Short Answer: Because they and their sons don’t have any lobbies to tell them otherwise. Long answer follows.
Sexist Discrimination In American Education
Women are having a lot of fun these days laughing at the dumb, inarticulate, clumsy men they are finding on college campuses. The situation has grown more noticeable in recent times as colleges and universities tinker around with “affirmative action” for males in their admission practices. According to numerous news articles over the past four or five years, college women hate the idea of “affirmative action” programs that admit sub-par males to campus (at the expense of more women on campus), but grant that it is more desirable from their perspective to have a male “dating pool” larger than the current two women for each man, even if many of those young men are marginal at best. Many college administrators are willing to engage in such stupid practices in order to attract sufficient numbers of much higher caliber women to campus — women who, of course, wanting better dating options, then snicker at the male nitwits around them. Listening to all that frivolous nonsense, you’d think that our colleges and universities have become nothing more than social resorts for the incredibly superficial, spoiled and privileged.
Does any of this make you just a little hot under the collar? It seems both men and women have rather strong feelings about affirmative action in the 21st century, for very different reasons. As is common with all social issues in America, we all will hear, and continue to hear, only the women’s view, even if it’s parroted by their well-trained compliant “men”. So here’s a rare independent man’s view, a man who has reached an age when he has no vested interest in the subject anymore, other than the future of his society after he’s gone.
I’ve spent my entire life accommodating and adjusting to the consequences of forced affirmative action everywhere – for almost every conceivable group in America, but most especially for women, and always under a “grievance” argument solidly based on quota “rights”. And still the only group or organization with which I have ever had an affiliation is the group called “American citizen taxpayer”. (I also happen to be a member of that minority of our society that has never had an interest group lobby to champion its “cause”.)
First, as a guy who has watched with an educated social scientist eye the evolution of this twisted campus situation for the past half century, I have to admit that it makes me livid. Is everyone in this country so incredibly childish anymore that they can’t see the longer range adverse consequences of the situation behind the affirmative action nonsense? Is everyone so incredibly shallow they can’t even think to ask why this is?
Sadly, those snickering college women are correct.
Forty years ago America’s young men were the envy of the world. There was nothing they couldn’t do, nowhere they weren’t sought – due in no small part to the role played by American men throughout the world as World War II soldiers and post-war peacekeepers and nation-builders, at home and abroad. By 1965, they had it all – health, education, character, pride, intelligence, bravery, vision, responsibility, you name it. They fought and died on the battlefield while venturing into space and walking on the moon. They created satellites and personal computers; joined, supported, shaped and led the great social movements of our time; made the “Green Rice Revolution” in Asia; continued building the contemporary American infrastructure; made houses in the suburbs possible for the masses and built roads and cars to connect them to employment, schools and hospitals; filled homes everywhere with every conceivable new device to make life easier; cured diseases; designed and constructed spaceships; took the violent heat from every single group in the nation and much of the rest of the world, made appropriate honorable adjustments, and still somehow kept on tickin’. Honorable American men, men of the Greatest Generation, were the world’s Gold Standard. Younger siblings of the Greatest Generation, members of the Silent Generation, stood in awe and tried hard to measure up.
And that was just the beginning. Their horizons were limitless. They just KNEW they or their sons would be exploring other planets and other moons before the end of the century and bring untold wonders to humanity in the process. They felt destined to leave a far better world for everyone, no matter how hard that was, how much sacrifice it required. In those days, back in the early-1960s, you had to hunt hard to find a young man loser; everywhere around were very bright, healthy and tough independent-minded competitors who just KNEW they could do the impossible. Working mostly on their own, without any government help at all, their mothers had raised the healthiest and best educated kids – boys AND girls – the world had ever seen, and they all planned on conquering new challenges, even new worlds beyond their own, in their own lifetimes.
Today, sadly, it’s actually difficult to find boys or young men who are not “losers”. Many of them truly embarrass me. Of course there are always exceptions to the “norm” in any human group, but, generally speaking, they write on a level many years below what is appropriate and read almost nothing that isn’t on a tiny glowing screen. They have trouble with basic arithmetic and routinely screw up their own meager finances. They can’t begin to express themselves adequately, and thus frequently substitute violent aggression for intelligent reasoning. They ponder in such confined realms, have such small goals, parrot so much popular idiotic nonsense, regurgitate so much revisionist propaganda masquerading as “knowledge” and “history”, seem so uninterested in discovering real truths for themselves, in pursuing actually worthwhile endeavors. They “think” with girlish emotion rather than with masculine logic. They can’t see beyond next week and choose paths intended for quick payoffs that will ultimately, inevitably, fail.
The things that hold the interest of boys today border on the inane. They are just as self-involved as our women. They learn about “real life” from Hollywood, the internet and video games. They are far better at destroying than building. Infatuated by silly toys that occupy most of their waking hours, they are all about quick fixes, short cuts and easy answers. They use their brains for little more than reciting isolated factoids from the past needed to pass long out-dated tests, but can’t put them all together to build a comprehensive whole, much less craft a new strategy forward based on new conditions. Their ability to objectively analyze is rudimentary and greatly hindered by all sorts of artificial dogmatic stumbling blocks. Their world view is just simplistically banal. When someone well educated tries to engage them in meaningful conversation on just about any topic, they quickly realize there’s almost nothing there, just a lot of blank stares, mumbling and memorized politically correct pablum, or the latest group think. Only a minority of these guys can even read and comprehend what is written here, and I spent most of my adult life as just a professional ground soldier.
It’s easy to assume these guys are all bunched at the bottom of the pecking order. But that would give a free pass, for example, to all those male politicians who have greatly embarrassed me as an adult man through their incredibly stupid and juvenile behavior, their proven inability to even think as rational adults. What could be more asinine than a New York City politician who sends pictures of his little wee-wee to others, and then lies about it like a small child when caught with his pants down? This is a case of shamefully arrested development, stuck somewhere in the fifth grade, who never had a father to smack him in the face, tan his hide, stand him in the corner. And he presumes to have talents that qualify him to represent actual adult Americans in the halls of Congress? Who manufactures these twisted, effeminate, irresponsible, grown-up children stuck on stupid? Why? They couldn’t even qualify to serve in the nation’s armed forces they arrogantly presume to direct. What twisted mentality would ever waste a vote for such people to become even dog catcher? This is the best “men” we can now find in our girly culture? This pathetic creep is a “leader”? Where are the standards?
Dumb and Dumber, quite content with their own stupidity, substituting brawn for brain to achieve twisted “machismo”, most of these young males can’t hold a candle to our young women. I’m a military man, well trained to think with cold hard logic, and I can’t stand such guys any more than smart women can.
What the hell happened?
How did so very many of our boys go from top to bottom in the span of one single generation? Did someone put something in the drinking water?
And why in the world is the focus now stupidly on college admission practices and not on the school system that is supposed to create well prepared students at the college gates, supposed to feed higher education with honed minds? Does everyone focus on the college “affirmative action” aspect as just another pathetic effort to divert attention from the elephant in the living room growing stinkier by the minute?
Have Americans REALLY become this easily manipulated?
This country annually imports over 850,000 mostly male foreign-schooled students to attend and conduct research at our universities, and still those campuses have really huge majorities of American women. (See Footnote #1.) The number of those foreign students rises annually. Worse, most of those women are in navel-contemplating liberal arts and social sciences while our higher education system has become ever more dependent on foreign students to maintain high standards in the physical and highly advanced sciences, students who keep us barely competitive in a global economy. About 45% of such US university students are, in fact, foreign-schooled students. Even worse than that, those women now overwhelmingly dominant in social sciences establish unchallenged the self-serving dogma that sets our society’s social agenda, including that in “education”.
It is simply not possible to observe a United States of America in 2011 that provides college educations to twice as many women as men and NOT conclude that this represents the nation’s greatest and most shameful social injustice – one fully prohibited by civil rights law enacted by The Greatest Generation in 1972 specifically designed to keep such critically important things in American education in fair, proper and equitable balance.
When a college graduate will earn $1,000,000 MORE over the course of an average career than will a high school drop-out – this imbalance signifies a truly gross denial of equal economic opportunity for many millions of American males. Why are boys dropping out at a rate eight times higher than for girls? Why are they committing suicide at such staggering rates? Why are so many of them ending up on drugs or in jail? Who cares?
It is no longer possible for American women to avoid their just responsibility for such massive institutional bigotry in the education industry they dominate. A whole gender does not go from academic global top to global bottom in a single generation – unless it is the consequence of deliberate malicious design. The imbalances began thirty years ago and have grown wider in every year since.
For you college graduates who have trouble with math: Those numbers are cumulative! We are now talking about tens of millions of purposefully disadvantaged men – who will now be supported by our enormously privileged women. Already, over 40% of married women earn more than their husbands. Already women employed full time nationwide earn an average of 119% of the earnings of men working full time – a natural consequence of them earning twice as many college degrees every year as men – and still expect men to pay the bills, take the blame and do the hard stuff for special “me”.
We are talking about “role reversal” here on a truly massive and rapid scale – but a role reversal that conveniently leaves out the responsibility part.
We can only hope that the ladies are ready to pick up the tab, and the responsibility – not to mention the full accountability. Once you become “The Man”, you also become the universally hated free-fire target on the firing line – the person responsible for everything wrong in our society. It goes with the territory. It is “The Man” who is that universally hated “someone else” responsible for taking the blame, paying the bills and doing the hard stuff for all the slacker others. It is “The Man” whose responsibilities for others far overshadow any measly petty rights she might claim for herself. I surely hope women are ready for that very heavy burden. If not, we all go belly-up, and fast. Sadly, all the signs so far are definitely not promising.
A Little History
Maybe it’s time for a little recent history lesson from a guy who actually participated in much of it, not from some politically correct or self-serving revisionist tract. Relax; I won’t go back further than the 1960s, when I, a young Jack Kennedy disciple, was a “rebel” student activist. I watched the 1961 birth of both Kennedy’s Peace Corps and the Special Forces and appreciated the great beauty of its ‘carrot and stick’ genius – through really hard work on both ends – the perfect challenge in the world for the “best and brightest” of the “Greatest Nation On Earth”. The very first vanguard of the Boomers were just 16 years old when Kennedy was assassinated, and most would not reach 18 before the end of the decade, around 1969. I’ve listened to the Boomers lay claim to virtually everything, as if simply being alive was sufficient, but the truth is less flattering. For example, the great landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted when the very first of the Boomers were just reaching age 18, primarily addressed race discrimination, although it also addressed gender discrimination in employment (and the resultant very wide-ranging affirmative class actions everywhere). Boomers played no role in emplacing such civil rights law. In fact, the Baby Boomers put nothing in place; they just milked what they were handed, or twisted it for purposes never intended.
