STORIES ROUND UP

As ever, the stories and issues have come thick and fast so here are some that were too important to miss:-

The Guardian (Lee Elliot Major) - Why Boys Can't Keep Up With The Girls

Daily Telegraph (Melanie McDonagh) - Maybe Men Are Now The Underdog Sex

Sunday Times (Sarah Baxter) - Women Are Victors In The ManCession

The Guardian (Sarah Boseley) - The Future Is Female

The Independent (Richard Garner) - University Women Beating Men At Almost Everything

Scotland on Sunday (Dani Garavelli) - Let Our Boys Be Boys

Daily Express (Anil Dawar) - Outrage At White Men Prevented From Being PCs

Comments

[MRN]

There are some sensible comments in the Guardian comments, and then there are the usual political-class approved misandrous comments:

"Perhaps boys quite accurately perceive that they have less need of attractively embossed bits of paper than do girls; they have routes to the top that are not open to the girls"

What "routes to the top that are not open to girls" might these be?

Pure and utter misandry.

[MRN]

The standard feminist reaction.

"So we have one pro-woman bias, why not have more?"

QUOTE:

"If women are performing more highly academically than men, as the article claims, then the fact that they are not more highly represented in key professional positions is a cause for concern."

[MRN]

"Anybody else think that this gender argument is distracting attention from the main issue, that the education system needs a fundamental overhaul so all children get a decent shot?

And I'd feel the same whichever gender is currently 'in front'."

Funny that feminists weren't saying that in the 1970s.

[MRN]

"People forget that, in primary schools, in the age of the 11+, girls always outperformed boys. This happened to the extent that the pass mark for girls was raised higher than for boys, as there weren't the grammer school places for all the girls that could have passed.

However, what then happened was that due to a combination of circumstances, girls' progress, especially in mixed schools, tended to slow in their early teens. Some of the circumstances were low expectations, a curriculum for girls geared to domestic skills, and so on."

Ah I see individual peculiarities affecting girls. So they matter when the sex is female, but not when male. I see.

[MRN]

"When boys consistently did better than girls was it considered a problem? If not why is considered a problem today that girls are doing better academically than boys? Is it because men's egos are more delicate?"

Then women have very fragile egos indeed, whining incessantly as they did in the 1970s about the education system today. And whining today, as they do, about the slightest gap in third level or management or wages.

Funkistheway (the poster, a female) has constructed an argument that is self-defeating. But she does not care, as long as they can propagate some worn cliches about the "male ego".

"Could it not just be the case of, girls finding it easier to fulfil their potential now that we live in a more equal society?"

Correction: that should be "Matriarchal society".

And yes, it makes perfect sense that women would perform better than men in a Matriarchal society.

[MRN]

Another pinhead who wants more pro-female biases:

"If girls are so clever all of a sudden, then maybe they should start thinking about how to narrow the gender pay gap."

But no doubt preaches "equality".

[John Kimble]

most of those headlines are just to depressing to click on - especially when one sees the publication is in fact none other than the Guardian.

""Anybody else think that this gender argument is distracting attention from the main issue, that the education system needs a fundamental overhaul so all children get a decent shot?

And I'd feel the same whichever gender is currently 'in front'."

Indeed - ok so girls are ahead in some areas, but standards really are very low in some subjects these days so the qualification really isn't worth the paper it's written on. Given current educational standards, pupils of both sexes are going to be ill prepared for the workplace.

Also we shouls of course remember that removing father from children's lives severely impacts girls as well as boys, and of course they aren't immune to the wider impacts on society of the war on fathers.

[CS]

All of these articles have a couple of things in common, an underlying triumphalism on the fact that women are now perceived to be the superior / stronger sex, but none of them coming up with any ideas of what should and can be done to help men. It's all getting a bit predictable, so why bother reporting it?

Turn the clock back 30 years and you have the left wing politicians bending over backwords to empower women and pander to the needs of girls. I worked as a civil engineer and there were goodness knows how mant initiatives to get girls / women into science and engineering careers. The silence on doing the same for boys / men in terms of education and health is deafening. some token effort about getting men into Primary School teaching is pathetic, in Scotland just 8% of primary teachers are men, our kids primary school has no men, shocking in my opinion.

[Groan]

Of course the Equality Bill going through Parliament is designed to make the last story perfectly legal. To discriminate against white men to fill quota. Write to your MP and protest!