|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It amazes me. The first and only response the paper is posting to the article is basically a "boys need to suck it up and work harder" response. I responded to that particular comment directly, but I doubt it will be posted. I worked in a educational system in the 80's and saw the signs then. I didn't recognise them, but they were there.
When girls (theoretically) needed help, the changes happened almost overnight with nary a peep of resistance. Now that our sons need a bit of understanding the attitude is "work harder." Impling that boys are lazy and no longer getting a free ride.
Feminazi's free ride is ending, equality means sharing an equal load of the work for an equal load of the benefit.
The proportion of women CEO's to men seems about the same as women garbage collectors to men. When I worked as a laborer during summer breaks all the women got office jobs, the guys dug ditches. ERA at work.
ThunderCloud, I'm liking your tag line more and more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 06, @08:51AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
(("Thundercloud, I'm likeing your tag line more and more."))
Which one,
"Hoka-hey!" or "I have enough agrivation.?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Hoka-hey"
When it's time to draw the line and do battle, that's the one.
Agraitear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angela, your essay is direct on target. Anyone who subscribes to the theory that, although we develop and mature in physically different ways, boys and girls are intellectually THE SAME chooses to ignore the inherent divergence of interests taken by each gender. Certainly boys are more rambunctious than girls, but that is their ‘nature.’ Stop demanding that boys go against their nature, stop attempting to ‘feminize’ them, and allow them to flourish in their own way, and many of the current problems will recede quietly into the background. I would ask that you reference “Boys and Girls Learn Differently!: A Guide for Teachers and Parents”, by Michael Gurian, Patricia Henley, Terry Trueman for a more complete understand of how young people learn.
Lois fails to acknowledge that boys aren’t girls, and places herself in the line of fire (deservedly so) of a generation of men that understand and ‘feel’ this bias for what it is: Sexism. Lois made a claim, but then decided to explicitly detail what ‘men’ should do. Typical. Why is it that ‘fathers’ are singled out? What about mothers? Shouldn’t both parents (when available) set an example? If anyone is to blame for the current lack of discipline and decline in the male-child world then that blame resides with mothers. Look at the statistics, at the fact that MANY more single moms than single dads have full custody, and this has been the trend over the past 40 years. So, if the culpability rests squarely on the shoulders of the primary care giver, then you should reference ‘women’, not men.
I digress. I can’t blame it all on Lois as she has obviously been blinded by the golden carrot dangled before her by the anti-male, fear mongering, too far left feminist (the wretched NOW, and their ilk). However, what I can do is offer her a glimmer of hope for redemption, in the light that is www.ifeminist.com. Go there, Lois, and read…reawaken that wonderful, equity loving person within you.
For the rest of you, pay heed to this article and know this: Gender equity does not mean that both sexes must be ‘alike’. Gender equity implies that boys and girls, men and women, be treated fairly. As a man, I'm here to assure you that this is now my mission in life, and failure is not an option!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being male is quite rightly no longer enough for success, they need to work too, as hard as many girls do especially in areas which they may find more difficult. Those who try, succeed.
This suggests that in the past, males were succeeding in school just because they were male, and now that things have been set right by gender equity programs in education, boys and their fathers (but not their mothers) have only themselves to blame for their lackluster performance, while girls are sitting pretty.
Well, here's one educator who is steadfastly determined to let boys go to hell--she most certainly isn't going to lift a finger to help them! Anti-male bias is so firmly entrenched that it takes an effort to see it; allow me to offer you some assistance by applying a useful transform, which changes statements from gender coordinates into race coordinates; under the change of coordinates, seemingly innocuous sounding statement about men become appallingly racist, so it becomes easier to compensate for our own brainwashing, and spot how profoundly anti-male the original statement was. The transform operates by substituting "black" for "male" and "white" for "woman" everywhere in the preceeding. The result is appalingly racist:
Being black is quite rightly no longer enough for success, they need to work too, as hard as many whites do, especially in areas which they may find more difficult. Those who try, succeed.
So we see the depth of our problem as male activists: our upbringing makes it appear that statements that would be considered unacceptable and racist if uttered about blacks and whites are perfectly acceptable, reasonable and politically correct if uttered about males and females, boys and girls. No wonder why so many boys are voting with their feet! Boys are treated with something less than contempt, with an attitude morally no better than racism, and they are told to take their abuse like men. The situation can fairly be called disgusting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being male is quite rightly no longer enough for success, they need to work too, as hard as many girls do especially in areas which they may find more difficult.
<SARCASM>Well, it's nice to know that Lois is a fair-minded person unencumbered by sexism. With a statement like, "Being male is no longer enough for success, they need to work too..." I have no doubt that she treated her male students with the same respect she reserved for her female students.</SARCASM>
I must admit that it was fun watching Lois pull the gun out of the holster and then blow her toe off. Chuckle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Being male is quite rightly no longer enough for success..."
The thing is, you have to wonder what the definition of "success" is. It seems to me that the automatic assumption is that success means that you went to work and collected a paycheck, and the larger the paycheck the more successful you are, no matter what sacrifices you made along the way. This materialistic definition of success is, in my opinion, rather horrible. True enough, just like most of us, I go to work with the notion that my paycheck is the primary fruit that I reap. But it's not money, really that I seek; money is just the enabling commodity that allows me to obtain other things, not all of which are tangible. Many men choose careers based on choices that are not solely based on money. I could make more money doing other things, or the same things in other places, or by spending more time on the job. I guess I see my income as only a subset of my success, and this is the thing that these feminists fail to (or choose not to) recognize. The result is that they're doing everything in their power to bring more money to women, through coercion of the legal system or through intimidation of legislators or with demands of "equal pay" through comparable worth legislation. They've convinced themselves that money is the sole symbol of success, and this comes at the expense, a monstrous expense in my opinion, of parenthood. Every time we talk about the value of mothers, we hear the refrain "then why aren't mothers paid more?" It's not likely to happen, but what we need is a sea-change in how we as a society perceive success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a fine essay by John Gardiner giving specifics of the boy-unfriendly curriculum in today's schools. I've audited some university classes recently, and the anti-male vileness and hatefulness were palpable. In one case, I decided to drop the class because of the vicious, feminist attitude and preaching of the teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, is it not, when faced with today's needs in education that 'boys' are now falling behind yet girls are thriving when, 30 years ago, the opposite was true.
Where was your voice, or the voice of your 'sisters' and 'mothers' when the girls were doing poorly back then? Why didn't someone just tell them to 'try harder' and be done with it?
Ah...silence. The sound of hypocrisy.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "disadvantaged schoolgirl" is simply another aspect of the 'partiarchy' myth
There is great truth in this. Even if men did make more than women for the same work (and that is questionable), a man needed to support a woman and her children if he wanted a career or to avoid being considered a freak and becoming a social outcast. Women today are taking it for themselves and, for the most part, keeping it. There's no pressure on them to support men. In fact, many women still believe that men should pay for their dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer the term restricted to oppressed. Women were restricted from certain aspects of life, voting, college, miliary etc,.. BUT men were also excluded from other aspects of life that were less obvious. The problem is now that women have gained ground in areas where they were once restricted but men have made no ground in the areas where women held control over. A perfect case of when do you stop affirmative action, if it should ever exist in the first place.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
