I think you are on to something here. Schools are indeed designed for the average GIRL...not the average student. I see the effect of IQ in my classes particularly those designed for elementary education teachers. These courses typically attract at 12:1 female to male ratio. Interestingly, however, the truly exception students tend to have a ratio of about 1:3 female to male. Ironically, these extremely qualified MALE elementary teachers almost never get hired, however, because the hiring committees in these schools are all female or female dominated and they are hostile to highly qualified MALE teachers coming in. I have even had multiple male students questioned in interviews why a MAN would want to teach elementary school with accusations of being a pedophile actually enunciated! One of these male students who did eventually succeed fits the description of the distracted ADHD highly intelligent "troublesome" student that you point out as gifted but missed because he did not present as a bright girl might.
w0e-MEN have smaller brains. Academia is not a barometer for intelligence. Consciousness is. MEN have a higher conscious than w0e-MEN, most simply chose to not develop it.
It is also stated that girls grow up earlier than boys, thus explaining that girls are considered more adult, i.e., better capable of learning in school environment compared to boys of the same age.
(Especially female) Teachers telling me so often went silent when I pointed out a similarity that can be seen throughout the fauna: the more intelligent animals are, the longer their adolescence is.
I therefore wonder whether there is not only a flatter Gaussian curve, but also a higher average IQ at least in grown up men in comparison to women. Advantages in force and in height are easy to see. Isn't it reasonable that (on average) later full development also implies higher outcomes in IQ for men? And wouldn't that explain some male-dominated fields, from MENSA membership via successful founding of firms to winning Nobel and other prizes?
The male brain and the female brain operate on a male brain spectrum and a female brain spectrum. Brain-sex difference has been muffled in contemporary education and by some advocates for boys and men for a number of reasons: (a) fearful of a type of backlash (b) lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic (c) a belief that sociology matters more than biology or that biology is a much lesser factor. There are other reasons too.
Brain-sex difference matters. Educating boys and girls requires nurturing the nature, the idea that school curriculums need to understand the male brain and the female brain first and then create a curriculum that works for our sons and daughters.
Education majors too often do not learn what is actually happening inside the brain during learning, for instance; how is the pre-frontal cortex stimulated? Why do boys zone-out sooner than girls?--which of course, leads to impulse control and trouble in the classroom
In the aggregate, girls show greater frontal lobe activity, this is where executive function happens. There are also hormonal factors that impact the ability for the girls to sit a little longer when it comes to passive learning. Boys often need to move and increase blood flow to the limbic system of the brain to then stimulate frontal lobe action.
Boys don't zone out because they are less mature. That excuse is a copout. They zone out because their brain needs different stimuli. The argument around development is more complex than simply saying they mature later. This argument allows socialization advocates to ignore biological realities.
Essentially, we are not stimulating the brains of our boys and our girls in ways that promote curiosity and learning because we ignore real differences that truly matter.
Boys often do homework and forget to hand it in, leaving it stuffed in a backpack. I noticed it a number of times in my career. They're a curious bunch and tend to focus on other things once they enter the classroom--like a ball moving through space they follow change of direction. It's also important to distinguish skill acquisition from homework. Many assignments tend to be busy work and do nothing to note competency. Boys want to please their teachers. When they forgot their homework with me, I made them come after school and finish it. Do that a couple of times and they stop forgetting. The goal is not to always impose your will. The goal is to teach them skills. The modern classroom is about lots of busy work. Maybe they are really good at separating the wheat from the chaff.
I always find it strange when a teacher claims that schools are bad at their job and thus implies that anyone can learn calculus, physics, Latin, etc on their own due to natural talent.
And claiming that one can force a student to stay after school implies a private school and thus, the old sayings: the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not at all. Why would you think kids don’t stay after school in public school? That line of reasoning is a type of logical fallacy, arguing from ignorance or a bare assertion fallacy,.And why would you think that teachers claim schools are bad at their job and thus everyone can learn calculus, Latin, etc…?
