Parents of boys who became incels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

It seems to be. You don’t seem worried that the boys will become labor rights advocates, you just assume in a universe of disparate hiring practices (some of which disadvantage them) they will focus in on resenting….women. Why do you believe that?

I never said any such thing. How about a good faith discussion?

You’re not the poster who said “ in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.”

If not apologies I’ve been responding to the wrong person. But if you are this person I still want to know why you think its understandable to resent policies which allow boys and girls equal access but not resent policies which deny access to anyone outside the Ivy League, preferential hiring of children/internal referrals, basically any of the myriad hiring practices which simply aren’t about them.

The policy was the boys were competing for two internships. Third place didn’t get an internship. The third place girl didn’t get an internship. This is a remarkable thing to find resentment over in the world of “prestigious internships”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

It seems to be. You don’t seem worried that the boys will become labor rights advocates, you just assume in a universe of disparate hiring practices (some of which disadvantage them) they will focus in on resenting….women. Why do you believe that?

I never said any such thing. How about a good faith discussion?

You’re not the poster who said “ in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.”

If not apologies I’ve been responding to the wrong person. But if you are this person I still want to know why you think its understandable to resent policies which allow boys and girls equal access but not resent policies which deny access to anyone outside the Ivy League, preferential hiring of children/internal referrals, basically any of the myriad hiring practices which simply aren’t about them.

The policy was the boys were competing for two internships. Third place didn’t get an internship. The third place girl didn’t get an internship. This is a remarkable thing to find resentment over in the world of “prestigious internships”

Because it doesn't hit them until it impacts them personally, which has been my point this entire time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys need
A mom at home.
Almost zero screen time.
Male and female friends, in real life.
A good education, either at home or in a private school.
Lots of fresh air every day.

If you're not doing that, you're gonna have a bad time. Bottom line.

I found the right wing incel. Be for real. Mom at home isn't happening in this economy. Public schools have better educated teachers than private schools that require minimal education and training.

I want responses from real people who live in the real world.

A mom doesn’t have to be a stay at home mom to be present and available to her boy. But not having to work certainly frees up some time that can be diverted towards homework help and time spent together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

It seems to be. You don’t seem worried that the boys will become labor rights advocates, you just assume in a universe of disparate hiring practices (some of which disadvantage them) they will focus in on resenting….women. Why do you believe that?

I never said any such thing. How about a good faith discussion?

You’re not the poster who said “ in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.”

If not apologies I’ve been responding to the wrong person. But if you are this person I still want to know why you think its understandable to resent policies which allow boys and girls equal access but not resent policies which deny access to anyone outside the Ivy League, preferential hiring of children/internal referrals, basically any of the myriad hiring practices which simply aren’t about them.

The policy was the boys were competing for two internships. Third place didn’t get an internship. The third place girl didn’t get an internship. This is a remarkable thing to find resentment over in the world of “prestigious internships”

No that was not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys need
A mom at home.
Almost zero screen time.
Male and female friends, in real life.
A good education, either at home or in a private school.
Lots of fresh air every day.

If you're not doing that, you're gonna have a bad time. Bottom line.

I found the right wing incel. Be for real. Mom at home isn't happening in this economy. Public schools have better educated teachers than private schools that require minimal education and training.

I want responses from real people who live in the real world.

A mom doesn’t have to be a stay at home mom to be present and available to her boy. But not having to work certainly frees up some time that can be diverted towards homework help and time spent together.

Plenty of non incel men whose mother worked. Stop with the working mother shaming.

-mom of boy and girl

DH's mother did not work; my mother worked. Neither my brother nor DH ended up as incels. They both have multiple sisters, however. And that helped them sympathize with women more, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

It seems to be. You don’t seem worried that the boys will become labor rights advocates, you just assume in a universe of disparate hiring practices (some of which disadvantage them) they will focus in on resenting….women. Why do you believe that?

I never said any such thing. How about a good faith discussion?

You’re not the poster who said “ in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.”

If not apologies I’ve been responding to the wrong person. But if you are this person I still want to know why you think its understandable to resent policies which allow boys and girls equal access but not resent policies which deny access to anyone outside the Ivy League, preferential hiring of children/internal referrals, basically any of the myriad hiring practices which simply aren’t about them.

The policy was the boys were competing for two internships. Third place didn’t get an internship. The third place girl didn’t get an internship. This is a remarkable thing to find resentment over in the world of “prestigious internships”

Because it doesn't hit them until it impacts them personally, which has been my point this entire time.

