Further to recent rumblings in the comments on the subject of frankness, this, by Devon Eriksen, caught my eye:
If you believed that, you would not be able to engage with the question “Why are boys not reading?” because the very question is an admission that there is something distinct about certain children that makes them boys and not girls.
No, what you actually believe is “If I acknowledge the differences between boys and girls, I will be punished by my social group.”
This belief is true.
But so what? It’s entirely your fault that you chose a social group which makes such ridiculous demands.
My social group doesn’t demand I pretend to believe silly things.
You don’t actually have to play this game anymore, you know. You can just stop. Sure, some people you know will say mean things to you, but you and I both know they kinda do a lot of that already just because of the kind of people they are.
You and I also both know they would throw you under a bus in microsecond if some innovation in the mandatory belief system rewarded them for doing so.
Ms Katie Campione, at whom the above is directed, is a “journalist living in Los Angeles,” a “TV and labour reporter.” She doesn’t like the idea – one might say the reality – that boys and girls tend to be interested in different things.
We are going to have a fundamental difference of opinion if you think the answer to boys not reading is to write about “boy stuff” and not rethink how we engage with boys in general let alone as readers. No specific interest or taste should be placed on a gender binary!!!
— Katie Campione (@katie_campione) November 7, 2026
She has pronouns in her bio.
As seen above, and so many times before, progressive contrivance tends to point away from reality. That’s pretty much its defining attribute. Often to a degree that’s bewildering, maddening, and something close to surreal.
Because contrived unrealism is where the in-group status is.
And hey, priorities.
Recent Comments