insideMAN

  • Who we are
  • Men’s Insights
  • Men’s Issues
  • Men’s Interests
  • About Men

A day in the life fighting to bring down the barriers to boys’ education

March 18, 2017 by Inside MAN 25 Comments

Boys are falling behind girls at every level of education and young women are now 35 percent more likely to go to university than young men. Despite this, there is currently no Government policy dedicated to tackling the issue. Here one small organisation describes what they are doing on a day-to-day basis to help boys overcome the educational barriers they face.

Mengage Limited is a not-for-profit company working on male health and the issues that affect male health; we are a practitioner-led organisation using a ‘what works’ approach to work with boys and men, which means that we acknowledge that there are a diverse range of disciplines and theories involved in work with men – and that these can sometimes be at variance.

All of that said, an area of work that most people attending our workshops can agree on are the social determinants of health, a prominent one being education. Girls outperform boys in schools in the majority of subjects and are more likely to go onto higher education, a pattern that is not unique to Britain, but one that can also be found in other developed countries.

Poor academic achievement correlates with reduced social mobility, poor health outcomes and also criminality, therefore to address these concerns it is essential that we take action on improving boys’ education and preventing early school leaving.

Government neglect

Social determinants are often influenced by Government policy – and education is no different. In the UK, despite boys falling behind girls at every level of schooling, there is currently no recognised statutory programme for improving boys’ education. In contrast in Australia, for example, biannual National Boys Education Conferences are held and work programmes with a specific focus on improving boys’ education are a normalised part of education work.

However without a policy – and the funding this brings — unlike some other social determinants of health, we can at least begin to address this in small part via workshops and initiatives that enthuse and provide knowledge and skills to UK teachers. Hence Mengage’s involvement in this field of work, with us criss-crossing the country visiting schools with our Raising Boy’s Achievement workshops for teachers and Mentoring Male accredited award for people interested in helping boys and young men in education through mentoring. It does of course help that one of the Mengage collective of practitioners –  the author of this article – is a qualified teacher.

What follows is my account of one of our workshops – a day in the life of a practitioner.

The majority of schools we work in are secondary schools, primarily for financial reasons with secondary schools being much larger and having bigger budgets to bring in external support; the opportunity to work in a primary school doesn’t arise too often. So when offered work at a larger primary with some 620 students and 50 staff we were pleased to accept; admittedly it’s easier to work with 15-20 committed staff – we’ve worked with a lot more than 50 staff at one sitting in secondary schools, but primary education is where we can really tackle issues such as boys and literacy, so I was keen to accept the school’s invitation to work with them.

Ideological resistance to helping boys?

Working in a primary school setting is different to work in secondary schools and required a change of approach. The format I used included an obligatory powerpoint introduction about who we are and what we do — and do not do. Experience of working in a gender-politicised area of work has meant we have had to build this into the start of many of our workshops. Whilst people know they are attending a workshop implicitly stating that it is about a boys and/or a men’s concern, people — often those from ideological perspectives – question whether we should be giving special support for boys or work with men, or that sometimes emerging research perspectives challenges their own views. We acknowledge that people can hold different views, but Mengage does not hold to any politicised or ideological doctrine and this is reiterated during these slides along with a robust rationale as to why we are doing this.

Once the introductions are out of the way, to explore these personal perspectives and allow staff to air their opinions, I used an activity we commonly employ, which uses questions such as: “what do boys want to know about education?” “What do boys need to know about education?” “What do we remember about boys/girls when growing up?” and so on.  Lots of participation and discussion ensued, informing me about their knowledge and opinions on work with boys and how they perceived them and this area of work (and as this was their first day back after Christmas the staff had conversations with each other about their holidays without being put under too much pressure to ‘perform’. Informality is part of the workshop!)

This then allowed me to explore research perspectives with them – challenging some of their views, looking at areas as diverse as neuroscience and literature, statistics and social mobility. I lovingly describe this as “the boring bit”, but it actually is the core that holds the whole workshop together. The discussion about the relevance of brain science and different viewpoints — social construction of masculinity/feminist schooling, the cultures of young men — onto psychology perspectives, action on social determinants and what does ‘salutogenic’ mean? This is the part that gets people to listen and get involved. Yes, you do need to know about best practice – but to improve practice you also need to build it on a sound research-based foundation, you need to know where practice is coming from. That took us up to a break and further discussion.

‘The biggest issue? Literacy.’

After the break, we were into the main barriers to boys’ achievement in school; drawing on best practice, in this case a nod of approval has to go to a leading expert in the field of work on boys’ education Gary Wilson, who identified a number of specific barriers and how to counter these. I certainly recommend anyone with an interest in this area to take a look at Gary’s work, and I always acknowledge my sources – after all I’m a practitioner spreading best practice. Hence we took a look at boys’ early years in school, literacy concerns, whole school approaches, socio-cultural issues, emotional intelligence and having a male-inclusive classroom – a lot of territory to cover in a time-condensed workshop.

Literacy is far and away the biggest issue we encounter and normally I would spend a bit of time allowing the staff to come up with their own ideas around this – but on this occasion and wary of timing I set out pre-prepared flip chart paper headed with each of the barriers, allowed them to sit where they had a particular interest and gave them 15 minutes to come up with their own ideas.

This worked really well. They were coming up with great ideas for their own school – such as suggesting areas of the school where there could be male friendly displays, doing an audit of classrooms to see whether the displays are ‘too feminine’, doing ‘stay and play’ sessions (for both sexes) so that parents/grandparents come in and they all put their technology down and play board games – and others too. Feedback followed with my offering solutions I have collected running  these workshops in many other schools and the staff then adding to them (a benefit of working cross-country is working with many different schools and picking up great ideas and sharing them) – experiential for both myself and the staff, as in future I’ll be running this particular part of the workshop in this way if there are more than a handful of staff.

The feedback at the end of the workshop was positive — the Head teacher and the Deputy Head who had originally organised the workshop were grateful and I was able to drive home at the end of the day feeling that at the very least the staff I had worked with were aware of exactly why we need to work to improve boys’ education and were informed and enthused to do so.

‘We shouldn’t ask why boys are failures, but why the system is failing boys’

This group of teachers embraced the workshop content. We shouldn’t regard boys and young men as a homogeneous deficient group – a problem, but as heterogenous and unique individuals with attributes that should be nurtured and allowed to grow so that they can build on their own strengths and succeed rather than be pigeonholed as educational failures; that it’s their fault, rather than that of a system that doesn’t account for their differential needs and how to work with them. We all know or have had experience of a boy who does not fit in with the broad-brush strokes we are using and probably know a girl that doesn’t too. We need to recognise this – but we also need to acknowledge that boys are not doing well in education and that gender-sensitive steps need to be taken to address this and not continue in the gender-blind fashion that has allowed boys to fail with subsequent consequences for themselves and the wider community.

If that sounds a little too idealistic or that I’m surfing on a wave of enthusiasm, I’m soon brought down to earth in the days following the workshop. There is a barrier to making all of this work, and one that many people will encounter. How many times have you been to a workshop or conference, come away enthused and ready to put what you’ve learnt into action only to be told by a manager or head of department who hadn’t attended that it wasn’t going to happen, it didn’t fit with the department’s ethos – etc? In this instance, upon finishing the workshop, the enthusiastic Deputy Head asked me to write a ‘quick check document’, a Red, Amber, Green rated checklist that could be applied to all aspects of the school environment to enable them to identify areas where they are letting boys down and so on – “stay in touch”. Sounds great?

I have emailed the Deputy Head about this several times since but to no avail. Our mentoring workshops are repeat business, we’re invited back as people want to train to be mentors and understand boys’ issues and concerns, but a workshop for busy teachers on raising boys’ achievement?  It would seem, as schools have so many pressures on them, that once this workshop is completed they are already moving on to the next thing. As a teacher I’m aware of this.

You could say that it’s a thankless task, and why do it when there is easier work to be had, but there is no provision for this area of work currently coming from Government and limited guidance for practitioners. So whilst that remains the case, as practitioners we will remain out on the road talking about work with boys and men and applying theory to practice – because, small company though we are and as frustrating as this work can be, we believe it can make a difference.

By Liam Kernan

Image: Flickr/DFAT

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Latest News

  • CitymanMichael

    Thank you for the work you do.

  • DukeLax

    The white-liberal capital-gains community send their children to safe-orderly private schools who still hire on average 50% male teachers ( a safe orderly patriarchal environment)….while they make sure the poor- working class have to send their children to school in the matriarchy of public schools of chaos and violence, with now only 12% male teachers ( just enough males to frisk for guns and knives at the door)…Any questions??

