Sunday, July 09, 2006

Fred's Take

Methinks Fred reads Drudge, too. See my post from earlier in the day regarding women in college.

One hears often now that boys flounder in school, drop out, generally perform less well academically than girls, and don’t go to college. A certain amount of this commentary comes from women who seem quietly to enjoy the spectacle. Given that women control the schools, this might suggest that, if they are not actually causing the problem, neither are they in a hurry to do anything about it. Other people worry that the comparative superabundance of female college graduates will have no one to marry: While men will marry down, women won’t. Regarding all of which:

The cause is not that boys are stupid. Boys have higher average scores than do girls on standardized tests, for example, and at the high end are far ahead of the girls. Putting it straightforwardly, the very smart are predominantly male, particularly in mathematics, and the exceedingly smart, almost entirely so. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to think it fair. But it is a fact, and everybody in the field knows it.

Consider. The maximum score on each half of the SATs, both verbal and mathematical, is 800. You have to be, or had to be until the tests were recently dumbed down (“recentered,” I meant to say,“recentered.”), quite bright to score an 800. In 1999, when I checked because I was writing a column, 1611 girls in the country scored 800 on the math section; 4815 boys did. Verbal? Girls, 2828; boys, 3087. The male average on the math SATs was 531. The female was 495. That's not a trivial difference. Verbal scores? Males 509, females 502. The latter difference is slight and probably attributable the larger numbers of girls taking the test. The difference in math scores isn’t.

I may be a fool, but Fred is not. When he backs me up, I can seemingly live up to my moniker by proxy.

Further, in the schools today we have feminization, feminization, feminization. Instead of treating girls like girls, and boys like boys, all are expected to be girls. It doesn’t work. Boys by their very nature like to roughhouse. They like contact sports. You don’t have to force them to play football. They are competitive. Women don’t understand this, and what they don’t understand, they outlaw. Today estrogenated school after estrogenated school bans dodge ball as too dangerous, outlaws tag (“They get too rough,” meaning too rough for Mrs. Teacher), and insists on “groups games led by a caring adult.”

It is hideous for boys. Everything they are, it isn’t. “Ohhhhh, let’s have a caring non-competitive game….” If he is really bright, with an IQ north of 150, he will decide that his teachers are idiots, which most of them are, and withdraw. There will be a price for this one day.

You want to end the “boy crisis”? Easy. Give boys male teachers who understand boys and care about them. Women do neither. Let them compete. It’s how they are. Encourage them to burn off energy in the gym. Reward achievement, not pretty projects. Turn them into men, not transvestites.

Good sentiment, but it's not going to happen. Consequently, my children will be home schooled. Who knows, they might be able to read--not just English, but Latin and Greek--by the time they graduate high school.

4 comments:

troutsky said...

I guess it is the feminization of our educational system that explains all the women in power today, politics, business,etc..It would also explain the dissapearance of physical contact sports, violence in general and war.Ive also noticed no one hunts anymore, they are all knitting and baking.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Laying on the sarcasm?

I don't have a problem with women working, though I do think it's ridiculous to believe that joining men in corporate America is, in and of itself, laudatory.

It seems to me that as the American family continues to deteriorate, we are in more need than ever of strong and courageous women to keep the next generation in line. We've got all sorts of problems that need fixing, and I'm not overly optimistic that my generation is cut out for the task.

Anonymous said...

while you examine warnings signs relating to the loss of traditional gender roles, why do you ignore the warning sings relating to the loss of traditional earth temperatures?

as you say, only time will tell and there isn't enough facts to do anything about any of it.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

We have thousands of years of history to assert gender roles, and for two thousand of them, the Catholic Church has carefully proscribed the limits for the sexes to live in complimentarian freedom and relative peace.

On the other hand, we have 120 years of temperature readings, little of which is consistent or reliable. Not only have the instruments of measure changed, but without a larger picture, it is nigh impossible to determine what this minute amount of data may mean. Forty years ago we were warned that the earth was going to freeze again. Were we unwise to heed the dooomers then?

Human nature does not change. The environment may, and indeed does, but one cannot understand the environment for the simple reason that we are but one small part of it. Contrarily, the human can be understood by humans because we are all the subject being studied.

We shall shortly see whether feminism or global warming is the greater threat to western civilization.