Are boys disadvantaged by having women teachers?
Philip Lewis
Male Teachers Are boys disadvantaged by
having women teachers, or too many of them? I
think not. [
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594563822.html ]
Adele Horin - who clearly knows very little
about the way in which children develop.
There cannot be a person in the country who
is not aware of the long-term damaging
effects of failing to bring up our boys
properly. And one of the things that boys
really do need in order to develop as
citizens fit for society are strong, good,
well-adjusted male role models.
'Role models'. The term does not have much of
an impact, does it? And yet, without role
models, where, into what, through what
channels, are boys supposed to develop?
Where are they supposed to 'go'?
Into what are they supposed to 'grow'?
How are they supposed to 'know' what to grow
into?
Their morality, their attitudes, their
behaviour, their knowledge, their expertise
does not come from the air - and they are not
built-in at birth. They come from what they
see around them as they grow up. And they
come from society teaching them and
indoctrinating them with values that are of
benefit to themselves and to the rest of us.
Now, literally millions of our boys simply do
not have any decent role models. Even if the
fathers are at home (and for so many, they
are not) where are the others? Where do boys
encounter men who are going to steer their
growth, directly or indirectly?
Well, for many boys, the only available men
(or, rather, older boys) are the ones out on
the streets or in the clubs. They are the
ones sleeping around, taking drugs, doing
badly at high school, drinking, stealing
cars, shoplifting, and, well, generally
behaving badly.
And then there is the TV.
And on the TV the boys are not glued to the
News programmes or to the religious channels.
So from where, exactly, are they supposed to
develop an idea of what they should become?
By and large, they are watching rubbish -
from which, for example, they can discover
that they can relate to men who are rapists,
fraudsters, gangsters, drug pushers, abusers,
child molesters, wife beaters, absent dads,
adulterers, harassers, stalkers, burglars,
murderers, serial killers, traitors,
arsonists and goodness knows what else.
And then there are the sports heroes who are
adored by millions of boys. But sports heroes
are only usually watched by boys when they
are playing sports!
So, from where are boys supposed to get their
direction?
When AH was a young boy, there were the dads
at home and loads of male teachers working
within the educational system.
And then there were male scout and youth
leaders, now diminished hugely in number
because of the dangers of working with
children thanks to the histrionics of the
child abuse industry.
There were hordes of men doing good things
with youngsters in the past.
But where are they now?
The evidence shows very clearly that boys do
better at school educationally, they are
better behaved, and they grow up into better
citizens if they have good, male teachers
within their schools. They relate to these
teachers and they are much influenced by
them. Female teachers, however, cannot
achieve the same results - though the
feminist-dominated educational establishments
argue otherwise. The truth, however, is that
boys know where they are 'heading' in terms
of growing up, and they know that they are
not going to become women!
They simply do not 'identify' with women
teachers. Further, as far as boys are
concerned in particular, they feel that they
are moaned at by women at school throughout
the day, and then they are moaned at by
women, their mothers, when they return home.
By the time they are thirteen, they have had
enough of it! And their attitude towards
women is very badly affected. (So much so,
that single mothers have often given up by
then, and this is when the boys start hitting
the streets in large numbers.) But who can
blame the boys? Moaning, whingeing women is
how they see it. All day long.
They then turn on the TV, and what do they
see? Female chat-show hosts telling them how
awful they are, or how awful they are going
to grow up to be. It is complaining,
whingeing women throughout their entire
upbringing. Who can blame them for growing up
with contempt for the entire gender?
Is it surprising that boys are becoming more
and more of a real problem?
So, what is the government doing about
getting more male teachers into our schools?
Bugger All is the answer. Why? Because of
Feminism.
Not to bring more men into the teaching
profession is to discriminate very heavily
against boys during the most important time
of their developing lives.
But nothing gets in the way of feminist
ideology. And it simply does not matter that
boys are disadvantaged.
