Sunday, March 26, 2006

The War Against Boys

Thanks to the psychological dynamics typical to the Left they tend to make war against everything that men tend to. If men tend to provide for and protect their families, then the Left is against wealth/provision and guns/protection. If men tend to be the moral instructor for their children, then the Left seeks to do away with any "imposition" of values. If men tend towards a military ethos and an ethic of justice, then the Left tends to be against the military and seeks to smother the ethic of justice with an ethic of caring.

In the background a sort of cosmic Oedipus complex seems to guide it all, thus they want their Mommy Nature and so on. In all these patterns the feminine is always Good and so the Yin is always victimized by the Yang. I suspect that even if women were going to college at rates of 80% and men fell to 20%, if they could choose to try out "their" offspring for a few days and then kill them or force men to pay child support depending on their choice, if they lived twenty years longer than men, etc., they'd still be victims of it all according to many feminists. They have become quite good at sniveling, have they not? Once there is nothing left to snivel about those who have made sniveling their profession will invent something for the sake of job security.

With great fanfare, How Schools Shortchange Girls was released to uncritical, even enthusiastic, media. The promotion proved to be spectacularly successful, generating more than 1,400 news reports and a flurry of TV discussions of the “tragedy” that had struck the nation’s girls.
Susan Chira’s 1992 article for The New York Times was typical of media coverage throughout the country. The headline read “Bias Against Girls Is Found Rife in Schools, with Lasting Damage.” The piece could have been written by the AAUW’s publicity department. Indeed, the entire Times article was later reproduced by the AAUW and sent out as part of its fund-raising package. Chira had not interviewed a single critic. [For good reason, once again progressive junk science is fed to a willing Old Press.]
How do boys fit into the “tragedy” of America’s “shortchanged” girls? Inevitably, boys are resented, being seen both as the unfairly privileged gender and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. There is an understandable dialectic: the more girls are portrayed as diminished, the more boys are regarded as needing to be taken down a notch and reduced in importance. This perspective on boys and girls is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration. “It is really clear that boys are no. 1 in this society and in most of the world,” says Dr. Patricia O’Reilly, professor of education and director of the Gender Equity Center at the University of Cincinnati.
It may be “clear,” but it isn’t true. If we disregard the girl advocates and look objectively at the relative condition of boys and girls in this country, we find that it is boys, not girls, who are languishing academically. Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today’s girls outshine boys. Girls get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow a more rigorous academic program and participate more in the prestigious Advanced Placement (AP) program. This demanding program gives top students the opportunity of taking college-level courses in high school. In 1984, an equal proportion of males and females participated. But according to the United States Department of Education, “Between 1984 and 1996, the number of females who took the examinations rose at a faster rate. . . In 1996, 144 females compared to 117 males per 1000 12th graders took AP examinations” (see Table 1).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more female than male students enroll in high-level math and science courses (see Table 2).
The representation of American girls as apprehensive and academically diminished is not true to the facts. Girls, allegedly so timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and even in debating clubs. Only in sports are the boys still ahead, and women’s groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance.
At the very time the AAUW was advertising its discovery that girls were subordinates in the schools, the Department of Education published the results of a massive survey showing just the opposite (see Figure l).
Girls read more books. They outperform males on tests of artistic and musical ability. More girls than boys study abroad. More join the Peace Corps. Conversely, more boys than girls are suspended from school. More are held back and more drop out. Boys are three times as likely as girls to be enrolled in special education programs and four times as likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
(The War Against Boys
by Christina Hoff Sommers :21-26)

The way that progressives tend towards feeling that the feminine is always victimized has much more to do with their own phobias and psychological dynamics than the facts. At any rate, if you have a boy it may be a good idea to keep him out of State schools where feminists and the progressive/effeminate types have their smothering influence.

Given the general neurosis of the Left one shouldn't be surprised at its impact when it comes to boys.

Unfortunately we'll all pay for it. I was thinking this last night while reading a debate on pornography that came about among some guys. I would quote it directly but the forum it happened on is gone now. Summary: "It's just a harmless hobby." "They've taken everything else away from us, the more degrading to women the better." (Only it wasn't spelled that well or stated that well. They tend to write at a fourth grade level, don't you know.)

Metaphorically speaking, the Harlot awakens the Beast that eats her.

No comments: