Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Government creating a fatherless society" - On Line Opinion 15/3/2012 - please comment

April said
There are different experiences for men and women that is for certain, such as women retire on significantly less superannuation than men, men get paid more for professional sport than women, men vastly out number women in senior managment positions, women are in a minority in government and the number of female CEOs of top companies in this country can be counted on my fingers.

Yes, there are differences, and this feminists taking over the world nonsense is just anger provoking and unproductive.  Since men are running the major corporations and are over represented in government both here and OS how on earth can feminists be responsible for men dying earlier than women?
 
April, that's pure cargo-cult stuff.

Firstly, the super issue is a furphy. Women make the choice to leave work, so they lose their employer's super contribution for that period, but they still have access to their husband's super, which is part of the obligation implied by the marriage contract. I made a choice to become self-employed, in the hope of building a business that would serve as my super. As it has not worked out that way, I have none at all at age 48. Perhaps I should have a sex change so it becomes someone else's fault and I can demand a bif load of "cargo" to make me fell better…

Second, why do you care whether the big boss is a man or a woman? Do you think a woman will give you more "cargo"? Or is it that you think you, as a card-carrying member of the cult, have a duty to keep mouthing the special phrases that will cause "cargo" to magically rain down? Could it be you think you'd like to be one of the big bosses yourself and you're whining because nobody has handed you a job on a platter?

Let's face it, the cargo has been raining down in ever-greater amounts: what's going to happen when the "war" stops and the golden parachutes full of wonderful things stop dropping from the sky?

It's telling that all feminists have to complain about is who is in charge.

Feminism has already taken over the West, but that's simply because the men were not paying attention, or they were devoted to the notion of "happy wife, happy life", while their wives were devoted to the notion of "happy wife, happy wife, happy wife". Men were running the corporations and Government while women were using their copious free time to whinge about things and demand ever more, to which their men were more or less pleased to acquiesce - "happy wife, happy life". Then it turned out that more was never enough - one man's earning capacity couldn't satisfy, so feminist women started to kick their men out and demand that Government take over the job.

The result is the cargo-cultism that we have today, where many women expect everything for nothing, while pretending that the unskilled work of caring for children requires a pseudo-"degree" and that looking after a home is such an arduous task that the hour or so a day required deserves to be paid for as a full-time job.

It's demeaning and it leaves me and a large number of other men feeling contemptuous and disinclined to want to support it. It's also caused enormous economic damage, with more money being paid out to support the lifestyles of women who've kicked out their men than is taken in personal income tax. From a social POV it's been a dead loss,jst as every cargo cult has left its adherents worse off in the long run.

Life's tough for everyone. Being a man doesn't provide a magic carpet ride;being a woman doesn't entitle one to a pile of feather mattresses and a team of slaves to cater to every whim. It's about time the dishonesty was replaced by some commitment to genuine discussion and some facing of the hard choices that life requires if our society is to remain prosperous and productive. The story of the ants and the grasshopper springs to mind.
Craigo, you are clearly a man who has had negative experiences in life with loss of relationship and business, so I can understand why you feel the way you do.

However, to make such offensive comments about women and the role of caregivers is unnecessary.  There are many women who feel ripped off too.  I was the one who lost a significant proportion of my pre marriage assets to a parasite who now travels OS with his girlfriend, pursues his career instead of his kids and I am the one left to subsidise his lifestyle.

I could be bitter and blame the system for taking assets from one party and giving them to the other just because we were married, but I chose to move on.

 I hope you can find the peace to move on too because this sexist, women are wrecking the world nonsense is just ridiculous and it is keeping you in a bad place.
Maybe instead of maybe getting angry and shouting "poor me" then go out and do something about it.
What about my post makes you think that I am angry. Nothing I said was 'poor me' at all .As for doing something 'about it' there are certain issues that I do tackle in real life, one being the educational disadvantageous of male children. Particularly policy that allows male disabled children/teenagers to be discriminated against and even physically abused because of their gender and the assumption that because they are males they must be violent. Your only showing ignorance by assuming I don't do anything.

