'Stop feminising our schools - our boys are suffering'

I apologize to all women in advance, I post this to stimulate discussion, not to offend. Another link from reddit.com, 'Stop feminising our schools - our boys are suffering'.

For the story of my son's swimming competition is also the story behind recent figures showing that boys going to university are now outnumbered by girls in every subject, with 23,000 more places awarded to women than to men. I'd like to say the figures came as a surprise. But both as a parent (of a boy and two girls) and as a writer on educational matters, I'm sorry to say the figures are only too predictable. The simple truth is that by the time our boys have done 12 or even 14 years in the feminised environment of today's schools, they all ask: "What's the point?" If boys are not getting into university, or not applying in the first place, it's because they've been turned off learning. They've been given a message that it's not for them. And that's a tragedy for all of us. For I don't want my daughters growing up in a society full of alienated young men and I don't want to live in a society which suffocates all the good aspects of masculinity. Yet that's exactly what is happening in our schools.

The writer specifically equates "winning" as a positive, but he explains himself beyond that term:

Those who do best, who genuinely achieve great things, get hardly any recognition because someone has decided that in the interests of egalitarianism, most certificates should go to the less able. So there are certificates for kindness and certificates for not using bad language. And so there should be, but it's equally important to reward sheer excellence, too. Boys like prizes - but only real ones. Once they are convinced the system is rigged, they don't want to play. Their testosterone and its companion competitive streak need to be acknowledged. If they're ignored, boys get listless and they start retreating into their hoodies and terrorizing the rest of us.

There is wisdom in this article, at least about young men. Males usually respond to stress with aggression and anger, and those forces can be harnessed for great good. I bring this up today, Super Bowl Sunday, because I *still* meet women of my generation (Gen X) who refuse to date a man who likes football. They wear that attitude with pride, even, as if they are overcoming some great injustice. Plus, this attitude is more common that I am comfortable with.

Thoughts? Are your sons and daughters growing up in a society that benefits them?

They wear that attitude with pride, even, as if they are overcoming some great injustice. Plus, this attitude is more common that I am comfortable with.

So let them die old and lonely or living with men too stupid to know better.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:
They wear that attitude with pride, even, as if they are overcoming some great injustice. Plus, this attitude is more common that I am comfortable with.

So let them die old and lonely or living with men too stupid to know better.

Or give 'em my number.

Seriously, the writer is stretching for that bit of causation. I just don't see it, but then again I'm not terribly competitive myself. I agree that our secondary education system is brushing FUBAR, but that's about the only point I agree with the writer with. Perhaps Louisiana is behind the times and so hasn't had its educational system "feminized" yet.

IMHO, it's not "feminised" per se. It's more lobotomized.

Gender politics isn't the problem. It's the total disdain for the concepts of actual intellectual achievement by everyone. For every dramatic issue he can find for a boy, I can return it with the same or worse for a girl.

Teachers are hamstrung by the incredible oxymoron known as the teaching degree, insane cirriculums, union crap, standardized testing, and Borbdignagian levels of politics and beuracracy. Administration hasn't been able to do anything more useful than the janitorial schedule for 20 years. Students are bombarded by messages that learning is bad both at home and at school, that sex and 15 minutes of fame are the best goals, and are shuffled off to what equates to day-prison for a huge percentage of them. High achieving students have beautiful transcripts and absolutely no skills to help them out in college or the real world. Students who need special help do not get it. Those who don't need it machinate for it to get an edge or to get out of complying with standards. Parents are either oblivious, selfish, beligerant, or too ignorant themselves to understand that this isn't the way it's supposed to be.

The only people who are getting anything they need out of the schools are pundits like this, who has pandered his blinkered little view of the problems into $.25/word.

(Oh, and that lobotomized thing goes ditto for any woman dumb enough to reject a man solely because of football)

Momgamer speaks the truth oh so well.

/Former Education Major and substitute teacher

Yeah. Momgamer nailed it.

I don't think he ever argued that there was nothing ELSE wrong with the education system, Momgamer. You pointing out separate issues doesn't prove that gender politics isn't also a problem. There is certainly a culture of reparations when it comes to gender issues in public institutions. Women weren't allowed to work in most jobs before, and thus must be grandfathered into those jobs, today. Quotas. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that the same thing goes on in the public school system, and if that's true, then I see that as a problem. If a boy who has worked harder is passed over for admission to university in favor of a girl whose only advantage over him is the fact that she's a girl, then how is that not a problem? Pointing out that that's not the ONLY thing wrong with the school systems doesn't make this issue go away.

