Historical Educational Bias Against Girls?

Boys And Their Toys The boisterous play that was once an accepted feature of boys' behaviour is now ruthlessly curbed by a feminist-inspired thought police. Dylan Evans

Some of the feminist-type comments following the article point out that the educational system used to be biased in favour of the boys and, in my view, this was true.

Certainly, when I was a lad, boys were more so encouraged to do well at school than were the girls. This was the case not only at school but also in the home.

And quite right too!

After all, most girls had no interest in doing the awful jobs that most men had to do in order to earn a living, and they were not particularly expected to do them.

Furthermore, it was a waste of time and resources to train girls to do jobs that they were not likely to do, nor wanted to do e.g. see Fools and Feminists and Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?

Most girls hoped to fall in love with a man who had a fairly decent job, and they wanted to be mothers and housewives.

In my own household, my sister was one such girl and, indeed, after some two or three years of work (at the BBC!) she met a man whom she wanted to marry and - despite my parents' mild opposition - she did just this.

If I had told my mother, however, that my aim in life was to marry a woman with a good job and to be a house-husband, she would have had a heart attack - and then she would have nagged me and nagged me for months on end until I had changed my mind.  

Indeed, my education was hugely important to my mother.

My sister's education was less important both to my mother and to my sister.

In other words, the bias towards boys when it came to 'education' (perhaps better translated as 'achievement in the workplace') came as much from women as from anywhere else.

Should you peruse the comments following the above newspaper article, however, you will hopefully notice that the sneering feminists will point out that the past biases in the educational system were responsible for the girls not achieving as much as the boys, but they will deny that such biases are now operating against the boys.

In other words, when the girls do not do as well as the boys, the feminists will tell you that the system is at fault, but when the boys do not do as well as the girls then the fault lies with the boys themselves.

And the general feminist scam is this.

If the males do better than the females (in any given sphere) then the feminists will say that the system (the 'environment') is at fault. But if the females do better than the males (in any given sphere) then the feminists will say that the system (the 'environment') has no bearing on the issue, and, further, that the males themselves are at fault.

Boys To Be Taught Netball And Dancing Schools have been told to encourage boys to play netball and take dance lessons in the name of equality.

Thousands of schools are being forced to ensure that pupils are more "gender balanced" as part of discrimination legislation introduced this year. 

They must also ensure more girls study traditionally masculine subjects such as science, while increasing numbers of boys take options such as drama or dance.

In other words, having failed - despite having spent millions - to seduce enough girls into taking up more science-oriented subjects, the feminists and their poodle boys in the educational establishments have now decided to scupper the boys - and, hence, the entire country - in these most important of areas.

Over and over again, we see irrefutable evidence (e.g. see my piece Well Done the Girls?) that demonstrates that the over-riding aim of the feminist-controlled educational establishment is always to disadvantage the boys regardless of the cost to everyone else - including the girls.

In a nutshell: If you cannot get more girls to do science, then you must get more boys to do dancing - or else you will be charged with discriminating against the girls.

Hi Harry,

on your front page you talk about education being biased to favour the boys when you were a lad. My recall is that the system (UK) was not biased at all but that the girls were given diffrerent subjects to study. So when the boys were pushed to do Physics the girls were pushed to do "Home Economics". The boys in our school did Carpentry and the girls did Cookery.

Is that unfair bias given the world as it was then?

P

Hi P

Well, No, I do not think that it was unfair bias, given the circumstances and the expectations that people had. But it was certainly the case that the boys were pushed and encouraged more so than the girls to do better educationally.

I do not think that I suggested in my piece that this bias was 'unfair' - I just pointed out that this bias existed and, of course, that this would have had some bearing upon how well the boys did compared to the girls.

More accurately, the boys were more encouraged to learn those things that would help them in the workplace whereas the girls were more encouraged to learn those things that would help them in the home and with the children.

And I do not think that this was particularly any more 'unfair' for the girls than for the boys.

But we are nowadays so riddled with hatred toward men and boys that the huge biases against them that now exist within the educational system seem to go virtually unnoticed - except by a relatively small number of individuals.

Indeed, the other day, I was thinking about what would happen if somebody wrote a set of educational computer programs (or something similar) that had a huge impact on the educational attainment levels of boys, but not on those of girls.

Well, of course, I know exactly what would happen. 

There would be an outcry if any school dared to use them.

The use of such programs would probably be banned as being 'divisive', 'unfair' and 'discriminatory'.

But if such a set of programs had a huge impact on the educational attainment levels of girls, but not on those of boys, it would be adopted all over the place. And the boys would just be told, "Tough," and probably mocked for being so increasingly hopeless.

Ho Hum.

Thanks P

Harry