As a mom of two little boys, I really appreciated this conversation. I feel like there's been a cultural overcorrection and masculinity has been the sacrificial lamb. In the past, whenever a stranger asked me about my kids, I found myself saying "I have two boys, and they are so sweet and sensitive and loving," as if trying to convince whomever I was speaking with that my boys were somehow "different" from what we stereotypically associate with males. But the truth is that most little boys (and girls) are "sweet and sensitive and loving" and these qualities aren't diminished by my sons' interest in play-fighting and being physical. On a related note, my eldest son (8) has confided in me that he senses a couple of his teachers favour girls. He's a perceptive and honest kid, so I believe him. I think we need to rethink our education policies and perhaps reorient to a model that's not just good for girls but also for boys, instead of punishing the latter for their natural instincts and tendencies.
I couldn't keep up with the live streams--even the recordings. There were too many for me, in the middle of the day, sometimes I just was busy or unwilling to interrupt what I was doing. As someone who grew up with linear media (if you missed the scheduled show, too bad), I prefer being able to "timeshift"--to listen to your podcast when I wish. I love the time flexibility of nonlinear media.
I get why Substack has been pushing the live streams--it's huge on other platforms, synchronicity has its appeal ("you are there!"), and live commenting could be interesting--or, at least, keep an audience member engaged while hoping her comment will be noted.
But for me, the live comments distract me from what is being said--I'd rather focus on the conversation than the (random) comments. I'd rather take my time and read a comment section after the fact. I like comment sections with thoughtful comments, not random short comments that fly by at the speed of light. Not everything has to be a video game!
Thanks for returning to what seems to me to be a more sane format for nuanced conversations.
Long-time paying sub here (I think 2021). I honestly don't give a rip what format you employ. I get a notification that you're on and I automatically tune in and will continue to do so. I'm sure I'm not alone among paying subs in appreciating your intellect and insight.
I have too many podcasts, but I've stuck with her largely because she is actually "heterodox". I could get the same anti-woke kind of a take from twenty different places, and I might agree with it all or in part, but I don't need to hear it twenty times. Daum tends to have weird idiosyncratic angles of the sort that one used to go to those literary magazines she talks about in order to get.
I was not aware that genocide was "sexual violence".
Regardless, it is precisely this kind of stuff that makes boys and men want to avoid women. I've never had anyone give me a real answer as to what you could do to ensure that you wouldn't end up being construed as somewhere on the pyramid, particularly in a hypothetical future where your actions are being scrutinized twenty years after they happened.
Thank you. Once upon a time, some feminists criticized "gender essentialism," which was the idea that if you are male you must have particular (culturally specified) masculine traits, and if you are female you must have particular (culturally specified) feminine traits. Certainly that is how I was socialized into gender in the rural area where I grew up. The [Second Wave] Women's Movement, though, gave men and boys permission to be more feminine, without impugning their maleness, and gave women and girls permission to be more masculine, without impugning their femaleness. We seem to have lost that.
fwiw - Meghan, yours is the only podcast I financially support. I work on a podcast and the only others I listen to are ones that talk about creative process. You offer contemporary cultural conversations found no where else in a perfectly consumable form. I'm always left wanting more.
Enjoyed this. So glad I’m Gen X and got to bypass most of the panic. Though I do remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, and learned that saying blatantly sexist stuff at work is a dumb idea.
In academia, I have heard so many presentations about "toxic masculinity." My male colleagues are especially anxious to prove they know what that is and are critiquing it. Once I heard a heterosexual married male colleague (a friend) present a critique of a famous public radio program for its apparent acceptance of heterosexual male desire. I was sitting next to another heterosexual male colleague and I turned to him and said, oh come on, why is male lust a bad thing? It's normal! That colleague was so shocked that a female said that to him that we became fast friends.
I have worried about many of my male heterosexual (often married) colleagues because they are so anxious to prove they are not toxic. They go into areas like "disability" and "queer" studies to prove it. I have heard them heap praise on "intersectionality" and refuse to serve on "manels" (all male conference panels). I know I can't shake them from these positions--their viability as "good" academics depends on their self abasement.
Surviving as a male academic, at least in humanities fields, often depends on finding an oppressed identity or at least "allying"with one. At a recent conference, a young handsome male (probably heterosexual) academic got up and announced he would not present his paper topic but demonstrate his solidarity with his trans brothers and sisters--he went on to explain that sex testing in athletics was a Nazi invention at the 1936 Olympics. He was applauded. I was appalled.
This is a really great conversation. A day later, I'm still thinking about it. The biggest conclusion I come to has to do with the idea of divine masculinity and femininity. Truthfully, most people seem physically unhealthy and all the chemical attacks combined with the cultural attack on our endocrine system have done a number to impact human sexuality and mentality. These ideas that sex isn't real, that big is beautiful are not benefiting the longevity of people or our species.
I love Carole but I’m always puzzled by the argument that boys are doing worse in school because school has become “feminized,” by which it’s meant that students are expected to sit still, follow instructions, seek approval, etc. This has always been true! What do people think school was like in 1950 or 1900? Do they seriously think school was fun and engaging and active and accommodating of students’ different learning styles back then, and it’s become less so? That’s ridiculous. A first grade teacher nowadays is a nice lady who will say “okay everybody, let’s take a break and do a wiggle dance and get our wiggles out!” A first grade teacher in 1950 would slap a kid across the face for fidgeting in his desk chair. Much more effort now is made to make class material engaging, experiential, multi-sensory, etc. I think it’s true that classrooms have become feminized, but not in the sense that academic success favors female-typical traits in a way that it never used to. It always has and it still does. It’s been feminized in the sense that it’s gentle and accommodating and unauthoritative, and I think there’s a much better case to be made that boys are falling behind girls in part because boys, on average, respond better to heavy structure, authority, and consequences, and fare worse than girls do in the absence of these things.
I think it has to do with less recess time, getting rid of shop class and other vocational classes, fewer male teachers in elementary and middle school -- that kind of thing.
I definitely agree that masculinity and boyishness has been pathologized in the culture at large.
I remain skeptical of the idea that kids today are expected to remain more still in school than in years past, regardless of any changes to recess. Perhaps the fact that they spend so much of their free time agog in front of screens instead of expending physical energy makes them more difficult to manage in a classroom setting. But I don’t think there are many boys who would have been headed to an Ivy if only we still had woodshop and auto maintenance class, and I think the loss of those classes is more a function of technology and the economy than it is deliberate feminization. The reality is that the bulk of the economic opportunities in the modern economy are in careers that are about people not things.
I agree that boys may benefit from male teachers, but I think that’s at least as much about a more masculine style of classroom management as it is role-modeling. I think if you brought in a bunch of passive men to do “gentle parenting”-style pedagogy you probably wouldn’t see much improvement in boys’ outcomes. I really think boys just require more discipline and coercion into succeeding than girls. There have always been innately academically-oriented boys who excelled at school, and there still are. But the average boy probably needs more active shaping up and kicking in the pants than the culture now thinks is appropriate, and when left to his own devices, he’ll just be lazy or cause minor trouble. The below average boy is a nightmare in a classroom. I think this is just the reality of average sex differences in conscientiousness and agreeableness, and if we’re not willing to push back on them, this is the situation we can expect.
Getting rid of shop class and training in practical skills like household budgeting (Home Economics) was a bad call. The are needed in school curricula. For both sexes.
There has never been much interest in teaching younger children by male teachers. The men in elementary schools back in the 70s were usually the school principals.
There is nothing sex specific about outdoor open play or learning life skills. I find the whole “feminization” charge to be flimsy and somewhat ridiculous.
Yes, in the 1960s we had 3 recesses per day (morning, lunch, afternoon). I was shocked when my daughter’s elementary school had only one (lunch). Also, because play was mostly banned, many NYC school playgrounds were being used as staff parking lots.
Yes, I think the diagnosis is wrong here. Boys will sit still and focus for some things, but not for the things that are being taught in modern schools in the way that they are being taught.
I agree. Males were meant to employ self-control long before females were even allowed entrance to advanced education institutions.
I think your point re: less authoritarian approaches is quite apt. Add early exposure to internet porn and gaming turning boys into de-conditioned screen-riveted blobs whose sexual development has been undermined by an endless stream of videos that are full of males performing violent and degrading sex acts on the females in them.
I hardly think it’s women’s fault that boys are falling behind. But female scapegoating is a longstanding tradition and Miss Hooven certainly comes across as a traditionalist in this sense.
Speaking as an elder millennial man, I also think a big part of the problem is that it seems that young women come into the world of dating, relationships, and marriage with all these ideas from the culture about how these things should go and many of them automatically *assume* that the men have gotten the same memo and know what to do.
And the reality is: We didn’t get the memo.
For example, when my wife and I first moved in together I could tell she was annoyed that when I tried to help her change the duvet cover I would completely fuck it up.
But we worked together and after awhile I got better and can do it well now on my own, but nobody educated me about changing duvet covers—I would bet my life savings that my father never knew what a duvet was!
As a mom of two little boys, I really appreciated this conversation. I feel like there's been a cultural overcorrection and masculinity has been the sacrificial lamb. In the past, whenever a stranger asked me about my kids, I found myself saying "I have two boys, and they are so sweet and sensitive and loving," as if trying to convince whomever I was speaking with that my boys were somehow "different" from what we stereotypically associate with males. But the truth is that most little boys (and girls) are "sweet and sensitive and loving" and these qualities aren't diminished by my sons' interest in play-fighting and being physical. On a related note, my eldest son (8) has confided in me that he senses a couple of his teachers favour girls. He's a perceptive and honest kid, so I believe him. I think we need to rethink our education policies and perhaps reorient to a model that's not just good for girls but also for boys, instead of punishing the latter for their natural instincts and tendencies.
I couldn't keep up with the live streams--even the recordings. There were too many for me, in the middle of the day, sometimes I just was busy or unwilling to interrupt what I was doing. As someone who grew up with linear media (if you missed the scheduled show, too bad), I prefer being able to "timeshift"--to listen to your podcast when I wish. I love the time flexibility of nonlinear media.
I get why Substack has been pushing the live streams--it's huge on other platforms, synchronicity has its appeal ("you are there!"), and live commenting could be interesting--or, at least, keep an audience member engaged while hoping her comment will be noted.
But for me, the live comments distract me from what is being said--I'd rather focus on the conversation than the (random) comments. I'd rather take my time and read a comment section after the fact. I like comment sections with thoughtful comments, not random short comments that fly by at the speed of light. Not everything has to be a video game!
Thanks for returning to what seems to me to be a more sane format for nuanced conversations.
Thank you. I really appreciate the feedback.
Dearest Meghan,
Long-time paying sub here (I think 2021). I honestly don't give a rip what format you employ. I get a notification that you're on and I automatically tune in and will continue to do so. I'm sure I'm not alone among paying subs in appreciating your intellect and insight.
I have too many podcasts, but I've stuck with her largely because she is actually "heterodox". I could get the same anti-woke kind of a take from twenty different places, and I might agree with it all or in part, but I don't need to hear it twenty times. Daum tends to have weird idiosyncratic angles of the sort that one used to go to those literary magazines she talks about in order to get.
This comment makes my day!
I think she was talking about the Pyramid of Sexual Violence:
https://www.ualberta.ca/en/current-students/sexual-assault-centre/resources/create-change.html
I was not aware that genocide was "sexual violence".
Regardless, it is precisely this kind of stuff that makes boys and men want to avoid women. I've never had anyone give me a real answer as to what you could do to ensure that you wouldn't end up being construed as somewhere on the pyramid, particularly in a hypothetical future where your actions are being scrutinized twenty years after they happened.
That's it! Thank you.
Thank you. Once upon a time, some feminists criticized "gender essentialism," which was the idea that if you are male you must have particular (culturally specified) masculine traits, and if you are female you must have particular (culturally specified) feminine traits. Certainly that is how I was socialized into gender in the rural area where I grew up. The [Second Wave] Women's Movement, though, gave men and boys permission to be more feminine, without impugning their maleness, and gave women and girls permission to be more masculine, without impugning their femaleness. We seem to have lost that.
Great point, TY. As a second waver, this is the way I saw the issue, and continue to see it.
Is this the part where I get to show my free to be you and me vinyl album that my parents got me while a young lad
in the 70s? Lol.
fwiw - Meghan, yours is the only podcast I financially support. I work on a podcast and the only others I listen to are ones that talk about creative process. You offer contemporary cultural conversations found no where else in a perfectly consumable form. I'm always left wanting more.
I really appreciate it!
I meant to say, I'm always left wanting more in a good way... unlike the meandering "long form" of other podcasts.
Great conversation. Great message.
Enjoyed this. So glad I’m Gen X and got to bypass most of the panic. Though I do remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, and learned that saying blatantly sexist stuff at work is a dumb idea.
I like the recorded interviews better than the live streams. Tho, there is some great convo in the livestreams.
I love Carol Hooven! And Lionel Shriver! I wish i came to your event on sept 3, but i can t because i now live in France.
Sorry you can't make it. But that's a good reason!
What a treat to wake up to! Looking forward to listening to this.
In academia, I have heard so many presentations about "toxic masculinity." My male colleagues are especially anxious to prove they know what that is and are critiquing it. Once I heard a heterosexual married male colleague (a friend) present a critique of a famous public radio program for its apparent acceptance of heterosexual male desire. I was sitting next to another heterosexual male colleague and I turned to him and said, oh come on, why is male lust a bad thing? It's normal! That colleague was so shocked that a female said that to him that we became fast friends.
I have worried about many of my male heterosexual (often married) colleagues because they are so anxious to prove they are not toxic. They go into areas like "disability" and "queer" studies to prove it. I have heard them heap praise on "intersectionality" and refuse to serve on "manels" (all male conference panels). I know I can't shake them from these positions--their viability as "good" academics depends on their self abasement.
Surviving as a male academic, at least in humanities fields, often depends on finding an oppressed identity or at least "allying"with one. At a recent conference, a young handsome male (probably heterosexual) academic got up and announced he would not present his paper topic but demonstrate his solidarity with his trans brothers and sisters--he went on to explain that sex testing in athletics was a Nazi invention at the 1936 Olympics. He was applauded. I was appalled.
This is a really great conversation. A day later, I'm still thinking about it. The biggest conclusion I come to has to do with the idea of divine masculinity and femininity. Truthfully, most people seem physically unhealthy and all the chemical attacks combined with the cultural attack on our endocrine system have done a number to impact human sexuality and mentality. These ideas that sex isn't real, that big is beautiful are not benefiting the longevity of people or our species.
I love Carole but I’m always puzzled by the argument that boys are doing worse in school because school has become “feminized,” by which it’s meant that students are expected to sit still, follow instructions, seek approval, etc. This has always been true! What do people think school was like in 1950 or 1900? Do they seriously think school was fun and engaging and active and accommodating of students’ different learning styles back then, and it’s become less so? That’s ridiculous. A first grade teacher nowadays is a nice lady who will say “okay everybody, let’s take a break and do a wiggle dance and get our wiggles out!” A first grade teacher in 1950 would slap a kid across the face for fidgeting in his desk chair. Much more effort now is made to make class material engaging, experiential, multi-sensory, etc. I think it’s true that classrooms have become feminized, but not in the sense that academic success favors female-typical traits in a way that it never used to. It always has and it still does. It’s been feminized in the sense that it’s gentle and accommodating and unauthoritative, and I think there’s a much better case to be made that boys are falling behind girls in part because boys, on average, respond better to heavy structure, authority, and consequences, and fare worse than girls do in the absence of these things.
I think it has to do with less recess time, getting rid of shop class and other vocational classes, fewer male teachers in elementary and middle school -- that kind of thing.
I definitely agree that masculinity and boyishness has been pathologized in the culture at large.
I remain skeptical of the idea that kids today are expected to remain more still in school than in years past, regardless of any changes to recess. Perhaps the fact that they spend so much of their free time agog in front of screens instead of expending physical energy makes them more difficult to manage in a classroom setting. But I don’t think there are many boys who would have been headed to an Ivy if only we still had woodshop and auto maintenance class, and I think the loss of those classes is more a function of technology and the economy than it is deliberate feminization. The reality is that the bulk of the economic opportunities in the modern economy are in careers that are about people not things.
I agree that boys may benefit from male teachers, but I think that’s at least as much about a more masculine style of classroom management as it is role-modeling. I think if you brought in a bunch of passive men to do “gentle parenting”-style pedagogy you probably wouldn’t see much improvement in boys’ outcomes. I really think boys just require more discipline and coercion into succeeding than girls. There have always been innately academically-oriented boys who excelled at school, and there still are. But the average boy probably needs more active shaping up and kicking in the pants than the culture now thinks is appropriate, and when left to his own devices, he’ll just be lazy or cause minor trouble. The below average boy is a nightmare in a classroom. I think this is just the reality of average sex differences in conscientiousness and agreeableness, and if we’re not willing to push back on them, this is the situation we can expect.
Getting rid of shop class and training in practical skills like household budgeting (Home Economics) was a bad call. The are needed in school curricula. For both sexes.
There has never been much interest in teaching younger children by male teachers. The men in elementary schools back in the 70s were usually the school principals.
There is nothing sex specific about outdoor open play or learning life skills. I find the whole “feminization” charge to be flimsy and somewhat ridiculous.
Yes, in the 1960s we had 3 recesses per day (morning, lunch, afternoon). I was shocked when my daughter’s elementary school had only one (lunch). Also, because play was mostly banned, many NYC school playgrounds were being used as staff parking lots.
Yes, I think the diagnosis is wrong here. Boys will sit still and focus for some things, but not for the things that are being taught in modern schools in the way that they are being taught.
I agree. Males were meant to employ self-control long before females were even allowed entrance to advanced education institutions.
I think your point re: less authoritarian approaches is quite apt. Add early exposure to internet porn and gaming turning boys into de-conditioned screen-riveted blobs whose sexual development has been undermined by an endless stream of videos that are full of males performing violent and degrading sex acts on the females in them.
I hardly think it’s women’s fault that boys are falling behind. But female scapegoating is a longstanding tradition and Miss Hooven certainly comes across as a traditionalist in this sense.
The multi-sensory classroom and the entertainment classroom reek havoc on autistic kids who need quiet and regimentation.
Speaking as an elder millennial man, I also think a big part of the problem is that it seems that young women come into the world of dating, relationships, and marriage with all these ideas from the culture about how these things should go and many of them automatically *assume* that the men have gotten the same memo and know what to do.
And the reality is: We didn’t get the memo.
For example, when my wife and I first moved in together I could tell she was annoyed that when I tried to help her change the duvet cover I would completely fuck it up.
But we worked together and after awhile I got better and can do it well now on my own, but nobody educated me about changing duvet covers—I would bet my life savings that my father never knew what a duvet was!