America’s Greatest Social Shame – Boys

Title IX is NOT About Sports

Title IX is all about cutting men’s college sports programs to ensure “balance” in women’s college sports programs, right?  Wrong.  Title IX makes no mention of sports or athletic programs, and also actually prohibits the application of quota systems.   The law also makes no mention of girls or women or females.

Nevertheless, women very frequently used the law in recent years to deny men seeking a college education through sports – based on women’s demand for numerical balance in men’s and women’s sports programs, i.e., a de facto quota system – even, incredibly, on campuses where women far outnumbered men as students.

(In the following, the term “women” refers to women’s lobbies and women-dominated unions and institutions.  Anyone uncomfortable with my rhetoric should understand that I have been taught that rhetoric for my whole life – by American women.)

How It Was Done

Women were able to do this because the Title IX law “shall not be construed to prevent the consideration of statistical evidence … tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex.”

Making maximum use of this “statistical evidence” provision, women used statistical evidence to establish prima facie discrimination in select cases where their gender could benefit, and the courts upheld this numerical imbalance argument.  So there is now a solid body of law establishing “numerical balance” as necessary to be in compliance with the law.   The appropriate statistical norm for gender is 50-50.  This is “numerical balance” or “equality”.  It applies to both people and money.  It is a quota system by another name.

Remember that institutional discrimination does not have to be shown to be intentional; it only has to be shown to exist.  Change is then mandated by law.  It’s also not necessary to assign responsibility for the condition or even to poll the victims.  (This derives from the legal concept of “disparate impact” (See “Why Are American Men So Dumb?”).)

Applying the law to women’s college sports programs is essentially a diversionary tactic by women’s lobbies to draw public attention away from far greater imbalances elsewhere in the education industry.  In recent years women have also used race as a diversionary tactic, by objecting in court to racial affirmative action policies with respect to college admissions – even on campuses where women hold enormous numerical superiority.  This is why colleges and universities, which publicly report gender data, are so interested in “affirmative action” for males in their admissions.  Those colleges and universities KNOW they are very vulnerable to class action law suits under Title IX civil rights law.  “Title IX” is actually the 1972 Educational Amendments added to the landmark universal 1964 Civil Rights Act; it bans any gender discrimination (or “imbalance”) anywhere in American education, K through post-graduate school.

For over three decades feminists and women’s lobbies aggressively used Title IX wherever it was beneficial to them and their group.  There is thus absolutely nothing to prohibit such an approach to any other public educational program or activity, at any level, by any other person or group.  Women activists have already done most of the work, set the precedents. It’s all now established law.  All it requires is someone with a spine to apply it to boys.

Same Legal Arguments Apply Today

At the most fundamental level, of course, a case could easily be made that colleges with gross gender imbalances in their student bodies are denying a huge number of males an equal path to guaranteed higher incomes – a very significant financial detriment to a really huge number of American men, a truly gross denial of equal economic opportunity to one gender.  This is especially true of state colleges and universities dependent on taxpayer funding to address equitably the educational needs of ALL citizens (as well as those of the state and nation).  After all, Americans definitely do NOT pay taxes to provide an enormously favored position to any one group, and women long ago successfully used the law to force their way into every previous all-male college or university in the nation.

However, colleges and universities are NOT the appropriate target for such discrimination claims, and they are definitely the LAST place where standards need to be lowered further, especially given the now pathetic level of contemporary achievement generally among the products of the overall American public education industry.

Women during the late-1960s and 1970s chose their main target well – our public elementary and secondary schools.  That is also where the focus today needs to be.  The objective must be to ensure that just as many qualified young men as qualified young women show up at the college gates and gain admission by the exact same high standards – so that gender balance is achieved naturally on the campus.  The emphasis must be on what happens before they show up at the gates.  Title IX readily ensures that this is possible.  Title IX actually requires this.

Clearly, for example, schools that exclusively use teaching methods and dictate classroom “atmospheres” intended to maximize the learning environment of girls, without due consideration and use of methods designed specifically to accomplish the same with boys, are in violation of the law.  It’s harder to teach to boys, requires greater skills, more patience, greater knowledge, different approaches, different communication skills, etc..  For example, expecting boys to be accepting and docile is just counter-productive; boys are naturally inquisitive, challenging, restless, restive, competitive.  Boys are NOT girls.  They are far more responsive to adroitly managed peer group competition.  Also, you can tell a boy anything, but the most important things he learns are absorbed from observing the behavior of whatever role model is available, including a woman.  Nothing will turn a boy off faster than double standards, even if the double standards are unconscious.

Most of the critical differences in the ways boys and girls learn were very well established in social science by the ’60s, but rather than try to meet the different needs of both genders equally, our schools buckled almost totally during the 1970s to the very loud demands of women and their lobbies – who were not as interested in the process as they were in the results.  Today the exact opposite is true.  “Education” bureaucrats today can trot out a thousand “experts” spewing gobbledygook mind-numbingly focused on process – all designed to divert attention from the only thing that counts – the results.  What they would never tolerate with girls is now the only thing they will tolerate with boys.  Why?  Because it best serves their purposes, for themselves.

Highly praised school advanced placement (AP) programs, including international studies (IS) programs, which provide almost a guaranteed route to college admissions and scholarships, with participation ratios of 8-1 or more, sometimes even as high as 25 to one, in favor of girls, are patently illegal under the “numerical balance” principle.  (It’s nearly impossible to get schools anymore to reveal the gender make-up of these showpiece programs, but scholarship award lists published in local newspapers, that are always tremendously heavy with girls, do help.)  (See Footnote #1.)  A case can also be made that AP programs that are very heavily weighted in liberal arts and social sciences are also discriminatory under the law – by denying those, especially males, with greater interests in math and physical sciences, equal opportunity.