    • DukeLax

      I believe their theory is that…if they “Break” the masses into a helpless, defenseless matriarchy when they are young…they will never defend themselves when they become adults?? @@ Broken.

  • Groan

    I was heartened to hear of the Australian initiatives as it is so much easier to push for policy if one can point to work elsewhere in the English speaking world. I feel sure this helped in the admittedly slow process of getting men’s health esp. mental health a bit on the agenda.
    You do vital work and one never knows really the impact but i’m sure your tenacity will be rewarded. As with so much in life “luck” plays a part in influencing the “right” people at the right time. Of course keeping on increases the chances of that lucky break/s happening.
    I think it really important to concentrate on skills and methods as it is quite pointless having notions that the “solution” is about male teachers, as there isn’t likely to be significant change in the profession. And anyway I’m not convinced the sex of the teacher is so important.
    In a small way we’ve been doing work with secondary teachers in a local “rough” school. Our observation is that teachers seen to get no training in behavioural management (“challenging” or “non compliant” behaviours) consequently, find classes at that level very difficult to manage.
    Anyway I digress, my point is really that this is very important work. I saw this at the end with young men in care or institutions with nothing and no where to go. For whom actually prison was better than the aimlessness “outside”. All had almost a standard biography which read as a list of “negative reinforcement” They were “made” out of a near constant lack of expectations and aspirations so that what was made by 18 was nihilistic . As was always in awe of the effect of tough but hopefull staff in turning round these men’s lives (and young men can be a tough prospect). How much better if a bit of hope had been applied years before.
    Thank you for this interesting article and please do continue your particular message of hope.

  • paul parmenter

    Kudos to all of you for the vital work you are doing.

    But against your efforts sits that great question: why on earth should it be down to voluntary organisations like yourselves to tackle the chronic and massive problem of the underachievement of boys, when we have hugely resourced government agencies that are supposed to be doing that job, and that have the nerve to boast about how they believe in, and implement, “equality” all the way down the line?

    “…there is currently no recognised statutory programme for improving boys’ education…”

    Is that statement not the most depressing, and disgraceful, admission of failure on the part of government and the Department of (so called) Education? What are all those overpaid people doing to justify their existences?

    Big questions, I know, and ones that are shamefully avoided. I don’t have any certain answers either, but I can see that in the face of this huge void of indifference or outright malice towards the education of our boys, there is something that can be done at ground level – and at least people like you are doing it. For this seems to be the only solution at present: bypass the authorities, who have proved that they have neither the ability to recognise nor the will to to anything about the problem; and take action into your own hands. It’s such a shame that we are reduced to this, and improvements can only come on a piecemeal basis; but it is a brave start.

    • Groan

      I’m afraid the real block is the teaching profession. Clearly the profession is ill prepared to teach. I suspect a focus on boys simply brings this failure into sharper relief as would any consideration of the growth of exclusions and “conduct disorders” and “special units” . I have just read a report of a senior member of the profession rightly highlight schools difficulty with behaviour management. Only to follow this with the idea of specialist units in schools. An idea from the 1970s and one any behavioural expert would tell you will be a disaster! Simply because they were tried and failed for the now obvious reason that grouping and labelling people as a problem simply confirms they are a problem!

  • Darren Ball

    It’s shocking that there’s no government programmes for boys’ under-achievement. I think it was about a year ago that Prof. Alan Smithers wrote that there are 48 subjects studied at GCSE, and boys do worse than girls in 46 of them.

    For several decades, equality has been judged by outcome rather than opportunity, so boys’ inferior outcomes in education is an equalities issue. If feminism is the go-to movement for gender equality (as it usually claims to be) then it needs to embrace boys’ relative educational failures within its radius of concern, and in proportion to the magnitude of the problem. In my experience, the only response one hears on this issue from feminists is “Girls do better than boys in 46 out of 48 subjects? What about the other two?”

    The “other two” are STEM subjects and/or sport, and oddly enough, there ARE government initiatives to encourage girls into STEM subjects and sports. How can we have come to the point where girls failing at two subjects receives government support, but boys failing in 46 does not?

    The stock answer from MRAs has been to claim that education is controlled by feminists and feminists are ambivalent, at best, about boys. I did read an academic paper published in the 90s about boys’ under-achievement, it was blatantly feminist, and it did say some pretty despicable things, such as “does it matter if boys are failing relative to girls at school when they benefit from so much discrimination in the workplace?” I don’t know if this sort of attitude still prevails, but it’s a awful thing for an educationalist to say.

    My own opinion on this is that girls’ education is a feminist issue because girls’ education has been systematically under-valued by our patriarchal culture for millennia, whereas this has never been true for boys. It is not that boys’ education is unimportant to feminists, it’s just that they see it as an issue for educationalists, not feminists (different “ist).

    It is also true that girls have not been encouraged as much as boys to study STEM subjects and to excel in sport, so feminists are right to ask “what about the other two?”, because their mission is to root-out patriarchal discrimination that systematically disadvantages women and girls. But there’s a but, and it’s a big but…

    The feminist mission to root-out historic and systemic discrimination against women and girls must be done in the context of other necessities, including parallel inequalities impacting upon men and boys. The disadvantages girls face in STEM subjects and sport is one inequality to address. The poor education outcomes experienced by boys in all other subjects is another inequality to address. The feminist blind-spot here (and I believe that in general, it is only a blind-spot, not generally malevolent – my early example notwithstanding), is that boys’ failing is not seen as being rooted in historic, systemic discrimination. For this reason it might not be a suitable feminist issue, but it’s still a gender-equalities issue. If feminism won’t take it on-board, then feminism isn’t the go-to movement after all – which is also okay. What is not okay is for feminism to claim to be the go-to movement for gender-equality whilst ignoring blatant inequalities effecting men and boys in significant areas of their lives.

    My hope is for feminism to broaden its appeal to consider all gender inequalities, judged by outcome, not opportunity. However, if it won’t or can’t, we need to figure out another way of doing so. Definitely NOT MRAs.

    • AJ

      There is much that is wrong headed about this comment.

      It is nonsense to judge by outcomes without a consideration of opportunities and preferences. Many if not most feminists actively oppose any action to address male disadvantage.

      This is why we have the endless ridiculous debate about the pay gap. Women do better than men in working shorter hours, having career breaks, taking more time sick and studying subjects and taking jobs which interest them. If we simply look at pay as an outcome we end up saying people with less experience and less commitment should be paid the same as people who work longer hours. This includes women with no children. It is a cliche for women to criticise older men who regret not spending time with their family for poor decision making while at the same time complaining that men are on average paid more than women.

      The idea that there is simple neglect by feminists of men’s issues flies in the face of decades of evidence in fields such as domestic violence, health, educaton, the criminal justice system. All areas where men are seriously disadvantaged and where efforts to address the inequalities have been strongly and successfully opposed by feminists, not simply ignored but strongly opposed. In all these areas no only are men disadvantaged but there ar ongoing feminist campaigns to increase the disadvantage.

      I accept it is difficult to say this becase we all want to appear to be reasonable people and the consensus especially in the media and academia is that feminism is a ‘good’ thing. The problem is that ,while some early feminists fought for genuine equality of treatment, almost all modern feminism is deeply sexist, discriminatory and aims to increase rather than reduce discrimination. Following the evidence rather than the consensus is the correct if hard thing to do.

      • Darren Ball

        Para 1. Obviously we equality of opportunity is also important, equality of outcome is the tougher test. If there are fewer women in parliament, that’s an equalities issue. If there are fewer men at university, that’s an equalities issue.

        Para 2. The “pay gap” is a highly nuanced issue, I agree. The conversation about this is starting to improve, but is still often overly simplistic. Feminism is about empowering women and to that end, many feminists argue that the “pay gap”, such as it is, is a monitory indicator of the lack of female empowerment, which in many ways is true. You’d argue that this is because of the choices many women make, which is also true. Many stay-at-home mums complain that feminists don’t respect their life-choices. Feminism is not about sticking up for women no matter what they want to do: it’s about women sharing the hierarchy of power equally with men.

