John (not his real name) wrote:

Overall, the human population is growing nicely - some would say alarmingly - so using declining birthrates among whites as a reason to focus on boys' success is IMO a weak argument. We should be addressing the gender gap because it's the right thing to do. If we let boys flounder then we risk stagnation vis-à-vis innovation and advancement as a society and a species. For all the talk about the importance of having women and girls in science, the fact is that even when given the advantages of affirmative action, etc., women simply have not shown themselves to be equal or even comparable to men when it comes to innovation in science, engineering, etc. Thus, we not only waste a tremendous amount of time and resources when we favor girls over boys, we risk losing our best and brightest innovators in the name of politically correct policies.

—John

John,

Unless I misunderstand what you meant by the first sentence of your observations, it appears that you fell victim to feminist and depopulationist propaganda. That criticism applies only to the first sentence of your observations. The rest of your observations is valid, for the reasons you offered. Those reasons and the solutions you suggested, believe it or not, apply also in addressing the very real depopulation crisis that is dismissed so easily by far too many.

The point of this rather lengthy response to your observations is that fathers rights — and fathers within, not without, families — are what the welfare and the very survival of civilization depend on. The very real depopulation of the world has been caused by the vilification and abrogation of fathers rights and by the implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family. The survival of our civilization depends on the restoration of fathers rights and on the restoration of the respect society once had for fathers and their families. If it is not possible for people to accept that, if not even fathers' rights or men's rights activists recognize that, then we are done for.

Still, we must recognize that all of us have to varying degrees become indoctrinated with sophistry and cannot blame all people for their failure to understand the truth, let alone the failure to search for it. Sophistry causes the abrogation of the search for the truth and abrogates people's willingness to look objectively at the truth and all of the truth. I experience time and again that people will point at all of the benefits and blessings feminism brought to women, while they adamantly refuse to consider the enormous price civilization had to pay and is still paying in the form of fatal consequences to all of society. As important an issue as discrimination against men and fathers is, it is far more important that that discrimination will cause the death of civilization.

North America, Europe, all of the developed nations, and now increasingly so even the developing nations face a depopulation crisis of massive proportions. The depopulation crisis has even the UN worried, although the UN proposes that the crisis must be solved through means that differ from your suggestions. The UN wishes to effect a solution of the depopulation crisis, through massive redistribution of the world's population. Thereby the UN would achieve the same thing that the feminists and depopulationists wish to achieve, the obliteration of the western cultural heritage.

By about 2150, the world population would be reduced to about 3.5 million people and a short time later would be less than a billion people — somewhere around what the population levels were at the time of Columbus.

The blame for the depopulation crisis must be squarely laid at the feet of feminism. However, feminism is not the fundamental cause of the depopulation crisis. It is an agent in the employ of forces behind the scene.

Feminism is the daughter of communism, it is communism in drag; and communism is an outgrowth of the social forces launched during the time leading up to the French Revolution, the Renaissance, the age of "enlightenment" that produced humanism and liberalism, an outgrowth of which social and cultural evolution is relativism (a.k.a., in a wider sense, sophistry).

It is encouraging that lately many good journalists, writers, social critics and researchers have begun to pay increasing attention to the consequences and causes of depopulation. To bring you up to speed, have a look at these two articles:

The Return of Patriarchy

By Phillip Longman

Foreign Policy, Mar/Apr. 2006; published Feb 28, 2006

Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best. (Full Story)

Another version of this article, under the title "Revenge of the Patriarchs", nearly identical but different in a few very important aspects, was published in Canada's National Post, Mar 27, 2006 (see that version and detect the differences). Another version yet, under the title "In the name of the father", was published in The Australian, Mar. 24, 2006 (see that version), but I have not yet found the time to check for differences in that version; it should not surprise anyone to find important differences in the Australian version as well.

__________________
Copied from <http://fathersforlife.org/News_now.htm>

The other article is,

Why women's rights are wrong

By Vox Day, WorldNetDaily

Vox Day considers "women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated," and discusses how and why the promotion of women's "rights" brought justified complaints by women as well as social and demographic calamities throughout the world. (Full Story)
(2005 08 08)

__________________
Copied from <http://fathersforlife.org/News_now.htm>

If you wish to delve deeper into the background and statistics of the deadly, world-wide, feminist-driven depopulation trend, have a look at the following:

<http://www.fathersforlife.org/health/abortion.htm#Death_of_Humanity>

However, don't take just my word for all of that, regardless of the sources I cited and quoted.

A search of the Internet for "depopulation crisis" will provide you with much more information on the issue of depopulation.

The preceding comments pertain only to the first sentence of your observation. I am in full agreement with the rest of what you stated. Yes, the solutions you recommend are the right thing to do, however, not because a depopulation crisis does not exist but because it does. Your recommendations will address the crisis, which, incongruently, you partially admit by stating, "If we let boys flounder then we risk stagnation vis-à-vis [lack of] innovation and advancement as a society and a species."

Socrates already recognized that, and he had to die because he did and spoke out about it. However, it would be wrong to be concerned about nothing more than stagnation of our society and species. We must become concerned about the very real demise of our society and species.

There are parallels in history to our present population crisis and its causes. There is an excellent essay that illustrates such a parallel, the demise of ancient Greece that followed within about a hundred years after the Cult of Apollo deliberately began to teach sophistry to the young men of Athens, for no other reasons than to destroy the superior Greek culture from within. Socrates opposed sophistry as a state- or cultural aim. On account of that he was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, and he was made to execute himself by drinking the poisoned cup.

