Missing Men and the Biolgical Clock

[Spark2]

None of the things a man finds attractive or desirable and she will be 15 years past her prime when she finally gets it. Of course since we assume a normal rate of sexual partners for these young women she will also have all that emotional baggage and a few STDs.

Walking talking divorce factories in the making. Assuming they actually manage to be chosen. If trends continue… Well, we’re gonna need a lot more cats.

Seriously? You don’t think men can find brains, ambition, drive in a woman sexy? A woman who has learned, pushed herself, had meaningful life experience is gross and ruined? You must not be looking very hard.

If the choice was between you and the cat, I’d choose the cat.

 

[Naskor]

Well, as far as I know, arranging marriages (for lack of a better term), has usually been the domain of saecular society, so the Church never needed to act as matchmaker. As such, I really wish that families would make a stronger effort to set up their young people. I’m not talking about forced arrangements, but merely setting up dates/meetings with people that the young person in question is likely to find attractive. Anyway, I dislike the notion of dating which assumes that with the right amount of effort, people will find the right match on their own. Such ideas are based on the old romantic stories, which even if true, depict exceptions rather than the norm. But, then again, in today’s atomistic societies, everything is based on exceptions rather than the collective norm.

According to my grandparents they Church did play match maker! They met at one of my social functions exclusive to young singles. They lived in the same place I do so it is definitely not a location thing. The Church was their third place (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) we don’t have that anymore.

 

[Xantippe]

I feel that you are misinterpreting my posts.

First, when I said “parents will parent”, that was directly in reference to your comment that middle class parents help their sons at school. It had nothing to do with bad parents.

Second, I never claimed that school used to be fun for boys then in 1973 it suddenly switched with title IX. I knew that using the word “fun” would be problematic. My point was that schools in general do not address the way boys learn and they should do a better job of this.

If you are taking this as an attack on women’s education, it is not. It simply seems to me that we are laser-focused on one and ignoring the other, and by ignoring the other we are going to end up with some social issues down the road.

Some points:

1. I don’t think we ever really have had good education for everybody. There’s always been some group left out.
2. Note that there’s very little disparity between Asian girls and boys with regard to college attendance, so that suggests that (at least in that case) home environment can almost entirely neutralize any negative effect from school.
3. There’s a big socioeconomic factor in college enrollment. I don’t know how it interacts with sex, but there are major differences in enrollment levels based on family income.

“In 2012, the most recent year for which NCES figures are available, 50.9% of recent low-income high school completers (a category that includes both graduates and people who completed an equivalency degree and who are ages 16 to 24) were enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college.”

“But enrollment rates among middle- and high-income students also have risen, to 64.7% and 80.7%, respectively, in 2012. (NCES defines “low income” as the bottom 20% of all family incomes, “high income” as the top 20%, and “middle income” as the 60% in between.)”

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/college-enrollment-among-low-income-students-still-trails-richer-groups/

My guess is that upper income families have similar outcomes for girls and boys, while lower income families have worse numbers for boys.

1. I think you’re being a bit vague about the whole “how boys learn” thing. It’s kind of hard to tell what you mean. I’ll spot you some ideas, though, as to what features of contemporary schools may be problematic for boys (warning: I’m a recovering education nerd).

–There’s a tendency today to combine different subjects. Math winds up being very verbal. If you’re good at math, but bad at verbal stuff, the wordy approach to math means you get to fail at two different subjects. Likewise, if German, history, and literature all involve arts and crafts and you hate arts and crafts, you’re really up a creek. (I definitely notice that my daughter loves her projects whereas my son hates them.)
–Ditto with group work. If you’re good at math but bad at social stuff, group work means you get to fail at what you’re good at.
–A good source book is Katharine Beals’ “Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain World: Strategies for Helping Bright, Quirky, Socially Awkward Children to Thrive at Home and at School.” She’s the mother of an autistic son who is technically and mathematically gifted, but not a typical student. Hence, all of the stuff I just described would have been hell to deal with for him. He’s really good at what he’s really good at and really bad at what he’s not really good at.
–An effective educational program for kids like that would recognize that they don’t do well with combined subjects and that they are not ever going to be well-rounded. They need the opportunity to excel in their gifted areas and remediation in their weak areas–but they shouldn’t be academically hobbled by projects and social demands.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Does the parish have literally no groups or meetings for adults?

