Jump to content

Are American schools not boy friendly anymore?


Arctic55

Recommended Posts

Bless

 

 

This is going to be a long post, so I kindly ask that you pay attention. This is not meant to be rude, but I've had this form of discussion with another person i know recently and instead of refuting my points, she instead created strawman arguments, completely misrepresenting my statements. I've taken the time to address your entire post, including reading your links. i may have misrepresented some of your posts, but i will say now that i did not do so intentionally. So while i doubt you would do something like the other person i described above, recent experience tells me that it's sometimes prudent to place the request before the first point, rather than the last one. And with that, i'll be addressing your claims one by one.

 

[spoiler=Also, Rai.] this is a discussion that i think is better off being held here than in a status war, and i've seen it begin to surface in a lot of threads in this section recently. moderate as you see fit, but please, in the favor of finally getting this discussion out somewhere, i ask that you not lock it.

 

 

 

[spoiler=well then]

 

"...What a bunch of crybabies."

 

This is not an argument, and nowhere in this video is there crying.

 

"Being male (not to mention Cis white het) pretty much means "I'm gonna win at life." This entire video is blasphemous."

 

Yet you push female superiority in the very next sentence. you have a cognitive dissonance that astounds me. but white men win at life though? You are judging books by their covers. the EXACT same flaw that you will later accuse men of doing to women.

 

"Not sure how they managed to get some nymphomaniac who encourages patriarchy to speak in this video (probably since they gave her some), but there's a very good reason why girls are doing better: Because they're better in general."

 

Not only did you use an ad homonym against somebody, you then make a statement that infers female superiority. This does not help your argument in either vein, You attacked her character instead of her argument. If you did not know, that woman is Christina Hoff Sommers, a 2nd gen feminist. she has done more for womens rights than you have ever done. You not only used the wrong argument, you attacked somebody who lives for the express purpose of elevating men and women to equality (the proper term is egalitarianism, but let's say feminism for the sake of argument). As for the portion of female superiority, i will leave it at this: Your own words are doing the exact thing you accuse this video of doing.

 

"You can immediately assume that a girl will be better than a boy because she has to go through more than boys do. Additionally, she has all the encouragement of feminism and a great reason because of male dominance. Boys are lazy and think sports accomplish everything."

 

Really? Do  tell us how it is that women have it harder. What is it they have to go through? Give me your best argument here, because i have had to deal with this argument multiple times over the past few weeks and i have yet to hear anything significantly hard to deal with. Male dominance? Since when? Please give examples, because i cannot properly refute an argument that has no substance. Also, sports? Really? I'm willing to bet you don't even know 3 men personally who make their living playing sports. In fact, i myself can only name people who play sports, i don't actually know anybody who does.

 

"Saying that schools--or anything--is not "boy friendly" is literally the weakest s*** you can ever say."

 

Saying that schools--or anything--are not "girl friendly" is literally the weakest s*** you can ever say. See how easily that argument works against both sides?

 

"You know what's not "Girl friendly?" The entirety of society."

 

Really? So girls are now expected to be drafted if wars start(men are)? Girls don't have an abuse hotline(men dont)? Girls don't have female only shelters for abuse and homelessness(men don't)? Girls are just told to "suck it up" when they cry (men are)? Girls take up over 80% of the work related death pie(men do)? Girls are the majority of homeless(men are)? Women are subject to more violent and fatal crime (men there too)? You see why your argument doesn't make sense? You can't claim society hates women when men take the brunt of the damage. I can't feel bad for you, because you are playing the victim card for women while also claiming superiority. Those two things do not go together. they get one or the other, so make up your mind. 

 

 

"Damn whiny-ass patriots. Sorry your beautiful breadwinners are failing at life. Rather than handicapping them, why not make them do better?"

 

Again, this is not an argument. this is an ad homonym, Nowhere in this video is there whining, It's a factual breakdown of the differences between boys and girls in schools, and a request that people understand the need to acknowledge these differences. Your argument here holds no water because it does not address a single point made in this video.

