I came across this when I was gathering information for this post. This is an excerpt from a book that's more than twenty years old now, but things like this still go on. We'll be writing more about it. The book is called "Overexposed: Treating Sexual Perversions in America" by Sylvere Lotringer. This excerpt is a personal account by a teenager who was convicted of a sex offense. At age 17 he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old. This is something out of "Clockwork Orange," only scarier.
They gave me a five-year probation and I had to promise that I would go back and forth from Dayton to this clinic in Chicago...They make it look like it’s voluntary, but half the people go to the clinic only because they sign a piece of paper. Have you been to the clinic? There’s this guard at the door. You’re not allowed to go in by yourself. You’ve got to wait downstairs so you don’t get to the other floors and rape the personnel-that’s why. You go every two weeks, and every time then probation officer knows you’ve been there. If you don’t go, you’re in trouble. They’d put you back in jail.
At the clinic they give you all these tests to fill out about what was wrong with you and how you feel about your problems. Of course I had to go along with it, all the quizzes and things to screen you, like, “I’m feeling a little girl’s underpants,” and how it arouses you, from 1 to 10. It didn’t arouse me, but I did it anyway. How are you going to be truthful if they’re going to lock you back up?
…After that they give you this test where they connect this thing called a “penile transducer” and they let you watch this slide show. If you get an erection, it’ll come out on the computer. They let you see these slides of adults, children, and a whole bunch of other things…it’s frustrating because it gets you horny and it stays in your mind. They’ll have you do stuff like counting backwards from a hundred in threes to get whatever it is off your mind. It can take ten minutes sometimes. So it’s very aggravating to sit there in the dark doing this counting over and over again dealing with getting erections…
A year later they put me on Depo-Provera. According to the tests, I needed it. This drug would stop you from getting an erection to anything…They said, “you can stop whenever you want.” So I stopped, and they threatened to stop seeing me because I hadn’t asked ahead of time. And if they had stopped seeing me, then the court would have said, “well, we gave him a chance and now he can go back to jail.” So in order for me to pass the test, I would have to not be aroused at all. Then they gave me the test to make sure I was taking it. So I had to cheat the test…The only thing they work with is your penis…Now if you close your eyes or pinch yourself when you peak, to stop an erection from coming, they wouldn’t know. They figure I’m on the drug and that’s why I don’t have an erection…
The doctor wouldn’t let me quit. I was taking 100 milligrams a day for about two weeks. I had less sex drive, but I was getting sick. So I just stopped. I went over to the clinic and told the doctor what I did, and he had a heart attack. He told me that I was the doctor, then, so I shouldn’t even come and see him because I didn’t listen to him. He said that if I did it one more time, he’d take me off the course…And you know what taking me off would mean once the judge found out. So I stopped taking the drug, but I kept filling out these forms asking, “how many times did you get an erection today?” I just wrote, “low.” I’d lie along to make it look like I was taking the drug…
After the social-skill group, they start you out with what is called “masturbatory satiation” sessions. They give you an hour-long cassette and you’re supposed to masturbate out loud for an hour, in your own home, in private. The doctor talks it over with you first. I did it. I took the tape home. It gets boring, like they say…
So I did it, but I felt exactly the same. I didn’t see any change at all. A lot of people came in and said it changed their ways, but they were all liars. They even told me on the side just to stop doing them.
I started with the masturbation, but after a few sessions I just talked into the tape recorder for an hour. Because it didn’t do me any good…I still got off on the same stuff. I knew inside my head what turned me on. Everybody was telling me to cheat. Talk into the tape recorder and don’t masturbate. So that’s what I did…Everyone does it.
After ten weeks, they give you the test again. That’s when people cheated. It’s like a fight with the computer. Every little movement and it goes on and off. Some people close their eyes or stick a tack in their shoes and press on it to pinch their toes and stop the erection from coming...You see, once I’m through going there, I’ll be another “success” for them…
Most people say they’ve been treated just to get out of here, but others will be honest. They get put in a group with this other doctor. That’s when the drug comes into the picture…He’ll talk you into the drug, into increasing the dosage more and more, like he did to me. The way he put it, you couldn’t say no. There’s no research data to support whether the drug does damage or not…
Then the drug started. The side effects were cold spells, sweating. They gave me two more drugs to stop those. I felt worse than before, so I threw them all out. I could never reach him. I just kept getting the message machine. Anyway I started pretending I was taking the drug. They would try to catch me off guard by making me take the test. I’d cheat and fake it and pass it.