Read the following:

From Plato’s Theaetetus to Gauss’s Pentagramma Mirificum: A Fight for Truth
by Bruce Director

Socrates was the last to oppose sophistry for a long time before anyone dared to do that again. Sophistry was victorious then (as political correctness and relativism are today). The rest is history. Aristotleian "logic"* ruled for more than a thousand years, causing cultural evolution to stagnate, and causing much death, poverty and other suffering in the process. History repeats itself. This time the outcome will be similar; now only the scale of the social catastrophe differs. (*Aristotle was not a sophist, but sophists love to pick and choose from Aristotle's explanations of logical arguments, thereby giving themselves the appearance of wisdom and their assertions, which are nevertheless false, the appearance of being true. See "On Sophistical Refutations," by Aristotle)

Marx and Engels, both the products of an education system that taught students to be fluent in Latin and Greek, were right, although they called for bloody revolution to achieve their aim: the destruction of the patriarchy. They quite correctly surmised that the destruction of the patriarchy cannot be achieved without first destroying its foundation, the traditional nuclear family. However, they and their acolytes did not quite succeed. (See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

Antonio Gramsci (leader of the Italian Communist Party under Mussolini) had studied Marxism in Russia. He became disillusioned with Marxism (and became as well very afraid that he would be swept up in one of the many purges under Stalin) and recognized that for the cultural revolution fostered by communism to succeed totally, it would be necessary to teach people sophistry, thereby to achieve what Marxism had failed to achieve, the destruction of the patriarchy through attempts to systematically destroy all families. Gramsci correctly realized that to succeed it would be necessary to destroy all cultural institutions and traditions from within, not through conquest by a bloody revolution but through nothing other than to indoctrinate children, students and adults with sophistry aimed at vilifying all traditional social institutions and moral standards. The Cult of Apollo (look for "Who are the magicians" at that page) had achieved the very same by exactly that method in relation to the demise of Ancient Greece.

That works exceedingly well today, far better than Marx and Engels ever hoped for, although it was not necessarily Gramsci who sparked the reeducation of the world. The torch of reeducation with the aim of dumbing-down whole populations was carried by many powerful and influential individuals behind the scenes and by their acolytes in public life. John Dewey installed child-centered learning (relativism versus the absolute truth), and thereby the start of the program for the deliberate dumbing-down of the nation and of the world. The members of the Frankfurt School who had been invited to come to the USA (they all were communists) in the early 1930s proved themselves to be very effective in spreading the religion of sophistry. Out of that came the hippie movement, the world-wide student revolution of the '60s (sponsored and organized by East Germany and Moscow), the sexual revolution, and the cultural revolution that led to our current state of affairs.

Now sophistry, relativism and political correctness rule, but perhaps not for much longer. Let's hope that the restoration of our former respect for the truth will come in time to save us all.

All the best,

Walter

___________________
Note:

Many of the links on this page will lead you to articles at Wikipedia, the most popular of all encyclopedias accessible on the Internet.
    Caution is advised when using articles at Wikipedia (as well as when using articles or definitions in any other encyclopedia or dictionary).  Although in some respects Wikipedia is a much more objective source of information than many other similar sources when it comes to social and philosophical concepts, the absolute truth in such matters is difficult to discern.  That is especially true given the single and greatest shortcoming of Wikipedia.
    Wikipedia is ruled by consensus.  However, consensus at Wikipedia is not the result of an objective survey of opinions based on a randomly selected sample of opinions.  It is based on the extent of concern raised in and expressed by self-selected and often emotional factions.  Even if the "truth" of any given thing were based on a randomly selected sample of opinions, that would still not provide a guaranty that the particular "truth" is absolutely true.  The "truth" of that thing would still be nothing more than a consensus of opinions and reflect the collective bias of those opinions, even if it does so more objectively.  Any similarity between that and the absolute truth would be more or less accidental. 
    The absolute truth is not a matter of a consensus held by a committee or by a democratic majority.
    Regardless of cloaking themselves with the word science, political- and social "sciences" are not hard sciences, they are arts.  However, rule by consensus is making inroads not only into arts or soft sciences, such as political and social "sciences" or the "science" of psychology, it is making headway into somewhat harder sciences, such as meteorology, climate research and the medical professions, where political correctness, profit motives and politics determine what is acceptable or not, and where researchers who insist on teaching the absolute truth become actively persecuted — very much as Socrates had been persecuted for opposing the ideology of sophistry.
    Formerly it was that whatever was taught in hard sciences was the truth, within the limits of the state of the knowledge and understanding of the truth at the time.  When a new truth or a refinement was sought and found in trying to seek perfection in the understanding of the truth, it would not be considered to be one amongst many opinions.  Once the new truth or the refinement of an accepted truth became accepted, it ruled out all previously held beliefs.  One single truth made all other opinions regarding the given thing that the truth pertained to wrong.
    A discussion of a Wikipedia article on Political Correctness is an excellent example of Wikipedia's shortcoming.  The talk page pertaining to the dispute regarding the correctness of the Wikipedia definition and description of political correctness contains a very lucid comment that laments the absence of a single unifying voice.  In other words, although the comment does not say so, a consensus of opinions is not as good as the absolute truth.  The comment uses the disagreements over the definitions of political correctness as an example of that shortcoming.
    Apparently the moderator of that discussion added his own criticism of that Fresh View, namely that the given talk page is not intended for anything other than definitions of political correctness.  That may be perfectly logical and proper in the moderator's mind, as his primary objective is to reach a consensus and not an absolutely correct conclusion.  However, I sure wish that all participants involved in the compiling of Wikipedia have a place where they can  form a consensus on how the absolute truth can be used to temper and verify the correctness of a consensus of opinions, keeping in mind that the absolute truth is the universal principle by which any given consensus must be judged.