 

 

"And considering this is coming from a gay dude, you know I'm unbiased. i compare this to PePe support. It's just so humorous the double standard here"

 

Nope, not even close. there is no double standard, In fact, If there is one anywhere, it's coming from you yourself. Don't act as if there's some call here to make things harder for girls. All it asks for is an understanding that many of the activities that once allowed boys to thrive in school have been taken away and a search for a fair solution. Were the same request to be done for women, With a similar video being put up, I have no doubt your approach would be a complete 180 in appearance to your current one. That is a double standard, and you, even if inadvertently, supporting misandry.

 

 

"........i have a feeling no one will like me after this"

 

No, I hold no animosity towards you for this, and i doubt those who think like me will either (i think i'm just the only person who would spare the time to fully refute you though). I believe I've said it somewhere here before, but i respect those who are willing to voice their opinion, no matter how much i disagree with them. It means a proper discussion can be held.

 

 

"Ok but they're being extreme crybabies. They're saying that boys need to be """"accepted for being boys"""" while girls are forced to conform to so many social standards (what they wear, how they look, how they eat, etc.) that boys don't even realize. "

 

Again, there was no crying involved in this video. It was a laid out assertion using solid reasoning and actual research. What they are saying is that boys and girls learn differently, that schools are not acknowledging this, and that boys are generally being discouraged for exhibiting behavior that is naturally masculine with the result being, boys becoming less able to focus in class. I did not see anywhere in this video a reprimanding of females, so the second portion of your statement is entirely unwarranted, but since you have stated it, You realize that girls are not the only ones being forced to conform to standards correct? I do not know what your typical idea of a male is, but i can tell you that men are under far more pressure than simple appearances and mannerisms. I might not know what women go through, but please understand that i could say the exact same of you in relation to other men.

 

"And of course you're a dude too. Boys just think everything can be simple and emotionless and...sports. "

 

This is a generalization of the worst kind. What you have done here is grouped all men in the exact same category, and allowed for no differences, in fact, your generalization doesn't even allow for emotions, which is somewhat funny to me, because men, no matter how we feel, are often chastised for showing any sort of emotion outside of confidence, forcing us to act stoic, even when everything around us is chaotic. Men are not stoic, oftentimes we simply process our emotions differently than women. Also. i don't much care for sports, in fact, there are multiple women at my job who care FAR more into sports than i am, so your generalization is somewhat disingenuous to them as well.

 

"It's like I just got a malignant tumor from watching this. "Waaaah, I'm a big boy and I still can't get my act together, boo-hoo, girls get special treatment cause they do better work than all of us!""

 

This is not only an exaggeration of the claims made in the video, it does not put forth an argument. Here you are disregarding the words in favor of your imagined image. This is not a rebuttal. In fact, it does nothing but harm your argument. If you wish to do this, that's fine, but please understand that you are not doing your argument any favors when you frame it in such a way.

 

 

 

-here i will be discussing the links provided by you-

 

"http://www.returnofkings.com/58237/the-origins-of-neomasculinity

READ THIS s***"

 

* Never before had a generation of young men felt so marginalized and degraded.

And they had every reason to feel so. They were told by the popular culture that they were worthless, suspect, and defective. Their identity was not valued. And they sensed it.*

 

I'm a man, a man who was raised by women, and I have been told, for a significant portion of my life that men were worth little if they could not provide for the women around them, and i did not question it, I did not object to it, not even once. I must ask, do you object to it? I'm asking this for a reason, but that'll be my last question, once I've placed the rest of the pieces in view.