That’s unusual.

Apart from my university campus church I have never attended a parish with any sort of young adult group. There often aren’t enough young adults in a parish to have a group for them. I’ve seen a few attempts to do it on the diocese level, you get better numbers but the people are too spread out and many struggle to attend (typically a scenic building in the middle of nowhere) on a regular basis.

The churches I attend typically divide into families and the elderly. My current parish has a very active post confirmation group but these teens are focusing on passing exams and going to university rather than getting married and starting families. Most will move away for university, some will stop practicing and those that do return to the parish will just have to tag along with the older adults. The attitude that it’s normal for people to leave the church in their late teens and return later to settle down is very unhelpful to those who do want to continue to attend church despite being single.

I do think girls outperforming boys is a problem as there is little incentive for an educated woman to take on a man who failed his GCSEs and can’t get decently paid work. If anything a man like that would be detrimental. I think if I had a son I would be cruel to be kind and tell him he needs to knuckle down and get an education because the opportunities to do well without qualifications are few and far between.

 

[Xantippe]

Apart from my university campus church I have never attended a parish with any sort of young adult group. There often aren’t enough young adults in a parish to have a group for them. I’ve seen a few attempts to do it on the diocese level, you get better numbers but the people are too spread out and many struggle to attend (typically a scenic building in the middle of nowhere) on a regular basis.

The churches I attend typically divide into families and the elderly. My current parish has a very active post confirmation group but these teens are focusing on passing exams and going to university rather than getting married and starting families. Most will move away for university, some will stop practicing and those that do return to the parish will just have to tag along with the older adults. The attitude that it’s normal for people to leave the church in their late teens and return later to settle down is very unhelpful to those who do want to continue to attend church despite being single.

I do think girls outperforming boys is a problem as there is little incentive for an educated woman to take on a man who failed his GCSEs and can’t get decently paid work. If anything a man like that would be detrimental. I think if I had a son I would be cruel to be kind and tell him he needs to knuckle down and get an education because the opportunities to do well without qualifications are few and far between.

I agree that a lot of parishes wouldn’t have a young adult group, but no groups at all? That would be unusual. (I believe Bataar was saying that there wasn’t a reason to darken the door of his parish accept for Mass–which is very unusual in my experience.)

I agree about the parenting side. It’s not necessary to go to college–but it is necessary to have a real plan with a real chance of success and to be working toward it. (For example, if he wants to go into the Marines after high school, he’d better be in fantastic shape. If he wants to be a welder, he better have figured out exactly how you do that.)

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Some points:

1. I don’t think we ever really have had good education for everybody. There’s always been some group left out.
2. Note that there’s very little disparity between Asian girls and boys with regard to college attendance, so that suggests that (at least in that case) home environment can almost entirely neutralize any negative effect from school.
3. There’s a big socioeconomic factor in college enrollment. I don’t know how it interacts with sex, but there are major differences in enrollment levels based on family income.

“In 2012, the most recent year for which NCES figures are available, 50.9% of recent low-income high school completers (a category that includes both graduates and people who completed an equivalency degree and who are ages 16 to 24) were enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college.”

“But enrollment rates among middle- and high-income students also have risen, to 64.7% and 80.7%, respectively, in 2012. (NCES defines “low income” as the bottom 20% of all family incomes, “high income” as the top 20%, and “middle income” as the 60% in between.)”

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/college-enrollment-among-low-income-students-still-trails-richer-groups/

My guess is that upper income families have similar outcomes for girls and boys, while lower income families have worse numbers for boys.

1. I think you’re being a bit vague about the whole “how boys learn” thing. It’s kind of hard to tell what you mean. I’ll spot you some ideas, though, as to what features of contemporary schools may be problematic for boys (warning: I’m a recovering education nerd).

