KSUM—Georgia on my mind

This article has been reprinted without modification here with permission from the author, AVfM Canadian News Director Dan Perrins. You can view the original on A Voice for Men.

A couple weeks ago, AVfM’s very own Director of Collegiate Activism and president of Kennesaw State University Men (KSUM), Sage Gerard, held the first men’s human rights conference, Male Students in Peril, on the campus of his school, Kennesaw State University.

I attended not only because of my responsibility as the Canadian News Director for AVfM but also because I’m a veteran of some of the worst feminist-indoctrinaught attacks/protests at events that discuss issues facing men and boys and criticize feminism. So I have experience in dealing with the possible nastiness dished out by feminists at these events.

There were a few things about the conference that stood out for me.

First, let me say I have respect for the KSU YESbody! positive-protest group and other feminists who attended Male Students in Peril. I may not agree with their feminist-lens view, which I consider to be askew, but I will compliment them on how they conducted themselves.

It will be this ability to show respect for differing points of view (which I hope they will continue to exhibit) that will facilitate open, honest dialogue and will thus bring about equitable solutions.

On one of my trips to the mic during the speakers’ Q&A periods, I brought up a quote by Walt Whitman, from the preface of Leaves of Grass:

Re-examine all you have been told … dismiss whatever insults your own soul.

(I realize that we have atheists in the community, so we can substitute “conscience” for “soul,” with all due respect to Whitman.)

I urge all of you to take that quote to heart and apply it when claims are made in gender-politics discussions—especially since, just like regular politics, there is a vast amount of profit to be made in gender politics. Sometimes that profit comes in the form of money, sometimes it comes in the form of silencing open, honest discussion. The KSU YESbody! group is familiar with feminist lies for profit, as was illustrated in their apology to Sage.

I’ve also got respect for their ability to admit when they are wrong.

I understand their concern that the conference speakers spent a lot of time criticizing feminism; however, feminism has a lot to answer for. And for those of you willing to re-examine what you’ve been told about feminism, I am about to present to you some very damning evidence of its wrongdoings. I’m going to incorporate events and evidence from both the university environment and society in general.

Let’s start with the university environment. I regularly attend talks given by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) in Canada, specifically at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In November 2012, when I was just another voice in the growing crowd of individuals exposing the misandry in feminism, CAFE hosted a talk by Dr. Warren Farrell, a former chapter head of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Dr. Farrell is one of the most reasonable and soft-spoken individuals I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting, and yet without ever having talked to him, the feminists at the University of Toronto felt the need to prejudge him, protest, and not engage in open dialogue. Their answer to his presence on campus was to commit illegal, life-endangering acts such as blocking fire exit doors and becoming assaultive toward event attendees and security and police alike. There are two videos illustrating my claims that I would like you to pay attention to. The first is by Studio Brulé, and the second is mine, building upon Brulé’s exceptional camerawork.

(Note: This video combines footage of Ashleigh Ingles from two separate events.)

My next experience with feminist protestors occurred when Dr. Janice Fiamengo spoke at the University of Toronto in March 2013. Likely most KSUM conference attendees will recognize Fiamengo’s name, as she was one of the key speakers last weekend.

I want you to pay attention to their attempts to silence non-feminist views via intimidation. At one point in the video you’ll see the feminists trying to intimidate me by taking my picture. My response is, as you can see, non-violent, and I offered them my card. You may also notice how another of the protestors tried to intimidate me by waving their sign around mere inches from my face.

Both attempts failed miserably. They obviously had no idea who I was, most likely due to the fact that they had been lied to by their feminist women studies and gender studies instructors. They also pulled the fire alarm at this event, needlessly putting lives at risk while engaging in a criminal act.

