Centerfield

"From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this."

If that's the case, then school districts have been discriminating against boys since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. In fact, classrooms are much more tolerant of students' questioning authority nowadays than they've ever been.

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far to one side in terms of social support for girls in school. But a simpler explanation is that girls tend to mature faster than boys. Males, however, usually catch up later.

It all goes back to discipline. "Sit down and pay attention" had real effect when the consequence was physical abuse, but now? Now children have no incentive to behave.

Our schools have been feminized too much.

Boys are discouraged from writing about what they know. They want to write about cops and robbers, cowboys and indians. Things that involve guns. They want to read books about sports, but all of this is discouraged by the PC crowd who want to make boys be kinder and gentler

It's hard for boys to learn if they're not allowed to burn off excess energy at recess. Even there, the boys are told they have to act more like girls. No cops and robbers because that involves guns. No tag because it makes the person who's "it" feel bad. No dodge-ball because somebody could get hurt.

Yeah, staunch, that's a point I agree with, that I didn't have time to get around to...I have almost zero sympathy for students complaining that school should not involve paying attention and following instructions. Some aspects of school as it is are practically inherent in providing education.

So to those who say I don't want to be quiet, sit still, listen, or behave, my attitude is "tough crap!"

Have our schools been "feminized" too much? Maybe, but previously they were almost entirely unfeminized. I think a good arguement can be nmade for striving to help both boys and girsl become more well-rounded than past generations were. But to the extent that some pedagogy might be construed as pathologizing the natural tendencies of young males, that might be a problem. There's a need for a real line between genuine socialization and pathologizing...

I've heard stories about schools outlawing tag and dodge ball, and that's absolutely ridiculous. Kids need to learn how to win and lose respectably, and those games teach them that at an early age.

But I've always assumed that those bans were extremely rare. That's why it makes the news when it happens.

Am I wrong? Are more places banning tag than allowing it?

I don't think you could stop kids from playing Tag if you tried. Besides, girls play those games too. I always liked Tag far more than playing House.

Why is it that when something is "Feminized" it's bad? Why are female qualities held up as something to be avoided? Why is it ok for girls to be "masculineized”, but boys being "Feminized" is a sign of the end times?

I always liked Tag far more than playing House.

Would it be inappropriate for me to note that I find the above mildly arousing?

(Perhaps my hesitance is the result of my school-age feminization. ...Nah, I was really good at dodge ball.)

Why is it that when something is "Feminized" it's bad? Why are female qualities held up as something to be avoided? Why is it ok for girls to be "masculineized”, but boys being "Feminized" is a sign of the end times?

Rick, this feels a little "straw-mannish" to me. Who said it's OK to masculinize girls?

I can't speak for everyone, but IMO the way to view the issue is to see both qualities as desirable and supplementary, and to seek to foster well-rounded individuals. I don't object to feminization if its goal is to supplement a boy's nature, but if it demonizes a boy's nature, maybe that's a problem.

My sense is that those who object to feminization percieve it as an effort to replace male qualities with feminine qualities, in part because many male qualities are inherently undesirable. And even if one is open to looking at it as I previously suggested (that the qualities can be supplementary and produce well-rounded individuals), it's not IMO honest to adopt this view exclusively and overlook the extent to which conceived male and female "virtues" are in conflict and even contradictory.

In other words, I think there's a lot to be said for "vive la difference," and that those complaining about feminization might really just be saying that...

"Why is it that when something is "Feminized" it's bad? Why are female qualities held up as something to be avoided? Why is it ok for girls to be "masculineized”, but boys being "Feminized" is a sign of the end times?"
-------------------------------------------------

No one is saying that Rick. What's being said is to simply let people be who they are. Let boys be boys and let girls be girls.

There is nothing wrong with letting boys rough-house a little at recess or play dodge-ball, cops and robbers, etc

Just like there is nothing wrong with letting girls play doll-house or dress-up.

The PC crowd is obsessed with trying to force people into the roles that THEY think are appropriate for them, regardless of whether those roles happen to fit those individuals or not. Thus little girls are absolutely pilloried if they happen to express that they WANT to grow up to be mommies and houswives....they are led to believe that they have no value if they aren't interested in pursuing a career...... and rather then encouraging little boys to channel thier natural agression into things like sports and games, they are being told that they must supress such emotions...because agression is evil and bad in ALL circumstances..... which just ins't true.

Political correctness in general is an interesting phenomenon to me. It seems to constitute a vain attempt to redefine, perhaps deny, the realities of human existence. And to what end? I'm not sure that the proponents of political correctness even know. I find it bizarre.

Totally agreed. I just don't believe that ultimately the word police have a coherent goal.

The one that always make me laugh is this. It slowly became unacceptable to talk about "colored people." Then years later, the battle started to try and force people to refer to various minorities as "people of color." Sorry folks, but these phrases transmit the same meaning (unless you insist on bringing the baggage of the speakers and the hearers into the equation, and making things more complicated than they need to be).

Which reminds me of a line I heard the other day: get off the cross and use the wood to build a bridge to get over it.

WHQ,

I believe the PC crowd views itself as crusaders against a world view that strips individuals of thier personal liberty; tries to enforce strict comformation to arbitrarly defined rules of behavior; sorts individuals into narrow pre-defined catagories based upon superficial attributes and pillories with righteous indignation anyone who questions it's self-appointed authority to enforce such dictums.

It's interesting that thier prefered method for pursuing such a goal is to adopt..... a world view that strips individuals of thier personal liberty; tries to enforce strict comformation to arbitrarly defined rules of behavior; sorts individuals into narrow pre-defined catagories based upon superficial attributes and pillories with righteous indignation anyone who questions it's self-appointed authority to enforce such dictums.

Funny, that's how I always felt about gender roles, which have been far more strictly enforced than any imaginary PC bogey.

Both sexes are equally rambunctious when it comes getting dirty, mouthing off, and raising hell, but girls are kept on a much shorter leash than boys are. If Eve rips her best party clothes because she climbed a tree, then she gets scolded. If Steve does the same thing, it just means he's "all boy". If Ann plays in a mudpuddle, she gets spanked. If Dan plays in a mudpuddle, he gets a pat on the head. If Mary fidgits in church, she's told sternly to sit still, or else. If Gary does the same thing, he gets his GI Joe or a crossword puzzle to play with so he won't distract the other worshppers.

Of course, by the time they reach grade school, where it becomes important to keep clean, keep still and follow directions, then Eve, Ann and Mary all have a few years headstart on Steve, Dan and Gary. How unfair!

I always liked Tag far more than playing House.

Would it be inappropriate for me to note that I find the above mildly arousing?

Probably for this blog, WHQ, but we play a lot rougher over at Pandagon, so don't sweat it. ;-)

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when Kid McLawsuit tells his superior officers that he's too macho to clean his rifle, stick to a schedule, or follow orders, and therefore he deserves a promotion instead of a court martial.