When I was 7 years old, around 1961, I don't remember having an opinion one way or the other about which sex was smarter. Later I would hear things about boys or girls being better at certain things, but never anything like either being superior in any general sense.
We were taught, in no uncertain terms, that boys never hit girls. Girls, however, almost never hit boys. When they did, it wasn't taken as seriously but it was, at least, stopped and addressed--usually with the admonition that it wasn't ladylike (when's the last time you heard anyone say 'ladylike', by the way?).
There were definitely sexed classes and activities, of course. Boys took shop and girls took home economics. Boys played football and baseball and girls played volleyball and softball. Anyone could be in the school band and both sexes were about equally represented.
Honestly, I can't even imagine what it would be like to be constantly denigrated and ridiculed by teachers simply for my immutable characteristics, yet today's boys are. It's not only for being boys, either. If he's white it's twice as bad for him and if he excels at anything he's told that he's privileged--not talented (or that, at least, everything's just easier for him so he shouldn't be proud).
I don't really know that many young people but the ones I do seem to be very affected by this brainwashing. The boys and men, especially, seem to be seriously lacking in self worth and many have hardly any work ethic. It's depressing as Hell.
Its says a lot about women that this situation has evolved in this way. The part about women failing to call out the misconduct of their peers but always standing with other women when a woman complains is a pretty strong indication that women as a group have a serious integrity problem...a problem serious enough that it should impact their credibility across the board.
"So the boys are getting an early gynocentric message. You better protect girls and you, little sir, are not worth protection. Just shut up and go to war."
Thank you, Tom, for including those lines. You get to the heart of what I've been trying to say for decades. I get negative responses for doing so not only from women (who have grown accustomed to the status that is supposedly due to victims) but also from men (whose identity as men seems threatened by any notion that undercuts "chivalry.") These men have struggled long and hard since childhood to accept an inherently destructive and self-destructive identity. Having already paid a heavy emotional price for doing so, they're unprepared as adults to pay an additional price for questioning everything and starting all over again.
As you say, boys must struggle for years to survive emotionally in gynocentric circumstances--that is, to accept conventional wisdom about boys and men. And what the conventional wisdom of gynocentrism amounts to is a mixed message at best. On one hand, many women now say that men should embrace their "vulnerability"--not merely to accept a lamentable but universal fact of life but to embrace it (as if any healthy person would ever do that). Maybe the idea is that this will make men more "sensitive" and thus more like women. On the other hand, many women say that they want men who are, well, "men" (that is, protective and not vulnerable). Meanwhile, boys and men face severe punishment, shame or even legal penalties, for not accepting their own "expendability" in war without even the empty promise of being repaid, if they survive, with rewards and prestige specifically as men.
Thanks Paul. I may have gotten the idea from you! Your writing has always helped me in understanding the plight of men and boys. Great books like this one! https://amzn.to/3kZ2ejq
Incisive comment. You explicate exactly the (intentional) double-blind placed on little boys in a hostile, feminist environment and nation.
'These men have struggled long and hard since childhood to accept an inherently destructive and self-destructive identity. Having already paid a heavy emotional price for doing so, they're unprepared as adults to pay an additional price for questioning everything and starting all over again.'
Exactly. Don't wanna chop the wood again, don't wanna struggle and suffer a bit again. Rather go along with evil and call it good, makes for a much smoother and more profitable life.
It is a failure of courage that keeps anglo-nation men -- 'conservatives' and Christians inclusive -- from doing what is right by themselves, and from their responsibility of protecting little boys from the gyno-gulag. The fault is THEIRS for lacking the cojones to refute females when females behave badly.
'Chivalry', btw, gained increasing power in Western lives and minds for 1000 years following the reign of the Cathars. Now fake-chivalry is the daily bread of cucky, simpy anglo men. Women are NOT 'chivalrous' . . . women use 'chivalry' as a weapon to manipulate, control, and silence weak men. Chivalry essentially is subjugation of the male to the female, whether at the Southern France courts, or in daily modern life. It means males do what females command. Who buys and watches all the 'romantic chivalry' books and films. Women, not men, because women vastly benefit from this malevolent and destructive concept.
