Generally speaking, the women teachers I had were demanding and tough and I have no recollection of them trying to feminize their male students. If anything, they forced us to toughen up.
Posted on 10/28/2013 10:47:25 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
It is time to get women out of the schooling of boys. It is way past time. Women in our feminized classrooms are consigning generations of our sons to years of misery and diminished futures. The evidence is everywhere. Few dare notice it.
The feminization is real. More than seventy-five percent of teachers are women; in New York state, over ninety percent of elementary school teachers are women; in the US, over seventy percent of psychologists are women, with (sez me) the rest being doubtful. This is feminization with fangs.
I have just read Back to Normal: Why Ordinary Childhood Behavior Is Mistaken for ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, by a psychologist, Enrico Gnaulati, who works with children alleged to have psychological problems in school, usually meaning boys. I decline to recommend it because of its psychobabble, its tendency to discover the obvious at great length, and its Genderallly Correct pronouns, which will grate on the literate. (I mean constructions resembling “If a student comes in, tell him or her that he or she should put his or her books in his or her locker”) However, a serious interest in the subject justifies slogging through the prose. (The statistics above are from the book.)
The relevent content is that women are making school hell for boys, that they have turned normal boyish behavior, such as enjoyment of rough-housing, into psychiatric “personality disorders.” They are doping boys up, forcing them into behavior utterly alien to them, and sending them to psychiatrists if they don´t conform to standards of behavior suited to girls. The result is that boy children hate school and do poorly (despite, as Gnaulati, says, having higher IQs). This is no secret for anyone paying attention, but Gnaulati makes it explicit.
As a galling example he cites one Robert, an adolescent responding badly to classes and therefore suspected by his teacher of having a “personality disorder.” From the book:
“She required all forty students in the class to design Valentine’s Day cards for each other. She was emphatic about wanting them personalized. Names had to be spelled correctly and compliments written up genuinely.”
Valentines? This was eight-grade English. Students, who by then once knew grammar cold, should be reading literature or learning to write coherently. In my eighth-grade class, we read Julius Caesar: “I want the men around me to be fat, healthy-looking men who sleep at night.” Valentines? Compliments?
This, the author assures the reader, did not take place in an asylum for the mildly retarded, but in one of the ten best high-schools in California. What must the rest be like?
Of course Robert was having trouble putting up with the girly drivel, this feminized ooze, devoid of academic content. ”Oooooh! Let´s have a warm, emotional bonding experience.”
This is why women should not be allowed within fifty feet of a school where boys are taught. A boy, especially a bright one, will want to drop out of school through the nearest window, run screaming to a recruiting office for the French Foreign Legion, anything to get away from inane, vapid, and insubstantial feel-good compulsory niceness inflicted by some low-wattage ed-school grad.
Get these ditz-rabbits away from our sons. Let us have separate schools for the sexes, with each being taught by teachers of the same sex. I do not presume to tell women what they should teach girls—astrophysics, valentine design with sincere compliments, whatever they like. Just stay away from the boys.
The thrust of current social propaganda is that the sexes are identical in all important respects. They are not. The differences are great. It is time we stopped pretending otherwise.
First: By their nature, females are far more interested in social relationships than in academic substance. If you are a man, ask yourself how often you have serious intellectual discussions of politics, science, history, or society with women as compared to men. Seldom. Degrees and exceptions, yes. Stiil, seldom.
Second: Women are totalitarian. Men are happy to let boys be boys and girls be girls. Women want all children to be girls. In school this means emphasizing diligence—neat homework done on time, no matter how silly or academically vacuous—over performance, meaning material learned. Women favor docility, orderliness, cooperation in groups, not making waves, niceness and comity. For boys this is asphyxiating.
If women wanted to start a bar for women only, men would not care. If men want a private club in which to enjoy male company, women go explode in fury. Totalitarian.
In common with the keepers of the Russian gulag, women are more than willing to drug little boys into submission. There is a Stalinist mercilessness in this, a complete lack of understanding of, or interest in, what boys are. (“Ve haff vays of making you….”)
Third: Women prefer security to freedom, males freedom to security. In politics, this has ominous implications for civil liberties. In the schools this means that wrestling and dodge ball are violence, that tag might lead to a fall and scraped knees, that a little boy who draws a soldier with a rifle is a dangerous psychopath in the making. This is hysteria.
(Stray thought: If I wanted to create a murderous psycho, I would Ritalinate him into a little speed freak, repress his every instinct, and humiliate him by having the police drag him away. It would work like a charm. In his trial, his defense would be justifiable sociopathy.)
Fourth: “Therapy.” This disguised witchcraft is very much a subset of the female fascination with emotional relations. It allows them to talk endlessly about their feelings. Men would rather be crucified. Thus everything becomes a “disorder.” Among these absurdities are things ilke Intermittent Explosive Disorder (appropriately, IED), and Temper Irregulation Disorder. These disorders have only been discovered since women took over the schools.
The list could go on. Boys, like men, are competitive, physically and intellectually, delighted to play hours of intensely competitive pick-up basketball. Women in the schools prefer a cooperative group game led by a caring adult. What a horror.
Even the ways in which men get along with each other differ sharply from the female approach. (Thus the desire for venues for men only.) For example, when I once broke a leg in a sky-diving accident, the women in the news room were sympathetic and concerned. At a Special Forces party I attended, there was laughter and sarcasm. “Goddam dumbass Marine can´t even do a PLF right. (parachute landing fall). Hey, let´s break his other leg.” Translated from the male, this meant (a) that they accepted me as one of them, and (b) that to them a broken leg was not a tragedy but an inconvenience. Which it is.
Fifth: In the United States, women simply dislike men. Saying this causes eruptions of denials. If you believe these, I´d like you to meet my friend Daisy Lou the Tooth Fairy. Check the ranting of feminists, the endless portrayal on television of men as fools and swine, the punitive political correctness and the silly anti-rape fantasies on campus.
In the schools this hostility takes the form of the passive aggression behind the predatory niceness. “We´re boring him to death, keeping him miseable, and sending him for psychiatric reprogramming because we care so much about him.” Uh, yeah.
Outside of the US, fewer women buy this. My stepdaughter Natalia, Mexican, is working on a degree in clinical psychology, and sees students—read “boys”—sent to her by teachers to determine whether they have ADHD. “They don´t have ADHS,” she says. “They´re bored.”
Finally: Women display a pedestrian practicality alien to males. If a woman needs to use a computer, she will learn to do it, and do it well. She won´t learn assembly-language programming for the pure joy of it. She can drive a car perfectly well, but has no notion of what a cam lobe is or the difference between disk and drum brakes. This is why men invent things, and women seldom do.
Boys schools, male teachers.
Kids played outside from sun up to sun down, except for the times that had to be devoted to chores. Just using the word chores sounds practically outdated. Kids threw about anything they could that wasn’t tied down at each other, and yes at cars too. I’m guilty of taking a couple of the old screw in street lights out with a rock or two. Apples, tomatoes, snowballs, chestnuts, a few of the rougher kids even engaged in limited rock fights.
I was born in 57... I can remember going to Chicago, just so we could see a color TV at my uncle’s house where we would watch The Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday evenings, and Flipper too. Even the NBC peacock unfolding it’s colored tail feathers was a bit of a spectacle for a time. Wow.
Hah! They FOUGHT for them.
OOh. Very interesting
Of course they were.
I used my teachers as role models. Nuns. They raised boys to be men. I edited out the unnecessary embarrassments, and used what worked. And I used knowledge of men’s thinking for this.
Presto.
People overreact and throw everything out, instead of using what worked and getting rid of what didn’t.
Feminism is not the answer to boys’ bad behavior. Nor are drugs.
By the way, women teachers are on drugs at an outrageous rate, at the moment.
Alcohol, antidepressants, etc, as these are more accepted than they were in former times.