How does one correlate those two assertions?
The aphorism is cute but it asserts the earlier claims are true.
The greater point is that schools need different approaches, ones that understand the community it serves and have proven successful.
Because making a student stay after schools changes how that student gets home. And that would affect students from poorer families and students from single parent households more than affluent students.
As Tim Carney was pointing out in his latest book, taking time off from work for one's children is a sign of affluence.
And if one claims that most school work is busy work, then one is claiming that one can master subjects without doing homework or studying. And odd opinion for a supposed former teacher.
I think this argument rests on a false premise, that "most school work is busy work." Most schoolwork should be about concept acquisition. It also presupposes that the way home is an arduous journey. The arguments you propose, Robert, are a lowering of expectation that is the very reason poorer students struggle. Weak arguments. Try reading some Thomas Sowell.
Larry Summers was excoriated - near excommunicated - when he pointed out the variability in male vs. female IQ twenty or more years ago. He's an a*hole, but he was not wrong. The challenge I see is twofold. First, a super-high IQ requires more than a "gifted" program, since those boys and girls are like hot house plants. Often they are super-sensitive and may not adjust easily to routine activities - same as those who struggle. So we should create more flexibility in classrooms and curricula to accommodate all types of learners. Averaging down to the lowest common denominator is a horrible outcome.
The second challenge is the elephant in the room: skyrocketing rates of autism in children, especially boys. If their brains are more finely tuned, and being damaged at an accelerating rate, that might explain the absence of boys among the gifted-talented. Until we get to the bottom of - and address - the autism tragedy, boys are almost certainly being shortchanged.
The issue is that after decades of women being discriminated against in higher education, Summers points out that there are not a lot of elderly female math geniuses.
And Autism is not skyrocketing outside of the minds of plaintiffs attorneys who want to sue people.
It is hard to believe that this level of retardation is subscribe to Tom Golden substack. Go read woke retards and you wont need to use even 1 brain cell and could clap like seals.
w0e-MEN were NEVER discriminated against in education. That's like saying w0e-MEN were discriminated against in sports. FACT is most w0e-MEN don't even want to play sports as most w0e-MEN didn't prioritize education over family. Just as the very few hermaphroditic butch looking tom boys who do play sports are to this day being subsidized by MALE sports money which is taken from MALE athletes and given to w0e-MEN. Add to that w0e-MEN invaded BOYS SPORTS 1rst because there weren't even enough butch looking tom boys who even wanted to play in the first place. As for autism being mostly a boy's problem, this can be traced to domineering mothers, in fact I believe Aspergers is due to abusive domineering Jewish mothers and the case can be made that autism in general is caused by domineering mothers. Like mothers who put their sons in dresses, no one considers that w0e-MEN are the main abusers of BOYS.
Congress just released a report that out of the roughly 360 schools that play Division I men's and women's basketball, 325 of them have to use student service fees, tuition dollars and other forms of institutional support to make up for the loses of the Athletic Department. The argument that men's sports revenue is keeping women's sports alive is laughably wrong and shows that one needs to do a lot more reading.
And if dominating mothers caused Autism (it does not), then Korean-American, Desi, and Chinese-American young men would have the highest rates (they do not). Try harder instead of depending on 50 year old tropes and memes.
How does pointing out that is is a GAO report change any of the conclusions. No one ever looks clever by being a nitpicker.
And considering the report does not mention women's sports separate, there is no basis to claim that women's sports in the reason for most athletic programs needing outside support.