School curriculums, just as teaching methods and AP programs, need to be equally accommodating to both genders, to all of society’s needs.  (Why does no one today teach the leadership standards of a Real Leader – George Washington?  Why are “leaders” now actually nothing more than figureheads who follow their herd?  Why do we instead focus so much attention on contemporary quota celebrities who do nothing more than occupy unearned spaces to serve themselves?)  A nation’s educational system, especially one supported by everyone’s tax dollars, must first and foremost be designed to keep that nation competitive and viable in the larger world.  While there is definitely a justifiable place for liberal arts and social sciences in any balanced society, just as there is a justifiable place for vocational studies, there is a point when the over-emphasis on “feminine” liberal arts and social sciences becomes little more than frivolous self-involved navel contemplation – women studying themselves (and arrogantly presuming that what they discover also applies to men).  We Americans now excel at nothing more than “studying” ourselves – at the expense of almost everything else.  When did “we” ever become so worthy of such pathetic self-adulation?  What is easier than studying the image in the mirror?  (What is worse than seeing that image solely with our own “eyes”, with our own self-serving delusions?)

In a nation’s school curriculums, a 50-50 split between liberal arts/social sciences and math/physical sciences is a balance; a 90-10 split in favor of liberal arts/social sciences definitely is not.  Furthermore, a more proper fit would be 40-40, with the remaining 20 devoted to vocational studies – with all three equally populated by both genders.  It is not just about what students want; it is about what a viable robust society needs.  We are talking about trillions of taxpayer dollars here.  Nothing pains responsible adults more every time they pay huge school taxes than knowing it will be mostly wasted by obliging day care centers to help everyone wallow in effortless self-contemplation – leading nowhere, and then have to pay again when colleges use the first year or two to teach what students should have mastered by the ninth or tenth grades.  College graduates today know far less about the real world than their parents did when graduating from high school in the 1960s.  (And the focus is on the ever more minute, on ever tinier areas of “specialization”, with little ability to tie what is known into a comprehensive whole – to analyze, to extrapolate, to think, to understand how the micro fits into the macro.  Everyone knows factoids, the dictated dogma, the “right” answers for the tests, but no one knows why.)

Schools that simply channel struggling boys into mind-numbing basket weaving courses are discriminating, too.  Schools that unconscionably diagnose a hugely disproportionate number of naturally restless and bored boys with all sorts of invented mental defects requiring powerful personality-altering drugs to place them into artificial stupors quite obviously are also discriminating.  (There is absolutely nothing uglier than a society that seeks to re-engineer half of its population into some self-serving bigot’s “ideal”, based on “perfect me”.)  Schools that have hugely disproportionate numbers of boys dropping out compared to girls are also in violation of the “numerical balance” requirements of the law.  Schools that profess not to be able to adequately track students to determine precise drop-out rates are simply trying to skirt civil rights law; they KNOW that most of those drop-outs are boys and could very well provide the statistics if required to do so as a price for receiving federal funding.  (If women’s lobbies wanted that data, the schools would cough it up in a heartbeat.)  Schools that start out a school year with the maximum number of warm bodies in desks in order to receive the maximum possible funding, and then immediately begin the process of culling “non-performing” boys from the rolls (expulsions), are playing cheap games with the law and with taxpayers, as are schools that cherry-pick only top performers, mostly girls, to take national tests like SAT to artificially inflate the school’s “performance”.  Schools that then hide the poor performances of boys behind the high performances of girls through the exclusive use of uni-sex terms like “students” and “children” when reporting “results” to the public are also violating civil rights law.

Then comes the most irrefutable evidence of all – high school graduation rates, college admissions and scholarship awards.  With most colleges and universities complying with the law and openly reporting gender data, it is impossible NOT to see the results of the American public K-12 system.

It is not by accident that boys in public school also have enormously higher suicide, accident, autism, diagnosed behavioral problems, drug use and arrest rates than do girls.  (Today women, in a large variety of roles, are overwhelmingly responsible for the environments into which those boys are born and in which they must grow and develop.  Those boys do NOT create themselves.  Women who claim so many rights for themselves simply cannot escape their responsibility for others, despite their incessant efforts to do so.)  All of these situations, and many more, now exist in every public school system in America, and most of them are simply responsibility-avoidance ways that schools and women blame the boys for their failure – never themselves.  You cannot blame your victims for your overt discrimination. Anyone who tried to use that asinine argument with American “feminists” would be burned at the stake.  So why are boy victims any different?

Our entire “education” industry has become, under the law, nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy, one huge affirmative action racket, favoring one gender at the expense of the other.  ALL of the above areas have long been ripe for Title IX civil rights litigation.  And, of course, as women have shown, we don’t even have to ask the boy victims what they think about it or even what they want for themselves; all we have to do is provide statistical evidence showing improper imbalance under the law – to the great overall detriment of the nation.  Besides, thanks to women, most boys have learned very well by now the lesson that school, learning, education, etc., is a “girl thing”.  That is precisely what the women who overwhelmingly dominate their lives teach them, from birth onward.  You don’t have to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over decades endlessly conducting meaningless “studies”; all you have to do is actually talk to boys, and listen, objectively.

If anyone thinks it’s too much to expect schools to make such dramatic changes, all that’s necessary to know is that such changes DID take place, and in very short order — when women demanded them 40 years ago, just by making noise and using the law.  If dramatic change wasn’t a problem then, it sure isn’t a problem now.  And if it is – tough.

The Disappearing Gender

No wonder women, including those who now so overwhelmingly dominate our education industry, have now grown so quiet about gender in our schools, now try to pretend that boys are just girls who wear long pants, that we now have only one uni-sex gender, a gender in “my” perfect image, of course.  No one back in the 1960s would ever have imagined that such things could EVER be possible in America – for either gender, law or no law.  A rational person simply can’t avoid viewing such discrepancies as truly monumental, even evil.

So today, 40 years after Title IX became law, there are valid reasons why this country now provides college educations to twice as many women as men, a truly gross, and illegal, statistical imbalance which continues to grow every year.  Those reasons all fall under the heading of gender discrimination in pre-college education as prohibited by the Title IX civil rights law.  It’s all based on the absurd presumption that “Girls are “special”; boys can take care of themselves.”  Schools that blame boys for their failure while denying such an asinine argument for the failures of girls are simply engaging in institutional sexist discrimination of the most despicable variety.  In very stark contrast to the past, when women demanded solid gender statistics of every conceivable aspect of their kids’ education, today it’s almost impossible to get gender statistics from any of our school systems on any aspect (except, of course, about “bullies” and “stoners”).

