Press Release: NIGHTMARE FOR LIBERALS, BOOK HAS READERS RAVING

Let the truth be known

PRESS RELEASE

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

NIGHTMARE FOR LIBERALS, BOOK HAS READERS RAVING

New Author Exposes Government’s Hidden CAS Agenda in The Mirror

 

[Ottawa, ON – 25 May 2014] – When Michael McConaughey—not his real name—contacted a Children’s Aid Society (CAS) in 2008 about his estranged wife’s abuse of their children, he thought they would be protected. Instead, Society workers helped his wife alienate them, got him court-ordered from his own home by a feminist judge, and had a de facto no-access order placed against him, all without trial. What he discovered led to what he maintains was a government cover up. In his new book The Mirror, Book One: Welcome to the Evil Sisterhood, McConaughey exposes everything.

 

McConaughey was astonished to learn that feminists had rigged the mandatory Child Protection Standards in Ontario so that a mother not automatically “winning” child custody and child support payments now perversely constitutes child abuse, especially if she is a child abuser. His analysis reveals that this systemic practice is irrefutably criminal, which is why he believes it had to be covered up. McConaughey also noticed the same essential narcissistic personality traits in the feminist social workers, lawyers, and judge that an expert psychiatrist identified in McConaughey’s former wife of 19 years. In the midst of an election campaign, this is the nightmare scandal that may come back to haunt Ontario’s Liberals.

 

“I spent the past weekend with your book. It is excellent: your patient and blow-by-blow recounting of the hell you endured makes for a very gripping reading experience.”

– Professor Janice Fiamengo, University of Ottawa

 

The Mirror, Book One: Welcome to the Evil Sisterhood is available to order from FriesenPress.com/bookstore, Amazon and most major book retailers. The ebook edition is available for download through Amazon’s Kindle, iTunes Bookstore, Google Play, and Chapters and Indigo’s Kobo.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael M. McConaughey is a soon-to-retire, 3rd generation Royal Canadian Air Force navigator with over three decades of service. He is a Member of the Order of Military Merit and a father of three.

 

# # #

 

FOR INTERVIEWS CONTACT:

 

Michael M. McConaughey

themirrorbooks@gmail.com

Message to School Principals: Let Kids Be Kids and Boys be Boys

CHILDREN PLAYING. Roman artwork, 2nd century A.D. Credit: Campana Collection; purchase, 1861. Louvre. Source: wikipedia.org

Where did our schools go wrong? When I was a boy, the absolute, guaranteed, 100% certain best things about school were: a) lunch; and b) recess. The reason?

Football, of the North American variety.

Not the organized version of the sport. Just a bunch of boys with a football going out in the fresh air and having a grand time. No safety equipment, and full tackling. We picked our own teams, ensured everyone played fairly, made certain that everyone got to play, and had a blast in the process. We played in the sun, we played in the rain. We played in the wind, we played in the snow.

We ran. We threw. We caught. We lived life to the fullest, as only boys can.

There was the odd bump or bruise, but never a serious injury. We never got into fights, as the game bred friendship and sportsmanship and honour of the good sort, not animosity.

The only school yard rules that we had were simple. No fighting. Stay on the school grounds. Obey the “duty” teachers on the playgrounds during recess. Be nice.

These were unwritten rules, as far as we knew. You didn’t need to have these written down. Everyone understood.

By the time that my sons were of a similar age–I’ll loosely define this as the grades 3 to 8 period–, my reading had suggested that misguided feminism had adversely affected the education system to make being a boy “bad.” When I checked with my boys’ school principal to see if tackling was still allowed, she told that it wasn’t, as it led to aggression. Only it doesn’t, as I know from experience. As Lenin stated, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Although my elementary school sons were forbidden from tackling or having any such fun on the school grounds, they knew how to change their tampons due to the school’s excellent state-mandated sex education program. This was a Catholic school, mind you. It was either while in grade 6 or 7 that my older son had a great laugh in his deadpan impersonation of his male teacher informing the class about cunnilingus.

I don’t think I learned what that word meant until I was 30.

