Frankness And Its Opposite
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.
Update, via the comments:
Needless to say, and despite contrary evidence being mustered, Ms Campione is not exactly rushing to engage with any of her critics.
While we wait, readers are welcome to ponder how one might “rethink how we engage with boys… as readers” while simultaneously – and quite vehemently – disdaining any notion of “boy stuff,” i.e., subject matter and writing styles to which boys are more likely to be attracted, and while denouncing the very idea that, in aggregate, boys and girls have differing interests and sensibilities.
Readers may also wish to ponder undertaking such a task on grounds that “a gender binary” is something one must be seen to reject, loudly and often, if not coherently or persuasively.
And despite such assumptions not exactly working out well in the real world.
Update 2:
Mags quips,
Ms Campione continues by insisting that the reading tastes of children are merely “indicative of their upbringing and socialisation,” because “gender is a social construct.” No other possibilities are, it seems, conceivable. In her mind, the fact that boys and girls tend to differ in their reading interests is merely “a thing that we made up.”
And by implication, something to be corrected.
Apparently, Ms Campione has “been reading books written by and about men my whole life,” and therefore boys should be taught “that they can and should identify with all sorts of stories.” I.e., stories generally preferred by girls and written by women.
I think we can assume she’s not referring to, say, Agatha Christie.
Update 3:
The determined affectation is very nearly surreal.
Ms Campione does “not agree… on a very foundational level” that boys will tend to be more interested in the kinds of books that they tend to be more interested in. Apparently, their inclinations can be manipulated and overridden, by women like her, one assumes, via some means not disclosed, and despite all evidence to the contrary.
“Maybe your son could stand to read some romantasy,” says she.
I suspect that any actual interest in getting boys engaged with books will take second place to a more exciting re-education project, via which they will be made less like boys. I mean, that is what seems to excite Ms Campione, and doubtless other women very much like her, many of whom will be employed as publishers, or teachers.
Ms Campione is currently boasting of “making men mad online.” While lying about what it is she said that prompted the avalanche of mockery and correction.
Our betters. These glorious beings.
Now quite amused by replies to Ms Campione sharing screengrabs of what she actually said, as opposed to what she says she said. They’re not letting her off the hook. Which is how it should be.
I suppose interacting with people who don’t aspire to be thought of as progressive, according to this week’s rules, must be quite stressful.
Which brings us back to the initial point – the problem of being accustomed to pretending things, and being surrounded by people who also pretend those same things, and who will punish you for not pretending them – and then having to deal with people who do not pretend. And who can see, and mock, all of the pretending that’s been going on.
It’s the tragedy of our times.