This Economist article about why young men and women are drifting apart was good reading but ends with a defeated whimper
What neither side has done well is to tackle the underlying problems that are driving young men and women apart. Most important, policymakers could think harder about making schools work for underperforming boys. Mr Reeves suggests hiring more male teachers, and having boys start school a year later, by default, since they mature more slowly than girls do. Also, since “the desegregation of the labour market has been almost entirely one-way”, the state could beef up vocational training to prepare young men for occupations they currently shun, such as those involving health, education or administrative tasks. If such reforms help more boys and men adjust to a changing world, that would benefit both men and women
The proposed solution for boys sound more than a little hopeless. Have them start a year later in school sounds like an obviously terrible idea. If indeed the boy was immature compared to the girls, missing a year of learning social skills while the girls are learning away would be an even greater setback. It is also unclear why vocational education should not be extended to women.
It may infact balance things out as boys will likely outperform girls in those classes. Both sides could learn from each other's strengths and weaknesses. These days when I read writing of this type - starting with some semblance of a thesis, having data to back it up and then devolving into something it was not aiming for, I have to wonder if the author had help from a hallucinating LLM that lost the plot along the way. All that said, the article brings up a lot of valid points that are worth considering for young people and their families.
Comments