areas of society, this one in particular is largely filled with my
views and opinions, and less based on statistics and evidence than
others. i am still formulating my views on this subject and I am open
to debate on the following ideas, as indeed I am on any of the
articles,
If you catch the children young enough, then they will be suitably
brain-washed as adults, and that is what has happened.
1) Background
When I grew up in the 1970s, the news stories on education were about
the fact that boys were outperforming girls in most subjects ‘and how
unfair this was’. There was pressure to close the gap. Clearly, this
has now happened.
Going back into history, it was widely believed that there was no
point educating women, as they were destined for being house-wives and
stay-at-home mothers, and the cost of educating them would be wasted.
Similarly, it was not considered necessary for them to have the vote,
as they were neither interested nor bothered about politics. Clearly,
these views have changed, but large numbers of women DO stay at home,
whether through choice, necessity or the benefit trap, and less women
than men are interested in politics and less women than men bother to
vote.
2) Fundamental basis
This is the key to understanding the changes in education as being
along gender lines. if you agree with this statement, then I believe
you would agree that the rest of the article flows from here.
My controversial bit, and I believe backed up by most people’s general
view is that men are more logical rational consistent and more able to
focus on one task for long periods to the exclusion of everything
else. Women are more emotional irrational and inconsistent and more
able to multi-task – ie do many things or think many things
simultaneously. Women are able to understand spatial and conceptual
problems more easily, men prefer reality and facts. Men are more
curious and competitive, women more team-oriented
I must emphasise at this point that I am NOT saying that either is
right or wrong best or worst just simply to emphasise that men and
women are DIFFERENT but equally valuable and important. These
differences I think are the reason why children do better with two
parents, one mother and one father as these personality types are
complementary to each other. It is probably also why men and women
struggle to form relationships without conflict.
Since the feminists took over, there have been radical changes in the
education system, mostly for the worse. Most of these changes can be
viewed on gender lines as being disproportionately bad for men and I
would argue, that is why they have been introduced.
I believe that the role of parents during their children’s ‘minority’
is to bring them up to be law-abiding, independent, self-sufficient,
contributing, well-balanced members of society. I believe that the
role of education is to supplement the parent’s roles and provide the
knowledge and skills to cope as an adult.
3) Changes – Maths
Whilst I enjoyed maths, algebra, differentiation and the like, I can
see no purpose at all for the vast majority of children in teaching
maths beyond about 6th grade age 11. An average student by then would
have all the basic maths to cope with life. Unfortunately in the UK at
least 15-20% of ADULTS fail to reach this basic level, in spite of
having twelve years of education in which to study it. This is widely
recognised as a failure of the system. In the 1970s, boys were doing
significantly better than girls at maths. So the system was changed.
Instead of repetitive sums and learning tables by rote, which favoured
the boys, the system is now ‘conceptual’. You have to ‘visualise’ the
numbers joining together. You have to use ‘number ladders’ to do
adding and subtraction. Tables are out and long multiplication is
carried out by some bizarre method of repeated addition. When I taught
my son old style multiplication, he picked it up in minutes at the age
of 6. He had to UNLEARN it and got thoroughly confused by the
feminised version, which still confuses him.
4) Changes – Competition
The biggest damage to boys has arisen in the feminists view that
school time should be a fuzzy warm protective place where children can
be children immune from reality. Until they are thrown out of the door
at 16 or 18 to be confronted by cold hard real adult life entirely
unprepared for what happens to them. Specifically, competition is
BANNED! My son did well at keystage 2 what used to be 11+ and I asked
his teacher how he had done in the year group. I was told oh we don’t
want kids to know that as it might make them too competitive!
In the absence of competition for boys in particular, they are likely
to lack motivation. In team sports where overwhelmingly men are better
than women, and indeed they are so much better that in virtually every
sport there have to be separate competitions for women as they would
not get anywhere at all in the men’s competition otherwise. Bizarrely,
these second class games argue successfully for equal treatment at the
Olympics and even in tennis at Wimbledon (the last major ‘hold-out’)!
Even though they compete in best of three, compared with men best of 5
and even though the quality of the women outside the top 20-30 is
appallingly poor, they still demand and receive equal money!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6385295.stm
In golf, for example, the occasional woman has tried and failed
miserably to compete on the men’s tour, but men are banned from
competing on the women’s tour! So much for fairness!
At school, the competitive sport is frowned upon. It is not surprising
therefore that our national teams do so badly on the international
front. In particular the Australians and the Americans know all about
‘win or bust’ and appear to always have an ‘extra gear’ to use when
times are hard. I believe this is because they have been brought up on
competition from an early stage and revel in those tense situations,
unlike the British sportsmen, who fizzle out under pressure. I must
give credit here to the England cricket team for winning the Ashes in
2005 although they lost them this year, but they bounced back to win
the tri-nation one-day series!
