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

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali