|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The beginning of the article was definitely condescending, but I think she actually seemed to defend boys in part of the article. She mentioned that ADD is over-diagnosed.
I think it is too much to ask for these nitwits to empathize with men more than they do with other women though.
Mentioning that men suffer from the disease that has no name wasn't bad either as I believe most men who are not informed as to the men's movment honestly feel like they are suffering due to their gender but are hard-pressed to articulate why they feel that way when they have always been told that being male is an advantage.
The one thing that ticks me off more than anything in these articles in the need to ALWAYS associate macho swagger with insecurity while NEVER associating sexualized hoochie-mama dress and attitude with insecurity. In other words, if a man tries to act very masculine he is hiding but if a woman tries to act very feminine she is not.
Total crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively speaking, not a bad article. At least she doesn't seem gleeful that men have become "the second sex." But, her true condolences are clearly directed not at the languishing boys but - once again - at the noble females who are the true victims of the depression in manhood because their noble endeavors to have babies and create families are getting set back by the lack of worthy male potential husbands.
Like many of its ilk, this article reduces males to the role of wayward biological assistants to females - and, yes, in certain ways, inferior. Yes, boys get props for their extra "energy" - but energy, by itself, is nothing good or virtuous; it is merely a force used to fuel something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone is drawing attention to the plight of men and boys.
I suppose you can carp about phrases like "testosterone lite" are still acceptable aparently--one could hardly imagine getting away with a phrase like "estrogen lite", or maybe you could. Is it worth it? I really don't know what Adam's specific objections are. What's eating you, Adam?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe its the lamentation that the pool of really desirable men has shriveled. Somehow I can hardly be sympathetic.
First of all, it's a vague statement, of virtually no precise substantive sociological and statistical content; it has more autobiographical content.
Secondly, who, among the miniscule proportion of the male population considered worthy, has any time and energy left after surviving the grueling selection process? Who even has the time and energy for this? Perhaps it's age--there's a universe out there to conquer; why spend the brief time you have on trivial mating games?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's eating you, Adam?
It's probably the fact that she sees the nearest man in only how he serves the nearest woman and kid, and the fact that she only "cares" what's happening to us because it's starting to comprimise women in general.
Do a search on this site for her to see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's a persistent pattern: to lament problems with men only to the extent that they affect women. I'll check around the site...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone is drawing attention to the plight of men and boys.
Well, yes, but the "plight" she seems to describe is that school has become too civilized and intellectually oriented for males. Do I sense a subtle insult here? Feminism does get a bit of a slamming in that it is implicated in bringing about this awkward change - but, since the civilized world in general seems to uphold that intellectual virtues in a person are far more desirable than sheer, manic energy, attributing the downhill slide in male scholastic performance solely to boys being too wild is simply a backhanded indictment of males as the more behaviorally primitive gender.
I agree - boys are more restless and physically active. But, it isn't just our physical nature that differentiates us from females. Boys also have unique intellectual needs that aren't being met - because, indeed, the masculine contribution to society is both physical and intellectual. Articles like this seem to imply that the male contribution to society (and, indeed, that which distinguishes males from females altogether) is merely physical.
Also - again - even if she is sympathetic to the decline in male scholastic performance, is it because she truly believes men deserve to be treated fairly and equally as human beings, or simply because she believes women deserve the kind of help that educated, cultured men can offer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 30, @09:51PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"or simply because she believes women deserve the kind of help that educated, cultured men can offer?"
I'd say it's that one.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