–There’s a tendency today to combine different subjects. Math winds up being very verbal. If you’re good at math, but bad at verbal stuff, the wordy approach to math means you get to fail at two different subjects. Likewise, if German, history, and literature all involve arts and crafts and you hate arts and crafts, you’re really up a creek. (I definitely notice that my daughter loves her projects whereas my son hates them.)
–Ditto with group work. If you’re good at math but bad at social stuff, group work means you get to fail at what you’re good at.
–A good source book is Katharine Beals’ “Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain World: Strategies for Helping Bright, Quirky, Socially Awkward Children to Thrive at Home and at School.” She’s the mother of an autistic son who is technically and mathematically gifted, but not a typical student. Hence, all of the stuff I just described would have been hell to deal with for him. He’s really good at what he’s really good at and really bad at what he’s not really good at.
–An effective educational program for kids like that would recognize that they don’t do well with combined subjects and that they are not ever going to be well-rounded. They need the opportunity to excel in their gifted areas and remediation in their weak areas–but they shouldn’t be academically hobbled by projects and social demands.

Curious what you mean by “recovering education nerd”. Do you mean teaching? Personally I am a recovering psych major, where I found human learning and development fascinating.

As for what I meant by “how boys learn”, I meant learning strategies. Hands-on or competitive tasks, etc. Schools tend to punish or discourage what boys generally excel in as opposed to channeling it. I would agree with the whole combining subjects approach too, as being potentially detrimental.

I also wonder if it wouldn’t be better to separate boys and girls schools until at least maybe high-school to focus on the two different, prevailing learning styles between the sexes. Obviously not every boy or girl fits into the same box, but in general I think it could be beneficial.

But I digress, this thread is supposed to be about missing marriageable men.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I agree that a lot of parishes wouldn’t have a young adult group, but no groups at all? That would be unusual. (I believe Bataar was saying that there wasn’t a reason to darken the door of his parish accept for Mass–which is very unusual in my experience.)

I agree about the parenting side. It’s not necessary to go to college–but it is necessary to have a real plan with a real chance of success and to be working toward it. (For example, if he wants to go into the Marines after high school, he’d better be in fantastic shape. If he wants to be a welder, he better have figured out exactly how you do that.)

My previous parish was like that to be fair but I really hope that’s unusual. It was a mostly elderly congregation without much new blood and enthusiasm was lacking. The weekly newsletter was just a list of who was ill or recently deceased. I think what’s more common is when a parish does do stuff outside of mass but it’s poorly advertised so you have to know the right people to hear about it. Either way I don’t think typical parishes tend to be good at bringing single people together.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

According to my grandparents they Church did play match maker! They met at one of my social functions exclusive to young singles. They lived in the same place I do so it is definitely not a location thing. The Church was their third place (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) we don’t have that anymore.

The concept of a 3rd place makes sense to me. It really describes the place I met my husband and the sort of place I’ve been longing to find for the last 8 years.

 

[Sarcelle]

My previous parish was like that to be fair but I really hope that’s unusual. It was a mostly elderly congregation without much new blood and enthusiasm was lacking. The weekly newsletter was just a list of who was ill or recently deceased. I think what’s more common is when a parish does do stuff outside of mass but it’s poorly advertised so you have to know the right people to hear about it. Either way I don’t think typical parishes tend to be good at bringing single people together.

Same thing for my parish.

Mostly elderly and families with school aged children are few.

Singles are even fewer.

My community has lost so many jobs that people have moved on to greener pastures.

The parish I belong to are mostly elderly and retired. A lot of parish activities take place when I am working.

 

[Xantippe]

Curious what you mean by “recovering education nerd”. Do you mean teaching? Personally I am a recovering psych major, where I found human learning and development fascinating.

As for what I meant by “how boys learn”, I meant learning strategies. Hands-on or competitive tasks, etc. Schools tend to punish or discourage what boys generally excel in as opposed to channeling it. I would agree with the whole combining subjects approach too, as being potentially detrimental.

I also wonder if it wouldn’t be better to separate boys and girls schools until at least maybe high-school to focus on the two different, prevailing learning styles between the sexes. Obviously not every boy or girl fits into the same box, but in general I think it could be beneficial.

But I digress, this thread is supposed to be about missing marriageable men.

A few thoughts:

1. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Russia and taught English language for two years. I would not say I was an amazing teacher, but I got my feet wet. I would say that a lot of boys did seem to be more motivated by a competitive approach. (On the other hand, my daughter loves academic competitions and I loved them too as a girl.)
2. I was way into the “math wars” from around 2006 on. I was figuring out where my kids were going to school at the time, and it largely shaped my views on education.
3. I would say that the parents least happy with contemporary math curriculum tend to be mothers (and fathers) of boys.
4. Beware “hands on” as a description of teaching methods, because it’s been fashionable for nearly the last 100 years and is what education schools love. It tends to be much less practiced on the ground for the following reasons:
   a. The set up for hands on activities is very time consuming for teachers who have heavy class loads.
   b. The materials are more expensive than worksheets.
   c. It’s hard to tell if students are actually learning anything in the buzz of activity and it’s hard to supervise a large group of kids doing hands on activities. Sometimes they’re just randomly doing stuff. (Ever been with a pack of kids at a children’s museum or science museum where they just run around pressing buttons and nobody learns anything?)
   d. Hence, a favorite form of “hands on” learning is sending home instructions for elaborate “projects.” A lot of schools have projectitis real bad. Parents typically HATE HATE HATE projects, as they involve buying materials and hours of misery and minimal educational value. A lot of kids (including) boys aren’t crazy about them, either, but your mileage may vary–I have one artsy girl who loves projects and one non-artsy boy who hates them. Meanwhile, my husband likes projects (and is in charge of them) whereas I hate them.
   e. Public schools are very concerned about test results and hence have a big temptation to focus on test prep (which is not hands on).
   f. It’s hard to appropriately supervise real hands on activities. For example, this summer my husband taught our 15-year-old daughter to solder and she helped him manufacture an elaborate homemade electronic device, but that was one-on-one.
   g. I get the feeling that woodshop and robotics clubs are a big deal at good schools. Also, there are a lot of hands-on activities at one-week summer camps and after school activities. But these are probably much less likely to be available to poorer children.

tldr: be at least a little suspicious when you hear the term “hands on learning” because it may not mean what you think it does.

1. Bonus opinion: US middle schools are generally terrible, and it’s a terrible model. Middle school is where a lot of boys start having a lot of trouble, because there’s a developmentally inappropriate amount of executive skills demanded of students.

 

[Naskor]

Apart from my university campus church I have never attended a parish with any sort of young adult group. There often aren’t enough young adults in a parish to have a group for them. I’ve seen a few attempts to do it on the diocese level, you get better numbers but the people are too spread out and many struggle to attend (typically a scenic building in the middle of nowhere) on a regular basis.

The churches I attend typically divide into families and the elderly. My current parish has a very active post confirmation group but these teens are focusing on passing exams and going to university rather than getting married and starting families. Most will move away for university, some will stop practicing and those that do return to the parish will just have to tag along with the older adults. The attitude that it’s normal for people to leave the church in their late teens and return later to settle down is very unhelpful to those who do want to continue to attend church despite being single.

I do think girls outperforming boys is a problem as there is little incentive for an educated woman to take on a man who failed his GCSEs and can’t get decently paid work. If anything a man like that would be detrimental. I think if I had a son I would be cruel to be kind and tell him he needs to knuckle down and get an education because the opportunities to do well without qualifications are few and far between.

Actually a recent study has shown that men are marrying up much more then women these days. nydailynews.com/life-style/men-marrying-women-study-article-1.3449306

It appears that if a women wants to be married in 2017 she has to marry down because so few men even want to be married.