Try again. "The most prominent w0e-MEN'S sports league directly subsidized by a MEN'S league is the WNBA which receives financial backing from the NBA" This structural financial relationship between MEN'S & w0e-MEN'S athletics exists at both the professional & collegiate levels" "The NBA subsidizes the WNBA with 15 million to 40 million annually. "At the university level funding operates as an interconnected ecosystem heavily reliant on MEN'S SPORTS" "Cross subsidization via title IX. "Because most w0e-MEN'S colligate programs do not generate enough revenue to cover their operational costs they are funded directly by the surplus profits generated by MEN'S football & basketball programs" This subsidy keeps "Nearly ALL w0e-MEN'S collegiate athletic programs operational"
"The End of Average" by Todd Rose is an interesting book. He starts with a rapid increase in USAF crashes in the early 1950s. The cockpits had been designed for the "average" pilot. The problem was that none of the pilots had more than 1 or 2 measurements that were "average". Going back to the drawing board the USAF redesigned cockpits to be more adjustable to allow a range of human measurements. (My father talked, in the 1970's, about the problems of designing military truck driver interiors to fit the 5th percentile female in basic uniform as well as the 95 percentile male in Arctic gear.)
There is a chapter devoted to education. In the 1920s Ford realised that they, and other automotive manufacturers, needed a work force educated to understand written instructions, work with numbers, and keep tally of parts. Education literally became a production line to churn out those workers. Obviously they modelled the schooling around the "average" child. While there have been attempts to change schooling (open concept class rooms, "no child left behind") the basic production line model remains. Changes to accommodate those who are not average (well above and well below) are very expensive.
Perhaps the easiest and most simple method is have separate boys and girls schools. That, of course, will open a very large "can of worms" as males must not be allowed any male only locations.
Not only must the "will" to change exist, but also the money. The latter is in very short supply for education.
I read how feminist tactics cause boys to fail but some boys are still doing well so Feminist teachers are trying to find ways to make them fail too. Its feminism that's damaging boys education and i also read that nothing is done about it due to feminist bullying.
When I was in elementary school I was offered a gifted and talented program. I refused as it clearly was just additional busy work designed to keep smart students out of a teacher's hair. I already hate school work. Why would I volunteer to do more?
I've recently had a series of interviews with a psychologist courtesy of a government department needing to spend money. It was quite interesting. I'm in my late sixties and, apparently, have something akin to ADHD and probably would have been drugged if I'd been at school in the past two decades. My Mensa outcome at age twenty one was over 170. Psychologist was not surprised I'd spent my secondary school years arguing constantly with teachers.
Men have not been struggling in modern times. What we have all seen is the effect of gender descrimination. Men are being descriminateg against by women from birth until death. Men were never the ones inclined to do so. Women have a consistent habit of protecting their behaviors onto men.
Women were discriminated in education and careers until sometime in the 1970's. Even after that it took decades for the older males to leave the fields and the discrimination to ebb. However, since the 1970's, women have begun to leave men behind in career and academics except for a few career field for the apex males.
This is not my experience. I was in public schools in the 1950's and 60's and the schools were decidedly gynocentric. Nearly all of the teachers in elem schools were female and the staff also. Girls were allowed to "go first" in just about every possible area. The teachers were biased towards the girls and their behaviors and were much less likely to be pro boy. Can you give some evidence for this claim? What sorts of discrimination are you referring to?
You mean we went from not prioritizing women in school to outright gender descrimination against boys. That is what really happened. Men are the vast majority of intelligent humans and the current gate/gifted student programs reveal the extens at which boys are pushed down by tyrannical teachers.
God bless you brother! FACT: 78% of teachers are w0e-MEN. Interestingly the bible forbids w0e-MEN to be teachers for MEN. God tells us that w0e-MEN are more sinful than MEN and therefore are NOT qualified to be teachers. Timothy 2:12
Actually many of the African indigenous groups forbid males from helping females in their grief and prohibit females form helping males. What do they know that we don't?
I believe in gender segregation but NOT just for w0e-MEN'S sports. BOYS spaces should be just as off limits to girls or w0e-MEN, unfortunately BOYS are not allowed to have all MALE spaces. The agenda to prop up w0e-MEN requires infiltration into MALE spaces like Rush Limbaugh's golf club. Even the resistance against ALL MALE schools is mostly from w0e-MEN because that disrupts their game plan which hinges on sexual distraction, which is deliberately allowed to give girls leverage.
No one ever looks clever by intentionally misunderstanding something. The question is why do conservative believe that the white/black achievement gap is due to genetic (or possibly black culture) whereas the male/female achievement gap is due to the mean old girls discriminating against males.
In addition, the largest gender gap is between black females and black males whereas the Asian-American achievement gap is smaller than the non-Hispanic white gap but the gap still exists.
When women are the majority of college students, law school students, medical school students, vet school students, there is no data to support the idea that the vast majority of intelligent humans are male. Sexism is never a good look.
BULLSHIT. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that education makes w0e-MEN insufferable feminist loons, much like sending an arsonist to fire prevention class. Education does nothing for w0e-MEN except enabling them to better articulate their irrationality. "A little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous. I would submit that educated w0e-MEN are the most evil & irrational.
Schools would never know if they are missing the brightest boys. Doing away with advanced classes and routinely punishing boys for not being more like girls has effectively stifled most already.
I think you are on to something here. Schools are indeed designed for the average GIRL...not the average student. I see the effect of IQ in my classes particularly those designed for elementary education teachers. These courses typically attract at 12:1 female to male ratio. Interestingly, however, the truly exception students tend to have a ratio of about 1:3 female to male. Ironically, these extremely qualified MALE elementary teachers almost never get hired, however, because the hiring committees in these schools are all female or female dominated and they are hostile to highly qualified MALE teachers coming in. I have even had multiple male students questioned in interviews why a MAN would want to teach elementary school with accusations of being a pedophile actually enunciated! One of these male students who did eventually succeed fits the description of the distracted ADHD highly intelligent "troublesome" student that you point out as gifted but missed because he did not present as a bright girl might.
w0e-MEN have smaller brains. Academia is not a barometer for intelligence. Consciousness is. MEN have a higher conscious than w0e-MEN, most simply chose to not develop it.
It is also stated that girls grow up earlier than boys, thus explaining that girls are considered more adult, i.e., better capable of learning in school environment compared to boys of the same age.
(Especially female) Teachers telling me so often went silent when I pointed out a similarity that can be seen throughout the fauna: the more intelligent animals are, the longer their adolescence is.
I therefore wonder whether there is not only a flatter Gaussian curve, but also a higher average IQ at least in grown up men in comparison to women. Advantages in force and in height are easy to see. Isn't it reasonable that (on average) later full development also implies higher outcomes in IQ for men? And wouldn't that explain some male-dominated fields, from MENSA membership via successful founding of firms to winning Nobel and other prizes?
Wow, interesting question!
The male brain and the female brain operate on a male brain spectrum and a female brain spectrum. Brain-sex difference has been muffled in contemporary education and by some advocates for boys and men for a number of reasons: (a) fearful of a type of backlash (b) lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic (c) a belief that sociology matters more than biology or that biology is a much lesser factor. There are other reasons too.
Brain-sex difference matters. Educating boys and girls requires nurturing the nature, the idea that school curriculums need to understand the male brain and the female brain first and then create a curriculum that works for our sons and daughters.
Education majors too often do not learn what is actually happening inside the brain during learning, for instance; how is the pre-frontal cortex stimulated? Why do boys zone-out sooner than girls?--which of course, leads to impulse control and trouble in the classroom
In the aggregate, girls show greater frontal lobe activity, this is where executive function happens. There are also hormonal factors that impact the ability for the girls to sit a little longer when it comes to passive learning. Boys often need to move and increase blood flow to the limbic system of the brain to then stimulate frontal lobe action.
Boys don't zone out because they are less mature. That excuse is a copout. They zone out because their brain needs different stimuli. The argument around development is more complex than simply saying they mature later. This argument allows socialization advocates to ignore biological realities.
Essentially, we are not stimulating the brains of our boys and our girls in ways that promote curiosity and learning because we ignore real differences that truly matter.
