Why the hate for harper?

[Smallc]

I asked what makes you say Quebec has "moved on".

Well, there was that poll the other day showing that most Quebecers couldn't care less either way when it comes to separatism, and that the majority considered the question of separatism settled.

[Argus]

Well, there was that poll the other day showing that most Quebecers couldn't care less either way when it comes to separatism, and that the majority considered the question of separatism settled.

And yet, every election, they support the Bloq Quebecoise more than any other party.

From all I have heard and read and those I have spoken to, their feelings for Canada are simply practical, not patriotic. They all would like a separate Quebec - yes, every Quebecer I have ever talked to. All. But most are too practical. They know Quebec can't support itself, know they would take a huge financial hit, and are unwilling to sacrifice their comfortable lives to that degree. But to suggest that there isn't vast resentment towards Canada, that Quebecers have forgotten and consider themselves to be "Canadian" is simple ignorance. Quebecers rarely think about Canada at all, if you want the truth. Mostly, they act as though Quebec already is an independent country.

[Smallc]

And yet, every election, they support the Bloq Quebecoise more than any other party.

It's their home team. It's just like Albertans voting Conservative no matter what, always.

From all I have heard and read and those I have spoken to, their feelings for Canada are simply practical, not patriotic. They all would like a separate Quebec - yes, every Quebecer I have ever talked to.

I can honestly say that I don't believe you. Even I have come across federalist Quebecers who love Canada. Perhaps you missed the olympic shots of Montreal and Quebec city. Those maple leaves weren't waving because of any practical feelings.

[Argus]

I can honestly say that I don't believe you. Even I have come across federalist Quebecers who love Canada. Perhaps you missed the olympic shots of Montreal and Quebec city. Those maple leaves weren't waving because of any practical feelings.

Regardless. Your assertion that Quebecers feel less resentment, less desire to separate that they bitch and whine less than Albertans is so absurdly preposterous as to defy reality. Albertans haven't even supported the notion of separatism to the extent of being able to get a single separatist elected to their legislature, while Quebecers routinely vote in the Parti Quebecois as their government, and send a large slate of separatist candidates to Ottawa every election.

[Smallc]

Again, Quebec votes that way because they're voting for the home team. Also, I didn't say Albertans were separatist. I said that they're cranky and whiny.

[Argus]

Again, Quebec votes that way because they're voting for the home team.

They vote that way because they're bigots who don't like anglos.

[Smallc]

They vote that way because they're bigots who don't like anglos.

Certainly not all of them.

[Jack Weber]

They vote that way because they're bigots who don't like anglos.

Broad brush strokes?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Broad brush strokes?

No he's using a paint sprayer.

[Jack Weber]

No he's using a paint sprayer.

Wagner Power Painter?

[Argus]

Certainly not all of them.

I have never met one, even those who have been my friends for years, who does not have some resentment towards Anglos.

[Argus]

Broad brush strokes?

Familiarity.

[bloodyminded]

Are you daft? Feminizing? Are you refering to the "knitting" reference? Ever heard of "mind your knitting"?

Sure, yeah, that's exactly what you meant.

[bloodyminded]

And besides suggesting cuts in public spectacles gay pride parades how has he hurt gays or gay rights? I have nothing against equal rights for gays; gayness does not have to be forced on an unwilling population.

Sounds to me that if he's "pandering" to anyone its to Canada as a whole. In other words, and returning to my theme at the beginning of this post, I don't think Harper wakes up every morning fretting abouit whether or not gay or lesbian couples can successfully raise children.

According to a MacLean's poll, 70% of Canadians are perfectly fine with gay marriage. (Polls are imperfect, yes...but compare it your implied claims here, for which you offer zero evidence.)

So by "gayness [being] forced on an unwilling population," you actually mean 30% of the populaiton...and even that doesn't make sense, because no one is being "forced" to do anything.

IF, as you say, Haper is pandering...he's pandering to a definite minority.

