In New Zealand, there has been a recent
flurry of debate about why boys are doing worse than girls at school.
The views of Dr. Paul Baker on this topic are the most analytical I
have seen so far (Understanding
the gender gap New Zealand Herald 19.04.06 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10378016).
This is not saying a great deal, since (as he himself says) the research
base on boys' education in New Zealand is minimal.
This is not an accident, because the lunatics
have taken over the asylum.
Female Dominance
The Feminists (the lunatics) quite rightly consider it a threat to
the Eternal Victimhood of Women for research to be directed at the needs,
wants or interests of men or boys (not to mention unborn children),
so they use their domination of the Media University Complex (MUC) to
prevent it from taking place. Meanwhile, the Post Primary Teachers'
Association uses its members' funds to churn out non-education-related
propaganda about how society oppresses women, and male teachers (most
of whom sit down to pee) are too gutless to prevent them (if nothing
has changed since I was a teacher, anyway).
Feminists have made a propaganda-feast on the issue of male violence,
while in fact being violent man-haters themselves: see farmerss.html
and aggressi.html . This puts men onto the
back foot and gives the initiative to women. Male teachers no longer
have the courage to criticise women, for fear of being called names,
whereas female teachers have a whole ideology that feeds them ammunition
to use in attacking males.
I once taught Computer Studies in the Mathmatics department of the
Correspondence School, and the Head of Department (reputedly a Lesbian)
had allowed a female teacher to have at her desk a sign saying, "Men
can't do anything" -- until I complained about it. Bear in mind
that it was a campaign with the slogan "Girls can do anything"
that was created in order to improve girls' performance at school --
at a stage when they were doing less well than boys. It is nothing less
than insane to pretend that we can improve boys' performance without
attacking the attitudes of Feminist women and girls -- and also the
attitudes of male teachers who put up with anti-male propaganda in the
teaching environment.
Reasoning
Reasoning ability is not valued highly in the female-dominated New
Zealand education system: I remember being in a meeting at The Correspondence
School when a fellow basic-level German teacher, Robyn Skrzynska, appeared
to me to demonstrate an inability to think logically. I commented on
this to a colleague after the meeting. Subsequently, Robyn Skrzynska
attacked me by opening a heavy door violently towards me from the other
side, was promoted to Senior Teacher German, harassed me sexually and
otherwise, and then was promoted to Dean!
As I have pointed out at resescam.html
, the Neuroscience article "Sex differences in functional activation
patterns revealed by increased emotion processing demands*"
shows that men's and women's brains process emotional stimuli in different
ways. It states:
"These findings suggest that men tend to modulate their reaction
to stimuli, and engage in analysis and association, whereas women
tend to draw more on primary emotional reference."
To put it simply, women have evolved to get emotional about things,
and men have evolved to be rational.
I think it is likely that, apart from demoralising
men and boys by pushing the Feminist line that women
are good and men are bad, Feminists have also dumbed the education
system down so that girls' relative lack of rationality is no longer
a disadvantage, but an advantage. How can teachers value rationality,
if so many of them are irrational themselves ?
Universities
Universities are also male-hostile places.
As Class Representative for a class at the Law School of Victoria University
of Wellington (class: Comparative Law; date: some time in November 2004),
I told the lecturer (Professor Tony Angelo) that I wanted to speak to
the class. He agreed -- but then suddenly realised that I was an anti-Feminist,
and so asked me what I was going to say. I replied that I was going
to say that I was going to resign because of all the Feminists in the
Students' Association executive. He said, "You're not going to
say that, are you !?" So he introduced my announcement with an
apologetic smile, and the warning that I was going to be saying something
political. That was in a Law School which taught "Feminist Legal
Theory" as an optional course, and had Feminists (i.e. at least
one, in my personal experience as a student) teaching Feminist propaganda
in compulsory courses ! To teach Feminism is not
"political", in other words, but to disagree with Feminism
is "political" !
Victoria University of Wellington's Psychology Department also actually
advertises the fact that it excludes the teachings of Freud (i.e. because
he is unpopular with Feminists) !
In other words, if you think you can get non-politicised, academic
knowledge from a modern western university, dream on !
Consequences
The result of having an education system dominated by dumb Feminists
is not only that irrational girls are valued more highly than rational
boys, but boys are being trained to be as irrational as girls.
