizing the risk of retaliation? I suggest that women use a few simple strategies. Strategy 1 is that a woman does not ever let anyone else know that she is competing with them. This is an ideal strategy, since if she can disguise her intentions, the risk of retaliation is reduced. She preaches the mantra of equality for all, and sincerely believes it. This sincerity allows her to be maximally convincing to other women. Unaware of her own competitive instincts, she tries to get as much as she can for herself, while insisting that everyone else share equally.”
On page 175 she writes,
“While insisting-and believing-that she and other women do not compete, a woman then does her best to advance her own and her children's interests. If she manages to get more resources, a more worthy mate, a safer house, or a better school for her children without anyone else realizing it until it is too late, she succeeds. Her competitors are left bewildered that she got ahead of them. She was so nice.”
“This only works if a woman can convince others that she is not compet-ing. This works best when she herself is not aware that she competes [41]. Nonetheless, the outcomes of women's competitions count more than those between men. Should a woman lose, she and her children will inevitably suffer. Should a man lose, it doesn't make as much difference to the future of his genes because a woman is looking after them.”
Reference 41 is Von Hippel, W., and R. Trivers, The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2011. 34(1): pp. 1-56.
My best recommendation is to discuss the meaning of religion in the context of the First Amendment, and to persuade people that we should broaden the meaning of religion to include education and all means of learning. This will prevent crowding out of niche educational options for boys. Our one-sized-fits all educational options right now are not good for most boys. Thoughts?
Here’s the best write up I have on this so far. More to come.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/religion-education-and-identity?r=nb3bl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
So there are people who embrace hive culture. My intuition is that women are more likely to do so. Well women and men who are beholden to women. So Ms. Benenson may be describing women so inclined. But that is only a subset of women. All women do not function that way and I think it wrong to pigeon-hole people in that manner.
Certainly true. Not all women behave this way. She makes that clear in her book.
Scott -- Again, intriguing and provocative.
Benenson's cynical description of the feminine reality as she sees it is disappointing to me. The feminine spirit, which I believe this country needs to recognize and listen to, is much more than competition for survival and status. Many men and some women are ignorant and disrespectful of that spirit, which in my view is why domestic violence, especially toward women and children, is rampant. In my view, it is also the reason why the American populace has so many sheep, unable to see beyond the posturing and lies of many of its leaders. My wife always sees the lies and cons before I do as a man.
With respect to your advocacy of a greater role for religion in education (I think that's what you're saying), I am mistrustful. My belief in God has carried me through my life, but I have yet to practice or even run across a religion that can see beyond its agenda. If we are to remain a people of diversity (which I pray will be the case), religion has generally been an obstacle, more now than ever. Allowing preeminence of any religion in our educational system, whatever form it eventually takes, is not what our children need.
“With respect to your advocacy of a greater role for religion in education (I think that's what you're saying), I am mistrustful.” No. This is not what I’m saying. Start here. https://scottgibb.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/141045565/share-center
I like your comments, except that it is not for men to "dominate" education but rather to participate in it. In the classroom and on the field. Men as administrators are no more qualified than women, and maybe less given the patriarchal nature of our society.
I linked to this post of Rob's on Facebook. I got the following comment, and I responded to it:
"'It’s no wonder fewer men are making it to college: boys begin falling behind girls as soon as they start attending school' ... it almost seems as if it was girls' fault if boys have issues ar school.
"Interesting (and making sense) though, that a stable family environment has a much bigger impact on a kid's future than the social-economic situation."
My reply
"It's not girls' fault. It's that it's easier for girls ON AVERAGE (there are many exceptions) to behave and focus, to sit still and be regimented in the way that school does. So if you educate girls in a school setting, we will succeed in that setting. This will be taken by some as an excuse not to educate girls (because it marginalizes and discourages boys). A better question might be whether school on the industrial/office model (as a rehearsal for the 9–5 life) is a natural way to educate anybody."