Hell, you'd be hard pressed to find any major social/political issue with 70% support.

Acceptance of homosexuality is well past the point of no return, in terms of becoming a thoroughly normalized part of mainstream society.

Those who are opposed to something like gay marriage, for reasons never properly articulated (and why not? the question is begged) are increasingly becoming embarassments to themselves.

Edited June 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

Apparently Lesbians make pretty good parents!

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls," says Gartrell. "I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html?hpt=T2

[Wild Bill]

Apparently Lesbians make pretty good parents!

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html?hpt=T2

Perhaps the research was biased, Dre! There's the issue of "feminization" of boys to consider. Many pundits are starting to question whether the preponderance of female teachers and the promoting of only females to principal positions has resulted in boys that do not have many of the traditional male attributes.

How did this research measure success in child rearing? It specifically mentions fewer behavioral problems. This might be a success to some more (forgive me!) leftist, touchy feely observers but others might point out that boys are SUPPOSED to have some degree of aggression! It provides strength needed to handle adult life.

Many parents of boys are starting to believe that the real problem is that many female teachers believe that boys are supposed to be the same as girls and act in the same manner. They also teach them in the same fashion. I'm old enough to remember how there was a disparity in the percentages between boys and girls in subjects like maths and hard sciences. The boys did far better than the girls. Today the problem seems to have been over-addressed, to the point where not only have the girls caught up but the boys are lagging far below their former levels!

Worse yet, some observers have started to make the claim that the real problem is that most female teachers no longer know how to handle boys and there is a lack of male teaching influence. The policy is to simply declare any boy who shows signs of typical male exuberance "hyperactive" and promptly dose him up with Ritalin!

We could argue this of course but my point is that your link's research is rather subjective. The yardsticks are based on opinions of what makes a good parent, as those yardsticks are used to take the measure of the children, as being the result of the process.

I'm just saying the debate is not that simple...

Edited June 7, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Hydraboss]

Sure, yeah, that's exactly what you meant.

Well, the ONLY assumption that makes sense here is that you are gay. No one else viewing/responding to my posts has continually picked out what they perceive to be "feminization" in the statements. You have nothing else to offer in response other than "why are you so hard on queers?", so either respond or shut up. You seem to take it very personally when someone refers to "knitting", so I can only draw the conclusion that A ) you are gay, and B ) you knit and feel it somehow marks you as gay.

Please correct me if this is wrong.

[bloodyminded]

Well, the ONLY assumption that makes sense here is that you are gay. No one else viewing/responding to my posts has continually picked out what they perceive to be "feminization" in the statements. You have nothing else to offer in response other than "why are you so hard on queers?", so either respond or shut up. You seem to take it very personally when someone refers to "knitting", so I can only draw the conclusion that A ) you are gay, and B ) you knit and feel it somehow marks you as gay.

Please correct me if this is wrong.

You seem to think you're being clever, and hope to provoke me. Let me disabuse you of both notions, along with other misperceptions present in your post.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

You seem to think you're being clever, and hope to provoke me. Let me disabuse you of both notions, along with other misperceptions present in your post.

Don't worry about that low life scum,bm...

He's an admitted secessionist for the "country" of Alberta...

Edited June 8, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps the research was biased, Dre! There's the issue of "feminization" of boys to consider. Many pundits are starting to question whether the preponderance of female teachers and the promoting of only females to principal positions has resulted in boys that do not have many of the traditional male attributes.

But is there anything to this? For what it's worth (and admittedly it might not be worth much), I"m personally not seeing it.

In my view, some of the "traditional male attributes"--say, physical self-confidence, aggression, and so on--are very natural, in the biological sense. Now, as always, a major part of our socialization has been to repress the extremes of these attributes, or to channel them into physical activity, notably "faux-war" symbolisms such as sports.

And while we can't know the alternative (ie what men would be like without the repression of aggressive instincts), it's possible that these methods have been quite successful.

