Let's look first at how the authors interpret their results. In their
"Discussion and Conclusions" section, they state:
"For various reasons, caution should be exercised when drawing
conclusions from this study,"
and they go on to list reasons why their results might not apply
to all ages or in all schools. That sounds reasonable enough.
But then they state:
"Leaving aside the limitations of our study, how are current
teacher recruitment policies to be assessed in the light of its
findings? If the overriding concern of policy makers is to devise
effective measures to reduce the socalled ‘gender gap’
in achievement (and attitude), then it could be argued that current
attempts to persuade more men to take up teaching posts may be somewhat
misplaced."
This is self-contradictory: either one should be cautious about interpreting
these results or one should not. Here the authors are having it both
ways -- appearing nice and scientific by advocating caution, and then
abruptly revealing their real political agenda by throwing all that
academic caution to the winds! Even if we grant (very reluctantly!)
that Education is a properly academic field at all, there seems to
be little in the way of academic ethics in existence to stop these
"academics" from crossing the line into politics.
Although I am an ex-teacher and have long been interested in the
topic of how to improve boys' performance in schools, I have never
thought that the issue was about role-models. I have never had hard
facts to base this idea on, but this study is valuable in (apparently)
being the first to test such issues empirically.
Let's truly be cautious about the results of this single study, but
let's assume, for the sake of argument, that its findings can be replicated
for all ages and in all countries. It still would not follow that
it is wrong-headed to try to get more male teachers into schools.
As you could see by reading my articles, "What
About Us ? Boys in Schools and Men in Society" and "Good
Men from Good Boys", I see the issue as one of values,
not of role-models.
The solution to relatively poor performances by boys in schools is
two-fold:
- Get more male teachers into schools;
- Free schools from Feminist ideological domination.
Both steps have to be carried out. The crucial step is the second
one, but it cannot be carried out without carrying out the first one
as well. Most western male teachers are Feminists, so just carrying
out the first step is not enough.
Western societies are really quite insane, because the majority of
the population runs around believing that men oppress women, as if
this was some hugely intelligent insight that they had managed to
gain all by themselves. Law Schools, in my (limited) experience, are
full of hugely moronic lecturers who believe this. In fact, of course,
they have been taught to think this by the education system (which
is where I started this article) and by the media.
Teachers believe this, and teach each other and their students this
theory, which undermines the morale of both the male students and
the male teachers.
Now you're going to say that it's obviously appropriate to teach
this theory, because it's true. I have to admit: if it were true,
then it would be appropriate to teach it, even if it was bad for men's
and boys' morale.
But it is not true ! Name
one single Feminist book that has systematically compared the relative
advantages and disadvantages of men's lives and women's lives under
the "Patriarchy". You can't. because there isn't one. Feminists
just aren't interested in men's problems, because any attention paid
to them would undermine their frantic and continuous effort to drum
up sympathy for women's "suffering".
After getting more male teachers into the schools,
therefore, we have to deprogram all the brainwashed teachers. If this
involves throwing the teacher-union activists into dungeons for corruptly
using union funds to brainwash people with Feminist dogmas, then I,
for one, would be delighted with that outcome !
