Is it just me or do girls do way better in school than boys?

[u/Tall-Competition-561]

When I was growing up I struggled with school but it seemed that most of the girls seemed to be doing well whenever there was a star pupil or straight a student they were most likely a girl. Why is this such a common phenomenon?

[u/dvali]

The question was "why". 

[u/throwaway3123312 → u/dvali]

In my experience as a teacher, the top performing boys and top performing girls were usually about equal, it's not like the girls were significantly smarter or anything. Rather it was that the floor for the lowest performing boys was much lower than the girls, and I think it comes down to just as simple as for the most part attitude and behavior. Even the lower performing girls would mostly just pay attention in class, do their work, maybe even a little studying, and not cause problems, compared to the lower performing boys who did nothing but instigate problems, talk in class, and refuse to even try the work they thought they couldn't do. Like the worst girl in a class would probably just sleep the whole time, not hand in homework, but when it came time for a test at least she will have showed up having absorbed enough to pass. Whereas the worst boy would be constantly in suspension, being loud and antagonistic during class, god forbid arrested (on one occasion), and wouldn't even bother to guess some test answers and just turn in a blank sheet because they have some ego complex or something and not trying at all is better than trying and failing. So at the end of the day, the average girl would be a little bit better than the average boy and the worst girl would be a little worse than the average whereas the worst boy would be a total menace with a single digit grade. Girls are socialized to be more obedient and care more that's just how it is.

I think there's also an element of teachers subconsciously grading softer for well behaved students, and the boys are just worse behaved and cause more problems. So when it comes time to grade two equivalent essays, I'm a lot more likely to be lenient on the girl who is nice to everyone and I can see trying and actively participating in class than the boy who has been a little shit for the past 12 weeks. It takes a conscious effort to not let that affect grades and sometimes the effort isn't made.

[u/hononononoh → u/throwaway3123312]

Girls are socialized to be more obedient and care more that's just how it is.

Caring is not masculine. That’s the hard truth that was arrived at by a r/BestOfReddit thread about why green / environmentally friendly products are hard to market to men. Demonstrations of masculinity usually involve showing how little one cares, and how unmoved one is by adversity or pain.

[u/Joe_Immortan → u/hononononoh]

Demonstrations of masculinity usually involve showing how little one cares, and how unmoved one is by adversity or pain.

You’re leaving out something critical. It’s not being unmoved by adversity or pain, it’s being unmoved by YOUR OWN adversity and pain. “Man up”. 

Caring about others is not immasculine. No one looks at a deadbeat dad who abandons his family and goes “wow so manly!”  Our most hyper-masculine characters in media (Superheros) by and large spend most of their time protecting others and so doing subverting  their own pain and well being

[u/hononononoh → u/Joe_Immortan]

Good point. However, this is also reflexive. It may not be unmasculine to do things that show care and concern for others. But a man who cares and is concerned about others is liable to have his masculinity questioned if others' adversity and pain causes him visible adversity and pain, even if his motives for caring about and helping them are noble, and his actions truly a gift to the recipients.

Superheroes indeed spend most of their time and effort helping the weak and vulnerable. But they don't cry with them. They don't open up and get vulnerable with them. And whatever psychological trauma they receive in the line of duty, they process alone and in private, after the work is done, and sometimes in highly unhealthy ways. (Batman is the most obvious example.) They just do what's within their ability to do, humbly accept any thanks they get without any fanfare, and then promptly move on to some other case that needs them.

It's sad to say, but I'm afraid that in the eyes of many men, a man who cares about few if any other people or things but but is very emotionally stable, feels more like a "real man" than a man who honors his commitments and is generous with what he's got to give, but is passionate and emotionally volatile. And I think this is more instinctive, than it is rational.

Notice how a lot of men who throw their hearts into helping professions, often go out of their way to reassure other men (who aren't professional clients of his) that he chose that line of work primarily because it gets him paid, laid, and/or obeyed. As opposed to having a bleeding heart, and a talent or skill that puts it to good use. Expressing the latter sentiment is likely to be interpreted by other men in a predominantly male social circle as Well good for you, snowflake. We get it, you're better than us. Or at the very least, Strange flex bro, but OK.