Reddit reviews The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men

We found 12 Reddit comments about The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Used Book in Good Condition

Check price on Amazon

12 Reddit comments about The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men:

u/Lauzon_ · 22 pointsr/MensRights

u/formp3 · 10 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Max failed lol:

max read ‏@max_read 24m24 minutes ago
@CHSommers @samfbiddle because you wrote that book 14 years ago and are still humping it

Christina H. Sommers ‏@CHSommers 15m15 minutes ago
Best to check facts before attacking me @max_read I published a new and revised edition last year. @samfbiddle http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Against-Boys-Misguided/dp/1451644183 …

u/wwwhistler · 5 pointsr/MensRights

for an excellent read on this subject try http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1382565522&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+war+against+boys

u/NiceIce · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Not what I mean at all. Where the hell do you live? As I told you, I live in SoCal. Give me examples that are somewhat remotely relavent to me. Do you think that Egalitarians/MRAs support ANY of those things? Are you new to this subreddit? If you are trying to justify the evils of feminism by comparing them to the Taliban, you're setting the bar pretty damn low.

For over half a century, feminism has been Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry and Sanctifying Misandry.

Waging a war on men and sadly, even a war against boys.

That is why I, like most members of this subreddit, are vehemently antifeminist.

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/MensRights

Christina Hoff Sommers "The War Against Boys" is an outstanding resource.

I just found out today that is has a new edition in print:

http://www.amazon.com/The-War-Against-Boys-Misguided/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1397856280&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=hoff+sommers+war+against+boys

u/TeslaModelE · 2 pointsr/ABCDesis

I don't think that's true of the desi community. There are a ton of other criticisms I have of feminism including it's neglect of boys from a young age while it fixates on girls so that they can catch up. I've been meaning to read this book by noted feminist Christina Hoff-Sommers. In any case, I don't see either one of us changing our minds so let's just agree to disagree :)

The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451644183/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_8Hx0tb1GKWD4A

u/strawmannequin · 1 pointr/TumblrInAction

Sorry for lateness of reply. In case you're still interested...

Take her article about conservative feminism, then have a look at her articles published on AEI. I think you'll find many of them that are aligned with conservative feminism, and none that are in conflict with it. For example

>Conservative feminists are unconvinced that Uncle Sam is Mr. Right.

Article supporting

> They are suspicious of elaborate big-government "pro-woman" policies in advanced bureaugamies such as Norway and Sweden and think American women are faring as well or better in the workplace.

Article supporting

>Conservative feminism is pro-woman but male-friendly. If boys are languishing academically, if blue-collar men lose most of the jobs in the recession, or if innocent young men are falsely accused of heinous crimes--as several members of the Duke University Lacrosse team were in 2006, with campus feminists at the head of the mob--conservative feminists will speak out on men's behalf.

Book supporting

In short, everything she defines conservative feminism as aligns exactly with her own positions. Many of which I agree with! If you can find articles that go against that definition I'll concede the point.

I don't think misrepresenting positions makes one a conservative but conservatives often regard the CDC as biased and seek to attack it as an institution. Here is the quote:

>If a woman was unconscious or severely incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the CDC).

The actual question used by the CDC to which she is referring is as follows:

>When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you? (emphasis mine)

The reason I wondered whether it wasn't deliberate was because she actually quoted the question in her article, then perhaps misread the "and unable to consent" for an "or unable to consent". Who knows. Here is the link.

u/AceyJuan · 1 pointr/dataisbeautiful

No, we won't. American culture still hasn't moved past the idea that girls are oppressed. The only stories you'll hear on the news involve extra classes and attention for girls.

Boys receive lower grades than girls despite doing better on tests. How could this be? Read more here.

u/ArstanWhitebeard · 1 pointr/SubredditDrama

> Thank you for sharing the link to Pew, it's a good example of what I've been talking about.

An example of what that you've been talking about?

>Just to clarify, I never said that all mothers want to work full time, I said that many mothers want to work more than they do.

Right. I just don't see any evidence of that.

If you look here, for instance, as of 2013, 17.6 million mothers work full time, 5.97 million work part time, and 1.86 million are unemployed out of a total of 25.5 million mothers with children under 18 in the labor force. With some simple math, we find that 69% of mothers (with children under 18) work full time, 23.4% work part time, and 7.6% are unemployed.

Given the (multiple) pew polls about women's work preferences, that means there is actually a substantial amount of mothers who would prefer to work less -- a substantial portion of the mothers working full time would prefer either to work part time or not at all.

>For example:

Yes, but you didn't include this:

>Among mothers who currently work full time, many would rather not. About 44% say that working part time would be their ideal situation, 9% say not working outside the home would be ideal. Only about half (46%) of full-time working mothers consider their current situation ideal.

Or this:

>The way mothers view their ideal work situation has fluctuated somewhat over time, and these changing preferences likely reflect changing economic circumstances. The share of mothers preferring full-time work increased sharply between 2007 and 2012 (from 20% to 32%) – an intervening period that included a severe economic recession.

I thought the above was a significant part because it speaks to the cyclical nature of preferences.

>Secondly, according to your source 30% of fathers don't want to work full time (can you please provide me with a link, it would be super helpful).

The statistics are there in the article I already sent to you. Here's a similar article about the same thing.

From the article:

>Still, there are important gender role differences. While a nearly equal share of mothers and fathers say they wish they could be at home raising their children rather than working, dads are much more likely than moms to say they want to work full time. And when it comes to what they value most in a job, working fathers place more importance on having a high-paying job, while working mothers are more concerned with having a flexible schedule.

This pattern of preference distinction gets repeated over and over.

>Thirdly, whilst many fathers are happy to work full time, they would like more flexible work arrangements within the context of their full time role.

Yes, of course. Why should that be surprising? If you ask people "would you prefer more flexible work hours?" they're going to say yes. But that doesn't really get to the heart of the matter -- which is that men work more than women, and men prefer to work more than women. If you also ask men, "would you prefer to work part time or full time?" a large majority of them will say full time.

>As the report notes, this is primarily down to education. I'm not too familiar with the issue of the education gap in the US, although would like to know more as I'm quite interested in men's issues. Do you happen to know of a good source that provides an overview of the issue?

Yes, it's precisely about education and how variables can be manipulated to show a gap. The caveat you mention is true -- but it's just substituting a set in which variables are creating the gap for another set where variables are creating the gap.

As for resources, I know there's this book.

There's also this site, though I don't know how good it is.

>This isn't strictly true and frustrates the hell out of me. Yes this is the case for some families, but if you look at the reports I included that discuss the issue of childcare, many families don't have viable childcare options, forcing one parents (nearly always the mother) into the primary carer role.

It is true, though. The fact that people don't have childcare options is a perfectly valid claim with which I'm not disagreeing. But what I'm saying is that if childcare were improved to such a great extent that no one had any child care problems ever, the "gap" would still exist and to a large extent. You're not actually going to get rid of the gap until you can change women's preferences.

>Does this assumption about "what women want" mean that men simply don't want to care for their children?

No, I don't see why it should.

>If we take as the assumption that this is simply something fathers don't want to do, what is the knock on effect for other issues relating to the family and our gender roles?

But that's not the assumption. Like if I say, "John isn't as tall as I am," have I really said that John isn't tall? What if I told you that John is 6'9'' and I'm 7'0''?

That men prefer to work full time, even if that means sacrificing time with their children doesn't mean men don't want to take care of their children or tremendously enjoy it. And that women are more willing to sacrifice work to take care of their children doesn't mean they don't want to work or tremendously enjoy it.

>There is a fair bit of research to demonstrate that discrimination takes place

That doesn't invalidate what I said. Here's what I said again:

> If you look at single women or unmarried women, for example, their promotion rates and wage earnings are roughly on par with men.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3 shows that fathers are 1.83 times as likely to be recommended for a management position than childless men, while childless women were 8.2 times as likely as mothers to be recommended for a management position. Interestingly, childless women were more likely than childless men to be recommended for promotion, to be offered a higher starting salary, to be recommended for hire, and to be considered "competent" and "committed." In some of these categories, there seem to be boosts to fathers, but the data show that childless women are rated ahead of childless men, which suggests to me this is mostly a "mother versus non-mother" issue and not a "men versus women" issue.

Also, as an aside, I clicked on your source 9, and here's what I read:

>We have found that girls and young women have achieved equity or surpassed boys and young men in school literacy, as well as Year 12
and higher qualification attainment. Despite these achievements...

Why is women surpassing men treated as an "achievement" instead of as just another inequality? I've found this kind of rhetoric in many of the studies and articles about women, and each time it strikes me as misguided. Perhaps you can shed some light on this: why are inequalities that favor women treated as achievements?

u/favours_of_the_moon · 1 pointr/TheRedPill

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411147865&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=war+on+boys

War Against Boys.

u/Levy_Wilson · -2 pointsr/pokemon

Mind elaborating on your observation a bit more? Because all I ever see in the news these days is how men are demonized and women are put on a silver platter. Lesser jail time for the same crimes, longer lives than men, and young women are treated better in public schools than young men.

Take your pointless white knighting elsewhere.

u/howardson1 · -14 pointsr/TumblrInAction

I see this place as the opposite. An ideology has taken root in the west that

-Denies that race exists and insists it's a skin deep social construct

-That insists all humans are one universal being

-that America's job is too spread democracy and human rights to the people of the rest of the world, who all can become americans

-that anything local and small is evil

Lawrence Auster, Pt Buchanan, E. Michael Jones, Paul Gottfried, thomas sowell, Steve Pinker, and charles murray are the best critics of this new progressivism. Tumblr is a reflection of it, but it has real world consequences. Look at the treatment of John Derbyshire, Joseph Sobran, and Norman Finkelstein. Look at hate crime laws. Look at the war on drugs, which springs from the idea that drugs cause poverty and crime, not that people themselves are responsible for their actions and the characteristics that lead them to commit crime lead them to drug use. Look at affirmative action programs that [mismatch black students in schools beyond their capabilities, which they drop out from] (http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-Universities/dp/0465029965). Look at [ford foundation supported urban renewal social engineering schemes that bulldozed black neighborhoods in the name of "intergration" and were based on the belief that modernist architecture would create morally upright citizens] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Cleansing/dp/1587317753). Look at public schools [doping kids and banning roughhorsing in the name of suppressing masculinity] (http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1405264818&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+war+against+boys). Look at the destruction of the black family by welfare programs [created by upper class white liberals] (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1405264997&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=losing+ground)

Making fun of otherkin is meaningless. They are powerless. It's the pro victiminzation/environmentalist (meaning people are products of their environment) ideology that is destroying our culture.