Despite the fact we keep hearing the phrase
'in the best interest of the child', when it
comes to the education of boys, policies that
would help them are completely blocked by
feminists
The result of failing to bring up our boys
properly, and honing in on their talents,
particularly those 'narrow-minded', focused,
competitive talents that we are now so
accustomed to hearing about (as opposed to
the female 'talents' of 'multi-tasking') is
that instead of aspiring to, and being
educationally capable of, becoming
scientists, technicians, medical researchers,
and so on, our boys are becoming more
'worthless', more superficial, more
antagonistic and more concerned with 'show'
than with 'depth'.
But how much better for all of us it would be
if they were really encouraged to develop
their particular talents in those areas.
Would this not be far better than pandering
to the feminist agenda?
Whether it be a boy who ends up in prison or
a boy who has simply failed his exams, who
benefits?
Feminism has most of the media by the throat,
it controls policies in our schools, it
actively debilitates men in virtually all the
areas of their lives, including their
families, and it creates a climate where boys
and men cannot function properly. And we are
ALL paying the price of this.
Our most formidable enemy is the very world
that we live in. Nature is not on our side.
If we cannot get our act together, worldwide,
then we are not going to make it. And, at the
moment, the most divisive ideology that one
could possibly dream up, where men and women
are encouraged to hate each other, is still
very much alive and kicking.
Feminism.
It has got to go.
Ms Horin also makes the following point, in
complete contradiction to all her usual
pontifications concerning the reasons why
women do not achieve as much as men in their
careers. She writes ...
And men are much less inclined than women to
work for peanuts.
... i.e. she really does recognise that women
are not as motivated as men to work hard for
money, or to do less pleasant jobs for it.
But this does not stop her from continually
blaming men for the failure of women to
succeed in the workplace.
--
Phil
THE mens movement website:-
http://www.angryharry.com/
C.V. Compton Shaw
apparent supporter of the censorship by feminist and female
elitists, either overt or covert, on Mens News Daily. As a
result, any commentary that he makes does not have the
credibility nor authority which it once had.
Hyerdahl1
>From: "Philip Lewis" NotTe...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/16/2004 5:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c36qqu$259p21$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>http://www.angryharry.com/
>
>Male Teachers Are boys disadvantaged by>having women teachers, or too many of
them? I>think not. [
>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594563822.html ]
>Adele Horin - who clearly knows very little
>about the way in which children develop.
>
>There cannot be a person in the country who>is not aware of the long-term
damaging>effects of failing to bring up our boys>properly.
[??? Are you speaking of the sexism our boys often learn at their father's
knee? Or, are you speaking of the fact that so many fathers have abandoned
children? ]
And one of the things that boys
>really do need in order to develop as
>citizens fit for society are strong, good,
>well-adjusted male role models.
[So you seem to be saying that when fathers abandon children, boys suffer, but
don't girls also suffer when fathers don't do their part?]
>
>'Role models'. The term does not have much of>an impact, does it? And yet,
without role models, where, into what, through what channels, are boys supposed
to develop?
[Few children do not have male role models; most kids learn from their fathers
when the father sticks around, or step fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers,
teachers etc. Kids don't grow up in a vacuum; they grow up with both female
and male role models.]
>
>(edit)
>
>
>>Now, literally millions of our boys simply do>not have any decent role
models. Even if the>fathers are at home (and for so many, they>are not) where
are the others?
[Grandfathers, step fathers, uncles, brothers, etc. are there; just because
you don't see them does not mean they're not there.]
Where do boys>encounter men who are going to steer their growth, directly or
indirectly?
[Mothers who stay, often steer the growth of their sons, even tho 'Compton'
doesn't seem to find that valuable. That's ok tho; the kids still get benefit
from maternal guidance.]
>>
>When AH was a young boy, there were the dads>at home and loads of male
teachers working>within the educational system.
[I'd hate to think Compton is blaming women because men choose higher paid jobs
rather than teaching? As to having dads at home, I hope we are not blaming the
women who stay instead of the men who have left.]
>And then there were male scout and youth>leaders, now diminished hugely in
number>because of the dangers of working with children thanks to the
histrionics of the>child abuse industry.
