"Boys' poor mental health stems from feminism."

[Whattheduckery]

Just been in a training session at my school and this is what the trainer has said. She followed with "because they don't have a club to be part of..."

It's made me so mad.

As I said, I can't speak about the UK system.
I was educated mostly in Canada.
I have the inpression the UK system is heavier on exams, but don't know for sure. I did go to a school which was mostly for British ex-pats in Europe. It was modelled after UK schools. I didn't find a significant different regarding coursework and exams, though I did find the educational standards were extremely high. I was 11 and we were learning Latin and Greek fgs. They also emphasised competition more. Boys tend to do better when competition is a part of it.

Yep. Awful stuff. Don't forget acid washed jeans.🤢

At one point yes - they introduced coursework because they thought it would give people who struggled under the pressure of exams but were academically good, a better chance of showing their potential. In lots of ways it was thought measuring someone's work through the year gave a better picture of where they were academically than the all or nothing of an exam. But - an unintended consequence - it turns out boys did worse at coursework than girls. It was speculated that this was because many boys struggled to be motivated to work on coursework over the year - but could do the short term "cramming" required to do well in exams. Depending on when you grew up, you may well have heard this being discussed.

so.... they changed the system BACK so that coursework through the year counted for less than exam results. Girls still did better than boys in exams overall, but not to the same extent as with coursework.

This shows the opposite to the point you were making though - educational authorities changed marking systems in an attempt to make the system "fairer". When it showed this disadvantaged boys, they changed it to give boys more of a chance. If the playing field was being tilted, it was being tilted towards boys. It is weird that you remember "boys not doing as well at coursework" being discussed, and concluded that this meant no-one cares about boys education compared to girls. If you hear people discussing girls problems - that is proof that feminism has gone too far. Of you hear people discussing boys problems - that is also proof that feminism has gone to far.

No, not a contradiction at all:

Women as a sex class are encouraged to behave like men (gender stereotype) while men as a sex class, especially white men, are increasingly being portrayed as unnecessary and redundant.

If you’re unclear what a male gender stereotype is, then perhaps words like ‘dominant’, ‘sexually adventurous (promiscuous)’, ‘aggressive’, ‘go getter’, ‘insensitive’, will shed some light on this.

Isn't it ironic that a movement to advance women’s rights has largely turned into telling women to emulate the worst stereotypes about men?

Largely done by the wealthy and mighty of this world to double the prospective employees pool and reduce the wages.

The most outspoken proponents of the right of working class women to do backbreaking jobs in factories when pregnant and being held to the same standard as men working there (in the name of progress of course) were upper middle class women who never had to do such work themselves.

But this is ancient history today.

I’m talking about the mainstream Western outlets, seems I need to clarify this for the ‘there are many types of feminism’ crowd on here.

(Yet, there only seem to be one when someone disagrees with you, btw.)

Again though - in the past troublesome children, those with learning difficulties, used to be caned, made to stand in the corner, openly ridiculed by the teacher. Boys that talked loudly, or refused to listen to the teacher would have been physically punished. Now (thankfully) this no longer happens - classrooms are better places for boys in terms of punishment and understanding of their needs. But more disruptive children will still be told of more than less disruptive children. So the resentment isn't that things have got worse for boys (they have got better) but that things have got better for girls. Its zero sum thinking.

If anyone, male or female, is disrupting the classroom teachers have a right to tell them of. The fact that people nowadays think a teacher telling a disruptive child to sit down is going to emotionally damage them because the other children who are already sitting down aren't being told of is not actually going to help boys in the long term.

Are you saying men are seen as redundant, so women are being encouraged to be like men so we can do what- phase men out entirely?
The reality is that if women are being encouraged to be more like men, it would establish that masculine traits are more highly valued.

No need to be condescending. I can compose a decipherable post on this subject, so obviously I know what gender stereotypes are. So you're saying women are more dominant, aggressive, etcetera now. Sure, but these traits always existed in women, albeit to a lesser extent. Feminism didn't create them. Feminism just allowed women to be who they truly are. Women are still not nearly as aggressive and domineering as men.

This tangent about the working class is irrelevant and does not advance your argument. Those middle class women you are sneering at helped pioneer things that are crucial for working class women, like maternity leave and subsidized daycare.

To summarise:
Feminism unfairly demonises "male" traits like dominance, agressiveness etc as bad, while praising female traits/saying that feminine traits are better. This is bad.
Feminism also encourages women to reject their femininity and take on the worst of male traits, like dominance, agressiveness etc, rather than leaning into their feminine traits which are in many ways better. This is bad.
Feminism is responsible for women not realising that their role as mothers etc is super important/as important as men's roles only different. In the past everyone was super grateful for the work women did without saying it was less than what men did. But also women need to REMEMBER that men built this world and show some goddam gratitude.

