So says Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That’s Leaving Them Behind, and Rishawn Biddle in an article in the New York Daily News:
We have no way of knowing who will win the “war on women” political debate now topping broadcasts and newspaper pages. But with great certainty, we can identify the losers in this battle: boys.
Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.
Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.
But that’s not what you’ll hear from either President Obama or Mitt Romney.
It seems like there have been a number of these articles written lately about the real war on boys. This is a good sign. However, the problem is, no one, especially the politicians, is listening. As the legal and psychological landscapes for men and boys worsen, many are going on strike and the country will become worse off because of it. The problem is, pandering to the female vote and the needs of women takes precedence over the life, liberty and happiness of men. This is reverse discrimination, but equally as harmful.
The only “War on Women” I see in the US is Feminism’s war on conservative women. Which is, of course, nothing compared to the open war on men.
Well why not raise an entire generation of metrosexual nancy boys. The Pols dont want blue collar jobs or factories anymore and we can just farm out all our mineral needs to “other” places like we are now. Bring on the white collar revolution. Im ready to sign on as a man-whore for my female betters.
“This is reverse discrimination, but equally as harmful.”
I have always hated this phrase. “Reverse” discrimination is impartiality. Policies, practices, and thought processes that systemically favor girls over boys is discrimination, period.
Reverse discrimination is very real; many people have made and are making their political careers out of it. It is NOT “Impartiality”; it is trying to get their own back after they, or people they claim to be representing, were discriminated against. I know there has been discrimination in this country; I am old enough to remember the 2 water fountains on the side of the Dairy Queen in the town I grew up in. But discrimination can exist without malice; if you are born into a situation where discrimination is normal, you will probably discriminate like everyone else until you find out that it is a Bad Thing (MLK and the Civil Rights activists did not take political power for Blacks; the Black Panthers tried that, and we have an MLK Day, and not a Black Panther Day. They showed White people of good conscience that there was a problem, the which they had been unaware of [and the Blacks had not dared talk about], who gave the Blacks what they should have had all along). But REVERSE discrimination is deliberate and calculated. Impartiality is treating everyone the same. Is that what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk really want?
I agree- why should my son have to strive and sweat when he can just play XBox and enjoy kicking back, instead of being bashed for hitting on girls, or being too aggressive in his speech, or stepping on someone’s toes, and triggers whatever the theme-of-victimization of the day is. I’d say the libtards and diversity campus overseers have institutionalized the process of getting more than their fair share of the top-down spoils. I give the boys credit- seems like they have it pretty well figured out- the latest generation of Going Galt.
Call me old fashion, but this is what happens when we ID special interest groups and legislate benefits for them, this is what you get. At some point we have to treat people as equals and stop the BS reparations for past injustices.
I have daughters who I want to succeed, just like their brother. I don’t want them to succeed at the expense of their brother, nor he at their expense. What I really want is for them to be happy and fulfilled in their lives no matter their gender.
Past discrimination cannot be made up for on the backs of the present generation. Nor can categorizing young men and women into predetermined roles make everyone happy, just those who wield the power to tell the rest of us what to do.
“…reverse discrimination…” is a vile lie.
It subtly says that it’s not REAL discrimination – that when it’s done to whites or males it’s really not the same, or not so bad.
It is JUST AS BAD – ergo IT IS DISCRIMINATION regardless of WHO is victimized.
Stop falling for the progressive PC sickness.
Racism is racism, and bigots come in all shapes, sizes and colors.
The same goes for sexism.
There is no “reverse…”
Period.
Importantly when you turn the issues on their head to the femme’s you mostly hear silence.
IF a woman made only .77 vs. $1 for a man, wouldn’t businesses be knocking down the door to hire them? After all, doesn’t it make sense to hire the least expensive, most qualified workforce? Why would they even hire a guy if he was that expensive?
IF men are only 40% of college students and falling, does it make sense to continue to have all the femme oriented college attendance initiative, or can we call it a success?
I guess you could simply go on point by point, but the bottom line is that neither candidate would DARE to cross these lines for fear of being branded misogynistic. After all The Prez has a council on women and girls, but refused to have one on men and boys. He is AFRAID, and perhaps rightly so. It is difficult to fight a passive aggressive group like this.
Fatalistically speaking it will all go down to where men simply opt out, the birthrate really crashes, and femme’s are still more worried about “Women’s Issues” then they are about HUMAN’S ISSUES.
Whenever I hear the “Men need to get engaged, and have families” I ask: “what’s in it for them?” and usually get a lot of evasion and sputtering.
Because everything a woman brings to the table, a man already does for himself. Everything a man brings to the table a woman already does for herself. So, it doesn’t really work for them to say they “Need” each other. There has to be something more.
What does that have to do with “war”?
You get MORE of what you reward And LESS of what you punish. So who is being punished, and who is being rewarded? Is that a war?
“As the legal and psychological landscape for men and boys worsen, many are going on strike and the country will become worse off because of it.”
How awful. Somebody else really should do something about that for you.
Let’s give Dr. Helen some credit. At least she is talking about this stuff, unlike 99.9999999% of other conservatives happily pushing men off a cliff.
No, stranger; *I* don’t like *your* behavior, so *you* should change just to suit *my* subjective preferences.
You’re nothing but more of the same problem. You want me to change? You want me to put the collar back around my neck and start pulling your little cart along again?
Okayfine; then what are you offering me in exchange? What, exactly, is supposed to be in it for me? Ohhhhhh, the spoooky bad-trending future will eat us all up if I don’t, you say?
Well, what if I disagree? What if I think your spooky bad-trending future looks and sounds a lot better than my existing present?
What are you and she *actually* putting on the *actual* table that *actually* benefits me?
The same thing that men put on the plates for women, EQUALITY. Let alone helping your husbands, brothers, sons, fathers, grandfathers, etc.
You still don’t get it.
What, exactly, is supposed to be in it for *me*? Not other people, male family and friends or not; *ME*.
What are you *actually* bringing to the *actual* table that *actually* benefits me? Rebuttable presumption of joint custody? Or foreskin restoration research funding? How about male suicide risk identification and outreach? Legally required paternity testing for birth certification? Comparably cheap, safe, and reliable male birth control?
What have you *actually* done to *actually* provide *actual* benefits to me in any of these areas, or similar ones?
No. Your ‘equality’ is just a deceptive exploiters’ ripoff; it’s a deceitful, lying little buzzword used to make the drones think something is a going to be done for them, *this time, for sure!*
– just so they’ll get back into harness and start pulling your little cart along for you again.
No.
But, hey, big talker, you go right ahead and *prove* me wrong. Show us the money. Bring it on. Put your metrics where your mouth is. Answer the question:
What are you and she *actually* putting on the *actual* table that *actually* benefits me?
What, exactly, are *you* offering *me* that is *better* than MGTOW?
Acksiom,
You seem to mistakenly think that because the future for society does not look bright because men are going on strike that I think men should change. No, I think society should change so that men don’t have the need to go on strike. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
And by “society” (and “equality”) you mean. . .what, or whom, exactly?
I doubt you really know. I doubt you’ve thought it through even just that much. I think you’re just throwing emotionally-charged but functionally meaningless words at the wall to see if they’ll stick and distract us from your real message of luddite self-re-enslavement.
You don’t seem to understand that these men and boys GTOW *ARE* your target population for your ‘society that needs to change’ message. Who else can be bothered to try to change things? Who else has the leisure time and ability? WE *ARE* YOUR “SOCIETY”. We *ARE* the “society” that you’re saying has to change.
Which means that your ‘explanation’ amounts to little more than ‘No, I think the men and boys most likely to strike should change so that men and boys don’t have the need to strike.’
Well, no, thank you; just as I said, somebody *else* really ought to do something about that *for* you.
And which also brings us right back around again to this: what are you *actually* bringing to the *actual* table that *actually* benefits me? Because so far, you’re just talk. All we ever see you doing is writing the occasional post that sells pro-male readers’ attention to advertisers for your own benefit.
You don’t even understand how the market is trending. MGTOW isn’t the result of matters getting fundamentally worse; MGTOW is the result of matters getting fundamentally *better*. MGTOW is, for men, an *improvement* on the previous state of primarily male exploitation for female benefit — that same one that you’re arguing we need to reestablish.
Oh yes you are; do we see ANY propositions from you on how to do it differently this time? No of course we do not; you don’t have any. You just have head-patting attention. Because you still operate out of a model in which men and boys are so beat-down and starved for appreciation from birth that they’ll do almost anything just for a little recognition.
So a little recognition is all you ever offer.
Problem is, the critical reason why more and more men are more and more GTOW is because we’re *ALL* finally receiving enough of the liberating benefits of technological advance to make it *possible*. Men and boys are finally getting enough of the luxury of increased freedom that women have been benefiting from for the past few generations, and they’re taking advantage of it.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand what’s being discussed, so let me express it for you in one simple sentence:
MGTOW IS BETTER FOR US THAN WHAT YOU’RE OFFERING.
Do you understand that? Or will I need to spam it a dozen times first?
Are you getting it yet? For us, dropping out, going on strike, MGTOW, is *preferable* to the way things *were*, let alone how they are now, or will — according to your own model — become. There was *never* a better age prior to this one for men and boys to which we can return, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN WORSE FOR US THAN GTOW!
