Why Boys Don't Count
Stephen Morgan
From: Coyote Boy <coyoteme...@yahoo.com>
Subject: [AUM] Why Boys Don't Count in Public Schools
To: a...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: mensr...@yahoogroups.com
X-From_:
sentto-1236286-984-997289472-ncavalier=crosswi...@returns.onelist.com
Wed Aug 8 12:51:15 2001
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-1236286-984-997289472-ncavalier=crosswi...@returns.onelist.com
X-Sender: coyoteme...@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: a...@yahoogroups.com
Mailing-List: list a...@yahoogroups.com; contact
aum-...@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list a...@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:aum-uns...@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: a...@yahoogroups.com
http://216.76.5.153/c_corner/boys.html
The Chauvinist Corner
Education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Boys Don't Count
I just read an article by Kathleen Parker that talks
about education, boys and girls. It mentioned the fact
that the American Association of University Women did
a study on girls in school and have found that girls
on average do not perform any better in a single sex
environment than they did in coed schools. This is
quite disappointing to the feminists who were hoping
that girl students were merely oppressed by the boy
students and that was why they had inferior marks. Why
did they not speak up as often as the boys in math
class? The same reason that they did not speak up in
the all-girl classroom. They did not know the answer!
Do you remember a while back when the feminists
pressured the makers of Barbi to pull the new speaking
version of the doll off the market? Do you remember
why? One of the phrases that Barbie said was, ?Math is
hard!? The feminists were livid. They could hardly
contain themselves as they went on the attack and got
the doll pulled from the shelves. The very idea that
math might be considered hard was a threat to their
little empire. Girls are so delicate, females so
fragile, that the very idea of something being
difficult will dissuade them from even attempting it.
That is what the feminists were saying by these stupid
antics!
Back to the subject at hand. This much was not the
total focus of the article. No, the real point of the
article is that the liberals in control of our society
are insane. Oh, it did not say that specifically but
it pointed it out quite clearly anyway. Our society?s
liberal leaders are insane because they condemn,
ridicule and penalize those who have done well in the
past. The American culture is battered in the class
room. Those so unfortunate as to be members of the
white race are put down. Those who happen to be of the
male gender are ignored. Everything that has worked in
the past, and everyone who has made valuable
contributions to our history, or has made a huge
success in business is belittled and an attempt is
made to intellectually destroy that person, concept or
ideal. That is completely insane in my book!
Specifically the article pointed out that this
American Association of University Women study was
totally unconcerned with the boys in the classroom.
The fact the boys would be putting their education to
work in a job, which males have been doing all along,
made them of no consequence to the study. Many women
will start a job and give it up for their families and
especially their children. I applaud that! The men
will put their education to work in almost every case.
This means that, as far as getting an education is
concerned, the most important students in any
classroom are the males. The females must be
considered lesser students because less of them will
be using their education for productive labor. Since
this is an undeniable fact, why did this study ignore
the boys?
Once again the feminist mind can be seen busily at
work, spinning its obscene and twisted web. Once again
we can find their personal insanity driving our
educational system into ruin. Boys do not count to
feminists. Whether these sad women are lesbian, or
merely anti-male for some other reason, they are only
focused on how the female can take the place of the
male in our society. They keep studying the question,
and ignore every piece of evidence that comes along
which says women are made to be in the home, and
taking care of the children.
The foam fairly froths from their mouths as they
picket for the right to slaughter innocent babes in
the womb. Why? Because children distract women. Women
naturally want to nurture and care for their children.
I honestly believe that feminists are more angry at
women than they are at men! When women act in a way
that is natural to them, it is completely
anti-feminist. There is nothing more counter
productive to the feminist movement than a babe at his
mother?s breast. There is nothing that upsets the
feminist apple cart more than a mother walking her
kids to the park on a daily basis. It is absolute ruin
for the feminists to have a mother who is home
whenever the kids are out of school.