Parents, do not despair, for all hope is not lost. There exists a single school in New Zealand where one brave principal has the courage to let kids be kids, which means that boys can be boys. In an uplifting article by the National Post’s Sarah Boesveld, we learn of Principal Bruce McLachlan’s brave and unheard of policy to–wait for it–let kids have fun on the school grounds.

Once Principal McLachlan threw out the rule book, so to speak, what he discovered was: “Fewer children were getting hurt on the playground. Students focused better in class. There was also less bullying, less tattling. Incidents of vandalism had dropped off.”

While Ms. Boesveld correctly discussed the fear of getting sued as a culprit behind schools’ taking all the fun out of the playground, there is a deeper problem. The sort of school that Principal McLachlan is running is the sort of school where boys will thrive. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. This is exactly what feminist education policy makers do NOT want.

Those who doubt this claim are encouraged to read Christina Hoff Sommers’, Ph.D. (and mother of boys), book The War Against Boys – How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men

Kudos to Principal McLaughlan for compassion, courage, and common sense. Kudos too to Ms. Boesveld and the National Post for a super article.

There is always hope.

International Women’s Day Retrospective, or how to deceive with statistics

Women, this is your life, 2006.*

I received this image in an email from someone who knew that I was not a fan of feminism. It shows statistics published for International Women’s Day 2006 by U.K. newspaper The Independent. These statistics appear to show what a terrible lot women in this world face, given the numbers and especially the title: “THIS IS YOUR LIFE (If you are a woman).” The title implies that the article portrays the reality of all women, and that it isn’t a pleasant one.

Those who’ve read the manuscript for my forthcoming book The Mirror know that I recognized the same essential narcissistic personality traits in ardent feminists as those that I lived with for 19 years in the expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits of my ex-wife. To be blunt, ardent feminists suffer from a form of gender narcissism that results in their pathological need for females being victims of males and society to be “true.” These feminists are pathological liars of a specific type.

Let’s take a critical look at some of the statistics, which are obviously feminist influenced.** Context is everything.

– A baby girl born in the U.K. will likely live to 81, but if she is born in Swaziland, she is likely to die at 39. This deals with average life expectancies. While sad, a lower life expectancy is to be expected in developing nations. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Country Health System Fact Sheet 2006 – Swaziland,” the life expectancy at birth of a boy (2004) was 36 years and that of girls (2004) was, as advertised, 39 years. Men actually have it worse than women in Swaziland, yet the article deceptively presents the information as women being victims. How can women in Swaziland be used as a proxy for all women? How can you compare female life expectancy rates in the UK and Swaziland, and imply that women are victims in the process?

– Women comprise 55% of the world’s population over 60 yrs old and 65% over 80 old. How can women be victims if men die sooner? Common sense would argue the opposite.

– 70% of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty are women and children. Wow, aren’t we men wicked and uncaring? But why didn’t The Independent compare the number of women living in poverty to the number of men living in poverty? Wouldn’t that have been a relevant comparison? Could it be that nearly as many men as women, if not more, live in poverty?

– Women earn less at full-time and part-time jobs than do men. This chestnut has been put to bed in authoritative fashion by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., in one of his excellent books:

Source: http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/

Writes Farrell:

Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

(http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/, accessed 14 March 2014)

– 62% of unpaid family workers are female. What does this mean? Are we talking about mothers here, or friends and relatives that look after children while the mother works? Here we see the traditional maternal role and the supportive nature of feminine socialization (per John Gray, Ph.D.) being exploited to portray women as victims. The natural and generous act of Grandmother taking take of her grandkids for her single mother daughter is twisted to fit the feminist need for women to always be victims.

There are women’s issues that I fully acknowledge and support, such as genuine reproductive health (which does NOT include abortion on demand as a “right”) and the reprehensible practice of female circumcision, to name two. The problem with ardent feminists is that they pathologically need all females, and only females, to be victims. Thus, their “research” and “scholarship” and activism will typically be twisted to make the facts support the “truth” they want to see. They will ignore any contrary fact or evidence.

One recent “Freshly Pressed” post entitled “Bad Feminism” by blogger Claire Lehmann decries these ardent, ideological feminists who ignore research and facts as pop feminists. I encourage you to read Lehmann’s rather lucid post.

There are problems with feminism, obviously. These pop feminists–i.e., radical, ideological, gender, or “gynocentric” feminists–pretty much own feminism and the “women’s movement.” (See Christina Hoff Sommer’s, Ph.D., book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women.) Much of the entrenched feminist “research” and “theory” is, in effect or in fact, academic fraud; it acts as disinformation. We don’t known what to believe is true, and it disguises the women who are genuinely in need, as well as those men and children who are genuinely in need.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if something is generally held by feminists to be true, it should be considered a lie until proven otherwise. The indirect feminist reign in the English-speaking world is one of lies and manipulation and control, all of which are hallmarks of narcissism. Feminism as it currently exists has nothing to do with genuine issues of equality and  justice.

The sooner it is brought down, the better for us all.

________
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/25-years-of-the-independents-front-pages-2366678.html?action=gallery&ino=47, accessed 14 March 2014

** I am not suggesting or implying that The Independent attempted to deceive or knowingly acted in improper fashion in publishing what appears to me to be standard feminist tripe. As Lenin stated, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Book Proposal – Part Seven “List of Book’s Chapters”

A false start is a learning experience, not a failure

We now get to the part of the book proposal where we start to do some hard planning as to the book’s actual structure. This is where the basic blueprint starts to outline the framework against which we will write.

Bear in mind that I: a) had never written a book before; and b) had never written a proposal before.

My internet research suggested that publishers generally want a book no longer than 300 pages / 60,000 words from an unknown, first time author. Perhaps this only applies to fiction; I don’t know. Regardless, I imposed this artificial constraint upon myself for this part of my proposal. As it turned out, it was completely unrealistic for what I was trying to accomplish, but I didn’t have the experience with longer written works to appreciate this.

What I will is show what I originally wrote in this part of my proposal for the stillborn book concept of ONE, which included the word counts that added up to slightly less than the 60,000 word constraint. Afterwards, I’ll show what I actually came up with for the current book The Mirror, Book One – Welcome to the Evil Sisterhood. Note that I tried to make the chapter titles as interesting as possible, and that they betray a sense of humour:

* * * * *
[ONE]

List of Book’s Chapters

1. Was Someone Trying to Tell Me Something? (4,000 words)

2. Glancing in the Rear View Mirror (3,000 words)

3. Living a Myth Isn’t Living the Dream (5,000 words)

4. A Maelstrom Is a Poor Place for Swimming Lessons (10,000 words)

5. Thanks for Planning my Funeral – How Rude of Me Not to Die (10,000 words)

6. Sigmund Freud Sipping Coffee at a Paris Café (6,000 words)

7. When an English Monk Serves Duck for Geometry Class (6,000 words)

8. What Mrs. Crocodile Thinks Every Good Mother Should Know (6,000 words)

9. What’s Good for the Gander is Good for the Goose, so Long as Mine Doesn’t Get Cooked (6,000 words)

* * * * *

Book One of my magnum opus

[The Mirror, Book One]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOOK ONE: Welcome to the Evil Sisterhood (94,000 words)

Introduction

PART I: Narcissus’ Sister
1. Genesis
2. Life
3. Decline & Fall
4. Mirror

PART II: Courts of InJustice
5. Maelstrom
6. Something Wicked This Way Comes
7. Something Wicked This Place Stays
8. Vive la Revolution!

Intermission – Act I

BOOK TWO: Harbinger of a Dark Age

(Tentative)

Intermission – Act II

9. Slavery

PART III: Matriarchy
10. (Swastika in the) Mirror
11. Prime Time
12. La Cage aux Folles
13. Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged
14. The 2nd Library of Alexandria
15. CAIO Feminazis

Post Script

* * * * *

As we say in the military, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. There has been a substantial evolution from the plan for ONE to the resultant The Mirror. Going the self-published route liberated me from the artificial 60,000 word constraint, and now one book will be two.

I started research for what would ultimately become The Mirror back in the summer of 2008, and under dire family circumstances. Roughly two years later, I wrote this proposal for the concept book ONE. Roughly another three and a half years, and I am on the verge of publishing The Mirror.

I suppose this rather makes me a Terminator when it comes to feminism. They messed with the wrong Dad’s kids.

