Today on Blogcritics
Home » New Truths Revealed

New Truths Revealed

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Boston Globe Op-Ed page is the gift that keeps on giving. Today a couple of professors (one a professor of Journalism at Boston University, the other a scholar at the Brandeis University Women’s Studies Research Center…we are talking soft-studies here) publish an essay with the unpresumptuous title “New truths about real men”. They begin their argument as follows:

“The news about men in the year just past was dismal. A high-profile court case saw a husband (Scott Peterson) convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. CEOs at Enron and Worldcom stand accused of defrauding employees and investors. NBA players waded into a crowd, fists flying. Then, to put the icing on this poisonous cake, the Department of Labor reported that the working woman spends twice as much time, on average, as the working man on household chores and care of children.”

Does that sound faintly like an argument with a woman? Can you follow the logic? What? You don’t quite see how these are related? Then keep eating the cake. While I am still licking the icing, I might mention a few other male-caused disturbances of 2004 which don’t get as much ink as Laci Peterson; like one episode of genocide and mass rape in Darfur, the slaughter of hundreds of elementary school pupils in Beslan (does anyone remember?), or prankishly poisoning a political candidate in Ukraine. Tisk, tisk, tisk. Nasty boys. We men spend our time plotting, murderering, and plundering, and then top it all off by leaving dirty dishes in the sink. The profs continue:

It gets worse.

Yes, it does.

At home men are seen as lazy slugs and at work are viewed as old-fashioned, kick-butt bosses. In school, boys’ verbal abilities lag far behind those of girls. As parents, males are thought to lack parenting abilities. Expanding paternity leave is pointless, since males are programmed to have little emotional attachment to their kids.

Males lack empathy with others. If a friend approaches them to talk about problems, they change the subject or make a joke. In relationships they don’t have a clue. They are faithless wretches “hard-wired” by their genes to be promiscuous.

Is this picture accurate? Happily, new research shows that it is not. Indeed, real men manage to escape the stereotypes much of the time.

Phew! Glad for that! We can escape our fate, guys, at least much of the time. The profs go on to cite a half-dozen recent sociological studies which give evidence that our gender is not nearly as bad as our rep, and then conclude:

It’s time to jettison the idea that males are clueless oafs who come from the planet Mars. Men, like women, are perfectly able to be people-oriented leaders, caring parents, good listeners, and true friends in time of need.

Thanks for this much-needed assurance, ladies. I am bursting with self-esteem.

From Squaring the Boston Globe

About Harry

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    Journalism. Soft study?

    You’re wrong.

  • JR

    It’s pretty simple: there are majors that require calculus, and then there are soft studies.

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    Um ok – where did that amazing definition come from?

    And is that what the poster, Harry, meant because he delivered it in a dismissive tone.

  • http://SquaringTheGlobe.blogspot.com/ Harry Forbes

    Besides referring to the non-predictive nature of such social research, the poster meant by soft-science that anybody who develops a conclusion which is this inane has developed a softness of the brain. This is further illustrated by their consent to be published in a journal where their foolishness will be widely read and will remain on record.

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple Stark

    >>Besides referring to the non-predictive nature of such social research, the poster meant by soft-science that anybody who develops a conclusion which is this inane has developed a softness of the brain. This is further illustrated by their consent to be published in a journal where their foolishness will be widely read and will remain on record.

    Thank you for the reply.

    How is journalism “social research?” It is in way but that’s really a by-product of the craft.

    On the inane conclusion – I can most heartily agree, though I am but a humble journalist

  • http://www.angel-and-soulmate-selfhelp.com/blog.html Angela Chen Shui

    Thanks for a good chuckle, Temple!

  • http://www.angel-and-soulmate-selfhelp.com/blog.html Angela Chen Shui

    Sorry, Harry! (with beet-red face)!!!
    Thanks for the good chuckle!

  • http://squaringtheglobe.blogspot.com Harry Forbes

    Temple, I agree 100% with calling it a craft.

    Angela, you are welcome.

  • http://www.awddaily.com Bill Lamb

    Harry, why, in making your argument, did you leave out any reference to the multiple social science research studies cited in the actual article?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Harry, why, in making your argument, did you leave out any reference to the multiple social science research studies cited in the actual article?

    Probably he left it out because this is a review, from which the reader is meant to derive information that will allow a choice to be made.

    I think Harry made it perfectly clear why he labeled them soft studies.

  • Shark

    Shark Weighs In:

    Sociology IS NOT A SCIENCE.

    It’s right up there with Psychology and Astrology.

    =================

    Gotta run – my horoscope said my kids are clicking their buttons wanting more food pellets!