I do think he's off the mark by implying that women aren't as competitive as men - that somehow the relaxation of standards is the feminization of standards. That does strike me as vaguely sexist - to say that a system that favors weakness over ability is more womanly. In that case, it's simply a problem with the system that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any issue of gender. But this article also talks about the double-standards with regard to evaluation of boys' and girls' achievement. And that IS a gender issue.

I don't see women as a problem, just the devaluation of masculine strengths.

I'm not saying that mysogyny of all sorts doesn't exist and it doesn't cause some issues at schools. Any large system has issues with it. The problem is so much crap gets laid on the "gender" thing, and everyone's brain shuts off. People defend it just because they feel they have to defend women, and you get this huge kerfubble that solves absofarkin' lutely nothing. It's a nice safe thing to rant about, because there's nothing all that concrete to be done about it.

Morrolan wrote:

I don't think he ever argued that there was nothing ELSE wrong with the education system, Momgamer. You pointing out separate issues doesn't prove that gender politics isn't also a problem.

They're not separate. Please point out an issue raised there that can ONLY be explained by gender issues. Did his son not get a certificate because he's a boy, because his teacher was over-worked, because his/her brain had basically been shut off by all the crap a teacher's day is full of, or because the current cirriculum for teacher training shoves them full of stupid platitudes and rhetorical nonsense that have little or nothing to do with dealing with a classroom of kids in real life?

Or maybe because his kid is a sodding little snot with behavior issues that interfered and Daddy's trying to get a little back this way. Of course his kid is better than everyone else. And it's because of those dirty feminists he didn't the recognition he deserves. (I don't know this in this case; it's just a speculated path extapolated from real life experience with other children's parents)

Morolan, as far as the "double standard", please show me hard facts. Because anecdotally from my experience of raising two boys and two girls up through high school and tangentially their myriad friends and my work with a Youth Group, I'm seeing problems for boys and girls, stoners and straight arrows; everyone from valedictorians and dropouts.

I'd like to add one point I haven't seen mentioned so far - the Daily Mail is a British publication. I'm not sure how much we want to try to drag across the Pond on this one.

From my experience, you really don't want to drag anything to do with the Daily Mail anywhere but a garbage dump. It's a ridiculous paper.

momgamer wrote:

I'd like to add one point I haven't seen mentioned so far - the Daily Mail is a British publication. I'm not sure how much we want to try to drag across the Pond on this one.

FYI:
For FSM sake DON'T take anything in the Daily Mail seriously. Over here 'Daily Mail Reader' is a short hand term for 'middle class, low brow, xenophobic, myopic, right wing ultra-reactionary'

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

From my experience, you really don't want to drag anything to do with the Daily Mail anywhere but a garbage dump. It's a ridiculous paper.

QFT.

souldaddy wrote:

I don't see women as a problem, just the devaluation of masculine strengths.

Haven't seen it. If anything, the culture is as obsessed by the masculine strengths of fighting, banging chicks, and making cash as it's ever been. Home Depot and Lowes sell a ton of tools. Discovery Channel and the Learning Channel run marathons of biker build offs and various other shows dedicated to heavily-muscled tattooed dudes building stuff and going fast. NASCAR. Ultimate fighting. Wrestling. Monster trucks. Hells bells, man, even girls are brawling and posting that crap on the youtube. You can't get more macho than that.

I'm around kids sports constantly these days, and there's no problem with a lack of competition. If anything, it's so competitive that we're encouraging a system in which there are athletes who play on teams and butterballs who are all but told to go sit on a couch and play videogames because sports are only for the best of the best. It's really sad, because for the whopping 99% of kids who WON'T be getting athletic scholarships (forget doing it as a pro) the point of sports isn't about winning the state or district championship. It's to get exercise, learn how to do a job, and have loads of fun.

I would say the overscheduling of our kids and the ugly hypercompetitiveness of sports dads is testimony to the fact that there isn't a "feminizing" happening.

souldaddy wrote:

I don't see women as a problem, just the devaluation of masculine strengths.

What is a "masculine strength"? And a) how do you know they are inherently masculine in nature; b) what precludes them from also being feminine; and c) who may exhibit said strength, and can one gender of human exhibit the opposite gender's strengths? Keep in mind that you'll have difficulty finding one trait or characteristic (aside from the biological functions) that applies to all women, or one trait or characteristic that applies to all men; our species' behavior is far too varied, even from culture to culture, to make many sweeping generalizations of that sort.

