I was raised part of my life in a single parent household so I can speak somewhat do the question of single mother led homes. I'll be honest here...in some cases a single mother led home can be the preferred option if the father/husband is totally unfit as my father was. My mother remarried after 4 years of being a single mother. Her second husband had serious problems though he was an improvement on the first and that couple also split after 13 years leaving a younger child to be raised by a single parent through junior high and high school.
Here's the problem though...despite the claim about valiant single mothers carrying on despite a terrible man failing in his duties, the reality is that, except for actual widows, most single mothers are single mothers in great part because of their OWN actions. If the mother has gotten pregnant and had a child by a man who is unfit for the role of father, does SHE not have responsibility for making a poor choice in husbands? If the husband is not perfect (no one is) and the marriage breaks apart, how much of the responsibility for the break up is the mother's own psychiatric problems and stubbornness on issues where compromise is needed to blame?
My mother is twice divorced. Her 2 daughters are both divorced. My mother's first marriage was a terrible mistake made because she was strong willed and refused to listen to the advice of others NOT to marry the man she married. Her second marriage fell apart as much from her own failings as her husbands'. Her 2 daughters marriages failed because of completely unreasonable demands by the WOMEN in the marriages. The second of these is raising the 2 kids with the help of his own mother because their mother was found unfit to even share custody by the state of California...hardly a bastion of misogyny in government. So...perhaps its time we stop deifying single mothers and see them for the flawed people who heavily create their own problematic situations....and hold them accountable for their poor decision making instead of solely blaming fathers for these problems.
I don't think we have to be stuck. It is time to give women NO quarter, no respect, and no cooperation until such time as they are held accountable and start to hold their own accountable.
Interesting that they are trying to "science" this belief in tabula rasa which goes way back. It's the philosophy I was raised with by my feminist mother in the 1970s who thought she could beat the masculinity out of me, sometimes literally.
I'd like someone to study the long-term effects on the boys. In my case, it made for a temper that was mostly fine but explosive when it did let off (fortunately mellowed with age and wisdom). Supression instead of healthy expression just made the "masculinity" worse.
Oh how I wish for the same thing, that they would honestly study the impact on boys from growing up with a single mother. Then again, maybe some has been done. I will check. That would be a good video.
Men are good, Tom, and you are damn good at this kind of analysis. Good for you for sticking with your questions and showing up the bias of the research behind these typical blame-men assumptions. Looking at social consequences without looking at physical conditioning saved the researchers a lot of time and ensured that they could shape their conclusions without having to deal with complicating factors. Thanks for taking us through your own thought process and for exposing the superficiality of the research. The study shows that believers talk to other believers who never ask tough questions. I was reminded of guest speakers who would visit our campus and say the most absurd things to an audience of nodding heads. The questions after the talk were always "could you tell us more about X" questions, never questions that challenged the assumptions. Those in the audience who thought they were right just wanted to hear more reasons why they were right. Thanks again for a great post.
Thank you so much Allen. I have a deep respect for your work and am honored that you find value in this. Yes indeed, they tend to talk only to each other and the softball questions predominate. lol
Something is wrong with today's science. It seems to be driven by presuppositions rather than by discovery. Perhaps this is because the education establishment is dominated by females and effeminate men.
As usual, Tom, you've been very effective in challenging the basic assumptions of a fashionable ideology. This raises a few questions of my own about this research paper, its reliance on “social constructionism” (or cultural determinism) and your own response to it.
For example, is anyone doing research on aggression in girls and women? The mechanism that generates it might not be the same one that generates it in boys and men, but there can be no doubt that aggression—which can be either beneficial or harmful, whether personally or collectively—occurs in both sexes. More specifically, if harmful aggression is partly learned (masculinity) and partly innate (maleness) among boys and men, why would it not also be partly learned (femininity) and partly innate (femaleness) among girls and women? I’m neither a biologist nor a psychologist, but I think that we desperately need scientists to explore these questions (or any others) without assuming the answers before beginning the research.
You refer, not for the first time, to “protection” as innate in maleness. We might never agree about that, Tom, but I think that you need to be more careful with the assertion and its common connotation of “chivalry.” For one thing, you could ask precisely what men are actually doing when they protect women. Are they acting altruistically, or are they acting selfishly? It could be argued, for instance, that what men want most to protect is their own status among other men—or even to protect women as their own property. That’s a feminist argument, and I’m not cynical enough to make it. Sometimes, after all, men really do act altruistically.
But that in turn raises another question. Where does altruism come from? Some people deny the very existence of altruism, explaining it mechanistically in connection with evolution. But the answer is probably much more complicated than that. I doubt very much that altruism comes from genetically encoded instinct, because that would fail to explain why, for example, the behavior of men toward women can be either protective or predatory. I suspect that culture (apart from anything else) is an important factor one way or the other. It’s true that culture often elaborates on or encourages natural tendencies. But it’s true also that culture often works against natural tendencies. Otherwise, we’d have no moral codes, let alone legal codes, only the “law of the jungle.”
Thanks Paul, always good to hear from you. I have always seen protectiveness as a masculine trait. If there is a young person who is drowning in a local lake, who do you think would risk life and limb to go and help? Just looking at news reports shows that it is men overwhelmingly that do just that. They do it automatically and without thinking. Who jumps on the live grenade to save his buddies? Ever heard of a woman doing that? Me either. Men just see the problem and act. I am sure there are some women who might do something similar, especially if it is her own children but the men are different. I remember as a father the sense of protection I wanted to provide for my children and wife. It was a strong sense and I think a good part of that is driven by testosterone.
So, instead of the usual straightforward in-yo-face lies, cowardice, and male hating, this one is complicated and obfuscatory academic cowardice, lies and male hating.
Excellent article, Tom. I can’t get over the fact that they gave these young boys tests and lied to them about the results to measure their distress. Authority figures presented false “proof” of masculinity deficiency to boys in their most sensitive stage of life? What the hell is wrong with these loons?
I’m assuming they had to disclose their study procedures to the parents ahead of obtaining their consent. If that’s true, then it doesn’t surprise me that 90% of the parents were mothers and two-thirds of those single mothers. I don’t know one father who would consent to letting some mad scientist screw with his son’s head in this way.
Yes, I felt the same. What is the appropriate response if you are lied to? I do wonder if they had girls in the study if they would have been able to get away with the same thing?
I think the expected response to a vulnerable boy having his status as a male (his very identity) seriously demeaned is well-known. He’s going to react by reinforcing his masculinity and toughness to his peers according to his hurt feelings and inexperienced notions. You could expect anger and bullying. You should more readily expect smoking, drug use, boozing, premature sexuality, academic failure, and petty criminality. You can’t prove much toughness through achievements and dominance at that age, so you do it by the available expedient of becoming a rule-breaker.
Boys get too much of this crap anyway. Single momma boys get more of it at home, plus marking their sons in ways that attract even more of it at school. I don’t understand why the Nutty Professor feels free to add even a little bit more to the burdens of a hundred-plus young boys. There’s such a thing as tipping points. The guy should look at himself in the mirror, assuming he even shows up in one.
Actually, if he’s operating under the aegis of a professional license or academic institution I’m wondering when knowledgeable individuals in his field are going to report him for disciplinary action.
The high number of single mothers involved certainly raises red flags. Are they saying boys raised by single mothers are more aggressive and need their father around to learn to express a healthy masculinity? They might have a point, but I'm not sure they meant to demonstrate that...
No, these researchers ignored that tidbit. The previous research and our prison populations testify that fatherless homes tend to produce more violence young men.
I wonder what a study that compares boys' and girls' responses to perceived threats to their gender "status" might show. This particular study could have been fascinating but is just another tendentious load of rubbish. On R W Connell - as a writer and researcher on education I found him essential, but when he started on the gender stuff and had a sex change his research turned to sludge.
Interesting to hear that Connell had been working in Education prior to his Masculinities mishap. It would be interesting to see boys and girls compared but likely would show that girls do not feel threatened by sex status challenges. Why? Because they are under no threat to have that status removed. Unlike the boys.
I was raised part of my life in a single parent household so I can speak somewhat do the question of single mother led homes. I'll be honest here...in some cases a single mother led home can be the preferred option if the father/husband is totally unfit as my father was. My mother remarried after 4 years of being a single mother. Her second husband had serious problems though he was an improvement on the first and that couple also split after 13 years leaving a younger child to be raised by a single parent through junior high and high school.
Here's the problem though...despite the claim about valiant single mothers carrying on despite a terrible man failing in his duties, the reality is that, except for actual widows, most single mothers are single mothers in great part because of their OWN actions. If the mother has gotten pregnant and had a child by a man who is unfit for the role of father, does SHE not have responsibility for making a poor choice in husbands? If the husband is not perfect (no one is) and the marriage breaks apart, how much of the responsibility for the break up is the mother's own psychiatric problems and stubbornness on issues where compromise is needed to blame?
My mother is twice divorced. Her 2 daughters are both divorced. My mother's first marriage was a terrible mistake made because she was strong willed and refused to listen to the advice of others NOT to marry the man she married. Her second marriage fell apart as much from her own failings as her husbands'. Her 2 daughters marriages failed because of completely unreasonable demands by the WOMEN in the marriages. The second of these is raising the 2 kids with the help of his own mother because their mother was found unfit to even share custody by the state of California...hardly a bastion of misogyny in government. So...perhaps its time we stop deifying single mothers and see them for the flawed people who heavily create their own problematic situations....and hold them accountable for their poor decision making instead of solely blaming fathers for these problems.
Holding women accountable is a tough one. Gynocentrism disallows that. So we are stuck with the idea that women are never wrong....
I don't think we have to be stuck. It is time to give women NO quarter, no respect, and no cooperation until such time as they are held accountable and start to hold their own accountable.
Interesting that they are trying to "science" this belief in tabula rasa which goes way back. It's the philosophy I was raised with by my feminist mother in the 1970s who thought she could beat the masculinity out of me, sometimes literally.
I'd like someone to study the long-term effects on the boys. In my case, it made for a temper that was mostly fine but explosive when it did let off (fortunately mellowed with age and wisdom). Supression instead of healthy expression just made the "masculinity" worse.
Oh how I wish for the same thing, that they would honestly study the impact on boys from growing up with a single mother. Then again, maybe some has been done. I will check. That would be a good video.
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville discusses the welfare state and the violence of men raised in single mother households.
Men are good, Tom, and you are damn good at this kind of analysis. Good for you for sticking with your questions and showing up the bias of the research behind these typical blame-men assumptions. Looking at social consequences without looking at physical conditioning saved the researchers a lot of time and ensured that they could shape their conclusions without having to deal with complicating factors. Thanks for taking us through your own thought process and for exposing the superficiality of the research. The study shows that believers talk to other believers who never ask tough questions. I was reminded of guest speakers who would visit our campus and say the most absurd things to an audience of nodding heads. The questions after the talk were always "could you tell us more about X" questions, never questions that challenged the assumptions. Those in the audience who thought they were right just wanted to hear more reasons why they were right. Thanks again for a great post.
Thank you so much Allen. I have a deep respect for your work and am honored that you find value in this. Yes indeed, they tend to talk only to each other and the softball questions predominate. lol
Something is wrong with today's science. It seems to be driven by presuppositions rather than by discovery. Perhaps this is because the education establishment is dominated by females and effeminate men.
Much has changed with the mammoth swing away from logic and towards "feelings" and it ain't pretty. We will be paying a price.
As usual, Tom, you've been very effective in challenging the basic assumptions of a fashionable ideology. This raises a few questions of my own about this research paper, its reliance on “social constructionism” (or cultural determinism) and your own response to it.
For example, is anyone doing research on aggression in girls and women? The mechanism that generates it might not be the same one that generates it in boys and men, but there can be no doubt that aggression—which can be either beneficial or harmful, whether personally or collectively—occurs in both sexes. More specifically, if harmful aggression is partly learned (masculinity) and partly innate (maleness) among boys and men, why would it not also be partly learned (femininity) and partly innate (femaleness) among girls and women? I’m neither a biologist nor a psychologist, but I think that we desperately need scientists to explore these questions (or any others) without assuming the answers before beginning the research.
You refer, not for the first time, to “protection” as innate in maleness. We might never agree about that, Tom, but I think that you need to be more careful with the assertion and its common connotation of “chivalry.” For one thing, you could ask precisely what men are actually doing when they protect women. Are they acting altruistically, or are they acting selfishly? It could be argued, for instance, that what men want most to protect is their own status among other men—or even to protect women as their own property. That’s a feminist argument, and I’m not cynical enough to make it. Sometimes, after all, men really do act altruistically.
But that in turn raises another question. Where does altruism come from? Some people deny the very existence of altruism, explaining it mechanistically in connection with evolution. But the answer is probably much more complicated than that. I doubt very much that altruism comes from genetically encoded instinct, because that would fail to explain why, for example, the behavior of men toward women can be either protective or predatory. I suspect that culture (apart from anything else) is an important factor one way or the other. It’s true that culture often elaborates on or encourages natural tendencies. But it’s true also that culture often works against natural tendencies. Otherwise, we’d have no moral codes, let alone legal codes, only the “law of the jungle.”
Thanks Paul, always good to hear from you. I have always seen protectiveness as a masculine trait. If there is a young person who is drowning in a local lake, who do you think would risk life and limb to go and help? Just looking at news reports shows that it is men overwhelmingly that do just that. They do it automatically and without thinking. Who jumps on the live grenade to save his buddies? Ever heard of a woman doing that? Me either. Men just see the problem and act. I am sure there are some women who might do something similar, especially if it is her own children but the men are different. I remember as a father the sense of protection I wanted to provide for my children and wife. It was a strong sense and I think a good part of that is driven by testosterone.
Yes, where does altruism come from?????
So, instead of the usual straightforward in-yo-face lies, cowardice, and male hating, this one is complicated and obfuscatory academic cowardice, lies and male hating.
Nice to see a change-of-pace! /s
So I looked at your numbers again Tom.
The person surveyed 207 males
On this site: https://countrymeters.info/en/United_States_of_America_(USA)
They say it is live...
Total Population of USA 342'062'146 207 0.000060515% males of total population
Males 168'867'000 207 0.000122582% males of male population
Females 173'195'148
The title on the report above reads: "Study finds boys in puberty respond aggressively to gender
threats." So we see this exaggeration again.. 0.000122582% of 168'867'000 males in the USA.
The sub Title reads: "The impact of social pressure on adolescent boys' behavior may be
the root of aggressive responses to challenges to their masculinity."
As you all can see.. this is not even 1% of the population and yet such wording is heavy.. this is shameful...
Who the hell is the researcher to say such strong words!!!
But, but, but, we can generalize if our p is less than .05! lol
So true lololol
Excellent article, Tom. I can’t get over the fact that they gave these young boys tests and lied to them about the results to measure their distress. Authority figures presented false “proof” of masculinity deficiency to boys in their most sensitive stage of life? What the hell is wrong with these loons?
I’m assuming they had to disclose their study procedures to the parents ahead of obtaining their consent. If that’s true, then it doesn’t surprise me that 90% of the parents were mothers and two-thirds of those single mothers. I don’t know one father who would consent to letting some mad scientist screw with his son’s head in this way.
Yes, I felt the same. What is the appropriate response if you are lied to? I do wonder if they had girls in the study if they would have been able to get away with the same thing?
I think the expected response to a vulnerable boy having his status as a male (his very identity) seriously demeaned is well-known. He’s going to react by reinforcing his masculinity and toughness to his peers according to his hurt feelings and inexperienced notions. You could expect anger and bullying. You should more readily expect smoking, drug use, boozing, premature sexuality, academic failure, and petty criminality. You can’t prove much toughness through achievements and dominance at that age, so you do it by the available expedient of becoming a rule-breaker.
Boys get too much of this crap anyway. Single momma boys get more of it at home, plus marking their sons in ways that attract even more of it at school. I don’t understand why the Nutty Professor feels free to add even a little bit more to the burdens of a hundred-plus young boys. There’s such a thing as tipping points. The guy should look at himself in the mirror, assuming he even shows up in one.
Actually, if he’s operating under the aegis of a professional license or academic institution I’m wondering when knowledgeable individuals in his field are going to report him for disciplinary action.
The high number of single mothers involved certainly raises red flags. Are they saying boys raised by single mothers are more aggressive and need their father around to learn to express a healthy masculinity? They might have a point, but I'm not sure they meant to demonstrate that...
No, these researchers ignored that tidbit. The previous research and our prison populations testify that fatherless homes tend to produce more violence young men.
I wonder what a study that compares boys' and girls' responses to perceived threats to their gender "status" might show. This particular study could have been fascinating but is just another tendentious load of rubbish. On R W Connell - as a writer and researcher on education I found him essential, but when he started on the gender stuff and had a sex change his research turned to sludge.
Interesting to hear that Connell had been working in Education prior to his Masculinities mishap. It would be interesting to see boys and girls compared but likely would show that girls do not feel threatened by sex status challenges. Why? Because they are under no threat to have that status removed. Unlike the boys.
"had a sex change"
A good reason to distrust all their work relating to boys and men.
Agreed.
Great analysis of more biased ‘research’, love your work.
Thank you!