>
[It isn't feminists who were complaining about gay scout leaders! In fact,
girl scouts has no restrictions there; I'd suggest that any "testrionics" are
more about men who fear homosexuailty than about feminists who do not seem to
fear such.]
>There were hordes of men doing good things>with youngsters in the past.
>
[So where are they now? Stop blaming
feminists for being at the grassy knoll.]
>But where are they now?
>
>The evidence shows very clearly that boys do>better at school educationally,
they are>better behaved, and they grow up into better>citizens if they have
good, male teachers within their schools.
What evidence? I have never seen a study comparing kids in schools where the
teachers are primarily female to schools where the teachers are primarily
male. Do you have such a study?
They relate to these>teachers and they are much influenced by them. Female
teachers, however, cannot achieve the same results - though
the>feminist-dominated educational establishments>argue otherwise.
[The proof, Compton...the proof; you have lots and lots of opinions but no
proof to support them.]
The truth, however, is that>boys know where they are 'heading' in terms
>of growing up, and they know that they are>not going to become women!
>
[I don't see the problem; boys can define themselves as they please as long as
it doesn't infringe on the rights of others or scare the animals.]]
>They simply do not 'identify' with women
>teachers.
[That's ridiculous; boys do, in fact, identify with many human beings, having
nothing to do with what's between the legs of that individual. I have
identified with several teachers, not my sex/gender. Identification based on
mutual interests or instruction is very easy, without having to check out the
teaher's genitals. You should try it sometime, Phil and Compton and poor Angry
Harry.]
Further, as far as boys are>concerned in particular, they feel that they>are
moaned at by women at school throughoutthe day, and then they are moaned at by
women, their mothers, when they return home.
[Bulldroppings! Show me a study where boys feel any more "moaned at" than
girls do. ;-) Perhaps you're just a flaming sexist who resents the notion
that women are parents carrying equal weight when it comes to raising sons.
Hie thee to Afghanistan where men have more merit.]
>By the time they are thirteen, they have had>enough of it! And their attitude
towards>women is very badly affected. (So much so,>that single mothers have
often given up by>then, and this is when the boys start hitting>the streets in
large numbers.) But who can>blame the boys? Moaning, whingeing women is
>how they see it. All day long.
[No problem, fellas; bands of maurading hoodlums can be jailed just like any
other thugs. In fact, a feminist friend of mine works in the prison system;
her job depends on having folks to fill the cells.
:-)]
>>They then turn on the TV, and what do they>see? Female chat-show hosts
telling them how>awful they are, or how awful they are going>to grow up to be.
It is complaining,>whingeing women throughout their entire>upbringing. Who can
blame them for growing up with contempt for the entire gender?
[This is really refreshing, Compton; finally an admission that men hate women.
Good. Now that that's over, perhaps women can get on with their lives,
KNOWING full well what men feel about them. AND, here's the thing, fellas; if
women are really this awful, you can...just say no...]
>>Is it surprising that boys are becoming more>and more of a real problem?
>
[Boys are no more a "problem" today than they were in yesteryear, Compton.
However, today, we address the problem in different ways. Boys who are raised
with the idea that sexism is ok, are soon relieved of that idea when they enter
the school system today, so, in effect, they ARE getting an education that may
have passed by their fathers and grandfathers.]
>So, what is the government doing about
>getting more male teachers into our schools?>Bugger All is the answer. Why?
Because of>Feminism.
>
[I have no problem with more male teachers in the schools, and I am a feminist.
Perhaps you still don't understand that men tend to seek more highly paid
work. Teaching doesn't bring in the same bucks as computer geeking.]
>Not to bring more men into the teaching
>profession is to discriminate very heavily
>against boys during the most important time>of their developing lives.
>
[More men CAN come into teaching and we can even use AA to get more male
teachers; the fact remains that men don't apply as often as women. Feminism
didn't create that void.]
>But nothing gets in the way of feminist
>ideology. And it simply does not matter that>boys are disadvantaged.
