From Glenn Sacks

[Brent]

From Glenn Sacks.

San Francisco Chronicle feminist columnist Jane Ganahl trashed me and the men's movement yesterday in her column [A HREF=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/22/LVGPM53D151.DTL]Will you please shut up and get a life, already?[/A] (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/22/04). She sarcastically noted that "now that women are in control of government and corporations and get paid the same as men (what do you mean, we're not?), we've moved on into the age of the Oppressed Male" and defends the "Boys are Stupid" T-shirts as some sort of overdue payback.

It appears Ms. Ganahl and her newspaper need some education on men's and fathers' issues--send lessons of 200 words or less to the San Francisco Chronicle at  [A HREF=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/A]. Feel free to copy me on all letters.

Also see "[A HREF=http://www.nypost.com/business/18399.htm]Stores Pull Shirts That Slam Boys[/A]" from the New York Post, 2/20/04. To write the post, go to [A HREF=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/A].



Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks

[DecentDad]

Here's my perspective on this...

It IS a stupid issue akin to many of the stupid issues that PETA targets and faces well-deserved ridicule.

Kids are kids.  T-shirts have always had a small percent of them that are insulting.

If we (as men) focus on the REALLY BIG issues, there's less opportunity for pundits to poke fun.

I find this Ganahl column to come closer to representing what the general public will think.

Debating on a largely insignificant issue just to "win" it distracts from bigger issues, and unfortunately takes up valuable space in columns and letters-to-editors that could have gone to more inportant things.

All of that said, I've had much appreciation for Glenn Sacks' work, but on this one, it seems a tad silly to me.

If an 11 year old boy's self-worth is defined as the content of schoolmates' t-shirts, then the parent(s) should wonder what has gone wrong.

DD

[Kitty C.]

My son's self-worth may not be based on the content of the t-shirt, but it IS based on the ridicule he must suffer because of it.

I grew up being horribly ridiculed and mercilessly teased.  I was publicly humiliated at my HS graduation.  It took me over 20 years to come to terms with it.  And it is well known that the bullying and ridicule that is dispensed even today has even more devastating effects than that.

DD, I admire you right to your opinion, but I also recommend that you go to the David & Goliath website and I would be amazed if you didn't come away as sickened as most of us were by it's content.  Yes, it DOES appear to be minor, compared to the bigger issues we face here everyday.  But it DID get the issues of gender bias in the spotlight, and for that, I am grateful.  And if it even made one parent think about the content, then none of the purpose was wasted........

[Brent]

>It IS a stupid issue akin to many of the stupid issues that
>PETA targets and faces well-deserved ridicule.

Is it only stupid when men complain? Becuase women have complained about this exact same thing for the last 30 years, and everyone has taken them very seriously. Why shouldn't men's concerns be taken seriously too?



>Kids are kids.  T-shirts have always had a small percent of
>them that are insulting.

Exactly, and the message we've gotten from various women's groups has been that these messages are no longer acceptable in society. Why do you think there are no "Girls Are Stupid" t-shirts? You couldn't buy one f you wanted to; why do you think that is?


>If we (as men) focus on the REALLY BIG issues, there's less
>opportunity for pundits to poke fun.

I say "fight any battle you can win". Once the perception changes about how men and biys are valued, getting larger changes instituted will be easier, don't you think? Why NOT complain about gender-inequality wherever you see it?



>I find this Ganahl column to come closer to representing what
>the general public will think.

I don't care what the general public thinks. If I did, I'd be just another drone.



>Debating on a largely insignificant issue just to "win" it
>distracts from bigger issues, and unfortunately takes up
>valuable space in columns and letters-to-editors that could
>have gone to more inportant things.

Letters that they won't print and that will never see the light of day. Are you comfortable with boys being the object of ridicule, and promoting violence against them? I'm not. Would you be comfortable with biys wearing shirts that denigrate girls? If not, why is it different where boys are concerned? Are they less than human, or not entitled to the same respect that girls are?



>All of that said, I've had much appreciation for Glenn Sacks'
>work, but on this one, it seems a tad silly to me.

Then tell us what major changes you have wrought. What have you done, or gotten accomplished? Also, I'm sorry to see that you feel the idea of denigrating boys and promoting violence against them is "silly". Human worth is not a matter of gender in my book.



>If an 11 year old boy's self-worth is defined as the content
>of schoolmates' t-shirts, then the parent(s) should wonder
>what has gone wrong.

You have so completely missed the point, I hardly know where to begin. It's not the shirt itself, it's the message it sends to society. Don't you get it?