5) Changes – Parent-teacher liaison
Ruth Kelly suggested that fathers who do not attend parent’s evenings
should be banned from having contact with their children.
My son has just moved up to secondary school and a new headmistress
has just taken over the very well performing school he attends. At the
first introduction event, she talked long about the ‘three-way’ golden
triangle of school, parents and children. Improving communication
would benefit the children. All wonderful stuff. So what does she do?
Virtually all communication with parents is via a ‘homework diary’
that the children take to and from school and has to be signed by the
parent oat the weekend. Virtually all additional information is by a
letter which is handed to the child in the class. Whatever happened to
email? Only used for ‘begging letters’. Thus overwhelmingly the mother
is the one who receives the information and denies the father any
opportunity to find out what is happening at the school. Requests for
two copies of everything still rely on the children to remember to
hand to dad at the weekends.
Further – the parents ‘evenings’ have been changed to afternoons! The
teachers were working too hard and need to go home, so it was felt
better to hold these ‘consultations between 3 and 5pm. Thereby all
working parents and particularly dads are automatically excluded. When
I complained about this, I was told that 98% of parents turned up last
year and largely voted in favour of the change. When I pointed out
that what really happened was that 98% of children had at least one
parent there and that he did not know what percentage of PARENTS,
simply percentage of children, he did not reply.
His other comment suggested that parents should treat visiting the
teacher in the same way as visiting any other ‘professional’.
I pointed out that schools were near where you live not where you
work. That visiting your accountant, solicitor etc could be arranged
near where you work and hence during the lunch-hour. Some even run
evening surgeries. Visiting your doctor would be a likely reason for
time off, although a GP had to be near where you live (further
discrimination against working people and in particular men). Needless
to say there was no reply.
6) Changes – history
I have noticed the feminisation of history lessons. It is perceived
that boys enjoyed history owing to the battles and the learning of
kings by rote, so all that has changed. The lessons now concentrate on
the ‘lifestyle’ of the times and the ‘female’ historical figures are
much more important. Suddenly the handful of Queens and wives of Henry
8th and Boudicea Joan of Arc etc become much more significant than the
vast myriads of men who fought and died for their country.
7) Changes – Science
On a similar vein, the male inventors are ignored and the tiny few
female inventors get disproportionate mention. Florence Nightingale,
Marie Curie (famous for CONTINUING the work of Mr Curie after he
died). Based on my personal opinion that men are better able to focus
on one issue to the exclusion of everything else, it is not surprising
that 99% of inventions and innovations in history have been by men (I
would say 100% as I cannot think of any by a woman, and my dad did a
PhD on the subject and could not name any, but I am sure there MUST
have been one somewhere!), It used to be said that behind every
successful man there is a woman nagging him on. In other words, a man
had a wife who supported, encouraged and helped him so that he could
concentrate on the job in hand (Now THAT is an old fashioned idea – a
supportive wife – wishful thinking nowadays?). However, the successful
women are overwhelmingly single. They often get to their late 30s and
realise they have sacrificed the possibility of a family to have a
career and realise their biological clock is ticking. They suddenly
get ‘baby hunger’ and apparently Cambridge is the place in the UK
where this happens the most(!), and grab the nearest man and have a
baby. Is this for selfish reasons or for the good of the child?
Also a vast fortune was wasted on schemes such as ‘WISE’ (Women into
Science and Engineering) to reverse the perceived discrimination
against women in entering science and engineering, as only 4% of
engineering students were female. As a result of dropping their
attempts to attract men into science and engineering and focusing only
on women, the number of women went up 20% and the number of men went
down 6%. The end result meant even greater shortages of engineers!
Once again feminism triumphed over logic and rationality!
Changes – subjects
More feminised subjects have been introduced which are ‘easier’ for
girls. Media studies is a good example of a meaningless subject that
has risen in popularity and is a very easy subject to get a degree in.
It appeals mainly to the fashion conscious, celeb watching mindless
brigade who cannot think for themselves – disproportionately women who
are interested in trivialities of fashion and ’street cred’.
9) University
It used to be the elite who went to university. The government now
wants 50% of kids to go to uni – to avoid them ending up on the
unemployment register!
Devaluing the university is a way of undermining the advantages of
clever kids, mainly men. It also puts off the employers as if everyone
has a degree, it is meaningless. Thereby removing the competitive
edge.
10) Hypocrisy
The feminists in charge know that the state system that they have
created is appalling and falling further an further behind the private
school system. Hence many (most?) of them send their kids to
fee-paying schools outside the state system. For example, Ruth Kelly -
education minister -
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a…isy/article.do
The future
Ruth Kelly was set ten tests as education minister.