A LOT happened in America after 1964, in very short order. Kennedy’s New Frontier folded into Johnson’s Great Society, and very quickly came The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964; The Voting Rights Act of 1965; The Elementary and Secondary Education and the Higher Education acts of 1965 – which opened the floodgates of federal money to America’s schools, established Head Start and the National Teachers Corps. Then came Medicare; Medicaid; the War On Poverty; the Job Corps; the Civil Rights Act of 1968 banning discrimination in housing; and so much more for the economy, transportation, the environment, arts and consumer protection.
Despite today’s popular myths of everyone sitting around smelling the flowers and smoking pot, every adult – Greatest Generation adult – during the 1960s was incredibly busy, on so many different fronts. Jack Kennedy kept them going, and even his, Martin’s and Bobby’s tragic deaths, while slowing them down, didn’t stop them. That explosive decade deeply affected everyone, including women, but the truth is that the great historical events and legislation enacted during that period, which very dramatically changed the way America operated at home and abroad, was the final contribution of our Greatest Generation – our 1901-24-born parents who had grown up during World War I (1914-18), survived the misery of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression (1929-39), bought us through the great bloody World War II (1940-45) and then went on a building and baby binge (1946-66) that bought lasting peace to Europe and produced the greatest economic boom in the history of humanity. Feverishly determined that their kids never experience what they had experienced in their own youth, they proceeded to hand those kids literally everything under the Sun – gratis. Even in their later years they did not rest. (In their final days in the 1970s, came the very wise Privacy Act and the Freedom Of Information Act.)
While their parents were incredibly busy setting really important things in place, most young Baby Boomers during the ’60s focused on the Vietnam and race wars. Many young women, however, were busy waging their own war, and it didn’t have anything to do with their bras. Eight years after the Civil Rights Act, when the earliest Boomer vanguard reached age 26, the Greatest Generation’s Education Amendments (Title IX) in June 1972 added new civil rights law to the original landmark legislation. It significantly broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include gender discrimination in education.
That law stated flatly: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination, under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
So, while much of the country was engrossed with very high profile issues of explosive conflict, women became the driving force behind very major changes in employment and education. It was mostly opportunistic, since the environment especially for employment for everyone had been very dramatically improved by the Greatest Generation over the previous two decades so that now even women could be employed in the workplace with little fear of death or injury as had always been the case in the past in most endeavors. While the young Boomers’ actions in the streets would soon force their parents to end the war in Vietnam and make significant headway against racial discrimination, other young women began using law to muscle their way into wherever they wanted to go, to do whatever they wanted to do, damned any males, including their own fathers, who got in their way. By the end of 1970s the exhausted Greatest Generation would gradually step aside and turn the reins of their magical cornucopia over to their kids, the enormously spoiled and self-involved Boomers who had almost no understanding at all of the half century of misery and monumental accomplishment that had gone before them.
It wouldn’t take them long to screw it up.
The things that would come to symbolize the Boomers, best grouped under the heading of “Entitlements”, were somewhat less glorious than those of their parents. “Ask not what your country can do for you…” became “What’s in it for me?” – the sole relevant question for the rest of the century. The Boomers bought us political stalemate and intellectual inertia, an incredibly short attention span, a shift from logic-based to emotion-based “thinking”, an inability to embrace and solve big long-range challenges, the rise of the idle “elitist” chattering class and enormously powerful special interest lobbies, an endless list of rights with no responsibility, a steadily decaying infrastructure (including our entire education industry), a fatally low birth rate eventually requiring a massive flood of Third World immigrants just to take up the slack and keep the whole show barely viable, the dominance of appearance over substance, perception over truth, process over results, and a shift from an economy that invented and created and manufactured truly useful, worthwhile and wonderful things desired by the entire world to one characterized best by idle apes sitting around playing with toys and picking fleas off each others’ backs, while getting “someone else” to take the blame, pay the bills and do whatever hard stuff they wanted done. Propaganda evolved into sophisticated “marketing” and set about crafting a society based on insatiable materialistic consumerism and a “knowledge base” that was mostly thin air. Truth became irrelevant, perception everything. And, most of all, self-serving rights trumped social responsibility.
While their parents were truly giant adults, their offspring were incessantly whining children – a truly amazing case of massive reverse evolution. The Boomers would memorize all the “right” answers for the tests designed by their parents and continue using the answers, and the brilliant thinking behind them, well into the next century – decades after the whole world upon which they had been based was gone – and couldn’t figure out why the old answers no longer worked.
Today, while the best description of most American men is just “dumb” and most American women “self-serving”, our best thinkers in intelligent print are mostly Third World immigrants. Just check out the very astute work of Indian-American Fareed Zakaria, now Editor-at-Large of Time magazine, including his recent “Are America’s Best Days Behind Us?” (14 March 2011). He attended schools in Mumbai before admission to Yale and then Harvard. This very knowledgeable man thinks for himself, and brilliantly. The best and most effective math and science teacher in America – Salman Khan – is the son of Bangladeshi and Indian parents who never received schooling in “education” and needs nothing but his home computer as “infrastructure”. Lebanese-born and raised Fouad Ajami is a professor at Johns Hopkins who writes for print media about foreign affairs with a remarkably distinctive flare for English that is easily attributable even without a by-line. The people who impress me most in America anymore are not native-born Americans. I do understand Walt Kowalski.
American society today is based on little more than mandated lies, dictated dogma, serving a plethora of many millions of “special” people sitting around doing little more than making incessant demands of everyone else, using powerful lobbies and sophisticated propaganda to force a re-engineering of society to best serve their own childish wants.
Demanding Balance In Schools
During the late-1960s and 1970s young women inexplicably decided they needed to be “liberated” from those men being drafted like lemmings for deadly war. These Boomer women went to work using powerful new law to forcibly “adjust” standards and practices everywhere they wanted to go. While employment was one major front (and the one where affirmative action – quotas – was used most extensively), education was the other. When Title IX became law in 1972 young American males were still living under fifteen excruciatingly long years of the ever-present threat of military Draft for a very deadly and polarizing war – a possible eventuality which was very dramatically affecting the decisions, lives and psychology of all young American men (and probably still affects many of those men today). While very few of the available male ‘pool’ ever actually served in the military, being in, and remaining in, college was at least a certain temporary deferment from the constant threat of war service. A Draftee for Vietnam faced, in addition to the $2.00 a day pay, if he survived the war intact, at the very least a two to three year forced delay in keeping up with college contemporaries of both genders who did not get drafted, and in those highly competitive times, that delay period was significant indeed. These were some of the things that women of that period never had to even consider. (Being welcomed back home from war by screaming mobs, stones, curses, spit and defamation was another.)
Still, it was at that same opportune time, in the late-1960s and early-1970s, that women, adroitly discounting the skewed effect of the Draft, decided to make an issue of slight enrollment imbalances on the nation’s campuses that favored men. But feminists wisely did not attack the colleges and universities for their admission policies, as is the stupid myopic focus today. They far more appropriately attacked the school system that prepared students for higher education – all the way back to the first years of elementary school.
Since the national gender “imbalance” on American college campuses at that time was only about 48-52 (a four point spread), there wasn’t much of a case to be made via the college admissions route, especially since a significant number of those “extra” males stayed in college primarily to avoid or delay the military Draft. Exempt from the Draft themselves, women at that time instead wisely focused their attention on America’s top rated elementary and secondary schools, since this was the critical route to higher education, advancement in society and significantly increased income in any endeavor of choice. As the Greatest Generation knew so well, the first-rate education system they had put in place was the critical key to economic opportunity in America, and they were determined to ensure that route was equitably available to everyone. When more women did get into college, women activists wanted to be certain that those women could compete with men in any field they wished. It was difficult for most others to understand the focus on this particular target since there were almost as many women on college campus as men, and they indeed could hold their own with anyone.
But, still, there was also a certain “numerical imbalance”, and, in those days, wherever there was a “numerical imbalance” that was not advantageous to women, that was a target. Women activists and feminists were very successful in getting major changes instituted throughout our pre-college school system even prior to enactment of Title IX – simply by making very loud noises to our “woman’s world” school systems.
Most Americans, and especially men, think Title IX only concerns college sports programs. This is a gross underestimation of the true wide scope of the law, a misunderstanding that is the intended consequence of incessant women’s lobby propaganda for the last several decades. First, Title IX is universal civil rights law, applicable to all Americans, not just to any select group or groups. It is NOT some obscure fine print that enables college women to channel money from men’s to women’s sports programs. (Sports programs are actually a “bottom of the barrel” thing.) Title IX is NOT something “for women”; it is for BOTH genders, and, in accordance with our Constitution, it assumes an equal level of responsibility by the other gender.
Title IX of the 1972 Civil Rights Education Amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender against students and employees of any education programs or activities receiving any federal financial assistance at any level. Nearly every aspect of all public elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions in America is covered under this law as a consequence of the Elementary and Secondary Education and the Higher Education acts of 1965 (which addressed financial assistance).
Court cases less well known than recent college sports cases brought and won by women in the quarter of a century after 1972 firmly established that this legislation also prohibits gender discrimination in such areas as: admissions to vocational, graduate, professional and public undergraduate schools; access to courses and programs; school counseling and guidance; tests, materials and practices; physical education and athletics; vocational education programs; student rules and policies; financial assistance; student housing; extracurricular activities; and employment in educational institutions.
Title IX is thus a comprehensive federal civil rights law that prohibits any discrimination on the basis of gender in any education program or activity receiving federal funds – a condition which is nearly impossible not to find everywhere in any public education entity in the nation today. Title IX applies to both students and teachers, both employees and administrators, just as much to the first grade as to post-graduate school. It applies, with a few specific exceptions, to virtually all aspects of education programs or activities in America that receive any federal money, either directly or indirectly. In addition to traditional educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, Title IX also applies to any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance, including that provided under the G.I. and subsequent similar bills for veterans. In short, Title IX civil rights law applies to every single aspect of American academic education, bottom to top.
How do you determine “discrimination”? By numbers, by simple math, by any appreciable deviation from a statistical “norm”. The thinking was sensible Greatest Generation thinking. (Individual differences are easily accommodated in very large groups – as represented by a normal bell-shaped curve. The same applies to large sub-groups.)
