The manosphere to man, is as feminism to women

Oh, I'd have said this if the Kardashians were a bunch of no talent pretty boy brothers. But there's no doubt that 2005-2015 period of increasingly coarse and aggressive wall to wall reality TV/pure media generated multi millionaires/AND the increasing visibility of women, was quite a brew if you were at all manosphere-minded, as I was.

"WTF have this lot done to deserve all this visibility, and money?"

This is the core of it.
Men suffer under a post-industrial capitalist system because so few men have any kind of social status. There is only so much room at the top.

Capitalism and the modern workplace affects men and women differently, but I think we often overlook how brutal it is for men.

And because it is not discussed and not understood, when a low-paid divorced man with no career prospects ends up in a crappy bedsit or studio flat, he blames women, not the capitalist system that has effectively discarded him.

Well either we need to pay teachers significantly more to attract more men into the profession, or accept that boys aren’t very bright and set them all to unskilled manual labour while girls learn academics and run the world.

That’s my contribution to help make feminism more equivalent of the manosphere.

'A Christmas Carol' is still widely used because that is the classic book the school has a full set of, and in schools with established schemes of work

It’s on the GCSE syllabus.

I stopped teaching in 2010, though my daughter is now teaching. She is using some of the same books I was using 20 years ago...modern youth oriented books such as 'Holes' by Louis Sachar, 'Skellig' by David Almond and 'The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas' by John Boyne. Most schols don't have, or certainly don't prioritise,the budget to buy new class readers every year and most sets have been used for decades and are often in poor condition to boot....sometimes pupils have to share a book.(' Of Mice and Men' is now sometimes considered too sensitive because of its use of graphic racism etc )

'A Christmans Carol' is still widely used because that is the classic book the school has a full set of, and in schools with established schemes of work there may well be lesson plans to accompany it. But these days a whole novel is very infrequently ever read and there is a tendency to use just extracts - in order to focus on certain 'text level skills'.

This goes for Shakespeare too. Never the whole play, and in some schools i've seen film versions used instead. Many teachers are not particularly confortable with Shakespeare themselves, nor with poetry.......and this obviously impacts the way they are taught.

Also regarding teacahing styles and methods - there was certainly an emphahsis on embedding the practices of sharing, turn taking and group work - with collaborative group work often being the 'go to' method of teaching. Personally, I didn't particularly enjoy this ( not in fashion when I was at school - certainly not at secondary level, anyway) and I suspect it doesn't suit all types of children, though it may tend to suit girls better, more generally ( I can't be certain, at this point I'm just intuiting based on impressions).

I don't think girls are necessarily any better at English than boys - generally speaking. I taught A-level in a mixed sex grammar school and there were as many boys as girls in the class, and the stand out student for me, was a boy. They were all very bright and engaged, but he stood out for his otriginality and verbal and mental dexterity. Our main whole contemporary novel reader was 'Bird Song' by Sebastian Faulks ( a love story set against the reality of the trenches during the first world war)

Sorry, still intuiting rather than disecting specifics. I've been out of schools for almost 16 years now - though still keep in touch via my daughter. Boys are generally different to girls, though, in the way they process information and the things they focus on.

Personally, as an avid and advanced reader who was consuming adult novels from the age of eight, I found that the books we had to read at school were mindnumbingly boring to all and sundry. I'm not sure a single child, boy or girl, enjoyed them. If one didn't already enjoy reading, then school assigned reading would likely put them off forever.

I think it's silly to say that school readers are more aimed at girls than boys as well - they always feature male protagonists, and female characters are often only an afterthought, if there at all.

I'm side-eyeing the 'feminine sensibilities' comment too. Are we living in the 1850s?

Regardless, school readers make me think of this quote by Brandon Sanderson:

"Perhaps, even, you have been given books by friends, parents, or teachers, then told that these books are the type you “have to read.” Those books are invariably described as “important” – which, in my experience, pretty much means that they’re boring. (Words like meaningful and thoughtful are other good clues.) If there is a boy in these kinds of books, he will not go on an adventure to fight against Librarians, paper monsters, and one-eyed Dark Oculators.

In fact, the lad will not go on an adventure or fight against anything at all. Instead, his dog will die. Or, in some cases, his mother will die. If it’s a really meaningful book, both his dog and his mother will die. (Apparently, most writers have something against dogs and mothers.)"

Prince Harry's 'Spare' might not be the best example (who knows what was true?), but it didn't seem out of this world that he claimed to have enjoyed Of Mice and Men because it was short & George & Lenny reminded him of him & William. I'd imagine it's one of the books that would be at least more likely to connect with boys who are reluctant readers.

Thank you, I'm also tired and will reply more later, but that's given me some stuff to think over... I agree re girls more easily connecting with a text, even if boring.

I'm not fully sure about the 'old, dated books' issue. Part of the program will have to be classics, and by definition those will be old and have often been used before. I get the 'dated' issue but I'm not sure either 'A Christmas Carol' or 'Of Mice and Men' is dated in the sense of 'irrelevant to today's world'. Of course this is subjective...

Thanks for the encouraging words.
There was a transition to so many newsreaders especially on the BBC being young female Asian. Maybe more 2010-2015. It really felt like a thing, either positive discrimination or some other editorial PR decision.
Likely was at the tail end of my terse persona. Certainly the Kardashians thing used to push my buttons, but looking back, they along with Big Brother and the dumbed down reality TV revolution was probably what irritated me the most.
I'm thinking the female aspect was less peaking to me than the "WTF have this lot done to deserve all this visibility, and money?"
To lighten the mood, my other bugbear back then was...Deal Or No Deal with Noel Edmonds, lol. Yes, I was a strange boy back then.
2005-2015 was such an interesting period culturally, the hyper aggressiveness we see today, but the culture war was only in its infancy.
I don't think I was aware of TRA as late as 2015.
And pre Brexit, Trump, and the worst effects of the Great Awokening.

