▶ War on Boys - YouTube
This just might be why it's so difficult for us to find REAL MEN in this country (gulch excluded of course...I'm annoyed I had to just write that disclaimer)...and I'm that much for excited about home schooling my grandson.
I can attest to everything this lady says is true in elementary schools. :(
I can attest to everything this lady says is true in elementary schools. :(
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4
When he was in the fifth grade there was-of course-a bully. This kid used to taunt him until one day my son has always been slow to anger, but recess he told him to take his best shot. So the bully commenced throwing punches which my son simply blocked for several minutes before finally shoving him into a pile of trash cans. The TA came up to him and told him he was ready to intervene, but it looked like he was doing alright by himself. Nobody messed with him after that--and strangely we never got a call from the school.
I say its money well spent for both boys and girls to learn self-defense. I say self-defense = self-esteem.
He was the only one of his five best friends to voluntarily for military service (Navy) and that really helped with leadership skills. He went in a boy, but he came out a man. I am so proud.
by
+++The Mentor+++
Written January 8, 1986
Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"...
Damn kids. They're all alike.
But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?
I am a hacker, enter my world...
Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...
Damn underachiever. They're all alike.
I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."
Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.
I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.
And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...
Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...
You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.
I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyyd_pna...
Thank you for bringing this video to our attention. truer words were never spoken. She and the researchers truly used "Common sense for Americans.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Maybe I've watched/listened to them too much...
Males, boys, especially those in majority are blamed for all of the evils of the world. They have no one to blame or use as a crutch or excuse when they fail. The perpetuated perception is that they have advantage. Much is expected of them without complaint or assistance. Recognizing this they are reticent. They are not nurtured for their natural inclinations, but often chastised. The predictable result of this change of social conditioning is coming to fruition.
Respectfully,
O.A.
A cat brings his mistress a mouse he's killed. She squeals and scolds him and throws it away.
The next day, he brings her a bird he's killed. She squeals and scolds him and throws it away.
The next day, he brings her a squirrel he managed to bring down. She squeals and scolds him and throws it away.
Soon, the cat just lays around the house. He won't eat. He won't play. He doesn't pay attention His mistress takes him to the vet.
The vet diagnoses severe depression and warns that he may not be able to save the cat's life. He has to explain it to the stu... sorry, khalling, no sexist ad hominems...
he explains to the mistress that when the cat was bringing her all these icky dead things... he was trying to *provide* for her; to follow his instincts and thereby show his affection, demonstrate her importance to him.
When she chastised him for doing what his instincts told him was a good and decent thing to do, he translated that into a sense of his own worthlessness. Since everything he tried to do for her she thought was bad, he concluded that he must be inherently worthless.
This is not the original version of the story, just from memory. But it does illustrate the effect of modern culture on boys.
Conversely, we're told every day what great self-esteem issues girls have. There are tv shows, movies, news articles devoted to the topic of fragile female self esteem. There are countless "experts" and celebrities telling girls things like this...
http://instagram.com/p/o7iV-Jrk4N/#
But I seldom see the same commentary, stories, news articles, etc about boys (outside of culturally peripheral venues such as this).
And then women ask, "Where have all the cowboys gone?"
A single mother can make more from the gov't if there is no male in the house.
the male has been reduced to that of "sperm donor".
I imagine, that soon, the pleasure of at least being a donor will be replaced by "male order seed catalogs".
To quote the wise Peter Griffin: "Let's drink til we feel no more feelings!"
But the gov't encourages not offspring, but little bastards. that is not helping at all.
If single mothers were able to bring more into the household by being married, I'll bet there'd by fewer single parent homes. How could that one simple thing improve or society? How would little boys be affected by the presence of a male role model (assuming not all males are bad or useless... yet).
There is nothing wrong with charity. Misguided charity is the problem.
We hide the shame of being a "welfare case" by issuing credit card looking food stamps. So that everyone gets a sense of "being a winner", or minimally "not a loser".
Which goes right back to the video, todays world is about feelings, not achievements. Little boys are a distraction with the lack of girlie feelings. We must correct this genetic drift. The very people that push "diversity" are the same ones that wish to neuter the boys for their differences.
And speaking to that other definition of "conservative" what would be the reaction if welfare were paid to households where married men did not support their families?
You raise the Rawlsian point that every society needs a "floor." But it is misplaced compassion. In a free market, so much would be free that poverty would be unknown. I once saw a guy with no shoes, a homeless guy, below the last rung on the ladder, but it was Albuquerque and he could get away with it. Then, think of all the shoes you see in the road.... Have you ever seen anyone without shoes or clothes? Homeless people push shopping carts of what we leave behind. Their problems are not material but emotional and psychological. We have a surfeit of wealth now. Imagine if capitalism were given its full head of steam.
keeps on finding "reasons" to avoid letting
capitalism take off like a rocket. now that we
have "perfected" the industrial age and are
working on the information age, you would think
that we might offer the world a taste -- shrinking
government and expanding charity, creating
millions of work-from-home jobs, even
subcontracting DoD work to Ragnar ... but, no,
we must regulate, stifle, strangle the golden
goose.
I think that it's the raw desire for power over others. -- j
As my parents struggled to provide winter coats and two pair of jeans and a shirt, each for their two boys, as they bought hamburger as a luxury, she had herself and her two children completely outfitted, courtesy of Uncle Sam. They dined on steak.
One day my father turned to my mother (curiously, she was more upset relating this to me than he was...) and said:
"You're a fool."
"Why?"
"Because look at all you could have instead of this struggle, if you'd just divorce me."
People wonder why I use language they consider offensive. I don't consider offensive to insult those whom *I* judge worthy of insult.
Now, garbage like the [censored] who lived above my parents back then don't even have to take shame in being what they are, because anyone who dares call them what they are is chastised for being offensive, while everyone else misses the point.
I imagine I'll get called-out by someone for calling this... creature... a welfare parasite.
generation -- among those who survive the gang
environment. -- j
True, When I was in grade school, it was a male denominated era. I don't think it was be design, or intentional - it just happened. the Feminist wanted equality so that little girls could get ahead, and they got it. Now comes the payback.
The same is true with Politics. The harder they pull to the left, at some point it will be pulled to the right with at least the same energy.
The paybacks have to end.
It is obvious by inspection that women in the previous centuries were cloistered against opportunity. Industrialism changed that. One of the complaints of Marx in the Manifesto is that capitalism endangered the traditional family by taking women out of the home. Karl Marx was a social conservative.
Also, your claim about minorities extracting their pound of retribution does not apply to that specific minority in your allusion. Jews were limited in acceptance to Ivy League schools lest they dominate. So, they just went elsewhere. They were not alone. The Ivies were for WASPS. Hence, Georgetown and Notre Dame and Boston College were founded. In short, most minorities made their own way. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem both from Smith College were among the many who attended women's colleges.
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t put one gender above another.
I take acception to your use of ‘ cloistered’. Once again, that assumes intent. I’m sure there was some intent, but I don’t think that was wide spread.
Relative to a two parent household. I see this as Yin-Yang situation.
The Yin and the Yang are both different, but equal, and share a part of, and complement, each other, together they from a perfect union. The Yin recedes in favor of its Yang, and vice-versa.
Traditional Roles have been distorted. The strengths of one has been replaced by the weakness of the other.
Women are better nurturers then men. They know how to deal with children, and have the patience for it, where most men would likely lose their minds.
In the past, when I was younger, and maybe many of you, elementary school teachers were typically mothers who had the experience of raising small children and knew, by experience, how to get them how to behave. Today, most elementary school teachers are recent college graduates, who are still moist behind the ears, and in many cases do not have kids, or are just experiencing motherhood and the challenges it brings. As a result, they do not know how to deal with young ones so their solution is to medicate the boys (primarily).
If these young women were in their historical roles (I’m not saying a women’s place is in the home), she would stay at home, raise the kids, and manage the household. that, in itself is a full time job, and worthy of great respect.
Men, typically (or historically), brought home the bacon, taught the older boys to be responsible (not saying the mothers didn’t also), to provide and protect, and how to ‘man up’ when you had to.
If women married and stayed at home, instead of entering the work force, what would be different today?
The unemployment rate would be lower because you would remove a significant percentage of the workforce from the market place.
There would likely be a shortage of people to do these jobs, as such, wages would go up.
When the little ones are older, and a bit more self-sufficient, or move out, some of those mothers might then become elementary school teachers, and bring their parenting experiences to use to the classroom.
More mothers would likely be involved in schools (PTA, board of Ed), and in local politics (my mother was). There would likely be less crime, and teens would likely be causing less trouble and likely stay away from drugs. There would probably be greater community involvement.
“Dad” would actually be in the picture turning the boys into men, and preparing them for the world.
Welfare might be significantly less.
I don’t say this to imply this is the way things should be. I’m saying, look at how things were, and where we’re at today.
