As I have mentioned many times before, I will be coming after everyone in this universe for the mere attempt of promoting a sexist ideology. Jewish man, Mark Sherman, Ph.D, is the person that I am coming after today. And although I am Arab, I will not be coming after him because he is Jewish but for the article he wrote which is entitled Attention Must Be Paid: Warren Farrell and the Boy Crisis. You can take our land, Jews, but I will not allow your sexist ideology to harm women (gotta flip the entire script as to make them the sexist ones if we are gonna get anywhere in this world).
Mark Sherman begins his article saying, “I do understand, sadly, why men — and their real problems — don’t get the attention they deserve by the academy, the media, and government (what Michael Gurian calls “The Big Three” in his 2017 book, Saving Our Sons). But what I still can’t fathom is why boys don’t either, except that they are men-to-be.” And to that, I shall first say that discrediting the reason given by adding it at the end in a tone that is meant to make it seem like it is not the answer, is not the answer. “They are men to be” can be a good reason if one was to assert the idea that boys are not getting the attention they deserve. Yet, before getting to that point, let us speak about attention. Because Mark Sherman stops paying any attention to the claim that he has made as he moves on to speak about fathers and how much rights they have over their children for pretty much the remaining part of the article. So why did Mark Sherman not pay boys the attention they deserve in the article that he has written given that the article is supposed to be about that?
So let us pay attention to what really matters: the fathers of these little boys. Mark speaks at length about fathers in his “pay attention to little boys” article as he states,
“Once I listened, I was struck by how much the dads cared. When they vented their anger about discrimination against them in family court, they sounded legalistic, angry, and bitter. But when I asked them about their children, tears flowed down their cheeks. Their anger was but a mask for vulnerability — the powerlessness they felt as words like “visitation” and “custody” made them feel like second-class citizens, and how being able to see their children only every other weekend made them feel that anything they had to contribute would be washed away between visits.I watched some of the dads spiral downward into depression, and others desperately try to finance court fights to be equally involved dads. Some of the dads couldn’t afford the legal fight. Other dads tried to earn enough money, only to feel they then didn’t have the time to be equally involved dads.”
And here is where I want to step in order to say something: Little girls are subjected to the ways of adult men today everywhere around this world. Before they become women, they are made to live by the standards of conduct of sexist adult men. We have little girls wearing the hijab as young as 6 and 7 years old. We have little girls being mutilated before they even get their periods. We have girls who are 9 years old who are having sex where in many of these cases, one can label this as “rape”. Many of these girls have been so amazing past words as to still finish college and have a career albeit broken down and scarred nevertheless. And so let us speak about boys and what they deserve. And I say that they do not deserve girls to be treated in this manner. The fight for men’s rights and boys’ rights is a political fight. That is how men wanted to address their issues, right? Education, economy, social welfare, Police security, military defense, etc. The government is MEN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT and whatever advances women make through government is one that is often rejected repeatedly by the government (who stands by men and their rights first and foremost) before a compromise, under which men receive more benefits than women do, is reached. So wassup with the government? Is that what Mark Sherman is asking? Why does the government side with women on custody battles? I think that is the question at hand. And the answer is: IT IS SIDING WITH MEN BY ITS DEFAULT EXISTENCE.
Mark Sherman mentions the National Organization for Women as he continues to talk more about fathers saying, “But the rank and file membership of NOW felt that the organization was for them and their rights as mothers, and thus the organization has never advocated for the importance of fathers. As Farrell puts it, “Mothers’ rights trumped equal rights. Politics trumped equality.” Again, politics trumped equality a long time ago due to politics being a system that was established in order to uphold men’s rights. Hence, it is men who have trumped equality. And it is men who are continuing to stand against it. Men cannot stand up and say, “men’s rights” as a reason for change since men have already defined what “having rights” mean to them. In fact, if one was to take a society where freedom of speech is restricted, one just fights for freedom of speech. No need to say, “men’s rights” because the lack of having such freedom affects women more than it affects men. And when we have a world where the problems affect women more than men, one cannot argue the point that men are affected more by such thing given that being affected by those things is what constitutes a positive for men. Meaning: men see that when they are paid more than women, that this is POSITIVE THING. If men are finding that such thing is making him have to work more in order to provide for his family given that his wife is getting paid less, this is not due to men being treated worse than women. And in that same regards, if school teachers find that they need to pay more attention to girls than to boys, this is not due to men being treated worse than women but the contrary. To pay attention to girls more (although I do not believe that girls are getting more attention than boys in education or anywhere else past an objectified attention) would only serve as evidence that WOMEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY were being mistreated. Meaning: women were not only mistreated economically…nope, they were mistreated in every aspect of their existence. In that, I do agree with NOW and other feminists in advocating for women instead of for men. Simply put, if one was to say “the father is more important”, we would be speaking about the status quo. And if one was to say “the father gets the children”, then that is in adherence to the way women are mistreated. And if one was to say, “the mother gets the children”, then that is in empowering women….if only due to the fact that men have chosen for it to be that way through the way they have mistreated women. Meaning: the terms of what it means for us to seek equality have been defined by men and not women. The “empowerment” aspect of this for women is mostly due to how wrong it would be if one was to stand by men specially when it comes to her children (again, “how wrong” has been defined by men).
Mark Sherman speaks about male disposability where through, “war, dangerous jobs, and, more recently, brain-threatening games like football, it has been our husbands, fathers, and sons, who have borne almost all the burden.” And I disagree with Mark in defining those things as that which is against the goals that men have. The goals that men have and they want to achieve should be disposed of: that would be the conclusion made in regards to that argument. For those things are not done out of a natural burden but they are things created by men in relation to the way they want to burden women.
Finally Mark Sherman ends the article by saying that, “boys and young men are lagging in education, not just in our country but across the developed world; the “purpose void” which so many young men feel; and the overuse of medications to treat ADHD in boys (a section written by John Gray). But for me, the crucial importance of fathers and the need to put a high value on our sons’ physical and mental health stand out.” And to that I say: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS?! WE HAVE DONE NOTHING ELSE BUT FOCUS ON MEN AND THEIR NEEDS! WE HAVE DONE ALL THAT THEY HAVE ASKED OF US TO DO DOWN TO THE DISHES. DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT PHASE ONE OF THAT OPERATION IS OVER AND NOW WE NEED TO TURN THE CAR AROUND IN ORDER TO HEAD BACK WHERE WE CAME FROM?! HENCE:
Congratulations ladies, we are done pleasing men this way all the way through… Yet, I am afraid that I have some bad news: We have a time issue at hand….No, we did not do what men have asked longer than we should have ever been forced to….We need to go lower… No, not lower in standards…But lower in age groups…Now we need to serve men starting at the age of 5. Before it was men when they were in their 20s all the way up to the day they die…And now we need to start when they are 5 years old lest they do not do well in school which would be a freaking national disaster. Let us roll up our sleeves and get to it… we got a lot of work to do….BUT WE CAN DO IT!
I mean, we have served men to the fullest extent… lowering the age under which a man can be called, “our master” is not the thing I am looking forwards to. SERVE MEN (AND BOYS) NOW!!! That would have pleased Warren and children too!