All of these things impact them personally is my point. They are going to be turned down for jobs and internships throughout their career. If they decide to resent policies that give women access but not resent policies that give others access then that is a choice. Why do you think they’re going to choose to resent women and not every other policy which “disadvantaged” them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

Women have, for thousands of years, been disadvantaged. Cry me a river.

But that was a bad thing, right? So then it is bad to do the same to men. Especially since these men are not responsible for any of that history.

Our society has moved from 99% of things being explicitly reserved for white men to a greater number of things being available me to both sexes. This doesn’t “disadvantage” men it just removes their exclusive access. Helping our sons understand that is a basic part of parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

Women have, for thousands of years, been disadvantaged. Cry me a river.

But that was a bad thing, right? So then it is bad to do the same to men. Especially since these men are not responsible for any of that history.

Our society has moved from 99% of things being explicitly reserved for white men to a greater number of things being available me to both sexes. This doesn’t “disadvantage” men it just removes their exclusive access. Helping our sons understand that is a basic part of parenting.

I dispute your claim of “ 99%.” I think you simply made that number up.

But Bloomberg News did not make up the statistic their research discovered; Bloomberg discovered the opposite: 94%. Here is Bloomberg’s evidence (if you want to question it):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color


“New analysis shows in the year after the protests, the biggest public companies added over 300,000 jobs — and 94% of them went to people of color.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

Women have, for thousands of years, been disadvantaged. Cry me a river.

But that was a bad thing, right? So then it is bad to do the same to men. Especially since these men are not responsible for any of that history.

Our society has moved from 99% of things being explicitly reserved for white men to a greater number of things being available me to both sexes. This doesn’t “disadvantage” men it just removes their exclusive access. Helping our sons understand that is a basic part of parenting.

I dispute your claim of “ 99%.” I think you simply made that number up.

But Bloomberg News did not make up the statistic their research discovered; Bloomberg discovered the opposite: 94%. Here is Bloomberg’s evidence (if you want to question it):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color


“New analysis shows in the year after the protests, the biggest public companies added over 300,000 jobs — and 94% of them went to people of color.”

75.3% of Americans are white.

You cannot reconcile that number with 94% of jobs being awarded to BIPOCs and come to any other conclusion than:

racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

Women have, for thousands of years, been disadvantaged. Cry me a river.

But that was a bad thing, right? So then it is bad to do the same to men. Especially since these men are not responsible for any of that history.

Our society has moved from 99% of things being explicitly reserved for white men to a greater number of things being available me to both sexes. This doesn’t “disadvantage” men it just removes their exclusive access. Helping our sons understand that is a basic part of parenting.

I dispute your claim of “ 99%.” I think you simply made that number up.

But Bloomberg News did not make up the statistic their research discovered; Bloomberg discovered the opposite: 94%. Here is Bloomberg’s evidence (if you want to question it):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color


“New analysis shows in the year after the protests, the biggest public companies added over 300,000 jobs — and 94% of them went to people of color.”

75.3% of Americans are white.

You cannot reconcile that number with 94% of jobs being awarded to BIPOCs and come to any other conclusion than:

racism.

I think you meant “reverse racism,” which does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can debate ethics or profit motive all you want. But a practical result of boys/young men feeling personally disadvantaged in specific situations very likely could be resentment towards those policies, whatever their provenance. I am not saying this makes them incels or justifies red pill culture, but on a human level it is understandable to feel it is 'unfair'.

Then that’s the answer for OP. Teach your sons to be critical thinkers, who are able to move past emotional and illogical knee-jerk reactions. Feeling “personally disadvantaged” by for-profit companies acting…for-profit…is going to be a very painful way to go through life and yes absolutely will lead to resentment and bitterness, even if it isn’t targeted at women.

Somehow you think that the profit notice erases the fact that people can be “personally disadvantaged” or that it doesn’t matter somehow? That’s not critical thinking at all.

Did these boys feel individually disadvantaged by every firm that only recruited out of higher-tier colleges? They disadvantaged all 20 of them.

Did they feel individually disadvantaged by every internship at the firm that was given to the child of a donor, an executive, or a contact?

Or do they only feel disadvantaged because the firm made the choice to recruit girls as well as boys?

If they’re choosing to resent women in the context of all the other people who didn’t give them internships than no, they’re not remotely critical thinkers.

Pretty sure that all of that is unethical, sure. Of course people feel disadvantaged by all of that. This isn’t either/or.

Women have, for thousands of years, been disadvantaged. Cry me a river.

But that was a bad thing, right? So then it is bad to do the same to men. Especially since these men are not responsible for any of that history.

Our society has moved from 99% of things being explicitly reserved for white men to a greater number of things being available me to both sexes. This doesn’t “disadvantage” men it just removes their exclusive access. Helping our sons understand that is a basic part of parenting.

I dispute your claim of “ 99%.” I think you simply made that number up.

But Bloomberg News did not make up the statistic their research discovered; Bloomberg discovered the opposite: 94%. Here is Bloomberg’s evidence (if you want to question it):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-09-26/corporate-america-kept-its-promise-to-hire-more-people-of-color


“New analysis shows in the year after the protests, the biggest public companies added over 300,000 jobs — and 94% of them went to people of color.”

Ok, but:

“White people still hold a disproportionate share of the top, highly paid jobs in the US at S&P 100 companies.”

You’re talking about a 2 percentage point change for people of color in upper-level positions.

[Anonymous]

I have two white boys and I don’t think they are advantaged or disadvantaged. They’ll make their way. If something happens that’s unfair, they have to move on. If they catch a break, they better be ready to take advantage of it.

I also don’t think girls are advantaged or disadvantaged. The same applies to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one clear message on which we can all agree, form this whole incel thing, is:

- boys need to be far more educated and raised as feminists. It is the antidote to toxic masculinity. I am talking to you, boy-moms.

This makes no sense. Seriously quite the opposite. YDY though.

You are 100% wrong. When young men see women as equals, and not some *thing* they can control they are less likely to get sucked into this content. You are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one clear message on which we can all agree, form this whole incel thing, is:

- boys need to be far more educated and raised as feminists. It is the antidote to toxic masculinity. I am talking to you, boy-moms.

It is more complicated than that. I have to be sympathetic to their perceptions since THEY seem to be bearing the brunt of the mistakes and bad behavior of generations of men before them. My boys know and have been told about the inequities in history (not just towards women but other cultural groups and races). They know to stand up for people. But all they know is the life they are living and struggling through themselves.

For example, my oldest's college roommate (boys) worked for weeks on a presentation for a prestigious internship position. There were spots for 2 boys and 2 girls from their school. There were about 20 boys and 3 girls who applied. His roommate did not get it despite being very qualified (grades, ecs etc) but one of the girls who got it had actually ran out of the presentation room in tears due to nerves. This really upset my feminist-raised ds on behalf of his roommate. It isn't going to make them the next Joe Rogans or anything but it doesn't engender empathy.

It is easy to say raise them that way but they face so many other factors and situations outside of the home especially as they get older - peers, reality, internet, other adults and leaders, etc.

Is your son’s premise that the only criteria that should have been assessed was the presentation? So if it turns out the girl had m higher grades, betters ecs, better recommendations or what have you, she is still “less qualified”? Because it’s not clear from your example that she was, only that on the presentation (one aspect) she did less well.

Just cautioning you (and your son) about that logic. It’s much easier to be a victim than a gracious loser.

The real crux of the issue. All these boymoms raising their precious babies to believe they deserve everything, and if they don’t get it it’s someone else’s fault. Minorities, women, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one clear message on which we can all agree, form this whole incel thing, is:

- boys need to be far more educated and raised as feminists. It is the antidote to toxic masculinity. I am talking to you, boy-moms.

It is more complicated than that. I have to be sympathetic to their perceptions since THEY seem to be bearing the brunt of the mistakes and bad behavior of generations of men before them. My boys know and have been told about the inequities in history (not just towards women but other cultural groups and races). They know to stand up for people. But all they know is the life they are living and struggling through themselves.

For example, my oldest's college roommate (boys) worked for weeks on a presentation for a prestigious internship position. There were spots for 2 boys and 2 girls from their school. There were about 20 boys and 3 girls who applied. His roommate did not get it despite being very qualified (grades, ecs etc) but one of the girls who got it had actually ran out of the presentation room in tears due to nerves. This really upset my feminist-raised ds on behalf of his roommate. It isn't going to make them the next Joe Rogans or anything but it doesn't engender empathy.

It is easy to say raise them that way but they face so many other factors and situations outside of the home especially as they get older - peers, reality, internet, other adults and leaders, etc.

Is your son’s premise that the only criteria that should have been assessed was the presentation? So if it turns out the girl had m higher grades, betters ecs, better recommendations or what have you, she is still “less qualified”? Because it’s not clear from your example that she was, only that on the presentation (one aspect) she did less well.

Just cautioning you (and your son) about that logic. It’s much easier to be a victim than a gracious loser.

The real crux of the issue. All these boymoms raising their precious babies to believe they deserve everything, and if they don’t get it it’s someone else’s fault. Minorities, women, etc.

Meh. Maybe some boymoms but certainly not all. Not most.

My boys will have to fight for everything. They’re looking for equal partners as mates so they can fight together.