-http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050106/ai_n9562564
Just a few points -
In order to ensure that nobody ‘fails’ as that is bad for the poor
little girlies – and taking away the stigma of failure means that
nobody passes – therefore it is not competitive as you will pass
anyway! In other words, the competitive boys are frustrated by not
having anything to compete over.
Truancy rates are rising as are all the other negatives in society as
a direct result of the exclusion of fathers from society. The number
one cause of truancy is family breakdown. Kids need a male role model
and if dad is denied contact, then they get the role model from the
local gang leader on the street with the inevitable progress down the
escalator of crime. Additionally, being brought up in a single mother
household makes kids more likely to be dependent on state hand-outs
and not seeing their mother working. Thereby the kids grow up
believing you can get anything on a plate without having to work for
it. They are not stakeholders in society therefore they do not value
anything they see around them, eg street furniture or other people’s
belongings – these things are all there for them to vandalise steal,
graffiti or whatever they feel like at the time – they have never
learned a conscience as there is no punishment either from their
parents, or from the state which refuses to seriously punish children
under 18.
False allegations – particularly male teachers suffer from false
allegations. According to the National Union of Teachers, 95% of
allegations are false, but the damage is done. The kids are not
punished, but the teacher is finished.
http://factuk.org/
Only 2% of child minders and 11% of primary school teachers are male.
Thus most kids from single mother households do not see a man in a
position of responsibility until the age of 11 – it is too late. It is
presumed that any man who wants to teach children must be a
paedophile.
The Jesuit priests say -’Give me a child until the age of 7 and I give
you the man’ – the vast majority of the child’s development is set by
the age of 7.
I have heard that a primary school head can look aroud the class of
new kids at the age of 4-5 and identify accurately which will go to
prison and which will go to university. The first few years are the
most crucial and have set the pattern.
Discipline – I have heard lots of nonsense from people believing that
reintroducing ‘corporal’ punishment will solve the problems at school
- in other words using the cane on disruptive pupils. Unfortunately,
society has changed so much that it would have no effect now. Those
kids who would have been good anyway do not care what the punishment
is as they would avoid it, even if just a detention. The bad kids will
consider it a ‘mark of their success’. the ones in the middle, MAY be
slightly affected, but would pronbably follow whichever of the other
two groups they belonged to. Being ‘bad’ is far more attractive than
being ‘good’. Remember from your own school days what happened to
‘teacher’s pets’, or ’swats’. They got bullied. I know, I did!
I saw a programme where the audience was asked about whether they
smacked their children and when. A woman put up her hand and she
stated that she smacked her children when SHE was tired! What kind of
message was she sending them?
I have seen mothers in supermarkets stop to talk to another mother.
The child sits on the floor and entertains himself, peacefully and
harmlessly. Mother finishes her chat and says ‘let’s go’. The child is
in the middle of something and does not move immediately – WHACK! He
gets a clip round the ear and is dragged off screaming. What has he
learned? When he is good he gets smacked!.
Other times I believe that the mothers only interact with their
children when they are naughty. When they are good, they are ignored.
Thus the child learns in a bizarre sort of way that his mother must
love him when he is being naughty because that is the only time he is
receiving any attention from her! It is not surprising that these kids
grow up to be criminals!
Fathers are more likely to ‘rough-house’ with their kids. They are
basically wrestling matches, but controlled. The boy learns how to
control his aggression, because if he gets carried away, the dad will
stop immediately. these are safe ways for letting off steam.
http://www.waldorfhomeschoolers.com/roughhouse.htm
Dumping the kid in front of the tv or computer does not let out the
natural aggression, even through violent video games, and this
frustration boils over in dangerous ways on the playground etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3603235.stm
http://khloud.wordpress.com/2007/02/…-for-children/
Yet another reason why dads are crucial, particularly to boys.
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html
Summary
There are some calls for segregated education as there are some
studies which appear to show that girls do better in single sex
schools whilst boys do better in mixed schools. I doubt it. I do not
believe in segregated anything. The blacks fought hard and long to get
mixed education, for a very good reason, there schooling was second
class compared with the whites. There schools were treated less
favourably on the jobs market. I believe the same would ahppen if
boys and girls were segregated, the boys schools would be rubbish, the
girls would be favoured.
In any case, I believe that it is better for society if boys and girls
coexist in harmony and ultimately in relationships. It is extremely
unlikely to happen if everyone is taught in single sex environments
and that is exactly what the feminists would like to happen and
therefore I am opposed to it and in any case it is not a society I
would like to live in. Let’s fight against that segregated future
TOGETHER.
Tags: boys, children, discrimination, Education, female, girls, human rights, male, UK