Some of you will profess that these examples are “not my feminism”; however, these are not isolated incidents. At an April 2013 lecture given by Drs Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young also at the University of Toronto, I experienced this charming feminist commonly known as “Big Red.” Big Red was heralded as a feminist champion for laughing and mocking male suicides, and in true feminist fashion when I highlighted Red’s cretinous behavior I was accused of being a mahhhsawjuhhhnistic monster. All because I faced off against this deplorable individual who laughed at male suicide, which became a very real issue for my family 32 years ago when my brother killed himself.

One would think feminists would toss this cretin to the curb and move on, but they didn’t. They portrayed her as a martyr, daring to speak to a man. Another unsubstantiated feminist lie.

Red is actually a MHRM hero in that her monstrous behavior drove people away from feminism.

And again the feminists put lives needlessly at risk when they broke the law and pulled the fire alarm for no valid reason.

Next on my playlist of feminist experiences is a group I dubbed “Darwin’s Rejects,” out in full force in August 2014 to protest another CAFE speaker at the University of Toronto, Igor Serebryany, a reporter, columnist, editor, and a former producer of BBC World Service who was presenting issues men and children face in Russian courts. Sure, this crowd seems like intelligent individuals, but looks can be deceiving.

I labeled them Darwin’s Rejects because they were left behind by the evolution of rational, open, evidence-based debate/discussion. They were so proud of their feminism while protesting but quickly scurried like cockroaches after the light of truth was shone upon them.

With that, I’m going to close the university environment experiences I’ve had—they’re not the only ones, but they do represent a fair sampling of what is happening here in Canada.

To address events off-campus and out there in society at large, I have a few other videos showing irrefutable evidence regarding the misandric corruption either done by or at the behest of feminism in Canada.

First, we have four videos by a group in Canada’s capital, Ottawa. In 2012, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women put out a 54-page document in which they erased all evidence of male victims of relationship violence. They took the total number of victims and claimed they were all women. Not once, but twice.

Now, some of you may say, “Well, that was just one group.” I counter that with the fact that Professor Holly Johnson, who helped advise and edit the paper, is considered a statistical expert by the University of Ottawa and actually wrote the Statistics Canada report on violence against women in 2006. So her not catching the glaring mistakes found in these videos is unforgivable; after all, she allegedly TEACHES this stuff. Still, let’s say that Professor Johnson was ill for the three or four months it took to put this paper together. What about the other two professors involved (Professors Jen Fraser and Rena Bivens)? Where were their heads at? Lastly, let’s not ignore the fact that the author of this piece of indoctrinaught birdcage liner was a Ph.D. candidate studying under Johnson. The glaring and multiple mistakes should never have made it past first reading, but they did. Were they deliberate, perhaps?

Next up, how about my local police force inflating numbers? Not possible, right? Well, after I pointed out their inflated numbers, they pulled their fraudulent paper off of their website.

And last but not least, we have the sexist, bigoted White Ribbon folks (not to be confused with WhiteRibbon.org, which seeks to End All Domestic Violence). Again, here we have irrefutable evidence of a feminist organization inflating numbers and ignoring male victims for profit.

All of this evidence is widely known by the non-/anti-feminist community, and any attempts to have these feminists held accountable for their actions—either by their peers in the feminist community or by the legal system when laws were actually broken—has been ignored.

Feminism owns every single bit of these deplorable actions. It also owns the negligent/criminal behavior engaged in and promoted by feminism.

As I mentioned, many of the feminists in attendance at the KSUM conference expressed anger at the criticism aimed at feminism by the conference speakers. Although the speakers were all well aware of the deplorable actions of feminists (some of which I illustrated above, but the list does go on …), the feminist attendees were unaware of all this back story, mainly because it’s been hidden from I’d say about 85% of those who identify as feminists.

But it hasn’t been hidden from Sage Gerard, the KSUM speakers, or the MHRM community. This is what feminism owns. This is what feminism has done. And this is what feminism will continue to do unless it is relegated to the trash bin of history and all humans come together in an egalitarian movement.

That movement is the MHRM. We don’t have an ideology; unlike feminism, we base our findings and positions on evidence, not feelings.

In closing, let me remind you again about ol’ Walt’s wise words:

Re-examine all you have been told … dismiss whatever insults your own soul.

I took Whitman’s words to heart and found that feminism insulted my soul.

Will you?


Mythbusting the Gender Zeitgeist

Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly.

Thomas Sowell

Some of the social justice or the feminist persuasion believe that we live in a patriarchy because men predominate positions of authority in politics and business.

Men also predominate victims of suicide, homelessness and false convictions, yet there is no talk about us living in a society that victimizes men. Cherry picking who represents the male population will only give us flawed perspectives. Men commit suicide three to four times more than women do [1][2]. In June 2009, it was reported by the National Coalition for the Homeless that 67.5% of the single homeless population are male, and this population accounts for 76% of the total population surveyed.

Male representatives and business owners are not in their positions simply because they are men, or because they only represent men. The vast majority of them had to pass job interviews just like anyone else. In the case of politicians in Western democracies, women participate as majority voter, and have a clear role in electing representatives. In 2004, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance reported that women had a larger voter turnout than men since the mid-1980s in Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Germany, and the graph showing the gender gap on voter turnout is expanding in women’s favor (shown below).

IDEA graph for the gender gap in voter turnout across five European countries

The same majority voter status for women can also be observed in Canada and the U.S.A. The Center for American Women and Politics reports “that the number of female voters has exceeded the number of male voters in every presidential election since 1964,” whereas the proportion of female voters dominated the proportion of male voters since the 80s.

CAWP voter turnout graph for women and men

If women wish to have fewer men in political office, they have the voting power to make that happen. Male predominance can only be temporary if the will is there.

Business executives are driven by the interests consumers in the private sector, where women are powerful consumers. A 2007 report by the MassMutual Financial Group Senior women states that women over 50 years old have a combined net worth of $19 trillion, and they own more than 75% of the nation’s wealth. Women also account for 85% of all consumer purchases.

For all of these sources, refer to this fact sheet on she-conomy.com.

Men would not be in business executive positions if they could not be trusted to appeal to their target markets, be they full of men or women. In both cases of politicians and business executives, women’s interests may be vital to their careers should women be among those who they represent.

Men cannot expect to remain in their positions by angering half the human population. Men with power cannot sustain a massive, decorated career supporting men’s interests alone. The claim that women are not represented by men in power ignores all of these facts.

On a similar note, it is a myth that women in Western societies (particularly the United States) are paid less than men for the same work due to discrimination in the workplace.

If that were true, then it makes no sense to hire men. Paying a woman less for the same value is a competitive advantage for women. In the event that an employer discriminates by hiring men for the same work at a higher wage, that employer takes on additional costs he does not need to pay, therefore burdening him with the additional expense of men. On this subject, economist Milton Friedman pointed out that if you force equal pay for the sexes, you take away women’s competitive advantage and remove the cost of discrimination from the employer.

Speaking more directly to the claim, the assumption that women make circa three-quarters of what men make is based on taking the mean of men’s and women’s salaries. This is a figure often cited from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But simply taking the mean of gathered numbers does not speak to why the numbers are the way they are. Women earn less because, statistically, they tend to make choices that result in lower wages but higher security in social life.

While women face their own problems, we cannot cast the situation as men having lasting power over the choices women make.

We need to dismiss the nonsensical notion that men have it better off. The reality is that society is an ecosystem of leverages, disadvantages and benefits, where whoever has it “better” depends on the context by which someone makes an assessment.


Keep it Civil on KSU

This is a head’s up to all KSUM Conference attendees.

A KSU Student named Jessica Fisher has publicly announced her intention to protest the KSUM conference Male Students in Peril in a comment on The Sentinel.


I personally find a protest superfluous considering that everyone is invited to attend and participate in discussion, but protesters are welcome to exercise their First Amendment rights.