The most glaring violation possible of Title IX is a significant gender imbalance in student enrollment on an American college campus. Federal law requires the government to bring suit against any such university under threat of withdrawing all federal financial assistance going to that university by any route. The law is intended to protect men as well as women, and ensure both are afforded equal opportunity to advance economically in America via taxpayer-funded education. The same applies to any educational institution below the university level. Most applicable state laws copy these federal statutes. But laws are only as good as the effort that goes into enforcing them, especially by those elected, employed and paid to serve all of us, and not just to serve the “special” people. In the forty years since its enactment, no Title IX case has ever been bought on behalf of boys – the “other half” of our society. That’s a really twisted version of “equality“.
The two key legal principles firmly established in law by women which led to and then relied on the Title IX legislation were:
(1) appreciable imbalance beyond the statistical norm (50-50) is prima facie evidence of institutional gender discrimination, and
(2) it is not possible to blame the victims of such discrimination for their failure to achieve the desired numerical balance, i.e., it is necessary for the institution to change to ensure gender balance is achieved.
Women focused on elementary and secondary
- drop-out rates,
- teaching methods,
- classroom atmosphere,
- textbook content,
- gender role models,
- test questions,
- special programs,
- testing methods,
- test scores,
- graduation rates,
- scholarship awards,
etc. – and found them wanting, i.e, unfavorable to girls, imbalances that needed immediate correction no matter what that took. Even though the numerical imbalances were quite minor compared to today, the schools and the courts agreed.
There was no need to query school girls on what they thought of it all, or even about what they wanted for themselves, because school girls, as “child victims”, were not capable of recognizing the degree to which “numerical imbalance” resulting from “institutional discrimination” was hurting them and their futures. (“Child victims”, intended in US law to apply to all those below the age of 18, later included college women, regardless of age, seemingly uninterested in competitive sports.) Since children are not capable of recognizing how their lack of success as children will adversely impact their entire lives ahead, it is the responsibility of accountable adults to do whatever is necessary to ensure they do succeed. And the first step to that end is to recognize that the two genders do, in fact, learn in different ways and to make maximum use of those differences to the best advantage of each. But this is not what happened.
Women activists asserted very persuasively that numerical imbalance was sufficient evidence of discrimination and thus just flat-out wrong. They applied very extensively a legal concept known as “disparate impact“, which focuses not on discriminatory intent, as disparate treatment does, but instead on discriminatory consequences, regardless of the treatment, and it is now firmly established in American civil rights law; it shifts the focus from the process to the results, and demands that the process be altered in any way necessary to achieve the desired results. Nowhere is the concept more important than with society’s most vulnerable group, the one that literally screams out for equitable attention under full adult accountability – its children, its girls AND boys. And many millions of American men fully accepted that rationale at the K-12 level on its face value.
This was at least an intelligent approach, far more sensible than attacking college admission policies – and one all well and good as long as the “victims” were female children. Note, however, that this approach has unintended consequences, not fully recognized at the time. When applied to those 18 and older, including college women, it effectively shifts responsibility from the individual to others who have an impact on the individual; it allows people to escape responsibility for their own choices, for their own behavior. “It’s not my fault if I don’t learn; it’s your fault for not teaching me.” It’s easily possible to extend this argument into very aspect of human endeavor. (Eventually it would divorce all personal responsibility from any discussion of rights, and shift the responsibility parts to “someone else”. “I have rights; I do not have responsibilities. It’s your responsibility for ensuring whatever rights I decide to demand for me.” Those with a functioning brain can see where such madness leads. The concept of “disparate impact” soon settled into the mindset of huge portions of the American population seeking to shift blame to “someone else”. Like so many other well-intentioned temporary remedies in our society, it became permanently institutionalized.)
Nevertheless, women activists, aggressively applying the principle of “disparate impact” only to their own group, demanded, and quickly got, very major changes in the nation’s pre-college school system – changes in teaching methods, counseling, very significant extra federal funding, extensive reporting requirements, shifts in core subjects, special programs, even changes in test questions and text book and test content – all of which were ostensibly intended to move girls into ‘parity’ with boys graduating from high school and gaining admission to college as rapidly as possible. The changes were sold and instituted with the broad understanding that they were temporary measures needed to achieve “balance”.
Significantly, the previous prevalent classroom learning process of relying heavily on carefully orchestrated individual competition among students, which, it was argued, favored boys, gave way to more quiet group cooperative learning, which, it was argued, provided a more conducive (“less threatening”) learning environment for girls. It was an intuitive argument, based on almost no objective research other than a few small survey-type studies that counted raised hands in class and noted their gender. (The number of raised hands was deemed an indicator of ‘classroom participation’, and thus an indicator of ‘learning progress’.) This intuitive argument was indeed supported by previous extensive scientific study by the Greatest Generation that laid out in very considerable detail by 1965 the very real differences in the ways in which boys and girls learn, and well understood by most teachers.
I noticed the same classroom dynamic in conjunction with my own university studies of school children a decade earlier, and then found published studies conducted over the preceding quarter of a century which confirmed my own observations. But what was really going on? It turned out that 80,000 years of preceding human evolution had resulted in a few gender differences in the learning process, including that boys are more competitive with each other than are girls. That hand-raising was a form of mild competitive game among the boys. Smart and well-trained teachers had been using this natural tendency among boys to hold their interest and to teach them to their own best advantage. But what about the girls? It turned out that when the teacher ignored the boys and called on a girl, who may or may not have raised her hand, she almost always knew the correct answer, too. She just wasn’t all that much into making a ruckus about it. She was watching the boys go through their ritual, doing her own thinking, and just waiting to bowl them all over. And she almost always did. Girls do more private contemplation and discussion among themselves to reach a consensus about the correct answer; they use their own natural tendencies to their best learning advantage. Like everyone else, girls were also learning from the boys’ wrong answers. Boys are less reluctant to embrace risk, to fail, to make leaps of faith, to learn from mistakes. Girls were learning just as well as, if not better than, boys – because teachers were very aware of the quite different ways in which boys and girls learn and were using that knowledge and expertise to the advantage of both genders. It’s a little more difficult to do this, since it requires simultaneously teaching to two different groups, and since some boys can get a bit too competitive. But teachers knew that the other boys would quickly put such a boy in his proper place, if she didn’t.
But “feminist” interpretation of their anecdotal classroom observations was not based on science. The boys’ raised hands were seen as “intimidating” to girls. Feminists used their superficial observations of this natural human dynamic to demand a change in “classroom atmosphere” via a dramatic change in teaching methods. A key element in demanding the changes women wanted during the 1970s was to label boys’ natural competitiveness as “aggression” – which immediately became a very bad word in the education industry. “Male competition” was now “male aggression”, something “evil” that had to be banned from the classroom. “Male aggression” remains central to feminist “thinking” even today (probably because, whatever you call it, it has very few sanctioned and controlled outlets and thus now often shows up in the wrong places). Feminists turned natural tendencies of males into a weapon to be used against them. Result: instant boredom, which accomplished nothing positive, for boys. So, the first effect of the new “thinking” was to hobble boys so girls could move forward.
With the nation’s attention dramatically diverted by the “anti-war” (-Draft) movement and the Black Rights movement, the length of the rather muted school debate at that time was no more than several years, and by the mid-1970s the dramatic changes were almost universal across the country in all of our women-dominated school systems. Only minor court-mandated tweaking remained for the rest of that decade. While the newly demanded classroom environment (“atmosphere”) definitely provided a considerably easier working environment for teachers, a very major impetus to this rapid change across the country was also, of course, the 1972 Title IX civil rights legislation. Feminists used this new law aggressively wherever they found a desired opening that had not already been adequately addressed by previous loud complaints or court cases, most often via very powerful organizations like NOW and AAUW (See Comment #2.). Often just the threat of litigation was sufficient to achieve the demanded changes – which, since they favored females, were not difficult to achieve among the industry’s predominantly female teachers, now themselves being taught every day by those same powerful organizations that they themselves were “victims” in a “male-dominated” world and that they could all have a plethora of rights that came without responsibility. The name of the game was numerical balance, or quotas, everywhere, no matter what that required.
(In case no one has noticed, the “cooperative” approach to “classroom environment” is also highly conducive to cheating, which, in the intervening years, became an integral aspect of our entire culture, not limited just to inflated résumés, but including drug-popping professional athletes, women using double standards to advance, political candidates lying for emotional votes, journalists “spinning” stories, perpetual losers constantly “reinventing” themselves, jerks claiming the work of others as their own, “achievement” awards for every “special” person who simply shows up, playing the game under changed rules so as to give the illusion of out-performing predecessors, people altering their appearance through plastic surgery, and even our nation’s nuclear weapons officers routinely sharing answers for proficiency tests on code handling, launch procedures, missile safety, even basic qualification exams. “Everyone cheats on every test that they can,” said one such woman officer, “and they have for decades.” Honest guys now finish last? Just who can you trust? Boys learn their values between ages 7 and 12 by the examples shown every day by the adults around them. “It’s the name of the game.” A cheater is a liar; never ever trust a liar.)
(The article “America’s Greatest Social Shame – Boys” contains discussion of the legal considerations, rationale, arguments and precedents established in court decisions by women’s lobbies pursuing very extensive changes throughout American K-12 public education during the 1970s. This companion article also takes a closer look at some of the broad “thinking” mentioned here, and its consequences.)
In 1982, ten years after enactment, came the Pivotal Moment for our schools. Except for an aging Greatest Generation man in the White House who had come out of retirement dedicated to finally ending the “Cold” War, the really huge Baby Boomer wave was now dominant. Gender ‘parity’ (balance) on the nation’s college campuses was achieved in the early 1980s (five years after the Draft ended), when many of those temporary pre-college programs intended to assist girls came up for scheduled Congressional review. But, even though “numerical balance” was demonstrated in every key K-12 factor of interest to women, powerful women’s organizations such as NOW and AAUW argued very strongly before Congressional committees, with very questionable “evidence”, that there was still justification for keeping those programs and their huge federal funding in place.
And they were. The issue was dead, never to rise again. School systems, eyeing all that money, agreed. NOW and AAUW were gradually joined by the rapidly rising teachers unions AFT and NEA, now the two largest and most powerful unions in America, in the pro-girl/anti-boy “group think”. (See Footnote #2.) The number of girls admitted to college began moving ahead of boys in the early-1980s, and that gap has grown wider in every single year since – now for three decades. Gender imbalances on college campuses are projected to continue widening as far into the future as can reasonably be projected, and those imbalances are now moving strongly into post-graduate schools. (For example, in December 2013, Duke University announced that its incoming class of doctorial candidates in economics will be two-thirds female.) By the late 1990s, “numerical imbalances” in K-12 had become so enormously tipped against boys that public schools would no longer reveal gender data in their reporting. (See “group entitlement” under ‘Bury The Opposition’ at “Marketing And Propaganda – Techniques“.)
And all of this is just “normal”, “accidental”, and not the consequence of malicious intent? Doesn’t any part of this vast industry do something so basic as teach people how to think?
Unfortunately, the programs originally instituted to assist girls have now been running so long that everyone thinks they are “normal”. They are not. They have just become permanently institutionalized; our public schools teach to girls and expect boys to adapt. American schools are now overwhelmingly “right-brain” oriented, to the great detriment of “left-brain” talents previously dominant in males. (According to left-brain/right-brain dominance theory in psychology, the right side of the brain is seen as best at expressive and creative tasks, emotion, facial recognition. The left-side of the brain is considered to be more adept at tasks that involve logic, language, numbers, analytical thinking.) It’s all “group think” running on mindless auto-pilot. Those boys who don’t adapt, fail, and in so many different ways, and in really huge numbers. There are very good reasons beyond a lack of interest among girls for why our schools do such a dismally poor job of teaching math, which historically has been more acceptable to male minds; it’s a natural consequence of a deliberate intent. The more you avoid teaching all children math, and all that follows from math, including intelligent reasoning and logic, the easier it is to avoid fact and context and instead use emotion to “make your argument”, i.e., inculcate your own self-serving emotional propaganda in very young, naive and impressionable minds. Boys exist in school in little boxes deliberately designed to contain, bore and frustrate them, while also programming them with “whatever women want”. Arrogant women in this enormous critical industry literally scream to boys, “You WILL become me!”
It just so happened that this same period (early 1980s) was also the period when the number of women voters began moving ahead of men voters; this steady widening trend, too, has continued in every election since, so that today it’s absurd to think that any politicians are going to risk alienating that huge majority women’s voting block, or their powerful lobbies, OR the even more powerful teachers unions, on ANY topic. Women rule education, ruthlessly, and completely without challenge, or even question, on matters of gender. It’s solely a matter of “whatever women want”, a “tyranny of the majority” which civil rights law is specifically designed to counter. Gender in education has not been mentioned in Congress for over a quarter of a century, unless it was to vilify ‘boy bullies’ or to discuss drugging them up under all sorts of newly invented “medical” pretexts. American women, running on mindless auto-pilot, give the impression that they care far more about some endangered animal in Africa than they do about America’s endangered boys, or even about their own sons.
Since boys are now failing at a rate far greater than the very high rate girls are succeeding, our whole public school system is, inescapably, by definition and by law, one gigantic affirmative action program for girls, now moving into its fifth decade. (See Footnote #1.)
The Emphasis On Girls
From 1972 to the early-1990s it was impossible to read any report anywhere on the state of our public schools throughout the country without the progress of girls being trumpeted way up front and addressed with the same bold-letter gravity as race. Much of this publicity was due to reporting requirements that accompanied extra federal assistance funding for girls’ education, but a lot of it was also due to the continuing demands of women, including mothers and powerful women’s lobbies, to know exactly how well girls were doing in every aspect of school. Whenever they saw or heard words like “children” or “students” in education reports, these ever vigilant women were quick to claim, justifiably, that “uni-sex in schools is just a cheap cover for hiding institutional sexist bigotry.”
Then in the late-1990s, the words “gender”, “girls”, “boys”, etc., quietly began disappearing from school status reports. No public announcement accompanied this mysterious change. The truth was becoming just too embarrassing, and too illegal. In recent years, it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to find a public school report from anywhere in the country that provides reliable comparative gender statistics, that does not religiously use gender-neutral terms like “students” and “children” to divert attention away from any gender discrepancies which exist in those schools or school systems. Such practices are patently and purposefully deceptive, deliberate propaganda. The same applies to women-dominated governmental agencies at all levels established to oversee American education, including the US Department of Education. The same also applies to every article written by the 98% of “education journalists” in this country who are women as they disseminate the propaganda churned out by the schools and their government agencies. Apparently the “cheap cover for hiding institutional sexist bigotry” argument now depends on which gender is benefiting from the bigoted “uni-sex” propaganda.
In America, women and their many lobbies determine the social agenda. America is ALL about “whatever women want” – for themselves. After a half century of intense navel contemplation, gender is of concern to women ONLY when such concern is or might be beneficial to women. The net effect is to screw males over in every endeavor possible so females can “advance” – and society as a whole can suffer. Now “uni-sex” is simply misandry in its purest form. American women have rights; they do NOT have responsibilities. Everyone else has the responsibility — for ensuring whatever rights women decide to claim for themselves at any given moment. When you have lived your entire life under the concept of “disparate impact”, which was intended as a temporary measure to achieve numerical balance among school children, running on mindless auto-pilot in perpetuity, it’s possible to view it as “normal”, a “natural aspect of life that is intended to enable “me” to avoid responsibility for anything, even for my own choices, my own behavior, as an adult with a million rights.” We now have a nation of grown-up infants wailing for the nipple. (When you’ve absolved yourself of responsibility, whom do you blame when things go wrong, don’t work out the way you wanted, don’t realize the craved fame and fortune? Anyone and anything except “me”. “It’s a conspiracy!” Thanks to American “feminism”, this is now the basic underlying premise for almost all political “thinking” in America. Totally asinine, isn’t it? Human herds as tree moss.)
These are the most expensive – and worst performing – schools in the developed world, in human history. Costs of women-dominated public education in the US have risen an astounding 375% since 1970, but school test scores have remained flat or fallen, while concentrating in areas that do little to keep the nation economically competitive. Except for its free day care function, this is the greatest “black hole” for wasted money in American history. For these people, forty years of abject failure is ample justification for even more money to keep them employed for forty more years of failure. (Most of these astronomical increased costs are a direct consequence of “feminism’s” deliberate and systematic destruction of the traditional family unit and its inherent division of labor and sharing of responsibility, which, in turn, has required a truly massive shift in dependence to government and those employed by that government. It’s just another humongous cost to “all of us” of rampant self-involved “me-ism” devoid of responsibility.)
Today only a fool would trust anything any education official tells them about American public education. How is it even possible, for example, to research, write and disseminate a major report on schools with incredible 30% to 50% drop-out rates, without mentioning that over 90% of those drop-outs are boys? It’s done every day, on this and many similar topics, by the schools, by school systems, by their government agencies and by the women “education journalists” who churn out this school-provided boilerplate junk in every publication, TV station and web site in America. For an average taxpaying schmuck like me trying hard for the past ten years to get reliable gender statistics, it’s so unbelievably frustrating that it’s time for some responsible adult to propose that the Secretary of Education be replaced by an adult male federal judge with full subpoena powers. Today you practically need a federal court order to pry reliable gender data from this vast women-dominated school industry and its enormously powerful unions.
It’s all reminiscent of the “Cold” War days when US intelligence agencies tried to divine what was going on in Soviet Russia, long after the fact, by meticulously examining published obituaries of deceased key personnel. The Tightly Closed Secret Society. It’s impossible not to suspect sinister intent. But, of course, all you really have to do is note the enormous gender imbalance on our nation’s post-secondary campuses to KNOW that our pre-college school industry is, under the law, just a self-serving criminal enterprise. American citizen gender imbalances on college campuses is now the obituary of the secret American K-12 school system. It’s small wonder that a college graduate today is on a knowledge par with a high school graduate of a half century ago, the public at large in 1960. Based on performance over the past forty years, the results of American “education” move one full year backwards every decade.
To view gender balance on college campus as desirable for dating purposes is simply infantile in the extreme. And efforts to whine about racial preferences in college admissions is just a cheap tactic to divert public attention from women’s self-serving hegemonic stranglehold on American public K-12. Such women have no idea what hell is coming to them, fast. American women as a group now spend twice as much on their own clothing as all of us together spend on higher education, and still whine about the cost of higher education that benefits them twice as much as men. And that doesn’t include an even greater amount these self-involved princesses spend on their shoes and all those accessories, jewelry, etc., that must accompany those expensive clothes – solely to impress other self-involved American women. Who teaches them all that revolting “birthright entitlement” nonsense, the disgusting lie that they are somehow “special” in a democracy professing equality, that all those rights they claim for themselves come devoid of corresponding responsibilities? Who teaches these offensive jerks how to think? (They teach it to themselves, in a society that outlaws criticism, bans challenge to their self-serving “thinking”, uses phony charges of “misogyny” to “legitimize” their misandry.)
Now we even have these “equality” fanatics using Title IX to broaden the intent of the law far beyond what was ever imagined by those who enacted it, even into such areas as “sexual harassment” on college campuses (if anyone can actually define just what that is), as if there weren’t enough laws, policies, regulations, etc., ad nauseam, already banning such behavior, even requiring men to lie to women, to tell them only the nonsense they want to hear. It’s just using anything remotely possible to cover up the ugly truth to serve “me”. Laws using Title IX to govern “sexual harassment” is a way women intend to protect themselves from accountability for the sexist bigotry against boys perpetrated in their K-12 public schools. “It’s against the law to complain about bigotry perpetrated against males, to hold women accountable for their own sexism.” It’s just another trick designed to protect all those rights claimed by women, while also absolving them of responsibility, and accountability, for anything. “I will allow you to enter my privileged campus world provided you keep your mouth tightly shut and comply with all my demands. I am now “The Man”, but I am also a perpetual “special” victim who cannot be held accountable. Sure I’ve been screwing you over, but you are not allowed to do anything about it.”
This stuff belongs in a lunatic asylum. I’ve tried to articulate what it feels like to a man like me to be affronted by the extremely offensive nonsense now spewed by so many women (and their cloned male morons) on college campuses today, but I always fall short. I guess the best description is utter disgust that my country could actually spawn such self-involved and ignorant tots in adult bodies. These ugly creeps tar me with shame as a responsible American man, make me feel just squalid. I don’t think I could even bring myself to shake hands with such twisted children pretending to be women, twits blaming everyone else for their own stupidly infantile narcissism, their own failure as contributive humans, fearing I might become infected with the same cancerous disease that is destroying my society – and all simply because they’ve never been challenged.
When I hear that nonsense, I fervently wish there were cell phones on campus in the ‘60s. I could have taken videos of all those exceedingly arrogant and offensive and intrusive and abusive young “feminists” screaming in the faces of trapped men, spittle spraying everywhere, “If you know it’s wrong and do nothing about it, then YOU, dickhead, are part of the problem!” “Sexual harassment” indeed is in the eye of the beholder. Those guys back then honestly didn’t even know there was a problem worth contemplating. If the Draft and war and dead soldiers and racial injustice and massive riots wasn’t enough, there was always our totally oblivious and self-centered and privileged Baby Boomer women screaming in their faces. What would happen today if young men tried the same tactics on young women today? They’d be arrested for “sexual harassment”. In 2011 not a day goes by when some extremely offensive woman does not say things, usually in a vulgar manner, about or to men that deeply offends me, that constitutes the exact same sexism that women refuse to be allowed to be directed against them. I can imagine what kind of “men” these “special” immune bigots, with all their double standards, are creating. (News flash, Ladies: Boys, men, do NOT “create themselves”. Isn’t it telling that every parent proudly claims credit for children who succeed, but none claims credit for the losers? It’s the extreme “feminist” narcissism now inherent throughout our society, all rights and no responsibilities. “Blame it on a gene!”)
Pathetically, the US is the only English-speaking country in the world that has not been adult enough to recognize long ago that its boys are in Big Trouble and that the situation fully warrants very strong concerted effort, programs, campaigns and regulations at the national level to get things back into some decent equilibrium. All of those other countries were quick to copy civil rights laws enacted in the 1960s and ’70s by our Greatest Generation, and they still actually try to live up to those laws. Just consider that Canada’s schools are far better than ours, yet over 60% of the population of Canada was born in another country! Almost every country in Europe, starting with Finland at the top, has schools enormously better than ours, even though they are all, just like we are, now heavily dependent on Third World immigration and its future taxpayer children to keep themselves viable, to pay for their own birthright entitlements.
New technology drives economic growth, but this principle only works if education keeps pace with technology. And education critical to technology definitely does NOT begin at the college gates. Everyone accepts that college football stars need nurturing for years before college, yet women absurdly think that physics stars can be magically created during their sophomore or junior year of college. When public education falls behind, many millions of workers don’t have the skills to do the jobs required for new technology. Throughout our history, American public education at all levels kept pace with technology — until the 1970s. This is when American women decided to re-engineer K-12 public education to meet their self-interested demands and refused to adjust those self-interests for the next forty years despite ever more glaring and inescapable evidence of gross inequities and failure. It’s been systematically undermining the nation ever since.
Now we even have the totally absurd situation of American women and their lobbies whining about not having their “fair quota” of jobs in high tech companies that employ people with skills that not enough American women possess. Women employed by such companies today are less than a third of those employed in 1975 when their rate was around 40%, so, naturally, the reaction is to blame “someone else” – the companies for their “discriminatory” hiring practices. So what are the companies supposed to do? Hire women just to get the demanded quotas regardless of whether or not the women are qualified for the jobs? The whole argument is just asinine. “I have rights!; I do NOT have responsibilities!” The United States has been engaged in the stupid quota nonsense for a half century, and the dismal results are everywhere you look (including, shamefully, in our “foreign affairs” cabal). If you look closely at the work forces of those high tech companies, you’ll discover that most of their male employees were schooled in foreign countries! You just can’t get the required high tech qualifications by waving a magic wand after 16 years of pampered American schooling leading to a college degree in Women’s Studies or Medieval Art. Both genders, and society, have suffered just to meet the childish demands of women, beginning all the way back in the first grade.
How many men are complaining about not having their “fair quotas” in industries now overwhelmingly dominated by women – such as the entire “child development” arena of sociology, psychology, education and health – where women dominate with percentages over 85%? Men, and especially boys, don’t have lobbies, and American women are great at focusing attention on tiny places where they seem to be at some “disadvantage”, but never allow a full discussion of the whole picture, or the reasons why. The result is a totally twisted perversion of our entire sick society.
In the early 1970s the mutual dependency between technology and education was broken. The result has been many millions of lower-skilled, lower-educated and low-paid workers and far fewer highly skilled, highly educated and high-paid workers – all creating ever rising income inequities. (See Footnote #5.) Worse, the American highly educated people are mostly in liberal arts and government services, which do not contribute substantially to technological or economic growth – a grave imbalance for which the US now desperately tries to compensate with much better-educated foreign immigrants coming in and assuming positions at or near the top in higher education, research and business. But opportunities in America are steadily becoming less inviting to such people, who now can turn to a number of other more competitive and forward-looking societies to make their contribution, all while American society continues to drift in a self-involved morass with economic “growth” mostly driven by moving around other peoples’ inherited money. Any worthwhile education system, and most certainly one maintained by taxes on society’s members, MUST maximize learning environments for both genders equitably while also meeting the requirements of society’s survival, no matter how hard that is – for both teachers and students. The US education system accomplished this very well, up until the 1970s. Women have been offering arguments, excuses, censorship, rationales, blame-shifting, etc., ad nauseam now for decades about the blatant problems with our schools, while making zero forward motion on improving those schools, on making them live up to their mandate of providing quality educations to ALL of our children, equitably. As experience has shown, when it’s THEIR group on the line, American women can demand and implement very major changes in very short order to achieve what THEY want, simply by using the law and the courts as their battering ram. (See Footnote #6.)
In recent times all the Title IX emphasis has been on sports. Why? Because that’s all that’s left in “education” for women’s lobbies to complain about. (This is, of course, dependent on whether or not their latest whines about “sexual harassment” censorship gains enough legs to survive court challenge, assuming there’s an actual man left out there with enough spine to bring such a challenge.) And even with sports they have always refused to look in the mirror. Women’s groups incessantly blame men for any “problems” they perceive in their own group, today and in the past, because that tactic fits much better into their “women as eternal victim” dogma. But in the US the simple truth is that it’s been mostly a case of overcoming women’s lack of interest in certain, usually competitive, endeavors, from basketball to math. As in all other endeavors, the chief problem women’s groups have had has not been with men; it’s been with other women. In the US, men have never “denied” women anything; they have always bowed to whatever women wanted, as soon as enough of them decided just what it was that they wanted. (Some men did object, unsuccessfully, when women wanted to change the rules to favor themselves at the expense of men.) So almost all of women’s group “wars” have been waged exclusively for the hearts and minds of other women; it’s just been more self-serving if they can claim that men are their “oppressors” to maintain that “victim” nonsense. Title IX in recent years has done much in overcoming women’s general lack of interest in competitive sports, and thereby generating more money and attention to meet that steadily growing interest. But it was never a case of women being “denied” participation in sports. (My mother was a star basketball player in college – during the 1930s. She was also so good at math that she became a national level cryptologist and division head for the “male-dominated” Defense Department long before “feminism” ever reared its ugly quota head.) It was always a case of not enough women being interested in competitive sports to make full blown programs worth the effort, especially since so few women who were not in the programs were even interested in supporting those women who were. So “feminists” in the early-199os turned to men to take the blame and assume the accountability, a tried and true tactic since the 1960s. (It was the familiar old “disparate impact” theory, the one that absolves one of personal responsibility, that requires “someone else” to ensure the “special” people get whatever they want, that makes “someone else” responsible for the free choices women make, for their own elective behavior.)
Under a late Title IX-based legal argument, huge amounts of funds were systematically drawn from successful men’s sports programs and invested in fledging women’s programs. (Extra profits generated by successful men’s college sports programs have long gone to their universities – in order to help reduce college costs for everyone.*) This huge influx of money enabled women’s groups to gradually generate more and more interest among women to participate in those programs – especially when the funds from men’s sports programs were used to pay women’s sports scholarships, all while men’s sports programs were reduced to meet the mandated quota “balance”. Women thus used money from men’s programs to build their own programs, while also successfully demanding that men’s programs be reduced under a numerical quota system that maintained the mandated Title IX “balance” – even taking away scholarships already won by men, most shamefully even on campuses where women students out-numbered men students by two-to-one. (How selfish, myopic and self-involved is it possible to get?) If more women entered women’s sports programs, then an equal number of men could be added to men’s programs; it was a classic case of screwing the other guy in order to cut him down to your level and forcing him to pay for it. The “evil oppressor” propaganda works much better than the “uninterested women” truth. (It should be noted here that all of the mechanisms that women’s lobbies used over the past half century to achieve their objectives constitute legal precedents; they are thus firmly established in American civil rights law and readily available for use by any other group seeking similar objectives in any similar arena. Equal rights, indeed, are a double-edged sword – IF they are equitably enforced.)
All of this was done in athletics, however, only after women’s groups for a quarter of a century had already successfully re-engineered all of American academic education to their desires – all under Title IX’s mandate for gender balance in every aspect of American education, no matter what that required, including, at the end, using funds generated by male athletics to boost female athletics. Now, of course, there is no mention of “balance” wherever women benefit far more than men, as they now do in all other aspects of American education. “Title IX is civil rights law just for “me”, and it only applies where “I” want it to apply, in order to favor “special me”. And I do NOT have responsibility for anything beyond me.” This, of course, is both totally self-serving and completely absurd. (Some have described it as “the epitome of self-involved arrogant ugliness.”) Today I truly love watching the marvelous US women’s Olympic soccer team compete against the world’s best. (It still pains me that American women could not be bothered enough to support their own world class women’s soccer league with such global stars as Mia Hamm at the turn of this century. That magical team was America’s best ambassador throughout the Third World since our World War II G.I.s.) But when I recall the sordid history, the incredibly huge costs paid by men and, even much worse, being paid by American boys today – all because women weren’t interested in sports – I get a little sick, and ashamed of American women. I don’t blame today’s athletes; I blame their totally self-involved Baby Boomer mothers who keep their extremist hate groups running on mindless auto-pilot. For them, it’s all rights and no responsibility. It’s all about “me”. Can you imagine what’s going to happen when an American father finally finds enough spine to take his son by the hand and walk into an American courtroom with a Title IX class action law suit against every single public school system in the country and the entire Department of “Education”, too? Tough. That’s the only thing that will ever make our privileged “special” women realize that with each of all those rights they claim comes a corresponding responsibility – for others. It is NOT all about “me”. It’s about equal rights and equal responsibility – for all of us. There is no “special” in equal. Empowerment” does NOT authorize the same bigotry you condemn in others, and most especially when your victims are male children.
“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” - Margaret Thatcher, Greatest Generation British Prime Minister (1979-1990).
You don’t exactly have to be a genius to ask the blatantly obvious: The Greatest Generation knew full well that America had been forged directly in violent and intellectual opposition to unearned birthright entitled nobility, to favored dictatorship, as a constitutional democratic meritocracy – wherein educational opportunity is paramount to earned socio-economic advancement. Why would the Greatest Generation ever bother to enact a civil rights law on education that limited itself to athletics? The notion is simply ludicrous. Does anyone think there was a huge groundswell of women’s demands during the 1960s to form their own campus rowing crews? The Greatest Generation never thought so incredibly small. The whole foundation of the civil rights movement was equal economic opportunity across the board, in all endeavors, for everyone. (See Footnote #4.)
Those who don’t know history, or philosophy, or law, should at least be able to apply a little logic. The purpose is equal economic opportunity; the vehicle is equal academic education; the process is irrelevant; the proof is in the r-e-s-u-l-t-s. Get it?
It’s just incredibly grotesque in America in 2014 having to endure the 58-page ranting of a woman Supreme Court Justice over a policy that seeks to end racial affirmative action admissions to college without her ever recognizing that the real issue is gender affirmative action throughout American K-12 public schools. How is it even possible for any woman viewing campus enrollment populations tilted enormously in favor of women to not see that something is very seriously wrong with this picture? How is it even possible to be that oblivious to the blatantly obvious? Can even a woman on the Supreme Court recognize no responsibility to anyone or anything but her own group? Just what twisted definition of “equal opportunity” does this women use? Just which version of the US Constitution is she reading? To myopically focus on race in a country that ensures twice as many college admissions and degrees to women, year after year, decade after decade, is as “brilliant” as closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Can anyone even image what would happen if some idiot tried to focus on race if twice as many men were entering college and earning degrees as women? Every woman in the country would take to the streets in full riot gear, and this woman judge would be at the forefront. What this woman Supreme Court justice is screaming is that, “In America, women have rights; they do NOT have responsibilities! It’s ALL about ME! Everyone else has the responsibility for ensuring whatever rights I demand!” And that, of course, is just asinine. The self-serving arrogance that comes with never being challenged literally overwhelms the rational mind.
The proper place to address any racial or gender inequities in American education is in K-12, and the objective must be equitable balance – so that anyone who shows up at the college gates gets in on their own merit, their own ability to meet the very highest standards, regardless of any artificial labels. And that includes “special” women.
Despite repeated efforts over the last five years, Congress has failed to re-authorize the Elementary and Secondary School Act, the law that governs all public schools that receive federal financing. The Obama Administration has granted 34 states waivers in meeting the last such law (“No Child Left Behind”), mainly because state school systems don’t want to hold teachers and administrators accountable for the results they don’t achieve. But naturally both national and state politicians will only discuss that old dodge “children” and refuse to mention gender. With the entire school industry dominated by and for women, and with women constituting the nation’s largest voting bloc, it’s impossible for politicians to state the blatantly obvious and tackle the real problem head-on. So the only option left is to use Title IX federal civil rights law in courts – just like women have been doing for the past forty years to get what they wanted for themselves, and fast, too.
“The greater the obstacle, the more glory overcoming it.” – Molière
So, to all those bright girls on campus, I say, “Keep on snickering. Relish your bigotry, your blatant misandry. Wallow in your self-proclaimed “victimhood”. Enjoy laughing at those “dumb” male losers around you. It’s all sweet justice. Since your mothers created those guys, the joke’s on you. And that makes it all a truly great tragedy – one that will surely turn your future to hell. I’m sure it’s a matter of true delight that you can even get men to pay to support your sexist bigotry against their sons. Of course, it’s certain that, in all your superiority, you’ve already figured out how you’re going to support those many tens of millions of male losers, because, one way or the other, you surely will (after, of course, you’ve found “someone else” to bail you out of a queen’s ransom in student loans). It’s time to grow up, Ladies. You are now “The Man”. And we’re all eagerly awaiting your dozens of 21st century versions of Ford Motor Company, space ships, highways, Amazon, cell phones, Facebook, computers, UPS, internet, global airlines, product printers and drones. It’s taxpayers engaged in such endeavors that are needed to pay for your luxurious dependence on government. Since the survival of the nation depends on such ingenious creations NOT following the example achieved through your mothers’ “leadership” of American K-12 public “education” over the past forty years, it will be interesting, to say the least, to discover how you will build success on such colossal failure. Just consider how incredibly stupid it is to screw boys over in school for forty years just so you can continue to demand your “right” to quota positions in enterprises they create – as if it were still 1962. In case you haven’t noticed, the only men who are creating those enterprises these days are men who were not crippled by your schools, who left to escape the bigotry (or recent immigrants who received far better schooling elsewhere before arriving).
To the Boomers, I say, “I am deeply ashamed of all of you – women for their self-centered bigotry, men for their spineless cowardice. Any adult, of either gender, who can’t be bothered to stand up for their own sons in school has zero argument to support their own complaints, about anything. (And just what is anyone to make of those mental midgets who swear they’ll die defending their right to own machine guns, but who lack enough courage to stand up for the right of their own sons to an equitable education?) No one today would hesitate to turn their daughters over to American public schools, but any responsible man should leave the country before doing the same with his sons. It’s just that clear-cut. (Trust me; I know. I’ve been around the world a few times.) And no amount of phony self-serving propaganda or slick diversionary politics is going to change it one bit. It’s just WRONG. Our boys are NOT expendable. They do NOT “create themselves”. They are not girls. Soon you can all suffer with the colossal mess you purposefully engineered.”
To today’s boys, all I can offer is my apology: “I should have known that your parents were far too spoiled and self-involved to ever comprehend something like responsibility. Affirmative Action in college admissions? Forget it. That silly diversionary band-aid won’t begin to cover your gaping wounds. The best that you and the nation can hope for is that someone brave will use Title IX to demand the creation of all-boys public schools all across the country (and hire military veterans as teachers). But I doubt that anyone will; apparently no one wants to know a simple truth they can’t handle, that might embarrass them into actually doing something. Take it from a professional soldier; the hardest thing to find in this country these days is an actual man with enough spine to stand up and put it all on the line for a higher purpose, and the few who do are busy doing other stuff with me. So you young guys might consider this advice: Sure they’ve been screwing you over while you were still boys. Don’t get mad. Get even. I surely would. It sure beats resigning yourself to a future playing queen’s court eunuch. All those “special” privileged women are never going to stop their whining. It’s what they do. You are NOT responsible for ANY of the choices they make. You are NOT responsible for their behavior. Ignore them and their half-century of self-worshiping “me-ism”. Just shove them out of the way, and DO something!! But first, be my guest: Go ahead and destroy their world. No matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, they are still going to blame you anyway.”
P.S. The answer to the title’s question should be fairly obvious by now. (Thanks to what the American women-dominated public school industry has done to boys over the past forty years, I’m convinced that the average IQ of American men today is around 80. There’s a LOT of Really Dumb Men out there, doing little more than reciting their programmed nonsense. Most seem to be empty bobble-heads full of blustery noise comically trying to project fake machismo, signifying nothing. But what’s really stupid are the women who laugh at their own dumb creations.)
No man is worthy of that title who is unwilling to stand up for his sons.
P.S. Since American women will never pass up the flimsiest opportunity to scream about anything which they perceive places their gender at some perceived disadvantage, I have Soldier’s Rule Number One: “Anyone in America today speaking only in uni-sex terms about our schools is deliberately hiding ugly truths about males, usually boys, as well as their own bigotry, in a conscious effort to subvert federal civil rights law.”
In the United States, uni-sex is just cheap self-serving propaganda benefiting the “special” people – who think the best way to “advance” is to cripple the competition while they are still boys.
(For a discussion of the “thinking” involved in “uni-sex education”, and its consequences to the nation, see “Gymnastics Of The Mind“, posted separately.)
What To Do? See my 3 April 2013 reply to a reader’s comment to “A Society With Only One Gender”, posted separately.
“Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have.” - author James Baldwin (“Notes of a Native Son”).
P.S. Think about it a minute: Just listen to American women complain incessantly about men. It’s their favorite pastime, for the past half century, an incredibly stupid “war” against men that never ends. No matter what, there’s ALWAYS something else petty for them to whine about. Is THIS really who any sane guy wants teaching their boys — anything? Males are guilty, simply for existing? And that’s what we want boys to learn?
And all you white people who think this is solely a race problem, get over it. Race is a tactic women use to shield themselves. To a guy like me, you have no idea how really ignorant you actually are, how much of what you profess to know is just embarrassing nonsense, propaganda programmed by your teachers. I do not intend for this to be insulting to you, but to your “teachers”. Just look over the graffiti this soldier has posted on his site during free moments here and there; it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the books I could write if I thought anyone would read them. Your schooling was just as deplorable as for almost everyone else in America – which is why this subject so enrages me. As an American, you should be enraged, too. Over 60% of what you know is just programmed interest group propaganda.
Addendum. The article above was written in 2011, after a year of publicity about all those dumb men on campus and heavy competition among women students for scarce dating material. In 2013, however, I’ve noticed that the subject of enrollment and graduation rate gender imbalances on America’s college campuses has totally disappeared from the American public discussion – just like any mention of gender imbalances in K-12. Since the described trends in college enrollment continue unabated, I attribute this deafening silence to the army of women propagandists who promulgate the “approved” dogma for the many powerful women’s lobbies, teachers and government employees unions, and journalism entities – probably in a concerted effort under her political party’s direction to pave the way for Queen Hillary to ascend to the American throne untouched by “inconvenient” difficult questions. This, too, is just another women’s birthright entitlement devoid of responsibility. That suffocating campaign has been underway for years with all the asinine propaganda surrounding her role as a Secretary of State who traveled with her fawning entourage a million miles to accomplish absolutely nothing except disasters like Libya and Egypt.
* The incredibly huge salaries and profits, mostly tax exempt, generated by health and medical enterprises associated with universities dwarfs into insignificance the favored position enjoyed by those of athletics programs, primarily because they employ effective and pervasive propaganda, enjoy an “altruistic” and “cooperative” image, are a principle employer of women, and employ by far the largest and most influential lobbies in Washington.
Footnote #1. The United States actually has more students enrolled in post-secondary (college level – 17,500,000) than in secondary (high school – 16,500,000) education, a fact that reflects the huge number of foreign-schooled students attending American colleges and universities – mainly because our own schools don’t measure up. If 17,500,000 students are in college today, then 11,375,000 (65%) are women, and 6,125,000 (35%) are men. This is a gender imbalance of 5,250,000 at any one moment – in favor of women. If you consider only American citizens, the imbalance is even far greater. This is an imbalance far greater than any that has existed since land grant universities were first established in the original states. That number translates into university educations in favor of one gender that more than doubles every four years! This is the greatest civil rights gender imbalance that has existed in the United States for well over a century – IN SPITE of the passage of civil rights law specifically designed to preclude it. Since a university education, once awarded, cannot be withdrawn, these numbers are cumulative, steadily creating a favored nobility caste in American society.
