Feminist legislation and dogma, for the past 50 years, has created an educational system which has destroyed the male culture, defamed men in general and in particular, and emasculated the American male.
" Women now receive almost 58 percent of bachelor's degrees. This is why many colleges admit men with qualifications inferior to those of women applicants-which is one reason men have higher dropout rates. In law, medical, and doctoral programs, women are the majorities;or, if the trend continue, will be." 1.
As stated before in the chapter on Government and Feminism: "Through laws,customs, and feminist dogma, if a male demonstrates any of these (male) virtues, American women can and will destroy him by lying about abuse, rape, verbal haranguing, anything; and, he can be arrested, prosecuted, and maliciously convicted of a crime. This is the case even if she has a historical pattern of lying because the "system" does not want to take any chances." 2.
The educational environment has become very hostile towards men, especially men who exhibit the traditional male virtues.
That assertion seems somewhat preposterous doesn't it? However, in light of the straightforward feminist dogma asserting that men should be feminized concomitant with the the "Cultural Marxist" means and ends associated with feminism, this assertion is based upon fact and practice within the social, cultural, political, legal, and economic framework of the USA and other nations. Women, through other laws, customs, and feminist dogma have the means and motive to discriminate against men in the educational system who exhibit the male virtues.
The result of the aforementioned, is that women, in the educational workforce, tend to only tolerate weak, base, effeminate, and feminist men in the same. There is an achievement gap between boys and girls at all levels of the education system as well as a lack of male role models available in the education system.
A proposed White House Council on Boys and Men (http://whitehouseboysmen.org/blog)(a counterpart to the existing council on women), would address the growing gap in high school graduation, college graduation and advanced degree achievement in the US education system where the number of boys obtaining a complete education has steadily declined since 1981. 3.
" But Patai goes much further in her critique of women's studies, arguing that women's studies is not an academic discipline at all but the academic arm of an political movement- what we, once again, call a respectably academic from for ideological feminism. Not surprisingly, many reviewers in women's studies have attacked her. In responding to them, she has been required to repeat her initial premise over and over again. 'Women's studies is quite explicitly feminism in action in an academic setting--- [Courses are far too often... not about women's contributions but about women's victimization---These issues typically are not presented as problems to be studied from many points of view but rather as problems to be exposed by feminist ideology.] The bottom line to me is that far too often women's studies classrooms convey attitudes to be endorsed by the students rather than substantive knowledge. " 4.
The following is a long partial quote from Robert H. Bork's book , " Slouching Towards Gomorrah " : Radical Feminism vs. Education
"There are now more than 600 undergraduate and several dozen graduate programs in Women's Studies in American colleges and universities. At first sight that might seem odd since so much of feminism is utterly inconsistent with intellectual seriousness. In many universities today, however, intellectual integrity comes in a distant second to political correctness. It is thus only an apparent paradox that institutions which, because of their professed devotion to reason and knowledge, should be feminism's sworn enemies are instead the centers of its power.
There are also, of course, programs in African-American Studies, Hispanic Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, and more. Nothing could make clearer the politicization of higher education. These so-called disciplines vie with one another in claiming victimhood, but feminism is by far the strongest and most imperialistic, its influence suffusing the most traditional academic departments and university administrations. Feminists are revising and radicalizing textbooks and curricula in the humanities and the social sciences. They have a major say in faculty recruitment. Feminists increasingly control what is taught in high schools and elementary schools as well. Speech codes and "sensitivity" training severely limit what can be said on campus. The feminists have not only done harm to the intellectual function of universities and schools, they have made campuses extremely unpleasant, especially for white males, who are subject to harassment and demands that they toe the feminist cultural and political line.
The incongruity of feminism as an academic subject is heightened by another development. Though most feminists reject the idea of differences between men and women, more recently a coterie has appeared that insists upon, and celebrates just such difference. These women claim that rationality, sometimes called "linear thinking," is a coercive tool of the oppressive patriarchy. That may be because they have noticed that evidence and logic are running heavily against the no-difference position. It is necessary, therefore, to identify evidence and logic with the enemy and to exalt intuitive and emotional "women's ways of knowing." These "difference feminists" claim to perceive all of reality through the "sex/gender lens." Judging from their reports of what they see, that must be like peering at the world through the thick glass of a bottle bottom.
Thus, we now have what Patai and Koertge call "TOTAL REJ (total rejection) feminists" whose creed is that "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend. If acceptance of logic and standards of evidentiary proof are causing radical feminists to lose arguments, it is clear that they must be discarded if the feminist enterprise is not to be abandoned. But if logic and evidence are jettisoned, it follows that all of the disciplines built up on logic and evidence cannot remain intact. In the place of these oppressive disciplines and values there are to be constructed feminist alternative versions. Nobody seems to have the faintest idea, for example, what a feminist physics would look like, but the total rejectionists are sure one is out there somewhere. It seems to be assumed that a feminist physics, though different, would work as well as the version we now have. Feminist rocket scientists, apparently, could place satellites in orbit without using any of the laws of motion that are now employed. Needless to say, there is so far not a single axiom or proposition of feminist science that explains or predicts anything or is capable of being tested empirically. When that unhappy fact is brought to a feminist's attention, the reply is often that the patriarchy has had over 3,000 years to build its mathematics, logic, and science whereas women have just started. Thus, the absence of anything but oratory about the wrong-headedness of science as it is must not be viewed as an embarrassment. But there is no shortage of oratory. Anne Wilson Schaef, for example, denounces what she calls the "White Male System" (WMS) of rationality. Schaef says this system consists of four myths. First, the WMS is the only system that exists. Second, the WMS is innately superior. Third, the WMS knows and understands everything. Fourth, the WMS believes that it is possible to be totally logical, rational, and objective. To be sure, no one with any sense has ever claimed anything like all this. The virtue of the scientific method is precisely that mistakes made are corrected by others and that one investigator's results must be replicable by others in order to be accepted. The people involved do not think they are totally logical, rational, and objective. They know that no human is. Radical feminist inanities about science, rationality, linear thinking, etc., rest on the allegation that knowledge and modes of reasoning are socially constructed; that is, that there are no objective truths and no single valid method of reasoning. That is a very convenient position for someone making irrational assertions. It would be rather difficult to hold an intelligent, or even an intelligible, discussion with someone holding that position, and it would be impossible to win an argument with her. That, of course, is the point of the exercise. Take women's studies themselves. On the evidence proffered by Sommers, Patai and Koertge, and others, women's studies programs and courses are abysmal swamps of irrational dogma and hatred. The feminist classroom is an arena for emotions rather than intellect or analysis. Agreement with the ideology is mandatory. A feminist professor can have enormous influence with immature young women in a forum where there are no intellectual constraints. In such a classroom emotion and opinion rule. The students are expected to recount personal experiences of suffering and oppression. Since feminists insist that the oppression of women by men is universal and unrelenting, a failure to have instances ready at hand for recitation is taken as insufficient understanding of the subject. The students are at an age when, male or female, they are uncertain about life, susceptible to absolutisms, and easy to persuade that they are being treated badly. The result is that young women pour out their emotions in uncontrolled fashion. It is dangerous to inflame young women's capacities for anger and self-pity; severe emotional harm can be done. In some classes, the woman may state in advance that she does not want any of her testimony repeated outside the classroom and the others agree to honor that request. No respectable academic discipline would keep classroom discussions secret. Feminist bias in scholarship seems indomitable. The sociologist Steven Goldberg states that on numerous occasions Margaret Mead denied in writing that her research disproved the existence of sex differences. Indeed, in reviewing Goldberg's book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, Mead wrote: "It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.... Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." But when Goldberg examined introductory sociology books, he found that thirty-six of thirty-eight began their sex-roles chapters with a discussion of Mead's work as demonstrating the environmental nature of male and female behavior. These books misrepresented Mead because "[t]hey, like the discipline whose work they represent, have an ideological commitment to denying that masculine and feminine behaviors and emotions are rooted in male and female physiologies and that all social systems conform to the limits imposed by this reality. "Feminists are transforming mainstream college curricula, they claim, in order to "make knowledge broader," but also to fight against prejudice. "There is," said a professor attending a National Women's Studies Association conference, "a correlation between groups excluded from the curriculum and hate violence aimed at groups." She said most "inclusion" work has focused on blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and American Indians. But in order to "fight the hatreds and 'isms' in the world, we have to include education about more groups than those four." Other groups whose achievements should be taught, she said, include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals, and issues of social class and disability should be included. "Some argue that there are different cultures of disability, like deaf culture. "Students subjected to propaganda in the name of history will graduate with no clear comprehension of what took place and what was important. Students whose instruction is in fighting "isms" and giving recognition to different sexual groups and cultures of disability are unlikely to graduate with any knowledge that would qualify them for positions other than as sensitivity counselors. As part of their campaign to convert higher education into a propaganda tool, feminists are deforming literary studies by seeking to discover classical allusions to feminism. George Will recorded a few of the choicer items: Shakespeare's "Tempest" reflects the imperialistic rape of the Third World. Emily Dickinson's poetic references to peas and flower buds are encoded messages of feminist rage, exulting clitoral masturbation to protest the prison of patriarchal sex roles. Jane Austen's supposed serenity masks boiling fury about male domination, expressed in the nastiness of minor characters who are "really" not minor. In "Wuthering Heights," Emily Bronte, a subtle subversive, has Catherine bitten by a male bull-dog. Melville's white whale? Probably a penis. Grab a harpoon. Radical feminists, then, are contributing more than their share to the dumbing of America. And not just America. Oxford University Press has announced Ideologies of Desire, "a startling new series in the cultural study of sex, gender, sexuality and power: redefining the meaning of erotics and politics!" The Press informs us that sex is not a matter of physiology but of culture. "The aim of the series is to illuminate both the play of desire in the workings of ideology and the play of ideological forces in the formation of sexual experiences - and, ultimately, to map more precisely the available avenues of cultural resistance to the contemporary institutional and discursive regulation of sex." That the object of these courses is to indoctrinate students with an all-inclusive condemnation of American or Western culture is shown by the frequent expansion of the feminist accusation from the victimization of females to a charge of general oppression. One feminist professor argues, "All students suffer when the more volatile issues central to feminist analysis ... [such as] racism, poverty, incest and rape, battering, lesbianism, and reproductive freedom ... are dropped from a woman's studies course." It seems odd at first glance, given this wide-ranging list of complaints, that the programs are not changed from women's studies to oppression studies. Perhaps it is not so odd, however. If faculty representing all of the oppressed were brought in, feminists might lose control of the curriculum and the funds. Yet it is in keeping with feminism's revolutionary neo-Marxism that the movement attacks bourgeois culture on many fronts.As one might suspect from their hostility to men, marriage, and family, radical feminists are very much in favor of lesbianism. This involves more than the demand that lesbianism be accepted by society as just another "lifestyle." They want not only lawful lesbian marriages but "reproductive rights" for lesbians. That means the right to bear children through artificial insemination and the right to adopt one's lesbian partner's child. Since sperm is sold freely in the United States, much more freely than in other nations, there are lesbian couples raising children. It takes little imagination to know how the children will be indoctrinated.In its effort to transform the curriculum. A National Women's Studies Association conference, attended by about 700 administrators, teachers, and students, gave major consideration to including lesbian issues in feminist programs. The Lesbian Caucus was one of the largest contingents at the conference. Among the Presentations were "Teaching Queer: Incorporating Gay and Lesbian Perspectives Into Introductory Courses"; "War on Lesbians"; "Lesbian Perspectives on/in Literature"; "Lesbian Theory in Poetry"; and "Dykeotomy." Not surprisingly, there is in women's studies programs a good deal of proselytizing for lesbianism. At the University of Washington, a women's studies instructor showed the class how to masturbate, stating that "the preferable tool is a tongue, a woman's tongue." The objectives of radical feminists are not confined to the recruitment of converts through women's studies programs alone. Their aims are imperialistic. The feminist influence has spread to other departments and graduate schools. It is most visible to outsiders in the process of faculty