Thank you so much Mr. Nathanson for all your fine efforts over the years. I have been watching, and my respect for you, Tom, Janice F., and Bettina grows daily. cheers michael
The notion that girls had more low self-esteem never really made sense, as boys and young men commit suicide, abuse drugs, and die of overdose at significantly hire rates. (Self-esteem, high or low, is a human thing.) In addition, boys have been doing worse in school for decades--in great part--because the educational system refuses to address brain-sex difference. In doing so, boys and girls are unable to thrive and flourish because the best pedagogical approaches are being replaced by ideological views that do not improve learning and--in general--lead to more problems at school and then outside of school.
And the conversation around violence is quite interesting because the overwhelming majority of men--and women for that matter--do not commit violence. Those who do commit violence--men and women--are very likely suffering from mental illness. Boys can certainly learn to not hit girls, but they must learn that no-one (male or female) has a right to lay a hand on them.
And remember, the 2025 US Budget mentioned women and girls 81x without mentioning boys and men. There is no doubt tens of thousands of students were required to listen to the address as part of a history class or something. What message does that send?
This is simply the culmination of decades of efforts to force boys to believe themselves inferior and inadequate. Back when I was in primary school, in the early 1960d, I had to learn the rhyme about girls being made of sugar and spice, and boys being made of frogs and snails.
That was the small beginning of the process of turning schools into torture chambers for boys.
What I find astounding is that some of the feminists proclaiming the inferiority of boys are mothers ramming this venom down the throat of their sons. What sort of ideology can turn a parent against their children?
It is startling isn't it? I have seen families with sons and daughters where the mother literally sides with the daughter as if they are under attack. Go figure.
A Supreme Victory is had when your Enemy tries to prove their point, and they prove the diametric reverse:
In Iceland, fairly recently, “The Women” decided to display how important they were in the Workforce. They went on Strike. Every employed woman on the isolated island Nation STOPPED doing their job. The Result: NOTHING HAPPENED! Everything worked just fine! The garbage was collected, the Busses worked, the cottage industry manufacturing hummed along.
The point is, both genders grow up; or rather one grows up, the other reaches a mature age. The “Iceland Experiment”, a “Matt Helm” Moment”, shows us that traditional roles are not only valid, but desirable.
Been a rabidly anti-male and anti-masculine nation since the Eighties.
Fine piece Tom, defending little boys. You are correct, society (including most 'conservative' and 'Christian' men back up the Poor Oppressed Darlings to the max. Dads of daughters become instant feminists upon the birth of princess.
I think it is too late to change that in a societal level. The west is done, and will be overcome by societies that don't harbor the same suicidal culture.
2 anecdotes, as I learned about double standards it very early age myself.
At age 4-5-ish, on a playground, I was suddenly hit by a similar aged girl. Perplexed of what happened I heard her saying: 'You are not allowed to hit girls back'. She walked off, peaking to see how I would react. But I just stood there in pain in the face and wondered, why she did that and what special was about girls that nobody is allowed to hit them.
Second anecdote was in primary school. A girl constantly harassed me for a few days(bully like) and once I snapped telling her that if she would not stop, she would drive home in an ambulance car. She immediately stopped talking and went off, just to come back with a furious teacher on how I would dare to threaten her and so on. I did not defend myself as I knew it would be in vain. As a side note: I never threatened or hit anyone in my life. The teacher knew that but would not consider once that the girl was the baddy. Boys are the vilains by default. A good character does not protect one.
When I was 7 years old, around 1961, I don't remember having an opinion one way or the other about which sex was smarter. Later I would hear things about boys or girls being better at certain things, but never anything like either being superior in any general sense.
We were taught, in no uncertain terms, that boys never hit girls. Girls, however, almost never hit boys. When they did, it wasn't taken as seriously but it was, at least, stopped and addressed--usually with the admonition that it wasn't ladylike (when's the last time you heard anyone say 'ladylike', by the way?).