“Science”

The same now applies to social “science” research at our universities, conducted mostly by women, on all aspects of education and learning.  As with everyone else associated with the industry, they ALL make a concerted effort to use gender-neutral words like “students” and “children” solely to conceal the true degree of gender differences, the true extent of their own self-serving group think, the true degree to which boys don’t even count (except as warm bodies long enough to justify money).

One recent small Ohio State University study is now very common among American education “research”.  Conducted by a woman, the study showed the effect of using concrete examples in the teaching of basic math – to college students.  First of all, the study involved teaching basic math in college at a level that was taught in the ninth or tenth grade during the 1960s.  (Despite what permanently ensconced ivory-tower  extremist groups like AAUW seem to think, you can’t suddenly create physicists, mathematicians, engineers, neurobiologists, etc., in college; you have to teach and nurture both an interest and a mastery of such sciences for many years BEFORE college, from grade one – like the rest of the industrialized world does.)  (It’s like sports stars.  Get it?)

This was pathetic enough, but the study showed that the use of concrete examples didn’t help, that it was better to teach the principles and concepts so that those principles and concepts enabled, even forced, application to a far wider range of situations – which, of course, is the utility of math in the first place.  Such conclusions were, of course, widely accepted understanding until the 1970s.  Up until then, concrete examples were used only with arithmetic to get students started down the road.  This could be one reason why American industry and advanced research has such a huge preference for foreign-educated mathematicians and physical scientists, and now imports over 85,000 of them every year at top salaries.

But the OSU study discussed only “students”, and incredibly made no mention of any gender differences that may have shown up.  During the 1950s and 1960s, and as late as 1980, such a study would immediately be declared invalid and thrown out – for obvious reasons.  Forty years ago it was widely proven and accepted that there were critical differences in the way boys and girls learn things, and the idea then was to try to maximize what worked best for each gender – so that BOTH genders could, if they were so inclined, excel equally.  Any reputable study HAD to account for gender differences, or face summary peer rejection; publication in any journal would never even be considered.

Yet the idea among “educators” these days seems to be to force EVERYONE into ONE dictated mold – the mold that works best for girls and women.  “My way, or the highway.”  It’s all arrogant “expert” women’s “group think”, dedicated to creating crippled male clones of themselves, emotion-based “girly-boys” buried in some effeminate unisex entity.  Of course, women now overwhelmingly dominate in every single field dealing with child development, including education and education research, sociology and psychology, health and medicine – from before conception to after college.  That immense power has now become nearly unassailable.  And all the research money is STILL in girls and women.  It’s a huge industry that feeds on itself, year after year, decade after decade.  Male scientific experts are tolerated only if they religiously parrot the dictated dogma.  When they don’t, they can expect literally the wrath of God, followed by a cessation of funding, even well organized efforts to ban any books they may attempt to publish – in America!  When the OSU math learning researcher above was asked for any gender differences she found, all she had was silence, as if shocked that anyone would dare ask such a question.  How in the world are such perverted studies funded?  And what reputable scientific venue would publish them?  The exclusive use of gender neutral terms concerning child development is simply an inescapable indicator of abject bigotry.

The Incentive

Today we as a nation have a higher education degree completion imbalance of 65-35 in favor of women – a truly astounding 30-point spread, or nearly twice as many women as men getting advanced educations – at truly great taxpayer cost.  That spread has widened every single year for the past 30 years and is projected to continue growing ever wider as far into the future as can be realistically estimated.  Today these cumulative differences already translate into many tens of millions.  (Often overlooked in the statistics are the top 100 liberal arts colleges in America that are almost all private schools with a long tradition of catering almost exclusively to women studying liberal arts and social sciences.) That’s a huge number of women getting very expensive educations every year – but on whose dime?

Obviously scholarships play a critical role, and women for many years throughout this country have been garnering incredibly more scholarships than boys.  (See Comment #1.)

And the pay-off?  The average women college graduate can expect to earn an astounding $1,000,000 more over the course of an average career than will a boy who drops out of high school.  A really huge number of them will be employed in entities that are dependent on government paid for by everyone else, so they can also expect to fill jobs with the greatest degree of job security, best working conditions, best benefits (including platinum health care and retirement plans), and best possibility for steady advancement.  And it’s the boy’s fault if he misses out on all this, HIS fault if he fails to make an equitable contribution to his society?  Obviously there is Real Money to be made by women from ever more failing boys.  They obviously have, at the least, a very major financial incentive to continue discriminating against boys in school, to continue blaming the boys for THEIR failure, to continue denying those boys equal opportunities, to continue snickering at the consequences of their own bigotry.  In the United States, educational opportunity is the key to economic opportunity; it’s not hard to imagine what happens when you hold that key solely for your own advantage.

Brainlessly throwing ever more money at the problem is most definitely NOT the answer.   Such “solutions” are just simple-minded in the extreme.  Private all-boys schools do an enormously better job of teaching boys to compete in the world than do public schools – at a fraction of the cost.  (See Footnote #2.)  Nothing succeeds in government better than failure; the more it fails, the more money it gets.  It’s not about the infrastructure; it’s ALL about the teaching, about the self-serving mind-set of the women who dominate the “child development” universe.  A Regular Army sergeant can do a better job of teaching boys in an open field than public schools do in fifty million dollar palaces.  Besides, over half of school taxes, before a dime goes to the kids, goes first to keeping flush much better platinum health care and pension plans for a nine-month-a-year job than most normal people – who pay for it – earn after decades in a 12-month job.  Talk about rewarding failure!  And bigoted failure at that.

‘Boy Crisis’ Has Grown For Over 25 Years

We have now been stupidly “debating” whether or not there is a “boy crisis” in this country for over twenty-five years, when, by law, there should be no “debate” at all.  We’ve all heard at least a thousand different excuses churned out ad infinitum by pseudo-scientific propagandists feeding leisurely at the “research” trough – excuses which accomplish absolutely nothing except perpetual mind-numbing equivocation.  Women in the ’60s would NEVER have tolerated such idiotic procrastination tactics; they got most of what they wanted in just five years – just by using their very loud noise and the law!  College enrollment and scholarship award figures, and most especially degrees awarded, today are inescapable evidence of gross gender disparities – imbalances enormously greater than when women made an issue of them in the late 1960s.  They are irrefutable evidence of institutional discrimination in our pre-college school systems.  They are irrefutable evidence that these systems are in clear violation of the civil rights law originally demanded by women and applicable to everyone.