To everyone else, do note that engaging feminist protesters is not a good idea given that feminist protesters have a reputation of initiating violence and verbal abuse. Some examples can be viewed in the videos below, but this is by no means everything.

This is not to suggest that KSU protesters will be violent, but we cannot operate on the assumption that the protest will be peaceful.

Cameras may be onsite, particularly ones belonging to Studio Brule. If you are attacked by a protester, either run away or curl up into a ball to absorb any blows. Do NOT retaliate, because we live in a culture where self-defense, justified or not, will cause a media firestorm if a feminist and/or a woman is subject to violence of any kind. Instead, try to catch the attention of a cameraperson. You want to be on camera if someone is pursuing you, because in that case the assailant can be held accountable.

The fairness of the situation is irrelevant. Anyone caught performing any illegal activity will be led off campus in handcuffs.

I don’t care if I like you personally, or if you are a supporter of KSUM. Fuck up, and your name will end up on my shit-list and the next report to the local police.

Protesters may be out and about on campus, which with the exception of privately owned buildings, is a public venue with no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is highly recommended that you record everything with your smartphone, audio recorder, or any other device for your protection. It is well within your rights to record a public space. If someone has harassed you, please report the incident to public safety or your nearest officer. If you wish to publicize an incident in which someone conducts themselves in an illegal or highly questionable manner, you can send us any relevant footage and we will feed it to our media connections.

Gender is a hot topic that can rile people up, so note for the record that KSUM will automatically and immediately disassociate itself from any persons willing to go to war over ideas. We do not tolerate even so much as the ideation of violence or criminal activity in the name of any visceral reaction to a threat either real or perceived.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what your convictions are. There will be no babysitters in attendance.

If you cannot be civil about sensitive discussions on gender, do not come to Male Students in Peril.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Feminism as a Brand

By Sage Gerard

Saying that feminism will liberate women everywhere is like saying that Taco Bell will end world hunger.

Both statements need to be substantiated at great expense, but even then one wonders if a better service is available.

Feminism is understood to be a set of ideologies that extend from a gender egalitarian sentiment. The obvious hypocrisy of gynocentrism in the core of feminism aside, an informed activist would do well to view feminism both in terms of its reputation and its institution.

For the purposes of this article, I assume that an ideology has a reputation and a set of governing powers that enable some level of physical, socioeconomic and political control over the behavior of systems and people. I informally refer to the sum total of these powers as an institution for illustrative purposes.

Few feminists defend feminism’s reputation by correcting the institution. Instead, most are content to defend feminism’s reputation without substantiating claims with actions that contribute to an equitable civilization.

Feminism, like other ideologies I could mention, is a bunch of firefighters boasting the features of their fire engine while a city burns.

What makes being an activist so psychologically taxing is that you have watch people burning along with their buildings admiring the useless firefighters. A useful firefighting activist would try to evacuate the city. Sadly, we live in a world where those efforts bring not thanks, but accusations of hating firefighters from barbecued mouths. Meanwhile, the firefighters approach the human-shaped bundles of pain to ask for money to support Waterism’s efforts to put out fires. And those firefighters get paid.

Let’s come back to a discussion on feminism in particular. How does feminism sustain a wonderful reputation despite the fact it is composed largely of violent psychopaths, hysterical crusaders, obsequious men, and insufferable pundits?

The answer is that feminism is a marvel of marketing that salespeople want to emulate. Through sheer repetition of talking points, sabotaged scholarship, and relentless censorship, feminism has successfully conditioned people into habitual thinking. Just as a magnate exploits human beings as creatures of habit, a dogma exploits heuristic thought.

Even if it seems against all logic, people will tolerate a shoddy service with a bountiful brand. Maybe this is because many confuse believing in something with accomplishing something? After hearing the insufferable sound of applause on talk shows hosted by inoperative pundits, I cringe when a talking head says something like “let’s start an equalist movement,” as if they have a plan to accompany the dumb nominalization. Even if I agree with the sentiment, I find that those kind of statements are made solely by politicians, not activists.

Feminism brands itself as a movement of equality, liberty, security, wonder, diversity, love, or whatever else makes the gullible  buy in both financially and mentally. And what makes feminism so remarkable is how it managed to lead people to not question the service.

For those of you reading this, take the time to distinguish between feminism as a brand and feminism as an institution, and ask yourself which is more representative of the effectiveness of the movement.

Is feminism the way to gender equity, or are there other humanitarian perspectives we have yet to harness? More importantly, will they actually lead to change?

Feminism is Sexism

By Nick Nightengale

At a time when more and more men and even some wonderful women are realizing that feminism is a harmful hate based dogma, I thought it might be worthwhile to make note of just a few of the many elements of feminism that make it part of the new sexism. The only exceptions to my analysis that I can think of, among self described feminists, are the conservative feminist Christina Hoff Sommers and perhaps Camille Paglia.

Under traditionalism, men and women each had dominant rights and responsibilities in one of the two realms that form the basis of human existence. These realms are work and family. Men had the right to most of the better paying (read: hazardous) jobs, but this came with the responsibility to support a wife and children. Women had the right to be supported and gain custody of the children in a divorce, but this came with the responsibility to raise the children and run the home.

Then second wave feminism came along saying “No, no, no! To be truly equal, men and women must have the same rights and do the same things in equal numbers.”

Feminists claim that women were oppressed. However, it was never entirely clear to me which sex had it worse. Was it women cloistered in the home, or men out in the world taking nearly all the jobs that at least shortened their lifespan, if they didn’t kill or maim them outright? Feminists argued that paid work was better, describing—in apparent ignorance of the difference between the worthless and the priceless—women’s traditional work as “meaningless shit work.” If I’m wrong on that characterization and women got paid for their work inside the home, I’ve always wondered what feminists think they should charge for making lunch for their kids or for loving their husbands? Would payment add meaning to those activities?

It mattered not because going forward both sexes would have the same rights—or so feminists told us. So did they mean it, or were they lying from the get-go?

Feminists fiercely fought for equal rights for women in the workplace, at least for the most desirable professional jobs. Feminism did not bring the same concern for men in female dominated roles. Indeed, feminists have routinely fought against custodial and reproductive equality for men, as well as against equalizing women’s enormous sexual power, even with respect to husbands.

When feminists told us all they were for gender equality, they lied. They lied from the beginning. They lied then. They lie now.

So on the face of things feminism has moved society from each gender having dominant rights in one realm, with the opposite sex having dominant rights in the other realm, to one in which women maintain their traditional privilege of rights dominance in one realm and get equality in the other realm.

I am much more modern than I am traditional for a variety of reasons. For one, I know I’m a better parent than many, and would get custody of children in any family system not grotesquely biased against fathers. I grew up with sisters, and I always found myself in classes with lots of girls. I found it natural that both sexes do similar things, so I have some difficulty seeing how getting equality for women in one realm and fighting against it for men in the other realm is in any way “progressive,” much less “egalitarian.” It sounds more like female supremacy.

Feminism has taken us from each gender having dominant rights in one of the two realms of life, to traditional female superiority in the family realm and equality in the work realm. Even though I’ve noted that adds up to overall female advantage, I haven’t gone far enough in criticizing feminism.

I’ve so far neglected two important elements of feminist sexism that have a significant negative impact on gender equality in the world of work. The first is affirmative action or “equity hiring,” which is either an inherently sexist concept (putting value on what one has between one’s legs, instead of between one’s ears), or a potentially useful concept that has been implemented in a brutally sexist manner. Instead of being used to break a tie between two equally qualified candidates, it has been routinely and repeatedly used to hire and promote less qualified women—sometimes even unqualified or incompetent women—over competent more qualified men. University of Ottawa Professor Janice Fiamengo, a firm feminist in her early academic years, came to be concerned about the deal society is giving men, in part because she saw “again and again and again” lesser qualified women promoted over more qualified men. I understand she will be speaking at the Kennesaw State Conference. Don’t miss her!