So, is it any wonder that they do not care about boys
in school? Do they care at all whether a boy succeeds,
optimizing his potential? No, feminists could not
possibly care any less about the boys in school. When
push comes to shove it appears that they do not really
care about the girls in school either. All they really
are concerned with is their political agenda, no
matter how many boys and girls are hurt by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/DhHolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
The poor of England have remained silent too long. [...] The blade of a
tyrant is dull and flat, like its owner.
-- Hugh Laurie, "A Bit of Fry and Laurie"
Ron House
> I honestly believe that feminists are more angry at
> women than they are at men! When women act in a way
> that is natural to them, it is completely
> anti-feminist. There is nothing more counter
> productive to the feminist movement than a babe at his
> mother?s breast. There is nothing that upsets the
> feminist apple cart more than a mother walking her
> kids to the park on a daily basis. It is absolute ruin
> for the feminists to have a mother who is home
> whenever the kids are out of school.
The reason for this is simple: feminism is the implacable hatred of the
female value system. Think about it: anything at all that females
naturally tend to like, feminism hates. Females are strongly attracted
to men, so feminism hates men most of all.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
Parg2000
>From: Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
>Date: 8/16/01 1:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7B81DE...@usq.edu.au>
>
>Stephen Morgan wrote:
>
>> I honestly believe that feminists are more angry at women than they are at
men!
{Parg} I don't see that feminists are "mad" at either. Anger isn't extremely
productive. AND, even if you consider women to be ill-used by men rather than
by patriarchy, hating women would be akin to hating the slave rather than the
slave owner. Patriarchy is like slavery.
When women act in a way that is natural to them, it is completely
anti-feminist.
{Parg} Actually, when women act in ways that are natural to them, feminism
would seek to apply equal VALUE to those ways as to the ways you appear to find
attributable to men. In fact, that is why feminism offers the ideology that
women need not BE MEN in order to BE equal.
There is nothing more counter productive to the feminist movement than a babe
at his
>> mother?s breast.
{Parg} Nonsense! Feminism would seek to make sure that a woman who made such
a choice would be provided with societal protections, like a working wage from
the husband's paycheck for her to MANAGE AND CONTROL and/or ALIMONY and CHILD
SUPPORT upon divorce.
There is nothing that upsets the feminist apple cart more than a mother
walking her
>> kids to the park on a daily basis.
{Parg} As long as the husband of such a wife isn't demanding that society pay
for his free child care, why would feminists be angry at such a sight? IOW, as
long as such a woman has societal protections of alimony/child support, there
would be no reason to devalue what she does. AND, when she is ready to divorce
a man who wants all that free housekeeping and child support, feminism would be
there to make sure he pays for that "free" work.
It is absolute ruin>> for the feminists to have a mother who is home> whenever
the kids are out of school.
{Parg} Nonsense! Feminism wants choices for women. Women can now compete for
your job AND demand that you pay your drone once she wants to be human. In the
end, women who care for kids have probably given more to society than what men
traditionally do.
The problem has been in not giving economic value to that which women do. When
our society starts making sure women get that economic value, being a drone
will no longer be applicable. <G>
>The reason for this is simple: feminism is the implacable hatred of the>female
value system.
{Parg} Feminism PROTECTS women's choices by making sure that they are either
1) valued or 2) that other choices are just as available. As more and more
women are choosing to do work men traditionally DO, the stuff women used to do
is being more greatly VALUED. Supply and demand!
Think about it: anything at all that females
>naturally tend to like, feminism hates. Females are strongly attracted
>to men, so feminism hates men most of all.
{Parg} Women can be just as "attracted to men" in a 'Beltrane' ceremony as in
marriage.
<G> No, I need not explain that. <G>
>
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> >Subject: Re: Why feminists hate men
> >From: Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
>
> {Parg} I don't see that feminists are "mad" at either. Anger isn't extremely
> productive. AND, even if you consider women to be ill-used by men rather than
> by patriarchy, hating women would be akin to hating the slave rather than the
> slave owner.
Then why is it that you so despise your so called "chattel" women ?
> Patriarchy is like slavery.
Only if women were expected to *do* something. Western
"patriarchy" was more concerned with protecting and sheltering
women from the dangers of the "real" world so that they could
perform their role of gestating so that society would continue...
> When women act in a way that is natural to them, it is completely
> anti-feminist.
>
> {Parg} Actually, when women act in ways that are natural to them, feminism
> would seek to apply equal VALUE to those ways as to the ways you appear to find
> attributable to men.
Value is assigned by the market place Parg. If no one is willing
to "pay" you for your services, then your services, are worthless. If
there is no one to pay what women think their "services" are worth
then those "services" are worthless.
> There is nothing more counter productive to the feminist movement than a babe
> at his mother's breast.
>
> {Parg} Nonsense! Feminism would seek to make sure that a woman who made such
> a choice would be provided with societal protections, like a working wage from
> the husband's paycheck for her to MANAGE AND CONTROL and/or ALIMONY and CHILD
> SUPPORT upon divorce.
Then of course, she would be expected to pay for her own
food, clothing, shelter, leisure activities etc. She would also
be expected to pay a portion of the expenses of the children
plus her own medical expenses etc., etc.
>
> There is nothing that upsets the feminist apple cart more than a mother
> walking her kids to the park on a daily basis.
>
> {Parg} As long as the husband of such a wife isn't demanding that society pay
> for his free child care, why would feminists be angry at such a sight? IOW, as
> long as such a woman has societal protections of alimony/child support, there
> would be no reason to devalue what she does. AND, when she is ready to divorce
> a man who wants all that free housekeeping and child support, feminism would be
> there to make sure he pays for that "free" work.
and, if feminist is about "equality" as you insist, she would of course be
charged the cost of any goods and services that *he* provided to her
> It is absolute ruin for the feminists to have a mother who is home> whenever
> the kids are out of school.
>
> {Parg} Nonsense! Feminism wants choices for women. Women can now compete for
> your job AND demand that you pay your drone once she wants to be human. In the
> end, women who care for kids have probably given more to society than what men
> traditionally do.
> The problem has been in not giving economic value to that which women do. When
> our society starts making sure women get that economic value, being a drone
> will no longer be applicable. <G>
As long as women are charged fair value for the things they get "free" from
their
husbands and boyfriends and that the "value" of their "work" is fairly judged. I
would
opine that a stay at home mother should make about as much as a day care worker,
but then again, that would sort of be offset by her paying for her room and board,
clothing, medical and dental costs, share of child rearing costs etc., etc...
...Ken
Parg2000
>Date: 8/16/01 7:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7C849C...@istar.ca>
>
>Parg2000 wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Why feminists hate men
>> >From: Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
>>
>> {Parg} I don't see that feminists are "mad" at either. Anger isn't
>extremely
>> productive. AND, even if you consider women to be ill-used by men rather
>than
>> by patriarchy, hating women would be akin to hating the slave rather than
>the
>> slave owner.
>
> Then why is it that you so despise your so called "chattel" women ?
{Parg} Women who are chattel are what they are, no? I don't like them or
dislike them. They simply cannot compete in a world with free and equal women.
After all, what kind of boss would want to hire a woman who had to ask her
hubby for permission to DO something?
>
>> Patriarchy is like slavery.
>
> Only if women were expected to *do* something. Western>"patriarchy" was
more concerned with protecting and sheltering
>women from the dangers of the "real" world so that they could
>perform their role of gestating so that society would continue...
>
{Parg} Women were expected to gestate and to do the UNPAID work of the world.
It had more to do with having that unpaid labour force than anything else.
>> When women act in a way that is natural to them, it is completely
>> anti-feminist.
>>
>> {Parg} Actually, when women act in ways that are natural to them,
feminism>> would seek to apply equal VALUE to those ways as to the ways you
appear to
>find> attributable to men.
>
> Value is assigned by the market place Parg.
{Parg} Indeed. However, when you preclude women from engaging in the
marketplace in any meaningful way, women can't be expected to have a say in it.
Today, that has changed.
If no one is willing>to "pay" you for your services, then your services, are
worthless.
{Parg} Ah, but folks ARE willing to pay women for their services when bosses
are forced to hire without regard to race or sex.