There are many women (mothers) that actually do care about these types of issues that affect not only men but their male children. Do you have anything worth while to contribute to the discussion other then giving me a lecture based on nothing but assumptions?.

I have one female child, one male child, I am not angry as you claim, I just want both of my children to be treated fairly by government in law and in practice. I have experienced the 'gender' difference in treatment with my children, as they say experience is the best teacher..

 
There are enough male representatives in parliament that should be able to understand your plight, campaign and campaign and campaign.
Why do you insinuate that 'male' representatives should be the only ones to help? Issues in society should be given equal attention by both genders who run our country. Do you not expect male politicians to take in interest female gender issues? You yourself are only promoting further division and sexism with this kind of attitude. 
April said
Craigo, you are clearly a man who has had negative experiences in life with loss of relationship and business, so I can understand why you feel the way you do.

However, to make such offensive comments about women and the role of caregivers is unnecessary.  There are many women who feel ripped off too.  I was the one who lost a significant proportion of my pre marriage assets to a parasite who now travels OS with his girlfriend, pursues his career instead of his kids and I am the one left to subsidise his lifestyle.

I could be bitter and blame the system for taking assets from one party and giving them to the other just because we were married, but I chose to move on.

 I hope you can find the peace to move on too because this sexist, women are wrecking the world nonsense is just ridiculous and it is keeping you in a bad place.
 
Oh,of course, it must be a personal problem… how silly of me.

I seem to recall similar things being said about the "women's liberationists"and the people who said them were branded as "dinosaurs" and "patriarchs". Isn't it wonderful how the world turns?

As it happens, however, my point is not about bitterness or feeling ripped off, it's about being expected to provide a free ride for those who already had a cheap fare and obsess about whether the boss is a man or a woman as if it matters. It's about my son being denied opportunities because of his gender and my daughter being forced into doing things she doesn't want to because that's called "equality". It's about pandering to people who expect special treatment and watching enormous amounts of tax money being wasted on things that should be done as part of the contract between parents.

You keep repeating the mantra that feminism is about equality and you keep getting shown why it isn't. Don't you think it's time you thought about why you hold so firmly to your view? It doesn't seem to have any impact to have cogent, well-reasoned, well-supported arguments presented contradicting your articles of faith.

As an aside, what was "offensive" about my comment with respect to child care?
Fairgo said
gecko - I think all fathers want is a fair deal being a good relationship with their children. The fathers are only saying they want 50% care not 100% care as per the mothers. If fathers were confident of getting this I think you would websites like this one would disappear.



That is all that mothers want as well. I find your comment that mothers want 100% unrealistic. Not all mothers want this, as is the case that not all fathers are nasty etc. geralising is unfair.

Frenzy said

Maybe instead of maybe getting angry and
shouting "poor me" then go out and do something about it.

What about my post makes you think that I am angry. Nothing I said was 'poor
me' at all .As for doing something 'about it' there are certain issues that I do
tackle in real life, one being the educational disadvantageous of male children.
Particularly policy that allows male disabled children/teenagers to be
discriminated against and even physically abused because of their gender and the
assumption that because they are males they must be violent. Your only showing
ignorance by assuming I don't do anything.

There are many women
(mothers) that actually do care about these types of issues that affect not only
men but their male children. Do you have anything worth while to contribute to
the discussion other then giving me a lecture based on nothing but assumptions?.


I have one female child, one male child, I am not angry as you claim, I
just want both of my children to be treated fairly by government in law and in
practice. I have experienced the 'gender' difference in treatment with my
children, as they say experience is the best teacher..





There are enough male representatives in
parliament that should be able to understand your plight, campaign and campaign
and campaign.

Why do you insinuate that 'male' representatives should be the only ones to
help? Issues in society should be given equal attention by both genders who run
our country. Do you not expect male politicians to take in interest female
gender issues? You yourself are only promoting further division and sexism with
this kind of attitude.

Idid not sway that you were angry, I said males were angry.
I am sorry of you feel I insinuated anything. I suggested that there are enough male reps in parliament because they are of the majority. I would have thought that they would be more than sympathetic to your cause so would not logic suggest to use them in your fight for fairness to all dads? How is this promoting sexism? I am simply suggesting using the majority to fight your cause. I really dont care what gender they are, but the more voices you have the louder you speak.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko saying that males should take their issues to males is promoting sexism and division. If females were to only take their issues to females in parliament as well then where would we get.

If you had an understanding of some of the issues, you would actually know their are both male and female politicians that support issues not relevant to their own gender, just as there are also those that support policy that negatively effect their own gender. Eg, not that many women politicians support legalizing abortion but many male politicians do.

Where I live we actually have both male and female Mp's interested in the male education discrimination issue. We also have a females in local government interested in lobbying for help for the local men's shed that is struggling, while the women's funded groups continue receive a disproportionate higher amount of funding.

Implying anyone should stick to their own gender when seeking help, is a 1930's attitude.
Craigo said
    
As it happens, however, my point is not about bitterness or feeling ripped off, it's about being expected to provide a free ride for those who already had a cheap fare and obsess about whether the boss is a man or a woman as if it matters. It's about my son being denied opportunities because of his gender and my daughter being forced into doing things she doesn't want to because that's called "equality". It's about pandering to people who expect special treatment and watching enormous amounts of tax money being wasted on things that should be done as part of the contract between parents.

You keep repeating the mantra that feminism is about equality and you keep getting shown why it isn't. Don't you think it's time you thought about why you hold so firmly to your view? It doesn't seem to have any impact to have cogent, well-reasoned, well-supported arguments presented contradicting your articles of faith.

As an aside, what was "offensive" about my comment with respect to child care?
 

You said child care was an unskilled job.  I would challenge that and say it requires a high level of skill to do the job well.

I am interested in your "well-reasoned, well-supported arguments".  You say your son has been denied opportunities because of his gender.  That is a big claim, but you provide none of the reason and support you claim.  What opportunity has your son missed out on because he is a male?  How about your daughter, what is she being forced to do because of equality?
April said
Craigo said
    
As it happens, however, my point is not about bitterness or feeling ripped off, it's about being expected to provide a free ride for those who already had a cheap fare and obsess about whether the boss is a man or a woman as if it matters. It's about my son being denied opportunities because of his gender and my daughter being forced into doing things she doesn't want to because that's called "equality". It's about pandering to people who expect special treatment and watching enormous amounts of tax money being wasted on things that should be done as part of the contract between parents.

You keep repeating the mantra that feminism is about equality and you keep getting shown why it isn't. Don't you think it's time you thought about why you hold so firmly to your view? It doesn't seem to have any impact to have cogent, well-reasoned, well-supported arguments presented contradicting your articles of faith.

As an aside, what was "offensive" about my comment with respect to child care?
 

You said child care was an unskilled job.  I would challenge that and say it requires a high level of skill to do the job well.

I am interested in your "well-reasoned, well-supported arguments".  You say your son has been denied opportunities because of his gender.  That is a big claim, but you provide none of the reason and support you claim.  What opportunity has your son missed out on because he is a male?  How about your daughter, what is she being forced to do because of equality?
  You have a high quality skill in misconstruing comments, April. My son is 14 and my daughter is 15. My concern with them is that they are growing into a world in which their choices are being skewed against their best interests by a feminist-dogmatic stranglehold on public policy. I believe you understand this quite well, so I'm at aloss as to why you'd try to pretend otherwise. Perhaps you could enlighten us? Apparently you're more worried about who is in charge at Woolworths and whether there are equal numbers of male and females on boards, regardless of the respective ability of the individuals involved. That is precisely the sort of thinking that is causing the problems I refer to in the first place.

As for childcare, it's being done right now by millions of completely untrained people. It does not require a degree in "Early childhood education", or a salary commensurate with an engineering professional. It is at best a semi-skilled job, learnt through the doing.

If you believe otherwise, why are you in favour of children being raised by their parents at all and what is your justification for your view? How on Earth did the human race survive and prosper thus far in the absence of such skilled professionals?
Your kid's choices are being skewed by feminism?  You don't even know what feminism is.

How can equality of opportunity for both sexes mean different opportunities for your kids based on their sex?

What you say doesn't stand to basic reason. 
April said
How can equality of opportunity for both sexes mean different opportunities for your kids based on their sex?
April you can preach all the feminist theory you like, however what is important is how that theory actually works in practice.

Feminist & women lobby groups rightly fought for better education outcomes for girls they got it, however now we have poorer outcomes for boys. They fought for better funding and outcomes in women's health areas, they got it, now we have poorer outcomes & less funding going to males. They fought for better funding for women's interest & help groups & got it, now we have men's groups that get less or no funding and so on……………….where is this fighting for equality you keep talking about April? and why are those same lobby groups silent on these issues or if they are broached (eg on this forum) do self confessed feminists try to derail the discussion or try to convince people they don't exist?
I think there is confusion between equality, and equality of opportunity.

Feminism sought to create equal opportunities for the sexes (eg. men could attend birth of child, women could fly planes).  Equality of all people is something different.

If men are concerned that they are getting left behind (not sure on that one) then bringing down women is not the answer.

Would be helpful if posters stopped directing comments to me.  I am giving my opinion on this topic and it would be unfair for it to become only about my opinions.
Frenzy said
April said
How can equality of opportunity for both sexes mean different opportunities for your kids based on their sex?
April you can preach all the feminist theory you like, however what is important is how that theory actually works in practice.

Feminist & women lobby groups rightly fought for better education outcomes for girls they got it, however now we have poorer outcomes for boys. They fought for better funding and outcomes in women's health areas, they got it, now we have poorer outcomes & less funding going to males. They fought for better funding for women's interest & help groups & got it, now we have men's groups that get less or no funding and so on……………….where is this fighting for equality you keep talking about April? and why are those same lobby groups silent on these issues or if they are broached (eg on this forum) do self confessed feminists try to derail the discussion or try to convince people they don't exist?
  this is exactly what I was stating to you earlier, go out and fight for what you beleive males in today's society are in need of, just as the suffrogettes did in asking for the vote, and the feminists in the modern era seeking equality for all.

Frenzy said

Gecko saying that males should take their issues to males is promoting sexism
and division. If females were to only take their issues to females in parliament
as well then where would we get.

If you had an understanding of some of
the issues, you would actually know their are both male and female politicians
that support issues not relevant to their own gender, just as there are also
those that support policy that negatively effect their own gender. Eg, not that
many women politicians support legalizing abortion but many male politicians do.


Where I live we actually have both male and female Mp's interested in
the male education discrimination issue. We also have a females in local
government interested in lobbying for help for the local men's shed that is
struggling, while the women's funded groups continue receive a disproportionate
higher amount of funding.

Implying anyone should stick to their own
gender when seeking help, is a 1930's attitude.

  I did not say to just pick the males, and therefore I am NOT sexist. I said contact/pick the majority, who happen to be males. Is that put simply enough?

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko said
There are enough male representatives in parliament that should be able to understand your plight

  ^ that above is exactly what you said Gecko…

The effects of men getting left behind should be a concern to everybody, no matter how bigoted they are, as boys in schools are educationally disadvantaged and left behind before they even become 'men'.

The feminist lobby groups that argued for and achieved a 'feminised' educational program in the 80s and 90s because girls where disadvantaged now claim boys failure rates are because they are males so are prone to behavior issues. Any wonder self-esteem and negative self-image and suicide rates are rising among young males.

If I was into conspiracy theories I'd be thinking it is some grand plan to get men and train them when young to know their new place in society…
My goodness me, I have already responded to this attack twice. I have appologised for the initial misunderstanding. What more are you after? Are you ever going to apologise for anything you have said when attacking me or feminists? I think not. Please keep the emotives out of this discussion or it will become more of a hate campaign than it already is.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
"Feminised" education system?  Do you mean moves to encourage females to complete year 12 and participate more in sciences and maths?  This was not to the exclusion of male students.

Girls have never been disadvataged educationally.  They were however actively encouraged to leave school early decades ago and learn to be typists/secretaries etc until they got married, i.e. that education was wasted on them.

Men and women are now both well represented in top tertiary courses such as law and medicine.

