What Fred sez about this (and a very good read). It even contains statistics:
Teacheresses Against Boy Children
Take Away Reason And Accountability...
I've been consulting with the National Football League. I want to learn how to dropkick a radical feminist. It's harder than it looks. They aren't real aerodynamic, so it's a bear to get a good spiral. Hang time is better with the scrawny ones, but you don't get much velocity.
I'm prepared to practice.
What put a bur in my sock was some hair-ball teacher lady in California who I found on the Web. She was doing her level best, which was probably pretty good, to make being a schoolboy into a social defect and a treatable condition. This is the default position in schools today. One hears constantly that boys don't do well in school. They don't sit still. They aren't worth a damn. Maleness is a condition to be cured, and probably a Personality Disorder.
A while back I encountered a teacher wearing a button, "So many men, so little intelligence." (Clever, Sweet Potato. Maybe you'll be the first female chess grandmaster since Newton's wife invented calculus.) Want her teaching your son?
This hostility to boys comes out of feminism, which is the belief that if you can't do squat yourself, keep anybody else from succeeding, and that way you'll look good by comparison.
I'm serious as infected melanoma about the default hostility. The teacheresses do not like boys. Here's a typical example from the schools of Fairfax Country, right outside of the Yankee Capital:
"Various studies indicate that boys are less likely than girls to go to college and have lower educational aspirations. Boys receive lower grades, are more likely than girls to be disengaged from school, and are more likely to view school as a hostile environment. . . Boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled. Boys are more likely to be held back or to drop out of school. Boys are much more likely than girls to be placed on drugs like Ritalin. Boys are more likely to be disciplined by teachers and administrators."
All true. As it happens, the academic sisterhood does forget to tell you a few things about the stupidity of boys. Let me give Sweet Potato something to ponder while she chews her cud.
In 1999, the male average on the math SATs was 531. The female was 495. That's not a trivial difference, sisterhood.
Verbal scores? Males 509, females 502. The boys are ahead in both, despite fidgeting, skipping school, and fighting.
A case, at least partly legitimate, can be made that, because more girls than boys take the tests, (563,000 boys and 657,000 girls) more dumb girls take it and bring down the female average.
OK. Let's look at the numbers of kids in 1999 making 800s, the highest possible score.
In math: Boys, 4815. Girls, 1611.
Now, Sweet Potato, is one of those numbers larger than the other? Think carefully. Take your time. Stomp once for yes. . . .
Ah, but girls, we all think we know, are better verbally, so it shouldn't surprise one to find far more girls than boys making Verbal 800s.
Boys with 800 Verbals: 3087. Girls: 2828. And more girls take the test.
So many men, so little. . .
Do you suspect that the SATs are crooked? Biased against girls? Well, let's look at the Graduate Record Exams. Here is a list of intended subjects in grad school in which men have a higher combined math and verbal score than women: Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities and Arts, Life Science, Physical Science, Social Science, Other Fields.
Here is a list of intended subjects in which women have the higher combined scores:
Uh. . . heh. . .ahhh. . .
Urg.
Not one field.
Putting it simply enough for the purplest-haired Lesbian, in the higher ranges of intelligence, boys blow girls out of the water. It isn't even close. And everyone who works in the field knows it.
Now, the polite thing would be not to mention these awkwardnesses. Why offend women?
If this increasingly sorry country decided things honestly, on individual merit, and didn't give in to ratbag feminists who want to stick their knives in anything male, including children, I'd keep my mouth diplomatically shut. But the ratbags are there. And they're doing all they can to turn boys into sexless, drugged-up, academically crippled zombies.
Why the dislike of boys? Simple. Feminism isn't about fairness. Sure, once it was, when the questions were equal pay and opportunity and so on. Today, feminism is about (1) revenge and (2) power. Men, always fools where women are involved, make the mistake of thinking that reason and good will must be in there somewhere. They aren't. Feminists want to win. Period.
Do they really think women can hack it in ground combat? Of course they don't. They're zealots, not fools. They resent hell out of what was a masculine culture that didn't want women around, and in fact regarded them as militarily useless. They hate the military, hate its attitudes, and delight in shoving women down the throats of the generals.
The pattern never fails. When they want to persecute "deadbeat dads," and humiliate them, and bankrupt them, do you think they're really concerned about "the best interest of the children"? Be serious. Ever hear a feminist criticize unmarried brood mares who drop kids by the dozen and can't raise them?
No. They glorify illegitimacy, which is death to kids, especially in the ghetto, and advocate every measure to promote it -- because illegitimacy reduces the role of men. They don't care about kids. The vast majority belong in Holland, holding back water, and figure the only good father is a turkey baster. They hate men. With whom, in a fair fight, they can't compete. And they know it. Which is why they hate them.
Why do heterosexual teachers buy into hurting boys? Intellectually, teachers fall between education theorists and bright cocker spaniels. (Probably closer to the education theorists. The AKC has been doing wonders with spaniels.) If you think I'm kidding look at the GREs for education majors, whose scores are the lowest of all fields, and remember that these are the smart ones.
Not being terribly bright, they are susceptible to progressive thought, which they understand no better than do progressives. They are not well educated, have little notion what education really is, but dimly resent it. The rambunctiousness of boys is merely a nuisance to them, not a part of the human condition -- and do you have any idea of the withering scorn a boy kid of fifteen, with an IQ of 160, directs toward a teacher with an IQ of 95? A bright girl will disguise her scorn. A boy's stands out like a weasel in a punch bowl.
Resentment and revenge. Bye. I've got dropkicking practice.
It's simpler than that:
If women were equal to men--then why after a million years aren't they equal?
They even outnumber men, and they still complain that men control them.
Dude, you had me up until the point when you started in on teachers. The teachers unions, yes, are evil. Teachers, not all are. We all can remember teachers who were thicker than a whale omelette. I bet we can also remember those teachers who stimulated our intellectual curiosity, encouraged us, and were quite a bit sharper than we could hope to be.
The sad fact is that some people HAVE to teach just like some people HAVE to be cops and some people HAVE to be firemen. Granted, you have to be a bit of a dullard to get a degree in education, but most schools (at least in FL)look for people with degrees in the subjects they will teach. Sociologists have the lowest GRE scores, for the record, and they tend to be liberals as there is a "litmus test" for those who want to work in their field. Call that job security.
BTW, I'm not a teacher, I just remember that I had some great ones who inspired me.