Stop punishing boys for being boys ft. Christina Hoff Sommers | #TruthStraightUp

First topic message reminder :

Let's stop punishing boys for being boys.

Girls and young women are succeeding in society now more than ever. Meanwhile, the needs of boys are being neglected. Increasingly, boys fall short in school, get lower grades, and are less likely to attend college.

Modern educators have taken a hostile approach to the needs of boys and young men. Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

It's time for educators to reject "gender theories" and focus on educating.

Now that girls and young women have ample opportunities to help them succeed in the classroom, we must ensure that boys have the same.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqVV5Emne8Q

According to the NHS:

While biological sex and gender identity are the same for most people, this isn't the case for everyone. For example, some people may have the anatomy of a man, but identify themselves as a woman, while others may not feel they're definitively either male or female.

This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It's not a mental illness.

Ben Reilly wrote:In general terms, "sex" refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences.

"Gender" is more difficult to define, but it can refer to the role of a male or female in society, known as a gender role, or an individual's concept of themselves, or gender identity.

Sometimes, a person's genetically assigned sex does not line up with their gender identity. These individuals might refer to themselves as transgender, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming.

When my colleague Corinne Purtill bought her doll-loving daughter an engineering kit, she had to laugh when the then-three-year-old used the present as a hairbrush. For all Corinne’s efforts at gender-neutral parenting, her daughter clearly enjoyed some traditionally feminine toys.


A study published (paywall) in November 2017 suggests that these sorts of girly toy preferences aren’t simply a reflection of gendered social pressures. A meta-analysis of research, reviewing 16 studies on the subject that collectively included some 1,600 children, found that both biology and society affect boys’ and girls’  toy choices. The researchers found a huge effect size (1.03 for boys playing with boys’ toys more than girls, and 0.9 for girls playing with girls toys more than boys; anything above 0.8 is considered “large”) across geographical regions.


https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/


I shall await your apology Ben

Ben Reilly wrote:According to the NHS:

While biological sex and gender identity are the same for most people, this isn't the case for everyone. For example, some people may have the anatomy of a man, but identify themselves as a woman, while others may not feel they're definitively either male or female.

This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, for which treatment is sometimes appropriate. It's not a mental illness.

Did anyone claim it was? Actually in some cases it is down to a mental illness, as some schizophrenics can believe they are tapped in the wrong body and this is down to the schizophrenia.

So I support helping anyone going through gender dysphoria, but that dysphoria is binary, based opn eiether believing they should be male or female

From the link you posted:

"Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities."

Ben Reilly wrote:From the link you posted:

"Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities."

What the fuck?

Where at any point did I negate the existance of transgerism?

So no apology from you that you were wrong here on gender

Still running away from all my points you coward

You kept insisting gender is binary when your own link stated otherwise. Shut up and learn.

Ben Reilly wrote:You kept insisting gender is binary when your own link stated otherwise. Shut up and learn.

But it provies that gender is binary biologically

Doh

Gender is not a biological fact, it includes a social component that cannot be ignored.

Sex is a biological fact, for the vast majority of people.

Gender is not the same thing as sex.

Ben Reilly wrote:Gender is not a biological fact, it includes a social component that cannot be ignored.

Sex is a biological fact, for the vast majority of people.

Gender is not the same thing as sex.

OMG, I already stated that certain aspects like pink and blue are socially constructed.
The study though shows that gender is biologically binary. Not fluid, or non-binary etc, but binary. 
You may not like the scientific facts, but that is the reality. People can chose what ever gender association they want, but to push any biological claim around this is nosense and no kid should get kicked out of a class for backing what the science says

When I was at school some of the girls had the option to learn typing, but I didn't because I was too "clever" or something. Later on, I did learn to type and that opened many doors for me jobwise. Of course the boys did woodwork and us girls did domestic science. I don't suppose that happens these days.

phildidge wrote:Let's stop punishing boys for being boys.

Girls and young women are succeeding in society now more than ever. Meanwhile, the needs of boys are being neglected. Increasingly, boys fall short in school, get lower grades, and are less likely to attend college.

Modern educators have taken a hostile approach to the needs of boys and young men. Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

It's time for educators to reject "gender theories" and focus on educating.

Now that girls and young women have ample opportunities to help them succeed in the classroom, we must ensure that boys have the same.

