There is no ‘war on men’ – we now know feminism is good for boys
Laura BatesA report shows that boys benefit from learning about gender stereotypes and different types of masculinity
Well, who knows? How? And who is defining “benefit”?
That the entire sex now seems to be noodle armed soyboys could be why there are so many middle aged women making friends with their cats. You know, possibly?
I have reservations about the veracity and independence of any “results” in a report from the “Global Boyhood Initiative”.
The other reservations I have are for a couple of time-slots for Steve’s Lions..
I can’t help wishing for feminism to collide with Islam sooner rather than later when I see the utter bollocks feminists come out with.
From the misogynistic memes that swirled around the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial,
Hoes still mad that Captain Jack Sparrow didn’t get buried by a bedshitting irl Fatal Attraction loony.
I’d always thought that the reason Adrian Mole books were so popular (with women) were that they portrayed a feminist ideal, a boy/man confused about his masculinity, lacking confidence, desperate for affirmation (from a woman), and willing to supress his own desire and ambition to a woman who picked him up and discarded him as she saw fit.
“A report shows that boys benefit from …different types of masculinity”
I wonder what type of masculinity was displayed by the person who wrote that report.
Men have been freed by feminism too, not just women. Nobody wants point this out to them though:
Pre-feminisim, men were responsible for ‘their’ women, it would be his fault if something bad happened to a woman on his watch.
Now that women are independent, and cannot be controlled by a man, the man cannot be responsible for them; it is impossible to (justly) be responsible for something you have no control over.
Feminism always assumed, like government with new taxes, that all else would remain equal, and that there would be no changes in response to the new rules…
Laura Bates is what various 90s and 2000s dramas referred to as ‘a real piece of work’ – utterly odious in every aspect. As per Roue Le jour, even more so than Owen Jones you want to drop her by parachute her into an Islamic State Training camp and then ask her whether her ever-burgeoning list of ‘everyday sexism’ examples is really ‘sexism’.
Still – what could the ‘Global Boyhood initiative’ actually represent – This is from the parent organization.
The Kering Foundation (previously known as PPR Corporate Foundation for Women’s Dignity and Rights) is a foundation
Sounds like it’s a totally reliable source.
Instead of reinforcing these stereotypes, the report’s authors suggest, all children would benefit from a feminist approach to learning (something that will come as no surprise to many feminists, who have been arguing for this for decades).
A feminist approach to education which has led to rampant grade inflation, complaints from every sector in the economy that recruits lack fundamental basic skills and pervasive labour shortages, especially in the manual sectors of the economy as well as in STEM subjects (Where intellectual rigour is still prioritized) – that’s the one?
The idea that white, working-class boys are neglected and “failing” is “both manufactured and actively misleading”, the report states. White boys are in fact less likely than Black Caribbean, Black African and Bangladeshi students to claim free school meals, and less likely to be excluded from school than Black Caribbean boys. White boys who do not receive free school meals get higher grades than some minoritised groups, too.
Notice rather like Murphy the self loathing extends to a hatred of Whites more generally. The similarities don’t end there. Contradicting yourself in the same paragraph also seems to be ‘de rigeur’. White working class boys tend to be those who are claiming free school meals – but of course the fact that those White boys in receipt of free school meals massively underperform all other groups due to real systemic racism is of course something ‘you can’t say’ (without being cancelled)
The old “boys don’t cry” narratives that say men shouldn’t be vulnerable about their feelings are part of the same system that portrays girls as “hormonal”, “hysterical” and unsuited to particular career paths. It may sound old-fashioned, but with Tate and his ilk saying that women should “shut the f**k up, have kids, sit at home, be quiet and make coffee”, it is terrifyingly present again. Recognising this does not mean undermining or ignoring boys’ needs, but finding ways to meet them.
I think being vulnerable about your feelings is at times quite inappropriate – regardless of Steve and I’s stipend from Moscow I’m arguably grateful that the Ukrainian troops aren’t sitting around bawling their eyes out. I had never heard of Andrew Tate but with many first world countries on course to die out as a result of demographic collapse his advice, though blunter than I might phrase it, is probably worth following for a good proportion of women – unless the likes of Bates fancy wearing Burqas in the future. She has no interest in boys needs or desires other than as a means to further her own extremist agenda. An agenda which has caused massive unhappiness and mental trauma and killed millions before they were even born.
all children would benefit from a feminist approach to learning (something that will come as no surprise to many feminists, who have been arguing for this for decades).