recruitment, where preference is given to women and minorities. A young man I know went to the American Association of Law Schools convention in Washington, the traditional market for those desiring teaching jobs. He entered the hotel and passed a room marked "Women's Hospitality Room." Through the open door he saw young women having Danishes and coffee and chatting amicably with one another. Next he came to the "Minorities Hospitality Room," and observed the same activities. He walked on and discovered that there was no hospitality room he could enter. He and the other white males stood around the lobby until the interviewing began. The same young man, possessed of splendid records at both Harvard College and Law School, and a clerk to a court of appeals judge and to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the sort of credentials law schools used to hunger for in their teaching applicants, applied for a position at the law school of the University of Texas. He was, however, in competition with a Mexican-American lesbian who had graduated well below the middle of her law school class. She got the job. A memorandum from a member of the appointments committee explained to the faculty that she should be hired because "She does appeal to three constituent groups." The point is not merely that white males are being subjected to sexual and racial discrimination in higher education, though that is certainly an outrage. The point is also that faculties are lowering their standards in hiring in order to be politically correct. That necessarily lowers the quality of education they offer their students and the standards of scholarly publication. A friend of mine, a law school professor, resigned from his schools appointments committee because the conversations he had with applicants likely to be hired were inferior in intellectual content to the conversations he had with his students. Radical feminist insistence upon seeing slights, harassment, and male victimization of women everywhere has made campuses, workplaces, and society less comfortable places. The eagerness of radical feminists to see insult in every male action, coupled (if one dare use that word) with the spinelessness of the supposedly oppressive patriarchy, has led to so much discomfort and loss of freedom. Some of women's complaints are merely funny, though they do reveal a mindset: A young woman at the University of Pennsylvania who wore a short skirt complained of a "mini-rape" because a young man walked past her and said, "Nice legs." At the University of Maryland, some female students posted the names of male students selected at random, young men about whom they knew nothing, under the heading "Potential Rapists." The message was that all men are potential rapists, though the men actually named probably did not find much comfort in that. Far more serious are the accusations of actual rape when nothing of the sort occurred. A female student came to a male student's quarters with her toothbrush, planning to stay the night. The next morning she was seen having a peaceable breakfast with the man. Later she charged him with rape; and, he was briefly held in jail. Accusations of date rape are flung freely by women who consented and later changed their minds about what they did. Universities have capitulated by creating rape-prevention and sexual harassment workshops that offer virulently anti-male propaganda. It is little wonder that young men are uncertain about themselves and their relationship with women and, perhaps for self-protection, perhaps because they have been brainwashed, tend usually to take the women's side of issues. Male faculty also feel the lash of feminist anger. The use of "insensitive" language in the classroom often results in formal complaints being filed, followed by a hearing notable for its lack of the rudiments of due process, and then suspension or a requirement of submitting to sensitivity training. Required sensitivity training is a humiliating experience, whether it is imposed by a university or, as is increasingly frequent, by a corporation. (Corporations are heavily into diversity training, apparently in part because federal regulators pressure them.) Nor is it usually possible for the professor or employee to retain his dignity by refusing to accept such coercion. That would bring dismissal, after which no other employment is likely to be available other universities or businesses will be reluctant to hire someone found guilty of insensitivity to women. The feminists at the new organization will be alerted and will object to the man's employment. Who would want to hire the possibility, indeed the certainty, of more trouble with feminists? Sensitivity training is often required even of people who have not displayed "insensitivity." Cornell's training session for resident advisers featured an X-rated homosexual movie. Pictures were taken of the advisers' reactions to detect homophobic squeamishness. Thus, entering freshmen in colleges are increasingly subjected to sessions indoctrinating them in the correct attitudes not only to women but to homosexuals and members of minority groups. The object is thought control. As a reader of Measure (a publication of the University Center for Rational Alternatives, an organization dedicated to preserving the traditional virtues of scholarship and teaching in universities) said of compulsory training dictated by the Department of Education: "[It] is not enough for citizens to obey the law, they must be reeducated to love Big Brother." Often feminist complaints seem to reflect less a feeling of real outrage than a desire to provoke a confrontation and to intimidate. Radical feminists today, like the radical students of the Sixties, have discovered that they have the power to make the Establishment cringe and back down, and so their demands escalate. At Penn State University, a female English professor had to move her class into the arts building because of lack of space elsewhere. Hanging in the classroom were five museum reproductions: Goya's "The Naked Maja" a depiction of the crucifixion, a Madonna and child, the portrait of a youth, and a pastoral scene. Some male students snickered at the nude. Instead of ignoring them, telling them to grow up, or taking the picture down, the professor formally demanded that the administration remove it, thus forcing the school to take an official position. After lengthy negotiations which included considering the suggestion of a "diversity expert" to hang a painting of a nude male, the administration removed the picture. A spokeswoman for the Womyn's Concerns Committee said that "these older paintings served as a type of pornography - Playboy wasn't around back then." She added: "I don't think our society is capable of dealing with paintings such as these." Society had dealt comfortably with Goya's masterpiece for well over a century, until a feminist chose to make a major issue of it. Not the least of the feminists' sins is their mangling of the language. "Womyn" or "wimmin" for "women," just to avoid the hated letters M-E-N, is an atrocity. But it is not much better to go to a restaurant and be informed that your "waitperson" will be with you shortly. So ideologically crazed are some feminist academics that their seminars are now called "ovulars." So alienating are the messages of the women's studies programs that Professor Sommers writes that she would like to see some of the more extreme institutions (e.g., Wellesley College, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Mills, and the University of Minnesota) put warning labels on the first page of their bulletins: We will help your daughter discover the extent to which she has been in complicity with the patriarchy. We will encourage her to reconstruct herself through dialogue with us. She may become enraged and chronically offended. She will very likely reject the religious and moral codes you raised her with. She may well distance herself from family and friends. She may change her appearance, and even her sexual orientation. She may end up hating you (her father) and pitying you (her mother). After she has completed her reeducation with us, you will certainly be out tens of thousands of dollars and very possibly be out one daughter as well. To that warning label Sommers might have added "You are also likely to have a badly educated daughter." The young women who are lured into women's studies should be spared what they obtain there: total immersion in a false world view coupled to a fourth-rate education. While other students are studying history, mathematics, science, languages, and similarly useful disciplines, those in women's studies programs are working on acquiring belligerent attitudes and misinformation. Instead of preparing students for the world, the programs impose severe handicaps upon them. Robert Nisbet offers the "affecting story" of a young woman who majored at her university in eco-feminism, and graduated with honors. She went to Washington, D.C., a city richly endowed with lobbies for ecology and feminism. Because of her dual degree, she assumed that a well-paying job would be waiting. "But even ecological and feminist lobbies require people who can read, write, count, and in general ratiocinate; she thus became one of the large number of genteel unemployables." When later in life the products of radical feminist education fail to achieve as they had hoped, they will undoubtedly blame the patriarchal system by which, they have been taught, they and all other women are oppressed. In compensation for providing poor educations, then, the women's studies programs offer their victims a ready-made, all-purpose alibi. They, and we, will be paying the price for years to come." 5.
" In response to a question about whom she would consider fit to teach women's studies, Patai notes that this field: ' was created to be the "academic arm of the women's movement," and this phrase is still repeated again and again in the mission statements of various programs. I don't believe it's appropriate for a secular university to have a program committed to a particular ideology. To the extent that women's studies is feminism [as distinct from being about feminism], it is, in my view, academically illegitimate. The study of women, our history, gender roles, etc., on the other hand, are all entirely legitimate and important subjects. Once can be a feminist, as I am, and not a supporter of women's studies or of feminist activism [specifically] in education. ' " 6.