There were definitely sexed classes and activities, of course. Boys took shop and girls took home economics. Boys played football and baseball and girls played volleyball and softball. Anyone could be in the school band and both sexes were about equally represented.
Honestly, I can't even imagine what it would be like to be constantly denigrated and ridiculed by teachers simply for my immutable characteristics, yet today's boys are. It's not only for being boys, either. If he's white it's twice as bad for him and if he excels at anything he's told that he's privileged--not talented (or that, at least, everything's just easier for him so he shouldn't be proud).
I don't really know that many young people but the ones I do seem to be very affected by this brainwashing. The boys and men, especially, seem to be seriously lacking in self worth and many have hardly any work ethic. It's depressing as Hell.
Fine comment.
Its says a lot about women that this situation has evolved in this way. The part about women failing to call out the misconduct of their peers but always standing with other women when a woman complains is a pretty strong indication that women as a group have a serious integrity problem...a problem serious enough that it should impact their credibility across the board.
Precisely.
"So the boys are getting an early gynocentric message. You better protect girls and you, little sir, are not worth protection. Just shut up and go to war."
Thank you, Tom, for including those lines. You get to the heart of what I've been trying to say for decades. I get negative responses for doing so not only from women (who have grown accustomed to the status that is supposedly due to victims) but also from men (whose identity as men seems threatened by any notion that undercuts "chivalry.") These men have struggled long and hard since childhood to accept an inherently destructive and self-destructive identity. Having already paid a heavy emotional price for doing so, they're unprepared as adults to pay an additional price for questioning everything and starting all over again.
As you say, boys must struggle for years to survive emotionally in gynocentric circumstances--that is, to accept conventional wisdom about boys and men. And what the conventional wisdom of gynocentrism amounts to is a mixed message at best. On one hand, many women now say that men should embrace their "vulnerability"--not merely to accept a lamentable but universal fact of life but to embrace it (as if any healthy person would ever do that). Maybe the idea is that this will make men more "sensitive" and thus more like women. On the other hand, many women say that they want men who are, well, "men" (that is, protective and not vulnerable). Meanwhile, boys and men face severe punishment, shame or even legal penalties, for not accepting their own "expendability" in war without even the empty promise of being repaid, if they survive, with rewards and prestige specifically as men.
Thanks Paul. I may have gotten the idea from you! Your writing has always helped me in understanding the plight of men and boys. Great books like this one! https://amzn.to/3kZ2ejq
Incisive comment. You explicate exactly the (intentional) double-blind placed on little boys in a hostile, feminist environment and nation.
'These men have struggled long and hard since childhood to accept an inherently destructive and self-destructive identity. Having already paid a heavy emotional price for doing so, they're unprepared as adults to pay an additional price for questioning everything and starting all over again.'
Exactly. Don't wanna chop the wood again, don't wanna struggle and suffer a bit again. Rather go along with evil and call it good, makes for a much smoother and more profitable life.
It is a failure of courage that keeps anglo-nation men -- 'conservatives' and Christians inclusive -- from doing what is right by themselves, and from their responsibility of protecting little boys from the gyno-gulag. The fault is THEIRS for lacking the cojones to refute females when females behave badly.
'Chivalry', btw, gained increasing power in Western lives and minds for 1000 years following the reign of the Cathars. Now fake-chivalry is the daily bread of cucky, simpy anglo men. Women are NOT 'chivalrous' . . . women use 'chivalry' as a weapon to manipulate, control, and silence weak men. Chivalry essentially is subjugation of the male to the female, whether at the Southern France courts, or in daily modern life. It means males do what females command. Who buys and watches all the 'romantic chivalry' books and films. Women, not men, because women vastly benefit from this malevolent and destructive concept.
