Why boys really are in a crisis

never mind

why are gender feminists the individuals deciding whether a boy "crisis" exists?
these woman are so afraid of identifing the reality that boys learn differntly than girls because of a fear that their distorted idealogy on gender might be questioned? is a society of poorly educated males good for men and woman? (maybe good for just feminists)...it seems when girls weren't doing as well in school, the education system was changed. now that boys are falling behind, we dont revaluate the education system, we change the boy (ie: ridilin)...maybe if there were more male elementary school teachers, things might change. class rooms are 50% male/female....yet(i believe) almost 80% of elementary school teachers are females who might be more adept at understanding a girls educational needs more than that of boys. many of these female teachers are fresh out of college with a minor in woman studies.....dont get me started on these oppresive college programs.

Feminists claim to be 'social constructionists', who believe that human behaviour is the product of our social environment. Hence, if girls are doing badly at school, it must be the schools' fault, so change the school. However, they are only social constructionists when it suits them. The opposite school of thought is 'essentialism', the claim that human behaviour is the product of innate characteristics. Feminists subscribe to both of these positions opportunistically. They are social constructionist with regard to girls, and essentialist with regard to boys. If girls are doing badly at school, it must be the schools' fault, so change the school. If boys are doing badly at school, it must be the boys own fault, so do nothing, or just drug them to keep them quiet. This is a blatant self-contradiction, but that doesn't bother the feminists. All they are interested in is promoting their own twisted agenda by any means.

A lot of these Wommyn's Studies survivors teaching in grade school probably see it as their duty to keep the boys in their class down rather than encourage them. We need male teachers teaching our boys.

The whole debate over gender differences has feminists in a lather these days.

(Cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are especially toxic to fems.)

It's intriguing how they can hold multiple contradictory beliefs and never experience any cognitive dissonance.

I guess it truly is a woman's perogative to change her mind, assuming she can locate it.

Gender "differences" are embraced by feminists when they support such myths as female moral superiority, women's "ways of knowing," emotional "intelligence," superior nurturing skills, multiple orgasmic potential, empathy, team-building, inherent non-violence, longevity, etc.

But gender "differences" become a massive threat to feminism when the subjects turn to intellectual abilities in math, science, & engineering; boy's learning styles;gender discrepancies on the combat battlefield; parity in domestic violence; athletic ability; invention; philosophy; maintaining anything mechanical... etc.

Feminists are dedicated to the notion of "the social construction of gender."

Unfortunately, biology will have its way.

Have any of these illustrious fem-thinkers had children?

Observed infant girls and boys, toddlers, tweens, adolescents, young women and men?

What makes them so resistant to the obvious?

Ah, ideology!

The perfect reality-filter.

Fred Reed nails it once again in his latest essay ("The Boy Crisis"): "Women don’t understand [boys], and what they don’t understand, they outlaw."

One good thing about the Matriarchal Takeover: As the results grow ever more blatantly ridiculous, finally it must become unavoidably obvious to anyone capable of rational thought what a crock of cowplop the whole feminist ideology is. If, that is, by that time there will be anyone left who is capable of rational thought.

I am beginning to feel sorry for women -- some women, anyway: Many American women must be privately embarrassed, even mortified, by the grotesque spectacle the sistahhood is making of all women -- but what can they do? I do find it difficult to believe that the median intelligence of women truly is so abysmal as would seem to be indicated by what women -- in their collective wisdom -- have done to American culture. Yet, who else did it, but women themselves?

"I guess it truly is a woman's perogative to change her mind, assuming she can locate it." Yeah, that just about covers it, I'm sorry to say.

By all this, I mean visiting this website.
Positives: I am no longer in the web of feminist lies.
I've got a steady BF now,(Bi, until recently when I turned gay), who is also a MRA.
I've got an activist group to join, so now I can proudly say "I'm an ACTIVIST", which is pretty well accepted in my community, which is high on activism.
(I could go on, and on, but I got negatives to get to)
Negatives:
My old girlfriend came back to me, and asked me out again.(I've never been dominant in any relationship, I'm passive by nature), I told her no, and she spat at me. Before I could reply, she left.
(There are more, but I forget them)

You know it just dawned on me that, perhaps, we should, from now on, refer to the N.O.W. as the N.O.W.W.
That is, instead of the "National Organization of Women", It is actually the "National Organization of WHITE Women".
They only care about the superiority of White females. They couldn't care less about minorities, male OR female.
The more I learn about the N.O.W. (N.O.W.W.) the more I see them for what they truly are. A group of BIGOTS, plain and simple. They are prejudiced to their very core. Not just gender prejudice but racially prejudiced as well.
We ought to bring this to people's attention, as well. We need to expose these bigots for what they truly are.
They are no better than the KKK. No better. They are simply the KKK that hates men.

Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"

I always find it so refreshing when an MRA cites philosophers and ethics and all that kinda edjukated crap!

AngryMan, you really need to write a book.

You could be the MRA-version of Ann Coulter!

(Especially if you look good in a cocktail dress...)

Besides the constructionist vs. essentialism debate, the feminists get in a lather when confronting the issues of their "cognitive dissonance."

They generally decline to accept a MORAL IMPERATIVE. (Think Humes now, maybe Kant. Maybe both...)

One wants pleasure as the moral foundation.
The other wants integrity and a shitload of ethical interrogations, yes?

Maybe feminism is just comic relief?

From the actual existential questions?

It makes me wonder what would happen if Kim Gandy, NOW's esteemed prezodent, slipped on a banana peel while walking to her office?

Would any feminists laugh?

Would any take credit for planting the banana peel?

"I'm an ACTIVIST", which is pretty well accepted in my community, which is high on activism."

No, you're confused.

Which can lead to actual activism, eventually.

First, you need to stop applying silly labels to yourself.

Not the least of which involves gender identity.

And most importantly, stop visiting this website.

There are no therapists here.

Only real men who speak in viciously truthful language.

You won't like it, dear.

"By all this, I mean visiting this website.
Positives: I am no longer in the web of feminist lies. I've got a steady BF now,(Bi, until recently when I turned gay), who is also a MRA."

So freakin' obvious!

F- me!

I'm so sorry I didn't see it immediately....

Off my game.