        Para 3. I do see where you’re coming from. I got into gender politics because i felt that society is ambivalent towards disadvantaged and vulnerable men and boys. I have to say though, that our society has always been less sympathetic to the physical and mental wellbeing of men and boys, relative to that of women and girls: boys were raised to fight the next imperial war, join the merchant navy, go down the mines and whatnot. it wouldn’t do if they weren’t tough. So we can’t really blame feminism for this, although some people who self-identify as feminists do shamelessly exploit this (Corston report into prison reform being an excellent example). But I would argue that these feminists aren’t being true to their cause. The Corston Report is old fashioned chivalry dressed up to look like feminism, but patronises women in the process: it is patriarchal.

        Yes it’s a contradiction, but I understand that the reason they haven’t attempted a male version of the Corston Report is that the Government don’t believe that the public are ready to “go soft” on male prisoners. It will not be feminists opposing prison reform for men, it will be the Daily Mail.

        Last Para. I’m friendly with an awful lot of feminists, and none of them hate men and boys. You need to find another explanation. I have found that most of the men’s issues are the flip side of women’s issues. You might be nearer to being a feminist than you think.

        • AJ

          1. Equality of outcome is frankly a ridiculous test. men and women are different and on average want different things. They also have very different physical capabilities. The only way to have equality of outcomes is to discriminate or compell people against their will.

          2. feminism is not about sharing the heirarchy of power equally of men. If we look at outcomes (your test) men are substanitally disadvantaged comapre dot women in disposable income, education, health, the criminal justice system and even political representation. The proportion of MPs compared to members of political parties is higher for women than men, there is a minister for women and equalities and there are women only short lists for some parties.

          3. I do not think many feminists hate men, although some overtly do so. The issue is of an ideology and organisations which value women above men and systematically aim to advantage women irresptive of the impact on men. I do nto believe the majority of people who do thsi hate men just they do not consider or have any concenr about teh impact on men.

          I strongly believe men and women should be treated equally and very definitely with respect. This is incompatible with feminism.

          • Darren Ball

            If equality of outcome is unimportant, then why are we concerned with the education attainment gap? I assume you believe that this is due to natural differences between boys and girls. Girls are just much brighter and more studious, right?

            It is almost impossible to untangle differences that are innate from those that are conditioned.

            Feminism is primarily concerned with the hierarchy. Who’s in charge and who makes the important decisions. That is their blind spot. I do agree that men are disadvantaged in many things to do with their physical and mental well-being, but feminism isn’t looking down, it’s looking up. My argument is, from my first post, that it would be great if feminism could broaden it’s radius of concern to include all gendered inequality, but it currently doesn’t and it may find impossible to do, in which case that’s okay so long as we recognise that it’s not the full answer, just part of it.

            I think your point about women being over-represented in parliament is a bit silly. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

            Your penultimate paragraph is where you’ve gone awry. Our society has always been relatively complacent about men’s physical and mental wellbeing and this pre-dates feminism. Those feminists who exploit this for the benefit of women’s causes are ultimately betraying feminism. I have already given the example of Baroness Corston. There are others. If you want to criticise them, then go ahead.

          • AJ

            The problem with educational achievment differences between biys and girls is that ehere is substantial evidence that it is caused by direct discrimination against boys. There is an OECD report which highlights a substantial marking down of work by boys. There is the disparity betwene teachers assesments versus exam results for boys. There is the plethora of initiatives and measures to help girls and the paucity of any for boys. There is the historical record that before measures to advantage girls such as continuous assesment and the feminisation of schools the situation was the other way around.

            Why is the fact that women MPs are proportionally overrepresented versus the membership of politcal parties a silly point? There are measures fo various sorts in all mainstream parties to advanatge wimen candidates over male candidates. The results is that proportionally more women then men become MPS from the mebership of the parties. How is this anything but female advantage? I think it is significant that most impressive female politicians I can think of have not been benificiaries of women only short lists but got where they did under their own steam, Margret Thatcher, Shirley WIlliams even Teressa May. I say that as someone who loathed Margaret Thatcher’s policies but acknowledge that she was a capable competent and determined politician.

            Some male ‘disadvantage’ I do not personally complain about. The much higher work related deaths for example. This is because men on average more dangerous and challenging work. I do complain about the way male suffering an ddeath is discounted an dignored as we see daily in the media.

          • Darren Ball

            You might be right that there are subtle barriers which impact upon boys’ education, and certainly the attainment gap at age 16 coincided perfectly with the introduction of the GCSE in 87/88: I’m not disputing that. However, there are other subtle (and not so subtle) barriers keeping women out of parliament. These issues are hugely complex, leaving so much room for debate that you’ll never be able to convince anybody who doesn’t want to be convinced. So, to cut through all of this crap, we should start by simply committing to the general principle of closing gaps that disadvantage some groups relative to others.

            There is nothing wrong with boys’ mental faculties, and boys can and do grow into responsible hard-working men. If they are failing at school relative to girls, this is because our educationalist have failed to engage with them in ways that they respond to.

            Women have a different path through this world than men. You said yourself, in an earlier post, that there are differences between men and women- perhaps innate, perhaps conditioned. They face different pressures and may have different priorities. This makes women their own constituency.

            We’re supposed to live in a representative democracy. How is it representative if it’s 80% male? (or 80% posh, for that matter?). One might argue that women who make it in politics, given the current mix, are by definition unrepresentative of ordinary women (although that might be too harsh).

            There are about 650 seats in a population of about 62 million. I believe that there are many more than 325 women in this country who would make superb MPs, and would very much like to do so. We should concentrate on finding them.

            I do not understand how MRAs can complain about the educational attainment gap, but justify the parliamentary gap, neither do I understand how feminists can complain about the parliamentary gap, but justify (or sometimes celebrate) the education attainment gap. In this regard, they’re both as bad as each other. It is for niggling reasons like this that I cannot quite self-identify as a feminist (as much as I would like to).

            We differ on the point of men’s workplace accidents. There are very few jobs in the UK that are unavoidably dangerous (fire, police, army yes, but not much else). I happen to work in the construction industry which accounts for a large proportion of workplace fatalities. It is never acceptable to ask somebody to do anything where there is any likelihood of serious or fatal injury. There is always a safe alternative.

            Anyway, my original post that started all of this was basically saying that feminism is mostly focusing on systemic discrimination, and tends to see men’s problems as anomalous. It’s not that they’re seen as unimportant, but they’re not seen to be happening to men because they are men. I believe that feminism is mistaken on this point, not malicious, and something we can work with.

          • paul parmenter

            I have been following your debate with AJ with interest. Also with some bewilderment, in that you seem determined to embrace feminism but can’t quite bring yourself to do so because you can see where it is going wrong. To my mind, that would be ample reason to say you are simply not a feminist! Surely better to stick to your own beliefs without trying to shoehorn yourself into an approved “ism” that you really don’t fit into. But be that as it may, can I add some comments about the boys-in-education vs women-in-parliament issue you have batted between you?

            I don’t buy into the argument that because most MPs are male, women are therefore seriously underrepresented in Parliament. That would only be true if all or most male MPs busied themselves exclusively, or predominantly, with issues that mainly impacted on males, while ignoring women’s issues. But do they?

            It seems clear to me that this is far from true. In fact it is almost the opposite. Serious men’s issues like poorer health outcomes, family and divorce laws, criminal sentencing, and of course the dismal performances by boys in school, are consistently ignored by our male MPs while they fall over themselves to accommodate women’s demands. AJ has summarised this, and we should all be well aware of the glaring disparities. I firmly believe this is why we don’t have that many female MPs; because women voters can have their issues addressed well enough by the men they vote into office.

            Because that is actually what is happening, is it not? Ever since women have had the vote, they have had it entirely within their power to put huge numbers of their own sex into parliament. If women had chosen to engage as wholeheartedly in politics as men, and to vote as a bloc in favour of female representatives, we would have had female domination for the last 100 years. In fact it is doubtful if we would have had even one male prime minister in all that time. But women don’t do this because they simply don’t need to. Men are doing the job for them already. Men have given them the equal pay act, the sex discrimination act, the equality act, their own women’s committee, etc with continuous amendments and debates to address and answer women’s issues and complaints, ad infinitum. Women’s voices are heard loud and clear. Our houses of parliament are the most powerful bastions of chivalry and white knightism that you can find anywhere – except maybe in the divorce courts (with male judges also bending over backwards to favour wives and mothers over husbands and fathers).

            So to say that women are not properly represented in parliament is quite wrong. We don’t need exactly equal numbers of female and male MPs; that would just be tokenism. I don’t see any need to concentrate on finding the 325 best females to be superb MPs; I much prefer to find the 650 people, of either sex, who would make the most superb MPs. A virtually impossible task anyway; but given the very different inclinations, interests, drives and abilities of the two sexes, it may well be that the very best 650 MPs could still turn out to be 80% male. Would that be such a terrible thing?

            As for the education of boys, surely we can see that is an entirely different matter, and there is no valid point of comparison? Boys don’t have a vote, or any say in how they are educated – at least not until they are well advanced through the system, by which time it is already far too late. Until then, they are entirely disempowered. They are not consciously choosing to drift further and further behind girls; it is the system that is causing that to happen. And in my view, there is nothing more important that the proper education of our children. if that fails, then everything else fails after it. This is not a silly numbers game, it is the future of our country at stake. The problem is an intensely difficult one, but it has to be tackled and solved. Perhaps one of the first things we need to do is to stop placing any faith in feminism, or any other damned “ism”, to bring about any improvement. Futile debates about whether feminism has any answers to boys’ poor performances have proved to be a waste of time, and just go round in circles while nothing changes. I would be more than happy to see everyone who identifies as a feminist flushed entirely out of the education system altogether, and kept out. They are a barrier to progress, have done nothing to help boys, and never will do.

          • Darren Ball

            Do you really think that the current bunch of MPs are the best this country can offer? There must be thousands of people who could do the job better, so it’s not really about having the “best”; we’ve always put up with “good enough”.

            It would be statistically rather odd if 80% of those best able to be MPs were men, don’t you think?

            I don’t think it “representative” when men are second-guessing what women want. Let women speak for themselves.

            I have my suspicions that male MPs and judges might sometimes over-compensate – especially judges. Of the several divorce judges that I dealt with during my divorce, the best one for me was the female: she didn’t put up with any of my wife’s shit. The male judges were all trying to be sympathetic. I think more female MPs and judges would be good for women and men alike, as they don’t need license to diverge from the current gender narrative.

          • paul parmenter

            Do I think the current bunch of MPs are the best this country can offer? Absolutely not. I think that the quality of our MPs is dismal, and has been for a very long time. So I certainly agree that what we have is nowhere near the best. I nearly put this in my first post, but am happy to confirm it now.

            I don’t think it would be odd if the best people we could find were 80% male. This is a very common pattern when you look at exceptional people. Most geniuses are male, as are most business leaders, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc. This is explained by the respective bell curves of male and female intelligence, where most of the latter congregate around the average while more of the former are spread out onto the extremes. Men are generally both brighter and dumber than women, depending on which end of the curve you look at. And I believe men are considerably more interested in politics and public affairs, which accounts for the fact that most parliamentary candidates are also male – hence the demand for women-only shortlists, as the only way to exclude even more men throwing their hats into the ring.

            I would certainly welcome more judges of either sex who did not put up with “shit”, but it may be that female judges are indeed better at that particular aspect.

            But male MPs don’t have to second guess what women want! They are regularly bombarded with women’s demands. And there are certainly enough women already there, and in many other positions of power and influence, to make their voices heard loud and clear. However I don’t believe for one moment that more female MPs would improve the lot of men and boys. Those women who are already in Parliament have shown no more understanding of, or inclination to tackle, the problems of the male sex than their indifferent male colleagues. It seems to me that they are perfectly happy to both encourage and enjoy the benefits of the “chivalry” showered on them by the male majority. This is also why I advocate that there will be no improvement in these situations, such as the chronic underperformance of boys in education, if we rely on politicians to drive it. They simply won’t.

          • Darren Ball

            The bell curve argument? For MPS? Really? I think we’re done here.

          • paul parmenter

            We were talking about an ideal situation, not the actual one!

          • AJ

            Clearly the current set of MPs are not the best that this country could offer but unless we start conscripting MPs then the pool of available candidates is those who are willing to put themselves forward and belong to a major political party. There is a problem with modern politics that many, if not most suitable people, are deterred but this is a seperate problem. COnsidering the pool of people who can be MPs women are substantially advantaged relative to men. This is manifestly the cas ewith women only short lists and special support for women candidates.

            The idea in any case that it is necessary for number of MP which fall into different categories to reflect the relative distribution of people in those categories is in general an absurd and unsustainable one. Do we apply it to race, educational atainment, wealth, sexual orientation, age? An MP must represent all of their constituents regardless of any of this.

            I would not characterise the discrimination against boys in education as subtle. It is obvious and not at all subtle. I was punished more than 40 years ago for simply being a boy. A girl in my class was caught talking in an assembly and told off. Afterwards we were instructed that every boy in the class must apologise to the girl because some boys had been talking. This is completely illogical even if I had been talking but I had not. I therefore refused to apologise and was made at the age of eleven to face the wall standing on a chair until I apologised. I stood on that chair for the entire day. This was more than 40 years ago. It goes along with the female teacher who repeatedly hit me in the head because a text book I had been given had a page torn out (not by me), or the women teacher who repeatedly gave me detentions for my ‘poor’ maths homework when unkown to her I also did it for many girls in the class who generally got full marks. When I think back all of the incidents of manifestly unfair treatment were by women. The time I was caned for writing an essay advocating legalisation of euthanasia for example (the supply RE teacher found it upsetting). None of this matters in the sense that despite getting poor teacher assesments I got A grades in all my A levels and mypoor teacher assesments did not matter. Boys nowadays are not in that fortunate position of having grades set through an unbiased means of assesment.

          • Darren Ball

            AJ,

            Your first paragraph is the crux of the problem: we need to extend the pool. We need to reach beyond those who are currently putting themselves forward, because they are be definition atypical. We’re only looking for c.325 women (i.e. one from every other constituency, or about 1 in around 75,000 women or so). I don’t believe that they’re not out there – ready, willing and able.

            And yes, ideally this would extend to a better representation of class, ethnicity, sexual orientation. Not different levels of intelligence and education, because MPs have to be competent.

          • Groan

            Being an MP isn’t a job. ” because MPs have to be competent” if only this were true. They have to be popular on a specific day. And often its the Political Party that has to be popular not the person.

          • Groan

            The current research is now unequivocal on the point on teacher assessment. Girls are favoured in assessment and generally have “inflated” marks given for course work by teachers. There are different hypotheses about why this is; neater work, rewarding better behaviour, sexism in presuming girls are “brighter” or positive discrimination due to ideology. In my observation based on some rough schools I suspect the “reward for better behaviour” may be a strong factor.

          • Groan

            I too welcome the inclusion of women. as with three current/former female premiers across the world being impeached or arraigned for corruption. As with the former “Chief Minister of NI or MSPs and MPs that women are in fact not any more virtuous or capable than men in dealing with power and government. There are of course few MPs compared to the total population. Perhaps what should be “representative of the population” are public services currently, 70% female. As we were talking about education perhaps the teaching profession should be 50/50?
            As you point out earlier the point is that people should do their job whatever their genitals.

          • Groan

            You may be able to work with equity feminists but I’m afraid not those with a Marxist derived feminism which regards sex as “class” . For they apply a rigid notion of each sex being a “class” of people with uniform interests. hence of course feminists opprobrium for women who don’t conform to their “class interest” . They can’t discuss because they also have the notion of “class war” and so someone has to “lose”. Now of course this is a distortion of the Marxist notion of class hence the accurate description of much modern feminism as a “heresy of Marxism”. The problem is any attempt at “nuance” in effect makes one a “class enemy”.

          • Groan

            The point about the OECD report (corroborated by other smaller national research projects) is extremely pertinent as it was evidence of systematic direct discrimination on a massive scale. It was even more powerful because the Authors hypothesis was the feminist position that they would find systematic discrimination against girls. However it’s dressed up these reports add up to pretty clear falsification of the “patriarchy” thesis.
            Of course beyond the academic world of testing theory they also represent a widespread discrimination that is unaddressed.

InsideMAN is committed to pioneering conversations about men, manhood and masculinity that make a difference. We aim to create spaces where the voices of men, from many different backgrounds, can be heard. It’s time to have a new conversation about men. We'd love you to be a part of it.

insideNAN cover image  

Buy the insideMAN book here

Be first to get the latest posts from insideMAN

To have new articles delivered direct to your inbox, add your name and email address below.

Latest Tweets

  • Why Abused By My Girlfriend was a watershed moment for male victims of domestic abuse and society @ManKindInit… https://t.co/YyOkTSiWih

    3 weeks ago
  • Thanks

    5 months ago
  • @LKMco @MBCoalition @KantarPublic Really interesting.

    5 months ago

Latest Facebook Posts

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: Error validating application. Application has been deleted.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 190
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Copyright © 2019 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.