Tell me what you think of this article about men and boys (Philip Zimbardo interview in the Guardian)

[rootypig]

I'm interested to know what people think of this article. www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/09/philip-zimbardo-boys-are-a-mess

I don't disagree that men and boys are in trouble, though I would situate it in more of a political analysis - I think people are in trouble, largely because of the lack of meaningful, properly paid work. And I agree that porn must be hugely damaging to men (as well as to women). But I was shocked and appalled by many of the assertions made, which seem to be nothing more than lazy gender stereotyping (fathers do not love unconditionally and mothers do, women are interested in sex only when linked with romance, men do and act while women think and feel - I mean, bollocks to that, women are bloody doing things constantly, but it's often things that noone notices or attaches importance to). The article also notes that Zimbardo has no interest in gay men and boys - so he's certainly subscribing to a narrow view of gender in one key regard.

But the man is emeritus professor at Stanford and surely his views are based on experience and research. Am I wrong, do these stereotypes hold more than I would like to admit? Perhaps as a psychologist, he is reflecting the world as he finds it - and I do believe that children are raised in a heavily gendered way, which might produce these differences. Or am I right to think that it's offensive, and naive to think that elite universities are somehow free of the gendered ideas that the rest of the world holds?

His suggestions for change, incidentally, are things that I would support.

I just started reading this article but, honestly, could not find the strength to get to the end. All I can say is that I expected better from Stanford. Fathers do not love unconditionally . . . ugh.

It does improve slightly

Remember the senior guy at Harvard sacked for saying women were just not quite as smart at men?

Senior folks at good Unis can be sexists...

Of course, in their personal opinions. I wouldn't be remotely surprised about that, frankly I'd expect it. But when it's central to their research, and their research is psychology, isn't it a different beast?

By which I mean - rather more shocking and discombobulating.

rooty I think that the kind of research question asked will impact on what is found to be 'true,' Just because its Stanford Psychology doesn't mean its findings are necessarily free from bias.

BTW I do agree his assertions are horriblely sexist. I used to be a fan of Zimbardo - at a lecture of his once and he was mesmerising.Gone off him now though.

Watching this YouTube clip of his BBQ interview (especially the middle/latter parts) should give you some clue as to whether you should take his views seriously.

www.youtube.com/watch?t=24&v=8voQHnfOq7w

BBC not BBQ :)

Sure Lily, I'm not looking for free from bias, just found what was said really outrageous. Especially for someone with a lifetime of work in psychology behind him.

D'you reckon he's gone a bit mad in his advancing years?

i got about 1/3 of the way through before I WTF-ed out with this gem:

“Men are opting out and women are opting in. Women are working harder at jobs, they’re working harder in school, and they are achieving – last year women had more of every single category of degree, even engineering. This is data from around the world. Now in many colleges there’s a big gap as boys are dropping out of school and college.”

Zimbardo estimates that there are, in Britain and the US, 5-10% more women than men at many colleges and universities. “So they’re going to have to have affirmative action for guys because obviously one reason you go to college is to find a guy.”

Actually while I'm here I can ask something that has always confused me.

He talks about how porn is bad for boys for lots of reasons (I agree that porn is a huge problem) and one of the reasons is that the men in porn are extraordinarily well endowed and young men think they don't measure up.

I've read this before as well.

But the porn I've seen mostly has men who are quite normal in the cock department, reasonably sized sure but always and unfailingly eye-wateringly huge. So why do so many people say this is the case? I don't understand. Is it that most heterosexual men haven't seen many erect penises in real life, and so ones who actually aren't very well endowed assume they are average and the men in porn are unusual? This has always baffled me (not a very intellectual question i know but there you go!).

NOT always and unfailingly eye-wateringly huge - that should say obviously!

Yeah Rooty the thought had crossed my mind! But yeah its very disappointing especially given he is a social psychologist and as far as I can remember one of his main arguments is that people are made in to who they are not born.

Rooty the thought had crossed my mind! But yes it is disappointing especially as he is a social psychologist and one of his main arguments as far as I can recall is that people are made in to who they are, not born ..

Oops . sorry my wi fi is being silly

I read this and thought it was outdated, unevidenced nonsense. Gives psychology a bad name. I was glad to see he was comprehensively slated in the comments section.

I thought the bit at the end where boys wrote on a bit of paper how they felt internally and externally was crap. That's not evidence, it's a warm up exercise for a workshop. And I bet you would get the same results if you did it with girls.

Disappointing.

