New Truths Revealed

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.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - Temple Stark

    Jan 01, 2005 at 12:47 pm

    Journalism. Soft study?

    You're wrong.

  • 2 - JR

    Jan 01, 2005 at 1:58 pm

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

  • 3 - Temple Stark

    Jan 01, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    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.

  • 4 - Harry Forbes

    Jan 01, 2005 at 9:55 pm

    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.

  • 5 - Temple Stark

    Jan 01, 2005 at 10:28 pm

    >>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

  • 6 - Angela Chen Shui

    Jan 02, 2005 at 8:28 am

    Thanks for a good chuckle, Temple!

  • 7 - Angela Chen Shui

    Jan 02, 2005 at 8:33 am

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

  • 8 - Harry Forbes

    Jan 02, 2005 at 4:25 pm

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

    Angela, you are welcome.

  • 9 - Bill Lamb

    Jan 02, 2005 at 10:16 pm

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

  • 10 - DrPat

    Jan 02, 2005 at 10:56 pm

    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.

  • 11 - Shark

    Jan 03, 2005 at 9:50 am

    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!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 20, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs