Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Derpetology101's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
PAUL NATHANSON's avatar

"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.

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts