Because conditions affect boys and girls differently. Seeing mothers being sole heads of households means a role for girls is ahead . . . it means boys cannot see a role for themselves, as their fathers and other males are outside the family and family home. That looks to boys like their future is less than what the girls can envision. Is that so hard for you to see Nat? That taking roles away from fathers impacts boys and girls differently? Is that hard to comprehend? It sure doesn't seem to register with you.
Somehow, our society understands that black children who can see successful, valuable black adults is important. Somehow, the Feminists made us see that little girls could look at adult females succeeding in non-traditional roles and think, "I can do that too." But, somehow, it is hard for you and others to see that little boys today who see their fathers and other men close to them pushed out of the family home and made less relevant in communities can get internalized in those boys. Stop thinking with the 50's mindset, Nat -- that is so long ago and so far removed from the current realities that it makes no sense today. I could get stuck in the world of my youth too -- it is a comforting thought -- but I know that 1965 and 2012 have very little in common. We must strive to understand the people and conditions of today as they exist, and not through the prism of some long-ago time.
What I mentioned before: If you want to see males of all ages come to the fore, all we need do is have a catastrophe of major proportions that disrupts or destroys our systems of production and distribution, and our civil governance. With no more ambition or education than young boys have now, I predict we would see those young men spring into action, as if waking from a trace by the call of an essential purpose . . . and females very pleased and relieved to see that. The only thing that really impedes men from being a viable resource again is the lack of their necessity.