Boy Bashing

	posted by Scott on Wednesday June 20, @10:10AM from the boys/young-men dept.
	Nightmist writes "Wendy McElroy once again exposes the political nature of some "studies" conducted in the 1990s which led to our current public policy of demasculinizing boys. The parents of one of the boys who participated in the study are challenging its results (results which claimed that boys exist in a "bully culture" and need to be feminized). The boys themselves say many of their answers were jokes. Said one subject: "Our immature attempt at humor four years ago should not be the benchmark for the 21st century.""

<  Men's Hour Program to Counter BBC Women's Hour | Upgrade Plan  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pollack and his ilk (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 20, @02:15PM EST (#1) I read Real Boys Voices last year, not long after it came out and I have to say that I thought it was pure rubbish. First of all, the original writing produced by Pollack himself makes up less than half the book. The remainder of the text is quotations from the writings of his subjects. The largest theme in the book is that masculinity, aka the "boy code" is a disease that needs to be erradicated. I note his geographical proximity to Harvard, the former home of Carol Gilligan, progenitor of the myth that girls are so poorly treated in schools. This guy is dangerous, and he is an instrument of the most destructive feminists, feminist educators. This word needs to be spread before more school systems subscribe to this hogwash.

Mal-conditioning worse for boys or girls? (Score:1) by Hawth on Thursday June 21, @07:12PM EST (#2) (User #197 Info) I'd like to know when (and if) feminists ever decide which sex is more harmed by the alleged mal-conditioning we get in childhood. Their stance seems to change depending on which women's issue is on the table. When it's rape, sexual harassment and domestic violence, the solution is to eradicate the boy training, which teaches boys to become soulless brutes, prone to violence and domination - with women (the uncorrupted) being their primary victims. On the other hand, when the subject changes to the lack of female CEOs or women among the Fortune 500, suddenly it's the girls who are cursed by their socialization - which teaches them to be so pathetically kind, considerate and self-effacing that it defuses their ability to compete in the "real" world where such qualities are a detriment. Actually, I think I know what feminists' logic is: they think boys should be the feminine ones and girls should be the masculine ones. Makes sense, doesn't it? Teaching boys to be passive and considerate would neutralize the inherent advantages of our physical stature, while teaching girls to be cut-throat and competitive would compensate for their physical disadvantages, not to mention that it wouldn't be nearly as dangerous for the "more empathic" sex to have those aggressive qualities. Would it?

[an error occurred while processing this directive]