Here are some examples of how some male adolescents use words such
as sexist and racist. In an article in the Dominion
Post on 21 February 2006, Ralph Lee, a Victoria University
of Wellington law student, states the following (about me):
"Mr Zohrab has published and stated what many consider to be
sexist and racist beliefs.... His opinions and statements ... are
repugnant to many (including myself). An open letter to governor-general
and former High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright was titled Resign,
you incompetent, sexist, racist bitch!"**
He does not explain what I have said that is supposed to be sexist
or racist, or why it is sexist or racist. He does not say why my opinions
and statements are repugnant. He does not discuss whether the quoted
title of my webpage was justified by what I said on the page itself.
In other words, he seems to have emotions, such as the feeling that
certain things are repugnant, and he seems to have learnt some useful
adjectives, such as sexist, and racist, but he seems
to have no ability or inclination to attach a meaning to these adjectives,
or to relate facts and arguments to the use of such words.
The same could be said of the editor, James Robinson, and Feature Writer,
Brannavan Gnanalingham, of the Victoria University of Wellington student
newspaper Salient. Robinson (in the March 27 2006 issue) says
that I am a "racist, sexist, bigoted, and out of touch freak show,"
but he does not bother to give any examples of views of mine that fit
that description, or to explain why they fit that description. His use
of the term out of touch betrays his probable belief that opinions
are fashions, like clothes and pop music, and that anyone who does not
share his tastes is out of touch. I will not bother to tear
his other writing to pieces, because that will just make him a hero
to the Feminist-dominated media, and promote his career.
Similarly, Gnanalingham --though his article on me (in the same issue)
is generally clear and accurate -- states the following:
"Zohrab wrote an open letter to governor-general Dame Silvia
Cartwright entitled 'Resign, you incompetent, sexist, racist bitch!'
Zohrab has also published a book called Sex, Lies and Feminism
.... I will admit, that even me, with an extremely high tolerance
for offensiveness, I found his chapter on rape and a number of his
quotes questionable at best, and highly offensive at worst."
Like Ralph Lee, he restricts his interest in my letter to its title
-- having no apparent interest in whether the body of the letter justified
the title. He seems to think that he is the only one in the world who
is so objective that he can quantify his own tolerance for "offensiveness"
(which is obviously a subjective, not an objective matter). And he makes
no attempt at giving examples of this "questionable" or "offensive"
material -- and (needless to say) no attempt to discuss whether what
I write is true or backed up by evidence. That would be being rational
!
In the telephone interview, he asked me what I would say to the people
who found my views offensive. He doesn't seem to think that these people
need to provide logical arguments -- just feelings. He obviously doesn't
understand that there is no reason why I would want to say anything
to a bunch of Feminazis who shout down people when they disagree with
them. Since he is a law student himself, I would have thought that he
would have realised that people who do not believe in free speech have
no place in a decent legal profession -- not that we have one !
Gnanalingham doesn't seem to have a concept of free speech. Having
quoted me about Feminazis shouting me down, he then says that I am quite
good at shouting myself. In other words, he thinks that, if Feminazis
shout me down when they disagree with what I say, I am supposed to shut
up or speak quietly, so that no one can hear me !
Conclusion
I believe that the fact that Lee, Robinson, and
Gnanalingham appear unable to think any better than the average chimpanzee
is due to the fact that they have had Feminist and female teachers.
Lee comes from Canada, but I know that Canada is almost as Feminist-dominated
as New Zealand is. It is appalling to think that these morons will soon
be voting in elections on the basis of whether the candidates are in
touch with the latest emotional fashions.
I think we should ban teacher unions and fire
all female secondary teachers as a temporary measure, and then set up
a system which values rational thought, as a long-term solution.
*by Geoffrey B.C. Hall, Sandra F. Wittelson,
Henry Szechtman and Claude Nahmias, in Neuroreport Vol. 15 2004, pp
219-223.
**I called her incompetent for flouting
her constitutional duty to be non-political, sexist for taking
a partisan pro-female point of view and ignoring an obvious pro-male
viewpoint, and racist for publicaly criticising the customary
protocol of another race on the very day of the year that celebrates
the relationship of that race with the Crown that she represented.
