|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is GREAT to see an editorial in mainstream media pointing out the hypocrisy and (honestly) lack of thought that went into that U.S. News piece. The U.S. News piece, if we'll all recall, did point out the problems boys are facing in education and society at large, but blamed it on boys being a "weaker" sex, as being biologically inhibited and victims of that biology.
I am so glad someone in mainstream media has the common sense to look at history and realize that the U.S. News report was so much feminist bunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> But why do you say feminist bunk?
Very simply: one of the major sources quoted in the U.S. News article (William Pollack) has written well-known books on the subject of boys, in which he typifies males in all the ways gender feminists have typified and stereotyped males throughout the years. Some folks here have labeled Pollack a "male feminist."
If you start the article on a political premise like that, your conclusions will most likely end on the same note: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
> Looking at the report with a psychological
> bent, it would suggest that the conclusion
> was prepared by someone who feared to
> find that they were weak in themselves.
> Feared that when they lost, it was a sign of
> inferiority.
You should note, though, that the U.S. News story was written by a female. I would agree with you had the author been male, considering the subject matter is men/boys being "weaker" intellectually than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely garbage in garbage out (though some of the points of study were interesting), in this case the garbage in being the bias of the writer.
>You should note, though, that the U.S. News story
>was written by a female. I would agree with you
>had the author been male, considering the subject
>matter is men/boys being "weaker" intellectually
>than women.
The fact remains that the author of the U.S. News story is not pro-woman, but fearful.
Yes, the argument piece uses the words and forms of neo-feminist rhetoric, but I don't think the statement was made "as a feminist", hence I don't think we should jump on this as a "piece of feminist propaganda" (which it certainly could be made into).
In short, I have a personality fault: I hesitate to enter anything that APPEARS like an ad hominem argument. And the classification of this as feminist on a board that is read by people with a pavlovian reaction to that word definitely smells like (inadvertent, I'm certain) ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> In short, I have a personality fault: I
> hesitate to enter anything that APPEARS like an
> ad hominem argument. And the classification of > this as feminist on a board that is read by
> people with a pavlovian reaction to that word
> definitely smells like (inadvertent, I'm
> certain) ad hominem.
No offense, but I'm not certain you've been watching this board long enough to determine whether the posters/readers here have a "pavlovian" reaction to the word "feminist." As a matter of fact, you'll see in a variety of posts (and on the philosophy page of this site) the words "anti-male feminist" used to separate man-haters from independence-seekers.
While some of us do have trouble with the word "feminist" in and of itself, others of us tend to disntiguish between traditional feminism, gender feminism, and individualist feminism. One of my current favorite columnists, in fact, identifies herself as an "ifeminist" (individualist feminist). You can read Wendy McElroy's work at www.ifeminists.com.
All that is merely to say that there are a great variety of viewpoints on this board. I may have made a mistake generalizing the word "feminist" in my previous post as being "anti-male," but as a general rule, I think "pavlovian" response is a bit extreme.
Again, no offense intended here, just my point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VIR :
"Yes, the argument piece uses the words and forms of neo-feminist rhetoric, but I don't think the statement was made "as a feminist", hence I don't think we should jump on this as a "piece of feminist propaganda" (which it certainly could be made into)."
__________________________________________________
The article was presented with a feminist vernacular, utilized feminist doctrine ("form") which included anti-male sentiment which did not empirically support the assertion that males are the biologically weaker sex.
Vir goes on to say the article isn't a "piece of feminist propaganda" yet Vir contradicts this statement by saying that the article "certainly could be made into" feminist propaganda. In classic feminist form you come to this posting board and claim that "this isn't my feminism". How feminist of you. Please try to think about what your assertion is here... "it looks like feminism, smells like feminism, tastes like feminism (yuck), feels like feminism... yet it isn't feminist.
What the article did not mention is that there has been a negative feminist influence for boys in society and early childhood education. This is the only true problem with boys, and it's not biological like the article claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North American Women, in general, have little tolerance for males who have self respect and character and tend to take an oppressive and discriminatory attitude towards males who demonstrate the same. Rather,in general, they prefer men socially, politically, and professionaly who have weak and base characters. This article confirms the same. Our country and Canada have given greater rights,freedoms, and privileges to females than any other countries in world history. In response, American and Canadian women have taken the untoward and unjustified hostile response to males as described above. Males,as a result, should respond by avoiding all personal,professional, and political association with North American women. Parents should send their male children to schools where male teachers predominate to avoid the debilitating consequences of female teachers who denigrate male students who do demonstrate self respect and character. This same attitude by North American women,in general,towards males in North America is destroying both the USA and Canada politically, socially, and culturally. As long as females have the vote, the same will continue.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