But since it’s now boys on the short end of the stick, it’s now quite acceptable to blame the victims for THEIR failure.  Anyone would be a fool to apply that absurd argument to girls.  And THAT’s “equality”?  THAT’s “fair”?  THAT’s “justice”?

If it isn’t 50-50, it isn’t equal OR legal!   It is NOT just about college sports programs!

That’s many hundreds of billions of other people’s dollars being used annually to perpetuate a grossly discriminatory industry favoring one gender over the other with incredibly enormous consequences for the whole of society – for at least the rest of this century.

The problem is that, while no one wants to focus on the discrimination against boys in our pre-college school industry, they instead tinker around with colleges and their admission programs.  That’s as brilliant as closing the barn doors after the horses have left – which is the usual “solution” advocated by our infamous Baby Boomers.  It’s just stupid, driven only by a fear of jeopardizing huge federal subsidies and grants to our nation’s colleges and universities should anyone with a spine ever stand up and go to court.  Most of the many billions in government research funding goes to such institutions with the proviso that they cannot be used to support activities that discriminate – against any group.

Why Schools Are So immune

But boys don’t have, and never did have, one single credible special interest lobby to champion their cause, and it’s been blatantly obvious now for three decades that women, even women elected representatives, even mothers of boys!, certainly aren’t going to champion them, either.  These creeps all know that boys are sitting ducks for whatever anyone wants to do with them.  In America you can do anything you want to boys, and no one will ever say anything – least of all those with the theoretical responsibility for them.  On the contrary.  Just look at all the current snickering from university women, at sanctimonious self-serving women bureaucrats, prosecutors, even judges.  (Few things can get my blood boiling faster than having to listen to some sanctimonious women judge pontificate in court about the actions of some boy, especially when it’s nauseatingly all about her superior “feelings”, rather than about equal application of the law, much less about the women who taught him his values.)  It’s all about blaming the dumb boys!  And it’s perfectly “acceptable” behavior.  Women would, and routinely do, justifiably go into orbit if some idiot man tried that with girls.  Girls have excuses; boys have blame.  (It’s “equality”.)

Schools are immune mainly because the K-12 education and its enormously powerful unions have been so successful with their blanket censorship practices, and pervasive use of propaganda, so that the public remains ignorant.  But it’s also because no one wants to risk the wrath of women, their lobbies and unions.  And lastly because, of course, there is no money in boys.  Nothing ever gets done in this country without an economic incentive.  Furthermore, women now overwhelmingly dominate in every single field dealing with child development.  No one listens to anything men have to say on such topics anymore unless it fully complies with women’s “expert” group think, their prevailing self-serving dogma.  This is precisely the charge women – at that time on almost no objective evidence at all – made against men who previously, up to the 1980s, were prevalent in such fields.

The whole scheme is just shameful, at the very least. Furthermore, the lock-step approach taken by the women who now fill over 98% of all “education journalism” jobs in this country perfectly creates in the public mind the precise “reality” desired by both the schools and women’s lobbies, while slickly hiding the full ugly truth.  These “journalists” ALL trumpet the same smug, self-serving bigotry, all obediently parrot the school-provided propaganda.  This is not only reprehensible, it’s just ugly.  The Fourth Estate is provided freedoms under our Constitution precisely because of the responsibility inherent in that critical fourth leg of our democracy; it is not a free pass for self-interested bigotry.

The Role Of Women

Clearly women are responsible for the current mess, and women must now fix it.  Actually, they, and especially mothers of boys, should have begun fixing it twenty-five years ago.  Under our Constitution, you can’t apply legal principles to only one gender, and deny those same legal principles to the other gender.  There is no “special” in “equal”, and misandry is just as despicable as misogyny.  The time when women could automatically use the feared “sexist” label to silence valid criticism is rapidly running out; that label is NOT a one-way street.

American women were never so shameful as when white college women, by far the most favored group on the planet, at the University of Michigan, went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2007 to argue against college admission practices that seemed to favor blacks, never once recognizing that they themselves have for forty years benefited greatly, and continue to benefit greatly, from very major affirmative action practices in almost every walk of life and most especially in education.  Once they had used massive affirmative action programs everywhere in employment and education for decades to accomplish whatever they wanted, they were now denying the same advantages to others?  Just how ugly can one group get?  The “old men” of ’60 Minutes’ ran that Michigan story three times, without editorial comment.  For every man in America over the age of about 55, who had spent most of his life yielding and suffering literally everywhere to the incessant affirmative action demands of women, no comment was necessary.  The irony was overwhelming.  Just what are our schools “teaching”?  All that affirmative action crap, originally intended as temporary crutch measures, has now become permanently institutionalized.  (Addendum:  A case similar to the Michigan racial affirmative action case was in 2013 pursued by women against the University of Texas.  How greedy and selfish is it possible to get?  American women have become the most obnoxious self-serving creeps on Earth.  But one good sign is that the Supreme Court is also now at least mentioning out loud such terms as “group entitlement” in its verbal public deliberations.)

Boys and young men today all tell me they just tell women whatever women want to hear, because the truth is just too much hassle when women always take such personal emotional offense.  But our nation can’t afford such juvenile silliness anymore; we have to start telling women the truth about their group, and admit that our boys need help.  It’s long past time for American women to grow up.  We have to start holding women accountable for the responsibility end of all their claimed rights.  We can’t solve problems when huge relevant parts of those problems have been censored out by over-sensitive self-interests.  After all, already half of our women college graduates today will have to find mates far less educated than they are.  Over 40% of married American women already earn more than their husbands, and women employed full-time nationwide now earn 120% of the earnings of men working full-time.  No one ever considers what such statistics mean for our children.  The “eternal victim” label so long embraced by American women no longer holds an ounce of truth.  Women are very rapidly becoming the nation’s primary breadwinners, which means the responsibility is now inescapably theirs.  THEY will be the ones on bended knee with huge diamond ring making all the promises.  It’s a very safe bet that those women WILL be on the same receiving end of societal attack that men have been for their entire lives – the sole “responsible party”, the only “safe” target, the “favored group with all the advantages”, the group to milk for as much “free money” as possible.  Women would be best advised to grow a solid steel skin quickly.

