One problem with one-issue activists, it seems, is that they often view matters from only one dimension. This has always been one of the characteristics of feminists. Men get blame for being history's conquerors and killers, for instance, but no credit for being its innovators and healers. We will hear about how women "create life" while men only destroy it, but forgotten are the fruits of men's labors. Were it not for male medical advances that virtually eliminated female death during childbirth, many feminists wouldn't be around to crow about their fecundity.

Given this misandrist atmosphere, it's not surprising that an opposing group called "men's rights activists" would arise. They rebut feminist ideology, bring many important issues to light, and usually make excellent points. I tend to like them.

One issue they're front and center on is the "war against boys." This refers to the characteristic problems exhibited by modern lads - such as higher dropout rates, worse grades, and lower college attendance than girls, and a far greater likelihood that they'll be targeted by the ADHD police for a pickling with Ritalin - and the causes of these things. As for the latter, men's rights activists implicate a prevailing anti-male attitude in a highly feminized society. I essentially agree with that analysis. Yet, despite this, like the feminists, they go badly astray. In fact, the two groups have more in common than they would care to admit.

Really, this is no surprise, as the problem I speak of isn't unique to an activist of a given stripe, but is one of modernity. To introduce it, I will cite a recent article by one David Kupelian titled "The war on fathers". It's an excellent piece by a person who has much of value to say, and I encourage you to read it. Yet it also contains the following line,

". . . young boys . . . don't naturally thrive when forced to sit still at a desk listening to a teacher lecture for six hours a day . . . ."

The idea is that boys, a rambunctious, harum-scarum lot, cannot learn if they're forced into an overly structured environment that suppresses their instincts. It's a thought so common that it's hard to read an anti-feminist article on boys' education and not encounter it, but oes it really hold water? Well, let's try to gain some perspective.

Ironically, both men's rights activists and feminists are essentially in agreement on this point. Think about it: If I replaced the word "boys" with "children" and said, ". . . young children . . . don't naturally thrive when forced to sit still at a desk listening to a teacher lecture for six hours a day . . . .," wouldn't that sound identical to the sentiment the left has expressed for decades in advocacy of permissive, laissez-faire teaching models? You see, men's rights activists, you're simply packaging your aims incorrectly. If you want feminists — in fact, the full force of the Western left — on your side, don't frame this as a battle of the sexes, but as the liberation of the human spirit. Victory will be yours - but be careful what you wish for.