Just about everyone who has a blog has Andrew A. Rooney to thank.
Yes, that Andrew A. Rooney. The one who was often caricatured as a cranky old man who griped about absolutely nothing at the end of 60 Minutes. A small fraction of those dismissing Rooney knew that he was a writer long before becoming, reluctantly, a television personality. Of his days as a war correspondent for The Stars and Stripes or his years as a newspaper columnist.
Whereas many of my fellow Gen-Xers were watching MTV and reading Mad Magazine, I was reading Andy Rooney's collections of old columns, and would occasionally envision myself commenting equally breezily on life's big questions as on life's more mundane things, bringing observations to light, and causing millions of people to think, "Yeah! I thought I was the only one to notice that..."
I would often nod my head in agreement with things Andrew A. Rooney (as he preferred to be known) wrote or said, and would shake my head when I would disagree, but such is the case for every pundit, columnist, or blogger. I imagine that many of those who would ridicule Rooney for his weekly segments on things such as cereal boxes would rush to Twitter or Facebook or [ahem] Blogspot to tell the world the great new cheese they sampled the other day at WholeFoods.
I was less familiar with the writings of Christopher Hitchens, but whatever I did happen to read of his wowed me with his command of the English language and what to do with it. Yes, one could agree or disagree with his ideas, but no one could seriously attack him for his prose. In a semi-conscious state from a hospital bed, Hitch was able to come up with far deeper thoughts than most people could on their best days.
Andrew A. Rooney was far older than Christopher Hitchens, but Rooney, like Hitchens, "retired" only out of necessity, not for a want to stop writing. With both, we get the feeling that a great practicer of a faded art was taken from us far too soon.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Bigotry Facing Herman Cain
Published in the November 3, 2011, issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-03/news/30355430_1_herman-cain-student-loans-debt
I'm still learning about Herman Cain, and I don't know what I think about his tax plan, but I'm disappointed (though unsurprised) at the bigotry he has faced. Cain joins the queue of prominent conservatives who don't happen to be Caucasian (see also Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Marco Rubio) and have been on the receiving end of treatment that would be rightly condemned if they'd been more left-leaning.
Now that we have a multiracial president, the narrative that has been built is that anyone who questions or disagrees with him is guilty of racial prejudice. Since Cain's popularity among conservatives greatly weakens that narrative, he is now being labeled a "sellout" or an "Uncle Tom" - outrageously offensive terms.
It's rather racist to expect all people of a certain color to think the same way. It's also noteworthy that the only people who feel the need to reference Herman Cain's race are those on the left who oppose him.
Naturally, as I got top placement and my letter was topical, I've gotten much feedback. Unfortunately, functional illiteracy appears to be another trait of Cain's critics, who mistakenly believe I was endorsing Cain, while astute readers will notice I was not endorsing any one candidate. One sad fool who likes to make everything about race has resurfaced in my inbox. It's gratifying when they prove your point.
http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-03/news/30355430_1_herman-cain-student-loans-debt
I'm still learning about Herman Cain, and I don't know what I think about his tax plan, but I'm disappointed (though unsurprised) at the bigotry he has faced. Cain joins the queue of prominent conservatives who don't happen to be Caucasian (see also Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Marco Rubio) and have been on the receiving end of treatment that would be rightly condemned if they'd been more left-leaning.
Now that we have a multiracial president, the narrative that has been built is that anyone who questions or disagrees with him is guilty of racial prejudice. Since Cain's popularity among conservatives greatly weakens that narrative, he is now being labeled a "sellout" or an "Uncle Tom" - outrageously offensive terms.
It's rather racist to expect all people of a certain color to think the same way. It's also noteworthy that the only people who feel the need to reference Herman Cain's race are those on the left who oppose him.
Naturally, as I got top placement and my letter was topical, I've gotten much feedback. Unfortunately, functional illiteracy appears to be another trait of Cain's critics, who mistakenly believe I was endorsing Cain, while astute readers will notice I was not endorsing any one candidate. One sad fool who likes to make everything about race has resurfaced in my inbox. It's gratifying when they prove your point.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Remembering Patricia Overberg
From the website of Stop Abuse for Everyone (www.safe4all.org), on the recent passing of Patricia Overberg, who sought to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of gender, get the help they need:
SAFE Speaker Patricia Overberg, Pioneer Domestic Violence Advocate Who Refused to Discriminate Leaves Lasting Legacy
Overberg was trained in social work before most social work programs adopted the philosophy that all domestic violence is rooted in patriarchal power and control. She believed that family violence needs to be viewed holistically, and her commitment to the principle of equal treatment for all informed everything she did.
Although most battered women's shelters refuse admittance to sons 12 years or older and force mothers to place their sons in foster care or be denied entrance to a shelter, Overberg refused to require mothers to choose between their own safety and the well-being of their children.
When male victims, whether on their own or with their children, sought help, she didn't turn them away. Overberg was director of the Valley Oasis Shelter in Lancaster, Calif. from 1989 through 1998. During that time, Valley Oasis was the only shelter in the U.S. that men needing help could turn to. Even today Valley Oasis remains one of the very few shelters in the U.S. that offers the same level of services to male victims as to female victims.
Overberg treated gay men and lesbians with the same respect and level of service accorded to all the people she helped. She pioneered in bringing a transgendered volunteer on board at the Valley Oasis.
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first modern battered women’s shelter, says: “Pat was a brave, honest and courageous woman. She faced persecution from her colleagues in the domestic violence field and fought back. All of us who work at the coal face of human relationships owe Pat a great deal.”
Because of Overberg's principled refusal to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, she was treated as a pariah by many of her peers. In a 2002 sworn deposition, Overberg testified that she "was subjected to continuous abuse by other shelter directors for sheltering battered men."( http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf )
Undaunted, Overberg encouraged the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) to file a lawsuit to end the discrimination against male victims of abuse, and their children. With help from Overberg's testimony, NCFM won a landmark ruling that held it is unconstitutional for the State of California to exclude male victims from state-funded domestic violence services.(David Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658,http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2008/c056072 )
The effects of this ruling are far-reaching. All states are now on notice that equal protection clauses in constitutions mean what they say. State funds cannot be used to support agencies that discriminate on the basis of gender.
Overberg’s legacy lives on for all victims of domestic violence and in efforts to provide equal access to services for people everywhere.
SAFE Speaker Patricia Overberg, Pioneer Domestic Violence Advocate Who Refused to Discriminate Leaves Lasting Legacy
Overberg was trained in social work before most social work programs adopted the philosophy that all domestic violence is rooted in patriarchal power and control. She believed that family violence needs to be viewed holistically, and her commitment to the principle of equal treatment for all informed everything she did.
Although most battered women's shelters refuse admittance to sons 12 years or older and force mothers to place their sons in foster care or be denied entrance to a shelter, Overberg refused to require mothers to choose between their own safety and the well-being of their children.
When male victims, whether on their own or with their children, sought help, she didn't turn them away. Overberg was director of the Valley Oasis Shelter in Lancaster, Calif. from 1989 through 1998. During that time, Valley Oasis was the only shelter in the U.S. that men needing help could turn to. Even today Valley Oasis remains one of the very few shelters in the U.S. that offers the same level of services to male victims as to female victims.
Overberg treated gay men and lesbians with the same respect and level of service accorded to all the people she helped. She pioneered in bringing a transgendered volunteer on board at the Valley Oasis.
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first modern battered women’s shelter, says: “Pat was a brave, honest and courageous woman. She faced persecution from her colleagues in the domestic violence field and fought back. All of us who work at the coal face of human relationships owe Pat a great deal.”