Certainly no sane adult could have anything at all against women excelling at anything, including nuclear physics or combat infantry or similar very challenging careers – as long as their sense of responsibility for others equaled or surpassed their sense of rights claimed for themselves.  On the contrary.  All things considered, today most smart male managers would probably choose a women to work with, simply because most young men no longer measure up.  This nation desperately needs over-achievers of every variety, in every field, of both genders.  But this ascendancy of women is unconscionable if it is accomplished at the expense of steadily lowering standards, at the expense of the other half of our population, and without an equitable level of responsibility.  Just who do women think is going to defend their society?  Besides, why should male taxpayers continue to support an education system that so very dramatically short-changes their own sons?  If the genders in this situation were reversed, every women in America long ago would have taken to the streets in full riot gear.

All any rational person has to ask is how American males went from the top of academic world class to the bottom – in one single generation!

Seeking reasons for the failures of boys in the boys themselves, never in those adults responsible for raising and teaching those boys, is the most contemptible self-serving blame-shifting imaginable.  The notion that American boys have suddenly come up with all sorts of physiological and psychological defects is every bit as ugly as the most despicable of Nazi tactics designed to justify the genocide of a whole group of humans.  It harkens straight back to a birthright-entitled British nobility vilifying the very “sub-human” Irish “animals” their relentless militant oppression and discriminatory edicts both created and enslaved.  All this is simply because boys don’t fit neatly and docilely into the mold women want them to?  Boys certainly didn’t raise themselves to become those loser men.  (See Footnote #3.)  They are quite simply victims of bigotry.  The relentless quest to come up with all sorts of “physiological causes” is just another version of what American women do best – shift blame.  No elected or nationally known woman in the history of American democracy has ever championed a cause for any group other than her own, has ever pushed an agenda that did not first and foremost benefit herself and her own group.  It’s time for our women to stand up and assume full adult accountability for ALL aspects of our society – including for the other half.  All those rights DO come with corresponding responsibilities.

If women can’t equitably manage the results of an incredibly huge and critical industry over which they have had total control for over a half century, what makes them, or anyone else, ever think that they can do so with other industries, other endeavors, with the entire nation?  No sane person should trust them to manage anything equitably.  (I personally would never trust a woman doctor with my routine health; as an American woman she has demonstrated zero sense of responsibility for anything or anyone but herself.  Because I think with logic, I think any man who does is just being typically stupid.  I definitely would never ever trust any American woman who became Commander-in-Chief.  Why would I?  In her mind, I am “the evil oppressor”, the best “expendable” excuse possible for her to avoid her own responsibility.  Think about it:  What has any American women ever even tried to accomplish on behalf of MY group, the other half of our society?  Zip.  And this earns her my vote?  Sorry, there isn’t enough money for her to buy my vote.  The only thing I have to do to make my decision is consider America’s boys in K-12.)

The Power Of Women’s Lobbies

Still, all that having been said, it’s certain that nothing will change, except maybe a few superficial cosmetics, until it’s too late, until it all just blows up.  This has been the accepted practice in America for the past forty years, so I personally predict a future of widespread anarchy.  If this article ever receives more than minor attention, every self-interested lobby even remotely associated with “education” and “women” in America will immediately unleash its foaming dogs to find a million “faults” with it.

The Title IX weapon, with its beautiful simplicity, has been sitting there waiting all along, but no mere man has dared touch it.  Why?  Almost none of them, if they happen to be aware, if they happen to have learned how to think, will even admit publicly that there’s a problem.  These mighty American male warriors will wade into the deadliest video game on the market, but they won’t stand up for their own sons if it means going up against the most fearsome entity in the Universe – American women and their enormously powerful lobbies.  Women have now managed to create the “men” they wanted – dumb, timid, spineless and obedient – fearful cowards full of noisy hot air who derive almost all of their fake machismo vicariously.  They talk a good talk, but almost none of them walks the walk anymore.  They have simply learned how to go through all the required motions, mindlessly recite all the required platitudes, regurgitate the instilled dogma, parrot all the mandated lies.  When has anyone ever heard a man who says in public, without equivocation, any of the things written here?  (Not seeking profit, I don’t have to kiss up to any audience, tell them whatever they want to hear.)  And yet many intelligent men readily agree in private, but their overt role in life is now to do whatever women want.  “To hell with what comes tomorrow.  To hell with my own sons.  That’s HER thing.  Maybe our daughters can begin fixing things – when they have no other choice.”

Of course, men who remain silent about the condition of their sons out of fear of women are fully complicit in the bigotry.  It is NOT “manly” to champion women at the expense of your sons, of America’s boys; it’s just a coward’s effort to acquire fake “machismo”.  Real men do NOT defend the “fairer sex” while throwing their sons under the bus.  As young ’60s women used to scream in the faces of men like me, spittle spraying everywhere, “If you know it’s wrong and don’t do anything about it, then you are part of the problem!!”  And they were absolutely correct; it was enough to shame men into action about a problem they truly did not know was all that serious.  (Compared to today, it wasn’t.)  Of course, the same rant applies to all those phony women today who profess not to agree with the actions of their many powerful lobbies, but hypocritically remain silent while enjoying the rewards.  We are all damning our society to truly monumental social turmoil for ALL of our kids down the road.  It’s long been obvious that women aren’t going to do the right thing, so it’s long past the time for men to start using the same tactics and rhetoric and laws that women used to make the changes they demanded.

If there’s any actual men still left out there….

Moving Women To The Target Line

For the past century feminists have instilled the firm belief in all American women that they are perpetual victims, and they keep hammering away at that dogma.  If women are perpetual victims, they must be victims of inherently evil men.  This is the construct that women’s many powerful lobbies have used to ensure their continued survival, their continued inflow of revenue, their continued power in our society, for the past half century.  The notion of males being victims is totally incompatible with that construct and would seriously threaten the stranglehold on power that these feminist lobbies, including their teachers and government employees unions, have so long enjoyed.  They thus simply cannot yield willingly.  Yielding, granting that the other gender could be a victim, would be suicidal.  Victims, of course, cannot be held responsible; this is what makes being a “victim” so enticing.  A “victim” can stand there stamping her foot while making all the screaming demands she wants – of others.  “Someone else DO something!”