I agree. I think that can hold for girls too, though maybe not quite in the same way. Both my grandmother and my mother (who went to single sex schools) have memories of teachers who couldn't keep order and got tormented by otherwise fairly well-behaved girls.

That gives me a memory of the bit in Anne of Avonlea where Anne loses her temper with the dreadfully behaved Anthony Pye and whips him. She's heartbroken to have whipped someone when she swore she wouldn't, but Anthony ends up now loyal to her because her whipping was 'just as good as a man's'!

I think most schools are still using the same old books that they have been using for many years; often very dated - certainly when it comes to contemporary young people's fiction, and then old predictables such as 'Of Mice and Men' and 'A Christmas Carol' for example.

I think girls will look for emotional connections and an ability to empathise with a character more so than boys - even if the book is generally boring.

Most teachers are not particularly academic and I would say that quite a few female English teachers are also overly 'Mumsy'.

Sorry, not detailed responses, I'm too tired and may have another go tomorrow.

Some, most certainly. The female teachers that can command respect by being very strict and by holding blundaries gain more respect.

Very interesting post : I want to reply more fully, but for now, can I ask about the point about newsreaders 2006-2011? Obviously it depended on the program, but according to stats women were roughly half of presenters then. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/53583/html/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Men still tended to dominated expert commentary slots, and surely there were many prominent male presenters? The Dimbleby brothers, Paxman, Andrew Marr, John Humphrys, Fergal Keane, Huw Edwards...

School curriculum now do often include quite a few women though. Austen, Brontes, Shelley for classics, then more modern authors like Harper Lee, Atwood, Alice Walker, Andrea Levy, Jeanette Winterson. Plays & poetry also often have female playwrights taught.

This is interesting but I'm a bit wary of this :

'boys definitely prefer to have a male lead. Also the kind of discourse that takes place around a novel is important. Too much focus on feelings, rathar than on themes and plot structure can be detrimental'

• I get boys preferring to have a male lead but I still think it's important for them to engage with female protagonists. On average women tend to score higher on empathy, and literature can be a powerful tool for building that. It obviously wouldn't work as well if boys haven't already engaged with books enjoyably. That's why it's crucial for boys to learn to enjoy books young and hopefully in a gradual way without academics being forced too early.

Or in apprenticeships. Although the misbehaving apprentice/young men causing chaos was a theme then as well.
It was the industrial revolution which I think regimented childhood a lot. Boys were either in classrooms being canned if they misbehaved, or in cotton mills etc where you could lose a limb if you got distracted. Of course, the amount of injuries or punishments that did happen suggests they nevertheless got distracted quite a lot.😕
https://spartacus-educational.com/IRpunishments.htm

And girls of course were also in factories etc. It was quite equal opportunities cruelty.

Agree strongly re Chinese & black boys. Also good point about starting later with academics.

That's a good point.

Which kinds of novels do you think are uninspiring? Do you think it's that the novels per se are boring or they're ones that girls are more likely to find more interesting? Or that girls are more likely to keep engaged even if a book is boring because they're more likely to enjoy English already?

Also interested in the 'feminine sensibility' female English teachers bring. I guess it can be hard to pinpoint in words the differences...

Yes, I mean in Shakespeare's day, and before, boys would be caned if they fidgeted or were disruptive. The difference was that boys less suited to that mode of learning would either not have been in school in the first place, or have been expelled probably...☹️

Sure start was one specific programme that wasn't specifically targeted towards boys, or a specific ethnicity but that did help even the playing field for disadvantaged boys.
I also think the loss of playing fields and of outside space negatively impacts boys. I agree with you, it disadvantages girls but they cope better. At least academically (there are other side effects eg health, confidence as well).

I do agree with you about academics. My son started school in the Netherlands and while there are aspects of that education system I think work less well, one thing that did work is they start school at four but the first year is a complete dos. They actually teach letters etc later but kids seem to catch up to UK students very quickly, (and without the negative associations that sitting with a parent desperately trying to make them sound out the word C-A-T because the school told them they must do it.)

Its different in the US where a lot of states went down a whole crazy teaching route that messed up a lot of children's reading ability completely. But that's a different discussion.

I have read scientific studies which argue that men have less in-group solidarity, on average, than women do. I need to verify this, though.

I definitely don't think that. It does matter , a lot if boys are disadvantaged. Do you think school disadvantages boys more, and if so, why? I'm on the fence...

Do you think female teachers tend to deliver less of this?

My guess is differernt home environment, in that case. Stereotypical, but also accurately, two parents emphasising academic achievement and responsibility.

In some other cases I think the difference can be because there are programs targeted, for example, to black boys, that help some kids that otherwise would miss out. But there have been fewer of those available to kids that don't fall into some kind of identity grouping.

One of the things that has been overall a disadvantage to boys in particular is the pushing down of academics to younger groups. Boys tend to be a little later in terms of readiness to sit and listen at a desk, and also to read, compared to girls.

When you push reading and academics down to 4 and 5 year olds, it is really not good for those who aren't developmentally ready. They adopt poor strategies for reading that cause problems later, they struggle to cope with the sitting, many struggle with handwriting early on, and the whole package means a bad experience and a high chance of behaviour issues.

That follows those kids right through school and while it is kids of both sexes it's disproportionately boys.

The general lack of physical movement in the day has also impacted in similar ways. Not great for anyone but girls are more likely to compensate.