The second element is the notion of “responsibility”, I mentioned earlier a few times. Traditionally both men and women typically took the responsibility associated with the dominant rights of what was then considered their respective realms. No more. While feminism repeatedly calls on men to take responsibility for child rearing, they are deathly silent when it comes to women taking responsibility for supporting their family. This is especially so when women would be required to take what I refer as a “Triple D” or “DDD” jobs. DDD stands for “dirty, dangerous or distant” work. In other words, the jobs of many many men. Contrary to feminist dogma, men don’t work in coal mines out of stupidity, but rather out of sense of responsibility to their wives and children. This fills men to their core, even if it drives them to their demise.

If one adds in the sexist privilege of gender preference in hiring in the most desirable jobs, as one must, then it is clear that women have workplace gender superiority, to go with family realm superiority. On top of that as noted, women are largely allowed to evade the common male reality of DDD work, because feminists have hypocritically not called for women to bear equal work responsibility and take whatever job they need to take in order to support their family. Feminists lied when they said their concept of equality was inclusive and would result in equal rights for men and women.

With women constituting 60% of the positions in medical school, law school and many university faculties, with affirmative action to rocket them up the corporate or governmental ladder and with DDD jobs remaining almost exclusively male, we see that some now have substantial workplace superiority over men. When we add as we must women’s traditional substantially superiority over men in the family realm (sexual power, exclusive right to reproductive choice and preferential bias re child custody) we are obliged to conclude across the two realms of family and work women have dramatic superiority over men.

Men not only rarely get primary child custody, while organizations like NOW fight furiously against the equality of “shared parenting”, yet feminists tell us they are working on the problems men face. The statement is laughable in face of the facts. Rather, we are obliged to conclude that feminist actions put the lie to feminist words. They have taken society from each gender having some “rights dominance” to women having dramatic rights dominance in both the work and family realms. And this was achieved through the lie that feminism wanted equal rights.

No matter how much feminists gain, they continue to pretend there is a “patriarchy” and demand top 500 CEO positions because vagina.

Feminism is sexism on estrogen. Let’s get some justice and equality for men and boys by ending feminist hypocrisy, starting now.

Starting at the Beginning

Anyone with eyes and mind open knows that male advantage and female disadvantage has been over-stated and conversely male disadvantage and female advantage, understated—-more at minimized, ignored or denied.

Male disadvantage is substantial, yet there is little comment passed on it and essentially no effort made to end it by the sources of power in western society: intellectuals (and universities more generally) political parties, courts or the mainstream media.

The disadvantage ranges from males being more likely to be caught in the maws of the criminal justice machinery like every disadvantaged minority from African Americans to Aboriginals, to males having a significantly shorter lifespan—-like every disadvantaged minority.

One would think those two items alone would bring considerable awareness to male disadvantage, but most people are unaware of it and  even fewer seem to care—-perhaps due to the sources of power being so uncaring about, even hostile to, males; particularly males who don’t just accept the male lot in life and “suck it up”.

If males early demise is the end point of their disadvantage, what is the beginning point? The answer is ‘the educational system.’ The disadvantage for males on college campuses is apparent from the dramatic reduction in male enrollment to well below 50 % and dropping in many faculties, particularly the humanities, to sexist “sensitivity training” for males, to a demonization of male sexuality combined with a celebration of female sexuality amongst other actions creating an environment hostile to masculinity—-but just in males.  Not to mention some ‘female only’ scholarships or bursaries.

But sadly, the disadvantage seems to begin at the beginning years of school and continue throughout.

