Failings of feminism: time for men's liberation

A really interesting blog worth reading:
http://byrdeye.blogspot.com/2008/03/anti-male-agenda-failing-boys-at-school.html

Anyone who has had the (dis)pleasure of talking to me about my feminist views knows that I am angry at what "feminists" have done in the last few decades - some strands of feminism have become dogmas for man-hating and ganging up on men to make them feel guilty for the mistakes of the past and uncertain about how their actions may be "suppressing" or insulting women. These feminists are hell-bent on advancing the causes of women, often at the expense of men, and refuse to back down from the stance that there is a persistent and omnipresent attack on the woman.

Pseudo-feminists have also been busy complaining about under-representation of women in just about any field. But one area we seldom discuss is the obvious under-representation of men in traditionally female jobs or roles: teachers, nurses, maids/cleaning professionals, homemakers. Perhaps this is because such jobs are not viewed as most desirable socially. But the first in this list in particular is of vital importance. While it rests on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, the importance of men in teaching has been empirically demonstrated over and over in the past - there simply might be a better chance for a man to "understand" his younger counterparts than women would. Since teaching, especially at the earlier levels, is far more than just imparting knowledge, but also about the methods for doing so, controlling classroom behavior, and fostering the psychological and mental development during very critical years, having a balanced and varied staff of teachers is critical for students' success, both male and female, white, black, Latino, Asian, tall, short, poor, rich, purple, green.

Let us for a moment compare to the lackadaisical response to the need for more men in teaching (and often the arguments against) to the response to get more women in science. University presidents are skewered and fired for daring to suggest that certain characteristics conducive to success in science at the highest levels might be more common amongst men. Women at all levels are encouraged, even pushed to enter science (has anyone looked yet at the gender ratio now often skewed 2:1 in favor of women, esp. in biology?). Women receive special consideration and special treatment even, flying straight in the face of the very essence of feminism; whatever happened to equal opportunity?

The response for more men in teaching, where the ratio is 4:1 women:men? None to speak of. If anything, men are suspected to be pedophiles if they enjoy working with young children. They aren't expected to be as capable of socially understanding young 'uns.

And as a result, (amongst other factors including crazy, overconfident psychologists, a brutally aggressive pharmaceutical industry, and a simple lack of support for certain boys' needs), we have disruptive behavior from boys in the classroom, and at its worst, an "epidemic" of ADD, ADHD, and autism, almost all found exclusively or at exceedingly higher rates in boys.

The argument that the classroom is feminized is a term that I highly dislike, as I tend to feel about any gendered terminology. The real heart of the matter though, however one looks at it, is still the same: we reward students for certain behaviors, and these behaviors are more typically exemplified by schoolgirls than schoolboys: obedience, diligence, organization, neatness. Boys (and girls of course) who don't fit this model are castigated as "bad students." Separating boys from girls at some more radical schools has been a proposed solution. This also fundamentally assumes that boys and girls inherently require differentially schooling techniques, and while I disagree with it, at least an attempt is being made to address this issue. Something has got to change in the classroom or we will as a doomsday prediction end up with a society with women having the brainpower to rule over everyone and men assigned to jobs with physical labor or paper-pushing in the office at best.