Because of Overberg's principled refusal to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, she was treated as a pariah by many of her peers. In a 2002 sworn deposition, Overberg testified that she "was subjected to continuous abuse by other shelter directors for sheltering battered men."( http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf )
Undaunted, Overberg encouraged the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) to file a lawsuit to end the discrimination against male victims of abuse, and their children. With help from Overberg's testimony, NCFM won a landmark ruling that held it is unconstitutional for the State of California to exclude male victims from state-funded domestic violence services.(David Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658,http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2008/c056072 )
The effects of this ruling are far-reaching. All states are now on notice that equal protection clauses in constitutions mean what they say. State funds cannot be used to support agencies that discriminate on the basis of gender.
Overberg’s legacy lives on for all victims of domestic violence and in efforts to provide equal access to services for people everywhere.
Monday, August 8, 2011
SMEARWEEK
Let me say first that I do not agree with everything Rep. Michele Bachmann does or says. I disagreed, por ejemplo, with her renegade response to President Obama's State of the Union address.
But I've never heard her "rage." So I see Newsweek's latest cover with Bachmann, replete with the title "The Queen of Rage," as one more example of the magazine's ceding credibility in order to carry the far left's dihydrogen monoxide.
The picture's not great, but it's the headline that's intentionally outrageous.
But I've never heard her "rage." So I see Newsweek's latest cover with Bachmann, replete with the title "The Queen of Rage," as one more example of the magazine's ceding credibility in order to carry the far left's dihydrogen monoxide.
The picture's not great, but it's the headline that's intentionally outrageous.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
BeneGram's 2011 Final Forecasts
Is it March already? Guess it is. Remember: I had all four teams right on my women's bracket in 2005 and in 2009, and three of four teams right on my 2003 men's bracket. Last year, I had two teams right in the men's bracket, but West Virginia couldn't quite finish.
Women: Connecticut, Stanford, Notre Dame, Baylor. Connecticut over Baylor in the final. (3-for-4. Pretty good, but the women's tournament is mostly chalk.)
Men: Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, San Diego State. Ohio State over Pittsburgh in the final. (Another zeeero-for-four in the men's.)
Women: Connecticut, Stanford, Notre Dame, Baylor. Connecticut over Baylor in the final. (3-for-4. Pretty good, but the women's tournament is mostly chalk.)
Men: Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, San Diego State. Ohio State over Pittsburgh in the final. (Another zeeero-for-four in the men's.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
From 2008: "How to Take the Buss"
In 2008, around this time, the Washington Post ran a story in tune with Valentine's Day, and I thought another view ought to be represented. The following letter of mine was published three years ago today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503206.html
How to Take the Buss
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Having read "The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss" [Science, Feb. 11] I'd caution against anyone making any sort of judgments about a love interest based solely on if and how the person kisses.
Many people are more reserved and prefer to hold hands and kiss on the cheek rather than get all hot and heavy, even -- yes -- in 2008. But if their partners have been conned into believing that these more modest gestures are signs that they are uninterested, then they may miss out on something special.
Meanwhile, others engage in "soul-kissing," even with people they have no romantic interest in. So sexual attention, or lack thereof, is not a reliable barometer for love.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503206.html
How to Take the Buss
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Having read "The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss" [Science, Feb. 11] I'd caution against anyone making any sort of judgments about a love interest based solely on if and how the person kisses.
Many people are more reserved and prefer to hold hands and kiss on the cheek rather than get all hot and heavy, even -- yes -- in 2008. But if their partners have been conned into believing that these more modest gestures are signs that they are uninterested, then they may miss out on something special.
Meanwhile, others engage in "soul-kissing," even with people they have no romantic interest in. So sexual attention, or lack thereof, is not a reliable barometer for love.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
A Horrific Tragedy, a Shameful Response
I had a letter published in the Jan. 11 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, though it was shortened significantly. Below the link is my letter in full.
http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-11/news/27021841_1_mental-illness-issue-of-gun-control-semiautomatic-weapons/3
"Like most, I was appalled by the horrific incident in Tucson, in which six innocent people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded, including Rep. Giffords. Then I was disgusted with the eagerness of so many to politicize the tragedy.
Yes, the decision by the operators of Sarah Palin's website to 'target' political opponents was in bad taste and uncalled for -- as was the less-scrutinized ad* in which the campaign of Democrat Harry Mitchell did the same to Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. But it's still just a clumsily constructed metaphor. Neither Palin nor Mitchell was advocating violence toward another human being.
The more we learn about the young man who shot twenty people on Saturday, the more we find an incoherent mess not resembling any pundit or politician -- of any political stripe. So let's absorb this sad day without pointing fingers at illegal aliens, the Tea Party, environmentalists, Glenn Beck, Richard Jewell, or heavy-metal music. The person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger, and we dishonor the victims when we opportunistically use their murder as an weapon for bludgeoning our political opponents."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-11/news/27021841_1_mental-illness-issue-of-gun-control-semiautomatic-weapons/3
"Like most, I was appalled by the horrific incident in Tucson, in which six innocent people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded, including Rep. Giffords. Then I was disgusted with the eagerness of so many to politicize the tragedy.
Yes, the decision by the operators of Sarah Palin's website to 'target' political opponents was in bad taste and uncalled for -- as was the less-scrutinized ad* in which the campaign of Democrat Harry Mitchell did the same to Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. But it's still just a clumsily constructed metaphor. Neither Palin nor Mitchell was advocating violence toward another human being.
The more we learn about the young man who shot twenty people on Saturday, the more we find an incoherent mess not resembling any pundit or politician -- of any political stripe. So let's absorb this sad day without pointing fingers at illegal aliens, the Tea Party, environmentalists, Glenn Beck, Richard Jewell, or heavy-metal music. The person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger, and we dishonor the victims when we opportunistically use their murder as an weapon for bludgeoning our political opponents."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
Saturday, December 25, 2010
On Christmas, a Choice
I really hate to write this actually on the holiday, but I can't take the "have it both ways" attitude any longer.
If you celebrate Christmas, I hope you have a wonderful one. But please pick one of the following philosophies. Choose carefully!
a.) There is nothing wrong with having Christmas displays in the town square, in front of City Hall, or in public schools. Furthermore, we should all say "Merry Christmas!" and not this watered down "Happy Holidays" stuff -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging that Christmas is a completely secular holiday with no religious meaning whatsoever, and that it's about Santa Claus and drinking cider and not remembering Bethlehem at all.
b.) Christmas has become way too secular, and we've forgotten its religious roots. We need to remember that the birth of Christ is the reason for the season -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging why it's inappropriate for public tax dollars to be used towards a public display honoring Christmas, and that it's perfectly fine for stores and shopping centers to say something more inclusive than the belief-system-specific "Merry Christmas."
I'm closer to (b.). How about you? No hybrid choices, though. Pick one.
Oh, and Happy Holidays!
If you celebrate Christmas, I hope you have a wonderful one. But please pick one of the following philosophies. Choose carefully!
a.) There is nothing wrong with having Christmas displays in the town square, in front of City Hall, or in public schools. Furthermore, we should all say "Merry Christmas!" and not this watered down "Happy Holidays" stuff -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging that Christmas is a completely secular holiday with no religious meaning whatsoever, and that it's about Santa Claus and drinking cider and not remembering Bethlehem at all.
b.) Christmas has become way too secular, and we've forgotten its religious roots. We need to remember that the birth of Christ is the reason for the season -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging why it's inappropriate for public tax dollars to be used towards a public display honoring Christmas, and that it's perfectly fine for stores and shopping centers to say something more inclusive than the belief-system-specific "Merry Christmas."
I'm closer to (b.). How about you? No hybrid choices, though. Pick one.
