Boy bashing: Some say girl power movement may have gone too far

Alameda Times-Star ^ | Sunday, January 11, 2004 | Monique Beeler

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Will all of your wifes, I mean screen names be joining you tonight?

[Old Student]

"I think teachers and professors should keep their political views to themselves as much as possible, and simply teach the curriculum."

That would be all well and good if they would actually do it; unfortunately, most do not.

I want to teach both (or more) sides of all the issues, where and when ever possible. I don't mind the kids knowing there is more than one way to look at something, and while I hope they'll chose mine or one not too different from it, as long as they know WHY they made a choice, I'll be happy. As long as why isn't that they didn't get any other choices.

I've spent my time being the lone conservative in a classroom,too, so I know what you mean about that. Since I have another year or so to go, I ain't done yet, either.

[Old Student]

"Women are really only good for one thing anyway."

Quite a few of them cook well, but what else are they good for? My wife is an excellent writer and artist, among other things. You may have missed some interesting conversations if all you were interested in was food. ;)

[Old Student]

"I told her I half hoped so, as it reminded me of a story I heard 20-odd years ago..."

You need to watch where you point that blasted sword! Keep your son out of the way! ;)

But do take it to see his principal when/if he does get in trouble, won't you?

[Woahhs]

First, I'd be more than happy to accept a change of tone for this discussion. I'm not one to flame for flame's sake, but I also have absolutely no aversion to it.

Also, thank you for the story behind your reasoning. I don't agree with the conclusions you've drawn from it, for many reasons, but at least you've provided context for your vehemence.

I have a longstanding postion on this matter here at FR, and it is this: it is not in the best interests of men to allow women, and those males that collaborate with them, to dictate the ground-rules under which conflict between the sexes is carried out. Men have allowed women to frame the debate for far too long, seldom recognizing that framework shifts according to womens desired goals. My position is not "men need help," but men need to refuse to give in to the duplicity of formulae such as "she's sensitive, but he's being a baby." And while you might not advocate allowing women to "stack the deck" against men in principle, that's what your stated position becomes in practice.

I have no problem with your decision to "sit out" the gender-wars. I have a big problem with derision, insult, and name-calling to coerce others to join your position of passivity. After all, as I've said in so many words already, it's not your ox being gored.

I understand your "becoming that which you hate" idea, though I frankly think such fears are melodramatic. There was never any chance of allies becoming nazis, or visa versa, because both were shooting at each other.

As I see it, the problem in your narrative is the Southern partisans de facto accepted the chauvinistic premises of their yankee antagonists, and tried to argue using metaphorical weapons picked by their opposition. So in effect, they were both on the same side, analogous to the nazis vs. the soviets. To the nazis, soviets were not ideological enemies, but heretics.

You can, of course, continue to insist pulling triggers makes feminists and their opponents sides of a coin, but I know "why" the triggers are pulled makes all the difference.