Skip to main content

How to Talk to Little People

A feminist article was recently brought to my attention, called "How to Talk to Little Girls" by Lisa Bloom. Whilst I agree with everything Lisa says, my heart immediately sank, as it reminded me once again that feminists only ever care for their own. The entire article would have been equally valid if it had been talking about little boys.

For the TL;DR, the article basically forwards the idea (which I agree with) that praising girls' appearance is counter-productive since it emphasises body image, which can lead to harmful obsessions. Instead, little girls should be engaged on an intellectual basis, for example by talking about books.

There are a few assumptions here. 1) that body image issues only affect girls. I uncovered some articles from The Guardian (2012) and by Naomi Weinshenker (2014) that basically suggest that men and teenage boys are as much if not more worried about body image than women. Certainly, teenage boys kill themselves more often than teenage girls.

Assumption 2) that girls are not sufficiently stimulated, seems to be undermined by the fact that girls do much better in school, and that most of the education system is run by women.

Assumption 3), that girls are praised for their appearance more than boys. I certainly remember having my hair ruffled and told how sweet or gorgeous I was as a child. I have no data on this, but I imagine both genders have to suffer this.

I have sympathy for Lisa Bloom's position that this affects girls more than boys, but I don't think the problem is nearly as gendered as Lisa supposes, or that this is a single gender problem.

This is just typical of a society in general, or feminists in particular, who ignore the health of boys and then wonder why they cause more problems later in life. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...

There are no 'F's in Brexit Dividend

One of the most galling aspects of Brexit is the realisation of how much politicians lie. This week, there has been a coordinated PR effort amongst Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Theresa May to talk about the "Brexit Dividend" being used on the NHS. Yet the government's own economic analysis shows that there is no Brexit dividend. Every scenario makes us poorer. There's no f'in Brexit Dividend. Do the politicians really believe their own nonsense, or are they lying? Either option is frankly horrifying. This whole thing really typifies what has gone wrong. Ideology trumps evidence and experts. What is most frightening is that the rot goes all the way up to the Prime Minister herself. It makes absolutely no sense to try to rally the country around a lie, as the lie will eventually be exposed, and the sooner the better.