Whatever we did in the name of “equality”, we did it wrong.
Why did women want ‘it all’? Is it because men so disrespected their value, and contribution to the home and family??
Both are equal, and valuable. They are stronger together than separate.
I don’t have a problem with stay at home dads. I do believe there is a lot of value to having one parent managing the home (and kids), and having one working full-time.
But because of the path we took, it cut wages making it very difficult for many to survive on a single income, so we see ourselves in the downward spiral.
We can’t fully fault the schools for the situation. they are trying to address a societal problem with insufficient tools, and probably a strong dose of political correctness.
What I just wrote is taboo to discuss, as a result we avoid the conversation.
Please don’t jump on me. I’m merely pointing out that the problem is greater than just the schools.
Similarly, when I dialed back my work when the nanny quit and her practice was taking off, we'd have to say I didn't really want to do that, which is untrue.
I strongly agree with the contentious things you're saying about groups. The problem is when we apply them to all individuals.
I'm sure you're a great guy, and a great parent, but a wet-nurse you will never be. Is there a real value of that mother/child bond that a father just can't fill, and a bottle won't replace?
I do not preclude women entering the work force. If you look at the logistics of it, if a women starts her professional career right out of college, then waits before having children, that can be problematic, biologically speaking. Let alone, new studies show that women that wait to have kids are more likely to get breast cancer. That's another biological justification for women to have kids at a younger age.
Let's say she has kids (only she can), rears them for a time, and then tries to pick up her career where she left off, that's a significant lose of wage and experience for the time she was out.
your wife has it a bit different because she started her on practice/business. She does lose some gained experience points for her absence.
Men don't suffer that problem because they don't have to stop what they're doing to have kids. It's just biology - not society.
Should we compensate women for that time off as if they never left the work force? Isn't that penalizing the men that worked that time, and kept their skills sharp?
the better solution is that women have their kids young, keep their skills up (college, staying on top of technology, etc.) and then when the kids are a bit older, then enter the work force. Their salaries would still be less because of time not served but then they could have the benefits of a full uninterruptted career. Maybe Dad leaves the work force at that time and manages the home.
the benefit there would be overall long term salaries would be less and employers would be less likely to want to get rid of employees that are getting long in the tooth.
I have no doubt that my views might be distorted. My parents we're probably rare. My mother loved being a "kept woman" as she would say.
My Dad didn't care what she spent money on as long as the bills were paid, the kids were healthy and fed, and dinner was on the table - not really asking a lot. My dads only want was maybe a monthly visit to Burger King. Most of the time my father never knew how much he made. My mother paid the bills, and took his paycheck before he even saw it. I remember once my father actually looked at his paycheck and exclaimed, "oh, I make that much". He was an electrical engineer, and loved what he did.
My parents also never argued. Never. Outside of political debates. But that wasn't an argument because they were on the same team.
So, was/is women's lot in life Biological or Societal? Can't change biology.
Is this what's effecting or boys? Is this the cause of the over prescription of SSRI drugs, and these mass shootings? We better figure out what's better for society quick. I don't know the answer, but I do know what we're doing isn't working.
You're right in many aspects of my personal case, but I say let every individual explore that for himself. There is more variation between each of us than between the average of our groups. It's interesting to study average traits of groups, but we must let people explore life for themselves.
"Should we compensate women for that time off as if they never left the work force? Isn't that penalizing the men that worked that time, and kept their skills sharp?"
No way should we compensate someone for work not done. It would be penalizing men who worked that time AND penalizing women b/c people would rightly question the resume of woman wondering if she earned it or received the benefit.
I think you're right in 80% of the cases, but sometimes something special that moves humanity forward lies in the 20% or the 0.01%, the outliers and freaks, the Roarks and John Galts. Let people be weird and special.
it's not political retribution; the left, as part of its attempt to destroy America, created a near-religion of 'equality'. They took one word from one phrase of the Declaration of Independence, removed it from its proper context, and used it to disrupt and destroy a functioning culture.
Any reversal isn't "payback", it's an attempt, almost instinctive, to return the culture to rationality.
There were previous male dominated eras which were NOT succeeded by female dominated eras. We often refer to these eras as "golden ages". There were previous female dominated eras which were NOT succeeded by male dominated eras... or anything else.
Take racism. I definitely believe there is institutionalized reverse racism.
There is no discussion of race relations in this country. the White population is told how it's going to be, and we're to shut-up, sit-down, and eat our peas.
I feel there is a similar attitude when it comes to women. they got a voice, and now they're using it, and there will be no discussion with the men regarding it.
Yet everyone want to come here for university eduction, where Ohio State and UCLA compete against Yale and Stanford.
In short, while I whole heartedly agree that private solutions and individual initiatives are superior to centralism and socialism, the how and why of that require some thought and analysis beyond just blaming the government for everything.
When it comes to government, you might not be to do much about the President and Congress, but you can influence the local school board. You can run for election and be chosen.
Secondly, if girls do better in school than boys, then why do women not earn as much as men in a complex, industrial, post-industrial society? School teaches you to work in an office; and the office is another realm ruled by women. Yet, men dominate in business.
Third, the solution to that problem is best approached by the question of gender. Shrugger calls for "real men" but does not define that term. What is a "real man"? What is a "real woman"? I call the question, both of them, actually.
I submit that over the centuries and accelerating we have been getting away from gender. The keyboard liberated women by allowing them to do productive work that did not depend on muscles. Feminizing boys and masculinizing girls eventually leads to a world where people are perceived for something other than their bodies. That is rooted in civilization, i.e., in urbanity.
It is true that the bow-and-arrow allows a woman or a child to kill a man at a distance, but no hunter society actually has had that kind of equality since the Neanderthals - and they did not have the bow-and-arrow, anyway.
In cities, women inherited property despite traditional laws. Women were chosen mayor even in the Middle Ages. But, fair enough, that is when the first colleges taught boys to sit down, shut up, and pay attention for extended sessions.
Then, fifth or sixth, what are the alternatives? You can "treat boys like boys" en masse, but of course ignoring the individual. What about the boy who does not want go outside and play war games for recess? And what of the girl who does? Is that "treating a girl like a boy"?
The premise of the original post is riddled with epistemological errors analogous to the demands for "racial equality" that created Black History Month.
Rational-empirical pedagogy begins with the fact of individuality. You do not "treat boys like boys" or "girls like girls". You grant each child the right to discover who they are on their own terms.
(I will confess that I was happy that our child was a girl. It was a lot easier playing baseball with her than it would have been playing Barbies with my son.)
People do not have gender; words have gender, people have sex.
I had a revelation watching CSI: Crime Scene Investigations a few years back. There was a bone the CSI agents found. The coroner identified it as belonging to a black man. What? You mean that skin color is *not* the only physical difference between races??
Likewise, the difference between women and men is more than simply genitalia. The brains are wired difference. You're not going to overcome 2 million years of evolution by passing nonsensical laws and regulations.
A study conducted back in the 80s, and quickly pushed into obscurity, tested men and women on their views of "justice".
The men tended to think that justice lay in punishing bad behavior, and rewarding good behavior, while the women tended to think that justice lay in doing the least harm to the least number of people. I would submit that nowadays most men and women have views on "justice" that are a mixed-up mishmash of these two viewpoints, as their indoctrination conflicts with their instincts.
The study concluded that the women believed as they did because, in our prehistoric past, women ran the "base camp" while the men were out hunting. They were the most competent and able amongst the children, elderly, and crippled/wounded/sick left behind as the men went out to hunt the game which made us different from gorillas and other apes. Their concern was keeping the lid on this boiling cauldron of emotion and pecking order.
Men, on the other hand, were out where life got dangerous and short. A man screws up, somebody gets dead. A man takes a risk and brings down game that otherwise might have eluded capture/killing, and the tribe eats good for a change.
This leads to a mindset which weighs risk, and rewards success and punishes screwups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92u5U3A...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm3FlbUf...
Another canard. The problem with the argument of "... women perform the identical work as men for lower wages..." is that it's progressive politics. Or collectivist ideology, whichever you prefer.
What it does it say, "all women are identical to all other women, and all men are identical with all other men."
*I* don't perform identical work as my male co-workers with the same job title. Even allowing for the fact that we do similar work, and work that overlaps, the bottom line is, I'm an individual, and I provide a unique quality and quantity of work. That can be a lot, or it can be a little, but it should be judged on an individual basis, not based on genitalia, skin color, club membership, or political affiliation.
Best-Paid Women in S and P 500 Settle for Less Remuneration
By Carol Hymowitz and Cécile Daurat Aug 12, 2013 11:01 PM CT
Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg News' Carol Hymowitz explores the findings of a Bloomberg study on the gender pay gap at S-and-P 500 companies, where female executives made an average of 18 percent less than their male counterparts.
Even the few women who’ve managed to advance to the C-suite don’t get equal pay.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13...
"On the almost-free market blog, OrgTheory, is a link about gender bias in science research hiring. Even women who head labs preferentially hire and pay men in excess of women with equal qualifications." (From OrgTheory here: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2012/09/2...)
Yet, if as you claim, schools are anti-boy how do you explain: "Over on Prof. Mark Perry’s blog, Carpe Diem (now with the American Enterprise Institute) are numbers about the huge gender gap [33 points] in the SATs..."
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sa...
As I said, if you argue numbers and populations, you will never find an answer.
Outlining the problem, however, my blog presents "She's Such a Geek!" (which was posted here in the Gulch)
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
On The Gulch here under Books:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2b...
The same book as a launching point for a similar discussion on forced equality and forced inequality: You Only Have to be Better to be Equal:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
(P. S. You did not define "real man.")
I was offered a job at one salary, and I counter for a higher salary. I got it. The person that hired me said, "he would't have respected me if I didn't counter his offer".
Raises are typically a set increase percentage so that there is no perception of bias.
Starting salary is everything.
There's your flaw... what defines "qualifications"?
Almost all employment involves some sort of interviewing process, which will reveal personality, leadership, and other traits not covered by formal "qualifications" (like, "Harvard Graduate" or "degree in Climate Science"). Hell, even two people who attended the same classes and/or worked for the same company will have different performance profiles.
You ever have to hire anyone, Mike?
He respects women, and if knocks one up, he either marries her, or in the very least provides for the child.
He doesn't not disappear and claim "it's her problem".
A man is there to help raise the child and support the woman.
A man doesn't go to prison.
A man doesn't shrug his responsibility on to society.
Since we have no real men anymore, we have to raise our girls to be men and carry the full burden themselves.
If that is not the definition of a man, then it's proof that men serve no purpose.
"A real man is one who does the honorable thing.
He respects women"
Respect is earned, not owed. This is part of the modern cultural philosophy that's turning men into whipping boys. And women into slovenly sluts.
A real man is not there to help raise the child and support the woman; that places the woman in charge and places him in a subordinate role. A real man is there to provide for the woman and children; provide not just protection and sustenance, but especially stability. A real man is the immovable bedrock which is the foundation of family, in a tempestuous world.
The first is Rudyard Kipling's "If":
---
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;
If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drBIhnAT...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQsFtcg...
The second is a segment from "Horatius at the Bridge" which I have cited elsewhere recently:
"Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
'To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,
XXVIII
'And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?"
It's understandable; he has something in common with Ayn Rand in that regard... the enemy recognizes that too much Kipling can vaccinate against their evil, infectious agenda, just as they fear Rand for the same reason.
Fighting is another example of a problematic "boyish" behavior. The child must learn that fighting is not a way to solve a problem. On the other hand, girls as well as boys can learn martial arts that teach discipline and control as well as technique. I would not excuse fighting as "boys being boys."
Keep prattling on and coming up with theories and impotent "solutions" so you don't have to face the fact that the negative aspects of modern society are a result of our rejecting traditional, American culture, which was based upon Man's nature, not feel-good political experiments.
By the standards of the 70's, I was a weird kid.
I was also a horrible student. Today, they probably would have medicated me. That would have stifled my creative for sure. I'm sure it would have killed my ambition.
The definition of "boyish" and "girlish" may be cultural in the details, but in the broad brushstrokes it's biological.
"tomboys" and "sissies" somehow manage to transcend different cultures and still have the same meaning, with different words.
The distaste for role-confusion has an evolutionary, biological component. The imperative to create offspring and see them to breeding age.
The story about the kid who drew the swordfight picture reminded me...
When I was in 9th grade, we moved, and I started in a new school. I had already had semesters of American history at my old school (which I'd aced), so the course was redundant for me. My (male) history teacher gave me a test. I aced the test. The rest of that semester, all I had to do was attend class, take the tests and exams, and as long as I wasn't disruptive, I could use the class time for whatever I wanted.
One day he was clearing out some old exam pages, and he let me have some of them. The backs of them were all blank.
I used them to draw battle scenes; soldiers shooting, rough landscapes torn up, tanks blowing things up, planes dropping bombs. I would string them together, eventually telling a battle story that could stretch the length of the classroom. (years later I was reminded of this when I saw the maps of side-scrolling video games...)
Nobody thought anything of it. Nobody chastised me, nobody wanted to drug me, nobody worried that I'd shoot up the school.
Coincidentally... I never did...