Oh, and Happy Holidays!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Two Letters
The following appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News on November 8 (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20101108_Letters__Assessing_the_state_of_the_Obama_presidency.html) No, mine has nothing to do with the Obama presidency:
"I'm in favor of gays and lesbians having the right to marry and adopt children, but Michael McGonigle (letters, Nov. 4) can't be taken seriously if he's comparing those who think differently to violent extremists who stone to death people who disagree with them (including gays and lesbians)."
-- and this appeared in the Delaware County Daily Times on November 27 (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/27/opinion/doc4cf088bd81ed9269203692.txt):
"I distribute literature for two nationwide organizations that assist victims of domestic violence, and I am frustrated that people such as Nan E. Fagan (letters, Nov. 14) are still operating under the delusion that violence is a strictly male-on-female phenomenon.More than 250 studies, reviews and analyses demonstrate that women initiate domestic abuse against their male partners approximately as often as the reverse occurs. A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association indicates that, when only one partner in a heterosexual relationship is violent to the other, it is the woman almost 71 percent of the time.There is also a startlingly high amount of domestic violence within the gay and lesbian community. Like straight men, these victims are ignored when people like Fagan pretend violence is only defined as 'when a man hurts a woman.'”
"I'm in favor of gays and lesbians having the right to marry and adopt children, but Michael McGonigle (letters, Nov. 4) can't be taken seriously if he's comparing those who think differently to violent extremists who stone to death people who disagree with them (including gays and lesbians)."
-- and this appeared in the Delaware County Daily Times on November 27 (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/27/opinion/doc4cf088bd81ed9269203692.txt):
"I distribute literature for two nationwide organizations that assist victims of domestic violence, and I am frustrated that people such as Nan E. Fagan (letters, Nov. 14) are still operating under the delusion that violence is a strictly male-on-female phenomenon.More than 250 studies, reviews and analyses demonstrate that women initiate domestic abuse against their male partners approximately as often as the reverse occurs. A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association indicates that, when only one partner in a heterosexual relationship is violent to the other, it is the woman almost 71 percent of the time.There is also a startlingly high amount of domestic violence within the gay and lesbian community. Like straight men, these victims are ignored when people like Fagan pretend violence is only defined as 'when a man hurts a woman.'”
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
No Need for Candidates to Use Misandrist Insults
I'm not entirely familiar with Ruth Marcus's work, but I agree with her this week:
Click here: Ruth Marcus - 'Manning up' isn't the problem this election
Excerpt: "'Man up' as in 'man up, Harry Reid,' from Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle on Reid's playing down of Social Security's financial woes. And, though it got less attention, from Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan to Republican Roy Blunt at a Senate debate the very same night, on health care: If Blunt wants to do away with health care for others, Carnahan told him, 'then you ought to repeal your own first. And man up.'
Ladies! If we're so tough, so confident in our toughness and so comfortable with it, what do testicles have to do with it?...Don't -- even, or maybe especially, if you're a woman -- equate toughness with manliness. At least not unless you think it's acceptable for your opponent to tell you to behave like a lady."
Click here: Ruth Marcus - 'Manning up' isn't the problem this election
Excerpt: "'Man up' as in 'man up, Harry Reid,' from Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle on Reid's playing down of Social Security's financial woes. And, though it got less attention, from Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan to Republican Roy Blunt at a Senate debate the very same night, on health care: If Blunt wants to do away with health care for others, Carnahan told him, 'then you ought to repeal your own first. And man up.'
Ladies! If we're so tough, so confident in our toughness and so comfortable with it, what do testicles have to do with it?...Don't -- even, or maybe especially, if you're a woman -- equate toughness with manliness. At least not unless you think it's acceptable for your opponent to tell you to behave like a lady."
I'm pulling for almost every Republican candidate next month, but I still agree with Ruth Marcus's every word here. I'm tired of women -- politicians or otherwise -- who believe that they themselves are not to be attacked for their gender but that they have every right to ridicule men for theirs.
If Harry Reid -- and, again, I am NOT a fan -- had told Angle to "man up" or "woman up," there'd be a tidal wave of anger against him.