[It's not a matter of "disadvantage"; it's a matter of boys showing some form
of discrimination. There is no discrimination being leveled at them. There's
just a shortage of male teachers.]
>>Despite the fact we keep hearing the phrase 'in the best interest of the
child', when it>comes to the education of boys, policies that>would help them
are completely blocked by>feminists
>
[Like what? It's hard to "block" male teachers who aren't there. ]
>The result of failing to bring up our boys
>properly, and honing in on their talents,
>particularly those 'narrow-minded', focused,>competitive talents that we are
now so>accustomed to hearing about (as opposed to>the female 'talents' of
'multi-tasking') is>that instead of aspiring to, and being>educationally
capable of, becoming>scientists, technicians, medical researchers,>and so on,
our boys are becoming more>'worthless', more superficial, more>antagonistic and
more concerned with 'show'>than with 'depth'.
>
[Again, why blame feminism? How is feminism responsible for absent fathers and
absent male teachers applying for jobs?]
>
>Would this not be far better than pandering>to the feminist agenda?
>
[Let's try again; the absense of men as fathers and teachers is about men and
NOT about feminism.]
>Feminism has most of the media by the throat,>it controls policies in our
schools, it>actively debilitates men in virtually all the>areas of their lives,
including their
>families, and it creates a climate where boys>and men cannot function
properly.
[Nonsense! You're talking about areas where men can have effect, but choose
not to. Men leave their kids; they abandon their families and they don't sign
up to teach. Feminists don't buy your theory that they make men stay away from
teaching jobs.]
>Feminism.
>
>It has got to go.
[Hon, feminism isn't going anywhere, but you could certainly place your energy
in recruiting more male teachers.]
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
Dynamize
"Philip Lewis" <NotTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c36qqu$259p21$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de...
> http://www.angryharry.com/
>
> Male Teachers Are boys disadvantaged by
> having women teachers, or too many of them? I
> think not. [
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594563822.html ]
> Adele Horin - who clearly knows very little
> about the way in which children develop.
>
> There cannot be a person in the country who
> is not aware of the long-term damaging
> effects of failing to bring up our boys
> properly.
"Properly" is a subjective term. Define "properly". Everyone's got an opinion on what the
"proper" way is to raise boys, and indeed girls. Many of them are wrong, however.
>And one of the things that boys
> really do need in order to develop as
> citizens fit for society are strong, good,
> well-adjusted male role models.
I'd leave it at "role models", why should gender have anything to do with it? If I see an
intelligent, successful woman in the paper, saying good things then I go "She's good, why
can't more people be like her?". Swap male for female and the result's the same "He's
good, why can't more people be like him?"
> 'Role models'. The term does not have much of
> an impact, does it? And yet, without role
> models, where, into what, through what
> channels, are boys supposed to develop?
They could try developing their own value system and pursue that which they deduce to be
worthy.
> Where are they supposed to 'go'?
Where they want?
> Into what are they supposed to 'grow'?
What they want?
> How are they supposed to 'know' what to grow
> into?
Through objective (or subjective I suppose) appraisal of the facts at hand?
> Their morality, their attitudes, their
> behaviour, their knowledge, their expertise
> does not come from the air - and they are not
> built-in at birth. They come from what they
> see around them as they grow up. And they
> come from society teaching them and
> indoctrinating them with values that are of
> benefit to themselves and to the rest of us.
To a degree, yes.
I find it quite disturbing that you seem to be encouraging the mass, mercenary
indoctrination of youth into the current value systems.
You say " Their morality, their attitudes, their behaviour, their knowledge, their
expertise does not come from the air - and they are not built-in at birth.".
I believe this, but then if I believe that then there can't logically be objective moral
facts, nor values. Therefore it seems that one can define their own value system, and
their own moral beliefs. The other option is that our nature is entirely determined by
outside factors, which doesn't leave much credence for free will, which would upset a lot
of people :o)
> Now, literally millions of our boys simply do
> not have any decent role models. Even if the
> fathers are at home (and for so many, they
> are not) where are the others? Where do boys
> encounter men who are going to steer their
> growth, directly or indirectly?
There're a lot of people in the world, millions like fluffy dice hanging from their
rear-view mirror, doesn't make fluffy dice a huge hit when over 5 billion others think
they're crap. What I'm saying is "millions" can be a tiny minority, loads of boys are
doing good stuff.
But do go on.
> Well, for many boys, the only available men
> (or, rather, older boys) are the ones out on
> the streets or in the clubs. They are the
> ones sleeping around, taking drugs, doing
> badly at high school, drinking, stealing
> cars, shoplifting, and, well, generally
> behaving badly.
So Boy X has made a value judgement, picked the above people to hang around and associate
with, and placed value on the above activities. His choice, his responsibility to accept
any consequences of his actions. Since we've established the lack of objective moral
facts, a knee-jerk moralistic reaction to this activity seems out of place.
> And then there is the TV.
Yeah, TV can be a bit rubbish sometimes. I remember when the Simpsons was actually good,
now it's just a bit rubbish. I quite like Home and Away at the moment.
> And on the TV the boys are not glued to the
> News programmes or to the religious channels.
No, because in youth, knowledge isn't prized as much as "fun" and pleasure. I was like
that, you were like that, everyone was like that. Then we grow up and realise that there
are more important things than Transformers or whether our kissing skills will be up to
task for their first outing. Or we don't, it's our choice.
> So from where, exactly, are they supposed to
> develop an idea of what they should become?
From within themselves?
> By and large, they are watching rubbish -
> from which, for example, they can discover
> that they can relate to men who are rapists,
> fraudsters, gangsters, drug pushers, abusers,
> child molesters, wife beaters, absent dads,
> adulterers, harassers, stalkers, burglars,
> murderers, serial killers, traitors,
> arsonists and goodness knows what else.
I'd say everyone can relate to everyone else in some way, based on the assumption that
we're all human.
I can relate to the murderer on TV because he smokes, and I smoke! I can relate to the
fraudster because I get really angry sometimes too! I'm like the drug pusher on TV because
he has a low opinion of the current political climate too. That arsonist on the TV likes
the Beatles too!
Just because I can relate to these other humans doesn't make me want to act like them. I
act like me, before I watched and after. I wonder if boys do the same...
> And then there are the sports heroes who are
> adored by millions of boys. But sports heroes
> are only usually watched by boys when they
> are playing sports!
Hmmm, I've always been uncomfortable with the phenomenon of fanatical worship of anyone,
especially sports and film stars.
> So, from where are boys supposed to get their
> direction?
From themselves.
> When AH was a young boy, there were the dads
> at home and loads of male teachers working
> within the educational system.
Mmmhmm.
> And then there were male scout and youth
> leaders, now diminished hugely in number
> because of the dangers of working with
> children thanks to the histrionics of the
> child abuse industry.
Or men just don't fancy being scout and youth leaders because they don't pay well. Or the
numbers are diminished because all those that have left were indeed child abusers, and
have left out of fear of being caught sniffing pants or somesuch. Or the indoctrination I
assume you favour (from your previous statement) now says "being a scout leader is sooooo
not cool!" so no-one does it.
> There were hordes of men doing good things
> with youngsters in the past.
And there were hordes of men killing other men who didn't have the same religious faith.
Don't mistake this for an inflammatory remark, the example I chose was purely chosen
because it was easy to think of. The point is that lots of people do the thing that's
popular at the time, then trends change and they rush off to do something else. Working in
fashion design was all the rage in the 80s (shudder), then we got into the IT trend and
now you can't move for IT companies, dotcoms and such.
Those that genuinely find satisfaction in their job, and love it (sadly a rare thing if
polls are to be believed) don't jump ship. Maybe some jobs are a "calling".
> But where are they now?
Doing other things.
> The evidence shows very clearly that boys do
> better at school educationally, they are
> better behaved, and they grow up into better
> citizens if they have good, male teachers
> within their schools.
What evidence?
The only developmental evidence that comes to mind is Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation
hypothesis, which argues that absence of a mother figure hampers a child's mental
development. And that one has its critics. And that was done in the 50s. Not exactly
cutting edge now.
>They relate to these
> teachers and they are much influenced by
> them. Female teachers, however, cannot
> achieve the same results - though the
> feminist-dominated educational establishments
> argue otherwise. The truth, however, is that
> boys know where they are 'heading' in terms
> of growing up, and they know that they are
> not going to become women!
But everything you've said previously gives the impression that boys don't have a clue
what to do, what to be or how to behave. But you say they now know enough to know that
"feminine virtues" aren't what they want? So these empty vessels are genderless in their
value system, except they can't identify with a member of the opposite gender? Hmmmm.
> They simply do not 'identify' with women
> teachers.
Why?
> Further, as far as boys are
> concerned in particular, they feel that they
> are moaned at by women at school throughout
> the day, and then they are moaned at by
> women, their mothers, when they return home.
What sociological and/or psychological evidence is there to back up this sweeping
statement?
Your statement rings true if it looks like this:
Further, as far as children are
concerned in particular, they feel that they
are moaned at at school throughout
the day, and then they are moaned at
when they return home.
> By the time they are thirteen, they have had
> enough of it!
Thirteen? Is that a special age? I don't remember having an epiphany at that particular
age.
> And their attitude towards
> women is very badly affected.
Hmmm, again with the generalisations. Isn't it more logical to see people as individuals?
i.e. His attitude to Beth is very badly affected, because she said nasty things to him.
Her attitude to Tom is very badly affected because he bosses her about.
When someone pisses me off I'm generally pissed off at them, not their whole
gender/race/faith/whatever. That just doesn't make sense.
Plus it sounds better saying "$£&*-ing Bill and his inability to accept that all events
are pre-determined by chains of causality!!!"
Rather than "$£&*-ing other men and their inability to accept that all events are
pre-determined by chains of causality!!!"
> (So much so,
> that single mothers have often given up by
> then, and this is when the boys start hitting
> the streets in large numbers.) But who can
> blame the boys? Moaning, whingeing women is
> how they see it. All day long.
I disagree. They get moaning, whinging PEOPLE all day long. Then they understand that in
post-modernity all people can do is whinge and moan constantly, probably because there's a
lot to whinge and moan about. Actually, shouldn't we be trying to address these whinges
and moans? I thought that was what representative democracy was all about...ho hum.
> They then turn on the TV, and what do they
> see? Female chat-show hosts telling them how
> awful they are, or how awful they are going
> to grow up to be.
Hey man, NO-ONE should be watching chat-shows. They're rubbish.
> It is complaining,
> whingeing women throughout their entire
> upbringing. Who can blame them for growing up
> with contempt for the entire gender?
Me?
Here's an example to pander to the lowest common denominator: I bet that Adolf Hitler met
a Jew once, and saw that he liked gold and things and was contributing to Germany's
economic problems. And he thought "Hey, I don't like John, he's a dick. He's jewish, I bet
all Jews are like that. Jews are dicks."
Or, sadly more believably if what you're saying is true: "I met a man called Tim once, he
was a dick. All Tims are dicks. I hate them."
> Is it surprising that boys are becoming more
> and more of a real problem?
Yeah, quite frankly. I thought the whole Age of Enlightenment thing and the progress of
humanity would kind of lead to a golden age of intelligence and reason, with philosophy
and art and science and splendour and really really great stuff. Then I noticed that
capitalism's still here, and all anyone cares about is whether the latest de-odourant will
REALLY mask their natural stench.
This leads me further to believe that about 90% of people are £$*&-ing stupid and
shouldn't really have the vote, that democracy doesn't work, and that despite my liberal
attitude I'm a raging hypocrite placing my own value system on others and judging them by
it, while preaching moral and value relativism. Damn.
Oh, and that my opinion, no matter how well-informed, logical, good or bad, will never
change anyone else's staunchly held beliefs. Makes me wonder why I'm typing this. Oh well,
may as well run with it I guess.