There are a lot of people who aren’t open at the clinic. The ones who aren’t open are the worst, because they get depressed. They think there’s something wrong with them. So they would go through the whole thing, thinking they could get help from it...I had the same thing happen to me. You feel so bad, you start thinking of suicide…I tried to kill myself in jail. The pants I used to hang myself ripped.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Sickening: How a 17-year-old 'sex offender' (he had sex with a 15 year-old) was 'cured' of his 'deviancy'
I came across this when I was gathering information for this post. This is an excerpt from a book that's more than twenty years old now, but things like this still go on. We'll be writing more about it. The book is called "Overexposed: Treating Sexual Perversions in America" by Sylvere Lotringer. This excerpt is a personal account by a teenager who was convicted of a sex offense. At age 17 he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old. This is something out of "Clockwork Orange," only scarier.
Surprise! Another college 'rape' that never happened -- this time at Dartmouth
A female student at Dartmouth claimed that a college-aged male, about 6 feet tall, with an average build and no facial hair (and how many Dartmouth male students does that described?), entered her residence hall room at 10:25 p.m. last Sunday and tried to sexually assault her. The man allegedly pushed her down and pulled off her pants, but she kicked and yelled at him, and he then fled. The woman described him as wearing a dark winter coat, dark baseball cap and winter boots. Police said the student didn't recognize the man.
The reported attack resulted in a campus-wide crime alert being sent by Harry Kinne, director of Safety and Security. A campuswide e-mail urged students to lock their dorm rooms. "I appreciated getting the e-mail," said sophomore Katie De Le Rosa. "Knowing that that stuff happens is important to me."
After the allegation, Dartmouth's student newspaper reported the alleged attack by making sure everyone knew it really happened: "Safety and Security and Hanover Police are working to identify an unknown male suspect who entered a residential hall and sexually assaulted a female student on Sunday evening, Director of Safety and Security and College Proctor Harry Kinne told The Dartmouth. . . . . The suspect pushed the woman down and removed her pants, but fled after the victim kicked and yelled, Kinne wrote in the e-mail." (Note that the man didn't "allegedly" enter the room, he "entered" the room; he didn't "allegedly" assault the accuser, he "assaulted" her; he wasn't an "alleged" suspect -- you get the point. At Dartmouth, words apparently don't matter.)
Director of Safety and Security and College Proctor Harry Kinne made problematic statements suggesting that an assault, in fact, occurred, even though the police investigation was ongoing: “We want people to know when something like this happens so that they’re aware and can take precautions,” Kinne said. “Any time there’s an incident like this — any place on the campus — we have the same level of concern."
What was "something like this," Mr. Kinne? You did not mean an allegation under investigation -- you easily could have said that but didn't. You meant an attempted sexual assault. Even though you had no idea if an attempted rape had actually occurred. Why would you not simply issue an email alert advising that a student had made the allegation, noting that it was being investigated by police?
If you were a college-age male at Dartmouth who is approximately six feet tall and has an average build and no facial hair -- and, again, that must describe hundreds of young men -- you can be assured that at least some women, and some men who don't fit your description, were looking at you with suspicion this week. I suspect a few guys started to grow beards or mustaches this week.
It turns out -- surprise! -- according to the Union Leader: "No one tried to rape a Dartmouth College student in her dormitory room, a [Hanover] police investigation concluded." And: "Police said the sexual assault never happened." And: "Hanover police, with the assistance of the college's Safety and Security, conducted numerous interviews over several days and concluded the incident is unfounded and there is no risk to the Dartmouth community or threat to public safety."
It didn't happen. There is no risk to Dartmouth. So will the accuser be charged with a crime? Police Chief Nicholas Giaccone said, "Not at this time." Why not? And why is that not more of a concern?
Suppose one or more of those college-age males at Dartmouth who are approximately six feet tall and have an average build and no facial hair had been arrested and identified by the rape accuser. Their lives would have been effectively destroyed, even if none of them were convicted. Doesn't happen? Spend a few weeks reading through this blog to open your eyes.
