I know everyone has been piling on to National Review Online writer John Derbyshire lately but his latest comments (that became the subject of discussion towards the end of the Pandagon thread) have me, as usual and like everyone else, slapping my hand against my forehead:
Now I shall get even further behind. I have to go to my son's school to talk to the Dean about an "incident." Apparently Danny's been fighting. My immediate thought on that was: "Great! Has he been WINNING?" But of course that is "inappropriate" in the girlified public-school systems of today. The kiddies are supposed to "work out" their "issues."
I'd like to "work out" my "issues" with the school Dean the old-fashioned way. Unfortunately, it's a woman, so I have to sit there like a good, cowed, law-abiding, middle-class American doofus and listen to how unnacceptably boyish my boy is. I hate the modern world.
Oh my. So apparently acting like a peacable civilized human being is to be (quel horreur!) GIRLIFIED. Nothing worse than being girlified. No, it's far better for schools to tolerate violence among students than to encroach on the sacred propensities of those students who happen to have a penis.
I always thought it was the conservatives who were supposed to be up in arms about the decline of discipline in modern schools. But apparently that concern for discipline does not apply if it is a boy indulging in his naturally boyish tendencies to bully and beat on others. Because anything "boyish" must be good and anyone who takes issue with boyish violence must be anti-male!
(Of course, unlike Derbyshire, I don't happen to believe that violence is either universally or exclusively a male propensity -- per my post below.)