The War Against Boys

[JerrySeinfeld]

Has anyone noticed what I consider to be a disturbing trend in our society?

The almighty altar of "equality" or "diversity" can have some pretty bad effects when the social engineer goes beyong fairness and delves into the obsessive.

Take for example the fairly commonly held misperception that females face more obstacles than to males in society.

OK so long ago women couldn't vote and in lots of Muslim countries their tesimony in court is considered to be worth 1/3 of a male's, which means if a muslim man rapes a woman, she must find 2 other women witnesses to compete with his testimony...but generally in western societies, perhaps we should investigate just how hard done by the female of the species is these days, and how dangerous it is to socially engineer "equality".

Has anyone noticed in the Canadian's Mint's advertising for olympic coins, all the athletes are female? I watch TV commercials and consistently see girls getting goalie equipment for xmas, girls playing hockey, women performing surgery, women making arrests and fighting fires...where have all the boys gone? Is society so girlfriendly that the boys are being left behind?

Christina Hoff Sommers thinks so and posits her argument in her excellent book "The War Against Boys".

Here is a link to a summary.

Here is an excerpt to spur your interest...

How do boys fit into the "tragedy" of America's "shortchanged" girls? Inevitably, boys are resented, being seen both as the unfairly privileged gender and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. There is an understandable dialectic: the more girls are portrayed as diminished, the more boys are regarded as needing to be taken down a notch and reduced in importance. This perspective on boys and girls is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration. "It is really clear that boys are no. 1 in this society and in most of the world," says Dr. Patricia O'Reilly, professor of education and director of the Gender Equity Center at the University of Cincinnati.

It may be "clear," but it isn't true. If we disregard the girl advocates and look objectively at the relative condition of boys and girls in this country, we find that it is boys, not girls, who are languishing academically. Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. Girls get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow a more rigorous academic program and participate more in the prestigious Advanced Placement (AP) program. This demanding program gives top students the opportunity of taking college-level courses in high school. In 1984, an equal proportion of males and females participated. But according to the United States Department of Education, "Between 1984 and 1996, the number of females who took the examinations rose at a faster rate...In 1996, 144 females compared to 117 males per 1000 12th graders took AP examinations".

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more female than male students enroll in high-level math and science courses.

The representation of American girls as apprehensive and academically diminished is not true to the facts. Girls, allegedly so timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and even in debating clubs. Only in sports are the boys still ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance.

At the very time the AAUW was advertising its discovery that girls were subordinates in the schools, the Department of Education published the results of a massive survey showing just the opposite.

Girls read more books. They outperform males on tests of artistic and musical ability. More girls than boys study abroad. More join the Peace Corps. Conversely, more boys than girls are suspended from school. More are held back and more drop out. Boys are three times as likely as girls to be enrolled in special education programs and four times as likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

More boys than girls are involved in crime, alcohol, and drugs. Girls attempt suicide more than boys, but it is boys who actually kill themselves more often. In a typical year (1997), there were 4,493 suicides of young people between the ages of five and twenty-four: 701 females, 3,792 males.

Let the debate begin....

[geoffrey]

The almighty altar of "equality" or "diversity" can have some pretty bad effects when the social engineer goes beyong fairness and delves into the obsessive.

Feminism has gone from an agenda of liberation to an agenda of pure sexism.

Take for example the fairly commonly held misperception that females face more obstacles than to males in society.

While very true in the past, the evidence that you show today and what I see in society confirms that this is simply not true.

Has anyone noticed in the Canadian's Mint's advertising for olympic coins, all the athletes are female? I watch TV commercials and consistently see girls getting goalie equipment for xmas, girls playing hockey, women performing surgery, women making arrests and fighting fires...where have all the boys gone? Is society so girlfriendly that the boys are being left behind?

Girls look better on TV. I don't mind.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Fair enough.

It's something worth considering, and a good reminder of how quickly (and shamelessly) you can gain advantage by claiming "victim" status.

[geoffrey]

It's something worth considering, and a good reminder of how quickly (and shamelessly) you can gain advantage by claiming "victim" status.

I was reading the monthly CA magazine last week and there are now more female than male CA's in graduating classes. Still, there are programs in universities encouraging women to the profession.

Why? They already outnumber men. The incentives should now be turned around. Will there be a glass ceiling 10 years from now? No. And it doesn't require the government to be involved. Since I began by career, I've only worked for women managers. Most agree. There used to be barriers to their success in the 80's and early 90's, but that's simply not the case anymore.

[g_bambino]

Feminism has gone from an agenda of liberation to an agenda of pure sexism.

Though I might harbour a bias here, amen to that!

My favourite pastime now is disassembling television ads. Firstly, I notice that a disproportionate number of them are directed at women; scented candles, scented fabric softeners, women's gyms, almost all retail outlets, body washes, oils, make up, toilet bowl cleaners, charities, home renovation centres, and so on. Perhaps because of this, four themes seem to emerge from them: 1) as already noted, the powerful woman (apparently just being female somehow makes you special); 2) the bumbling man (always need that strong woman to keep them in order/dressed well/clean/alive); 3) the dirty man or boy (they're the ones that spread germs to the susceptible cute little girls); 4) the philandering man (every man has a wandering eye that must be checked by his woman's vigilance). So, essentially, in television commercials men are often portrayed as careless, disease laden, unfaithful morons who'd be lost without our smarter, cleaner, dedicated sexual counterparts.

I mean, as much as I am careless, disease laden, unfaithful and moronic, that doesn't mean all men should be portrayed like me. The stereotyping has flipped completely from one gender to the other.

[Moxie]

Quote Geoffrey wrote: The almighty altar of "equality" or "diversity" can have some pretty bad effects when the social engineer goes beyong fairness and delves into the obsessive.

Take for example the fairly commonly held misperception that females face more obstacles than to males in society.

Amen Sister, I mean brother. Some women today are perpetual victims, it's easy blaming males because it's always accepted as the "Truth". Men per ratio are abused as much as women, but do we have any shelters to give men a safe haven? None that I'm aware of.

As a female let me state I loathe the feminazis, despise them in fact. Their agenda is a mystery to me. What is it they want, we are equal in Canada.

My father was a hardcore traditional Catholic man, women didn't do this--men don't do that. He was out numbered as a male in a household with six females. His belief system was struck a painful blow, out of necessity he had to teach his daughters to farm, drive tractors, pick the fruit and maintain the animals, bait the gear and steer the boat. I was raised to believe a woman's place was in the home, yet my mother was a working RN who later went back to school to become a CPA. Dad didn't stand a chance, lord knows he tried to mold his daughters as "Traditional Women" alas he failed.

I work in a male dominated field, and I've been treated with total respect. Mostly because I do not have an attitude, and I always respect the fact that I can't do some things (lifting and loading, MATH etc.) because I am female. I am weaker because I am female, is this the males faulth? Dah noooooooooo.

Young women today appear hard to me, females are becoming more violent. The latest unprovoked swarmings have been female teens who attack with weapons for sport. Sport! I look around me in public and females are wearing their PJ's in public, why is it wrong to look like a lady? Honestly looking nice in public is somehow bad, why? How does this deminish me as a female? If a male whistles at me, he's a pig because I took the time to tart myself up? I don't think so.

If I fail at something it is MY fault, but being married helps me shift some blame cough cough to the other half.

Interesting topic Geoffry.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Thanks Moxie - and BTW it's JERRY

Someone ealier in the thread mentioned TV commercials and their portrayal of men. What about sitcoms?

While a bit off topic from the original thread...

Shall we list...

The Simpsons

Everybody Loves Raymond

Tooltime

King of Queens

and on and on the list goes...what do these all have in common? They lean on the major comedic crutch: man is buffoon who does stupid (funny) things and in the end must be trained / corrected by civilized wife ...man learns his lesson end of show.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Think about how common it is for women to exhibit violence against men on television shows and movies. The classic woman through plates at a man, woman dumpin drinks on a man, woman slapping / punching a man is not only commonly accepted but appreciated, laughed at and applauded by audiences.