And no one is ever allowed to reciprocate the demands.

Besides, men spend most of their time anymore apologizing for simply existing, while jumping through all the mandated hoops.  Most of them know inside that something is very wrong, but almost none knows what it is – primarily because the women who are now the social scientist “experts” haven’t a clue, either, because they only understand how to impose their own belief structure onto men.  Just listen to these women addressing their “students’, their “patients”, their husbands, even their own kids; they all use themselves as their reference.  Translation: “To achieve perfection, you must become me.”  Why does anyone think suicides among our boys and young men, including those in the military, keep climbing through the ceiling?  Women with their group think have become the very “oppressors” they once vanquished.  And THAT notion is enough to send every women’s lobby into apoplexy.  What group or lobby EVER wants to relinquish such enormous power, and especially when all that power comes with no responsibility?  They NEED women as perpetual victims.

And they need women to keep instilling into boys the notion that evil males are to blame.

Yet today we have the absurdity of women presuming a “right” to “lead”.  Leadership, of course, is NOT a right; it is SOLELY an earned responsibility – for others.  Just how can a “victim” lead?  Victims just sit there and whine, make demands of everyone else.  NO ONE follows a whining victim.  And American women have learned very well how to literally wallow in their victimhood.  Of course, there is only one way to lead – from the front, by example, for everyone else.  Any two-bit twit can stand in the safe rear and scream orders to idiots.  (Is this why women are destroying boys in school?  To create morons?)  Just look at all their childish fascination with British royalty, with birthright entitlement, with unearned ascendancy, with dictatorial rule from the very safe rear.  Where does this nonsense come from?  How “un-American” is it possible to get?  “Let them eat cake”?  Women may dictate, but they will never lead in a democracy that includes the other gender until they can fully accept such simple truths about leadership.  And, sooner or later, their ability to dictate will end.  Abruptly.  And, without doubt, ignominiously.

Even the women we have elected to represent all of us in a democratic government based on the fundamental principle of equality over the past forty years refuse to accept the responsibility for the other half that has long been theirs.  The only issues they will champion or support are issues that somehow benefit women, that benefit “special me”.   No wonder the nation totters on the brink of bankruptcy.  (Knowing full well that it makes zero difference, due to their huge majority as voters, until women representatives start representing  equally the other half of our society, none will ever actually earn the votes of men.)  With American women, it’s all about their rights; the responsibility part is for some other schmuck.

And their actions routinely telegraph this nonsense to their sons, their students.

Will open discussion become possible only when we finally elect a woman as our Piñata-in-Chief?  (Probably not; President Obama’s race obviously insulates him from much of the criticism that would readily be dumped on a white male, so obviously a women President would enjoy the same “special” privileges.  The power of lobbies is truly huge.  After all, who wants to be labeled a “racist”?  Or a “sexist”?)  Laura Bush is the only nationally recognized women in American history who has ever tried to champion the cause of our boys – for six minutes on the Jay Leno Show in the early 2000s.  But her efforts were immediately drowned out by powerful organizations like AAUW, which trotted out, on cue, a whole new “women’s right issue” to divert the public’s attention.  (This one eventually resulted in the departure of the honorable president of the nation’s flagship university, Harvard – a shameful event that sent terror into every minority male in the education industry, all the way down to the bottom.)  (See Footnote #4.)  At the mere scent of trouble, these lobbies, in concert with the powerful teachers unions, can churn out enough stinking self-serving propaganda before sundown to bury Mount McKinley.

It’s impossible not to see the cumulative detrimental effect of so many powerful self-interested lobbies on the one minority group with no lobby.  So, for boys, logic leads to inescapable conclusions, and charts the way forward, too:  Boys, The fact that no one in a half century has shown enough character or spine to come to your defense, to actually do something, it’s safe to assume that no one gives a damn about you, that you are just expendable, road kill, are specifically excluded from all that mandated societal deference. In my mind, this frees you to set your own agenda, your own rules, to get just as “me”- oriented as all those other groups.  Reject all that subservient crap, the double standards. Never accept anything less that a 50-50 deal.  Never get involved in anything that you can’t walk away from when the deal starts “evolving”.  We live in a capitalist society, and others are perverting the system to reap far greater rewards than you can.  Put a very high price on your life and refuse to sell it short of that price for any reason.  Ask, “What have you ever done for me or my group?” and act accordingly.  If they want to reverse the roles, then you can reverse the rules.  For starters, I’d stop opening doors for women, paying for dinner, carrying their bags, etc. – just to get the point across that anything, and everything, that you have left to offer comes at a price, and that price climbs daily.  Fair is fair.  Force them to actually earn the respect and service they still inexplicably demand from you.  They’ll get everything else they want from government anyway.

Conclusion

Our boys are up against the most effective and most powerful self-interested social and political lobbies on Earth.  Just how much character does it show to use all that enormous power to dump on the only group in the country without a lobby and that can’t fight back? (Talk about despicable bullies!)  The only thing under the Sun that can compete with that massive self-serving machine is … The Law.

But you can’t go to court without the numbers.  So, quite obviously, the education industry’s tightly censored “uni-sex” propaganda has an important objective.  If there are no reliable numbers, extremist groups like AAUW, safely hiding behind protected “academia” (which also provides their phony “bona fides”), can make up any numbers they want in order to support the tripe they routinely spew.  No one dares challenge them.  This is reminiscent of the way the KKK used to operate politically throughout the South.  The same tactics can be seen in dozens of two-bit dictatorships all over the world.  It’s the way cheap bigots and thugs hang on to power.  Soon US criminal conspiracy laws will also come into play.

Women now control the whole “child development” enchilada, from beginning to end, in all applicable arenas.  How can they expect “men” they created in their own image to have the sense of responsibility they don’t?  Women on campus ridicule the ‘sub-par’ men they find around them – never acknowledging that those men did not create themselves.  Boys, of course, have never had a single powerful lobby to champion their cause, and most of them learned “the rules” by watching their mothers and teachers. There are no Big Federal Bucks in boys.  Politicians only care about what women want.  And the only thing that women will accept from men anymore concerning children is whatever women demand of them.  Parrot the dogma – the same dogma that is killing our boys.  “You may participate, but ONLY according to MY detailed instructions.” (Have you ever tried to volunteer with the women who run “Big Brothers”?  Are you a spineless masochist?)

We praise the teacher for her efforts, while ignoring the results of those efforts.  It’s NOT about the effort; it’s ALL about the results!  When you find yourself digging a hole, stop digging!  If you don’t know what you’re doing, don’t do it!  So, either women step up to their responsibility, or they are destined to fail just as miserably as those boys, regardless of how “sincere” and “dedicated” their efforts are.  It’s only a matter of time.  (From my own personal vantage, I’ve been watching affirmative action women in very high places routinely fail the nation for 25 years; it’s just that no one is allowed to say so.  No one is allowed to speak the truth to American women.)  They are quite simply creating the “men” their daughters will love to hate.  And, of course, vice versa.

Boys are NOT girls, and actual men are NOT women.  Yet a lot of bigoted women seem intent on erasing forever the wonderful differences (or at least burying them out of sight).  It’s a childish “battle of the sexes” only insomuch as those women “feminists” and their lobbies and unions continue to wage it many decades after it was all over.

The great societal challenges that lie ahead of us are NOT race; they are solely gender, and no amount of slick self-serving propaganda from very powerful lobbies is going to change that.  The failure of American boys is definitely NOT part of some insidious “international” problem; it is uniquely, and shamefully, American.

And ladies, Just how pathetic is it that you now need such a humongous institutional crutch to achieve what your grandmother did solely on her own merit in an educational environment fully equitable for both girls and boys?

“Reform” doesn’t cut it; “replace” does. We should have totally replaced our entire education industry over 25 years ago; instead we keep marching in the delusion that the problems will all somehow magically go away.  They won’t.  They can and will only grow progressively worse.  Just like all the other growing cancers in our society.

Let’s end all the stupid talk, and use the law.  DO something!

.

.

      “The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of one’s self.”    –        Jane Addams (1860-1935), social and political activist, author and lecturer, sociologist and philosopher, community organizer, public intellectual, founder of Hull House in Chicago, and leader in woman suffrage.  (Just a century later, we seem to have come full circle.  It’s one thing to make just moral demands of others, quite another to accept just moral responsibility for others.)

.

.

(See “Why Are American Men So Dumb?” & “More On Dumb American Men”  and “Gymnastics Of The Mind“, posted separately.)

.

.

Note For Immigrants:  If you care about the future of your sons, don’t buy ANY of the self-serving propaganda and lies promulgated by American women and the public schools they operate.  Do like I do: Vote against every ballot measure for those schools, and double the taxes government confiscates from you to pay for those schools and contribute that double amount to private all-boys schools that consistently graduate over 98% of their students while sending over 90% of them on to college – most on academic scholarships. If given an equal chance, your sons can easily beat American public schools by learning in a tent on an open field – by learning from teachers qualified and motivated to teach boys simply by treating them like boys.  (Donations from men like me enable those private schools to offer tuition assistance to those boys who need it.)  And, most important, do not throw your sons under the bus by sending them to American public K-12 schools – unless those schools routinely provide the public accurate and verifiable gender data of the balanced results they achieve in ALL aspects of their mission.  There is no more important mission for the future national security of the United States, so NONE of it rationally can be kept secret from the public or hidden behind deceptive propaganda.  Those taxpayer-funded schools exist for a purpose; if they are not fulfilling that purpose, then they need to be shut down and replaced with something that actually works equitably for boys, for ALL of our children.

Just ask the 36-year-old son of immigrants from Bangladesh and India, Salman Khan. Khan holds degrees in math, engineering and computer science – but not education.  Yet he is America’s most effective teacher – of boys as well as girls – who works from a small office in his home in techy Mountain View, California.  Besides being a pretty smart guy, his best qualifications are (1) he doesn’t come with any “victimology baggage”, (2) he is not a prejudiced American woman, (3) it is not all about “me”, and (4) he believes that both genders have a right to learn equally, according to what works best for each.
Khan doesn’t care about process; his effectiveness is measured by results.  He knows his material cold and sketches on-screen what he’s teaching as he teaches, not unlike a good US Regular Army sergeant.  His focus is on learning, not teaching.  And his costs are an infinitesimal fraction of the most expensive education system in world history.  Despite the entrenched mediocracy that has long been American “education”, entrepreneurs like Irish-American benefactor Sean O’Sullivan know that men like Salman Khan can best any trillion dollar establishment serving only itself.  More than anything else, this country urgently needs a LOT more Salman Khans; if you know any more back home, send for them quickly. 

_____________________________________________________________

Footnote #1.   For decades my primary charity donations were to reputable scholarship award programs.  But after years and years of watching girls walk away with well over 85% of those scholarship, and then devote their college efforts to the study of liberal arts and social sciences, to the study of “me”, I finally felt I could no longer continue supporting such blatantly sexist efforts, regardless of any overall benefit of the programs.  So now the sole beneficiary of my charity-giving is to private all-boys schools that consistently place over 90% of their low- and low-middle class students into top universities, preferably on scholarship, and preferably in math and the physical sciences.  This was the only way I could find to help balance, if only in a very tiny way, this very grave social injustice.

Footnote #2.  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 region – where they would join other boys with over a 90% chance of admission to college, often on scholarship.  DC public schools are, of course, among the world’s worst performing, and most especially for boys.

Footnote #3.  Single Mothers.  “Boyhood” (USA 2014) is an excellent film by Richard Linklater that follows an American boy’s life over a twelve year span from about age 5 to age 17.  Surprisingly, it has struck a resounding cord with very many boys, including many in other western countries.  It’s a rather unusual movie in that it uses the same actors over that twelve year period as they naturally age, and so allows us to watch the story’s main character – Mason – literally grow up before our eyes.  But the critical character is actually the boy’s mother, who married when she and her husband were both 23 and, as we later learn, had an “unintended” pregnancy that resulted in Mason.  Obviously neither parent was actually ready for grown-up roles as spouse and parent, and the marriage soon fell apart, leaving the mother alone with Mason and a slightly older sister.  The husband, Mason’s father, took off for Alaska, and the now-single mother struggled to barely provide for herself and her two young children, with the help of her own single mother.

