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

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...

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...

Identity is taking over politics

Mark Lilla writes in the New Statesman ( September 2017 ) that the "Left", i.e. the US Democratic Party, social justice and anti-facism movements, lost the US election due to being side-tracked by gender and race issues. Enough of the electorate weren't buying it and Trump won. In hindsight attacking a large proportion of the electorate based on their gender and race is never a good idea, no matter which race or gender you are talking about. No, it's not acceptable to denigrate men or white people either. Trump of course did the same, by attacking foreigners, Mexicans, Muslims and women, but he got away with it due to media bias and partisan politics. At home, Peter North, a prominent pro-Brexit blogger, tweeted about "self determination". This immediately raised the issue of what is "self", and lo and behold we are back to identity again. If we all feel European, then being governed by the EU is indeed self-determination, and let's not ki...