 

[Bataar]

Does the parish have literally no groups or meetings for adults?

That’s unusual.

It’s even worse than that. I attend about 3 different parishes in my area depending on my schedule, and they all offer nothing. One has a Knights of Columbus link on their site, but no useful information. When I see KoC members at the church, I don’t see any that look under the age of 70.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s even worse than that. I attend about 3 different parishes in my area depending on my schedule, and they all offer nothing. One has a Knights of Columbus link on their site, but no useful information. When I see KoC members at the church, I don’t see any that look under the age of 70.

Bummer.

Are you from the Pacific Northwest? Being from WA myself, I’ll take a big flying leap and guess that your parents didn’t meet in WA. (It’s not exactly the heart of Catholic life in the US.) So, it’s not necessarily just that things are worse now, but you’re also living in a very unchurched area.

Check out the shaded map here of US states by church attendance:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity

California is (believe it or not) more churched than WA.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

A few thoughts:

1. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Russia and taught English language for two years. I would not say I was an amazing teacher, but I got my feet wet. I would say that a lot of boys did seem to be more motivated by a competitive approach. (On the other hand, my daughter loves academic competitions and I loved them too as a girl.)
2. I was way into the “math wars” from around 2006 on. I was figuring out where my kids were going to school at the time, and it largely shaped my views on education.
3. I would say that the parents least happy with contemporary math curriculum tend to be mothers (and fathers) of boys.
4. Beware “hands on” as a description of teaching methods, because it’s been fashionable for nearly the last 100 years and is what education schools love. It tends to be much less practiced on the ground for the following reasons:
   a. The set up for hands on activities is very time consuming for teachers who have heavy class loads.
   b. The materials are more expensive than worksheets.
   c. It’s hard to tell if students are actually learning anything in the buzz of activity and it’s hard to supervise a large group of kids doing hands on activities. Sometimes they’re just randomly doing stuff. (Ever been with a pack of kids at a children’s museum or science museum where they just run around pressing buttons and nobody learns anything?)
   d. Hence, a favorite form of “hands on” learning is sending home instructions for elaborate “projects.” A lot of schools have projectitis real bad. Parents typically HATE HATE HATE projects, as they involve buying materials and hours of misery and minimal educational value. A lot of kids (including) boys aren’t crazy about them, either, but your mileage may vary–I have one artsy girl who loves projects and one non-artsy boy who hates them. Meanwhile, my husband likes projects (and is in charge of them) whereas I hate them.
   e. Public schools are very concerned about test results and hence have a big temptation to focus on test prep (which is not hands on).
   f. It’s hard to appropriately supervise real hands on activities. For example, this summer my husband taught our 15-year-old daughter to solder and she helped him manufacture an elaborate homemade electronic device, but that was one-on-one.
   g. I get the feeling that woodshop and robotics clubs are a big deal at good schools. Also, there are a lot of hands-on activities at one-week summer camps and after school activities. But these are probably much less likely to be available to poorer children.

tldr: be at least a little suspicious when you hear the term “hands on learning” because it may not mean what you think it does.

1. Bonus opinion: US middle schools are generally terrible, and it’s a terrible model. Middle school is where a lot of boys start having a lot of trouble, because there’s a developmentally inappropriate amount of executive skills demanded of students.

Yes, a qualifier for “hands-on” is that it has to be well thought out and structured, imo. I distinctly remember loving group activities in school because it basically meant 20-30min of free time to chat and mess around.

My dad always joked that he made an “A” on all my science projects.

I was a serial procrastinator in school. I was very proud of being able to complete the previous night’s homework either before school started or in the class prior. It was like a game to me- how far can I push off doing homework and still get credit for it? How late can I start this paper and still get an “A”? Basically, how little effort can I put into this and still come out on top? I even used to deliberately avoid reading the books assigned for English class because (1) they told me to read them and I wasn’t gonna let them control me and (2) I genuinely enjoyed seeing how well I could do on an English quiz off of context clues alone. Terrible habits to get into but for some reason it seemed brilliant to me at the time. Somehow I was very good at taking tests. If I ever have sons I am sure they will drive me up the wall.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, a qualifier for “hands-on” is that it has to be well thought out and structured, imo. I distinctly remember loving group activities in school because it basically meant 20-30min of free time to chat and mess around.

