Re[2]: Re : Education of Boys

Marty Henry (
Thu, 02 Apr 98 09:04:27 -0700

Sorry, I can't agree with the statement that we would rather examine
the negative effects on young women. I am extremely interested in
this, having experienced them myself, however, I strongly support an
examination of the system that produces these disfunctional behaviors
in both women and men. I can't help but believe what we do to/for one
sex affects the other. It IS a two way street. Examining only one lane
gives us half the story. We may learn what not to do with young women
by examining how we socialize men. We may learn what to do with young
men by how we have successes with young women.

I cannot subscribe to a position that I am only working for the best
for 1/2 of our population. Wouldn't that put me back into the camp of
those working only for the best for males?

Am I on the wrong list?

Marty Henry

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re : Education of Boys
Author: <> at Internet-Mail
Date: 3/31/98 7:08 PM

Robert Tighe wrote:
> >This last comment I find particularly apropos. Attempts to raise gender
> >equity issues for boys on this list have been met with hostility and
> Perhaps this has happened because there has been a growing and
> media-supported backlash against equity movements, i.e., the
> "what about white males?" movement and the Promise-Keepers
> movement. And perhaps because the article you mention is
> just another example of that series of backlash efforts, and
> that it, like your own previous comments, mention problems
> without suggesting solutions.

The article was part 5 in a series, the first of which was on women's careers
being stymied and that article was applauded on EdEquity. This part 5 was an
effort to provide readers with another aspect of inequities in our society.
Together the series provides a balanced view. Together, they say that there
are problems for both sexes.

> EDEQUITY is a list devoted to equity in education. The members
> have shown that they are concerned about sexist attitudes.
> You, Robert, must understand that sexist attitudes not only cause
> female subjugation but also cause many of the male problems which you
> listed in your message (i.e., your quotes from the Pollack article).
> If you don't understand this, I would recommend that you read the
> book by Myra and David Sadker, or maybe ask the EDEQUITY list.
> You must also understand that your comments to this list, and the
> comments in the Pollack article, and other similar articles and
> editorials in popular periodicals recently, all seem to be
> saying this: "We should not do anything about women's rights
> because we might add to the problems which boys face."
> Many of them even seem to be implying that "women don't have
> it so bad; men really have much worse problems, so we should
> do nothing". Since white males are in effect a privileged class,
> this is a bit like telling the 18th-century French or American
> revolutionaries that they should not change the system because the
> royalty have their own serious problems.

You do a fine job of shredding straw with this post. My posts to this list
have been in support of equity for both sexes. I have posted sources for
following H.R.3293, the bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
improve the access of women to higher education opportunities. I have written
on new information of test disparities by sex and race. And I have written on
the need to help boys in areas they have problems as well as girls in certain
areas. I have provided lists of the major fields of endeavor in which women
are underrepresented and also for men. My posts have address inequities both
ways. And after all this you write the above, in a mean spirited attempt to
paint me as a racist, telling all that I am concerned only with white boys
and pretending that I am here to stop efforts to help girls. My record on the
list speaks for itself. You've slaughtered the straw man labeled "We should
not do anything about women's rights" but this straw man does not have my name
on it.

> The fact is that the members of EDEQUITY are probably already
> aware of the problems faced by boys and men, and they are already
> involved in a process to reduce the societal attitudes which
> cause those problems. They would rather, however, focus on the
> negative effects on young women.

The introductory message for the members of EDEQUITY reads:
*** What do we discuss? ***
EDEQUITY serves as a forum to discuss how to attain
equity for males and females; and how gender equity
can be a helpful construct for improving education
for all

I believe that my posts have supported equity for both males and females.
Your message attempts to suppress discussion of half the equity equation.

Robert Weverka

new message to this message