 

*But while neomasculinity rejects the “counter culture” nonsense of the 1960s and 70s, it also rejects the nihilism and despair of the 1990s and 2000s. Neomasculinity is action and hope, not resignation or despair. It is a deeply positive worldview. It accepts the fact that the way forward will be a hard one. It is a profoundly revolutionary ideal, and it seeks nothing less than the redefining of men’s role in Western society.*

 

This is, in a nutshell, the core argument of the article, the rest is the building around it, but here's the center of the structure, for you and those reading to see. it's based upon establishing the points that were placed forth by roosh V in his own article:

[spoiler:'Neomasculinity is…']

Game

Traditional sex roles

Self-improvement

Understanding the true nature of women

Patriarchy

Weightlifting/fitness

Individual responsibility

Equal legal rights, free speech, due process

Testosterone

Entrepreneurship

Hard work ethic

Red pill truths

Sexual marketplace value

Male-only spaces

Hedonistic moderation

Nuclear family

Binary sex model

Natural health and hygiene (baking soda, apple cider vinegar, etc)

Male virtue

Anti-socialism

Technological skepticism

Feminine beauty ideals

Deeper life meaning and/or spirituality

Lifestyle optimization

To be neomasculine would be to believe or advocate for more than half of the above list.

 

 

I do believe in some of the above, but i will say this: Even with this list, men are far more, and far more varied than this list portrays us as. We are not one mind, as you appear intent upon grouping us as, and the most admirable thing about this list is that his very last sentence is willing to acknowledge this, even as it makes inclusions for those that vary from the formula. He's not quite wrong, but he only covers the surface of what a man is.

 

As for your second link, he breaks it down into multiple points, and i'm going to put the core's of each argument here and discuss them:

 

1)*We want to eliminate all weaknesses; a major weakness is hypocrisy. Despite the leftists’ rampant contradictions, denial, and hypocrisy, they will gleefully point flaws out in us and play the victim card when we call them out on theirs. We must eliminate all of the discrepancies between what we practice and what we preach.*

 

Does that sound like anything i've told you above?

[spoiler=hint]There is no double standard, in fact, if there is one anywhere, it's coming from you yourself. Don't act as if there's some call here to make things harder for girls, all it asks for is an understanding that many of the activities that once allowed boys to thrive in school have been taken away and a search for a fair solution. Were the same request to be done for women, with a similar video being put up, i have no doubt your approach would be a complete 180 in appearance to your current one.

 

 

He's not wrong. I'm left as hell, and even i had to point your double standard. In his article, he mentions removing hypocrisy by practicing what you preach, and you cannot fault him on that. You can disagree with the method, but the message is not wrong.

 

 

2)*You will never be a free man until you are out of debt and have your finances in order. As long as you depend on someone else for your earnings, you will never be free to say what you wish or act as you wish. Even if you’re only taking baby steps, do something; everyone has to start somewhere.*

 

Again, can you tell me the message here is something wrong? This is what he's asking of men, yet you appear to be taking affront to it. Whether or not you like his article, you cannot claim that he's wrong in this points. I won't bring those out, because that would require copying the whole article, and this is gonna be long enough as is. He's not wrong in his overall message, and as a leftist, i can barely even find fault in the methods he lays out to accomplish this goal. In fact, this is some golden stuff in this section. He's not even giving advice to fight liberals in this point, he's giving advice for life, and it's pretty damn good.

 

 

3)*Back when I had just begun to see the problems in our society, I felt as if I had a duty to share this knowledge, and rightly so. However, rather than making an effort to only converse about the detriments of feminism with people who are on the verge of swallowing the red pill, I tried my damnedest to convince closed-minded morons of the truth.

I very quickly learned that it was a fool’s errand.

You will never convince hardcore leftists of the follies of their beliefs; they simply don’t listen to logic. Every statistic, example from history, or analytical piece of evidence that you present will be met with an emotional appeal of some sort; a plea to victimhood, framing you as an uncaring bastard, or a simple ad hominem.*

 

[spoiler=...]"Not sure how they managed to get some nymphomaniac who encourages patriarchy to speak in this video (probably since they gave her some), but there's a very good reason why girls are doing better: Because they're better in general."

"You can immediately assume that a girl will be better than a boy because she has to go through more than boys do. Additionally, she has all the encouragement of feminism and a great reason because of male dominance. Boys are lazy and think sports accomplish everything."

 

Do you need to say anything more here?

 

 

Dude. no offense, but your own link is nailing your coffin. Had he added generalizations to his statement, he'd have scored 100 points in your first two paragraphs alone.