Mine.

Always ride with two hands unless it’s to use your shotgun

Hard truths about abortion

Barbara Kay is a Canadian national treasure and regular columnist to one of Canada’s two national newspapers, the National Post. As do many divorced fathers, I adore Barb. She has the courage to flout feminist propaganda and write trenchant, truthful posts.

Her post today “Hard truths about abortion” was an excellent example. In a nutshell:

– 10% of new cancers are cases of female breast cancer, and North American rates of this are the highest in the world.
– research has demonstrated that women having children, having many children, and having children relatively early DECREASES the risk of breast cancer.
– another major risk reducer for breast cancer? DON’T HAVE INDUCED ABORTIONS.
– New Chinese research reveals increasing risk for breast cancer with increased number of induced abortions: 1 x abortion = 44% rise in risk of breast cancer; two x abortions = 76% increased risk; and three x abortions = 89% increased risk.
– Try this quote on for size:
University of New York endocrinologist Dr. Joel Brind identified their findings as “of the sort of magnitude that has typified the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.”
– Work published by PRO CHOICE researchers found “… IA [induced abortion] causes significantly higher maternal mortality than childbirth.”

Bluntly put, women are being lied to by our feminist Matriarchy. It gets even worse in terms of abortion, as future posts will soon highlight.

The lies of feminism—it most certainly is not about equality and women’s rights—fit a consistent, coherent, and remarkably simple pattern. If you want to know what drives me to write two non-fiction books, the first of which is at 94,000 words, it is things like women being maimed and dying due the now virtually irrefutable abortion-beast cancer (ABC) link.

Before anyone posts his or her support for “a woman’s right to her body,” have a look at the wikipedia entry for mastectomy. Because this is what you might be condemning some poor naive young women to years down the road if your words influence her to have an abortion. Or worse.

More to follow. Much more.

Are Men Oppressed?

The National Post ran an interesting article on the Men’s Rights Awareness (MRA) movement that is growing at Canadian universities.

I’d like to hear your civil opinions on two simple questions:

1. Are men oppressed by feminism? and

2. What do you think about MRA groups on campus being labelled as being inherently “hateful”?

No trolling, be respectful, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Feminists admit they are “intellectually challenged”

Award winning novelist and teacher David Gilmour dared to speak the unspeakable.  He prefers male novelists and so teaches their books.  Needless to say, this prompted a bit of a feminist firestorm in response.  Perhaps the feminist outrage was best articulated by Professor Jessica Langston in her letter to the National Post:

“Like many, I am offended by David Gilmour’s comments — I am, after all, a female professor who teaches Canadian and First Nations literature…

“… Mr. Gilmour is denying himself and his students the privilege and responsibility of his profession to be intellectually and emotionally challenged. How would we ever learn anything if we only read and discussed books about our own experiences? [my bold]

“If Mr. Gilmour is teaching any course besides one titled, “Middle-Aged, White Male Writers,” he’s not providing his students with an accurate socio-cultural picture. He should remember that white, heterosexual males have long been the normative standard; it is important to offer students dissenting or marginal voices.”

It is rather clear that the feminist academic position is that they should be “intellectually challenged.”  Judging by Professor Langston’s  letter, feminists have been most successful in this regard. And I must agree with her that hers is a decidedly marginal voice.

As for heterosexual and normative (sometimes expressed as “heteronormative”) this really means that male+not gay+white=bad.  However, feminists need a Ph.D. before they really understand this complex concept.

The key point to take away from all of this is simple.  The next time you read the words of a feminist, understand what you are really reading.  The product of someone who is intellectually challenged.

Our schools need to help boys become men? Part III

In Part I, we saw an article that highlighted how poorly schools were doing with boys. In Part II, we saw that we should expect the exact opposite: there should be more boys excelling at school than girls, given the different distributions of intelligence.

So what the heck is going on?

To figure this out, we need to go back to Christina Hoff Sommer’s exceptional book The War Against Boys. Let’s do a super-condensced, Readers’ Digest version of it:

– In 1990, feminist Harvard academic Carol Gilligan informed the world that “America’s adolescent girls were in crisis.” Despite there being no real empirical evidence for this claim, feminists went berserk such that in a relatively short time, the topic became a virtual national emergency. Only there wasn’t one – it was all morbid feminist fantasy.

