Originally posted by pfflam
You work with real women? More than one?
Funny thing Trumpt, but I actually agree with you about much of what you are talking about: the reform of paternity laws for instance, the fact that schools are geared for a kind of learning that is more appropriate to the form of knowledge acquisition that girls tend to be made for . . . there may be a thing or two in there as well that I mught agree with . .
I work almost exclusively with women. 90%+ of elementary educators are women. My principal and AP are both women as well. If I don't get along well with women, then I don't get through the day.
As for agreeing with me on tort reform and education being currently geared in a manner that might disadvantage boys... that just means you hate women. I mean advocating any change or reform of the system means you want women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. That is what you and others imply all the time.
I work in a system that is overwhelmingly staffed and run by women. When you look at this system you see that boys are failed at and failed by the system at rates grossly disproportionate to their numbers. Any suggestion of change is called hate of women, wanting to disempower women, etc. That is nonsense.
But, you will note that I was specifically refering to this out-of-the-blue, and truly bizzar post about Groverat and his 'jump' saying white-caller wife (?!?!)
. . . it seemed to me to indicate some kind of fear of being 'whipped' . . . after all, men seem to hate the notion of being 'whipped' or 'hen pecked'
What I was referring to is people who lie down their own rights in some self-loathing attempt to prove that they want to equalize another group. It could be affluent folks attempting to act underclass or men for example, refusing to make full use of their gifts. The reality is that if you believe that you have to bring yourself down because another cannot rise up, that really means you think less of the other party, not more. It means you are deciding to make yourself less to keep things equal and less comfortable since you don't believe they could ever meet your level of achievement. It isn't about being whipped, it is about holding yourself back because you believe that it promotes equality. That is wrong.
But usually I find that men who go on about that are also overly concerned about some sort of fictional and imaginary status of 'manhood', and/or, are working out all the slights that they got when they were unpopular geeks in that torture chamber known as highschool.
I find that people who worry about popularity are often unprincipled. I have no horrible past with terrible issues that you might imagine. Of course if I mention that or any details then others here say "gee your just boasting" when you correct their strange delusions.
Let's just say I was the only person in the school who was both a starter on the football team for four years and also the top player in the band. I lettered in track for three years and graduated with various academic honors as well. I don't really know how you measure "popularity" since I don't truly care about such things. I think some might measure it by how many "brews" you drink after the game on Friday night before you attempt to bed your girlfriend in the bushes at some party.
I'm an occasional social drinker, but generally I don't drink. I will say this though, I never had any trouble getting dates, and any girl that was a valerdictorian or in the top five or so academically, in not only my class but in classes two years above or below mine, I dated because I enjoy smart women. My own wife is a college graduate with honors.
But anyway . . . whether that is you or not, and I am not saying that it is, I did find that paragraph to be the kind that a troubled person -re:relations to the other sex- might make . . . and coupled with the shear quantity of threads devoted to issues surrounding that 'sensetive' area . . . I, perhaps hastily, painted a forensic model of the perpettrator . . . oh well, you say I was wrong, so be it.
Maybe the shear number of threads is in direct proportion to the thickness of your skull.
I mean say I've posted even say 50 of them. If I can find can find so many instances of injustice and yet you claim anyone wanting to fix the problem "irrationally hates women" then that really says something about my need to keep educating you.
BTW, yeah, I'm all for high expectations . . . I am also for reality and for real people who live with real conditions.
No one said to ignore reality. People like myself suggest economically based affirmative action all the time. If a group is disproportionately poor, then they would disproportionately benefit. The reality though is that people want to make it about race or gender because they have some irrational belief that if you are white or male, you could never be disadvantaged.
and I'm very much Irish and know about 'all that' so don't try to throw that shit at me .. . I also made it very clear that I was talking about western history . . . and know very well that we abuse our own here in white man land . . . . and in other lands: abuse also occurs . . . so what? it does not negate teh fact that abuse can be slightly emiliorated through minimal care and attention, and if not that then at least acknowledgement should be paid to the realities of its complexity and its mere existence.
For making it so clear, you are getting rather foggy. The reality is that you can't just claim certain people are the only ones who have been victimized. If your Irish, then you know how stupid I would look if I claimed you had some sort of historical privilege based on your background and that you should be intentionally denied opportunities now because of the background of another person.
Your answer for the fact that repression of freedom and opportunity was EVERYWHERE in history? So what?!?!
I mean Native American tribes often enslaved other tribes, but, so what... it is all whitey's fault. Same of other "races" (race is a nonsense historical term anyway) as well. So lets keep using the same stupid thinking of antiquity that led to all those problems in our own modern world.
Oh, and let me guess, tough men don't bemoan death?!
I guess I'm not that tough after all.
You were the one with the macho phrasing. I point out real instances, instances you and I can both agree injustic can exist and your reply was basically suck it up and stop whining. The point is don't tell me to be callous injustice in one instance and be very sensitive to it in others. It isn't consistant.