No wonder boys are confused!

@XChrome

Those middle class women you are sneering at helped pioneer things that are crucial for working class women, like maternity leave and subsidized daycare.

Yes, once the choice to stay at home and raise children and have it recognised as a contribution to the society has been removed from the lower classes, who would have benefitted from this the most, it’s the least those middle class women could do, don’t you think?

There was once another strain of feminism that advocated greater protections for women at home and recognition of their contribution to the society through child rearing and running a household. And recognised that not every woman could or wanted to have a ‘career’ and that if work meant backbreaking labour in mills, factories and on farms, then perhaps women should have been able to have a choice between that or staying at home and raising children. Because children are the future of any society, so this indeed is a contribution that should be rewarded and recognised by said society.

There are still some relics of it today, for example the French law where a woman’s can get a decent pension if she’s raised 3+ children, even if she’s never worked.

But it got choked out by the middle class women who had more clout and more resources than the lower classes so could advance their version of women’s rights which coincidentally also worked for the wealthy of this world who were keen to double the size of the workforce.

Do you think many working class women today are grateful that they have to have 35 years of work on minimum wage to even get a pension? How many would have preferred to stay at home, raise children and grandchildren instead?

And no, they wouldn’t have necessarily have to worry about the husband’s job security, because a smaller workforce would have meant more job security.

Western feminism has been rained by classism from the very start, unfortunately.

It’s also the reason for the pitiful birth rate. Because, contrary to a popular belief, it’s not possible to have it all but it’s also no longer possible for most women to choose what to have. And where there is no choice, there is no freedom.

Perhaps worth checking out Mary Harrington.

pigletinthewoods · Today 22:39

Yes, once the choice to stay at home and raise children and have it recognised as a contribution to the society has been removed from the lower classes, who would have benefitted from this the most, it’s the least those middle class women could do, don’t you think?

Working class women have always worked. They worked in fields with the men and in factories. The working class have never had the privilege of only having one person working.

There was once another strain of feminism that advocated greater protections for women at home and recognition of their contribution to the society through child rearing and running a household.

Are you talking about women who advocated for maternity leave and pay? That strain of feminism you're talking about, never existed although feminists didn't always advocate for marriage, which protected married women.

You're also forgetting that the Law of Coverture meant that married women had their rights subsumed into their husbands and needed permission to work and didn't have the right to keep money.

There were many careers, that women had to give up once married as well.

And recognised that not every woman could or wanted to have a ‘career’ and that if work meant backbreaking labour in mills, factories and on farms, then perhaps women should have been able to have a choice between that or staying at home and raising children. Because children are the future of any society.

Again, working class women didn't have any choice but to work.

But it got choked out by the middle class women who had more clout and more resources than the lower classes so could advance their version of women’s rights which coincidentally also worked for the wealthy of this world who were keen to double the size of the workforce.

The first wave, was definitely upper and middle class women. The second wave was a lot more inclusive, focusing on workers rights because women had more power if they were financially independent.

Do you think many working class women today are grateful that they have to have 35 years of work on minimum wage to even get a pension? How many would have preferred to stay at home, raise children and grandchildren instead?

Again, it's not a choice many have because of the cost of living. You could afford to live on one wage back in the day but unless you're wealthy, not anymore. Many women are grateful for a pension in their old age and having financial independence. I'm sure some would like to be a stay at home parent.

It’s also the reason for the pitiful birth rate. Because, contrary to a popular belief, it’s not possible to have it all but it’s also no longer possible for most women to choose what to have. And where there is no choice, there is no freedom.

Raising children is very expensive and so is childcare. I think we have some of the most expensive childcare in Europe. Most parents have to work, and childcare is prohibitive for many. Also having maternity breaks mean you fall behind on your pension and career.

The only areas where coursework would have been a matter of course would be things like Art etc. My school always had exams.
It’s interesting you mention the 40s and shoulder pads, that particular fashion was in response to the war ie military so actually there are examples of changes in fashion, as a result of social change. It was a cultural response.
Playing devils advocate heels also make women taller.

👏 Perfect summation of some of the deeeeep thoughts being expressed in this thread.

Sorry pigletinthewoods, I'm finding the way your posts are all over the place make it hard to concentrate on them. So I don't know exactly what you're trying to say.
Is that some "strains" of feminism are good, some are bad, and middle class women are the scourge of society? That's what it looks like.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Fashion trends tend to be pretty random IMO. At any rate, the sociological implications of fashion trends are not worth further exploration to me.

