Selwyn Duke: The war on boys: where feminists and men's rights activists go wrong

Submitted by anthony on Mon, 2008-07-14 13:23

Article here. Excerpt:

'One problem with one-issue activists, it seems, is that they often view matters from only one dimension. This has always been one of the characteristics of feminists. Men get blame for being history's conquerors and killers, for instance, but no credit for being its innovators and healers. We will hear about how women "create life" while men only destroy it, but forgotten are the fruits of men's labors. Were it not for male medical advances that virtually eliminated female death during childbirth, many feminists wouldn't be around to crow about their fecundity.

Given this misandrist atmosphere, it's not surprising that an opposing group called "men's rights activists" would arise. They rebut feminist ideology, bring many important issues to light and usually make excellent points. And I tend to like them.
...
...a lack of discipline within academia will cause boys' performance to deteriorate more than girls' (this isn't to say girls aren't affected; however, the grade difference isn't as profound and the other effects will be more subtle). Girls will be more likely to apply themselves even once the reins are loosened because that is what they're "supposed" to do, whereas boys will be more likely to do their own thing.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

he makes good points.

it's true that most references we see to past schooling methods, it was always shown to be very strict compared to today's schooling. and that's the kind of environment the boys were grading better in.

however, i think his points mostly apply to teenagers. that's usually the time that either makes or breaks a person.

while kids also need discipline, they also need to be kids.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dudejo on Tue, 2008-07-15 00:44

For one thing, not all MRA's fit this guy's description; it sounds like he's talking about the slightly more "radical" ones. He also fails to see the complexities and nuances of the situation - apparently he has not studied deeply or read the important literature like Farrell or Nathanson and Young. He instead probably relies on the internet or some sort of pop media for his information. He's probably never even looked at Glenn Sacks' web site.

The main problem though is he focuses on a secondary (probably tertiary is a better word) issue of what he perceives to be "MRA's being like feminists". The issue at hand is not one of comparing the two movements - let the pinheads and ivory tower jackasses take care of that. The issue is that men and boys are getting sick, dying, failing at education, and generally getting sh** on by what amounts to a fascist regime (by contrast, women have never been in that situation); the writer obviously acknowledges the misandry (to some extent) but seems to place it on the same level of importance as whether he "likes" MRA's or whether they have similarities to feminists. He also fails to acknowledge the existence of ideological feminists, who essentially have no counterpart in the MR movement. That also is probably due to his ignorance (as mentioned above).

-ax

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Tue, 2008-07-15 05:46