Thank you so much Mr. Nathanson for all your fine efforts over the years. I have been watching, and my respect for you, Tom, Janice F., and Bettina grows daily. cheers michael
The notion that girls had more low self-esteem never really made sense, as boys and young men commit suicide, abuse drugs, and die of overdose at significantly hire rates. (Self-esteem, high or low, is a human thing.) In addition, boys have been doing worse in school for decades--in great part--because the educational system refuses to address brain-sex difference. In doing so, boys and girls are unable to thrive and flourish because the best pedagogical approaches are being replaced by ideological views that do not improve learning and--in general--lead to more problems at school and then outside of school.
And the conversation around violence is quite interesting because the overwhelming majority of men--and women for that matter--do not commit violence. Those who do commit violence--men and women--are very likely suffering from mental illness. Boys can certainly learn to not hit girls, but they must learn that no-one (male or female) has a right to lay a hand on them.
And remember, the 2025 US Budget mentioned women and girls 81x without mentioning boys and men. There is no doubt tens of thousands of students were required to listen to the address as part of a history class or something. What message does that send?
Remember, boys and men are good and so are you.
Message? Same one I've heard for fifty years: you ain't shit, toxic male. The Future is Female!
Yeah the future is XX all right. Don't ask Y.
This is simply the culmination of decades of efforts to force boys to believe themselves inferior and inadequate. Back when I was in primary school, in the early 1960d, I had to learn the rhyme about girls being made of sugar and spice, and boys being made of frogs and snails.
That was the small beginning of the process of turning schools into torture chambers for boys.
Indeed. sugar and spice and relational aggression! lol
What I find astounding is that some of the feminists proclaiming the inferiority of boys are mothers ramming this venom down the throat of their sons. What sort of ideology can turn a parent against their children?
It is startling isn't it? I have seen families with sons and daughters where the mother literally sides with the daughter as if they are under attack. Go figure.
A Supreme Victory is had when your Enemy tries to prove their point, and they prove the diametric reverse:
In Iceland, fairly recently, “The Women” decided to display how important they were in the Workforce. They went on Strike. Every employed woman on the isolated island Nation STOPPED doing their job. The Result: NOTHING HAPPENED! Everything worked just fine! The garbage was collected, the Busses worked, the cottage industry manufacturing hummed along.
“The Women” Were Wrong!
Wait until men go on strike. The almighty Grlls will not like their suddenly stopped world, believe it!
What will the Grlls do then? Rage against us and oppress us all the more. Triple-down.
They already don’t like the fact that we’ve “gone our own way! Wait until services cease!
BTW: Guys from Feminist Hearth Zones were MGTOW, before it was a thing!
The almighty Grrls HATE MGTOW.
They have only 2 emotions now: constant resentment, and constant rage.
The point is, both genders grow up; or rather one grows up, the other reaches a mature age. The “Iceland Experiment”, a “Matt Helm” Moment”, shows us that traditional roles are not only valid, but desirable.
Are you reffering to the feminist strike over there in the 70s?
Been a rabidly anti-male and anti-masculine nation since the Eighties.
Fine piece Tom, defending little boys. You are correct, society (including most 'conservative' and 'Christian' men back up the Poor Oppressed Darlings to the max. Dads of daughters become instant feminists upon the birth of princess.
I think it is too late to change that in a societal level. The west is done, and will be overcome by societies that don't harbor the same suicidal culture.
If we complain or speak out we are brutally criticized and ridiculed as being weak and feminine. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
2 anecdotes, as I learned about double standards it very early age myself.
At age 4-5-ish, on a playground, I was suddenly hit by a similar aged girl. Perplexed of what happened I heard her saying: 'You are not allowed to hit girls back'. She walked off, peaking to see how I would react. But I just stood there in pain in the face and wondered, why she did that and what special was about girls that nobody is allowed to hit them.
Second anecdote was in primary school. A girl constantly harassed me for a few days(bully like) and once I snapped telling her that if she would not stop, she would drive home in an ambulance car. She immediately stopped talking and went off, just to come back with a furious teacher on how I would dare to threaten her and so on. I did not defend myself as I knew it would be in vain. As a side note: I never threatened or hit anyone in my life. The teacher knew that but would not consider once that the girl was the baddy. Boys are the vilains by default. A good character does not protect one.