 

 

4)*Changing the minds of others is a great way to fight back against the scourge of liberalism. However, there comes a point where you must vote with your dollars. Hit the feminists where it hurts the most. Stop watching the NFL. Don’t watch biased, liberal news stations. Rather than supporting massive conglomerates, which almost always have feminized, politically correct workplaces, buy produce from your local farmer’s market, to support hard working men in your area.*

 

So what? You linked this with the phrase "look at this s***", but why? He's arguing using the power of the free market, You cannot tell him what to buy, and those who disagree with him are not being restricted in their buying practices. I personally can't see the fault in this. He's not pushing for legislation, he's simply saying be the change you want to see, by not spending change on those you disagree with. A sound tactic. What you boycott may vary, but that's called the free market. You cannot force a customer, you can only persuade them, and if him and his ilk choose to not shop at one place or another, neither you nor i can, or should do a thing to stop them.

 

 

5)*Treat women as if they’re emotional little children; they are, after all. This doesn’t mean to abuse them or treat them poorly, it simply means to acknowledge the limits of their intellectual capacity.*

 

...Ok, here i disagree. personally i think women are just as capable as men in just about any non-physical aspect (your average man naturally has about 50% higher upper body mass/density, leading to a naturally higher base strength, as far as intelligence though, that's fair game) this is the only thing i truly disagree with, and i believe this may be the crux of your argument against this particular article. He asserts this as if it were fact, but it is merely his own opinion, and just like the rest of his assertions, you are free to either agree or disagree. Here is where he and i part ways, i may have seen enough to understand where he's coming from, but i simply came to a different conclusion than him. It's that simple.

There is one thing you can take away from this, if nothing else: Be the change you want to see, stop complaining about what he's said, and document actions that prove him wrong. The quickest way to refute him would be for women to do what men have done for centuries; prove themselves. If you think they already have, then show it to him. pointing and tutting will get nothing done

 

Now, onto your third article:

What's this? it's his account of his high school years on the wrestling team and how he came to respect the people above him that he once disliked! Funny story, when  i was in high school, i was overweight, and at risk for diabetes, Now i wasn't really fat, but i wasn't what you could call healthy either, so i occasionally visited my wrestling team to spar with them (my grades were good enough to join had i chosen to, but i was the kind of student that focused more on his studies than sports), in the end, i managed to get healthy, and to this day, i remain relatively fit. The End.

There's nothing more to say really. It's his own personal story, Neither you nor i have to like it.

 

 

And for the final link, the myth that just won't die; The wage pay gap, that's fine, it doesn't have to die for good, but i've killed it so many times that i don't even get EXP from it anymore.

 

 

 calling-bullshit-on-the-men-who-think-th

That's nail 1. Also known as: All of these jobs pay extremely well, but only one of them is being railed upon by people like you for equality. 

You want equality? then you had best start putting women on the other 3 jobs pronto. because until you rail as hard for equality in all the DANGEROUS jobs that are male dominated, I'm not gonna listen to your railing about the SAFE jobs being male dominated.

 

 

 

CTXhUOpWIAAD-Bg.png

That's nail 2. Similar to nail 1, this one is known as: Not only do more men DIE at work, they work longer hours. 

Women want higher pay? then they're gonna need to work more hours. Be careful though, those male dominated office jobs are deadly AF

 

 

Remember that woman you accused of being a nymphomaniac? What was her name again? Christina Hoff Sommers? That chick that you said was taking the D? The one who actually fought for equal rights before your lot warped it? Well she's back, and she's here to put the last nail in the coffin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

 

This small passage is of particular note: 

"Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage."

 

You see the magic here? Any smart business man would hire primarily women if they could really get away with paying them less. But the most magical part? Unlike your statistics, she doesn't exaggerate her claim, she highlights that even after controls, there's around  6% wage gap between men and woman of similar occupation, and states that there may be some residual sexism left over there. That's how you make a wage gap argument. Highlight the facts, acknowledge the imbalances, and control for external influences that result from differing career choices. A beautiful rendition of the wage gap that destroys the myth, but still allows her to place the call for equality. 

 

But i digress. To be 100% honest, i do not quite know what conclusion you are attempting to lead to with these articles, but i can say this much; One was simply a differing opinion, two was (mostly) excellent advice no matter what political direction you lean, three was a personal experience that you took offense to, and four was just plain wrong. 

 

 

"It's about time the tables turn. Boys can sit in their seats and listen as far as I care. A hundred years of "Make me a sammich" and the moment we start making progress this is the kind of s*** they get. "

 

Yeah... No. are these really your best arguments? Make me a sammich is, and was, a joke. It's a comical portrayal of the stereotypical abusive husband. I doubt that you would understand what makes it funny, _The fact that it was the mocking of a stereotypical abusive husband, the likes of which was detested even from the times of greece and Rome, and even in the stories of old, the stereotypical abusive male was often dealt some form of divine punishment by the end of even the oldest stories because it's easy AND funny to mock and make fun of those kinds of people._ what you view as misogyny was simply the roles that men and women had throughout the years, the woman kept the house, while the male worked the fields/factories/fought in the war zones. If you want me to elaborate more for you in my next post (assuming you reply) i'd be glad to.

 

 

"at least people are listening to me now"

 

People have always listened to you, why do you think rodrigo called you annoying? It's because he took the time to listen to you, and felt you did not deserve a proper rebuttal. to be honest, i felt the same at first, but there have been multiple times over the past few weeks that I've abstained from these kinds of conversations, so i decided i might as well get it off my chest.

 

 

And with that, I have that question for you: What is it that you think men should be to/for women and why? I ask this because i want you to lay out what you think men should, be and/or do for women. If you can do that, i can properly address any flaws in your argument, who knows, you might even change my mind if you have a solid reason for your beliefs. 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey look at that people are actually not ignoring me now

 

Ok, fine, I'm wrong. You got me. You win. I'm gone.

This is just downright disrespectful now. The guy went out of his way to debate every single point you made in a polite manner in the name of encouraging discussion and this sort of reply does nothing but waste both his time for having bothered to and yours for having posted in the thread in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just downright disrespectful now. The guy went out of his way to debate every single point you made in a polite manner in the name of encouraging discussion and this sort of reply does nothing but waste both his time for having bothered to and yours for having posted in the thread in the first place.

 

it's not worth fighting about anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i still lost 3 friends from this so it's probably a bad idea

No it wasn't, You laid out your position did you not? You held objections to the original video and voiced them. I respected that and granted you a rebuttal, and by your response, i assume you changed your opinions in the end. You can't really call proper discourse a bad idea. if it's any consolation, i still respect you, and you helped me get my thoughts in order.

 

and with that, i'm gonna go pass out for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any motherf***er who thinks that boys are all about sports and surround around it can gladly take a tour with 2 with multiple pages of explanation.

dafuq ? that is s*** ass opinion.

I'm going to assume that was supposed to be a joke.

 

vla1ne, I could not have said it nearly as well has you did in your rebuttal.  Truly, the best debate post I've seen anywhere in a long time.  Both respectful, insightful, and open for more discussion.  That is the type of debate I wish people would use in general, in public real life (like politics).  You have inspired me to reconsider my decision of "not doing speech and debate."  I don't know what to say, your post left me speechless, and that is very hard to do.  Amazing job.  *claps*

 

well i still lost 3 friends from this so it's probably a bad idea

Easier to quote vla1ne to give my point "You laid out your position did you not? You held objections to the original video and voiced them. I respected that" and there you have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*yawns* jesus this thread went off the walls.  guess i have to make a formal response ughhhh

 

As someone with a rather unique viewing on both sides of the classroom. it's entirely true that masculinity is, as a whole, often frowned upon in classrooms, but I don't think that's the only stigma held.  Girls are encouraged more than men to succeed - just look around.  You're going to see things specifically requesting women all the time.  Women are also, coincidentally, the major authority position in public school systems, coming in at a rather un-shocking 76 percent.  Does that really have any correlation to the performance of a boy in a classroom?

 

Well, in my opinion, it absolutely does.  I'm going to be looking at my own scores here, including the last year and a half of full-time transition.

 

During high school, I did feel like many of my teachers (mostly female) were simply intolerant of boys in general; it didn't really matter if the person in question was, say, quiet, like me, or loud and obnoxious like my dumbass friend Joey.  They just didn't like you.  However, in my last year of transition I've received (mostly) wild praise for the work I've done in school; teachers absolutely adore my work in a way that I have never experienced before, which in turn has increased my work ethic, which in turn has increased my grades.  I went from a shitty student to a really good student simply because of how other people perceived me.  And you know what?  I'm motivated to work even harder, if not to prove a point that a transgender woman such as myself can have good academic standing - something that we, as a group, have a great difficulty affording thanks to an absolutely incredible amount of sheet weighing us down.

 

The issue isn't with how men are raised, I think; it's how men are perceived to be raised.

 

I suppose this refutes my earlier more whiney points made, but I was hasty in making such a generalization without looking at it from my own unique, objective standpoint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that we still see girls as needing to be helped, whereas boys are expected to suck it up and deal with it.

 

This is so true. What society needs to know is that it goes both ways for either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*yawns* jesus this thread went off the walls.  guess i have to make a formal response ughhhh

 

As someone with a rather unique viewing on both sides of the classroom. it's entirely true that masculinity is, as a whole, often frowned upon in classrooms, but I don't think that's the only stigma held.  Girls are encouraged more than men to succeed - just look around.  You're going to see things specifically requesting women all the time.  Women are also, coincidentally, the major authority position in public school systems, coming in at a rather un-shocking 76 percent.  Does that really have any correlation to the performance of a boy in a classroom?

 

Well, in my opinion, it absolutely does.  I'm going to be looking at my own scores here, including the last year and a half of full-time transition.

 

During high school, I did feel like many of my teachers (mostly female) were simply intolerant of boys in general; it didn't really matter if the person in question was, say, quiet, like me, or loud and obnoxious like my dumbass friend Joey.  They just didn't like you.  However, in my last year of transition I've received (mostly) wild praise for the work I've done in school; teachers absolutely adore my work in a way that I have never experienced before, which in turn has increased my work ethic, which in turn has increased my grades.  I went from a shitty student to a really good student simply because of how other people perceived me.  And you know what?  I'm motivated to work even harder, if not to prove a point that a transgender woman such as myself can have good academic standing - something that we, as a group, have a great difficulty affording thanks to an absolutely incredible amount of s*** weighing us down.

 

The issue isn't with how men are raised, I think; it's how men are perceived to be raised.

 

I suppose this refutes my earlier more whiney points made, but I was hasty in making such a generalization without looking at it from my own unique, objective standpoint.  

Just a thought for chewing, not argument.  But, when did you become transgender?  Because, if it was before the "They just didn't like you." sentence, than your argument makes sense.  If it was after the sentence... then maybe because in the teacher's eyes, you were a girl now, and thus you benefited from the praise that is given to girls rather than given to boys.  Again, not arguing, specifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people here actually know me fairly well; I was talking about schooling that happened about four or so years ago, back when I ID'd as a male in person.  In the latter example (where teachers adore me) I was speaking about my time in the last year and a half, which is the time where I've been ID'ing as a female.

 

Just a minor correction; you don't become transgender, you are always transgender.  There's no real decision there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about schooling that happened about four or so years ago, back when I ID'd as a male in person. In the latter example (where teachers adore me) I was speaking about my time in the last year and a half, which is the time where I've been ID'ing as a female.

So, as a male, you were put down, but as a female you were praised?  If I'm reading you right, than you post makes sense now.  Thanks.

 

Just a minor correction; you don't become transgender, you are always transgender. There's no real decision there.

That's debatable. One side believes your born transgender, the other side believes it is a decision and I know people from both sides. But that is off topic, so I won't get into that, not to mention, it is a very emotionally charged debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...