Nor would the police release the name of the individual who filed the report but they confirmed it was a Dartmouth College student. You can be certain that if one of those young men who matched the description had been arrested, his name would have been splashed all over the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation -- and good luck if he tried to get a good job after that since any prospective employer would be able to Google his name and learn of the horrid allegation. That, too, is perfectly OK, right?
So students can rest easy, right? Wrong. One news report said: "Police said that although this case was unfounded, students still should take precautions such as locking their dorm room doors, partnering with a trusted friend when going out in the evening, avoid drinking too much and not letting strangers into their dormitories."
Instead of using this false report to raise awareness about a crime that didn't occur, shouldn't this incident be used to urge students -- more specifically, male students -- to take precautions to insure their lives are not destroyed by a false rape claim?
And regardless of what police told the local paper, The Union Leader, that the alleged attack never occurred, some students used the hoax as an occasion to politic: “Although I’m ignorant to the facts of this particular situation, the word ‘unfounded’ suggests to me that reporting an incident is unsafe and possibly humiliating, and that in order to prove a case I have to be 100 percent certain,” said a co-chair of the Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault.
In fact, the term "unfounded" is not a term of art. Different jurisdictions "use different definitions of, or criteria for, 'unfounded.'" B. Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, Dec. 22, 2008.
Will this "rape" that never happened be added to Dartmouth's tally of sexual assaults for 2011? I will not be surprised if it is.
So, again, we have yet another college rape claim, and yet another rape lie. College campuses are among the safest places in America. As Heather MacDonald said in "Campus Rape Myth": "It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown?"
No, somehow, it means that college campuses are cisterns of male predatory activity. The fact that there is precisely no evidence for that aside from the stardust wishfulness of the sexual grievance industry is beside the point.
Sources: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dartmouth+College+sexual+assault+fictitious&articleId=29b69e37-275d-4685-a093-5a569a6e526b; http://www.wmur.com/news/26528021/detail.html; http://www.wmur.com/r/26558790/detail.html; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/20/news/investigation; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/18/news/assault; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/21/news/assault
The reported attack resulted in a campus-wide crime alert being sent by Harry Kinne, director of Safety and Security. A campuswide e-mail urged students to lock their dorm rooms. "I appreciated getting the e-mail," said sophomore Katie De Le Rosa. "Knowing that that stuff happens is important to me."
After the allegation, Dartmouth's student newspaper reported the alleged attack by making sure everyone knew it really happened: "Safety and Security and Hanover Police are working to identify an unknown male suspect who entered a residential hall and sexually assaulted a female student on Sunday evening, Director of Safety and Security and College Proctor Harry Kinne told The Dartmouth. . . . . The suspect pushed the woman down and removed her pants, but fled after the victim kicked and yelled, Kinne wrote in the e-mail." (Note that the man didn't "allegedly" enter the room, he "entered" the room; he didn't "allegedly" assault the accuser, he "assaulted" her; he wasn't an "alleged" suspect -- you get the point. At Dartmouth, words apparently don't matter.)
Director of Safety and Security and College Proctor Harry Kinne made problematic statements suggesting that an assault, in fact, occurred, even though the police investigation was ongoing: “We want people to know when something like this happens so that they’re aware and can take precautions,” Kinne said. “Any time there’s an incident like this — any place on the campus — we have the same level of concern."
What was "something like this," Mr. Kinne? You did not mean an allegation under investigation -- you easily could have said that but didn't. You meant an attempted sexual assault. Even though you had no idea if an attempted rape had actually occurred. Why would you not simply issue an email alert advising that a student had made the allegation, noting that it was being investigated by police?
If you were a college-age male at Dartmouth who is approximately six feet tall and has an average build and no facial hair -- and, again, that must describe hundreds of young men -- you can be assured that at least some women, and some men who don't fit your description, were looking at you with suspicion this week. I suspect a few guys started to grow beards or mustaches this week.
It turns out -- surprise! -- according to the Union Leader: "No one tried to rape a Dartmouth College student in her dormitory room, a [Hanover] police investigation concluded." And: "Police said the sexual assault never happened." And: "Hanover police, with the assistance of the college's Safety and Security, conducted numerous interviews over several days and concluded the incident is unfounded and there is no risk to the Dartmouth community or threat to public safety."
It didn't happen. There is no risk to Dartmouth. So will the accuser be charged with a crime? Police Chief Nicholas Giaccone said, "Not at this time." Why not? And why is that not more of a concern?
Suppose one or more of those college-age males at Dartmouth who are approximately six feet tall and have an average build and no facial hair had been arrested and identified by the rape accuser. Their lives would have been effectively destroyed, even if none of them were convicted. Doesn't happen? Spend a few weeks reading through this blog to open your eyes.
Nor would the police release the name of the individual who filed the report but they confirmed it was a Dartmouth College student. You can be certain that if one of those young men who matched the description had been arrested, his name would have been splashed all over the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation -- and good luck if he tried to get a good job after that since any prospective employer would be able to Google his name and learn of the horrid allegation. That, too, is perfectly OK, right?
So students can rest easy, right? Wrong. One news report said: "Police said that although this case was unfounded, students still should take precautions such as locking their dorm room doors, partnering with a trusted friend when going out in the evening, avoid drinking too much and not letting strangers into their dormitories."
Instead of using this false report to raise awareness about a crime that didn't occur, shouldn't this incident be used to urge students -- more specifically, male students -- to take precautions to insure their lives are not destroyed by a false rape claim?
And regardless of what police told the local paper, The Union Leader, that the alleged attack never occurred, some students used the hoax as an occasion to politic: “Although I’m ignorant to the facts of this particular situation, the word ‘unfounded’ suggests to me that reporting an incident is unsafe and possibly humiliating, and that in order to prove a case I have to be 100 percent certain,” said a co-chair of the Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault.
In fact, the term "unfounded" is not a term of art. Different jurisdictions "use different definitions of, or criteria for, 'unfounded.'" B. Gross, False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, Dec. 22, 2008.
Will this "rape" that never happened be added to Dartmouth's tally of sexual assaults for 2011? I will not be surprised if it is.
So, again, we have yet another college rape claim, and yet another rape lie. College campuses are among the safest places in America. As Heather MacDonald said in "Campus Rape Myth": "It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown?"
No, somehow, it means that college campuses are cisterns of male predatory activity. The fact that there is precisely no evidence for that aside from the stardust wishfulness of the sexual grievance industry is beside the point.
Sources: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dartmouth+College+sexual+assault+fictitious&articleId=29b69e37-275d-4685-a093-5a569a6e526b; http://www.wmur.com/news/26528021/detail.html; http://www.wmur.com/r/26558790/detail.html; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/20/news/investigation; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/18/news/assault; http://thedartmouth.com/2011/01/21/news/assault
Cash aid for rape victims
1. How is this not a recipe for a massive increase in false accusations? Seriously?
2. 27%? I thought it was only 6%.
3. If a case turns out to be a false accusation, will the money be returned, or will liars be permitted to keep it?
4. for a population of over a billion in 2009, the percentage of rapes is .000021467. I guess Women's Studies curriculum hasn't made it to India yet -- you know, to teach them that it is actually 1 in 4, or 1 in 3, or 1 in 6 during homecoming week, or . . . you get the point. Even if you factor in the unreported rapes (which, of course, is impossible to do because if they aren't reported, there is absolutely no way to know how many there are), the percentage is infinitesimal. While even one rape is too many, this percentage can't be reconciled with the numbers that the Sexual Grievance Industry constantly spouts.
Read the story after the jump:
New Delhi, Dec. 30: Rape victims will get an interim financial assistance of Rs 20,000 within 15 days of filing an FIR, according to a scheme the government has announced as part of efforts to ensure “restorative” justice.
The centrally sponsored scheme, in the pipeline for about a year but fine-tuned recently, comes at a time instances of sexual assault on women have been on the rise, while the conviction rate has never crossed 27 per cent.
Under the plan, which also covers minor girls, legal heirs of victims will be entitled to financial assistance where death of the affected woman has resulted as a consequence of rape.
An official with the women and child development ministry, which will be in charge of the scheme, said the number of rape cases in the country have been “increasing at an alarming” pace. “Though it is partly due to the fact that more girls and parents are coming forward to report such cases, no one can deny the fact that crime against women is on the rise. The conviction rate in rape cases is also alarmingly low. So it is imperative that there should be a proper support mechanism for the victims.”
According to government data, 22,490 cases of rape have been reported in the country so far this year. The number was 21,467 in 2009, 21,397 in 2008, 20,737 in 2007, 19,384 in 2006, 18,359 in 2005, 18,233 in 2004 and 15,847 in 2003.