Do you mean the closure of tech schools?  Was not done to "feminise" education but rather to stop pigeon holing kids early on into trades.  Was seen as an educational disadvantage, not a gender issue.  Many girls went to tech schools as well.
Are you ever going to apologise for anything you have said when attacking me or feminists?
As you have asked a question I will answer it. In regards to attacking you, pointing out flaws in what you said on the subject isn't an attack, however if you want an apology for my doing that then you can have it..sorry, hope you feel better now.

As for apologising to feminists, are you serious.. I don't agree with a lot of how their supposed theories have been put into practice, but why do I need to apologize for that? If I was saying I didn't agree with how other social movements have developed in regards to their practices, such as animal rights movements or the South African Fringe Dwellers movement would you be so offended you'd expect me to apologise?.

*Edited to answer Aprils question.*

April, sorry I was not referring to any of those things you have mentioned.
 
You say women were never educationally disadvantaged, obviously you are not aware of the academic feminist driven campaigns in the late 80's that argued in favor of positive discrimination for girls, as they were identified as being educationally disadvantaged because of their gender.

Girls literacy & numeracy performance at that time did lag behind boys, with girls on average falling into the middle range on test scores. The 80's/90's education policy change driven by lobby groups (they were yes feminist ones) resulted in a radical change in education curriculum, delivery methods and policy. Research showed that a less structured approach to literacy and numeracy and a learning environment which relied more on verbal skills and self-directed learning and an emotional/social approach increased girls academic performance dramatically.

Nothing wrong with that in essence… however fast forward 20 years and as a consequence of those changes based on that research, we now have girls dramatically out preforming boys in all basic literacy and numeracy areas and in almost all subjects, from primary school until year 12, the gap in performance is continuing to widen.

In grades 3 & 5 boys are scoring on average 20 points lower then girls on standardised Basic Skills Tests. In senior English, which is compulsory for tertiary entry, girls on average score 30% higher in marks. This discrepancy occurs, irrespective of socio-economic background of  children, however boys from middle and lower class families and indigenous families fair even worse in results. This dramatic change in the status quo actually became measurably obvious with in 4 years of the changes being made.

Boys thrived under the pre 90's methodical, systematic teaching methods, methods with clearly defined objectives that were delivered  in a more competive, less verbal, emotional and linguistic approach then used now.

There is a lot of current national and international research that identifies gender as a factor that can impact on learning outcomes, government has acknowledged this. fMRI studies in the past few years have been able to identify and map the biological learning differences between boys and girls. Numerous well-respected experts have researched a whole range of factors from socio-economic to attitudes and biological learning processes and have identified many different effects the system has on  boys/girls. Overwhelmingly investigations show more postive outcomes for girls but more negative outcomes for boys.

Boys drop out rates and non compliance with attending school and behavioral issues have increased along with the 'feminisation' of education policy and delivery. 80-83% (depends on state) of teachers are females, 65% surveyed say they favor and place more effort in helping girls over boys.

Despite all the research in to causative factors, teachers surveyed blame the rise in single mothers and boys naturally naughty violent uncooperative natures as being the reason boys are getting poorer educational results.  Women can blame men all they want for stereotyping but women (in this case many members of the feminist ideology brigades that drive our education policy) are the ones doing the stereotyping, all under the guise of 'equal opportunity'.

Now there is a push by some people (women as well as men) to have the feminist conceptual educational framework changed to better reflect the scientifically identified learning differences between boys and girls. However those very same feminist's that pushed for positive discrimination change for girls in the 80's and 90's are now effectively lobbying against it and in fact are pushing for further 'feminised reforms'. To quote one outspoken influential feminist academic 'Advocating for boys specific needs to be taken on board in schools is advocating for a pushing back on our feminist advances' 

In the U.K,at the same time as here, their policies also changed in response to a feminist policy push, their educational outcomes for boys also quickly plummeted. However a few years ago they were forced to confront and admit to the issues and start publicly releasing gender specific results by school. Schools soon started to wind back some of the 'feminist' policy approaches and they are now closing the gender gap in results.

Feminism as  an ideological theory sounds great but the changes those actively involved in it, have created in reality has not equated to an equal educational opportunity for for both genders - and no I will not apologize to those educational academic feminist policy drivers for expressing my opinion about them.