Hold on, haven’t they *already* been doing this for decades? It was in my 1970s schooling where the culture of “everybody wins” was firmly being inculcated.
This sounds like another of these: Our parents won! But our jobs depend on us continuing the fighting.
“White boys who do not receive free school meals get higher grades than some minoritised groups, too.”
1) I’m sure you can be neglected despite not receiving free school lunches
2) I don’t even understand what the above phrase means… “higher grades than some minoritised groups” Basically white boys with responsible parents would need to perform below all minoritised groups in order to be neglected?
@ Emil
Boys of any colour with responsible parents are not neglected – that is part of the definition of “responsible”.
White boys who do receive free school meals underperform most other categories (as do black boys with no father at home).
“Adrian Mole books were so popular (with women)” – I always found Adrian Mole to be unlike my own experience of boyhood. Beavis and Butthead were much more realistic IMHO.
Stig of the Dump, obvs.
Not sure if “noodle armed” necessarily applies to soyboys these days. A lot of them sport gym muscles & tattoos. But they’re still so wet you could shoot snipe off of them. (© Dennis Thatcher?)
Make me a sammich, luv
1. One would expect an article about a research study to include some numbers, no?
2. The journalist’s argument has nothing to do with the effectiveness of feminism, or how it would actually help boys:
“As the report’s authors suggest, all children would benefit from a feminist approach to learning…Encouraging male friendships, the study finds, would provide opportunities for boys to learn reciprocity, empathy and intimacy.”
Nothing about test scores, graduation rates, college admission rates, future income, incarceration rates, etc. All she talks about is how feminism will make men more like women, not whether or how that’s a good thing.
3. A lot of other assumptions are made here, such as the idea that male violence stems from “too much” masculinity, or “too little” feminism. Just a cookie-cutter conclusion to push her politics. Anyone who has done their homework knows violence, aside from men who are born with severe mental illness stems from poor upbringing, absent parents and lack of structure. All of those things have psychological repercussions, and also leave boys ill-prepared for adult life. It is also often said that because boys learn better when taught to use information as a tool to solve a problem, rather than repeat back to a teacher in a classroom (Elon Musk has talked about this shortcoming). So all of these factors, plus the societal guilt placed on men altogether, add up to hold back any males who do not strictly conform to the Establishment’s policies. That’s why, aside from the highly exceptional CEOs, most of the successful men you see today are those who parrot corporate talking points and are proud to kiss the asses of their superiors. If you’ve ever met these men at a dinner party, you know that they have no identity, but they sure know how to agree with the right people and get bedroom privileges with their wives. Some people call that a fulfilling life.
Anyway, males who are incompatible that approach (men are by nature more disagreeable than women, for instance) are cast from civilized society from an early age. Instead of finding ways to channel hardships into constructive solutions, boys are just told to sit still, or be sent to detention, or be expelled. If they’re an ethnic minority, they’re told that they’re a victim, and that it’s republicans’, rich people’s, politicians’, white peoples’ fault. Some of them are even told by more conservative groups, like the MGTOW movement, that it’s women’s fault. In both cases, it’s a feminist philosophy to blame external factors for individual behavior. When men have not been taught to be tough and take responsibility for themselves, their insecurity results in passive aggressiveness, weakness, depression or violent antisocial behavior.
4. Look at the link she gives for the study. It’s funded by a leftist organization. Even if it were from a peer-reviewed psychology journal, it’s been well reported for decades now that there is a replicability crisis in the social sciences. Especially given the lack of quantitative data in this case, it’s very likely that everything this journalist is saying came not from experiments showing cause and effect, but rather from self-reported surveys. Much like when the UN or OxFam tell you there’s a “child hunger” issue in the West, only because some school students said they’ve felt hungry within the past week (i.e., Mum went grocery shopping that afternoon). This study is likely no more reliable for information than a Michael Moore documentary. It’s anecdotal evidence at best. Many of these types of studies don’t even use Likert scales (which still may have poorly constructed or strongly framed questions), but take interview responses and place them into categories for data points.
Laura Bates is using a propaganda tactic on her readers that’s been used in the media for at least a century. I’ll bet it’s still working too.