You're better than this behavior, Sharron.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Helping Boys to Like Reading Without Scatology
I liked this a lot:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405511702112290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTThirdBucket#articleTabs%3Darticle
"When I was a young boy, America's elite schools and universities were almost entirely reserved for males," writes Thomas Spence. "That seems incredible now, in an era when headlines suggest that boys are largely unfit for the classroom. In particular, they can't read."
Spence is not the first to observe this. He disagrees, however, on one of the proposed "remedies."
"According to a revealing Associated Press story in July these experts insist that we must 'meet them where they are'—that is, pander to boys' untutored tastes.
For elementary- and middle-school boys, that means 'books that exploit [their] love of bodily functions and gross-out humor.' AP reported that one school librarian treats her pupils to 'grossology' parties."
His alternative theory?
"The appearance of the boy-girl literacy gap happens to coincide with the proliferation of video games and other electronic forms of entertainment over the last decade or two. Boys spend far more time 'plugged in' than girls do. Could the reading gap have more to do with competition for boys' attention than with their supposed inability to focus on anything other than outhouse humor?"
I'm with Spence. Both boys and girls (and adults) would make room for reading if they weren't constantly plugged in to MP3s, cellphones, Twitter, and Facebook. Making books more available and removing (at least for a little while) devices that feed the picture into young minds, rather than allowing imaginations to do some of the work, is what will help more young people read. I know I'd hate going to a "grossology" party, with everyone talking about poo or their farts or puke. I read a good amount of sports fiction and Encyclopedia Brown mysteries at that age.
Another "solution" I have a problem with centers upon gender stereotypes, as people argue that boys will all love reading adventure and sci-fi stories, while girls read about being saved by a white knight. Have boys and girls alike read Treasure Island, and then have them all read Jane Eyre. Maybe you'll find more boys like the first book and more girls like the second. Maybe you won't. But exposing minds to many types of literature and helping them figure out what they like and don't like seems like the best bet. After all, even though I'm not a patron myself, don't both genders adore the Harry Potter series?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405511702112290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTThirdBucket#articleTabs%3Darticle
"When I was a young boy, America's elite schools and universities were almost entirely reserved for males," writes Thomas Spence. "That seems incredible now, in an era when headlines suggest that boys are largely unfit for the classroom. In particular, they can't read."
Spence is not the first to observe this. He disagrees, however, on one of the proposed "remedies."
"According to a revealing Associated Press story in July these experts insist that we must 'meet them where they are'—that is, pander to boys' untutored tastes.
For elementary- and middle-school boys, that means 'books that exploit [their] love of bodily functions and gross-out humor.' AP reported that one school librarian treats her pupils to 'grossology' parties."
His alternative theory?
"The appearance of the boy-girl literacy gap happens to coincide with the proliferation of video games and other electronic forms of entertainment over the last decade or two. Boys spend far more time 'plugged in' than girls do. Could the reading gap have more to do with competition for boys' attention than with their supposed inability to focus on anything other than outhouse humor?"
I'm with Spence. Both boys and girls (and adults) would make room for reading if they weren't constantly plugged in to MP3s, cellphones, Twitter, and Facebook. Making books more available and removing (at least for a little while) devices that feed the picture into young minds, rather than allowing imaginations to do some of the work, is what will help more young people read. I know I'd hate going to a "grossology" party, with everyone talking about poo or their farts or puke. I read a good amount of sports fiction and Encyclopedia Brown mysteries at that age.
Another "solution" I have a problem with centers upon gender stereotypes, as people argue that boys will all love reading adventure and sci-fi stories, while girls read about being saved by a white knight. Have boys and girls alike read Treasure Island, and then have them all read Jane Eyre. Maybe you'll find more boys like the first book and more girls like the second. Maybe you won't. But exposing minds to many types of literature and helping them figure out what they like and don't like seems like the best bet. After all, even though I'm not a patron myself, don't both genders adore the Harry Potter series?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)