Foreign Students. After World War II, in the 1950s and 1960s, student visas (which often came with tuition assistance) were seen as a sort of foreign assistance program. They provided entrée to Third World people with decent preparatory educations to top American educations. The thinking was that these people would then take their American university educations back home to benefit their home countries. But by the 1980s it gradually became clear that most of the student visas were going to people who came from their home country’s favored top class (and thus could get the requisite quality preparatory K-12 educations, including instruction in English), and that the vast majority of those on student visas were NOT returning home but were remaining in the US after graduation and taking good jobs, including jobs like rural doctors – which didn’t benefit the home country at all. So the student visa concept “evolved“. It now provides an important source of income for American universities while also filling seats with students who arrive with much better prepared educational backgrounds than native Americans. Today student visas are a way for our universities to maintain their relatively high standards and earn needed tuition income while also filling requirements in advanced research positions at the universities or at top associated research institutions, both private and government. Student visas now help take up the slack not being met by the American K-12 public school system but desperately needed by the nation. The vast majority of those foreign students are male.
Unfortunately, the authorized number of these visas, as well as visas for already qualified foreigners to conduct advanced research and development at the nation’s globally competitive high tech companies, are far too low. In addition to placing many advanced university programs in jeopardy, this visa restriction is forcing many of these companies to re-locate their R&D facilities “off-shore” to locations where such foreign scientists can gain access. This, for example, has resulted in a major high tech economic boom in Vancouver (Canada), where companies like Microsoft now maintain huge research facilities paying premium salaries – all to “protect American jobs” that American education simply cannot fill. (Just what does it say abut a country of 310,000,000 that can’t even produce enough high quality researchers in advanced fields to fill its own needs, and has to import as many as it can from countries with much better schools?)
Another visa program (H-1B) tries to address critical needs existing in the US for qualified workers in high tech fields that the US “education” system also does not adequately meet. American companies have been complaining for years that there are not enough highly qualified Americans to meet all the very highly skilled technical jobs they have open, especially those requiring advanced science and math, and that the H-1B program needs to be greatly expanded. But now in 2013 we have women’s groups making a stink in Congress about the H-1B visa program by claiming that the program discriminates against women. In the United States, the ratio of male-to-female highly skilled foreign workers getting such visas is around 85%, and “feminists” claim the H-1B program is “shutting women out” of high-tech fields and “hurting families”. Notice that there is no discussion about actual qualifications for the jobs, no discussion about whether or not as many women as men actually apply for the visas, no discussion about why the imbalance exists, no discussion about why the visas are even needed in the US. It’s all about an affirmative action quota system deriving solely from birthright entitlement due to the difference of a single chromosome. The solution: Lower the standards so far that any woman can get one of these high-paying jobs, just to achieve gender balance (or don’t grant visas if the artificial gender balance is not maintained). (Since “families” is now political code for “women”, usually of “single mother” variety, this is just another over-used propaganda technique.)
Even more absurd, this asinine argument does not even seek to benefit American women, but rather foreign women imported to take jobs from American men by quota. For American women affirmative action has become a way of life, now running on brainless auto-pilot in its third generation as the country continues to slip beneath the waves.
The proposal currently under consideration in Congress would raise the total number of H-1B visas to 110,000 a year (from the current 65,000), with a provision for as many as 180,000 during years of high demand. It also shifts the emphasis in immigration policy from one that prioritized family ties to one that will prioritize professional degrees, making it easier for single people with math and science skills to settle here. Of course, if the women-dominated K-12 public schools in the US were achieving gender balance, while also meeting their mandate to produce the qualified students the society needs, then there would be no need for the H-1B visa program to begin with. Just as many qualified women would be filling such positions as qualified men, and the nation would not have to shamefully import far better schooled workers from abroad. But unfortunately this is logic, and America doesn’t run on logic anymore; it runs on feminine emotion.
Since our women-dominated schools are in gross violation of the law, very heavily discriminate against boys, the women’s “solution” is to totally ignore the causes and address only the symptoms – but ONLY when it’s beneficial to “me” and “my group”, damned any overall adverse effect that has on the whole country, much less on men. It’s ALL about “me”, sound thinking not required, or even tolerated. Women get away with this despicable nonsense solely due to entitlement, running on brainless auto-pilot for over a half century, where logic is no longer even a part of the equation. If you can’t apply logic, why would any employer want you to fill a high tech job? No wonder such companies are simply leaving the US; it’s just gotten too incredibly stupid here. Women get all the rights, all the choices, and the responsibility part is for “someone else” – because “I am ‘special’. I am entitled.” (You’re also nuts.)
Footnote #2. NOW = National Organization of Women. AAUW = American Association of University Women. NEA = National Education Association (the largest union in the US). AFT = American Federation of Teachers (the second largest union in the US).
Footnote #3. A recent Cato Institute study showed that it would be almost $16,000 per year CHEAPER for public school parents in Washington DC to send their sons to the best all-boys private high school in the DC metropolitan region – where they would join other boys with over a 95% chance of admission to college, often on a scholarship. (There are really huge taxpayer costs hidden in fully funding Washington DC public schools, the worst such schools in the country. The solution to “fix” those schools? More money.)
Footnote #4. All Equal Under The Law. The Founding Fathers were committed to establishing a government that would guarantee equally to all citizens the rule of law and security for liberty under the law. Their Constitution, in order to win individual state approval, was neutral with regard to race and gender (by leaving voter qualification to states’ rights), thereby leaving the way open to later equal protection under the law for racial minorities (and women). Shortly after the end of the Civil War, which finally settled the matter of slavery, the 14th Amendment (1868) guaranteed equal rights of citizenship to all Americans, with the special intent of protecting the rights of former slaves.* That amendment includes the word ‘equality’ in Section 1, which prohibits a state government from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This ‘equal protection clause’ protects individuals from arbitrary discrimination by government officials. Federal courts have read the equal protection concept into their interpretation of the ‘due process clause’ of the 5th Amendment, thereby applying the equal protection limitations also to the federal government. Thus, neither federal or state governments may classify people in ways that violate their equal liberties or rights under the US Constitution. American law is thus blind to artificial categories of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.; for purposes of equality a person is a person, and no person is “special”. Subsequent legislation based on such principles has been designed to ensure equitable balance of all persons. If you make a law providing certain protections, those protections have to apply equally to everyone. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its 1972 Education Amendments further defined these principles, primarily in employment, housing, voting and (1972) education. Court cases based on the 1972 Title IX throughout the 1970s and 1980s established the principles used in determining “gender equality” (“balance”) throughout American education in accordance with both the ‘due process’ and the ‘equal protection’ clauses now established in US constitutional law.
Based on a library of upheld legal precedent, certain affirmative action processes may be followed in order to achieve that balance – at ALL levels and in every endeavor of American public education, bottom to top. Once balance has been achieved there is no longer any justification under US constitutional law for affirmative action policies or procedures to continue. On the contrary; since affirmative action is a form of “unearned birthright entitlement”, it is anathema to a democracy that enshrines “equal opportunity” in law, under both the ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses, and therefore MUST end as soon as the demanded equitable “balance” has been achieved. To continue it beyond that point is to move past civil rights to establish and perpetuate “group entitlement” – at the expense of others. ‘Group entitlement” is the very characteristic of British nobility against which the Americans undertook their ‘treasonous’ revolution. This US cancer, greatly aggravated by a ‘tyranny of the majority’, is finally beginning to attract the attention of the Supreme Court even as politicians everywhere run from the concept to avoid losing votes of favored citizens, and most especially those of the super-majority self-interested and responsibility-free women voters. All the Court needs is a case that confronts this despicable practice head-on, and there is no better case to be made than American K-12 public schools – everywhere across the country – for any boy’s father with an actual spine. Despite misperception among those who never learned how to think, all US laws and civil rights apply equally to all citizens, regardless of race or gender; neither laws or government policies or procedures can be legally and permanently established to favor any group over another – which naturally was the original intention of the Founding Fathers. It is the function of government – the legislative, executive and the judicial branches equally – to ensure equal opportunity for all is maintained, even if the Fourth Estate (the press, journalism) fails totally in its protected mandate and shifts instead to an activist propaganda role favoring certain select groups. If other bodies fail, then the Court has no choice but to act – in accordance with constitutional law. All it needs is a case.
*The 19th Amendment (1920) made the right of women to vote universal among all states.
Footnote #5: Employment. You can forget about what the announcement says are minimum qualifications for a particular job; the qualifications are whatever those doing the hiring use to select applicants, and increasingly education is the critical factor for quality jobs, and most especially in an era of high unemployment. Economists have referred to this phenomenon as “degree inflation,” and it has been steadily infiltrating America’s job market. Across industries and geographic areas, many jobs that didn’t used to “require” a degree — positions like dental hygienists, cargo agents, clerks and claims adjusters — are increasingly requiring one, according to Burning Glass, a company that analyzes job ads from more than 20,000 online sources, including major job boards and small- to midsize-employer sites. This up-credentialing is pushing the less educated even further down the food chain, and it helps explain why the unemployment rate for workers with no more than a high school diploma is more than twice that for workers with a bachelor’s degree. (Those without a high school diploma don’t even figure in the equation.) Because so many people are going to college now, even for degrees which on their face have little market value, those who do not graduate from college are often assumed to be “unambitious” or “less capable”. All this has shifted a tremendous advantage to women in the employment arena, almost across the board. Women are using the women-dominated education industry to “advance” on the crippled minds of boys. (Another reason for “degree inflation” and “up-credentialing” in job hiring is the simple fact that today a college degree actually provides little more real education than a US high school diploma did a half century ago.)
Question: What is the largest industry in the US with the highest salaries and the lowest unemployment rate still in 2011, three years after the beginning of the Great Recession?
Answer: Government. It’s 22.6 million workers with an average salary of $54,000* (not counting the best health care and pension and other benefits in the US) have an unemployment rate of just 3.9%. (4% unemployment is considered “full employment”, with a small portion of jobs in normal transition.) (That salary is $14,000 above the national norm; throw in benefits, and government workers are compensated at twice the national average. These people enjoy the biggest and most powerful unions in the country, which get to negotiate their contracts with … other government employees.)
Next comes – Health Services (16.7 million, $47,000, 5.7%) and Education – (3.3 million, $49,000, 5.9%). (The health services industry spends four times as much on lobbying government in Washington than does the military industrial complex, but government, health and education are all women-driven industries, so it’s very difficult separating out true influence. As “eternal victims” all women habitually consider only what’s best for “me” and “my group”.)
These 42,600,000 privileged Americans, the vast majority of whom are women, owe their comfortable lifestyles primarily to money government confiscates from everyone else – who have an unemployment rate of over 16% (which includes those no longer receiving unemployment insurance and those who have stopped filling out job applications. It does not include those many millions who have had to shift to part-time work.).
Added to this privileged mix are those 7,600,000 employed in Finance (banking, insurance, etc.), also overwhelmingly women, who have average salaries of $58,000 and an unemployment rate of 6.1% – and owe their comfortable lifestyles mostly to mortgages, loans, government laws and bail-outs.
That’s over 50,000,000 American workers – a third of the labor force – with far and away the best job security, pay and benefits, and working conditions, in the country, mostly oblivious to the trials and tribulations of everyone else. (This is why, although the value of your home fell through the floor due to a lack of responsible government oversight, your mortgage, insurance and tax costs haven’t budged, may even have risen. Those “special” industries have a ravenous appetite that MUST be fed.)
Small wonder that a Nancy Pelosi-led Congress was so eager to enact a massive new government health care system AND bail out the financial industry, on top of a new prescription drug program, all with massive amounts of other peoples’ money. Women have constituted the majority self-serving voting bloc in America since 1980.
The Defense Department in July 2011 quietly began its first round of personnel reductions – 45,400 people. All, of course, are military people (93% Army and Marine soldiers, which all the self-anointed “special” people like to call inanimate, brainless “troops”, à la Lord Cardigan) – no pension, no severance, no negotiation. Military personnel do not have unions, and Army and Marine soldiers today incur over 98% of war casualties, for the “special” people.
Some facts that help explain reality:
A “normal” unemployment rate in a dynamic US economy is around 4% at any given moment (due to people changing jobs or retiring, women making choices, etc.). Thus, only Government is at full employment, followed closely by Health Services, Education and Finance. All other industries (or “sectors”), which employ far more men than women, have significantly higher unemployment rates, some even well over 20%.
The labor force in the US is about 158,000,000 people – about 66% of all adults (an increase from about 60% in 1948). About 60% of women are in this labor force, a figure that has risen from 32% in 1948 and 43% in 1960. About 73% of men are in the labor force, a figure that has declined from 87% in 1948.
Every 1% of the US labor force is about 1,580,000 people. An unemployment rate of 16% means there are around 25,000,000 people without jobs in America – a figure that is considerably larger than the entire population of Australia. About 85% of the unemployed are male.
You’d never suspect any of this, since women’s lobby machines with the help of their male clones, as usual, keep churning out the emotional propaganda about something, however petty, for our ever-persecuted women victims to whine about. It’s all about keeping alive and well the totally absurd notion of a million rights with no responsibility – that it’s ALL about “me” ad nauseam, that women played no role at all in creating their own condition and that of everyone else, and that it’s the job of government to come running to their rescue. And in a society that now decides on the basis of girly emotion, it works.
*Average (median) personal income in the US for those 25 and older employed full time is about $40,000. (“Household” income is around $50,000 – a reflection of the fact that it now requires two workers to provide the family living level previously provided by one.) A 2012 study of 19 metropolitan areas across America showed that women working full time earn about 119% of the incomes of men working full time.
Well over seven times as many boys as girls drop out and never graduate from high school. But even for those who do graduate, the picture is not nearly as bright as it once was. Today a high school graduate earns $12,000 less than he did in 1980 (adjusted for inflation), yet only about 30% of Americans get college degrees, and twice as many of those degrees go to women as to men. An average high school graduate earns about $32,000 full-time. A average person with an undergraduate college degree earns $24,000 more, a masters $30,000 more, and a doctorate $48,000 more than an average high school grad. That’s why women’s lobbies and their education industry have now started a new campaign to convince people that “not everyone needs a college degree.” The insider’s secret, of course, is that the campaign is intended only for boys, that it’s perfectly acceptable for twice as many women as men to earn college degrees in America and then get jobs paying far more than for men. If the campaign were intended for girls, every women’s lobby in the country would be up in arms. It’s always been true, of course, that not everyone needs a college degree in America, but you’d have to be a moron not to suspect more sinister intent, especially now when women are routinely garnering twice as many such educations as men. (And if you have a useless degree no other employer wants, you can always get hired by government.) Are self-interested women, who have never demonstrated any sense of responsibility for anyone other than themselves, simply setting up their own group for all the cushy, effortless, very high-paying jobs close to the headquarters flagpole, where they can lord their better educations over all those dumb male ditch diggers, store clerks, toilet uncloggers and all-around go-fors out there? Based on their well-established record over the past half century, I, for one, certainly wouldn’t put that intent past bigoted American women at all.
There have been several stories in news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post about women-run companies now requiring college degrees for all hired employees, including for receptionist and file clerk. This makes it very easy for such companies to hire only women, who then have their very own “comfortable working atmosphere” unpolluted by those disgusting competitive men. When the criteria is college degrees, it’s very difficult to make a legal case of gender discrimination in hiring. Apparently, in the employment arena, it’s not what you know or don’t know, about what results you can actually achieve, about any leadership capabilities you have or don’t have, but rather how well you fit in the social group, especially when the group is composed only of women college graduates steeped in liberal arts. (And just try making civil rights law, concerned with artificial labels like gender (or race), apply to credential inflation in hiring – even in companies that now employ only women. All the company has to do is point to its education requirement in hiring to overcome any potential liability in gender discrimination. And it all begins with gross gender discrimination in our women-dominated K-12 public “education” system – and stupid American men, for not taking the legal action on behalf of their sons clearly demanded now for over a quarter of a century.)
Women are still allowed to drop out and back in the labor market with little stigma, and many do so, but there are no acceptable excuses for a man to not be always gainfully employed. Inability to find employment within a brief period for an American man is still grounds for non-hire as well as fertile grounds for clinical depression and can, and often does, lead to suicide, much more so than for women. In fact, unemployment is still the leading cause of adult male suicide. (As the country goes through yet another debate over guns, everyone is hearing about the 30,000 gunshot deaths every year in the US, a number one-third that of the premature deaths that occur every year due to mistakes made in American hospitals. What one does not hear in that gun debate is that well over half of those gunshot deaths are deliberate male suicides.)
Most income statistics published in the US are now concerned with “household income”, in recognition of the fact that, with labor devalued by so many workers, it now takes two wage earners to support a family at the same level previously achieved by one 1960 wage earner. Most “families” in America are now those of “single mothers”; only one in four American boys can count on a father through age 18. And all those women in the labor force now have less than half the children needed to pay for their own birthright entitled benefits in Social Security, Medicare, etc.. – a “future taxpayer-producing job” now mostly farmed out to “someone else” (Third World immigrants) but still falling far short of actual need, all while their premiums are heavily subsidized by those dumb men. (Women receive far greater benefits from such welfare programs than do men, but still pay the same premiums.) If women don’t step up to their responsibilities fast, this country has no hope of surviving intact beyond mid-century. And that is the simplest truth of all; it’s just basic math. And unemotional logic.
Footnote #6: Education-Technology Disconnect Is Matter Of National Security.
The greatest danger of this disconnect falls in an area that most Americans never even consider – the US Regular military. This is the most technologically advanced entity on the planet, with extremely sophisticated capabilities that few today can even comprehend. To manage, control and operate that technology places ever greater demands on human intelligence, on very well trained minds, not just in its day-to-day operational use, but in the great broad overarching thinking that must of absolutely necessity go into fielding, deploying and exercising that technology. The more advanced that military becomes, the greater demands it places on the ability of humans in high places to understand and direct it, for the best possible outcomes for everyone involved, beginning with our own nation’s future viability. Today the default “solution” to problems at or beyond our borders is the US military; that fact alone should provide an indication of the vacuity of our culture, including that portion concerned with foreign affairs and diplomacy. If the people directing that military fall short, especially in not understanding its limitations, the consequences can easily be catastrophic. For a long time I personally have become ever more alarmed at the declining ability of average Americans to think rationally, to separate emotion from logic, to decide on a course that measures up to the principles and standards upon which the ideal “America” is based. Is it better to blow something up, or to send in a few of America’s best men? What good are 10,000 tanks when it’s possible to simply go around or over them, to achieve objectives that simply ignore their very existence? What is the possibility that those engaging in remote control “warfare” from a very safe distance will quickly become nothing but mechanical extensions of their machines who never see or experience the death and destruction they render? How easy will it become for them to start and engage in “warfare” that is never thought through or decided by the American people? What good is all that capability if those who should don’t know how to use it, don’t begin to understand it, don’t even like it? What are the consequences to us if we take a certain stupid short-sighted action today that becomes the precedent for others to use against us tomorrow? The more advanced that military becomes the more important it becomes for those in command to know when and why to exercise restraint, to know when and why less is more.
While many ignorant people continue to deride the “military mentality”, the simple fact is that our military and its best leaders are rapidly moving too far ahead of the American people – in a very wide range of human endeavors requiring uncommon measures of extremely detailed knowledge and intellectual capabilities. No one knows and understands the real world better than a man who has spent a lifetime dealing directly with it and studying its ugliness at the worst possible moments. Our schools MUST produce people who can measure up to that extreme level of fully accountable knowledge, bravery and competence. Critical to military mission success today is very rapid and intelligent adaptability, on-the-fly problem-solving at the lowest levels possible, and in-depth knowledge and understanding of all factors in and around the theater of operations. Despite popular beliefs, war is not about machines; war is about people, where they live, and it requires an enormous amount of personal responsibility far beyond the self – not just for your own people, but also for those affected by what you do – all of them. War is NOT about winning battles; war is about winning the war – however best that can be achieved. Furthermore, people are not static edifices; they constantly react and adapt to what you do, so you must remain ever flexible without losing sight of your objective. There are no text books, no test questions; there are only concepts which enable you to write your own text books and test questions as you try to stay alive. It requires a mind that can easily meld social sciences with physical sciences to the unique situation at hand. Anyone who thinks this is easy is a damned fool. I know of no entity on Earth that can do this better and faster than the meritocracy that is the US Regular military, and its people can apply their expertise far beyond battlefields. But, sadly, what they do is not taught in America’s public schools. And yet those directing that military must of absolute necessity be able to at least engage its leaders intellectually on an equal plane. They must understand the military’s limitations as well as it capabilities, and not screw up its missions with second guessing and changes at mid-stream that become self-defeating (assuming, of course, that they are also wise enough to give it a specific concise mission that has the full support of the American people and an objective way to measure its success).