He is not wrong. Female cries are very effective at manipulating society for centuries. You can see this recorded in the Bible with Joseph and Pothiphar's wife (Genesis 39:13). In more recent times, we have The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird illustrating female tears manipulating people.
Both conservatives and liberals worship feminism so his daughter's tears will be useful all her life. This will never change as normies do not view this as a bad thing.
No one cares about men so teaching your son crying does nothing early in life will save his life later on. Feminist crap about "being vulnerable" are lies and will damage him later.
I will always find it infuriating that this "American Classic" spends its entire runtime treating the bad dad as the evilest thing ever, and then brushes over the daughter literally getting an innocent man killed because she was also abused and a bunch of other coddled nonsense.
I read this book as a 12-year-old so pardon any misinterpretations, but I remember Atticus being portrayed as a tired but resolute man who knew the politics of his court case would hurt his reputation but was determined to do the right thing anyway. I also thought 'Scout' described him very affectionately and the writer approached him with fondness. Did I miss the boat?
I meant the other dad, the "Robert E. Lee" Ewell (had to look it up because I didn't remember anything besides him being literally named Robert E Lee) one. The one who its implied molests his daughter so she "sought out" comfort in the black guy, which is what lead to him getting accused and killed. Which of course means that she both got him into the situation and then went along with everything that ended with him getting killed, only lacking agency if you agree that "being a victim" absolves women of any possible responsibility for their actions.
Scout's dad is treated like a real American hero in the original novel, you are correct. However the sequel published like a decade ago (after the author died, against her will, written nearly a century prior) spends most of its run time calling him actually a racist and a bad man all along.
Apparently it was an early draft of what would become To Kill a Mockingbird and was just kept as a personal hobby for the author to work on throughout her life, so its canon is dubious. But its such a wild shift that it almost wild in how hard it tries to torpedo him, while also dodging literally all the philosophical, moral and legal basis the racism in the book has to call it bad. Something the original novel at least allowed to be thought about.
He is not wrong. Female cries are very effective at manipulating society for centuries. You can see this recorded in the Bible with Joseph and Pothiphar's wife (Genesis 39:13). In more recent times, we have The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird illustrating female tears manipulating people.
Both conservatives and liberals worship feminism so his daughter's tears will be useful all her life. This will never change as normies do not view this as a bad thing.
No one cares about men so teaching your son crying does nothing early in life will save his life later on. Feminist crap about "being vulnerable" are lies and will damage him later.
He isn't wrong about that aspect, but he's wrong to continue the trend.
My nieces have known for years that crying to get their way doesn't work with me, and they don't even try anymore.
I will always find it infuriating that this "American Classic" spends its entire runtime treating the bad dad as the evilest thing ever, and then brushes over the daughter literally getting an innocent man killed because she was also abused and a bunch of other coddled nonsense.
I read this book as a 12-year-old so pardon any misinterpretations, but I remember Atticus being portrayed as a tired but resolute man who knew the politics of his court case would hurt his reputation but was determined to do the right thing anyway. I also thought 'Scout' described him very affectionately and the writer approached him with fondness. Did I miss the boat?
I meant the other dad, the "Robert E. Lee" Ewell (had to look it up because I didn't remember anything besides him being literally named Robert E Lee) one. The one who its implied molests his daughter so she "sought out" comfort in the black guy, which is what lead to him getting accused and killed. Which of course means that she both got him into the situation and then went along with everything that ended with him getting killed, only lacking agency if you agree that "being a victim" absolves women of any possible responsibility for their actions.
Scout's dad is treated like a real American hero in the original novel, you are correct. However the sequel published like a decade ago (after the author died, against her will, written nearly a century prior) spends most of its run time calling him actually a racist and a bad man all along.
Apparently it was an early draft of what would become To Kill a Mockingbird and was just kept as a personal hobby for the author to work on throughout her life, so its canon is dubious. But its such a wild shift that it almost wild in how hard it tries to torpedo him, while also dodging literally all the philosophical, moral and legal basis the racism in the book has to call it bad. Something the original novel at least allowed to be thought about.
As an aside since you mentioned, Arthur Miller is one of the evilest men to ever live