Over the next twelve years, Mason’s mother, alternating between periods of single motherhood, marries and divorces two more men, both brutish guys with drinking problems.  The woman is obviously a very poor judge of men, and opts to place income above character.  His mother was well-intentioned and did her best within her limits.  But she assumes that her son sees the world through the exact same lens as she and her daughter do.  Never in the film is Mason, the “odd-man-out”, ever shown to be a part of her decision-making process.  But somehow Mason, adjusting to no less than seven different home environments over twelve years, always as the “odd-man-out”, avoids the usual clichés.  Despite the constant moving around and changing family environments, he stays on course in all the various schools, does not get involved with criminal activity, and seems well adjusted psychologically.

But there are things that perhaps could be better for this rather introverted but likeable young boy.  Possessing sufficient intelligence, he does lack direction, a sense of self, of goals, of purpose, initiative, self-discipline.  One cringes at the thought of what his answer might be to the question, “Who am I?”  He eschews the more competitive and “masculine” interests like sports and physical sciences in favor of the more ethereal and “effeminate” interests like the visual arts.  (Amazingly, at least in the film, he does not seem to be addicted to social media or video games.)  He commits little of himself to anything, including to a set of principles, even firm beliefs.  Mason just doesn’t seem to stand for anything, just a willingness to go along to get along with the prevailing motion of the moment.  The best advice he ever receives over the almost three-hour film comes from a high school photography teacher, but this man is so lacking in style that it all comes across as one-sided dictate, certain to be ignored.  Never wanting to offend anyone, he has been taught well what to think, but not how to think.

Mason is a boy passively adrift.  Constantly buffeted by ever-changing forces beyond his control, he has little sense of belonging.  On the eve of his high school graduation, trying to articulate some sense to it all, he observes, “I mean, look at my mom.  She got her degree, and got a pretty good job, and she can pay her bills, ….but … basically she’s still just as confused as I am.”   The more accurate truth is that he’s just as confused as she always has been.  He makes this observation as he is about to enter yet another change in environments, this one to a dorm room on a college campus where he intends to pursue the study of photography.  In view of how few other attributes he brings to this interest, even a sense of dedication, it is unlikely that this pursuit will result in future success.  The boy is a nice guy whose future as an independently functioning man is not bright.

No one and no thing ever forced Mason’s mother to do anything.  Every decision she made was hers alone to make, and the consequences were solely the result of those decisions.  Mason is almost completely the product of his mother’s choices, his mother’s behavior, throughout the entire period of his development.  I would predict that he will eventually marry a women who is more assertive than he and with a brighter future, but that she will eventually tire of supporting him and his interests.  He will then revert to the same boy adrift.  Mason, like his mother, is a passive drifter, looking for “someone else” to take the blame, pay the bills and do the hard stuff.  He’s an empty shell, that doesn’t know who or even what he is.  This woman has very effectively bought her son down to her level.  His mother failed to produce a man who would ever fulfill the roles for others that she has always been seeking in men; she just produced a copy of herself.

The one saving factor in this boy’s life was that he did not lose contact with his father, who himself gradually, eventually, grew into that role.  Although the father was not always there, these two males were able to engage in actual two-way guy communication, but by the time the father was able to fulfill his role, it was already too late for the son.  By that time, the boy was already who he was, and the father was wise to just accept and embrace him as he was.  The most important period for Mason had been during his mother’s brief second marriage – to an educated, well-paid college professor who was also a dictatorial alcoholic wife-beater.  That man had been his mother’s college teacher – as she, too, pursued an education, most ironically, in psychology.  Both should have known that to have such a man as Mason’s male role model at that most critical time in his life, and not become just as twisted, is truly remarkable – and testimony to the importance of even a mostly absent father, who maintained a two-way connection.

(For another angle on this theme, see Footnote #2 to “Free As A Bird – Something’s Gotta Give“, which discusses the 1974 film “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore”.)

Footnote #4.  Women took exception to a directly applicable speech he delivered in 2005 at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce.  With the intention of provoking intellectual discussion toward approaches to remedying the shortage of women in high-end science and engineering positions, he postulated three hypotheses for the higher proportion of men in those fields. He then suggested that the gender differences could be due to the second hypothesis – a “different availability of aptitude at the high end” – and less to the third hypothesis – “patterns of discrimination and socialization.” “I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them.”  American women, who habitually feel they are “eternal victims” of inherently evil men took great exception to the suggestion, which torpedoed any further intellectual discussion of the subject.  (Note that the second hypothesis has never been proven right or wrong, just “off limits”, censored.  That leaves only the “sexist discrimination” view, i.e., it’s all due to “someone else”.  I personally believe the numerical gender differences are a product of multiple factors:  women-dominated public schools, the ease with which it is now possible to fail without recrimination, social “safety nets” that minimize losses from failure to apply oneself, ability to deflect personal responsibility by blaming others, much better schooled foreign students, the fact that American women have rights but not responsibilities, etc..)

American “feminists”, and most especially those permanently ensconced in the ivory tower of tenured academia and throughout the power brokers of politics, are among the most ruthlessly fanatical groups on the planet, with extremely long memories, a vicious vindictiveness, and just as capable of waging jihad as any group of religious fanatics around.  Among the nation’s most experienced, respected and knowledgeable economists, seven full years after Lawrence Summers left Harvard he was President Obama’s pick in 2013 as the best man in the country to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  However, “feminists” would not allow senators in Congress to approve his nomination, so the President naturally settled on a woman, a “feminist” quota choice who was quickly confirmed.   Of course, everyone knows that she was not his first choice, or even the best choice, but thankfully Summers has more than enough other challenges to keep him busy and contributing.  For women, I guess we will all have to live with affirmative actions and figurehead “leaders” forever.  And it doesn’t seem to dawn an anyone that the surplus of men in science and engineering are all foreign-schooled men, that American boys are being just as shortchanged by our women-dominated schools as are girls.  Truth is irrelevant; perception is everything.  That, and fanatical self serving dogma, too.

It’s small wonder we have such mediocre elected representatives, and such overwhelming disapproval of the government; which sane top caliber man wants to subject himself to that ruthlessly self-serving demagoguery, where you have to keep reciting all the asinine lies the “special” people demand to hear?