Last edit: by Frenzy

April, I'm afraid your knowledge is shallow and your understanding poor as a result of seeing everything through a feminist lens, no doubt due to your training.

The Whitlam government embarked upon a scheme to provide free university education to all, which was seen as a way to get improved opportunities for the traditional blue-collar constituency of the ALP. In other words, it was a noble goal. The opportunity was taken up by millions (including myself in 1980, during the period that "Fraser's Razor Gang" was slashing funding) and lots of women were among them. At the same time, many Colleges of Advanced Education (which trained para-professionals and semi-professionals like teachers, nurses, drafters, clerks and the like) were losing students because parents encouraged their children to "do uni" and Fraser/Howard's cuts were especially vicious in that sector, leading lots of such institutions to amalgamate with a local uni to be more appealing to such parents. Many were also closed. The TAFE sector was even harder hit, with many being forced to change their focus from training apprentices to providing "adult education" courses that were essentially hobby-focused. This was not only due to the Fraser/Howard cuts, but also because a lot of the major State Government and large business apprenticeship schemes were being wound back due to a lack of perceived need. In the view of the time, Australia's future was to be a technocracy and an old-person's home as the baby-boomers aged. The Hawke Government oversaw the amalgamations of the tertiary sector with some enthusiasm.

Hawke, with his strong desire to "appeal to women", which has persisted for the past 30 years in Labor circles (women tend to be socially conservative, which makes it hard for the ALP to capture a reliable female vote), introduced educational policies to improve girls results at school and thus improve their entry rates to uni. This was taken up with enthusiasm by the strongly left-wing, female-dominated teachers unions and state education departments, with copious amounts of work done to change curricula to better suit girls' learning styles. A shift away from rigorous exams to continuous assessment was one such change. As well, the natural ebullience of boys was discouraged, with boisterous boys being given the label of "hyperactive" and drugged with amphetamines to keep them quiet so they wouldn't interfere with the "good" girls. This became policy, with many teachers referring boys for assessment if they played up in class. I think it's telling that at the boys school I attended in the late 70s there were no "ADHD" students in a population of over 1500, while at my children's school of about 500 students about 30 years later there are lots of boys on ritalin or similar and lots of girls on anti-depressants. My own son was targetted by a teacher in grade 3 and it took a significant fight to prevent the education department from forcing the stuff on him. I managed to get the teacher to take early retirement the following year, having shown she systematically failed to produce adequate outcomes for the boys in her class and that she had a long history of complaining about boys being ADD/ADHD. I don't know how many boys suffered as a result, but out of 13 boys in my son's grade 3 class, only 5 were not referred by her, according to their parents, who I made a point of speaking to about the subject. No girls were referred at all.

As a result of all of this, today women outnumber men at uni by approximately 2:1. The Bradley report goal of 40% of the population having a tertiary degree has already been well exceeded for women, while for men it is at around 29%.

ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.spre.com.au.../SPREGenderAgenda2011.pdf

Would you like me to continue, there is a great deal more I could say on the subject?

[Edit: beat me to it Frenzy. I started this piece before work this morning and didn't see your excellent summation above]
You are spot on about the ADHD issue Cragio, schools are largely responsible for pushing drugs on parents. I know parents who have been told point blank if they don't medicate, their boys will be expelled.

In my sons high school there are 93 out of 525 students who are classed as having learning difficulties as they do not possess basic age appropriate literacy and numeracy skills - all are boys (only 18 have an actual disability).

I take some of these students on a work-placement program for educationally under preforming teens and many cannot properly read or understand the information in the safety policies that I must have them sign after induction. There has been OHS research done into recent increase in male related work place accidents in certain industries and a fall in literacy skills among young men has been identified as a major causative factor.

In an ever increasing academically skilled rather then muscle driven world, poor literacy skills not only effects a persons safety on the job, but also effects their self esteem and mental health. When you work in workplace programs with educationally disadvantaged teen males like I do, you can sadly clearly see these and other effects. 