I ask because I do not understand the relevance of assigning gender identity to a strength, weakness, personality trait, whatever, since abstract ideas are genderless. A statement such as "competitiveness is a male thing" is an oversimplified categorization that ignores that possibility that it might also be a "female thing", or, indeed, a "human thing", or maybe just an "animal kingdom thing". Etc.

Well if one thing is the same in the States as it is in the UK, it's the growing gender gap in college.

I'm concerned about the gender gap, but when I look out and see so many high-school educated contractors making far more in a year than my highly educated ass, I'm wondering why I chose education over learning how to spec and install an HVAC system.

KaterinLHC wrote:

I ask because I do not understand the relevance of assigning gender identity to a strength, weakness, personality trait, whatever, since abstract ideas are genderless. A statement such as "competitiveness is a male thing" is an oversimplified categorization that ignores that possibility that it might also be a "female thing", or, indeed, a "human thing", or maybe just an "animal kingdom thing". Etc.

On an individual level, you are absolutely right. On a statistical level, I mean, are we kidding? There are obvious differences, that's why men and women don't compete directly in the Olympics. Sports have always been a core part of any american high school I've ever seen, and it's a field that men are naturally, physiologically advantaged over women. Sure I've seen women outperform men in almost every sport, but that is usually the exception rather than the rule.

If there were no differences between men and women then Daddy is as equally capable as Mommy in teaching daughters about menstruation. I understand the need to look beyond differences in sex, culture, race, etc. That doesn't mean we should become blind to those differences.

Funkenpants wrote:

Haven't seen it. If anything, the culture is as obsessed by the masculine strengths of fighting, banging chicks, and making cash as it's ever been. Home Depot and Lowes sell a ton of tools. Discovery Channel and the Learning Channel run marathons of biker build offs and various other shows dedicated to heavily-muscled tattooed dudes building stuff and going fast. NASCAR. Ultimate fighting. Wrestling. Monster trucks. Hells bells, man, even girls are brawling and posting that crap on the youtube. You can't get more macho than that.

You can't look at media and make an accurate judgment of our society. Our entertainment dials everything to the 9s.

momgamer wrote:

IMHO, it's not "feminised" per se. It's more lobotomized.

I don't agree directly with the author that feminism is the cause. In fact, I'm not sure why he put the word in the title of his article, probably just in enrage readers. Like I've said before, I DON'T believe women are "the problem", nor do I believe feminist groups are the problem. If anything its a change in values. Clearly we have lost our way with public education, but the causes and consequences are nefarious and open to debate. Hence this thread

I liked the article because I felt the author had a good understanding of young men. His lady skills seem to be lacking.

I'll read the article later, but one thing that did pop into my head was that the more advanced my schooling got, the gender disparity in teachers seemed to swing back towards, and eventually past, normal. That is, I had 1 male teacher for classes besides gym and band from preeschool through 7th grade. The rest were all women. By the time I was in my final term in college, I think I had all male teachers. I won't draw any conclusions about this, but I personally did feel that female teachers seemed to have a better handle on how female students felt and would react in class.

But then I've always been a mystery to women.

souldaddy wrote:

I DON'T believe women are "the problem"

They're not the problem, they're the goal.

souldaddy wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:

I ask because I do not understand the relevance of assigning gender identity to a strength, weakness, personality trait, whatever, since abstract ideas are genderless. A statement such as "competitiveness is a male thing" is an oversimplified categorization that ignores that possibility that it might also be a "female thing", or, indeed, a "human thing", or maybe just an "animal kingdom thing". Etc.

On an individual level, you are absolutely right. On a statistical level, I mean, are we kidding? There are obvious differences, that's why men and women don't compete directly in the Olympics. Sports have always been a core part of any american high school I've ever seen, and it's a field that men are naturally, physiologically advantaged over women. Sure I've seen women outperform men in almost every sport, but that is usually the exception rather than the rule.

Does this mean "sports" are the "masculine strengths" you talked about earlier? And if sports are a natural masculine strength, then does that preclude them from also being a feminine one? What about sports makes them "masculine" versus "feminine"? If sports are masculine in nature, then why should women partake in them? I'm really not following your logic here.

souldaddy wrote:

If there were no differences between men and women then Daddy is as equally capable as Mommy in teaching daughters about menstruation.

