She is not "worrying"; you are quoting her (erroneous) attempts to compare boys and girls in order to show that girls, as she concludes, are superior and men are lemmings. There is no concern - quoting statistics as a means to put across a feminist message does not equate to showing support. Notice how once she's finished quoting the statistics of illness, crime and suicide, she immediately moves on to say how, "At the same time, girls tend to knock the socks off boys at school." She doesn't sound too worried about the statistics she just quoted, does she? Why is the title and sub-title of the article have nothing to do with concern over these male issues? Why is it written by a radical feminist?(Original post by pickup)
This is the research she quotes:
In his precis, he argued: "The human male is, on most measures, more vulnerable than the female. Part of the explanation is the biological fragility of the male fetus … A typical attitude to boys is that they are, or must be made, more resilient than girls. This adds social insult to biological injury."
( This is worrying about boys - biological fragility )
He goes on to elaborate that male babies are more likely to be born prematurely or at risk of developmental disorders such as autism. They boast poor motor and cognitive regulation, leading to misjudgment of risk, encouraging accidents, crime, drug-taking and violence. They kill themselves and die in greater numbers – patterns that continue into adult life. Even merely at an environmental level, boys appear to suffer more from asthma, exposure to lead, insecticides and plasticisers.
( This is worrying about boys/men - susceptibility to some diseases / incidence of suicide etc the 'lemmings 'comment . )
Kraemer's thesis was supported in 2013 by a report published in Pediatrics, which came to strikingly similar conclusions, based on new statistics. Dr Chris Feudtner, a paediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who led the study, remarked: "This could be a story of resilience and ability to overcome. Maybe there's some robustness factor that males are missing?"
( This is worrying about men)
How can we tackle the problems boys/ men have if we won't acknowledge them? She is complaining exactly that, that we worry about girls but ignore boys, by saying they are the strong sex. This does them no favours.
Shouldn't we be worried about boys' poor performance in exams? high crime rate? high suicide rate? and do something about it? Are these statistics an indication that we have ignored boys'/men's issues for too long to their cost and societies'?
We need to acknowledge them in order to do something about it. Research like this is very important and more money should be put into projects like these.
If men refuse to believe that there is a problem and treat any highlighting of the problems as personal criticism, instead of criticism of how society is ignoring them and their physical/ mental issues then nothing will ever be done about it and men will continue to show stress symptoms like high suicide rates.
You have decided to read it in a completely fictional way. Of course these male issues are important - but that's not the point here. The point is that it is not the intention of the author to raise concern for male health issues and there is not a single grounded indication of that in the article - if anything, her use of them in such an immature and insincere way is a mockery.
Feminism = Female Supremacism: Men are the weaker sex. Watch
- 21-07-2014 12:54
- 21-07-2014 12:55
- 21-07-2014 13:21
- 21-07-2014 20:52
I haven't been bothered to read through the thread but I thought feminism was about women being equal not being better