Think about conversations in social settings. When I'm at a cocktail party (with people who might not be the closest of friends - ie. aqcuaintences) I wouldn't dare make a comment like "well that's just because she's stupid woman". Yet jokes, comments and even long drawn out conversations about the downfalls of "white men" or "dumb males" are not uncommon.

It makes me wonder whether we really have reached the pinnacle of equality in society, or maybe we've just found a new target for the "direction of popular discontent" among the masses.

This really isn't the main topic though - the main topic is the actual institutionalization of this kind of thinking in our schools and elsewhere. That is the scariest part of all of this.

[Black Dog]

Someone ealier in the thread mentioned TV commercials and their portrayal of men. What about sitcoms?

...what do these all have in common? They lean on the major comedic crutch: man is buffoon who does stupid (funny) things and in the end must be trained / corrected by civilized wife ...man learns his lesson end of show.

Of course you don't mention the fact that these shows pretty much place women in their traditional role as maternal figures responsible for cleaning up their men's messes. Not a particularly feminist position. And who writes these shows and perpetuates this dynamic? Men.

G_bambino:

My favourite pastime now is disassembling television ads. Firstly, I notice that a disproportionate number of them are directed at women; scented candles, scented fabric softeners, women's gyms, almost all retail outlets, body washes, oils, make up, toilet bowl cleaners, charities, home renovation centres, and so on. Perhaps because of this, four themes seem to emerge from them: 1) as already noted, the powerful woman (apparently just being female somehow makes you special); 2) the bumbling man (always need that strong woman to keep them in order/dressed well/clean/alive); 3) the dirty man or boy (they're the ones that spread germs to the susceptible cute little girls); 4) the philandering man (every man has a wandering eye that must be checked by his woman's vigilance). So, essentially, in television commercials men are often portrayed as careless, disease laden, unfaithful morons who'd be lost without our smarter, cleaner, dedicated sexual counterparts.

Again: women are the nurturers, the mothers, the housekeepers, the nursemaids, the chefs. Their place is in the kitchen/home. Furthest thing from feminism.

Moxie:

Men per ratio are abused as much as women, but do we have any shelters to give men a safe haven? None that I'm aware of.

The veracity of your claim aside, if abused men need shelters, they need to get o and lobby for them, just like women had to.

I work in a male dominated field, and I've been treated with total respect. Mostly because I do not have an attitude, and I always respect the fact that I can't do some things (lifting and loading, MATH etc.) because I am female. I am weaker because I am female, is this the males faulth? Dah noooooooooo.

gee, you don't think the fact you humbly submit to your prescribed role as weak little girl has anything to do with the fact you're treated with respect?

I look around me in public and females are wearing their PJ's in public, why is it wrong to look like a lady?

If a male whistles at me, he's a pig because I took the time to tart myself up?

Interesting contrast here: on the one hand, you're supposed to primp yourself up for the benefit of others (your own comfort or desires be damned), but when you do that, you're a "tart" and deserve to be ogled and cat-called.

[Wilber]

QUOTE

I work in a male dominated field, and I've been treated with total respect. Mostly because I do not have an attitude, and I always respect the fact that I can't do some things (lifting and loading, MATH etc.) because I am female. I am weaker because I am female, is this the males faulth? Dah noooooooooo.

gee, you don't think the fact you humbly submit to your prescribed role as weak little girl has anything to do with the fact you're treated with respect?

I worked in a field that is male dominated but has women in it. They are treated with respect when they are good people and are good at their job. Aside from taking a little more care with the language you use, there is no difference. In general, men are physically stronger than women, that's just the way it is and no amount of political correctness can change it, just a lot of time in the gym.

I hope the day hasn't arrived when it is no longer acceptable to treat a woman like a lady.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Physical strength is one thing. Yes, women are weaker. But worse at MATH because she's a woman? That's unbelievably ludicrous. And what's this "etc?" What other areas is she worse at because she's a woman? As far as I'm concerned, Black Dog's response was right on.

But no, it's not unacceptable to treat a woman like a lady. This woman likes it (a lot).

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course you don't mention the fact that these shows pretty much place women in their traditional role as maternal figures responsible for cleaning up their men's messes. Not a particularly feminist position.