<G>
If>there is no one to pay what women think their "services" are worth
>then those "services" are worthless.
>
{Parg} IOW, if men only want to hire and promote other men, the services of
women are worthless? <G>
>
>> There is nothing more counter productive to the feminist movement than
a>babe
>> at his mother's breast.
>>
>> {Parg} Nonsense! Feminism would seek to make sure that a woman who made
>such>> a choice would be provided with societal protections, like a working
wage
>from> the husband's paycheck for her to MANAGE AND CONTROL and/or ALIMONY and
>CHILD
>> SUPPORT upon divorce.
>
> Then of course, she would be expected to pay for her own>food, clothing,
shelter, leisure activities etc.
{Parg} If society gives her that half of his salary, sure. <G>
She would also>be expected to pay a portion of the expenses of the children
>plus her own medical expenses etc., etc.
>
{Parg} Ineed. The marriage, an equal partnership, I would see no reason not
to expect that.
>>
>> There is nothing that upsets the feminist apple cart more than a mother
>> walking her kids to the park on a daily basis.
>>
>> {Parg} As long as the husband of such a wife isn't demanding that society
>pay> for his free child care, why would feminists be angry at such a sight?
>IOW, as>> long as such a woman has societal protections of alimony/child
support,
>there>> would be no reason to devalue what she does. AND, when she is ready
to
>divorce> a man who wants all that free housekeeping and child support,
feminism
>would be> there to make sure he pays for that "free" work.
>
> and, if feminist is about "equality" as you insist, she would of course
>be>charged the cost of any goods and services that *he* provided to her
>
{Parg} The money she'd be getting is for her loss of career, hon. The mutual
services you and she provided are long gone.
{Parg} She paid; you paid; in the end, all that's left to compensate is her
loss of career.
>
>...Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> >Subject: Re: Why feminists hate men
> >From: Ken & Laura Chaddock chad...@istar.ca
>
> > Then why is it that you so despise your so called "chattel" women ?
>
> {Parg} Women who are chattel are what they are, no? I don't like them or
> dislike them. They simply cannot compete in a world with free and equal women.
>
> After all, what kind of boss would want to hire a woman who had to ask her
> hubby for permission to DO something?
Nice try, no cigar, the women who you deem to be "chattel" are simply women
who have willingly made choices which you do not like.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> >Subject: Re: Why feminists hate men
> >From: Ken & Laura Chaddock chad...@istar.ca
>
> > Then why is it that you so despise your so called "chattel" women ?
>
> {Parg} Women who are chattel are what they are, no? I don't like them or
> dislike them. They simply cannot compete in a world with free and equal women.
Nice try, no cigar, the women who you deem to be "chattel" are simply women
who have willingly made choices which you do not like.
> After all, what kind of boss would want to hire a woman who had to ask her
> hubby for permission to DO something?
There's a difference between asking "permission" and making a joint
decision with a partner whom you respect and love and if you can't seem
to understand the difference then I truly feel sorry for you...
> >> Patriarchy is like slavery.
> >
> > Only if women were expected to *do* something. Western>"patriarchy" was
> more concerned with protecting and sheltering
> >women from the dangers of the "real" world so that they could
> >perform their role of gestating so that society would continue...
> >
> {Parg} Women were expected to gestate and to do the UNPAID work of the world.
> It had more to do with having that unpaid labour force than anything else.
And (theoretically) for which all of their needs were taken care of by
their husbands.(I won't argue that all husbands were good but certainly
most were).
I would also probably agree that it's more satisfying to be able to
purchase your own goods and services than to have them given to you
but if the ability to purchase your own goods rested upon labor
in the horrendously dangerous work places of the 19th century what
price was put upon the safety of NOT having to do that ? There were
certainly dangers in child birth, there's no question about that but those
dangers pale in comparison to the rate of death of men in industrial
accidents, it's why in 1850 men lived, on average, 10 years less than
women.
Further, regardless of whether women were as liberated 100 years
ago as they are today, the dangers of child birth would have still been
there simply because we didn't have the medical knowledge to have
made it significantly safer. So women would have faced the double
dangers of child birth AND industrial employment...the death rate of
women would have been much higher than that of men...even considering
the many wars...
> >> {Parg} Actually, when women act in ways that are natural to them,
> feminism>> would seek to apply equal VALUE to those ways as to the ways you
> appear to
> >find> attributable to men.
> >
> > Value is assigned by the market place Parg.
>
> {Parg} Indeed. However, when you preclude women from engaging in the
> marketplace in any meaningful way, women can't be expected to have a say in it.
> Today, that has changed.
You weren't speaking of the "market place Parg but of the so called
"unpaid" work which women do and which has been traditionally unvalued.
You will note that I say "unvalued" rather than undervalued or not valued.
Unvalued means that it is work which has no specific price attached to it
because it is not carried out for gain...like volunteering to coach a youth
sports team, it's work, and it's valuable but there is no expectation of
financial gain therefore the work is unvalued.
Feminists would like to put a "value" on work which is carried out as
much for the person doing the work as for others. An unemployed, "stay
at home" wife who cooks her husband's supper is ALSO cooking her own
supper AND is cooking food which his wages have purchased. The cost of
the food which she will consume, the home where she will live, the clothing
she will wear, the medical attention she will receive, the leisure activities in
which she will engage will likely equal or outweigh any wages she would earn
doing what is essentially menial household labour....No Parg, it's far better for
women to stick with what they already have, if we were accurately evaluating
most women's "labour" around the house they certainly *wouldn't* get a 50-50
split on divorce !
> > If there is no one to pay what women think their "services" are worth
> >then those "services" are worthless.
> >
> {Parg} IOW, if men only want to hire and promote other men, the services of
> women are worthless? <G>
First, we weren't speaking about the open market place but yes, you are
correct, if no one is willing to hire you it doesn't matter a damned whether
you are the best engineer the world has ever known...your services are
worthless...that's the nature of a market place, goods and services are worth
exactly what someone else is willing to pay you for them, no more, no less.
> > Then of course, she would be expected to pay for her own food, clothing,
> shelter, leisure activities etc.
>
> {Parg} If society gives her that half of his salary, sure. <G>
They wouldn't be entitled to "half" of their partner's salary. Why should a
stay at home parent who is doing what amounts to minimum wage menial
labour get half or the salary of his/her brain surgeon partner's salary ?
> She would also be expected to pay a portion of the expenses of the children
> >plus her own medical expenses etc., etc.
> >
>
> {Parg} Ineed. The marriage, an equal partnership, I would see no reason not
> to expect that.
But if we're accurately evaluating "worth" of labout Parg, then marriage
isn't an "equal" partnership. If stay at home partners are to be "paid" for their
labour then that "pay" should be comparable to the rate for similar labour in
the general work force. Most stay at home partners would be getting minimum
wages which would probably not come anywhere near "half" the working
partner's wages
> > and, if feminist is about "equality" as you insist, she would of course
> >be charged the cost of any goods and services that *he* provided to her
> >
> {Parg} The money she'd be getting is for her loss of career, hon. The mutual
> services you and she provided are long gone.
If marriage is a "paid occupation" as you seem to want, then there's
no "lost career" Parg, the stay at home partner "made" his/her career
decisions, he or she cannot hold the other partner responsible for them
any more than they could hold any other "employer" responsible for their
personal decisions...
> > As long as women are charged fair value for the things they get "free"
> >from their husbands and boyfriends and that the "value" of their "work" is
> fairly
> >judged. I would opine that a stay at home mother should make about as much
> >as a day care worker, but then again, that would sort of be offset by her paying
>
> >for her room and board, clothing, medical and dental costs, share of child
> > rearing costs etc., etc...
> {Parg} She paid; you paid; in the end, all that's left to compensate is her
> loss of career.
No lost career, he or she "made" their career decisions and were "paid" for
their work over those years, you could no more hold an ex-husband or ex-wife
responsible than you could the government for a "lost career" if you had
volunteered for the Peace Corps and ended up with nothing after you decided
to leave...
...Ken