– Entities like the American Association of University Women (AAUW) marketed “research” which supported this girl-victim fantasy, but tended to ignore or exclude research showing that it wasn’t true. It’s as if every feminist organization in the US wanted this to be “true,” and went out of its way to make it appear so. And, as they say, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

– In response to this dire “crisis” – all feminist rubbish – Congress even enacted the Gender Equity in Education Act. Now feminist researchers and activists had even more money to “research” the non-existent problem of mass suffocation of girls’ education.

– The reality was that: girls were getting better grades; girls had higher educational aspirations; they followed amore rigorous academic program; they participated more in the prestigious Advanced Placement (AP) program; there were slightly more female students enrolled in high-level math and science courses; and girls outnumbered boys in student governments, at school newspapers, and even in debating clubs. Don’t get me going about reading and writing. Sports was the only area in which boys held a lead, and feminist activists targeted this “with a vengeance.”

– Even teachers generally believed the feminist propaganda – goodness knows the media was terribly irresponsible in parroting feminist claims. This was even though the truth of boys’ educational plight was staring teachers right in the face.

– Hence came a bunch of initiatives to address the girls’ “crisis.” What these were really doing was giving girls an unfair advantage in school. “In the United States, a proposal to do something special for boys usually gets plowed under before it has a chance to take root.” Britain was much more advanced than the US in recognizing boys’ problems; apparently Canada is nothing to brag about.

– As if this wasn’t bad enough, feminists starting to consider the cause of this girls’ “crisis.” Clearly it was due to “patriarchy” – according to feminists, boys were socialized to be dominant and to suppress adolescent girls in school. Thus, boys were to be socialized to be like girls. Thus, the very essence of being a boy became bad in the education system, although this wasn’t obvious. Feminists held that men were responsible for all violence.

– This more or less starts the feminist belief that gender is merely a “social construct” in earnest. Since boys’ gender is obviously bad (to feminists), they basically have to “educate” boys to behave socially like girls. Which, if you’re a boy, is really not much fun at all. Despite this having no basis in reality, this is what was and still is happening.

– Thus, you have the fabricated adolescent girls’ “crisis” at the very time that girls had generally caught up to boys in school. Feminists activists go to town to correct the “crisis,” and suppress any notion that this is all rubbish. Girls are given substantial extra resources to get ahead, while at the same time just being a boy was unofficially and surreptitiously declared to be “bad.” Normal male behaviour was effectively defined as bad and was to be driven out of them through deceptive educational policies and practices. As a result, boys are made to feel bad about themselves merely for being boys, although this is never generally openly stated.

All under the deranged feminist guise of the manufactured “crisis” for girls. How on Earth could such an outrageous, fraudulent, deceitful, duplicitous, heartless, cunning, manipulative and controlling feminist program of oppression of boys in the educational system ever have taken place, and why hasn’t it been corrected?

As it turns out, there is a very rational explanation as to why.

(To be continued …)

Our schools need to help boys become men? Part II

Having further thought about the topic of boys and schools, I’ve decided to break this subject into more parts than originally planned. Each part should be interesting in its own right, and the overall discussion will be easier to comprehend and more interesting.

I didn’t really understand the issue of boys and schools until I began analyzing feminism from a military perspective. Sounds weird, but it led to a fascinating discovery. This comes in subsequent posts. Anyhow, in the process I came across two incredible books by Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D.

Hoff Sommers is a mother of two boys. She is a bit of an intellectual “mama bear” in protecting her boys (and everyone else) from feminism. The first book was Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. (A must read for anyone who embraces or despises feminism.) The 2nd book – the mama bear one – was The War Against Boys – How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. It’s this 2nd book that I’ll focus on for the moment.

Hoff Sommers cites some important facts regarding intelligence and gender:

Nancy Cole, president of the Educational Testing Service, terms it the “spread” phenomenon. On almost any intelligence or achievement test, male scores are more spread out than female scores at the extremes of ability and disability: there are more male prodigies at the high-end and more males of marginal ability at the low-end. Or, as the political scientist James Q. Wilson once put it, “There are more male geniuses and more male idiots.”

To illustrate this concept – a picture’s worth a thousand words, after all -, here are the results of one major study on the topic:

We see that the girl’s curve is taller and narrower. Thus, in general girls tend to be closer to average (pink) in IQ scores than boys. The boy’s curve is shorter and wider. Thus, in general boys tend to be farther from average (pink) in IQ score than girls. Just like Hoff Sommers has informed us: there are more male geniuses (farther to the right of average) and more male idiots (farther to the left of average) than we find with females.

This is 100% pure statistics, and 0% gender politics. The sky is blue; the clouds are white. It is what it is, and nothing more.

Now pretend that you are a school district superintendent. You are responsible for a bunch of schools, and the education of all the district’s girls and boys. You know about gender and intelligence, so what do you expect to see in the overall results from your schools? One thing is that you might expect there to be more boys who excel academically than girls. (Let’s ignore possible other factors, such as work ethic differences).

That is, if our school system was working equally well for both genders, we would expect more boys than girls on the honour rolls, and perhaps more male high school graduates going off to university.

If we further consider the region to the left of the green line, since there are more male anti-geniuses, we might even expect more boys than girls to drop out of school at the higher grades, maybe in high school Grade 11 or 12. If this was actually happening to any significant degree, it would have the effect of shifting the remaining boys’ average intelligence to the right (or to a higher average) when compared to girls’.

Thus, we might expect more boys than girls amongst top students to be slightly even more pronounced. Not because boys are smarter than girls overall, because they are not. But because of the differences in how male and female intelligence scores are naturally distributed.

Yet according to our article from Part I, girls are absolutely creaming boys in school in terms of academic performance. I understand over 60% of students entering university are young women (which makes finding a good boyfriend tough, apparently). From our statistics, we would expect just the opposite of what is actually happening if our schools were working right. Therefore, there must be something wrong with our schools. They’re either grossly favouring girls, disadvantaging boys, or worst of all, both.

So what’s really going on? (to be continued …)

* * * A little more explanation on the graph for those interested * * *

I added the coloured lines in the image. If you go right, it means higher IQ scores. If you go left, it means lower IQ scores. For any given IQ score (i.e., left or right), how high the curve is above represents the percentage of boys or girls who score at that IQ level. Roughly, the higher the curve above a given IQ point, the more boys or girls will score there. Roughly again, the lower the curve above a given IQ point, the fewer boys or girls will score there.

The average IQ score for boys and girls is at the pink line. Average IQ, due to symmetry, occurs at each bell curve’s middle, which is also where its peak occurs. So, each peak happens at the average IQ score – it’s how bell curves work. Since the same vertical pink line hits both peaks, it means that both averages – boys’ and girls’ – must be the same. If the average intelligence scores for boys and girls were different, then these peaks (which occur at the IQ averages) would be offset from one another to the left or right, and then we would need two different pink lines. Or maybe a baby blue line one too instead.

To the right of the blue line is the “more male geniuses” region. The male curve is higher than the female curve in this region. The red double arrow highlights this difference (more male geniuses) at a single, arbitrary high IQ score. To the left of the green line is “more male anti-geniuses” (i.e., noticeably below average IQ scores). Once again, we find more boys than girls, as the male curve is higher than the female curve in this region too.

In contrast, we find more girls in the in-between region, as here the girls’ curve is higher. Girls’ intelligence scores tend to be closer to average than boys, so we find more girls here.

Our schools need to help boys become men? Part I

This article hit home for me as a father of two sons, now 17 and 19.  I thought it best to run this as a two-part post.

Part I is the short article from a respected Canadian newspaper. It deals with an issue I understand to be near-universal amongst the major English-speaking nations. There is no need to comment on Part I, other than to perhaps express interest or declare that you’ve read the article.

Part II will be my thoughts, and one work in particular that has corroborated these thoughts. It is here that I would invite comments from those interested, especially as to whether or not my Part II had any influence upon your final position (if indeed you have one).  Part II will probably happen on the weekend.

Here it is: Our schools need to help boys become men

Cheers.