First of all, the concept of being a stupid buffoon carries with it a negative connotation - I don't think being a mother or a nurturer does.

Second, I believe that in tool time, the wife Jill is studying for her PHD in psychology and in King of Queens the wife, Carrie, works in a law office - so they certainly aren't just sitting at home cooking and cleaning as it were.

You also haven't addressed the acceptance of violence or aggression against men.

Just after I wrote that comment, last night I was watching a movie and sure enough right on cue, a woman in the same scene slapped the man in the face then dumped beer all over a man. This kind of thing is commonplace in our society and accepted - just one more exampleof the "war against boys".

Your exclamation that men should "get a lobby just like women did" doesn't really address the argument at hand here. We're talking about the existence of a problem. Sure there are solutions, but we're discussing the existence of the problem first and foremost.

The key point of discussion though (from my standpoint) is that the myth of the hard-done-by, oppressed woman should be extinguished - it doesn't exist anymore and is in complete contradiction with reality.

[Black Dog]

First of all, the concept of being a stupid buffoon carries with it a negative connotation - I don't think being a mother or a nurturer does.

So? We're talking about portrayals that reinforce traditional notions of womanhood.

In any case, the notion that the "idiot manchild" archetype is a feminist product is ridiculous. I give you Ralph Kramden.

Second, I believe that in tool time, the wife Jill is studying for her PHD in psychology and in King of Queens the wife, Carrie, works in a law office - so they certainly aren't just sitting at home cooking and cleaning as it were.

But they do the cooking and cleaning as well. The men? Not so much.

You also haven't addressed the acceptance of violence or aggression against men.

Why should I? for the record, though, I don't think it's an acceptable double standard,

Your exclamation that men should "get a lobby just like women did" doesn't really address the argument at hand here. We're talking about the existence of a problem. Sure there are solutions, but we're discussing the existence of the problem first and foremost.

I don't think anyone's denying violence against men is a problem (though I would suggest that, in terms of scale and severity, violence against women is far worse.) Now, as for the war against boys: I think that's hogwash.

The key point of discussion though (from my standpoint) is that the myth of the hard-done-by, oppressed woman should be extinguished - it doesn't exist anymore and is in complete contradiction with reality.

To be replaced by the myth of the hard-done-by, oppressed man?

Edited November 14, 2007 by Black Dog

[M.Dancer]

But no, it's not unacceptable to treat a woman like a lady. This woman likes it (a lot).

Could you let the men talk and get us some beers?

<duck> </duck>

[Guest American Woman]

Could you let the men talk and get us some beers?

<duck> </duck>

There wouldn't be any left by the time I got back to you.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So? We're talking about portrayals that reinforce traditional notions of womanhood.

No, this thread is about the war against BOYS. But for the record, it is exactly this type of thinking that has led to the fight to "bring down" boys.

But they do the cooking and cleaning as well. The men? Not so much.

From what I have seen in the shows mentioned I don't see the women doing any more cooking or cleaning than the women, with the exception of the simpsons which is satire and stereotype through and through right down to the cop that lokos like a pig and eats doughtnuts.

Why should I? for the record, though, I don't think it's an acceptable double standard,

That's a good start then.

I don't think anyone's denying violence against men is a problem (though I would suggest that, in terms of scale and severity, violence against women is far worse.) Now, as for the war against boys: I think that's hogwash.

Then you would agree with the other feminists mentioned in the book - and you'd be wrong.

But it's always refreshing to see the roles reverse (the right wingers looking for improvements and changes to the system, and the lefties insisting nothing needs to be changed - everythings just fine the way it is)

As for you comment about violence against men, I would like to pick it apart a bit. As far as severity, I'd probably agree with you that violence against women is more severe (men are, after all, generally much stronger than women). But in terms of scale, I would expect that in fact less severe, more frequent acts of violence against men are much greater in scale than vise versa. Almost every man I know has his stories of his woman throwing plates / punching / shoving / slapping him. And the main issue on this thread deals with the concpet that it's accepted in society. A woman committing acts of violence against a man is not only accepted in society, but aften applauded or a source of comedy.

To be replaced by the myth of the hard-done-by, oppressed man?

Well, if I were a leftiest, that would be my approach. Fix the problem by tilting the odds the other way for awhile. But no, as a practical conservative I only bring up these examples to illustrate that perhaps women don't have it as bad as everyone would have us believe.

[Guest American Woman]

First of all, the concept of being a stupid buffoon carries with it a negative connotation - I don't think being a mother or a nurturer does.

Second, I believe that in tool time, the wife Jill is studying for her PHD in psychology and in King of Queens the wife, Carrie, works in a law office - so they certainly aren't just sitting at home cooking and cleaning as it were.

I think you're overlooking the fact that the people in charge of putting these shows on the air are men. So your anger should be directed at men, not women. And for the record, I hate the sitcoms where men are stupid idiots. But one thing I notice is that all the 'average' slightly overweight men on these television shows have slim, trim, beautiful wives. There's not one show where an average looking overweight woman has a handsome stud of a husband. That's the male influence on these shows shining through.

Edited November 14, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

A woman committing acts of violence against a man is not only accepted in society, but aften applauded or a source of comedy.

I agree, and I hate that. Furthermore, men are told that they aren't supposed to hit back; that they're supposed to just take it. That's one of the things I like about Judge Judy. She is absolutely just as against women hitting men as she is men hitting women. If a woman starts it, and a man hits back, she says 'you started it' and 'you had no business putting your hands on him,' which is very true.

I think sometimes women strike out at men because they don't believe they can really hurt them since they are physically weaker. I think, too, that in regards to television shows, some men find amusement in 'the little woman' striking out at 'the big man.' They think it's cute. Again, men are behind these shows in greater forces than women are, so it's not all about the feminist influence by any means, which I believe is the point Black Dog is making, and I agree with her.

Edited November 14, 2007 by American Woman

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think you're overlooking the fact that the people in charge of putting these shows on the air are men. So your anger should be directed at men, not women. And for the record, I hate the sitcoms where men are stupid idiots. But one thing I notice is that all the 'average' slightly overweight men on these television shows have slim, trim, beautiful wives. There's not one show where an average looking overweight woman has a handsome stud of a husband. That's the male influence on these shows shining through.

First of all, no where on this thread have I directed any anger at women - just maybe a little frustration with society in general.

Second, the co-execuitive producer of Everybody Loves Raymond Kathy Ann Stump. Creator of Home Improvement Carmen Finestra. These are women. There were men involved, too. Men and women.

I agree with your observation about the average guy with the decent looking wife.

But at least in king of queens it remains true to life: the wife starts out hot but later on she's packed on alot of poundage.

But I digress - actually we all do.

The book deals with a pretty serious subject: the marginalization of boys and all things male during the formative years. If (and I am even emphasizing the word "if" here so we don't have to argue about this for a minute) girls are in fact being "favored" in school. IE. Getting more encouragement to join math leagues or become lawyers, boys being told not to play "rough" at recess, girls being listened to by teachers in class more, girls getting more encouragement or breaks to join teams etc., then where would that leave boys? Isn't this a bad thing if it's the case?

In a totally separate TV show I saw a psychologist suggesting that in fact most ADD cases just magically "go away". And as I understand it, ADD is mostly a boy thing. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but it makes me wonder - is ADD real? Or is it just behavior that, somewhere along the anti-boy pilgrimage, just became unacceptable, non-"girl like" behavior?

Some things to think about.

[Black Dog]

No, this thread is about the war against BOYS. But for the record, it is exactly this type of thinking that has led to the fight to "bring down" boys.

You're begging the question.

From what I have seen in the shows mentioned I don't see the women doing any more cooking or cleaning than the women, with the exception of the simpsons which is satire and stereotype through and through right down to the cop that lokos like a pig and eats doughtnuts.

I presume you mean "than the men," and I would assume you're wrong, but then, not being a connoisseur of crappy TV, can't push that too far.

Then you would agree with the other feminists mentioned in the book - and you'd be wrong.

Not really, no.

[Guest American Woman]

First of all, no where on this thread have I directed any anger at women - just maybe a little frustration with society in general.

You're right. I should have said "frustration," not "anger." That was unintentionally a poor choice of words on my part.

In a totally separate TV show I saw a psychologist suggesting that in fact most ADD cases just magically "go away". And as I understand it, ADD is mostly a boy thing. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but it makes me wonder - is ADD real? Or is it just behavior that, somewhere along the anti-boy pilgrimage, just became unacceptable, non-"girl like" behavior?

I think there's something to what you are suggesting. I find it alarming how many kids are diagnosed with ADD and simply doped up as a solution.

Edited November 14, 2007 by American Woman

[White Doors]

which I believe is the point Black Dog is making, and I agree with her.

Blackdog, you bitch!

[M.Dancer]

I'm .....*still*..... waiting for my coffee......

[Moxie]

I'm .....*still*..... waiting for my coffee......

Would you like me to strike you on the left or right side of the head with said Coffee CUP M.Dancer?

TV is suppose to be entertainment and doesn't mirror real life at all. Females have an added advange over our male counterparts, the Feminazis use the media to make it appear as if we are still suffering from inequality. It's big busness for the Feminest, an industry that the Feds pay for--it is called SOW. Millions of dollars wasted so a group of elite women can study "Female Issues" that are redundent and Foolish. Let the female academics in Universities study "Women's Issues" visa vie "Women's Studies".

Edited November 15, 2007 by Moxie

[capricorn]

As I get older, I find that in the last two generations there is less and less difference between men and women. In other words, today's women appear more masculine and men more feminine. Is there such a thing today as a virile man? Is there such a thing today as a feminine woman?

IMO the largest factor responsible for the blur between the sexes is due to how our education system has evolved at the primary school level.

Example. In my youth, my primary school district was separated by gender. Boys went to one school, girls to another. Those schools approached education focussed on the gender of the student and the learning environment was tailored according to gender. Today, education does not seem to take gender into consideration in designing methods of learning in the classroom.

In primary school, there are more women teachers than men teachers. It follows that the style of teaching will be tilted toward a female outlook on things. So because boys generally expend more physical energy than girls, this physical energy is seen as acting up or, as mentioned, a symptom of ADD. I don't know if Ritalin is still prescribed to boys today. If it is it should be stopped. Medicating children is not the answer.

Typically, boys at play tend to resolve conflicts through contests among themselves and the winner gets the final say on how a game will be played. On the other hand, girls at play resolve conflicts through consensus and there is no winner or loser. Why isn't this difference in the sexes recognized as normal human behaviour? Why can't this factor be considered to re-think how we educate our boys and our girls? They play differently hence they learn differently.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As I get older, I find that in the last two generations there is less and less difference between men and women. In other words, today's women appear more masculine and men more feminine. Is there such a thing today as a virile man? Is there such a thing today as a feminine woman?

IMO the largest factor responsible for the blur between the sexes is due to how our education system has evolved at the primary school level.

Example. In my youth, my primary school district was separated by gender. Boys went to one school, girls to another. Those schools approached education focussed on the gender of the student and the learning environment was tailored according to gender. Today, education does not seem to take gender into consideration in designing methods of learning in the classroom.

In primary school, there are more women teachers than men teachers. It follows that the style of teaching will be tilted toward a female outlook on things. So because boys generally expend more physical energy than girls, this physical energy is seen as acting up or, as mentioned, a symptom of ADD. I don't know if Ritalin is still prescribed to boys today. If it is it should be stopped. Medicating children is not the answer.

Typically, boys at play tend to resolve conflicts through contests among themselves and the winner gets the final say on how a game will be played. On the other hand, girls at play resolve conflicts through consensus and there is no winner or loser. Why isn't this difference in the sexes recognized as normal human behaviour? Why can't this factor be considered to re-think how we educate our boys and our girls? They play differently hence they learn differently.

I agree with alot of what you are saying.

I think "neutering" boys is wrong. Look. Almost everything good we have in this world came from the male drive for adventure, competition and success.

To turn our schools into a girlfriendly world focussed on self esteem and not achievement will ultimately end up being a mistake.