> So, what is the government doing about
> getting more male teachers into our schools?
> Bugger All is the answer. Why? Because of
> Feminism.
Nah, because governments need a reservoir of un-educated, working-class people to fill
menial jobs. Harsh but true. We can't all be graduates, because then who'd sweep the hall,
or tirelessly grill hamburgers, or sell us pants, or flip switches at power stations, or
fight our wars for us?
Of course it's all horrible and wrong and a bit crap, but then most people don't notice
it, or don't care. Oh well.
> Not to bring more men into the teaching
> profession is to discriminate very heavily
> against boys during the most important time
> of their developing lives.
Why should us blokes have to be teachers if we don't wanna? I don't want to have to put up
with the mewling, violent, foul-mouthed brats of others.
Liberty my friend. I don't want to be a teacher, and if you're to be believed, neither do
a lot of men. Society can't always compensate for the desires of its population, no matter
how hard it tries.
> But nothing gets in the way of feminist
> ideology. And it simply does not matter that
> boys are disadvantaged.
It matters if they consider themselves disadvantaged, but if they enjoy being gangstas and
hanging around with their mates on the street then that's what they wanna do. Let 'em do
it, and let 'em deal with the consequences, good and bad. Meanwhile there's hopefully
enough people growing up who genuinely want to learn, and they'll do it regardless of what
genitals are perched at the head of the classroom.
> Despite the fact we keep hearing the phrase
> 'in the best interest of the child', when it
> comes to the education of boys, policies that
> would help them are completely blocked by
> feminists
They are? I thought western culture was staunchly meritocratic, you're judged by your
ability, not by how much help you need? How can we be so interested in the plight of
others when the whole value system is based on "I want all the wealth for ME, because I'm
judged on my accumulated wealth."?
The two idealogies just don't gel well enough, in my most humble opinion.
> The result of failing to bring up our boys
> properly, and honing in on their talents,
> particularly those 'narrow-minded', focused,
> competitive talents that we are now so
> accustomed to hearing about (as opposed to
> the female 'talents' of 'multi-tasking') is
> that instead of aspiring to, and being
> educationally capable of, becoming
> scientists, technicians, medical researchers,
> and so on, our boys are becoming more
> 'worthless', more superficial, more
> antagonistic and more concerned with 'show'
> than with 'depth'.
Isn't that what you get if you elevate sports and film stars to the level of role-model?
Oh, and entrepreneurs.
The age-old "you don't see the brightest young things in quantum physics in Hello!
magazine, do you?!" rings true. Give knowledge and education the same spotlight you give
Tom Cruise, David Beckham and all those in the Rich Lists and you'll get a load of kids
wanting to be scientists and technicians.
But that won't happen, because being a scientist is boring, and there's not as much money
in it as being a film star, or a company director, or a pimp, or a drug dealer.
> But how much better for all of us it would be
> if they were really encouraged to develop
> their particular talents in those areas.
Yeah, that would be ace.
> Would this not be far better than pandering
> to the feminist agenda?
It's not really about the feminist agenda, it's about culture as a whole.
> Whether it be a boy who ends up in prison or
> a boy who has simply failed his exams, who
> benefits?
Hopefully the scumbag boy. He'll be rehabilitated and return to society as a productive
individual. The boy that fails his exams will learn that you can't pass exams not paying
attention in class, and either get a job he hates (which most of us seem to do), or take
exams again, graduate, and get a different job he hates, which pays better.
> Feminism has most of the media by the throat,
> it controls policies in our schools, it
> actively debilitates men in virtually all the
> areas of their lives, including their
> families, and it creates a climate where boys
> and men cannot function properly. And we are
> ALL paying the price of this.
Actually feminism enables men to pipe up and say "Erm, actually I have emotions too, and
I'm not too fond of red meat, and I quite like my fellow man."
And it helps us move towards an egalitarian society where individuals are judged on their
merits, rather than whether they sit or stand to piss.