Continuation of the Feminist Attack on the Scientific Method Some of the following are quotes which demonstrate and provide examples of how feminism is attacking the scientific method: " Most of those who attack science know little or nothing about it. Nonetheless, postmodernists now question either the existence of objective reality or the ability of anyone to see it, This present a very attractive opportunity for some advocates of women or other "subaltern" groups being oppressed by the lingering academic shades of "dead white males." Why would feminists, in particular, want to undermine the search for objective reality? Some of them do not, of course, because they rely on the search for objective truth to prove their claims about the victimization of women. Others do, though, in order to bypass messy disputes over those claims. If they can show inherent bias against women in research under the established rules, which are based on the possibility of knowing at least something objective about the external world, then they can dismiss politically or ideologically inconvenient complexity and ambiguity without further ado. At the same time, they can fill the void with research based on rules of their own. Not rules that openly foster objectivity, to be sure, but ones that openly foster subjectivity. Once the subjective "voice" of women (or minorities) has been established as a new standard, of course, no dissonant "voices" need to be taken seriously; women can presumably "know" things by virtue of being women and affirming their own subjectivity, things that men cannot know by insisting on the ostensibly universal standard of objectivity." 7.
"Affirmative action did the rest, because the influx of women tended to favor fields in what became a "pink collar ghetto". But how could it have been otherwise? Those already established in academia explicitly and vehemently denied the most fundamental principles of scholarship. None of [Talcott] Parsons's norms are acceptable: logic is a patriarchal device for browbeating nonlinear thinking; since all knowledge is contextual, the search for generality is a form of imperialism; empirical validity must be tempered by moral and political appraisals. Communality of a nonhierarchical sort is acceptable, but the rest of [Robert] Merton's norms must go; a humane community would be based on trust, not skepticism; universalism should be replaced by a standpoint theory, which says that reports are always to be understood as a product of the culture, gender, ethnicity, class of the observer who made them; no activity can be or should be disinterested. Quite the contrary, a commitment to correct political and social goals should be encouraged" 8.
"These strictures make no scientific sense. Nor, adds Koertge, do they make political sense for women and their allies. 'What a pity, if in the name of liberating women, feminists should now encourage women and members of various ethnic groups to stay comfortably within the habits of thought that conform to traditional gender and cultural stereotypes. One of the joys of liberal education in either the arts or sciences is the challenge to learn how to think differently. How patronizing to tell young women that the ways of logic, statistics, and mathematics are not women's ways-that all they need do is stay connected." 9.
"Donna Haraway, for example, describes the "dominant" epistemology-presumably that of men alone- in terms of objectivity, value neutrality, and pure inquiry. She describes feminist epistemology-that of women- as subjective, value laden, and (in effect) purely political. Like good post modernists, she keeps asking questions that begin with "whose." Whose knowledge have we accepted so far? Whose evidence? Whose interpretation? Whose interests are at stake? These, say academics in women's studies, are the most important epistemological (and therefore political) questions that feminists can ask. And the answer is always the same cynical one: that of whatever group has the most power. For ideological feminists, that answer is a euphemistic reference to men (at least white men). -----Objectivity implies universality. If something is objectively true, after all, it must be true for all people. Subjectivity, on the other hand, implies particularity. Something might be true for some people but not for others, say, or true in some circumstances but not others. But feminist ideologues, despite their lip service to postmodernist relativism, identify universality objectively with men and particularity objectively with women. Never mind that this confirms the old misogynistic stereotype of women as irrational beings or that is contradicts the ostensible disdain of women for objectivity." 10.