When I attended first year university, lo those many years ago, the first psychology text I had, made the observation that our society was failing boys. How? By making schools such “feminine institutions”,  valuing above all else, students sitting still, being quiet and colouring between the lines. An agenda ill suited for energetic, squirmy little boys. Then feminism came along and made things worse for boys. Educators discovered that boys could do relatively well with the pressure and excitement of final exams, while girls shone on day to day activities. The upshot was many schools moving more of the final grade to day to day work,  which further advantaged girls.

Accordingly, with an endless obsession about “what works for females” in  our culture and a conflation of the distinct concepts of “getting more for females” and “creating gender equality”  our educational institutions changed a system already imbalanced in favour of girls learning and made it more imbalanced in females’ favour by focussing on the relatively small problems faced by girls and ignoring the big problems faces by boys.

The unwillingness to help boys can become a sexist pathology. And not just from power sources.  Sadly, disturbingly, from more ‘every day’ people as well.  There was a case in the news a few years ago, from I believe the Province of Nova Scotia (although perhaps elsewhere in the Maritimes) in Canada. A school principal was aware that boys in his school (elementary, I believe) were doing poorly in English and so he set up, as an option, an all boys class.

They showed a clip from an all boy classroom (I assume from his school, although they didn’t say). It was a sight to behold. A male teacher, at the front of the class, went through the multiplication tables with them. The idea was to make learning exciting. So the boys were supposed to shout out the answer if they knew it. Some boys were standing up; other even standing on their chairs, all shouting out the answers—-excited to be learning.  On their feet.  Shouting, laughing, learning.  A different learning style from most girls. One that seemed to work for the boys.

The pathological sexism? Some parents of girls complained about the ‘all boys’ classes. All the these parents were women, the principal noted, rather bravely. All these women accused him—-remember, all he is doing is giving under-performing boys an option—of trying to get the girls to want to be ‘barefoot and in the kitchen’. The other bizarre and pathological part, is that this school already had given girls the option of ‘all girl’ classes, based on the girls lower performance in math. That program had already been instituted and was put in place without also doing the same for boys at the same time, even though at that school, the under-performing girls were doing better in math than the under-performing boys were doing in English.

So we start with a system more designed for most girls than for most boys. Make it more sexist yet, through means such as tweaking the grading system, then make it more sexist than ever by having a special ‘girls only’ class, without simultaneously having a special ‘boys only’ class—and then when finally something is done for the boys, a number of women complain that somehow something bad is being done to girls.

This accords entirely with my own experience with the educational system with my son, as he was growing up. In elementary school or it might have been the low middle school years, he and a group of other boys got detention. What did he do, I asked him? “Threw snowballs at some girls” he replied honestly. “Why” I asked? His reply: because they threw some at us yesterday. Hmm. Did the girls get detention too, I asked? No, he said. Why not, I asked? “Girls tattle. Boys don’t.” he insightfully informed me. At one level I admired his young chivalry, but at another level I knew it to be a bad thing. Times have changed. Chivalry is inappropriate in a age of putative equality. I should have called the school, but my son dissuaded me. But you’d think a teacher or principal would have had enough sense to ask the ‘why’ question without a call from a parent. There can never be gender equality as long as females remain so free to run crying to authority—even over actions they’ve participated in, or as in this case, been the instigators.

Another significant sexist thing in middle school and high school, were ‘same sex’ phys ed classes—for girls only. Almost too obvious say—-but offer both sexes or neither sex the opportunity for a same sex class. Even a proposition that basic can get sexist push back these days, however.

The one sexism that annoyed me the most however, was seeing school teachers approach a group of misbehaving teens, “Ladies—” they would say. Then “boys—” they would continue.

One can say to females ‘you’ve come a long way baby’. One can’t say that to males. Although I suppose we could say to males re eliminating areas of female advantage and areas of male disadvantage, “you’ve come a long way—-backwards”.

Let’s change all that for the next generation of boys.

Let’s start right now.