I guess I'm asking: what's the difference? How are boys taught/expected to be "less masculine" than they were, say, fifty years ago?

We are expected to treat women differently that we used to; but much of that treatment really did need to change. Aside from that, however, what are the real differences?

Do these pundits have any ideas, or are they working off of ill-conceived, unconsidered and vague perceptions that they have about the "feminization of society"? (I have heard this term several times; but have never once heard it explained in any concrete way.)

[Wild Bill]

But is there anything to this? For what it's worth (and admittedly it might not be worth much), I"m personally not seeing it.

I guess I'm asking: what's the difference? How are boys taught/expected to be "less masculine" than they were, say, fifty years ago?

/quote]

Well, I did a quick google on "male feminization in education" and I got pages of hits!

Here's one that looked interesting:

http://www.discourseunit.com/publications_pages/burman_papers/2005%20G&E%20Childhood%20neoliberalism.pdf

"Indeed in her 1988 book, "The Mastery of Reason", Walkerdine argued that it was the apparently feminized culture of early education that discouraged young boys. This was not, or not only, a matter of personnel—i.e., that the vast majority of early education teachers are women—thus underscoring the continuities (including continuities of status) between the feminized domestic space of home and of school. Crucially, Walkerdine highlighted how pedagogical assumptions underlying the form of the educational tasks set for children also reinforced particular gendered cultures. The fashion for teaching mathematics by casting arithmetical problems into ‘games’ emulating everyday activities (such as shopping) drew attention to the ways the early life of children—at home and then reinforced by school—was feminized through women’s greater (if not in most cases sole) involvement in all aspects of domestic labour, including especially ‘care’. Hence Walkerdine argued that the very format that was supposed to render mathematical concepts ‘accessible’ was in fact creating barriers for some boys, whose difficulty with the tasks (she proposed) was less conceptual than an emotional resistance to its content."

Or this one:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/fem-schools.html

"However, recent statistics reveal that from the elementary years and beyond, girls get better grades than boys and generally fare better in school.{1} Although girls have all but eliminated the much-discussed math and science gap with boys, boys' scores in reading and writing have been on the decline for years. At the end of eighth grade, boys are held back 50 percent more often, and girls are twice as likely to say that they want to pursue a professional career.{2} Boys are twice as likely to be labeled "learning disabled" and in some schools are ten times more likely to be diagnosed with learning disorders such as ADD. Boys now make up two thirds of our special education classes and account for 71 percent of all school suspensions.{3} There is also evidence that boys suffer from low self-esteem and lack confidence as learners.{4}"

There are LOTS of other sites, BM! Most attack the present status quo but some defend. This tells us that it is a real debate in educational circles. I know from my experience with two daughters that their elementary school is typical in that it has only a couple of male teachers. It has also had a succession of female principals. A relative who teaches explained to me that there is an "affirmative action" policy to promote women into top positions and has been for years now. This has had the unexpected result of male teachers realizing that they have little chance of advancement and thus we've seen a drain of men from the profession.

This could be a thread on its own but I repeat that when you claim that research supports a certain point you have to be prepared to defend the integrity of how you measure successful results.

[bloodyminded]

But is there anything to this? For what it's worth (and admittedly it might not be worth much), I"m personally not seeing it.

I guess I'm asking: what's the difference? How are boys taught/expected to be "less masculine" than they were, say, fifty years ago?

/quote]

Well, I did a quick google on "male feminization in education" and I got pages of hits!

Here's one that looked interesting:

http://www.discourseunit.com/publications_pages/burman_papers/2005%20G&E%20Childhood%20neoliberalism.pdf

"Indeed in her 1988 book, "The Mastery of Reason", Walkerdine argued that it was the apparently feminized culture of early education that discouraged young boys. This was not, or not only, a matter of personneli.e., that the vast majority of early education teachers are womenthus underscoring the continuities (including continuities of status) between the feminized domestic space of home and of school. Crucially, Walkerdine highlighted how pedagogical assumptions underlying the form of the educational tasks set for children also reinforced particular gendered cultures. The fashion for teaching mathematics by casting arithmetical problems into games emulating everyday activities (such as shopping) drew attention to the ways the early life of childrenat home and then reinforced by schoolwas feminized through womens greater (if not in most cases sole) involvement in all aspects of domestic labour, including especially care. Hence Walkerdine argued that the very format that was supposed to render mathematical concepts accessible was in fact creating barriers for some boys, whose difficulty with the tasks (she proposed) was less conceptual than an emotional resistance to its content."

Or this one:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/fem-schools.html

"However, recent statistics reveal that from the elementary years and beyond, girls get better grades than boys and generally fare better in school.{1} Although girls have all but eliminated the much-discussed math and science gap with boys, boys' scores in reading and writing have been on the decline for years. At the end of eighth grade, boys are held back 50 percent more often, and girls are twice as likely to say that they want to pursue a professional career.{2} Boys are twice as likely to be labeled "learning disabled" and in some schools are ten times more likely to be diagnosed with learning disorders such as ADD. Boys now make up two thirds of our special education classes and account for 71 percent of all school suspensions.{3} There is also evidence that boys suffer from low self-esteem and lack confidence as learners.{4}"

There are LOTS of other sites, BM! Most attack the present status quo but some defend. This tells us that it is a real debate in educational circles. I know from my experience with two daughters that their elementary school is typical in that it has only a couple of male teachers. It has also had a succession of female principals. A relative who teaches explained to me that there is an "affirmative action" policy to promote women into top positions and has been for years now. This has had the unexpected result of male teachers realizing that they have little chance of advancement and thus we've seen a drain of men from the profession.

This could be a thread on its own but I repeat that when you claim that research supports a certain point you have to be prepared to defend the integrity of how you measure successful results.

I haven't looked at your second example yet, but the first one produces a far more complex situation than some problem with the "feminization of males." Indeed, part of the complex problem of male underachievement (academically) was the peer perception that doing well academically was somehow feminine.

That is, there is a distinctive problem with boys being perceived as "feminine."

That's not about boys being feminine, Wild Bill; it's about a male prejudice towards the perceived feminine.

A crucial distinction.

And on one level, it is distinctly and clearly a prejudice against girls, not boys. Since the "feminine" is so self-evidently a thing to be loathed.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Is this statement evidence-based or just an opinion?

It is not an opinion - opinions by definition is theory - parenthood is far past the point of being a theoretical issue - of course a male and female in a state of love and respect create better and more happy people than some experimental nonsense that is not tried and true by time - I know of a few young men who were raised by strong feminist mothers who dispose of the sperm supplying "dad" - and all these young men are NOT men but weasils.

[Wild Bill]

ame='Wild Bill' date='08 June 2010 - 05:57 AM' timestamp='1276000182' post='547247']

I haven't looked at your second example yet, but the first one produces a far more complex situation than some problem with the "feminization of males." Indeed, part of the complex problem of male underachievement (academically) was the peer perception that doing well academically was somehow feminine.

That is, there is a distinctive problem with boys being perceived as "feminine."

That's not about boys being feminine, Wild Bill; it's about a male prejudice towards the perceived feminine.

A crucial distinction.

And on one level, it is distinctly and clearly a prejudice against girls, not boys. Since the "feminine" is so self-evidently a thing to be loathed.

Not expecting you to swallow just the one link, BM! I do think the second is stronger with the argument. Whatever, my point is simply that there IS an argument! The research cited that I first responded to was based on opinions and not concrete factors.

[bloodyminded]

Not expecting you to swallow just the one link, BM! I do think the second is stronger with the argument. Whatever, my point is simply that there IS an argument! The research cited that I first responded to was based on opinions and not concrete factors.

Oh sure, obviously I haven't looked into the matter sufficiently to simply shut down any arguments.