Further Facts,Quotes, and Arguments with Regard to Feminism's Adverse Affect on the Educational System The following is a partial quote from an article entitled "Discrimination against Boys in Education (and Elsewhere)" by Roger E. Olson:
"People have challenged my claim that boys suffer discrimination in society, but researchers are now confirming it beyond doubt or dispute. Still, educators in particular are not developing programs aimed specifically at boys to help them succeed in an environment geared for girls. One journalist, commenting on a British study about “Gender Expectations and Stereotype Threat” suggests that so much attention has been devoted to girls over the past twenty to thirty years that it’s difficult to make the shift to boys now that girls are surpassing boys at every level of education.
Most recently, Christina Hoff Sommers, a vocal advocate for boys, wrote an opinion column in the New York Times (February 2, 2013) entitled “The Boys at the Back.” (It’s easily found by Googling the title and author’s name.) According to her, a study published this week in the Journal of Human Resources proves that teachers grade girls more leniently and boys more harshly when they achieve exactly the same results on tests. “The study’s authors analyzed data from more than 5,800 students from kindergarten through fifth grade and found that boys across all racial groups and in all major subject areas received lower grades than their test scores would have predicted.” “If the teachers had not accounted for classroom behavior, the boys’ grades, like the girls’, would have matched their test scores.” In other words, in that squishy realm of subjective judgment involved in all grading, teachers punish boys for being boys and reward girls for being girls." 11.
Beginning of Long Quote:
" According to Canadian teacher Brian Simpson, the education system in the West has been taken over by feminists who preach a daily diet of hate, violence and discrimination against males despite pretenses of "tolerance", "non violence", and "inclusiveness." Mr. Simpson also noted that it was common to find girls wearing anti-male clothing with slogans such as "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them" and " I Like Boys Who Are Sensitive and Cry, When I Hit Them." He found it particularly disturbing that this misandrist behavior was encouraged by female teaching staff. Mr. Simpson has been teaching for 20 years as a supply teacher and has taught on over 1000 class rooms across Canada. He also stated stated that he had been in classrooms where videos were shown blaming all date violence on males. No sexual female-to-male violence was mentioned and women were referred to as "men's property." Once the videos had been shown, the girls overflowed anti-male hate sentiments and the boys were afraid to speak on any matter. Since women are responsible for more Domestic Violence, this is particularly disturbing. Brian Simpson also stated that the education system was dominated by female staff and that men were routinely discriminated against for employment with no recourse to authorities. He also found that when he was an education student that being involved in teaching was to be immersed in femininity-wall to wall women, everywhere; the students, the teaching staff and the curriculum. After many other unsettling experiences, including showing children feminist promoted videos that encouraged lesbianism, he decided to voice his concerns. When he did so, he was met with verbal threats and abuse. This is a severe problem all over the Western world; and, boys in education are paying a heavy price for the one sides female perspective from which things are taught. The URL link to Brian Simpson's story is: http://rense.com/general81/vdt.htm.
The female inspired teaching curriculums don't take into account the difference between boys and girls which can often leave boys feeling unwanted, bored and just not interested in school work. In childhood it's also important to have role models, people we can look up to and aim to one be like. As there are so few men in teaching, boys simply don't get the role models they need. Female teachers, who are often quite fearful of natural male behaviors, oppress and punish boys for the ways they naturally behave.
Feminism is particularly prevalent in colleges and universities and may account for more women now attending university than men. Women's studies along with other social sciences are extremely feminist in nature and often drive what few men sign up for these courses, out. Many teachers proudly call themselves feminists and socialists and spread hatred for men and boys in the education system.
Recently there has been a case in the United Kingdom in which a male student is bringing a damages claim against his university Gender Studies department. He was forced to withdraw from his studies due to the persistently anti-male nature of the course. His legal claim is based on the Sex Discrimination law, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation and Misleading Advertising. The university's promotional literature did not warn him of the one sided ant-male learning that would form the bulk of the curriculum. The university's own regulations forbid discriminatory learning materials and practices. Should this student be successful, he could potentially improve the education and treatment of many other young men. (http://www.misandryreview.com/the-rights-of-man/2011/04/27/in-the-name-of-equality-can-you-support-a-law-suit-against-a-london-university/)
"Indeed, my own experience of college was one of discrimination and anti-male hatred. I was subjected to a radical feminist teacher who eventually failed one of my exams by purposely neglecting to mark it and then not passing along my appeal. When I found out what she had done, I took the issue to the Dean and she was reprimanded for discriminating against me. As I was the only male on this particular course, she saw fit to spew lies and hatred about men; and, rarely did a class go by when she did not mention the words "penis" and "castration". But, however bad my own experience was, I certainly am not the only male to come up against this kind of hate preaching in education. There are numerous examples to be found all over North America and Europe.
Arguably, we need to have stricter regulations to prevent women from disadvantaging boys in education. We, also, need to loosen the hold that they have on teaching and encourage more men to seek careers in this area. Most importantly, we must nurture male behaviors like competitiveness and allow boys to express themselves more freely without fear that they may be doing something wrong. All children learn better when we make education fun; and, this is even more true for boys; and, is one way which we can keep them focused on their learning. Colleges and Universities must also employ a higher standard of female teacher and, perhaps, introduce a "men's studies" course, in which young men are encouraged to learn about themselves from the male perspective. Hate preaching is a crime and punishable with a prison sentence so feminists in education must be held accountable for their actions and, also, punished as anyone else would be for preaching hatred. There are a few notable women who are aware of the situation in our education systems but when they try to address the issue, they are met with the same verbal and physical violence as men are. In Christina Hoff Sommer's book, "The War Against Boys", she discusses the myth of short changed girls and exposes the flaws of feminist teaching which are often done with little research or no research at all. She described how boys are " routinely regarded as protosexists , potential harassers and perpetrators of gender inequality, and how they live under a cloud of censure." She also takes note of how women based their feminist theories on distorted research and skewed data. Although I don't always agree with her conclusions and theories, Sommer's book hits the nail on the head by exposing the way boys are disadvantaged in education and how the education system in the United States is not designed for most boys, how their boisterousness is seen as unnatural and the disturbing fact that boys are unnecessarily medicated for their natural behaviors."
Boys are overwhelmingly diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication, but more likely there is nothing wrong with them and we are simply medicating them for being boys. Over all the male gender can be seen as oppressed." 12.
End of Long Quote
The following is a partial quote from "Twenty Four Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men" " 16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men. 17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of 1990, and this figure has declined since then." 13.
The following are quotes from an on line article by Janice Shaw Crouse entitled: "The Crisis of the Disappearing Educated Male",published June 2, 2009, appearing in the on line edition of the Concerned Women for America:
Beginning of Long Quote
" Over the past couple of decades, the male-female ratio on campuses has been changing dramatically. Women outnumber men by a 4-3 ratio on college campuses. Men currently make up only 43 percent of college graduates.In short, many today acknowledge that there is a crisis of the disappearing educated male.-------
According to USA Today, "currently 135 women receive bachelor's degrees for every 100 men." That imbalance, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education, "is expected to widen in the coming years."
The negative implications are enormous. It will be harder for men to succeed, and the loss of educated men in the workplace will be incalculable. We are already seeing huge social gaps between educated women and the uneducated, immature and/or irresponsible men that constitute the marriage prospects available to them. That gap is showing up in the declining marriage rates as well as in the divorce rates. As Christina Hoff Sommers said in her book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men, the fact that "women are significantly more literate, significantly more educated than their male counterparts" is likely to create a "lot of social problems;" the lack of well-educated men does not "bode well" for anyone.
Is it any wonder that men are avoiding today's college campuses? Hostility toward men and masculinity begins in daycare and increases each year thereafter. Sexual harassment training and policies have created an uncertain environment, if not a hostile one, where men have to watch their every word and action lest it be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Some experts criticize a campus "worldview that sees things only in terms of oppressors and the oppressed." Typically, the few campus men's studies programs are designed to push an anti-masculinity agenda.------ Actually, the solution is much simpler: create an environment starting in kindergarten that teaches children to respect masculine traits. To do otherwise is to discriminate against our sons and brothers." 14.
End of Long Quote