Speaking from personal experience, Daddies are perfectly capable of teaching their daughters about menstruation. Jeez, it's not like it's rocket science. It's just biology. My own dad managed well enough; he blushed and stuttered, yes, but then again, I found out later that so did most of my friends' mothers, too.

souldaddy wrote:

I don't agree directly with the author that feminism is the cause. In fact, I'm not sure why he put the word in the title of his article, probably just in enrage readers ... I liked the article because I felt the author had a good understanding of young men. His lady skills seem to be lacking.

She, by the way. The author's name is Jill Parkin.

I'm too busy at work to make a proper response, but I hear ya, Soul.
I think you're doing a good job of respecting both sides, but still making a point. Keep it up.

souldaddy wrote:

You can't look at media and make an accurate judgment of our society. Our entertainment dials everything to the 9s.

What we see in the media is there because people want to watch it. It shows what our archtypes are, and in a feminized culture you'd expect feminized archetypes to predominate among males. But they don't. Very much the opposite.

Beyond that, my own personal experience is that there is no feminization in our culture. I've lived here all my life, and it's pretty much the same as it ever was.

Well, since I've already recalled my grade school days:

KaterinLHC wrote:

Speaking from personal experience, Daddies are perfectly capable of teaching their daughters about menstruation. Jeez, it's not like it's rocket science. It's just biology.

Yeah, rocket science is what daddy has to teach his son at the same age

Also, science is for nerds. Beyond that, how is learning this stuff not like reading the directions before assembling some new toy or Ikea furniture? Next you'll be trying to teach us how to ask for directions!

Funkenpants wrote:

What we see in the media is there because people want to watch it. It shows what our archtypes are, and in a feminized culture you'd expect feminized archetypes to predominate among males. But they don't. Very much the opposite.

Hmm... in media that most explicitly appeals to the masculine gender, there's almost nothing but women. In fact, there's so little else that the women don't even have clothes.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions on this, though. ...Perhaps further research?

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm sorry if this seems a little strident.

souldaddy wrote:

On an individual level, you are absolutely right. On a statistical level, I mean, are we kidding? There are obvious differences, that's why men and women don't compete directly in the Olympics. Sports have always been a core part of any american high school I've ever seen, and it's a field that men are naturally, physiologically advantaged over women. Sure I've seen women outperform men in almost every sport, but that is usually the exception rather than the rule.

You seem to be conflating biological structure with social structure. Yes, there is a reason a man's shot put weighs nearly twice what a woman's does. But that doesn't say anything about my desire to participate, nor the guy who asked me to give him some technique pointers.

Where I grew up wasn't exactly middle America standard, I'll grant you. I was on the female wrestling squad and the track team, and I played hockey (goalie) up through college until I got hurt. I wasn't the only one. Two of the "big men" on our team were girls. And yes, I said wrestling. There were enough girls wrestling in our district at that time to field squads for the schools in it. The hockey teams were integrated up until you got to college unless you were playing in a private league during the off-season. I was on the track team, which was separated out in competition but practiced integrated. Basketball was separate, but that was because we had way too many players and we needed the excuse to field four full teams (boys varisity, boy's JV, girls varsity, girl's JV).

Physical "tendencies" don't an environment make. IMHO, people make them and usually out of fear and misunderstandings. The fact that Ed's elbow was naturally hinged to give him more short burst power (and therefore an 80+ mph snapshot) and mine is more naturally hinged to hold onto babies (which resembles holding a goalie stick quite a bit, btw) has nothing to do with our desire to grind each other into the ice by the second period. And it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the social structures around us outside of using a different locker room at the half. And the fact that Coach benched me in the middle of a game had nothing to do with my plastron. It had to do with the fact that I lost my temper at some asshat who couldn't get a shot past me so he started making crude remarks about our left wing (who was a guy and a good friend of mine) and I nearly started a fight.

We had our problems, don't get me wrong. I had this one awful Social Studies teacher my senior year who really did believe in the barefoot and pregnant thing, and was pissed as all get out that I had a perfect score in his class. He tried everything to get an excuse to fail me. He couldn't pull it off. My female Computer Science teacher who had a lot of the same attitude did manage it by re-scheduling a required test when she knew we had to be gone at another school function. The coach at the boxing gym wouldn't let me participate directly; my ex trained there but girls didn't. He knew I already knew how to punch with my thumb outside my fingers and that's all he figured a girl needed to know. He let me use the equipment they weren't using and hang out, though.

souldaddy wrote:

If there were no differences between men and women then Daddy is as equally capable as Mommy in teaching daughters about menstruation.

