"Why Boys are 'Evil'"

... teach girls not to give in to their violent, animal nature, too?

Just another male-bashing article disguised as a male-sympathetic one. Typical "traditionalist" crap that's just as toxic to society as feminism (since at least when it comes to feminism, you can see obviously what you're dealing with; this traditionalist mularky actually has some people horn-swaggled into believing it's actually right).

There are many things in the article I agree with. The author is not saying boys are evil. She has the word "evil" in quotes. She also has quite a large quote and reference to a book written by Dr. Kimmel that she disagrees with. It is easy to get mixed up with what she is saying and what Kimmel says.

The author: "Society does this by trying to emasculate boys into girls. It encourages boys to play with gender-neutral toys, drugs boys into submission at school and otherwise suppresses their instinctive rough-and-tumble, smash-and-bang physical nature."

She also says: "And if every woman learned to value marriage and stop ejecting men from the lives of their children, then we'd have far, far fewer “violent” boys who never learn how to become the men they were supposed to be."

Here she is quoting a book by Dr. Kimmel: "Boys learn [violence]. … They learn it from their fathers. … They learn that if they are crossed, they have the manly obligation to fight back. They learn that they are entitled to feel like a real man, and that they have the right to annihilate anyone who challenges that sense of entitlement.”

She then goes on to find fault with Kimmel's opinion. Mostly by reminding us that violent men usually don't have father's in their lives.

The only thing I really disagreed with was the assumption that women are less violent than men. But she may be defining violence as harm caused by physical strength. Women tend to cause harm by poisoning, conspiracy or other non-physical ways.

I find things I like and things I dislike about the article. I like her belief that kids needs dads but believe she overstates the facts when she says testosterone cause fatherless boys to explode in violence when they reach adolescence.

She also says this: "Should every absent father in this nation suddenly recall his duty and begin the gratifying experience of actually parenting his own children, then a huge percentage of America’s problems would quickly disappear."

Here's the problem: It's against the law in this country for most absent fathers to do this. Pretending a man can simply "recall his duty" and return to parenting his kids is dishonest in a country where fathers don't have the legal right to do that.

The author is conservative and a lot of conservatives believe most or all absent fathers simply decided one day to walk out on their families. So a lot of them believe mothers should always get the kids. They fail to see that making sure mom always gets the kids is a sure way to create lots of absent fathers.

Nobody seems willing to talk about the fact that many if not most of these school shooters were under the influence of prescription drugs. One side effect - violence. Is the pharmcological industry just so powerful and influential these days that nobody even dares breathe a word about this causative factor? Apparently not, once again it's always the fault of males (in this article the fathers, not the shooters).