Under the scheme, Financial Assistance and Support Services to Victims of Rape, a woman shall be entitled to an interim assistance of Rs 20,000 to take care of her immediate needs. The relief will be handed over within 15 days of filing the FIR after a medical examination confirms rape.
The woman will also get support services worth Rs 50,000, including shelter, counselling, medical aid, legal assistance, education and vocational training, depending upon her needs.
The victim would be eligible for a final financial assistance of Rs 1.30 lakh “to address her long-term needs” and restore “her confidence”, said a release issued by the government.
The final assistance has to be given within a year of filing the FIR, whether the trial is over or not.
The scheme has a provision for enhancing the relief in cases involving minor girls, mentally or physically challenged women who may need specialised care, women who become infected with sexually transmitted diseases, or get pregnant. In these cases, the quantum of assistance can go up to Rs 3 lakh.
If the victim dies, her legal heirs, including minor children, shall be entitled to Rs 1 lakh as assistance if the woman was a non-earning family member, and Rs 2 lakh if she was an earning member.
Women’s rights groups welcomed the scheme but said stress should be laid on improving the conviction rate too.
“It is good that the government has shown some concern for the victims. But it is worrying that the government is doing nothing to improve the conviction rate in rape cases,” said Vineetha Govil of Sthree Shakthi, a non-government organisation that works for rape victims.
“We have seen many rape victims being virtually thrown out of their homes,” said Rakhee Jain of Mukthi, another NGO. “Once the relief package is there, things might change.”
But, she added, convicting the violator is more important. “If the perpetrator is roaming around freely, this money will have no meaning to the victim.”
Asked about the possibility of the scheme being misused, the official said the government would monitor its implementation. “Moreover,” he added, “no Indian woman would make a false claim of rape just to get financial support.”
Not everyone agrees.
“Innumerable men have already been implicated in false rape cases. With the new financial package, men will be more in trouble. We are planning to take up the case with the Prime Minister,” said Anshul Bisht who works on issues related to men’s rights.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Boys: The Second-Class Citizens
I came across a newspaper piece written by Robert Topp, one-time dean of the college of education at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, who said schools discriminate against boys from kindergarten through high school because they penalize them for nothing more than their “masculine tendencies.” This discrimination results in more girls than boys being eligible for college and boys being given lower grades than they deserve. The trouble with boys, Dr. Topp said, is that they are boys. They don’t readily conform; they are restless; they squirm more; they are more aggressive and daring; and they don’t easily catch onto the “social niceties.”
The classroom setting, on the other hand, places a premium on traits that girls, not boys, exhibit, namely docility and conformity. Dr. Topp wondered if the traits that hurt boys in the classroom actually fortify them for life later, and he said that to prevent boys from being feminized, schools need to place less premium on “girl” traits, and start rewarding students more for creativity and extra-verbal skills.
This analysis, of course, is dead-on, but don’t bother looking for it among the current news stories. You see, Dr. Topp’s article appeared in newspapers in December 1961. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nlspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_ecDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6627,799943&dq=robert-topp+and+schools+are+unfair+to+boys&hl=en
The fact that the “boy problem” not only is still with us but is even more pronounced today, almost fifty years later, tells us that, by most important standards, our sons have been second-class citizens at school for as long as anyone can remember, and until very recently, hardly anyone has ever given a damn.
Can anyone name even one significant initiative to increase the presence of male role models in our schools? But then again, it is politically correct to blink at the importance of male role models in the home, why should school be any different? Ironic, isn’t it? We remove male role models from our sons’ lives, then when our sons act up, we blame it on “patriarchy.”
Boys’ second-class status has always been just the way it is. Take corporal punishment, for example. As recently as the 1970s, it was a very common practice. Care to guess whether it was applied equally to boys and girls? In fact, many school districts expressly forbade spanking girls; boys were almost always fair game. In 1973, for example, California school boys were spanked 37,594 times. California school girls were spanked just 2,146 times. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u-EzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6844,3383167&dq=37594+boys+spanked&hl=en
In what universe are boys 18 times more deserving of corporal punishment than their females peers? Reverse the genders and imagine the outcry that would have accompanied those statistics.