Just for one example, you’ve been sexually mutilating us at birth in this country for over a hundred years, and now you’ve actually *industrially commoditized* our genital flesh. We’ve always been the first and most attacked, brutalized, and exploited, and the last and least defended, cared for, and helped. We have always been the most expendable, least rewarded members of your “society’.
And so I point and laugh at your stupid, blind, *exploitive* attempts to get us to climb back into your harnesses as your beasts of burden. No thanks; the more we can Go Our Own Way, the more we will.
MGTOW IS BETTER FOR US THAN WHAT YOU’RE OFFERING.
MGTOW IS BETTER FOR US THAN WHAT YOU’RE OFFERING.
MGTOW IS BETTER FOR US THAN WHAT YOU’RE OFFERING.
If *YOU* really want things to change, *YOU* really need to be offering us something better. Because we increasingly have more and better alternatives to the harnessed-beast-of-burden past you’re promoting. What you’re offering was worse than GTOW in the first place; why should we sign back up for more of your exploitive abuse?
And thus the repeated question: what are you *actually* bringing to the *actual* table that *actually* benefits me?
If you can’t or won’t answer that, we know you’re just trying to exploit us like the rest of them. Unless and until you actually put something actually beneficial on the actual table, you’re just blowing smoke up our afts.
You’re just tossing out functionally empty and meaningless posts to draw our attention to your advertisers for your own personal benefit.
war: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
the particular end desired? more stuff for women paid for by the opposing forces, men. how did anyone not see this coming? obummer is a pro at getting votes by giving away other people’s stuff. remember obamacare? and so many others. he does know his audience.
everything o-barry does is right out of alinski’s ‘rules for radicals’, a manual for revolution.
Dr. Helen,
Here is another sentence to consider.
“The US is considered a beacon of freedom and liberty. That is, except for men who fail to keep their wives sufficiently happy. Once a woman decides that she is bored in a marriage, for that man, America suddenly becomes North Korea or the Stalinist USSR.
That is not an exaggeration, since men inflicted with no-fault divorce see themselves reduced to living off 20% of their income, their passports can be seized, and their children are entirely cut off from contact with them, if the wife sees fit, or if her lawyer can profit from persuading her to see fit.
No other country has on industry that earns billions from separating fathers from their children, again, due to no fault of either.
Some beacon of liberty and freedom.”
__________________________________
NAILED IT! You nailed it right square on the head. I am not going to volunteer for that scenario… However, that situation will not remain static for any length of time. The order must, and will break down, as the chaos that is its product takes over. There are plenty things women are not only not physically capable of, but not psychologically naturally equipped for, and many of those situations are about to be realized, where they will be forced to face those realities to survive. Before they had feminist laws to pseudo-protect/feed/clothe them, men did it, and our laws are going out the windows.
I was just saying today how hard it is to raise boys with any feeling of self worth. They are either classified as Neanderthals or future rapist or stooges or doormats or bullies or chauvinists. If they’re strong and hold on to their convictions they’re out of touch. If they’re sensitive, they”re wimps.
Men, real men should have been but on the endangered list in 1969. In movies, TV and commercials almost all the men are so flawed as to be useless and all the women smart, sensible and useful. Next time you watch TV or a movie count the “bad boys” and “dishrags” and then count the “I am woman hear me roar’s”. You’ll be surprised or saddened or both.
Sometimes, being “out of touch” with the worst parts of our society is a badge of honor. Choose to wear it proudly, and cleave to / build the best parts that are left to us.
When in junior high school and high school, my PE coaches were tough men determined to turn out tough boys.
Now men’s PE teachers are often women determined to turn of girly-men.
Is it any wonder the culture is being feminized?
“This is reverse discrimination.”
No, it is discrimination, full stop. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. That term is an invention that describes not the reality of a discriminatory practice or pattern of behavior, but of the public’s perception that it is atypical.
Point taken.
Years ago we noticed that boys learn to read later than girls, struggle more with reading than girls, and as a group, do not achieve the same reading success girls do. But we also noticed that while boys really prefer to read adventure stories with male heroes, girls will read stories with male or female heroes. The feminist were dismayed, and insisted we get more stories with female heroes. And more were written. So we know boys don’t read as well as girls, and we are going to focus on reading material which encourages girls to read while discouraging boys from reading. Needless to say, elementary education, and reading education at the 3-year-old to middle school levels, is terrifically dominated by women. I’d say their getting their revenge for being bad at math.
Research have shown that not only are many elementary teachers bad at math, they don’t like it. They transmit this dislike to their students, especially the female ones. Thanks ladies. I teach high school math, and have to deal with the damage that’s been done.
Women tend to be good at tactics and bad at strategy: so they’ll promote women, and in the end we have a situation like China. China has a shortage of women of marriageable age. However, there a bunch of really hard charging, well educated women. Since women prefer to marry up, they have a shortage of suitable suitors. We see this in our Black community, where the women are more likely to be college educated and have professional jobs than the men. The tactic of promoting women worked well for individual women, but as a group is working overall.
The Onion had an editorial on this a while ago. Women have won the war of the sexes. Now they can do all the work, men will loaf, and loafing men can still find a woman willing to shack up with him.
Math teacher huh…. keep up the good fight. push those with the thirst to learn, and do what you can for the rest.
On a lark I took the college math class typically taken by undergraduate teacher wannabees in California’s public colleges and universities. It’s really a class that is to mathematics as music appreciation is to musicianship. At the first class meeting there was soooo much whining by many of the girls of the form, “Why do I have to know this stuff? I just want to teach second graders.”
Who is planning on teaching boys of single and divorced moms how to be men? Is mom’s current boyfriend of the moment in charge of that? How about planning that this instruction happens once every other weekend and half of the holidays? Are the boys in suspended animation the rest of their time?
Just like this country went right to heck once society and families understood it was their full-time job to teach American values to children, the boys have gone to heck because few people do more than say someone needs to teach boys to be men. You can’t read it in a book, see it in a movie, absorb it from all of the women around you. Women think men are just defective women, so all but a few women will neglect the fundamental part of raising a boy. You get Phil Donahue and Alan Alda, highly cooperative and not a drop of testosterone in sight.
Reading all of these posts, I fear for the nation for what will become of boys and thank God for the Boy Scouts of America. My son just turned 16, has never missed a day of school since kindergarten, is a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do, Eagle Scout, NRA qualified marksman with rifle and shotgun, and can handle bow, tomahawk and knife with equal ease. And he’s about average for scouts of similar age in our Troop.
I was at a convention mixer in Washington DC describing what we put our Scouts through (ages 11 through 18) when a woman at my table opined that she thought we were turning out agressive males prone to use weapons. I told her that nearly 30% of all Scouts end up in the military, civilian protection services (fire and police), as well as emergency medical services, and a polite society would be grateful for that contribution; any by the way if she ever ended up stuck on the road in the middle of nowwhere with no food, water or weather protection (in other words NOT prepared) she would pray the the man who stops to help her had been a scout because that would mean she’d get out safe and alive.
The War On Women. Wednesday, April 26, 2012
Briefly, a War On Women has been declared to be underway. The declaration came after the testimony, before Congress, of university student Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke complained, in essence, that sexual expression by women was not sufficiently easy for many women due to inadequacies in free contraception availability: Ms. Fluke stated that these inadequacies needed to be addressed by the federal government. A simple corollary to Ms. Fluke’s position is that government is somehow responsible to see that women have freer sexual expression or is responsible for convenient and free access of women to their personal sexual selves. Conservative reactions to Ms. Flukes’ position is claimed to be the proof of the existence of the War On Women.
After many years of working with people of all ages, I believe that I have developed an ear for individuals’ attempts to use verbal ‘slight-of-hand’ to move the focus of attention away from themselves. This slight of hand almost always is an indication of poor behavior on the part of the user of the trick.
So, is there a War On Women? I there is. But, it is being waged by the Administration and the Administration’s Congressional and State allies. So what is the Real War On Women?
Per the US Border Patrol, as many as 2000 underage females from Latin and Central America are smuggled through Mexico to the United States each year. These children have been stolen from families, etc. They are brought to the United States for purposes of child prostitution. This smuggling has been going on for years. Thousands and thousands of baby Latinas have been and are being raped, tortured and enslaved in the US.
Mexico is bordered by California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Together, these states have 103 members in Congress. Democrats number 63 members (61%). Republicans number 50 members (49%). 20% are women. 95% of these females members are Democratic. 10% of these members are Democrats and Latino.
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments re: Arizona’s illegal immigrants law. These enslaved baby Latinas are part of the illegal immigration battle. Stopping illegal immigration and thus stopping this slavery is every law enforcement department’s duty and every law enforcement officer’s duty. Arizona’s desire to curb illegal immigration is also a desire curb the enslavement of these children. This desire is being challenged by all Democratic Congress members, most notably women members and the Latino members of Congress.
There is a true War On Women: it is a war that is much more significant than supposed barriers to easier sexual expression: it is a war on the very lives of many women: part of this war is being waged against the prevention of the actual enslavement of women.
A War Against Women truly exists. But, it is being waged by Democrats; it is being waged on many fronts. As shown here, by their absurd desire to keep the US/Mexican border open.
Mike Malone