As for parents, many of them are part of the problem, and they don't have the brains, understanding, or empathy to "wonder what has gone wrong". They don't care, because they've bought into the notion that it's amusing to disciminate against boys, much the same way you have.

[StPaulieGirl]

What would Ms. Ganahl's response be if/when boys beat up girls who wear t-shirts with messages like that?

My son has anger management issues (to put it mildly).  Back in elementary school, he would have started pelting girls with rocks as a preemptive strike.  He has always seen girls as equal opportunity targets, ask his big sisters.  He is mellowing out now that girls don't have cooties, but I could see a problem on the playground with these shirts.  

Perhaps we should say that these shirts could expose the wearer to possible physical violence.

I have to laugh when feminists whine when we find their crap offensive.

[Brent]

>What would Ms. Ganahl's response be if/when boys beat up
>girls who wear t-shirts with messages like that?

She would simply use it as proof that boys (and men, of course) are "violent aggressors" who "feel threatened by strong females"  and are (as usual) trying to "keep women down"  or "intimidate them" with their typical patriarchal, hegemonic, linear-thinking, natural tendency to commit senseless violence.


I bet she'd have a fit if a neighbor's son wore a "Girls Are Stupid" t-shirt, though (because that would be offensive and degrading to women).

[richiejay]

You may have a "perspective" on this, but the bottom line is that it OFFENDS people.  It offends me and many other men I know.  Just because you feel it is "silly" does that mean we should just let it go? How about the one boy that does get rocks thrown at him?  Yes, ONE boy..would you consider it silly then?  
As far as what the general public thinks, they think that the tomahawk chop at Atlanta Braves games is inocuous...but do you think that American Indians think that?
And it is quite sad to know that you think potential violence and self-esteem are an insignificant issues.

[StPaulieGirl]

I was actually planning on emailing her and detailing that type of scenario.  I guess I won't bother.  

As a matter of fact, that's why I got involved with the campaign to get them out of the stores.  Not only is it offensive and gender biased, some charming pre feminist might get her heinie kicked.  Which would mean another trip to the principal's office, suspension, sensitivity training...

Man, a couple of years ago, my idiot son decided to holler at the girls during lunch hour saying he'd pay them 5 bucks if they'd show him their...chest :-(  Now that was an embarassing conference.  Especially since one of the girl's father is a cop.  I went home and cried.  I would love to see separate schools for boys and girls.

Boys are aggressive, so why wave red flags in front of them?  Boys are supposed to be aggressive, aren't they?  I'd rather have an aggressive boy than a kid who is sensitive, neat, doesn't break any bones, abhors any experience that could lead to road rash....and will someday introduce me to his fiancee, Steve.

Ahhh, there's no arguing with people like Ms. Ganahl....

[DecentDad]

Hi all,

Thanks for the thoughts in response to mine.

I'm not one for "black or white" thinking, so it's tough for me to understand how y'all can conclude I'm against men's rights if I feel this issue is being blown way out of proportion.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of violence against boys nor ridiculing them if I suggest that increasing attention to this issue isn't the greatest priority for affecting change in gender attitudes and mens' rights.  

It's not amusing to me, as Brent has somehow suggested.  This is just the common yet ineffective tactic that extremists use to try to disqualify people who disagree with their perspective.  Ironically, it alienates the extremists.

As a result of the attention on this issue, do you think sales of the shirts have gone up or down?  I would imagine that they've gone up, regardless of retail chains canceling orders.  The shirt distributor is getting millions of dollars of free exposure via all the press coverage.

The nature of trends designed to shock, alarm or rebel is that the greater negative attention the trend gets, the more desirable it becomes to those who would be predisposed to embrace it.

A "shocking" trend that quickly loses visible conflict also quickly tends to be a short-lived one.

I disagree with those of you who feel that such a T-shirt defines one's view of populations.  Only a person who lack sensitivity to an offensive statement would ever purchase such a shirt.  They create the market, not vice versa.

We've all been teased in school.  For being too short, too tall, too fat, too nerdy, too pale, too buck-toothed, too Jewish, too black, etc.  It's up to parents to help establish the self-esteem and self-worth to fend off any amount of teasing.

It's up to school administrators and teachers to help students develop sensitivity to each other.

Focus on all of those folks (i.e., parents, teachers, etc) seems to me to be the better campaign than trying to target peddlers of offensive crap.  There will always be people trying to make a buck off something offensive, and jumping from crap item to crap item is not a scalable solution.

As it apparently matters to at least one person in determining the competence of what I think, I spent a decade being pretty involved in achieving corporate and policy changes for social issues including ADA compliance, animal protection, and free speech.

Father's rights (or rather parental rights in general) is only the most recent (and most passionate) issue added to my list, as I've discovered how the family law system works, and how it's ironic that "best interest of the child" is largely lost during the process.

Those who try to "win any battle possible" are on a path to perpetuate the status quo.  Effective strategy has an objective statement, defines the path to make that happen, and employs only tactics that bring the objective closer.  Indulging in irrelevant distractions (whether or not they're worthy of discussion) only ensures that the objective won't be met anytime soon.

It's all about priorities and what I feel is focusing on the BIG picture, not some random profit-driven idiots who will disappear with their t-shirts as soon as the trend is gone.

And... regardless of wanting to avoid being a public drone... crafting messages in such a way to encourage broader public support is a way to have greater influence on legislators, on funders, and on media.  It's critical.  Care not for what the public thinks of how a message is presented, and it's really a statement of disinterest in pursuing the best possible approach for one's mission.

Again, thanks very much for your thoughts.

DD

[Brent]

>I'm not one for "black or white" thinking, so it's tough for
>me to understand how y'all can conclude I'm against men's
>rights

I don't think I said you were "against men's rights". Are you sure you're not putting words in my mouth? :)



>As a result of the attention on this issue, do you think sales
>of the shirts have gone up or down?  I would imagine that
>they've gone up

I bet you're wrong. They've been pulled from 3500+ stores, and I seriously doubt that the increase (if any) in internet sales could possibly make up for that. I mean, that's a *lot* of lost revenue for them, both in the immediate sense and in the future.



>We've all been teased in school.  For being too short, too
>tall, too fat, too nerdy, too pale, too buck-toothed, too
>Jewish, too black, etc.  

Yes, but schools don't sell shirts that tell kids to think this way. The fact is that the media DOES have some effect on the overall flavor of a given society. Being accepting of these kinds of sentiments (throw rocks at boys) is no different than "throw rocks at Jews" or "throw rocks at blacks". Would either of those shirts/sentiments be acceptable in our society? Nope, they wouldn't. Why should it be different for "throw rocks at boys"?



>It's up to parents to help establish
>the self-esteem and self-worth to fend off any amount of
>teasing.

And part of it is teaching that it's not acceptable to denigrate either gender.


>It's up to school administrators and teachers to help students
>develop sensitivity to each other.

Maybe, maybe not.





>Focus on all of those folks (i.e., parents, teachers, etc)
>seems to me to be the better campaign than trying to target
>peddlers of offensive crap.

So, I ask you again- what have you done? What successes can you relate to us from your approach? Because from where I'm sitting, you look like just another armchair quarterback. What kinds of things have you accomplished with your approach?


>There will always be people
>trying to make a buck off something offensive, and jumping
>from crap item to crap item is not a scalable solution.

Scaling isn't the issue. The issue is making inroads wherever we can. I doubt Universal Studios will be carrying those shirts anytime soon, and the fact that they won't can be used to great effect. Maybe we didn't right all the wrongs of society, but we do what we can, where we can. I feel good about what's been done so far and all the nay-saying in the world won't change that. Society is starting to listen, and it begins with small steps like this....such as changing the overall perception of boys and their "worth".



>Father's rights (or rather parental rights in general) is only
>the most recent (and most passionate) issue added to my list,
>as I've discovered how the family law system works, and how
>it's ironic that "best interest of the child" is largely lost
>during the process.

There is no such thing ("best interest of the child"). It's a meaningless phrase they cooked up to justify doing whatever the hell they want to do (as you've probably discovered). Rarely, if ever, is anyone in the system truly concerned with the actual "best interest" of any child. They're just doing their jobs, as it were, and 99.99% of them have NO repeat NO interest in making any changes at any level.  



>Those who try to "win any battle possible" are on a path to
>perpetuate the status quo.

I disagree. I say win where you can, whenever you can. Make whatever changes toy can, where you can. Are you saying a battle isn't worth fighting or winning unless it meets your personal specs for "worthiness"?




>It's all about priorities and what I feel is focusing on the
>BIG picture, not some random profit-driven idiots who will
>disappear with their t-shirts as soon as the trend is gone.

Then go focus on them, no one is stopping you, and most people here will be glad to support your efforts.



>crafting messages in such a way to encourage broader public
>support is a way to have greater influence on legislators, on
>funders, and on media.

And it starts with small steps, just like feminism did in the 60's. Change public perception and you've got a foot in the door, because one thing leads to another. I won't ignore what I consider to be a valid issue, and if it's a "small" issue to some folks, that's fine with me. I'm not doing what I do to please any particular person or to make a name for myself, I do what I do because I have a sense of social conciousness.