Lion of the Blogosphere

The New York Times hates boys

with 31 comments

Instead of there being any outrage at all that girls (defined as up to the 8th grade) outperform boys by three-quarters of a grade level in English and language arts, this article is obsessed about a much smaller outperformance by boys in math, and only for boys from “richer families.”

The anti-male explanation is that richer families enforce gender roles more than poorer families. Apparently the people who wrote the article think it’s a problem that girls don’t outperform boys at all subjects and at all levels of family wealth.

The Lion explanation is that boys from poorer families don’t have the patience to perform up to their natural level in math, and boys from richer families have more patience to learn, a combination of better role modelling from their parents, and possibly medicinal in nature because they are more likely to be taking Ritalin.

The Lion will also point out that boys skyrocket past girls in math ability after the 8th grade, and my explanation is that girls enter puberty before boys and puberty suppresses the growth of the brain’s math ability. Or there’s some similar explanation involving hormones and biological differences between the sexes. However, the stereotype is that nerdy-looking boys do well in math, and not the early-maturing more masculine boys whose bodies are full of testosterone.

Actually, even before puberty, we can see that boys do better than girls in the sense that, given girls greater propensity for following instructions and doing their homework like good little girls, they would also outperform boys on math tests if there was equal inherent math ability.

I am reminded of an English nursery rhyme from the early 1800s:

What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Frogs and snails,
And puppy-dogs’ tails;
That’s what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice,
And all that’s nice;
That’s what little girls are made of.

Behavior differences between boys and girls have long been observed!

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 13, 2018 at EDT am

Posted in Education

31 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The sweet irony being that in THIS VERY ARTICLE, it’s the reporterette who goes on and on with her pseudoscientific “stereotype threat” speculations, while the snazzy computerized data visualizations were assigned to the male staffer.

    Fiddlesticks

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

    • Stereotype threat is an imaginary force. Just like racism, sexism, witchism, thetanism and the Id. A literary device designed to elevate the seeming significance of daily social friction to the level of a ‘force’ requiring professional engineer to control.

      Curle

      June 14, 2018 at EDT am

  2. Don’t the whites and the rich have a higher IQ?

    Yakov

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  3. It’s not so much hatred of boys as gynocentrism. i.e. society is very concerned about the well-being, needs, and desires of females and largely indifferent to those of males.

    Probably this is the result of the biological reality that females are the limiting factor in a society’s ability to sustain itself demographically.

    There have been times in the past when blacks were oppressed, gays were oppressed, Jews were oppressed, etc., but (at least in the West) women and girls have always enjoyed more privileges and protection than men and boys.

    The only thing different about the past was that society was less wealthy and therefore less able to indulge womens’ fantasy that they are intellectually equal to men.

    fortaleza84

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

    • There have been times in the past when blacks were oppressed, gays were oppressed, Jews were oppressed, etc., but (at least in the West) women and girls have always enjoyed more privileges and protection than men and boys.

      It doesn’t really bother me that women get some special privileges. It does bother me how blind they are to it while complaining about how oppressed they are.

      everybodyhatesscott

      June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

      • everybodyhatesscott — I agree. But complaining is how all these “victim groups” extort privileges and preferences at others expense. Otherwise, what justification would they have?

        destructure

        June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

      • “It doesn’t really bother me that women get some special privileges”

        I would say it depends what those privileges are. It’s not good for anyone to push women into careers for which they are unsuited and have them postpone or forego having children.

        fortaleza84

        June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I’d like to see the proof that life under cotton barons for blacks was materially worse than life as an Russian serf, an indentured white worker, a gulag slave, a Chinese peasant or a mid-19th century British or American factory worker. Edgar Lee Masters says the distinction was mostly in the way your food and lodgings were acquired.

      Curle

      June 14, 2018 at EDT am

  4. Don’t forget about rich kids being genetically predisposed to having more patience and conscientiousness.

    Joe

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  5. By the way another difference between boys and girls is that girls mature more quickly than boys and reach peak physical maturity at an earlier age. This applies to brain development.

    So if you want to do an apples to apples comparison of male and female intellectual ability, you would need to compare people in their late teens and not earlier ages like many studies.

    fortaleza84

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

    • This is true and I’ve made a similar point regarding differing rates of maturity between races when it comes to sports. A couple of years of physical maturity makes a tremendous difference. The kids who mature faster are bigger and stronger and, therefore, get a lot more playing time. And the amount of playing time often makes a big difference on how good a player is. If a kid is a late bloomer then he’s going to sit on the bench or not even try out in the first place. In m own case, I was a pretty good athlete but a very late bloomer. I grew a couple of inches and gained about 50 pounds of muscle in college. But, by that time, I had already dropped sports to focus on academics. Had I matured a couple of years earlier I might well have had a sports career.

      destructure

      June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  6. This is actually a very important point. Full intellectual development of the child depends on delaying the onset of maturation. That is, kids should be spending as much time playing and learning as possible so that the brain fully develops.

    There should be as little exposure to the stresses of the adult world as possible in a child’s life.

    map

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  7. Do some more posts supporting #metoo, lion! That’ll really show those feminists!

    Magnavox

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  8. It’s also worth noting that among home schooled kids, where they tailor the curriculum to individual rather than female interests, boys read as well as girls.

    Magnavox

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  9. They’ve made the modern grade school math curriculum completely retarded, if you weren’t aware. That probably factors in.

    bobbybobbob

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

  10. The boys from wealthier families are also likely to have higher IQs, in addition to the benefits you mention, such as more patience and a greater willingness to learn. And just how far boys skyrocket past girls in math can be seen very well in the number of boys vs girls who score say 700 on the SAT math section, or 750, or 800; the closer you get to the perfect score of 800, the more lopsided the numbers get (I think that the ratio is about 7:1 when you get to a score of 800). How could that be explained by socialization, or pushing girls to play with dolls rather than toy spaceships, or a lack of programs to encourage the STEM fields among girls? A lot of HBD stuff in general is so painstakingly obvious that I get confused when I think about how much our current culture dismisses it; is it that everyone secretly understands and accepts HBD but only the socially unskilled people discuss it (either openly or anonymously on social media), or is it in fact that most SWPL people, even relatively high-IQ SWPL people, really don’t “get it”? That’s what confuses me the most.

    FactNite

    June 13, 2018 at EDT am

    • What people believe is based on groupthink and emotion and not logic.

      That’s why on the right you have people who believe in the Bible even though logical analysis shows that’s all a bunch of fiction.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  11. I don’t buy the idea that richer families enforce gender roles more, especially for boys. The poor by far and away enforce the most crude aspects of masculinity such as being tough. This poor’s embracement of hypermasculinity is a main reason so many poor boys grow up to become criminals.

    Jay Fink

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

    • The biggest gender stereotype richer parents enforce is a two parent household. Boys raised by single moms are always at a handicap because moms don’t know how to be dads.

      Aristippus

      June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

    • The article calls it the high earning paradox (never knew it had a name) and it’s something I’ve seen countless times firsthand. These families are not embracing crude gender standards but rather 1950s gender standards for lack of a better term. So many upper middle class families give aggressive lip service to gender and racial blank slatism meanwhile they barricade themselves as far away from blacks as possible, the wife stays home or works very part time devoting herself to the children’s education/ extracurriculars, and the man does the primary wage earning. I suppose they talk the talk for status signaling but instinctively know what is best for their children.

      Lion (are you now THE lion?) my takeaway from the article isn’t hatred of boys, but rather confusion over why privileged white girls are not matching or outpacing privileged white boys in math. Since according to the blank slaters academic performance has everything to do with privilege and nothing to do with innate ability.

      Have you reviewed Thor Ragnarok? I can’t remember.

      toomanymice

      June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

    • The aristocracy used to value and promote masculinity and toughness. This the old saying that Britain’s military battles were won in the fields of Eaton.

      Read Sartoris sometime. Faulkner’s ode to Southern aristocrat risk taking and adventure seeking. And, then there’s JFK Jr.

      Curle

      June 14, 2018 at EDT am

  12. The sensationalized headline says one thing, the body of the article says another. “Boys do slightly better in the rest – and much better in high-income and mostly white or Asian-American districts.”

    The New York Times doesn’t just hate boys. It hates reporting the truth, so it buries it in the body of the article.

    gothamette

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  13. This rhyme must now be regarded as extremely sexist because it forces girls to try to live up to an unrealistic standard where they have to act as if they were made of sugar and spice, everything nice, etc. End the patriarchy when??

    Greg Pandatshang

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  14. “Instead of there being any outrage .. that girls .. outperform boys .. in English and language arts, this article is obsessed about a much smaller outperformance by boys in math.

    Typical. Check out this report kvetching that women make up 57% of college degrees and 60% of masters degrees but only 51% of law schools. Apparently, even equality of outcome isn’t good enough. And where is the concern that men are underrepresented in undergraduate and master’s degrees?

    https://www.lstradio.com/women/documents/MerrittAndMcEnteeResearchSummary_Nov-2016.pdf

    destructure

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  15. Women trying to compete with men is foolish. Do you see men trying to compete with women? No. Because men realize that they’re actually competing against other men FOR women.

    destructure

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

  16. Rich people are freer than poor people.
    White people are freer than non-white people.

    The freer people are, the more they will act in line with their natures.

    Why do people have to make everyting so goddamn fucking complicated?

    njguy73

    June 13, 2018 at EDT pm

    • Complication is a jobs program.

      Curle

      June 14, 2018 at EDT am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: