Badmovies.org Forum

Been reading this book Boys Adrift, and damn, it's a good book.  But it's also a bit of a worrying book.  It talks about the trend in a lot of young men nowadays to be apathetic and unmotivated to achieve anything in their lives.  How, for example, there's so many guys today who are still living with their parents (even in their early 30s), working very little (if at all) and seem to have no desire to rise above their current station in life.  The book talks about five reasons why the author (who's both a medical doctor and a psychologist) believes this is happening and how to reverse the trend.

What's really eye opening to me about the book is how much it EXACTLY describes so many people I've encountered in my own life.  I mean, I KNOW a lot of young men like the ones the author describes, guys in their early 20s (and some older) who often live at home, and seem content to mainly just play video games all the time and have no real direction in their lives.  Hell, in some ways that kind of describes me, except I'd like to think at least I'm LOOKING for a direction (and I do live on my own, granted, it's public housing, but still...)

Anyway, I'd always believed that the people I knew like this were the result of me living in an economically depressed area where a culture of apathy and poverty had really sunk in.  I didn't realize how widespread this “trend” had become.  One stat says that a third of young men between the ages of 22-34 still living with their parents, which a hundred percent increase from twenty years ago.    

Also, for you laddies, reading this, while the book is called BOYS Adrift, there's a lot of information about how this affects women negatively as well.  As the books says at one point, and I'm paraphrasing here, “Unmotivated boys tend to grow up to be bullies or “slacker dudes” neither of which women need.”  

If you're curious, the five factors, in a nutshell, are:

1. Video Games. Studies suggest that some of the most popular video games are disengaging boys from real-world pursuits.

2. Teaching Methods. Profound changes in the way children are educated have had the unintended consequence of turning many boys off school.

For instance, apparently, nowadays kindergarten is more like 1st grade than kindergarten of thirty years ago.  Instead of learning colors, singing, and being given a chance to move about and play, kids are expected to sit still and learn to READ and WRITE.

3. Prescription Drugs. Overuse of medication for ADHD may be causing irreversible damage to the motivational centers in boys’ brains.

4. Endocrine Disruptors. Environmental estrogens from plastic bottles and food sources may be lowering boys’ testosterone levels, making their bones more brittle and throwing their endocrine systems out of whack.

This was a really fascinating section in the book.  As most of you know, girls have been entered puberty faster and faster these days, many of them showing signs of "developing" at a mere EIGHT years old.  But what a lot people may not know (I certainly didn't) is that a lot of boys in today's world are entering puberty LATER than their female peers.

5. Devaluation of Masculinity. Shifts in popular culture have transformed the role models of manhood. Forty years ago we had Father Knows Best; today we have The Simpsons.

Well, like I said, it's a real fascinating (and in some ways) scary book.  If you have young boys it's a MUST read.

http://www.boysadrift.com/home.php (http://www.boysadrift.com/home.php)

First a couple disclaimers:
1) I have not read the book
2) I'm not basing this on any research.

It does seem to me that modern society lack a transition mechansim for turining boy into men "officially".  Historically they have been sent on vision quests, educated in manliness, had ceremonies, or even banged into uniform or armor and sent off to march and clean toilets for a few years. In all cases, they leave boys and come back men.  We don't really do that in an organized way. Maybe this is the root cause of this rootlessness. 

Of course other folks will blame education, modern parenting, secularization of society, video games, sugar, liberals, conservatives or 1000 other things. 
-Ed

The endocrine disruption is something I've been interested in lately. I have seen multiple studies indicating that soy, while certainly high in protein, is also a type of protein that may not be good for boys/men. Their is evidence that soy-based protein lowers testosterone as well. Now, does this mean that boys/men should stay away from soy altogether? Probably not, as low amounts of soy, if included in a balanced diet that includes proteins that DON'T lower testosterone, likely causes no ill effects. However, the amount of soy in the daily American diet has been on the rise for some time, as most fast food meat is constantly raising the ratio of soy vs. beef in the mixture. Do some online studies on the major fast food restaurants and you would be surprised how much soy is contained. The inverse effect of girls reaching puberty earlier can also be connected to this.

Food for thought (pun intended).

What about soy-centric asian countries? 
-Ed

I don't know. I'm just relating some studies and some recent press on the matter. It could mean something or not. Who knows? I know that different ethnicities have genetic predispositions to certain things. For example, the Japanese have issues with processing alcohol that us Westerners don't have, and so many Japnanese have bad things happen when they drink. It's a similar genetic reaction that some native Americans have. It's possible that Western bodies have a reaction to soy that Eastern bodies don't. That's just a stab, as I'm not qualified to say. If you look it up there will be a gamut of articles and studies that support soy's elevation of estrogen levels and those that do not. I'm just providing fodder for discussion.

I think the reason alot of man AND women are living with their parents is because the economy is terrible and the cost of living is so high.

This trend of people living with their parents into their 30's predates the economic downturn.  I've been hearing about it for a decade or thereabouts.

The economy might well be contributing to the push, but I don't think it is causal.

Mark Steyn actually comments on this trend in his book AMERICA ALONE: THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.  He said we live in the first generation in American or European history where a guy can walk into a singles bar, freely admit he still lives at home with his parents, and STILL go home with a hot woman.

Well, it isn't just living with the parents that's the problem.  It's when they seem to show no interest in attempting to move out on their own that causes trouble.

Well, believe it or not, he does touch on that in point five, the devaluation of masculine culture.  He talks about how the more longer lasting societies in the world did (and in the case of Orthodox Jews, still do) have rituals that one goes through to become a man.  Older societies didn't believe that one becomes a man simply by getting older, that some sort of ritual or challenge had to be completed.  

Course, part of the problem with this now is many men grow up without ANY male influence or role models.  When there's no one to show youngsters how to be a man, they turn to each other for role models (and that's really work out too well.)  

My son Eddie lives in his room-on his video game. He b***hs about us being short of this and that-he's 16-but he has ZERO ambition. I usta feel like it was my fault. Bulls**t. Before I was 16 I had already worked for local farmers to get money,read books for entertainment (comic books too-which came out once a month and I had to WORK to buy them-picking fruit and shovling corn into bins),and left home at 16-hitchhiked to upstate NY and worked there too-wrecking old houses down with a sledge-I've NEVER been unemployed. I do what I gotta do. I've killed and skinned mink for Ted Dickhead Nugent,shoveled s**t for farmers,worked in machine shops and canning factories. NO work is beneath you. I would sell my f**king soul to support my family.
Kids are LAZY. Spoilt. And Technology-instant gratification made them that way.

What would have these kids done if they were transported to 1930's and the Great Depression? Or Some 3rd world country now? Too soft. They need to man up. A little hardsip is what they need to get them outta there video game haze.

The minute he turns 18-I love em-I'm booting him out. He wont learn without experiance-and-as redneck as it sounds-hardship. Boy needs to be a man.

Without a doubt there is a cultural shift that Indy brought up that is true. Once upon a time kids couldn't wait to get out from under Mom and Dad's roof. This is natural and healthy behavior to some extent. More kids are WANTING to stay home. Some parents exacerbate this because they bend to the will of the kid and make it and easier decision for them to stay. I stayed at home into my early 20's, and once later down the line for a short time when I needed help, but didn't stay long because I couldn't stand it. This is how it should be. Kids shouldn't want to stay with Mom and Dad.

I'm not going to push my kids out the door when they're 18, but I understand RC's position. At the very least, parents have to lay down some serious rules when a kid becomes a legal adult. They're adults, and there's nothing wrong with them staying at home if they're contributing to the household. That's the key. If they are contributing to the household in a substantial way, then they earn a certain amount of say in the householf, but the parents certainly have to sign off on it, because it IS afterall their home and ultimately their decision. It's perfectly reasonable and in the kids ultimate best interest that if they don't want to contribute, don't want to work, and want to sit on their ass, then they should have ZERO say about anything, and any rules that a parent wants to lay down they really aren't in any position to grumble about. PERIOD. They are adults. If they want freedom then either ante up or get out. And if they can't find work, which is understandable to an extent, there's plenty they can do to contribute to the household that doesn't require monetary contribution.

That's what seems to be missing: accountability. You can't blame kids for wanting to stay home if there are no consequences for doing nothing. It's not that dissimilar to eating habits. If you give a kid a choice between regular milk and chocolate milk, what do you think they're going to choose? They're kids for crying out loud.

Anyway, that's my input. I'm not claiming to be an expert or have all the answers by any means.

Well, let me see about this
1) I am a video gamer, period. But the most popular video games are just shoot 'em up games- I don't like them- there's no plot to it and is just a real gore fest.
2)I'm not sure about teaching methods, I really think it's the time at which they teach and the amount of homework they give us- esp being in 11th grade, the AP English III teacher assigns homework that well goes into 10:00-12:30 at NIGHT!
3) meh, it can be true- esp with me. :teddyr: but really it's with the boring stuff (I.e. 1 bazillion hours of just rambling) My math teacher makes every thing more fun to do! :thumbup:
4) I'm not one of them- I hit puberty when I was 10! :teddyr:
5)It's really how the internet influenced the younger generation nowadays.

You know, I was raised moderately well off with an active father who always worked, and my brother did jobs from about the time he hit puberty or even before.  There was always an expectation I should work or educate, and if I was home all day for more than about 4 days without a job life got intolerable in many ways.  I still am a lower-ambition type, but I will always work.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with RC's analysis, but I agree with the theme that eventually you have to be a man and DO something.  

I have no time for those "men" who are all manly and can hunt/fish/race cars/shoot/watch or play sports/game/drink, but they cannot lower themeselves to chanmge a diaper, cook a meal, or be trusted to watch kids for more than 30 seconds.  A man does what he has to do, no matter what.  

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.”
 Robert Heinlein

 

I dont know if what I think is the right way either. But to be a man-I do love Heinlan-and his theory-we need this: To have-and teach-a culture of dont expect anything-work for it. Dont think life is fair-it's not
.Roll with the punches-dont dwell on your losses-fight back
.If you lose-Lose with HONOR. Put your head up. Never say die-even if the guns to your head. ALWAYS be true to yourself.

Oh wow, that's a HUGE understatement.

Only a mere 200 years ago, a 12 year old boy could be a junior OFFICER on war ship.  To have a career as an officer in the Royal Navy, one had to pass for Lt. by 20 or 21.  Old Lieutenants were viewed as failures, that there must be something wrong with their seamanship or leadership skills.

Since becoming a lieutenant required 8 years of sea time to even take the test, well, the math is easy.  If you wanted that career, you enter enter the service as a Mid by 12-14, or all was done before it even started.  

By about 15 or 16, they had enough seniority and experience to be battery officers (responsible for a group of guns, say 6-10).  Ever study the anatomy of a Naval battle during the Age of Sail?  It was positively BRUTAL, and those teenagers were leaders, not 'boys' held in the safest parts of the ship til it was over.

By 18, they often were "Master's Mates," which were essentially non-commissioned lieutenants.  Upon becoming a Lt., they had about 10 years of active sea duty under their belts.

Contrast that with now in the US:  we call college students, in their TWENTIES, "kids."  Not only do we not give teens any responsibility, we all too often withhold it from those that practically beg for it.  We coddle them and "nurture" biological adults for up to TEN YEARS or more after their bodies have matured.

To put a 15 year old boy in harms way on the gun deck of a warship now would be considered extremely irresponsible.  Our "Midshipmen" are college age students studying at Annapolis, only technically beginning their training at 18 or so and completing it by 22 or so.  They then enter the Navy as Ensign and begin working up to Lt, in their mid twenties, and may have no real, practical experience on the sea, and almost certainly not in war, upon receiving their commission.

Sorry for what is probably a ramble, but what I lament here is the loss of the "apprentice" system of education.  What has not been mentioned explicitly in this thread, though perhaps hinted at, is the transition over a 100 years or so from "active" learning by DOING to "book learning" that fosters no real activity or experience.  Gone are the days of a future blacksmith working in the shop at 10-12 and growing up into the profession.  Now, we sit at desks, inside buildings with artificial weather (heating and air conditioning) rather than being outside, draw on computers rather than really build things, etc.

Heck, even in chemistry classes I've seen the lab exercises are being done on "computer simulations" because it's cheaper than buying all those chemicals.

Indeed, we even use derogatory language in education..."do it this way in class, but in the REAL WORLD...."  This puzzles me.

Either that or you OVERSTATED it. :wink:

BTW, I'm not trying to push any "right" way to raise a kid, as if any person or culture has gotten it all figured out.

Me?  Never!   :bouncegiggle:

I think our society could benefit a great deal if we all adopted a bit more of Teddy Roosevelt's "strenuous life."  I'm 47 and running to fat now, but I can still walk a lot of younger folks into the ground during one of my river rambles.  When I was 30, no 20 year old could keep up with me on an all day artifact hike.

Here's a bit of TR wisdom:

"Avoid hitting someone whenever it is honorably possible to do so.
But, if you must hit - NEVER hit soft!"

Whoa, seriously?!  You've worked for Ted Nugent?

BTW sorry to hear about your son.  I'm not a parental expert and, I hope I'm not overstepping by giving advice, but I dunno, have you done anything with him lately?  I mean, father-son type stuff?  Maybe a bit of real world experience will help him want to play game less and do more real things. 

Indeed.

My paternal grandfather grew up into smithing, in his father's shop.  My Dad grew up working on the home farm (mink, btw: Hi RC!).  My grandfather sent my father to medical school.

But I was moved to comment here because of a different coincidence:  I received a letter from my provincial government just last week inviting me to apply for a position on the governing body of the newly-formed Ontario College of Trades.  "Responsible for establishing training standards and addressing issues that are of concern to the various skilled trades sectors"  I have been registered with their Apprenticeship Program for years as an employer/trainer because I take working students.   So it appears that our government feels there is a need for increased official support of apprenticeships.

Oh: and my blacksmith is looking for an apprentice... :wink:

Mike, a good follow-up book for the Boys Adrift book that you might like to check out is Last Child in the Woods: How To Save Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Child-Woods-Children-Nature-Deficit/dp/156512605X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301016744&sr=8-1).

I'll get my passport.

 :teddyr:

I'll just chime in about the endocrine theories... As George Carlin said,

"Saliva has been found to cause stomach cancer.   But only if swallowed in small amounts... over long periods of time!"

(Many of these from-the-hip observational studies about environmental effects are poorly done and underpowered, and rife with confounding variables.)

I raised my kids alone untill I met Tara Sue-They were 9 and 11 by then. She died in 2008. I raised my kids. I did EVERYTHING with my boys. Fact is-II dont think technology f**ked us. What f**ked us is as old as time. Poverty. And I look at America like China was before Mao took over- Communism got a grip because they pandered to the poor.we are over run buy forgien intrest-we better get a grip-or anarchy is gonna happen. Dont think so? Look at Russia.
I think our tree is about to fall. China's playing a waiting game. Watch.

Yeah-He's an a***ole. I worked at his mink-fox-concentration camp-in Marcellus. Gruesome. We would skin the mink and grind the carcasses to feed back to the mink. Gruesome. And he paid s**t too. f**k Ted.

Haven't read, but I see that attitude all over campus here. Thankfully most of the afflicted drop out after their second year when they realize that any given university course is work. And as for the entitled attitude I see in people in my age: The world doesn't owe you anything. It gave you life, for cryin' out loud! You owe it!

Believe it or not, that's mentioned in the book as well.  The author talks about the two different types of knowledge (he uses two foreign words, can't recall offhand what they are) but basically, in English, one is the type of knowledge you learn by reading, and passively learning things, and the other is the type you get from actual experiences.  He gives a good example on why the latter is just as important as the former. 

One example that really struck me was this time he was in Europe (think it was Finland, but I'm not sure) observing a kindergarten class.  They took a field trip to a nearby forest and had the kids separate into groups of two.  One child would blindfold the other, lead the kid over to a particular try and have the kid touch and smell the tree without their eyes for about a minute or so.  Then, the sighted child would lead the other child away from the tree, spin them around, remove the blindfold, and the child would try to find "their" tree. 

The author thought this was all kind of silly, so the teacher insisted on trying it with him.  He said that when the blindfold was removed it was an amazing experience: in just a few seconds of looking around the forest he could spot "his" tree, even though he hadn't seen it earlier. 

That whole thing really stuck out in my mind.