Birth control pills are mood and behavior altering, and when people tune in to the sensible notion that hormones, as in the pill, alter ones’ thinking and behavior, it’ll be worse than cigarettes. Hospitals, thankfully, have stopped putting them into the water supply and have designated waste receptacles (for all drugs)
Then, you had a principal, a strong person, who would back up the teacher and whom the parents would support.
I’ve sent kids to the principal and had them bribe (with their parents over and above tuition money) the asst principal into tearing up the documentation.
The parents support the kid. They HAVE to get into a good college.
Ok. But they need a moral formation or we are going to have worse problems.
I guess my teaching model starts with the foundation that there is nothing wrong with boys. God created them. I think they’re wonderful
I will say, I don’t think I ever witnessed it in my group, but the nuns were quite tough on them for their not being able to sit still for so long.
They are physical and have trouble in the sit down and be still all day model.
emasculating is something else all together.
But the dads would never have put up with it, same as they wouldn’t allow their daughters to dress in public, or private, immodestly, as they do now.
So there’s another situation that has nothing to do with woman teachers
WE didn’t allow parents at our after school activities. At the pond, it was kids. Dads were allowed on Saturdays, and then only if there was a preschooler needing a skating lesson.
Bullying happened, it was not good. It was often countered with success, but not by parents.
“Undoubtedly, there are a lot of sissified men out there who buy into feminism as much as the ladies, “
This is a way for males to evade their traditional responsibilities.
Is this new? Since 1890, I mean, when rural school districts discovered that unmarried new graduates of women's colleges and finishing schools could be hired cheaper than men to dispense the "Three R's".
The real cost was just deferred.
No, not quite; it's worse than that.
There is a difference.
I learned early on the school was BS and another ticket to punch. I was there for the grades, I wanted ‘A’ and to get the hell out of there and move on. I could care less if it was a woman or man teacher.
I agree, they're operating an old-style KGB cell up there in the White House, and Valerie Jarrett is probably the case officer.
Obama was made president for and by his skin. That's a key factor in his win. Any Democrat has to suck up to, and tickle, and pay off, the black vote to get it to "spike" for him on Election Day. And at some point, so powerful a component of the Democratic coalition will insist on "one of their own" ..... like when they pushed Rep. Lindy Boggs (Cokie Roberts's mom) aside in New Orleans after decades of her loyal kowtowing to the Black Caucus in DC, that was the exact language they used to deliver the Word.
Any white Democratic candidate has a "stale by" date, black Democrats (Ferdinand St. Germain, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Adam Clayton Powell, Julian Bond, John Lewis, you name 'em) do not. White Democrats are viable multi-term candidates only in areas where there is no significant black presence, IMHO.
That's the "worse" part, that and his giving countenance to our enemies and always seeking to injure and discountenance those things that are the best about America, like NASA.
He is a disinformative, demoralizing major antagonist in possession of the Bully Pulpit. That his cell is running the White House by Central Committee is a less-significant factor. Possession of the office and his factional adherents (blacks, movement homosexuals, man-hating feminists -- but I repeat myself) is the Real Problem.
[Come to think of it ..... how many of the leadership of the gay/pederast movement are actually cadres? Now, there's a thought. Everyone understands vicious "phobe"-screaming straight-baiters, but what if they were doing it primarily because there was a gay-oriented leadership component of the old COMINTERN/New Party crowd working on this? Someone needs to write a book on "Homosexual Participation in the Communist Movement, and CP Influence on the Human Rights Campaign". Remember Harry Hay?]
Generally speaking, the women teachers I had were demanding and tough and I have no recollection of them trying to feminize their male students. If anything, they forced us to toughen up.
It was a different world, female teachers included.
“Your comment reveals a startling ignorance of cultural history. The way boys were seen and treated in the 1920’s would be considered unacceptable, antisocial, and forbidden today.
It was a different world, female teachers included. “
-
Well thanks for straightening me out.
.
"They" had Ritalin and related pharmaceuticals well before the 1950's. What changed was the perception of what constitutes normal/acceptable behavior for boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.