Sometimes, the rationales for disparate treatment were the legal equivalent of horse manure. “Take Your Daughter to Work Day” excluded boys long after it was obvious to fair-minded people that such discrimination had no place in a society where gender equality is the law of the land.
That didn’t stop the Ms. Foundation for Women from continuing to defend the indefensible. In 1994, its spokeswoman, Nell Merlino, trotted out this tired feminist mantra: “People don’t appreciate that girls need a special level of encouragement,” she clucked. “We know from the research when boys and girls are together, particularly in this [9-15] age group, boys get more attention.”
Right, Ms. Merlino. For one thing, the teachers who administered corporal punishment gave the boys 18 times more "attention" than girls.
Boys were told to suck it up and take it like little men. Take gym class, a traumatic experience for some youngsters. Boys almost always showered in a communal setting where there was no privacy (because, of course, no boy cares at all about modesty), presumably to prepare them for military life, something their female peers didn’t have to worry about. Too bad for those traumatized boys lagging in the puberty department. The girls, of course, were typically afforded shower compartments to protect their modesty.
Worse, some younger readers might find it bizarre that it was common for boys, but very rarely girls, to be forced to swim in the nude in gym class. Back in the ’40s, one Detroit school district came under fire fire from mothers when both boys and girls were forced to swim nude, albeit in separate gym classes. Can you guess which gender the mothers complained about? The girls, of course. One wrote: “We are all alarmed about this freedom the girls have been given. There is no telling what it could lead to and we want it stopped at once.”
As for the boys swimming nude? If adults had asked the boys in confidence, they would have learned that a fair number of them were traumatized by it. You know, the whole delayed puberty thing, unwanted bodily reactions, etc. But, again, the feeling was, “real boys” suck it up and swim in the nude. When a parent wrote to Dear Abby back in the ‘60s complaining because her 14-year-old son was told he would have to swim in the nude and the boy felt uncomfortable, Abby showed little of the warmth and sensitivity many associate with her today: “[H]e had better overcome his shyness about nudity in the presence of other boys,” she lectured, “or he is apt to be uncomfortable much of his life.” (Right. Because the first thing adult men do when they get together is show each other their penises. Thank goodness they forced us to swim naked when we were 14.)
As for school sports, well, entire books are written about that. When the federal government decided that girls had been historically deprived of their rightful opportunities to participate in sports, girls were permitted to try out for boys teams, even though this took spots away from the boys. Boys, however, typically were not permitted to try out for girls teams. The law in this area is complex, and while it is possible today, in some circumstances, for boys to play on girls’ teams, legally – not to mention culturally (a topic deserving its own post) – it is more difficult for a boy to play on a girls’ team than vice versa. This is so because, in sports, as elsewhere, the law doesn’t care as much about the harm to an individual boy as it cares about the rights of girls as a class. “It is the class of girls, not boys, with whom the government seeks to redress past discrimination and promote equality. It is girls, not boys, who have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination and inequalities in athletics. . . . [C]ourts . . . have found that protecting the participation rights of girls as a previously discriminated against ‘class’ outweigh the rights of an ‘individual’ boy to play on a girls’ team.” See http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/C/Coed-Participation–Girls-Playing-on-Boys-Teams-and-Male-Versus-Female-Competition-The-Foundation-Po.aspx
So, at least in one area – sports – our sons’ second-class treatment is given an official justification, dubious though it may be. That’s more than boys’ second-class treatment is usually given. Most of the time, it is chalked up as ”just the way it is.”
I previously published this article in The Spearhead
The classroom setting, on the other hand, places a premium on traits that girls, not boys, exhibit, namely docility and conformity. Dr. Topp wondered if the traits that hurt boys in the classroom actually fortify them for life later, and he said that to prevent boys from being feminized, schools need to place less premium on “girl” traits, and start rewarding students more for creativity and extra-verbal skills.
This analysis, of course, is dead-on, but don’t bother looking for it among the current news stories. You see, Dr. Topp’s article appeared in newspapers in December 1961. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nlspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_ecDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6627,799943&dq=robert-topp+and+schools+are+unfair+to+boys&hl=en
The fact that the “boy problem” not only is still with us but is even more pronounced today, almost fifty years later, tells us that, by most important standards, our sons have been second-class citizens at school for as long as anyone can remember, and until very recently, hardly anyone has ever given a damn.
