I believe the point he was making was essentially that because this book eschews traditional stereotypes and cultural messaging about disciplines like science and math being the purview of males, not only do girls benefit, but boys do as well by virtue of the fact that the values they are being taught are less selectively biased.
Not only do young women win (obvious), but young men do as well as they are less likely to both accept and perpetuate stereotypes.
It was a bit muddled, but that is how I read his argument.
>but please don't argue that boys benefit from this by having the chance to be obedient little utilities.
I wasn't arguing anything, merely clarifying the point of that poster.
But since you brought it up, the argument that boys benefit from being exposed to values like acceptance of diversity, and stand to gain by not being exposed to gender prejudice as they learn about the world around them...well it is an argument I not only accept, but embrace.
What a cynical and devious re-framing of the poster's argument btw. Aren't you something.
Again, I think you may be confused. The poster's argument that you're claiming to agree with is the same argument that you're taking issue with when you say:
>I agree with the sentiment here, but please don't argue that boys benefit from this by having the chance to be obedient little utilities. but please don't argue that boys benefit from this by having the chance to be obedient little utilities.
That boys benefit is precisely the argument the poster is making (your framing them as "obedient little utilities" notwithstanding).
Additionally, the usage of italics simply indicates emphasis. It's one of the most mundane aspects of written English. Nothing fancy about it, FYI.