Well looking at your responses to other posters you do seem to have a very scathing and are quick to judge the opinion of any one else who proffers another view (deep thoughts) that doesn’t align with yours and it’s not surprising further exploration of anything is simply not worth your time, as your opinion’s right of course .
You have also adopted the current thinking that if someone expresses a view, it means they are so far over the other side, rather than simply being able to see things in a more open way. People are actually never so one dimensional.

If I have any opinion it’s that actually men and women are or should be equal in every aspect of our lives, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognise and am not afraid to say, we each have varying strengths to offer and women don’t need to do anything more than use them.

And the ladette phase in the 90s (UK that is)

b0ut0 @naanaa you say that you think men and women shouldn't be competing but women should be using their "different" strengths to men (by which I assume follow different life trajectories, not necessarily the same careers etc). But in this same thread you have posters like @Galadriell referring to the "world that men built" showing that actually some people really really don't see men and women as having played equal (but different) roles now or in the past. If they had said that men built half the world, I would absolutely be in agreement. But No, everything that was built was built by men, even going back to pre-history when we don't know who did what. Can't you see the inherent contradiction? If women are doing similar things to men (making scientific discoveries, working in architecture) they are emulating men. But if they aren't and its men doing all that, its taken as evidence that men do everything worthwhile.

You're offended because I'm bored with the subject of the sociology of fashion? It's nothing personal. I'm just not into fashion. Please try to get a hold of yourself.

I said nothing to indicate what you are accusing me of. Your response is an oberwrought personal attack and does not contain valid reasoning. Please don't bother me again with petty complaints about things you imagine.

I didn’t say they shouldn’t be competing and no I’m not saying they should follow different trajectories or different careers, not sure why you’ve taken that as my meaning.
All I’m saying is that women shouldn’t need to emulate men to get on in their careers.
I totally get why it happens in the work place, it’s competitive, but there are strengths women have that are unique to women, enabling us to be entirely capable of following a career path, every bit as good as men without adopting certain male behaviours.

Given that I’m not Galladriel I’m not sure why you’re asking me whether I can see the contradiction. I haven’t got a problem recognising the part women have played in getting us to where we are now and have never said anything to the contrary.

“showing that actually some people really really don't see men and women as having played equal (but different) roles now or in the past”

This is pretty much what I’ve said in a previous post so we’re in agreement there.

Why would I be offended? I’ve really got a hold of myself perfectly well. It seems you’re offended and feeling attacked so I do apologise I can assure you I wrote in a very calm way and i was simply commenting on your responses, which you will remember are my interpretations.

I find this disingenuous. I have no idea why you were offended, but you clearly were since you quickly changed to an aggrieved tone after that post.

I do accept your apology though. Have a good day, evening or whatever it is in your part of the world.

That's not really what I'm saying. I'm saying that in spite of patriarchy our society has accomplished a lot that we take for granted. When I see posters on here describing modern Britain as 'a dystopia not unlike 1984' it's a bit OTT to me.

Oh dear I have said I wasn’t offended I was simply pointing out how your responses in this thread appeared to me, even an apology isn’t taken as such. I can assure you I’m not in the habit of being disingenuous about apologising or anything else but clearly not going to convince you of anything so will leave it there.

And yet in the kind of communities Harrington writes about, that are still centred around women in the home, working on handicrafts and family farms - they still exist in the developing world - women suffer horrific abuse.

As they did in the mediaeval world that she also likes to write about. When asked whether witch-burnings would be worth going back 700 years for, she remarked that "those were still functional societies". Not for the women being barbecued, they weren't.

It's a classic "bait and switch" tactic. Observing that big business has driven much of feminism is one thing; advocating for women to lose access to birth control, and the financial means to escape violent homes, is completely another.

In a nutshell: in Harrington-world, freeing communities from the control of big business means putting women back under the control of men. Truly? I don't think she believes a word of it. She's in it for the cash that the Heritage Foundation pays her.

(response in post above @pigletinthewoods )

I agree with so much of this post, and this is my biggest issue with many of the focii of feminist groups

I believe so much work is undervalued/not valued based on our patriarchal systems and this disproportionately affects women - why are women who stay at home to raise children or care for relatives not included in the economy? Their unpaid labour allows for others to work longer hours in paid positions. Where are the economic protections for women who do this work for years and are then divorced by their partners after the children are grown?

A true feminist reimagining of the labour market would include this work, and yes i agree that this is absolutely linked to class, income, geography, etc