> Our most formidable enemy is the very world
> that we live in. Nature is not on our side.
Yeah! Those damned killer bees! And earthquakes, I don't like them much either. And
disease, viruses!
> If we cannot get our act together, worldwide,
> then we are not going to make it.
Yeah! The rise of feminism and equality will lead to MOTHER Nature rising up and attacking
us with waves of cats and ferrets and lions and tigers! And the very oceans will heave and
swallow whole continents! And the only people who'll be left are those guys up in the
international space station! And they'll get on their radios and go "Hey, guys? You OK?"
and they'll realise that everyone else is DEAD, and then one of them will tap a gauge and
say "Oh no, we've only got enough air for 2 weeks!!!!!" and then they'll have to deal with
their own mortality and their impending death, coupled with the loneliness and frustration
of only having a few people to talk to!
And then one of them'll go insane for some reason (probably boredom or thoughts of
mortality) and start hiding in places, then jumping (floating) out and attacking the other
astronauts in an effort to have more air for HIM (or HER)!
And then they'll die, possibly after two of the astronauts get together and have a
softcore sex scene in zero-gee! And those two will fall in love, conveniently ignoring the
fact that romantic relationships formed during times of great stress and adversity are
unlikely to survive beyond the immediate situation, and death. And then all will be quiet,
and an alien spaceship will fly down to earth, and some aliens will get out and go
"NOOOOOOOOOOO! The fools! If they'd just hung on for a few more minutes we could have come
and told them the ultimate truths of the universe!!!
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?????????????????????!!!" and the
alien'd drop to his knees and thump the ground for dramatic effect. Then they'd get back
in their ship and blast off, as an evil cat watches from the bushes, his fresh
lieutenant's bar gleaming in the sun, which he got for hacking a guy's face off in the
war.
Oh, and God'll probably show up and sigh in a tired and knowing way and say "I told them
in my book that women shouldn't be trusted." and roll his eyes.
Sorry, I got distracted, what did you say?
> And, at the
> moment, the most divisive ideology that one
> could possibly dream up, where men and women
> are encouraged to hate each other, is still
> very much alive and kicking.
>
> Feminism.
Oh yeah, that's what it was. Erm, radical feminism is divisive, all other types of
feminism aren't really. Plus I thought the most divisive ideology one could possibly dream
up is religion, or capitalism. They're both pretty harsh.
> It has got to go.
Where are you going to put it?
> Ms Horin also makes the following point, in
> complete contradiction to all her usual
> pontifications concerning the reasons why
> women do not achieve as much as men in their
> careers. She writes ...
>
> And men are much less inclined than women to
> work for peanuts.
>
> ... i.e. she really does recognise that women
> are not as motivated as men to work hard for
> money, or to do less pleasant jobs for it.
I don't see many people clamouring to clean toilets for a living. I don't think anyone
wants to have a dirty career.
> But this does not stop her from continually
> blaming men for the failure of women to
> succeed in the workplace.
>
>
> --
> Phil
> THE mens movement website:-
> http://www.angryharry.com/
That's disappointing. THE men's movement website has a silly name like "angryharry".
Couldn't it be "themensmovement.com"; "masculinitydefender.com"; "male-splendor.com";
"man-voice.com" or something that made it sound respectable and intelligent, rather than
reactionary and...well, angry and opinionated?
You can use my name ideas if you want, Harry, I don't mind.
Philip Lewis
"C.V. Compton Shaw" <mis...@swbell.net>
wrote in message
news:4056F18A...@swbell.net...
| Thank you for the article. However, Angry
Harry is an
| apparent supporter of the censorship by
feminist and female
| elitists, either overt or covert, on Mens
News Daily. As a
| result, any commentary that he makes does
not have the
| credibility nor authority which it once
had.
It does with ME bud - Angry Harry explained
his position and reasoning and is well aware
that Mens News Daily is NOT just for genned
up well informed MRA's - it is there also for
those who know fuck all about 'gender issues'
and it is not a good idea to scare away many
who could be usefull allies.