Zimbardo got lucky with a few show-boat experiments in the 70s - ones that were horribly unethical and would be in now way allowed today - and made a career off the back of them. He is a charismatic speaker but a total idiot. He is a stellar example of a man who just states nonsense which is then accepted as fact simply because he is a man and believes his own bullshit.

I only caught the tail end of his appearence on the BBC, and I remember a TED talk of his on why torture was a bad shit crazy waste of time, and he had quite a sound and compelling perspective on abuses during the Iraq war.

Not sure what to make of this however. Echoing sentiments made above in that we're struggling in uncertain times, we are (hopefully!) in a time of redefining what it means to be human, outside of gender, race, class etc.

Glad someone else saw this. I was happy to see it being talked about, especially the porn issue, but there were way too many 'wait, what?' moments in the article, and I was really disappointed.

Re penises: I dunno Whirlpool, is there a chance you've just met a disproportionately large sample of well endowed men? I'd have said porn did have a larger average, assisted by the illusion created by hair removal. But then, I'm no connoisseur. Also, I am a touch 'oh boo hoo for you' about boys feeling sad about their dicks, given what the industry says/does about/to women. Unfair of me, I know, and unhelpful, but there you go. Just whiffs a bit of 'poor menz' to me, that particular complaint.

I think he raised some valid points about living lives online may mean that some people are struggling to develop real human relationships (obviously no irony in my posting this on a messageboard rather than chatting to mates about it down the pub), but I'm not sure how big a factor that is; I always used to go round with a book and read that to avoid actually talking to people, because I wasn't confident with people I didn't know (and not talking to them doesn't make that any better.) So shy children will always find ways of not being the centre of attention. And it is children, not just boys.

He may also have a valid point about porn and the lack of stories (less convinced about penis size, as I agree that a lot of porn seems to be fairly average, though not all.)

But while there may be some valid points, they're rather swamped by the stereotyping about conditional love and so on.

Yes pretty awful. I came on to post about it actually. So full of unsubstantiated assertions and wild generalisations. I'm surprised the Guardian gave it such an uncritical airing.

As a single parent to a boy (and girl) I am perhaps over sensitive to the boys need dads thing but this was really particularly bad. People, and particularly women, have always brought up children alone. It's always been commonplace thanks to war, death and desertion on the one hand and the disengagement of generations of men from the business of childrearing on the other.. No need to create a moral panic over something so common in human history which so many parents have successfully navigated.

I am worried about porn though. There will be clear rules about it in this house when the time comes plus lots of conversation. Although as a single mother I'll fail anyway due to simultaneously over-loving and failing to understand my boy

I got to this line:

'“Mothers give love unconditionally – because you came out of her body, a mother loves you. You bring home your report card and it’s all Cs? Mom will say, ‘It’s OK. Momma loves you anyway. Try harder.’

and wondered who on earth he was talking about, has he not heard of Tiger mothers by any chance? Just bizarre.

when my children (boy/girl) come home from school with poor reports I certainly don't go 'there there' I ask why they underperformed and what they are going to do about it. I'm probably fiercer than their father. We both love them unconditionally because we are their parents. That doesn't mean we don't have high expectations of them, if anything the opposite.

Oh and both my children enjoy video games, that's such a lazy stereotype. This guy is really out of touch if he thinks video games are just for teenage boys as there is a large adult market which amazingly includes plenty of women.

With regard to porn I'd be much less worried about men who opt out of having sex with women and much more concerned about porn inspired violence toward women.

I am actually much more concerned about, not so much men opting out of sex with women (though that too) but finding themselves genuinely unable to enjoy it or properly engage in a fulfilling sexual relationship due to early and frequent immersion in the porn world. I'm also deeply concerned about a pervasive and low-level change in mens thoughts about what women are and how they should act, sexually.

Serious physical violence, not as much. I tend to see the actual violence part as a little like the video games/violence thing - someone who already has those tendencies may have them encouraged, but I'm not sure someone without them will be spurred to it by porn. Not that that's the brightest of bright sides.

Young women are obviously also having a fucking terrible time with porn too, but I actually have more optimism about their ability to fight it than I do young men. I think for most men, the 'porn is harmless' rhetoric is pretty deeply engraved - whereas I think a lot of young women are aware of at least some aspect of how shit it is. Which is hopefully the start of fighting it.

Anyway, yeah 'momma loves you' was just pretty foul really. Momma loves you. Ugh.

I was thinking more of violent sex really, especially the increased expectation that women (and girls) will say yes to anal sex without any real understanding of the associated risks. Or that their pleasure should be a factor at all.