Sean Kullman, coauthor--Boys, A Rescue Plan
Thanks Sean. Appreciate the good info. For those of you who don't know Sean you can find his substack here https://www.inhiswords.us/ and his book here https://amzn.to/45qj0Pq
As the questions go, what part of the brain chemistry of males keeps them from turning in their homework.
Boys often do homework and forget to hand it in, leaving it stuffed in a backpack. I noticed it a number of times in my career. They're a curious bunch and tend to focus on other things once they enter the classroom--like a ball moving through space they follow change of direction. It's also important to distinguish skill acquisition from homework. Many assignments tend to be busy work and do nothing to note competency. Boys want to please their teachers. When they forgot their homework with me, I made them come after school and finish it. Do that a couple of times and they stop forgetting. The goal is not to always impose your will. The goal is to teach them skills. The modern classroom is about lots of busy work. Maybe they are really good at separating the wheat from the chaff.
I always find it strange when a teacher claims that schools are bad at their job and thus implies that anyone can learn calculus, physics, Latin, etc on their own due to natural talent.
And claiming that one can force a student to stay after school implies a private school and thus, the old sayings: the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not at all. Why would you think kids don’t stay after school in public school? That line of reasoning is a type of logical fallacy, arguing from ignorance or a bare assertion fallacy,.And why would you think that teachers claim schools are bad at their job and thus everyone can learn calculus, Latin, etc…?
How does one correlate those two assertions?
The aphorism is cute but it asserts the earlier claims are true.
The greater point is that schools need different approaches, ones that understand the community it serves and have proven successful.
Because making a student stay after schools changes how that student gets home. And that would affect students from poorer families and students from single parent households more than affluent students.
As Tim Carney was pointing out in his latest book, taking time off from work for one's children is a sign of affluence.
And if one claims that most school work is busy work, then one is claiming that one can master subjects without doing homework or studying. And odd opinion for a supposed former teacher.
I think this argument rests on a false premise, that "most school work is busy work." Most schoolwork should be about concept acquisition. It also presupposes that the way home is an arduous journey. The arguments you propose, Robert, are a lowering of expectation that is the very reason poorer students struggle. Weak arguments. Try reading some Thomas Sowell.
Here in NSW, Australia they changed the entrance test for gifted and talented programmes in order to favour girls. See:
https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/about-us/strategies-and-reports/media/documents/Review-of-Selective-Education-Access.pdf and
https://education.nsw.gov.au/schooling/parents-and-carers/choosing-a-school-setting/selective-high-schools/fair-access
“Problem” solved.
PS: Excellent article Tom.
Wow! I hadn't seen this., They come right out and say it
Action 10: Closing the gender gap in the selection system
There are more boys than girls in NSW selective
education. After accounting for the slightly higher
proportion of boys in public education (51% boys,
49% girls), a gender gap is evident throughout
the selection system: fewer girls apply, fewer are
successful in receiving an offer from their first preference school, and fewer girls accept an offered place.
Amazing. Thanks for this Tony a real eye opener.
Larry Summers was excoriated - near excommunicated - when he pointed out the variability in male vs. female IQ twenty or more years ago. He's an a*hole, but he was not wrong. The challenge I see is twofold. First, a super-high IQ requires more than a "gifted" program, since those boys and girls are like hot house plants. Often they are super-sensitive and may not adjust easily to routine activities - same as those who struggle. So we should create more flexibility in classrooms and curricula to accommodate all types of learners. Averaging down to the lowest common denominator is a horrible outcome.
The second challenge is the elephant in the room: skyrocketing rates of autism in children, especially boys. If their brains are more finely tuned, and being damaged at an accelerating rate, that might explain the absence of boys among the gifted-talented. Until we get to the bottom of - and address - the autism tragedy, boys are almost certainly being shortchanged.
The issue is that after decades of women being discriminated against in higher education, Summers points out that there are not a lot of elderly female math geniuses.
And Autism is not skyrocketing outside of the minds of plaintiffs attorneys who want to sue people.
It is hard to believe that this level of retardation is subscribe to Tom Golden substack. Go read woke retards and you wont need to use even 1 brain cell and could clap like seals.
w0e-MEN were NEVER discriminated against in education. That's like saying w0e-MEN were discriminated against in sports. FACT is most w0e-MEN don't even want to play sports as most w0e-MEN didn't prioritize education over family. Just as the very few hermaphroditic butch looking tom boys who do play sports are to this day being subsidized by MALE sports money which is taken from MALE athletes and given to w0e-MEN. Add to that w0e-MEN invaded BOYS SPORTS 1rst because there weren't even enough butch looking tom boys who even wanted to play in the first place. As for autism being mostly a boy's problem, this can be traced to domineering mothers, in fact I believe Aspergers is due to abusive domineering Jewish mothers and the case can be made that autism in general is caused by domineering mothers. Like mothers who put their sons in dresses, no one considers that w0e-MEN are the main abusers of BOYS.
Congress just released a report that out of the roughly 360 schools that play Division I men's and women's basketball, 325 of them have to use student service fees, tuition dollars and other forms of institutional support to make up for the loses of the Athletic Department. The argument that men's sports revenue is keeping women's sports alive is laughably wrong and shows that one needs to do a lot more reading.
And if dominating mothers caused Autism (it does not), then Korean-American, Desi, and Chinese-American young men would have the highest rates (they do not). Try harder instead of depending on 50 year old tropes and memes.
Was this a congressional report or one from the GAO? There is a difference, right?
Please do reference the part that supports your conclusion.
How does pointing out that is is a GAO report change any of the conclusions. No one ever looks clever by being a nitpicker.
And considering the report does not mention women's sports separate, there is no basis to claim that women's sports in the reason for most athletic programs needing outside support.
Try again. "The most prominent w0e-MEN'S sports league directly subsidized by a MEN'S league is the WNBA which receives financial backing from the NBA" This structural financial relationship between MEN'S & w0e-MEN'S athletics exists at both the professional & collegiate levels" "The NBA subsidizes the WNBA with 15 million to 40 million annually. "At the university level funding operates as an interconnected ecosystem heavily reliant on MEN'S SPORTS" "Cross subsidization via title IX. "Because most w0e-MEN'S colligate programs do not generate enough revenue to cover their operational costs they are funded directly by the surplus profits generated by MEN'S football & basketball programs" This subsidy keeps "Nearly ALL w0e-MEN'S collegiate athletic programs operational"
Women had little interest in participating in sports until there was a bit of money to be made.
"The End of Average" by Todd Rose is an interesting book. He starts with a rapid increase in USAF crashes in the early 1950s. The cockpits had been designed for the "average" pilot. The problem was that none of the pilots had more than 1 or 2 measurements that were "average". Going back to the drawing board the USAF redesigned cockpits to be more adjustable to allow a range of human measurements. (My father talked, in the 1970's, about the problems of designing military truck driver interiors to fit the 5th percentile female in basic uniform as well as the 95 percentile male in Arctic gear.)
There is a chapter devoted to education. In the 1920s Ford realised that they, and other automotive manufacturers, needed a work force educated to understand written instructions, work with numbers, and keep tally of parts. Education literally became a production line to churn out those workers. Obviously they modelled the schooling around the "average" child. While there have been attempts to change schooling (open concept class rooms, "no child left behind") the basic production line model remains. Changes to accommodate those who are not average (well above and well below) are very expensive.
Perhaps the easiest and most simple method is have separate boys and girls schools. That, of course, will open a very large "can of worms" as males must not be allowed any male only locations.
Not only must the "will" to change exist, but also the money. The latter is in very short supply for education.
I read how feminist tactics cause boys to fail but some boys are still doing well so Feminist teachers are trying to find ways to make them fail too. Its feminism that's damaging boys education and i also read that nothing is done about it due to feminist bullying.