My dad always joked that he made an “A” on all my science projects.

I was a serial procrastinator in school. I was very proud of being able to complete the previous night’s homework either before school started or in the class prior. It was like a game to me- how far can I push off doing homework and still get credit for it? How late can I start this paper and still get an “A”? Basically, how little effort can I put into this and still come out on top? I even used to deliberately avoid reading the books assigned for English class because (1) they told me to read them and I wasn’t gonna let them control me and (2) I genuinely enjoyed seeing how well I could do on an English quiz off of context clues alone. Terrible habits to get into but for some reason it seemed brilliant to me at the time. Somehow I was very good at taking tests. If I ever have sons I am sure they will drive me up the wall.

Hilarious!

My baby brother apparently became quite expert at intercepting letters from school. I have no idea how he managed that, but things were quite dire with his high school grades before my parents clued in. (As they had had two older girls before baby brother hit high school, they’d probably been lulled into complacency and thought they were super awesome parents.)

Another contributing factor to the poor grades was that baby brother would do his homework and then it would ride back and forth to school, turning into lint, rather than getting turned in…

Baby brother went into the Marine Reserves and college, did two tours in Iraq during college (!), did officer training, and now has a lovely family and a nice white collar civilian job.

Here are my conclusions from baby brother’s story with regard to what might be helpful to boys:

–Parents need to not fall asleep at the wheel. Check those grades! (You can do this online now.)
–Teachers need to officially ask for homework (you would not believe how many don’t).
–Sometimes boys need extra time to grow up (a lot of countries have traditionally had two years of military service after high school, and I think that is actually developmentally appropriate–a lot of good stuff can happen from 18-20).

Edited to add: You’re not the only person who thought they were getting away with something by devoting the minimum to their school work.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Actually a recent study has shown that men are marrying up much more then women these days. nydailynews.com/life-style/men-marrying-women-study-article-1.3449306

It appears that if a women wants to be married in 2017 she has to marry down because so few men even want to be married.

I guess it depends what degree of marrying up. The sort of men i was thinking of were those who hadn’t done well at school, had never had the chance to move out of their parents home and develop as functional adults (I think this is where national service would help) and have only worked low paid and often very insecure jobs with long periods of unemployment and have no plan to improve their situation. I’ve met plenty of guys like this, they are often perfectly nice guys but I think as a romantic partner you would constantly be frustrated and disappointed in them.

Bataar I get where you are coming from. There are definitely areas where the Catholic Church has almost no influence and there isn’t much more to do than go to mass.

 

[Vico]

Come to think about it, what is so wrong with women marrying later and having few children?

Female fertility begins to decrease from age thirty-two and rapidly increases after thirty-seven years. Also the risk of having a child with a birth defect is increased in older women. When older than thirty-five years, the first time during pregnancy is more likely to develop high blood pressure and related disorders.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Female fertility begins to decrease from age thirty-two and rapidly increases after thirty-seven years. Also the risk of having a child with a birth defect is increased in older women. When older than thirty-five years, the first time during pregnancy is more likely to develop high blood pressure and related disorders.

Isn’t it odd that the most fertile years are when we are unable to shoulder the responsibility?

 

[pensmama87]

Isn’t it odd that the most fertile years are when we are unable to shoulder the responsibility?

I think that might be a quirk of contemporary culture.

 

[JimG]

Isn’t it odd that the most fertile years are when we are unable to shoulder the responsibility?

It’s kind of counterintuitive in a way. When I married, back in earlier times, it was sort of assumed that newlyweds would start out poor, and grow into a mutual life together. We were both living with parents in middle class homes. Marriage meant a step down in material conditions, to a small apartment.

With kids though, at least the young have more stamina than the middle aged in dealing with them.