I should add that the fact that it's easier for girls *on average* to sit still and be "well behaved" doesn't mean that they genuinely like it or that it's good for them. It just gets rewarded, so they (we) are trained to be phony, and then one day we explode and shock the sh*t out of everyone.
Yes! Annie, thank you so much for this comment! Our entire lives girls are Rewarded for pretending everything is 'fine' when it is not, and punished for getting angry or being boisterous or competitive because That's not feminine. As if that should even matter.
This matriarch thinks considerably more of the patriarchs need to be involved in education. That in essence the real problem is the lack of balance. Women cannot teach little boys how to become men.
Yes, I believe there is a need for more men in education. I was one, and it was a good experience for me and the students. My problem is that, in education and life, I see so many men teaching their boys only the patriarchal belief system.
Arguably the patriarchal system brought us out of the caves. And there are an abundance of issues with matriarchal systems. Many of which are demonstrated by the capture of education thereby. Shouldn't the goal be balance?
“The ongoing discussion about the gender gap in education is misguided. The effects of childhood instability suggest that, if we focus on promoting stable and secure homes for children, then more children, including boys, will flourish. Still, the fixation on college is a distraction from what really matters.” Yep. And let’s put our brains together and develop entrepreneurial solutions that create more family stability. What can we do?
"What can we do?" Exactly my own question.
We could start by teaching boys and girls to see each other as equally deserving of respect. Maybe that will trickle up to the adults?
Agreed. Perhaps Rob could suggest practical actions that could truly help children caught in the foster care programs? How do we offer desperately needed stability and continuity of care to these children? Churches and local community NGOs are probably better suited than government to provide these services? Emphasis on local.
“And if I am honest, the teachers who had the most positive effect on me were usually men.” This is super important.
At 70 I've seen several generations of lost boys - walking the streets, boys that have been told all their lives that they're a problem, that they're bad, that not only are they unloved, but that they don't really matter to anyone. Most of them learned early on that all they had to do was learn how to take a 10 minute beating and they could do anything they want.
I've been in the schools, and I've been in the jails, and I've been to the funerals. Folks, we only get a short window to help boys create an emotionally healthy foundation - 6 - 12, maybe 13. They need consistency, social skills, fairness, competition, structure, and discipline. Sadly, public institutions - education, churches, charities, and government? well how much time do you have? they have all abdicated their role in supporting these values.
They are counting on us.
I commend you mightily for speaking out. I am sure at times you must feel like you are tilting at windmills. But I think you are a beacon in a dense, dense fog. I wholeheartedly embrace your recognition of the irreplaceable value of family stability. But please reconsider the emphasis on college degrees. That, if it were ever a genuine metric of success, is SO 1970s. At least for the vast majority of degrees. Right, wrong or indifferent we have created a service economy. We no longer even demand expertise in a specific field to qualify as a CEO. Rather a ubiquitous MBA and familiarity with the concept of widgets will suffice. See any airline or automobile manufacturer if you doubt me. Tech may be the rare exception. We have destroyed the notion of American entreprenuership with the exception of food trucks, and tech start-ups. Nor does modern college education any longer provide the age old benefit of being an educated - meaning a well-informed person capable of reason. I hope it is not this way forever but I think it foolhardy to not acknowledge that college grads are a dime a dozen. The inviolate laws of supply and demand have been ignored. The trick to economic success in this environment is in skills, not degrees.
I think some readers may not understand what this means: “driving blackout drunk on the freeway.” Who wants to explain?
I doubt many of Rob's readers don't know that one...
True. There are a few than don’t though. Not everyone drinks or is around drinking culture. Also, some of us that have done a lot of drunk driving never drive blackout drunk just because our bodies differ in response to alcohol.
The worst blackout driving story I am familiar with was from Ambien. People who take prescription meds need to understand that drinking is not the only thing that causes impaired driving.