When I was in elementary school I was offered a gifted and talented program. I refused as it clearly was just additional busy work designed to keep smart students out of a teacher's hair. I already hate school work. Why would I volunteer to do more?
I've recently had a series of interviews with a psychologist courtesy of a government department needing to spend money. It was quite interesting. I'm in my late sixties and, apparently, have something akin to ADHD and probably would have been drugged if I'd been at school in the past two decades. My Mensa outcome at age twenty one was over 170. Psychologist was not surprised I'd spent my secondary school years arguing constantly with teachers.
You raise a fertile issue for research and discussion.
Men have not been struggling in modern times. What we have all seen is the effect of gender descrimination. Men are being descriminateg against by women from birth until death. Men were never the ones inclined to do so. Women have a consistent habit of protecting their behaviors onto men.
Women were discriminated in education and careers until sometime in the 1970's. Even after that it took decades for the older males to leave the fields and the discrimination to ebb. However, since the 1970's, women have begun to leave men behind in career and academics except for a few career field for the apex males.
This is not my experience. I was in public schools in the 1950's and 60's and the schools were decidedly gynocentric. Nearly all of the teachers in elem schools were female and the staff also. Girls were allowed to "go first" in just about every possible area. The teachers were biased towards the girls and their behaviors and were much less likely to be pro boy. Can you give some evidence for this claim? What sorts of discrimination are you referring to?
Harvard did not admit women until 1977. The military academies started in 1976.
You mean we went from not prioritizing women in school to outright gender descrimination against boys. That is what really happened. Men are the vast majority of intelligent humans and the current gate/gifted student programs reveal the extens at which boys are pushed down by tyrannical teachers.
God bless you brother! FACT: 78% of teachers are w0e-MEN. Interestingly the bible forbids w0e-MEN to be teachers for MEN. God tells us that w0e-MEN are more sinful than MEN and therefore are NOT qualified to be teachers. Timothy 2:12
Actually many of the African indigenous groups forbid males from helping females in their grief and prohibit females form helping males. What do they know that we don't?
I believe in gender segregation but NOT just for w0e-MEN'S sports. BOYS spaces should be just as off limits to girls or w0e-MEN, unfortunately BOYS are not allowed to have all MALE spaces. The agenda to prop up w0e-MEN requires infiltration into MALE spaces like Rush Limbaugh's golf club. Even the resistance against ALL MALE schools is mostly from w0e-MEN because that disrupts their game plan which hinges on sexual distraction, which is deliberately allowed to give girls leverage.
It has become clear that boys must be protected from adult women. The largest group of abusers of all.
Given the cultural and economic state of sub-Saharan African, we have nothing to learn from them.
No one ever looks clever by intentionally misunderstanding something. The question is why do conservative believe that the white/black achievement gap is due to genetic (or possibly black culture) whereas the male/female achievement gap is due to the mean old girls discriminating against males.
In addition, the largest gender gap is between black females and black males whereas the Asian-American achievement gap is smaller than the non-Hispanic white gap but the gap still exists.
When women are the majority of college students, law school students, medical school students, vet school students, there is no data to support the idea that the vast majority of intelligent humans are male. Sexism is never a good look.
BULLSHIT. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that education makes w0e-MEN insufferable feminist loons, much like sending an arsonist to fire prevention class. Education does nothing for w0e-MEN except enabling them to better articulate their irrationality. "A little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is dangerous. I would submit that educated w0e-MEN are the most evil & irrational.
One might want to link to such evidence.
and another good point. Just wandering that if we became real science society feminism will be remembered as "worse" than nazis?
I understand now why I didn't do well at school! Have you an article that explains why I didnt do well in life either? 😀😃🙂
What would that article look like???
Excellent article. Thank you Tom.
Regards, David Maywald
I wanted my brilliant son to have the best education in a great setting, so I sent him to an all-boys school.
Schools would never know if they are missing the brightest boys. Doing away with advanced classes and routinely punishing boys for not being more like girls has effectively stifled most already.