[youtube] -[ /youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqVV5Emne8Q

Girls don't have it all their own way. A report out last week showed they were lagging behind boys in PE performance, and that more needs to be done to make it more appealing to them.  Physical Education is very important for the general health & wellbeing of women. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17873519

Raggamuffin wrote:When I was at school some of the girls had the option to learn typing, but I didn't because I was too "clever" or something. Later on, I did learn to type and that opened many doors for me jobwise. Of course the boys did woodwork and us girls did domestic science. I don't suppose that happens these days.

I"m still good at building Parson's tables, bookshelves and refinishing old pieces.

When I was in high school metal shop, I melted down all the teacher's molds. He put me in a corner and promised me a passing grade, provided I didn't touch anything.

phildidge wrote:
Let's stop punishing boys for being boys.

Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

In what way are boys punished for being boys?
And which "male characteristics" have been knocked out of them, that have left them at a disadvantage?


You do realise that men kill 2 women per week in the UK?
To tackle problems like this at root source you had to catch them young and try and change whatever it was in the traditional male psyche that causes such extreme behaviour, …. albeit it's a small minority who commit such acts.


Of course they needed to be 'cured' of those particular aggressive characteristics.
Those traits are not advantageous to them or to society, in any way.
Once again, I ask - what advantageous characteristics have they been 'cured' of??

Ludicrous!

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote:
Let's stop punishing boys for being boys.

Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

In what way are boys punished for being boys?
And which "male characteristics" have been knocked out of them, that have left them at a disadvantage?


You do realise that men kill 2 women per week in the UK?
To tackle problems like this at root source you had to catch them young and try and change whatever it was in the traditional male psyche that causes such extreme behaviour, …. albeit it's a small minority who commit such acts.


Of course they needed to be 'cured' of those particular aggressive characteristics.
Those traits are not advantageous to them or to society, in any way.
Once again, I ask - what advantageous characteristics have they been 'cured' of??

Ludicrous!

I could use the same poor whataboutism argument
Many men suffer also domestic violence
Many men are raped
More men are homeless
More men commit suicide
Men do not have equal rights over children
Now white boys from poor backgrounds are under performing the worst
Women are treated differently over thesame crimes, men suffer far worse punishments
Men have shorter life spans than women on health
Military conscription in many countries is male only

Hence the point is, its not just women that suffer and now the view is turning on its head, and because of intersectionality in places like Canada and US in Universities, white hetrosexual men are told they need not apply.

So we know there is problems like women suffering abuse, rape etc and they need to be tackled.Of which many have suppoprt centres and groups. Men hardly have any support groups or Governement funding to help them. Mainly as the emphasis has always been placed on women. To use that, to claim boys doi not suffer problems, is basically claiming an unequal status, that women matter more. Which is blatantly abusrd, when both men and women equally matter., This is though about highlighting the growing problems around boys

Didge, why do you do this? You complicate things by throwing in too many themes, all at once.

OK let's start again from scratch, and this time let's keep it ultra simple.





You wrote:

phildidge wrote: Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

So I asked:

Jules wrote:
what advantageous characteristics have they been 'cured' of??

Cos you implied that men have been "cured" of certain male traits and this has put them at a disadvantage.  


So let's hear what these wonderful traits were, that have been forcibly knocked out of them.


Once you have replied to this simple question, then we can move on to other themes.

One theme at a time, Didge!

Jules wrote:Didge, why do you do this? You complicate things by throwing in too many themes, all at once.

OK let's start again from scratch, and this time let's keep it ultra simple.





You wrote:

phildidge wrote: Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure.

So I asked:

Jules wrote:
what advantageous characteristics have they been 'cured' of??

Apparantly to the intersectionality brigade, masulinity is seen as a mental health issue

https://pjmedia.com/trending/university-of-texas-to-treat-masculinity-as-a-mental-health-issue/

Jules wrote:Cos you implied that men have been "cured" of certain male traits and this has put them at a disadvantage.  


So let's hear what these wonderful traits were, that have been forcibly knocked out of them.


Once you have replied to this simple question, then we can move on to other themes.

One theme at a time, Didge!

Nerver have ever implied here that they have been cured of anything

So understand what I actually said, which you even said in the last post and its all associated with masculinity. That again the intersectionality crowd believes needs to be cured

Well the clear implication was that some traditional male characteristics had been forcibly changed and that this had turned them into 'weaklings' and  put them at a disadvantage.


Let me tell you what DID get changed. The notion that a 'real' man was a 'strong silent type'. The types whose mouths were silent and instead they spoke with their fists. There was so much violence towards women that society had to do something! So men were taught from a young age to open up and learn to communicate more and show their emotions more. 


So Didge, .….
In what way was that a bad thing,  or detrimental to their education? In what way did any of this disadvantage them, or reduce their educational opportunities?

Jules wrote:Well the clear implication was that some traditional male characteristics had been forcibly changed and that this had turned them into 'weaklings' and  put them at a disadvantage.


Let me tell you what DID get changed. The notion that a 'real' man as a 'strong silent type'. The types whose mouths were silent and instead they spoke with their fists. There was so much violence towards women that society had to do something! Men were taught from a young age to open up and learn to communicate more and show their emotions more. 


So Didge, .….
In what way was that a bad thing,  or detrimental to their education? In what way did any of this disadvantage them, or reduce their educational opportunities?

In other words, you misread what I said, as how is saying " Male characteristics are now viewed by many as a pathology in need of a cure." People have been changed by force?

How about you allow men and boys to individually define themselves?

phildidge wrote: …..
How about you allow men and boys to individually define themselves?

How about you allow the qualified professionals in society to take whatever steps they deem necessary to change the appalling statistics of two women being brutally murderd every flipping week?

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote: …..
How about you allow men and boys to individually define themselves?

How about you allow the qualified professionals in society to take whatever steps they deem necessary to change the appalling statistics of two women being brutally murderd every flipping week?

What?

Quallified? And what steps would those be? Lock all men up? Associate all men as the problem? Or actually understand criminology on what can lead to crimes?

Talk about yet again the worst whataboutism argument going

Yes we know there is a problem with violence against women, just as there is violence against men. The core problem here is violence, because some people are quite sick individuals. It has nothing to do with masculinity orfeminity, but violent people
This thread is about how boys are being viewed through an ideological lens, that views them with distain. That is inherantly wrong.

Record numbers of men are reporting domestic abuse by their partners to police - as the proportion of women victims turning to police has fallen, official figures have revealed.

The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.

However, the figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed it coincided with a sharp drop in the proportion of women victims reporting their abuse to police, down from 25.8% to 18.4% over the same period.

Campaigners suggested one reason could be increasing delays in over-stretched police forces being able to send officers promptly to domestic abuse incidents, giving the perpetrators more time to bully their victims into not making a complaint.

Just over one in 25 men (4.2%) of men said they had suffered domestic abuse - which includes violence, a similar level to the previous year. The proportion of women who experienced domestic abuse rose slightly from 7.5% to 7.9%.

However, the number of recorded domestic abuse offences of both sexes saw a big rise to almost 600,000, an increase of 23% in a year, although the ONS believed “improved recording” methods could have played a part.

Mark Brooks, chairman of the Mankind Initiative for male victims of abuse, attributed it to men’s willingness to open up to friends and family about their suffering.

“More men are finding the courage to go to the police, often supported by family, friends and work colleagues,” he said.

“The police have thankfullly also moved a long way from the stereotypical view of domestic abuse that it was only a crime affecting women. They are far more inclusive in their approach.

“The challenge still remains in ensuring men are actually referred to local domestic abuse services and that they are well funded to cope."

According to the charity, a third of domestic violence victims are male yet only 0.8% refuge beds are reserved for them.

While there are more than 3,600 beds in safe houses for women, there are only 20 for men in the whole of England. There are no refuge beds for men in London, said the charity. Research suggests one in six men experience domestic abuse but only one in 20 report it to police.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/22/growing-number-men-reporting-domestic-violence-police-ons-figures/

phildidge wrote:

Jules wrote:

How about you allow the qualified professionals in society to take whatever steps they deem necessary to change the appalling statistics of two women being brutally murderd every flipping week?

What?

Quallified? And what steps would those be? Lock all men up? Associate all men as the problem? Or actually understand criminology on what can lead to crimes?

No need for all the melodrama. No one needs to be locked up. 

What was needed to be done has ALREADY been done, and it worked!  Cos the average male today is  not afraid to show his gentle or his emotional side. - cos little boys were encouraged from a very young age to open up & communicate, and feel that it's ok to show emotions. Instead of being the strong, silent 'macho' types who keep emotions pent up inside - till they blew a fuse.

This work has been in progress for a couple of decades  and the positive effects are showing. And the work should carry on, to reduce those grim male-on-female homicide statistics. 

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What?

Quallified? And what steps would those be? Lock all men up? Associate all men as the problem? Or actually understand criminology on what can lead to crimes?

No need for all the melodrama. No one needs to be locked up. 

What was needed to be done has ALREADY been done, and it worked!  Cos the average male today is  not afraid to show his gentle or his emotional side. - cos little boys were encouraged from a very young age to open up & communicate, and feel that it's ok to show emotions. Instead of being the strong, silent 'macho' types who keep emotions pent up inside - till they blew a fuse.

This work has been in progress for a couple of decades  and the positive effects are showing. And the work should carry on, to reduce those grim male-on-female homicide statistics. 

Yes the gentle and emotionl side has really helped the many men and women victims of domestic violence

Not. The only thing this will have helped with is men coming forwards, that are victims. It may however have caused men to not be able to stand up for themselves, because they are now to gentle. Hence a counter effect and why its more likely we are seeing more male victims of domestic violence

Everything will be created within the earliest years of an individual in how they become violent, which has little to do with masulinity or feminity. It has more to do with how also children grow up being abused themselves and the cycle continues

You have not got the first clue what you are talking about

Just seen your last two posts.

Didge don't waste your breath.  I know full well that some females behave quite badly and that they try too hard to emulate violent male ways. But implying that they are just as likely to beat up men & rape them is a sick joke. 


In forums & SM discussions,  when a poster  is accused of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc ….  the accused poster immediately bomerangs the accusations straight back at the accuser. It's a poor & lazy way of ''debating'' and that's what you're trying to do here.
 

Don't try any of that tit for tat smokes-&-mirrors guff with me. It won't work. Women will never catch up with men when it comes to violence or rape, they won't even come close.

Thanks for your time but I'm done here.

Anyway, the post is being steered away from what the problem is about and how boyds and maculinity is perceived to seen as something like a medical condition. So I have no interest to further go off topic Jules with you on this.

Laters

Isn't it more likely the increase in domestic violence on men is by men, many women are violent to their partners of course but if I decide to punch my OH I probably would not knock him down, if he were to punch me I'd probably find myself on the floor. (There is more to it of course).

Vintage wrote:Isn't it more likely the increase in domestic violence on men is by men, many women are violent to their partners of course but if I decide to punch my OH I probably would not knock him down, if he were to punch me I'd probably find myself on the floor. (There is more to it of course).

1 in 6 men report violence from women Vintage. Its not based on what people can take from a punch either

No agreed re a punch, in general though men can usually do more damage when attacking than the average woman, unless she has a weapon of some kind.
I think anyone that's the victim of domestic violence should be supported and protected.

Vintage wrote:No agreed re a punch, in general though men can usually do more damage when attacking than the average woman, unless she has a weapon of some kind.
I think anyone that's the victim of domestic violence should be supported and protected.

100% agree Vintage

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well its very easy to explain. Once boys were give most of the attention, family based, culturally and within schools.
The view that men have a shorter attention span, is seriously flawed, as I am sure you have as little an attention span to football Eddie. Hence the point is here that there is a difference on what females have an attention span on compared to males. So the view should be to garner interest based on what drives attention within each sex group

Yes didge I do remember that being a thing when I was in education ie lots of school reading books drew little interest from boys but they do have library visits where children can choose their own books so boys, for example, could choose books on dinosaurs or football for home-reading.

Perhaps it is a problem that stems from home? I think perhaps that could be one cause.

Perhaps the problem is that the chosen school reading books were selected with a bias that was too "girly"...?


If the chosen school reading books had more of a "male/manly" bias, and then girls showed little interest in them... would you then say that girls had a problem and suggest that they had a problem that stems from home...!?


I would say that the problem is the fact that the vast majority of teachers and school authority staff are of a lefty mindset, and that they are subscribers of the deluded lefty beliefs that white heterosexual males are bottom of the pecking order as these lefty idiots are too busy promoting everyone else who might be black/brown/female//Muslim/LGBT etc... all in the name of equality mind...!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:When I was at school some of the girls had the option to learn typing, but I didn't because I was too "clever" or something. Later on, I did learn to type and that opened many doors for me jobwise. Of course the boys did woodwork and us girls did domestic science. I don't suppose that happens these days.

I"m still good at building Parson's tables, bookshelves and refinishing old pieces.

When I was in high school metal shop, I melted down all the teacher's molds.  He put me in a corner and promised me a passing grade,
provided I didn't touch anything.  

Damn funny!!!    .    

Reminds me of a kid whose voice was so bad that his poor music teacher said "OK you can keep your place in the school choir, provided you never sing. Just mime in future. No one would know."   

Tommy Monk wrote: white heterosexual males are bottom of the pecking order

No one is deliberately left at the bottom of the pile. Absurd! 
The system is constantly on the alert, to identify underperforming groups and rectify the problem. The fact that such groups have been identified means the system is working.


Btw you do realise that kids with parents from some European countries who do not speak a word of English (but obviously identify as ''white'') would obviously underperform, initially. And this would skew the results? Has this occurred to you?

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say that the problem is the fact that the vast majority of teachers and school authority staff are of a

lefty mindset,

Well of course they are - due to the nature of their work.
LW is all about inclusivity.  RW is about exclusivity.
Teachers need to be inclusive & progressive, by nature.
They'd never be able to do their jobs properly if they were RW and sat there seething & thinking "dammit, some of these children in my class do not belong."  

Tommy Monk wrote:black/brown/female//Muslim/LGBT etc... all in the name of equality mind...!

Why do you bunch that group of very different types of people together? You clearly think they all have something in common. Do they represent the untermensch underclass in your thinking?   I run a small chatroom and two school teachers are members, very nice ladies and they would NEVER post alongside someone like you, Tommy. Give your big horrid Nazi head a wobble!

 The reason he bunches diverse sorts of people together is truly narcissist: what they have in common is, they trouble Tommy.

It's self-referential extremism, seen often in RW politics.  They don't really have a systemic take on the world.  Their thought process jumps from bowel urges, to bumper stickers, to buzzwords, with little thought/reason given to what they describe.

Firstly... white British boys are defined as white British boys... while east Europeans are defined as "white/other"... so no skewing of the figures...


Which brings me onto point 2... it is well known that the current most underperforming group is white British boys... and the reason for this is that the leftys, both teachers and others in positions of power in the teaching establishment, are too busy giving all the other "special" groups all the extra time/attention/encouragement/support/opportunities/rewards etc... all in the name of equality etc... where all must be treated equally regardless of colour/race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc...


Although... throughout the current lefty run education system... white British boys are not considered as being "equal" enough.!

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say that the problem is the fact that the vast majority of teachers and school authority staff are of a

lefty mindset,

Well of course they are - due to the nature of their work.
LW is all about inclusivity.  RW is about exclusivity.
Teachers need to be inclusive & progressive, by nature.
They'd never be able to do their jobs properly if they were RW and sat there seething & thinking "dammit, some of these children in my class do not belong."  

Tommy Monk wrote:black/brown/female//Muslim/LGBT etc... all in the name of equality mind...!

Why do you bunch that group of very different types of people together? You clearly think they all have something in common. Do they represent the untermensch underclass in your thinking?   I run a small chatroom and two school teachers are members, very nice ladies and they would NEVER post alongside someone like you, Tommy. Give your big horrid Nazi head a wobble!

Speaking of lazy ways of debating, it's pretty lazy to label someone a Nazi just because you don't agree with them. I see what Tommy is saying, even if I don't agree with him.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Speaking of lazy ways of debating, it's pretty lazy to label someone a Nazi just because you don't agree with them. I see what Tommy is saying, even if I don't agree with him.

I don't just think he is a Nazi, I know for a fact he is. So save your breath.  

You recently pompously told Wolfe "there is nothing I want to learn from Jules" I did not mind you saying that, cos the feeling is entirely mutual. IE there is zilch that I would wish to learn from you.

Tommy Monk wrote:
the teaching establishment, are too busy giving all the other "special"  groups all the extra

 

No, that is not the reality, it just looks that way. It's entirely a preception issue.  

Because you resent the people in that infamous list you made  (blacks, asians, women, gays, trans, Muslims) it follows that you resent any steps taken to lessen the odds that are stacked against them, to give them a whiff of a fighting chance, in life. 

How dare you call them "special". They are not special, they are just people same as you. You're not just a grumpy old man, you're a nazi. I saw the way you fiercely defended your namesake Tommy Mair who murdered a left wing MP in cold blood.

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Speaking of lazy ways of debating, it's pretty lazy to label someone a Nazi just because you don't agree with them. I see what Tommy is saying, even if I don't agree with him.

I don't just think he is a Nazi, I know for a fact he is. So save your breath.  

You recently pompously told Wolfe "there is nothing I want to learn from Jules" I did not mind you saying that, cos the feeling is entirely mutual. IE there is zilch that I would wish to learn from you.

Define Nazi, and say how you "know" that Tommy is one. You're talking rubbish and you're being hysterical.

Tommy Monk wrote: giving all the other "special" groups all the extra time/attention/encouragement/support/opportunities/rewards etc... all in the name of equality etc...

 

Disingenuous, to call them extra privileges. They were merely steps taken to level the playing field, to allow disadvantaged groups to catchup. 


Btw you made a gleeful thread when a labour MP got sacked for lying about a driving offence. Don't forget to make one about toryboy Chris Field being sacked for forging receipts to make bogus claims


I'm not wasting any more time arguing with you, Tommy M. Cos you're not the sort who could ever be enticed away from a Nazi mindset. 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:
I don't just think he is a Nazi, I know for a fact he is. So save your breath.  

You recently pompously told Wolfe "there is nothing I want to learn from Jules" I did not mind you saying that, cos the feeling is entirely mutual. IE there is zilch that I would wish to learn from you.

Define Nazi, and say how you "know" that Tommy is one. You're talking rubbish and you're being hysterical.

You always act like Tommy's over protective mum. Trust me, that is nothing to be proud of.

Jules wrote:Just seen your last two posts.

Didge don't waste your breath.  I know full well that some females behave quite badly and that they try too hard to emulate violent male ways. But implying that they are just as likely to beat up men & rape them is a sick joke. 


In forums & SM discussions,  when a poster  is accused of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc ….  the accused poster immediately bomerangs the accusations straight back at the accuser. It's a poor & lazy way of ''debating'' and that's what you're trying to do here.
 

Don't try any of that tit for tat smokes-&-mirrors guff with me. It won't work. Women will never catch up with men when it comes to violence or rape, they won't even come close.

Thanks for your time but I'm done here.

Statistically, you're right. But women are capable of the most heinous cruelty and violence. I'd say worse than men sometimes. I saw that news item of the woman who cut that baby from her living mother's womb? What kind of horror is that? Or the woman who burned her husband alive in his bed, then shut the bedroom door on him and let him scream? Oh, yes...women can be just as murderous.

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Define Nazi, and say how you "know" that Tommy is one. You're talking rubbish and you're being hysterical.

You always act like Tommy's over protective mum. Trust me, that is nothing to be proud of.

Like you behave like Wolfman's mother or Quill's mother?

I'm merely saying that you're being lazy by calling Tommy a Nazi.

It's a bit of a misnomer to call someone a nazi. Better to call them a facist.

Fascism is radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, and forcible suppression of opposition that first emerged in Italy. Perhaps Tommy has Eye-tie roots, a pair of jack boots and a tank that only has reverse gears.

For jules...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/674068/Working-class-white-boys-now-most-likely-fail-school


For HT...

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html

"Seig Heil", Tommy. 
The only words you truly understand.

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly... white British boys are defined as white British boys... while east Europeans are defined as "white/other"... so no skewing of the figures...


Which brings me onto point 2... it is well known that the current most underperforming group is white British boys... and the reason for this is that the leftys, both teachers and others in positions of power in the teaching establishment, are too busy giving all the other "special" groups all the extra time/attention/encouragement/support/opportunities/rewards etc... all in the name of equality etc... where all must be treated equally regardless of colour/race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc...


Although... throughout the current lefty run education system... white British boys are not considered as being "equal" enough.!

When you’re ready to listen I’ll tell you why your post is full of misconceptions and untruths.
May just blow your mind.

Andy wrote:"Seig Heil", Tommy. 
The only words you truly understand.

Andy... seriously... please try learning some truth about Mussolini and what his fascism actually was, before you try condemning me as being a follower of it... as you'll find that you are more of a supporter of the sort of things that Mussolini's fascism actually did, than I have ever advocated support for...!


Try reading the details here...


https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2015/Samuelsfascism.html