And mommies about the ettiquette of morning stiffies when you share a bedroom. It wasn't that they exist, it was the teasing each other over it loud enough that the girls heard. I was praying for a stunt dad the whole time, but we got it done.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Does this mean "sports" are the "masculine strengths" you talked about earlier? And if sports are a natural masculine strength, then does that preclude them from also being a feminine one? What about sports makes them "masculine" versus "feminine"? If sports are masculine in nature, then why should women partake in them? I'm really not following your logic here.

I'm talking about the basic generalizations I assume we've all heard - men are stronger, men stifle emotions, men are very direct, men are more focused. Please help me here, Kat, I'm not following your logic either. Are you suggesting there are no differences between the sexes? That our physical differences don't have an effect on our culture and our lives? We might disagree how the sexes differ and to what degree, but if we can't agree on this basic point I don't see any foundation for discussion.

Speaking from personal experience, Daddies are perfectly capable of teaching their daughters about menstruation. Jeez, it's not like it's rocket science. It's just biology. My own dad managed well enough; he blushed and stuttered, yes, but then again, I found out later that so did most of my friends' mothers, too.

I would never criticize your parents, and I hope you don't feel like I am. Daddies are smart cookies and capable of helping mommies and vice versa. Yet I think its smart to have Mommy teach her daughters about that subject, provided she's got the same level of trust that Daddy does. That's not a knock against Daddy, is it? It's just common sense which happens to coincide with gender, mommies have personal experience that daddies don't.

I feel that you are almost accusing me of taking us to a dangerous place, where we somehow accept gender stereotypes as fact and base educational policy off these stereotypes. No. How else should I bring up this subject? I admit that we haven't defined the forces at work here, but does it really matter when we most certainly have identified the problem (ie, low male enrollment in college, both in the US and the UK).

momgamer, I'm hanging on to your every word, really. I, err, I just can't say enough that this isn't a knock on women.

souldaddy wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:

Does this mean "sports" are the "masculine strengths" you talked about earlier? And if sports are a natural masculine strength, then does that preclude them from also being a feminine one? What about sports makes them "masculine" versus "feminine"? If sports are masculine in nature, then why should women partake in them? I'm really not following your logic here.

I'm talking about the basic generalizations I assume we've all heard - men are stronger, men stifle emotions, men are very direct, men are more focused. Please help me here, Kat, I'm not following your logic either. Are you suggesting there are no differences between the sexes? That our physical differences don't have an effect on our culture and our lives? We might disagree how the sexes differ and to what degree, but if we can't agree on this basic point I don't see any foundation for discussion.

I was merely trying to understand what you meant by the statement, "I don't see women as a problem, just the devaluation of masculine strengths." The words don't make sense together to me, so I wondered what you'd intended to say with it. Particularly, what is a masculine strength? How do you determine that the strength is inherently masculine, and how does it differ from a feminine strength? Can women exhibit masculine strengths, and men feminine ones? You still have not answered these questions. Maybe I should stop asking them.

As for what I personally believe on the matter, I haven't suggested anything whatsoever in this thread yet. I have stated that abstract ideas are genderless, but that's more a linguistic issue than any grand comment on the war of the sexes. I am waiting to understand what you mean before I offer my own opinion (although I'm sure you could go back to any of the previous threads we've had on this topic and find how I feel on the matter).

souldaddy wrote:
Speaking from personal experience, Daddies are perfectly capable of teaching their daughters about menstruation. Jeez, it's not like it's rocket science. It's just biology. My own dad managed well enough; he blushed and stuttered, yes, but then again, I found out later that so did most of my friends' mothers, too.

Daddies are smart cookies and capable of helping mommies and vice versa. Yet I think its smart to have Mommy teach her daughters about that subject, provided she's got the same level of trust that Daddy does.

It has nothing to do with "helping" mommies. Daddies can - and, in at least one case, do - discuss the finer details of female biology with their daughters independent of a mother's presence. The mechanics of menstruation are not some mystic secret kept by the Cult of Woman. Mothers might be able to address the emotional aspects of being a woman better than fathers, but certainly the biological aspects are common knowledge to both sexes. But then again, you did not mention the emotional aspects; you said, "If there were no differences between men and women then Daddy is as equally capable as Mommy in teaching daughters about menstruation." And I - as well as every other daughter of a single father - is proof that he is so capable.

