Delingpole hits back at Mumsnet and to visit Roedean

[Cortina]

See other thread (state school daughters, public school sons) for the full story.

The excerpt below is from the Spectator.

I am concerned that the headmistress of Roedean has invited him to speak to the girls (what would she make of his comments in the Spectator I wonder - her girls described as 'pouting lovelies' and her as jolly hockey sticks type)?

Perhaps it will lead to some 'lively' debate between him and the girls on the other hand?

Also why does he see 'child centered learning' as such as destructive force?

Anyway, here's the excerpt:

In our case, what it came down to was that Boy was struggling at his C of E primary school, while Girl, as yet, wasn?t. As is often the way in the state system, the thicker, naughtier boys were grabbing most of the teacher?s time and Boy had started coming home saying things like: ?I wish I was stupid.? A friend suggested he apply for a scholarship at a brilliant prep school called Papplewick. Boy got it, with a bursary, and that?s the reason he?s being educated privately while Girl currently isn?t.

Does this mean that I now cheerfully brag to all my male friends over cigars and port: ?Well at least I?ve got the Boy sorted and that?s what matters. The Girl will just have to fend for herself?? Of course it bloody doesn?t. Not a schoolday goes by when I?m not tortured by the woeful lack of rigour in Girl?s curriculum, by how relatively little sport she gets to enjoy, by my horror at seeing academic potential every bit as great as Boy?s being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and anti-elitism and child-centred learning. If I had the money, Girl would be off to private school like a shot.

All that said, I do still think there?s a grain of truth in my troublemaking thesis, as I shall be explaining next month at Roedean, whose jolly, on-the-ball headmistress has invited me up to dinner so as to train some of her sixth-formers in how to deal with sexist pigs. Ceteris paribus, I?m going to tell the pouting lovelies, it really does make slightly more sense to give a boy a private education than a girl because boys are more likely than girls to be their family?s breadwinner.

I think the headmistress is very wise providing her pupils with this training in how to spot a sexist pig. Possibly the model was a little exaggerated, though; like those anti-drug talks that suggest that everybody who tries cannabis will end up on heavy drugs. Next time, Headmistress, I would go for the more realistic approach; a slightly more lifelike sexist pig.

But surely taking that attitude perpetuates the probability that boys will be more likely to be the breadwinner, better education, better prepared for the post school career years and potentialnetwork benefits thrown in.
It just goes on in perpetuity if "old-school" parents follow this line of thinking. Are some parents really that dim to not see this ?

"woeful lack of rigour "

It's real head-in-hands stuff.
head:desk
thunk
etc

It doesn't matter, with men like him, what is said on Mumsnet, or anywhere else. I pity his daughter, and tbh I pity his son too.

I suspect 'old school' parents are happy to keeps things as they have been traditionally.

They go private as they believe they are rescuing their child from the risks of a state education, they are hoping that their son will get a better start in life. They will have calculated the probable advantages and invested accordingly - and that means sending a boy to school rather than a girl if forced to make a decision. To them private schools breed confident, independent spirits and state schools frightened conformists. Better a boy be a confident, independent spirit and a girl a frightened conformist when it comes down to the wire

I would worry that many girls at Roedean might agree with Delingpole and his presence will perpetuate the archaic thought process he describes.

There are many girls in the public school system & who are its product IMO that are not as career minded as they might be. Ample money/trust funds etc mean a real hunger for success etc is often absent. Too many I know have stagnated and lead a life of apparent ease and luxury when they have the ability to do something worthwhile outside of the home.

In my experience other public school girls who have been career minded do often give up when funds permit in one way or another.

Aye he'll be delighted when she marries a hedge fund manager.

The girls - including the ones at Roedean -are not expectd to marry out of their social class, that is part of the public school system of values isn't it.

I'm sure his daughter knows what's mapped out for her. She obviously knows already to keep her head down and shut the fuck up about her brother getting preferential treatment. Go and buy a nice handbag instead.

Her mother should be ashamed.

My mother once said to me "had you been a boy, you would be privately educated" I was rather sad, I wanted to go to boarding school. My father wanted me to study and persue a career, whilst my mother thought I should amble along until I met a "nice" husband.

Shocking to think my father didn't just buy her a handbag and pack me off anyway

I think my mother thought as yours mini, and her mother before her, I hoped things were changing? Yet, here is Delingpole being paid (most probably) to chat about all the upsides of waiting for your knight in shining armour, 'keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved' is it 1950 or 2010?

Roedean is about a third foreign students many on government scholarships, and a third expat brats, more in the sixth form. Not many girls who don't think they have to earn a living, even if a number hope to marry someone to keep them.

Showing them that actually, sexism isn't totally a thing of the past and yes, there is in fact still a point to feminism, sounds like a fine idea.

I've heard the head is very impressive at Roedean so this may well be her plan. I certainly hope so. Interesting to hear about the intake there. Perhaps I underestimate the girls to think he may have any negative influence? Agree though with what Cory said earlier.

I would like think that intelligent, educated girls would laugh at him!

I would have 30 years ago, so let's hope we haven't gone backwards!

Perhaps the headmistress is inviting Delingpole so that after his talk there can be many lively debates on why Delingpole is an example of said sexism.

I think that's exactly why, Cammelia but think there may have been better people to invite for that sort of discussion. He says he is there partly to show the truth of his argument and I fear that some may privately agree with him.

Might be more interesting for him to visit a state school? Anyone like to invite him?

What is his fall back plan for girls who fail to net one of the finite number of rich blokes?

Become nuns?

Or mistresses of the rich blokes?

Oh, that was the middle ages...are we still there?

I wonder if his speech will say "those of you too ugly to hope to get a rich bloke may actually have to work to support yourselves" just to make it clear us girls need to look good even if a rich bloke is plug ugly.

What I don't quite understand is if Boy got a scholarship/bursary, then why can't Girl apply?

It's unfortunate that Delingpole's own public school education (Malvern) didn't equip him with enough skills to be able to earn enough to fund both his children through independent schools.

From what I've read, he needs to make trouble, to espouse inequality etc. That's how he makes a living. So, by discussing him, we're doing just what he wants us to do.

So let's not. There's lots of other loons out there that would be much more fun to discuss.

Litchick - she can apply (presumably) only it wouldn't make such infuriating copy. And I presume from everything the man has written that I can be arsed to read that 'infuriating copy' is his schtick. Him and AA Gill and Giles Coren and the whole, slimy, sadsack lot of them.

Yes they think they're new men but they're just unreconstructed Chauvinists

Just to clarify I mean those who have older children in school, who are very wealthy, and who don't run the home themselves in any way (have outsourced all the responsibility completely). A statistically small group but one that I knew well for a time due to work.

Many were hugely bright with fantastic degrees from well regarded universities and stellar jobs before they married. The group I knew didn't spend their time purposefully shall we say from the close contact I had. They also had surprisingly little interest in their children and family.

There has been an interesting response to Delingpole's article in this month's Tatler. Tatler received a huge amount of complaints re: previous article discussed here.