We have a group of parents here, who are actively trying to get funding to set up appropriate literacy and numerousy program outside of the school system for these boys and also for the ASD children (1 in 4 are girls) who cannot cope with the emotional, social, self directed educational approach going on.  Not one women's group has offered help, the stigmatization of these kids as being naughty, hence why they don't fit in, runs deep through society, however some men from the men's shed have volunteered to be tutors for free. Unfortunately the mens shed gets nill government help atm and maybe closing due to the lack of funds, unlike all the women's only groups in town.

I think those parents, males and females calling for change because they can see through the feminist educational propaganda are wise. 
 

Last edit: by Frenzy

So feminism is responsible for the rise in ADHD now? Unbelieveable.

The single biggest influence on a child's educational outcome is home environment/positive parental involvement.  This is why schools are keen on parental involvement now.

My son's school introduced all boys classes for several years with male teachers following so called male ways of learning and guess what?  No difference.

Supposed sex differences largely reflect cultural biases and are written off as biological biases.  There are males excelling at school and females struggling, and vice versa. 

The truth is there are NOT two ways of learning , one male and one female. Reality is there is major variation both within and between the sexes with regard to learning. The education system is over loaded with extras in the curriculum and most kids who do well at school have a parent at home giving them help with reading, spelling, times tables, homework etc.

That is the real difference.
April said
So feminism is responsible for the rise in ADHD now? Unbelieveable.

The single biggest influence on a child's educational outcome is home environment/positive parental involvement.  This is why schools are keen on parental involvement now.

My son's school introduced all boys classes for several years with male teachers following so called male ways of learning and guess what?  No difference.

Supposed sex differences largely reflect cultural biases and are written off as biological biases.  There are males excelling at school and females struggling, and vice versa. 

The truth is there are NOT two ways of learning , one male and one female. Reality is there is major variation both within and between the sexes with regard to learning. The education system is over loaded with extras in the curriculum and most kids who do well at school have a parent at home giving them help with reading, spelling, times tables, homework etc.

That is the real difference.
 
The truth is that the education system is full of female teachers who can't handle boys, while homes are full of single mothers who also can't handle boys, so the boys get drugged up to compensate. I agree with your comment in regard to having parental involvement. However, when there is only one parent in the home and she didn't pass maths herself and doesn't have much interest in it and is preoccupied with things other than helping her kids with their homework and can't cope with her son's lack of compliance, they don't get that involvement. Feminism helped to create those families and is actively promoting the creation of more through bad family laws and the other familiar means.

So yes, feminism IS drugging our boys.

I'd be interested in knowing more about your claim with respect to the all-boys classes and the teaching methods used. What year level was that and what were the differences from the normal curriculum?

At my children's school, there are only a couple of male teachers, in manual arts and one chap teaching SOSE who's due for retirement. Every administrative place is held by a woman and I've been trying to get the school to compel attendance for my children for the past 4 years. LAst year my daughter missed over 25 days of school, the year before about 22, the year before 30. This year she's already missed nearly half of all days and all this is with her mother's complicity so the school simply won't act. My son has missed less,but when he's in his mother's care the rate is about the same.when he'swith me he does his homework and he goes to school. Mum won't make the effort and nobody seems to care.

The Principal proudly trumpets in newsletters that the school has a 94% attendance record, but from my observations of the absences of various of my children's friends, she must have a very loose definition of attendance. Perhaps she's talking about the teachers…

Just a couple of points to add with respect to the representation of both genders in Medicine and Law.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2003/179/4/medical-workforce-issues-australia-tomorrow-s-doctors-too-few-too-far

"Feminisation of the medical workforce has been a major change over the past 20 years. The sex ratio in Australian medical schools is now 50:50, or with a slight excess of women.7 The flow-on effects of this change are particularly obvious in specialties like general practice, in which more than 50% of current trainees are female.8 Female doctors have a working life that approximates 60% that of male doctors."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/tipping-point-is-near-as-women-take-over-the-law/story-e6frg97x-1226072596434

"IT might be a man's world, but the law is fast becoming a woman's profession. For women congregating around the water cooler to complain about the male-dominated nature of the law, I have some good news: the situation isn't as bad as you might think. Well, in terms of the number of women practising law it isn't."

Last edit: by Craigo

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets