In two separate studies, neither of which should come as a surprise to anybody with a brain, the Washington Post today dispels some things we’ve heard a lot of squawking about for the past couple of years:
First of all, no, there is no education crisis in which girls’ increasing achievement is coming at the expense of boys’ success:
“A lot of people think it is the boys that need the help,” co-author Christianne Corbett said. “The point of the report is to highlight the fact that that is not exclusively true. There is no crisis with boys. If there is a crisis, it is with African American and Hispanic students and low-income students, girls and boys.”
This ought not to come as a surprise, because whenever you hear about a boys’ crisis in education, you never hear about boys doing worse than boys did in the past (clearly, because they’re not) – you only hear about girls doing better than girls did in the past. But there’s no discrepancy here for people who feel any advancement made by women is by its very nature at the expense of men. (Incidentally, remember back when Laura Bush decided to make saving American boys her mission?)
And secondly, no, teenage girls aren’t using a technicality to blow the football team and still call themselves virgins:
Contrary to widespread belief, teenagers do not appear to commonly engage in oral sex as a way to preserve their virginity, according to the first study to examine the question nationally.
This ought to come as no surprise, because there’s always ongoing speculation by adults who can’t get their minds out of teenagers’ pants about what porn-o-riffic exploits the young might be indulging in these days. I’m no fan of Caitlin Flanagan (in part, because she frequently mourns for poor, neglected, American boys), but this Atlantic article is a good explanation of where this sort of speculation comes from, and why it’s degrading and insulting to teenagers:
The moms in my set are convinced-they’re certain; they know for a fact-that all over the city, in the very best schools, in the nicest families, in the leafiest neighborhoods, twelve- and thirteen-year-old girls are performing oral sex on as many boys as they can.
Related, the creepiness of purity balls! There’s a line at which traditional safeguarding of the “virtue” of young girls becomes more perverse than its opposite, and I think it’s around the time people forget that a vagina is something a girl has, not something that she is.
–
More on appeasement:
Bolton in the WSJ…:
‘When the U.S. negotiates with “terrorists and radicals,” it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake.
…versus Scoblic in the LAT:
Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability — each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.
(via NYT)
–
I’m sick to death of talking about the primaries, but I’m even sicker lately of hearing people say things like this:
[W]ere it not for Hillary’s vote for the war, [Obama] would not have run because there was no opening. She gave him the opening by voting for the war. So spare me the stories about her being defeated by sexism or whatever. Democrats are dying to vote for a qualified liberal woman for President (just as some of us are dying to vote for a qualified liberal African American. And this year we will).
What this writer really means is: “MY FRIENDS AND I are dying to vote for a qualified liberal woman for President….” Just because you are a liberal who dislikes Clinton based on her (lack of) merit does not mean that sexism hasn’t played a huge part in her reception as a candidate. If you truly, genuinely believe that race and sex play little part in how the majority of Americans (yes, even liberal Americans) see these candidates, well, then you have a far, far more hopeful view of people than I do, and I hope you’re right.
But you’re not.
Also, while I’m talking about this, I’d like an end to the oft-repeated exclamation that no one mentions black women when the topic at hand is the general reception of these two specific candidates. Does everyone really have to spell out “women, including black women” and “black people, including black women,” in order for people to stop tossing in the observation that “no one’s talking about black women” to bolster their claims that either (a) white women are trying to say they’re worse off than black men; or (b) people are generally more reactive to racism than sexism?
–
On a lighter note (before I explode), I have an odd obsession with competitive eaters – my favorite is Sonya “The Black Widow” Thomas, who manages a McDonald’s and weighs less than 100 pounds – but even if I didn’t, this interview with Crazy Legs Conti is particularly hilarious:
I ate three sticks of butter as fast as I could. I wouldn’t recommend that for a pro-eater or a casual diner. . . .I also ate my way out of an eight foot box of popcorn, the Popcorn Sarcophagus, which earned me the moniker, “The Houdini of Cuisini”. I found it wasn’t the pop or the corn that did me in, but the butter. Butter is seems, is my kryptonite.