I wonder why you feel so defensive? I haven't accused you of anything, nor have I put forth any opinions that you might take offense with. In fact, aside from examining semantics and asserting that fathers can indeed discuss female biology with their daughters, all I've done is ask you questions. I think you have assumed things that I have not said.

Um, yeah, I'll just bow out then.

Funkenpants wrote:

What we see in the media is there because people want to watch it. It shows what our archtypes are, and in a feminized culture you'd expect feminized archetypes to predominate among males. But they don't. Very much the opposite.

Beyond that, my own personal experience is that there is no feminization in our culture. I've lived here all my life, and it's pretty much the same as it ever was.

I will not deny that male archetypes are very prominent in the media but have you seen shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens and According to Jim? These are shows all about men being stupid and the women being the only thing that saves them and their families from total destruction. I take great offense to these shows because they solidify the growing cultural belief that the woman always know better and the man should just shut up and obey. In my job doing in-home service, I've seen more and more families that operate this way and I find that distressing and I really see a strong problem with any marriage that operates with either side in domination rather than as a partnership. In that respect, I think we do have an increasingly feminized culture. Many men are being programmed to live as Bill Maher put it "lives of quiet desperation" where they are really controlled by their wives but put on a brave face and don't act it. I have a real problem with that as I believe in equality being just that, not what many extremist feminists call it which is really just one-sided domination the other way. My girlfriend and I have a very symbiotic relationship where we solve problems and make decisions together. Never is a major decision made by one party alone with the assumption that the other will just fall in line and agree regardless. Neither or us can fathom it another way and we are both disgusted by what we see on both sides in the media. Ultimately, if society is to attain true equality, people need to stop accepting what TV tells them as societal gospel. Will that happen? I doubt it.

Well all I'll say is in Ireland that the suicide rate of Men/Boys under the age of 24 is 6 to 7 times higher than Women/Girls of the same age. I'm pretty sure that that stat holds true in most developed countries and I do know that suicide for Women has dropped since the 70s and its gone up for Men. There is a real problem on how we treat boys while growing up. Suicide and falling results in education are symtoms of that. Deny them all you want. At this stage I'm wondering how wide the gap has to get before a female in a postition of power ( and there are plenty ) decides that enough young boys have suffered.

Now before I'm branded a sexist and pity is heaped on my wife for leaving with such a horrible man, I'll leave you with this. On the radio the other day, a talking head ( Kevin Myers, not a fan but meh ) was discussing with the female presenter about how to broach the subject of bad breath. Tricky issue and he was trying to deal with it tactfully as he infact was talking about a someone he knew and how it can be solved. His stance was to tell the Man/Woman so they could sort it. The female presenter than read out a comment from a female listener, laughing, that she would kick him in the nuts if he told her. Mr Myers, quite rightly, got offended and said that if the roles were reversed and and sexual harm was threated the female presenter would not be laughing. She then dismissed his point as being a little sensitive. Just a small point but hey I'm probably just a bit sensitive and I'm sure all these young men were a little too sensitive as well. Goto page 20 for the telling stats.

Oh and Souldaddy, come back and change "masculine" to "male" because I know what you are trying to say there. And can there be male strengths? Sure, just like there are female strengths. Multi-tasking is the best example of a female strength. And can we drop the exceptions to the rule here? Exceptions prove nothing. If they did the Irish would speak Polish, have black hair and cover 100m in under 10secs. For example I don't go to football games ( Rugby for me please ). Does that mean men don't go to football games?

Um, yeah, I'll just bow out then.

I'm not quite sure why you've decided to do that. As I said previously, I wasn't attacking you, accusing you, or even hinting strongly at you. I was asking you questions, to which I'd still love to hear your answers.

For example I don't go to football games ( Rugby for me please ). Does that mean men don't go to football games?

No. It means that the statement "All men go to football games" is false. And, as I mentioned before, the statement "Men go to football games" is too oversimplifying and vague to build much of an argument or theory around. It does not address which men go to football games, or whether women go to football games, or humans go to football games, or whether men go to other games besides football games, etc.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Many men are being programmed to live as Bill Maher put it "lives of quiet desperation" where they are really controlled by their wives but put on a brave face and don't act it.

Actually, I think it was Henry David Thoreau who wrote that "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." And it's very, very true, for both men and women.