Britain’s lost boys Sonia Sodha

[WarriorN]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/09/jobless-isolated-fed-misogynistic-porn-where-is-the-love-for-britains-lost-boys?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

I do agree but feel it's men who need to step up here

Boys either want to be women or are turning to Tate et al neither of which is ultimately good for women and girls. Victoria Smith has been saying similar recently.

If you're not into sport there's so few decent role models or movements for boys. From experience they go off track at a very young age too.

yeah - in pubs women were allowed in the saloon/lounge, but not at the bar (and definitely not unaccompanied!). Probably wouldn't be served pints, might be expected to leave after a certain time.

Can you believe in Ireland this was the case in some places up to 2002 (and past that, given that actual implementation requires a woman to do it, not just the law to be there)

Sort of. There were fewer spots for girls, so girls needed higher marks to get one of those places.

Jordan Peterson ofc says a lot of decent stuff. The issue is when he's saying that patriarchy (as in men mostly being in power) is bc women aren't competent enough. Or promoting David Deida, whose whole shtick is that women are blobs of feeling while men are the intellectual ones, who shouldn't take what women say too seriously.

People should read Louise Perry's take on him in the Critic. She is fair & sympathetic, pointing out that his main issue is that he is quite agreeable & sensitive (ironically more feminine!) so loves praise & won't reign in his more unreconstructed followers

https://x.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1715074395415425099

https://asylury.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/we-need-to-talk-about-david-deida/

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2020/the-feminist-case-for-jordan-peterson/

True about English- but surely boys & girls should read books w both male & gemale mcs? After all English is meant to be stuff you can easily relate to but also stuff to build empathy, esp w those who are different- including half the human race!

Hmm @Wildflowers, I agreed w most of your post, but surely you don't want a return to these norms around pubs?

This is the thing - people need to understand what they're asking for.

When I was a child, lone women got 'looks' (best case. Chucked out not uncommon) if they ventured in the pub (I'm not that old - late 40s - but I've been given a half pint when I asked for a pint when younger)

Women were only allowed in the cricket pavilion in the village to set up and serve tea. Women were only allowed into the working men's club by invitation, weren't allowed in the snooker hall. I can't remember what else but lots of places excluded women.

This wouldn't be a problem if there were equivalent facilities for women, but of course there weren't (and where would they go - the pavilion/cricket green for the men already took up the middle of the village, along with the pub) - women, having been excluded from owning property/having well paying jobs for so long, and having the responsibility for the home and family didn't have the resources to buy these kinds of properties now, and weren't allowed to in the past when these men's facilities were set up. That's why so many were forced to open to women - because it was blatantly unfair.

If men wanted to meet up alone, they could start clubs in each others houses, or in private rooms in pubs, just like women have. I have limited sympathy for men being so convinced that they earned and deserved these things but women didn't, that they haven't moved with the times and come up with new ways to hang out together.

Chairs, yes, good points. Perhaps part of helping men out would be improving what's on offer for women and girls.

Make brownies and guides better. Provide good tool libraries and lessons and workshop space for women.

Is it all really a question of resources? All of which used to be unquestioningly there for the use of men, now opened up to women?

Maybe it is as simple as rights really are pie, and the emancipation of women has meant fewer resources for men, or that men have to work for things they used to expect as an entitlement.

Probably a mix.

Unfortunately I think many scout troops would fold if single sex as certainly most of the leaders at my son's are women. Beavers is run by a young man who's great and has worked his way through the whole thing.

I hated guides as it was so dull compared to what I knew the scouts were doing (a friend's parents were both leaders and so she often tagged along before girls were aloud.) I know that many guide leaders now though do make sure it's not like that!

What I didn't know though till recently, via a guide leader friend, is that guides have no where near the amount of money, funding, land and assets that scouts do. And that has had an impact on what they've been able to do

I feel the scout conversation is a bit off piste though as it's not going to tackle the kinds of issues that occur amongst the cohorts that are described in the article.

That's the 'shoulds' though.....'Should' is about imposing certain ideals, which don't necessarily always play out well in reality.

Is it all really a question of resources?

Very much so in schools. But the approach to education, especially in eyfs and ks1 needs radical change.

The drive for league tables and scores has forced this stage of education to move too quickly away from the importance of play and social interaction. Some children really can learn academic skills at a very early age and still maintain social and emotional development. Definitely not all, most likely not those with adverse child hood experiences and from personal observation and experience it is more likely to be a challenge if you're a boy.

Especially premature, summer born boys. Every experience ks1 teacher has seen that situation.

England and Wales have even younger school age than up here in Scotland. A potentially useful area to compare outcomes.

Summer born is interesting - ASD rates show higher in winter born males born via c section, is my understanding? And the hypotheses was due to gut flora issues.

Sorry if garbled - rushing!

Yes, there will always be some children who don't naturally conform with the mainstream...but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a mainstream and there are some general characteristics that are typical of males and of females.

That is fairly typical......even when I was at school in the 1970s ( although we had a girs football team too, even then) the boys would tend to run around and push and shove, the girls would do handstands against the wall, play with skipping ropes, or else do those clapping hand games with each other ( can't think of more appropriate word).

I then went to a single sex secondary and really enjoyed that.......girls did not have to compromise on anything due to the presence of boys. And sport was really strong.

My daughter teaches at a school in which chess has been promoted as a way for boys ( most of the attendees are boys) who perhaps are not so much into sport to find an activity at which they can win and excel, and be around other like minded boys. You could also have science clubs or clubs dedicated to coding or developing games. Such activities may well appeal to those on the spectrum or who are not so physically confident.

Have to say I'm having difficulty imagining these boys/young men you talk about. Doesn't seem to ring true for me. Even the quietest boys or those on the spectrum do tend to seek out other male company in my experience.

My two sons were/are quite different to each other...one a lot more confident and socially popular than the other. The more confident, outgoing one certainly had/has female friends, but his closest friends still tend to be male.

The quieter, more socially awkward son did/does get on with girls, but his best/most regular friends would always be boys. He would/does gravitate to other boys like him,who were/are perhaps outsiders for some reason or other

I wasn't aware of that and yes I do think there will be external factors going on in today's society around all sorts of pollutants and epigenetic factors.

It's certainly been observed that boys one the whole are less socially able than girls , but of course there are always so many exceptions. Generalisations only work as generalisations.

My c section winter born boy had some other complications that I do think may have affected him a little wrt literacy skills but he's always been advanced emotionally. He actually didn't play with boys at nursery as he preferred home corner make believe games with the girls. There was one boy who also did this but was a year older so they didn't spent time together for long.

As soon as he went to school he distanced himself from those girls and played goody baddy games with a bunch of boys.

Also one of the most emotionally compassionate boys I ever taught in a primary school was a premature summer born boy. Struggled academically but had a lovely calm and responsible personality.

But these are just anecdotes.

The boys I always had the most concerns about were and are always the boys who had male role models who were teaching them to steal etc. (As in, they were the kids being shoved through the small windows to let the lads into the house.)

There are cultural factors that do have a huge impact and I'm not sure how that is radically tackled. School does provide an opportunity with the right environment and staffing.

I think things like chess, martial arts etc should be on the curriculum more for all children. But they do specifically give those quieter more alternative boys something to be really good at that is "acceptable."

I strongly disagree. Yes there's lots of issues in our generation but previous generations it was far more sexist and misogynistic. Of course Tate is fueling terrible things but I remember the 70s and wasn't a pretty time to be a woman or girl.

A feminist board that is still perpetuating gender stereotypes. Yes boys tend to be more aggressive and smash things up - because their parents say "boys will be boys" and excuse it as "rough play". Bullying and aggressive behaviour is permitted, even encouraged in boys but not girls.

Women still do most of the child rearing and as long as we perpetuate gender sterotypes types they will persist. Prior to puberty, there is no sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations. Excusing the bullying behaviour of boy children is just that - an excuse.

All children need fresh air and exercise. All children also need to be taught acceptable behaviour.

we all know that it is womens' job to organise everything. From GP appointments for the men in our lives to activities on International Men's Day to everything else ever.

Except war, they manage that all on their own.

There are clearly biological differences between the sexes when taken as averages; I've always taught children with moderate learning difficulties and it's always been predominantly boys. You get the same answer when you speak to SALT and OTs

In my family it's the girls as well with SEN/ND - though the excuses are different why they can't be helped - tends not to be their sex - but they don't get diagnosed or helped any quicker - and in fact as some conditions are considered male or most people look for male presenatation which isn't helpful.

I get that on average boys may struggle more or more obvioulsy but when that used to avoid giving indivdual boys targeted needed help - I do wonder why that's justified.

But this whole issue is about class. White working class boys - they don't have the parents who'll search out books they'd enjoy, they're not on-line playing

This is what I think as well.

Middle class - immigrant familes keen on education - are protective mechanisms in many way when messages come in from schools/wider societey - they have more social econimic resources to draw on to counter and desire to do so.

When school did trip to creationist zoo - I didn't at first didn't realise - when I did thank to MN I approached the school got reassuarnces they would go to talked mentioning intelligent design. Well they did - so I spent next 18 months watching documentaries, buying and reading age apprppiated children books explaining evolution it - having talk about Darwin at dinner table. Same when they were taught miss information about castles and roman food.

We've done same with reading and maths messaging - counted in a variety of ways - family examples that dispute this - more famous ones many resources.

I do wonder though in this day and age why I am having to do this with such fundamental skills.

that's bloody disappointing.
I love the idea that there are single sex places for all of us to go to if we want/need that.

but also echo about men liking women to be there because they bring cake, make tea and tidy up. My mum upended her art club for retirees when it became clear that the men would do nothing at all of the sort. They made a rota, and did it in 4s, and everything was fine until the group my mum was in (2 women, 2 men) lost the other woman and the men just wouldn't even step up and buy a packet of mini-rolls, let alone do the washing up.

Someone mentioned the pratcise of putting quite girls next to disruptive boys - and that's been an issue for my girls and niece - particularly nasty as they has underlying conditions making classrooms harder anyway.

However they did try this with DS at some points - never lasted more than a day as instead of a quiter corner - they ended up with more noise and choas.

I'm an ancient crone and i remember that in the 80s there were often pubs that women wouldn't be welcome in (frankly mostly we didn't want to go in them) that were effectively single sex. Except the bar staff, who were then fair game for groping and worse.