Men in Education: the Brave New World of Gender Bias

There's a ton of information out there about how difficult and biased and unfair education is for girls, but, like just about everything out there promoted by contemporary feminists, the information is either about twenty (or thirty) years out of date or applies only to limited areas of education, like science and math.

The problem is, there aren't enough good men in education. Why should there be? Men suffer enormous bias in the education system, as this Christian Science Monitor Post from three years ago points out: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0315/p11s01-legn.html. In fact, the incredibly low ratio of men in elementary education is directly linked to three things: (1) low status and pay (like, "Hey, you're a guy, can you move this desk to the other side of the room?" . . . even when the maintenance guy is down the hall); (2) the perception that only women become teachers; and the biggest one of all (3) the fear that they will be accused of child abuse (Hey, it happens all the time in divorce court, how much worse would it be if it happened in a way that destroyed your career, your livelihood and your professional reputation?)

There is an organization promoting men as teachers: http://menteach.org. Their site is full of strong support for the idea that, in the same way we need both genders as engaged, involved and responsible parents, we also need both genders to help our children learn. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the biggest remaining problem for girls in education (lower performance in math and science) could be partly resolved if there were more men in education: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3853842.html.

The reason there is such a delay in equity in this professional field, as in every other, is that the message of primitive feminism, that both genders should have equity in work, in opportunities, and in education, has been bulldozed into history by the more strident voices of women who are merely aping their historical "oppressors." Those ideas are old, out of date and unhelpful to us, and to our children.

Mean Girls or Gender Equity?

My best friend in college was this amazing young woman who had talent oozing out of every pore in her body. She was also . . . well, unconventional. That is to say, she did things the way she felt like doing them, whether it made her "fit in" or not. She had confidence by the truckload. She used to laugh at the girls who ran around in gaggles, giggling, and call them, "slick chicks." "We'll NEVER be like that," she'd say, "and thank goodness!" What she meant was that it was more important to her to be authentic than accepted. The "slick chicks" were beautiful, polished, and conformist, and everything but authentic human beings. In college, they still hung out in groups, just like children do in middle school. Whoever didn't meet their "criteria" was shunned or worse, in much the same way children behave in middle school.

Well, slick chicks don't disappear, they just get older and form "women's only" clubs dedicated to what they call "gender equity." For example, the Women's Bar Association (WBA), a group formed for women lawyers with chapters in almost every state. They hit their stride in the mid-80s and have only been increasing in political power since then. http://www.ncwba.org/aboutus-history.shtml

The problem is, they only manage to duplicate the problem they say they want to solve. Some state chapters may allow men to join, but I can't imagine a man in the world who'd want to belong. The WBA has become dangerously powerful. For years now, standard career wisdom in law schools in my state, and many others where the WBA holds the reins of power is that if you want to succeed in your career, male or female, especially if you ever want to be a judge, you absolutely must "get in good" with the WBA. I often wonder what would happen if there were a legal specialty organization dedicated to, and populated only with men with the same level of power? It is true that once, men held the same kind of power, but that was a long time ago. Not only that, but does it make sense to simply mimic the same kind of gender-based power and control? Will that even the score? Isn't it gender-based power that organizations such as the WBA were formed to combat? Could a similarly focused men's group get away with the same thing in these days of "gender equity??"

The WBA has our male counterparts in the bar and on the bench quaking in terror lest they say or do a single thing that would offend the Queen Bees. But honestly, why do we need such a group? It's not like women are the minority now! http://www.catalyst.org/publication/246/women-in-law-in-the-us


I suppose that when you've been put down for so long, it's only natural to want to stay on top of the heap, even if it means your stiletto heel is doing exactly what that hobnail boot did for so long! Remember when Mom used to say, "If he was jumping off the bridge, would you do it too?" Seems to me, it's time to listen to the good advice of our mothers!

Versus

Contemporary feminism has a lot more in common with uber-conservatism in the United States than either would like to admit. Both sides of the fence are staunch believers in the sanctity and possibility of perfect independence, particularly when it comes to individuals, although the conservative side of the fence believes it is a state that should primarily benefit men, while the ultra-liberal feminists believe only women should be entitled to it. Both are wrong.

It isn't a matter of independence versus dependence. The fact is, both states are harmful to humans. If we follow the "rugged individualism" model to its inevitable conclusion, we have an isolated madman (or woman) living in a bunker, slowly devolving into a world where everything is "us" versus "them." We promote mistrust. If we live in a world that requires dependence, whether for men or women, the ultimate result is acceptance of slavery based on a belief that some quality or characteristic makes one group "less than" the other. We still promote "us" versus "them."

What we all need is to value our distinct diversity at the same time we respect our need for one another. What we need is inter-dependence. We are all infinitesimally small, we all have limitations and strengths, we are all uniquely precious. Living from this place provides a network of support and strength for the society we all live in and to which we all contribute.

By definition

For a little defining help, Wikipedia has kindly defined both primitive feminism (which it calls "second wave feminism" Second Wave Feminism), and contemporary feminism (which it calls "radical feminism" Radical Feminism). In case you were wondering who won out in the historical pantheon, look around at your profession, if you have one. Is there a women-only group among you? Is there a need for it now? How much power does this group have and why do they have it? Does the group exist for equality, or for political or economic perquisites, and if the latter, are they really any different than the patriarchal power-brokers they replaced?

Branding - Feminist Overview

There are a lot of ways to be a feminist. Mine is closest to the individualist or libertarian feminist. What about yours?

Feminist Factions

Tell Your Story

This blog is a forum for women who were part of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. Many of us are dismayed at the direction feminism and our "sisters" have taken since then. Neither our daughters, nor our sons, know what feminism was really about for us because feminism has been re-interpreted by contemporary feminists in a way that is inconsistent with the principles of early feminism.

Primitive feminism was about equality. Equality for women to give them a place where they had the freedom to develop their unique skills and talents alongside men. It was about respecting and celebrating the uniqueness of each of us.

Contemporary feminism is not about equality. It is about giving women special perks because they are women. It is about misandry. Contemporary feminists have lost touch with the egalitarian purpose of primitive feminism. They punish men, and even . . . especially . . . women who dare to question their misuse of power.

In a recent edition of the magazine, What Is Enlightenment (Issue 41, August-October 2008, in the article, Interview with Erwin McManus, by Carter Phipps, Mr. McManus made a profound comment. He said, "The challenge for women now is that they have seen the damage men have done with power, yet ironically they are choosing the same path and abuse of power that men have followed. They're not learning from the lessons, they're just taking the baton."

This blog is a forum for the collection of stories of women who are disenchanted with the direction of contemporary feminism.

If your father or son or brother or boyfriend or lover has been a victim of the misandry of contemporary feminists, tell your story here.

If you are a woman who has suffered loss of employment or if your opportunities for advancement in politics or profession have been limited by contemporary feminists because you disagree with the way they misuse power, tell your story here.

If you are a woman who was around in the early days and who has quietly made a success of your life, both professionally, and in developing healthy, egalitarian relationships with the men in your life, tell your story here.

This blog is for all of us who believe that the world works better when we all have a respected, diverse and equal chance to live in it.