Can anyone name even one significant initiative to increase the presence of male role models in our schools? But then again, it is politically correct to blink at the importance of male role models in the home, why should school be any different? Ironic, isn’t it? We remove male role models from our sons’ lives, then when our sons act up, we blame it on “patriarchy.”
Boys’ second-class status has always been just the way it is. Take corporal punishment, for example. As recently as the 1970s, it was a very common practice. Care to guess whether it was applied equally to boys and girls? In fact, many school districts expressly forbade spanking girls; boys were almost always fair game. In 1973, for example, California school boys were spanked 37,594 times. California school girls were spanked just 2,146 times. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u-EzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6844,3383167&dq=37594+boys+spanked&hl=en
In what universe are boys 18 times more deserving of corporal punishment than their females peers? Reverse the genders and imagine the outcry that would have accompanied those statistics.
Sometimes, the rationales for disparate treatment were the legal equivalent of horse manure. “Take Your Daughter to Work Day” excluded boys long after it was obvious to fair-minded people that such discrimination had no place in a society where gender equality is the law of the land.
That didn’t stop the Ms. Foundation for Women from continuing to defend the indefensible. In 1994, its spokeswoman, Nell Merlino, trotted out this tired feminist mantra: “People don’t appreciate that girls need a special level of encouragement,” she clucked. “We know from the research when boys and girls are together, particularly in this [9-15] age group, boys get more attention.”
Right, Ms. Merlino. For one thing, the teachers who administered corporal punishment gave the boys 18 times more "attention" than girls.
Boys were told to suck it up and take it like little men. Take gym class, a traumatic experience for some youngsters. Boys almost always showered in a communal setting where there was no privacy (because, of course, no boy cares at all about modesty), presumably to prepare them for military life, something their female peers didn’t have to worry about. Too bad for those traumatized boys lagging in the puberty department. The girls, of course, were typically afforded shower compartments to protect their modesty.
Worse, some younger readers might find it bizarre that it was common for boys, but very rarely girls, to be forced to swim in the nude in gym class. Back in the ’40s, one Detroit school district came under fire fire from mothers when both boys and girls were forced to swim nude, albeit in separate gym classes. Can you guess which gender the mothers complained about? The girls, of course. One wrote: “We are all alarmed about this freedom the girls have been given. There is no telling what it could lead to and we want it stopped at once.”
As for the boys swimming nude? If adults had asked the boys in confidence, they would have learned that a fair number of them were traumatized by it. You know, the whole delayed puberty thing, unwanted bodily reactions, etc. But, again, the feeling was, “real boys” suck it up and swim in the nude. When a parent wrote to Dear Abby back in the ‘60s complaining because her 14-year-old son was told he would have to swim in the nude and the boy felt uncomfortable, Abby showed little of the warmth and sensitivity many associate with her today: “[H]e had better overcome his shyness about nudity in the presence of other boys,” she lectured, “or he is apt to be uncomfortable much of his life.” (Right. Because the first thing adult men do when they get together is show each other their penises. Thank goodness they forced us to swim naked when we were 14.)
As for school sports, well, entire books are written about that. When the federal government decided that girls had been historically deprived of their rightful opportunities to participate in sports, girls were permitted to try out for boys teams, even though this took spots away from the boys. Boys, however, typically were not permitted to try out for girls teams. The law in this area is complex, and while it is possible today, in some circumstances, for boys to play on girls’ teams, legally – not to mention culturally (a topic deserving its own post) – it is more difficult for a boy to play on a girls’ team than vice versa. This is so because, in sports, as elsewhere, the law doesn’t care as much about the harm to an individual boy as it cares about the rights of girls as a class. “It is the class of girls, not boys, with whom the government seeks to redress past discrimination and promote equality. It is girls, not boys, who have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination and inequalities in athletics. . . . [C]ourts . . . have found that protecting the participation rights of girls as a previously discriminated against ‘class’ outweigh the rights of an ‘individual’ boy to play on a girls’ team.” See http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/C/Coed-Participation–Girls-Playing-on-Boys-Teams-and-Male-Versus-Female-Competition-The-Foundation-Po.aspx
So, at least in one area – sports – our sons’ second-class treatment is given an official justification, dubious though it may be. That’s more than boys’ second-class treatment is usually given. Most of the time, it is chalked up as ”just the way it is.”
I previously published this article in The Spearhead
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
