Girls better in every subject
Girls have out-performed boys in every school subject and low male achievement is spurring concern.
Secondary school NCEA results were released yesterday by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.
The profiles show a growing gap between girls’ and boys’ achievement, and suggest children might be better off in single-sex schools.
Girls-only schools dominate all NCEA levels. Their pass rates are far above the national average.
Wellington High School principal Prue Kelly was not surprised.
English was particularly geared toward girls and many of the topics did not interest boys, she said.
“Analysing characters and having to think about why an author wrote what is often of no interest to boys.”
Education Ministry learning policy manager Steve Benson said the gender gap was a big issue. A research project was under way to address boys’ under-achievement but there were no easy answers.
Others had suggested the problem lay behind typical Kiwi attitudes to masculinity, with boys more interested in rugby than study.
Whilst I don’t doubt that most NZ schools have been thoroughly emasculated I suspect there’s another side to this issue.
Boys are facing a future as men being amongst economically independant women (so therefore not having to fullfill the old male role of main breadwinner). Realising this they could be rightly questioning why they should bother achieving at girls level. And look at the concommitant freedom they could be envisaging and indeed already experiencing as a result of such questioning – time and energy for personal gratification – arts, music, surfing, technology, sports, you name it, all waiting to be had by the lads who have sniffed the sociological winds.
Another way of saying this is this, why bother to compete for grades>degrees>higher salaries> being more economically attractive to women as partners – when high divorce rates with women leaving men in droves shows women aren’t as available as they used to be anyway?
People will strive towards percieved rewards. These days boys are schooled without male mentors available, AND have seen huge numbers of menfolk discarded as partners by women.
So where’s the incentive to achieve material success?
Gone. That’s where.
So why not instead enjoy personal freedom?
Why not have a balanced life instead?
Maybe the lads have allot more sense than we credit them for.
Comment by Stephen Gee — Fri 13th May 2005 @ 12:58 pm
The misanthropic regime of Miss Clark & Maggot Wilson combined with the sodomites like Barnett,Beyer & Carter, who has have allies like dunderhead Hawkins & blockhead Maharey = it is of no surprise that young NZ men have lost all faith in achieving their full potential.Whats the point?
Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 13th May 2005 @ 8:05 pm
perhaps it is the worryingly tiny range of possible gender roles available to men which drives young men away from achieving?
if you’re straight but you’re not macho, you’re not a pretty popstar, you find the Southern Man to be comically tragic in his lack of sense, you like talking about your feelings, you’re deep, you want a loving, caring relationship of two people as equals rather than a brief sex-oriented fling or a relationship where you as a man are burdened with the responsibility of being the one who provides the strength (be that economic or physical).. what role models do you have?
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 4:56 pm
perhaps it is the worryingly tiny range of possible gender roles available to men which drives young men away from achieving?
if you’re straight but you’re not macho, you’re not a pretty popstar, you find the Southern Man to be comically tragic in his lack of sense, you like talking about your feelings, you’re deep, you want a loving, caring relationship of two people as equals rather than a brief sex-oriented fling or a relationship where you as a man are burdened with the responsibility of being the one who provides the strength (be that economic or physical).. what role models do you have?
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 4:57 pm
You have a point there Damian.
Men’s getting past feminist barriers to having close contact with children is another aspect IMO.
Overblown, onesided ‘research’ on domestic violence and rape, a rigged pro-mom star chamber family court, feminist media denigration of all things male, draconian child support laws, to name just a few fences. And all twhile the vast majority of NZ women apparently smug and/or silent about men’s plight vis a vis connecting with children.
It all adds up to a Labour-led matriarchy which needs ousting for men to get a fair shake.
Comment by Stephen Gee — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 12:22 am
having had contact with quite a number of feminist arguments of all different types (radical through to conservative, first wave through to third wave) it’s only some types of feminism which believe that men should have no contact with their children under any circumstances.
many of the comments i’m seeing here in response to my arguments wrt feminism seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the diversity of feminist perspectives. there’s a tendency to talk about ‘feminism’ as a bloc of idealogy, when in reality the issues being confronted tend to come only from small subsets of feminist theory.
Comment by damian — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 3:36 pm
It’s worth reminding ourselves of this repeatedly – most women and many feminists do not support the agenda that is currently driving NZ social policy.
Comment by JohnP — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 6:06 pm
John P.
So you reckon most women and feminists don’t support the agenda that is currently driving NZ policy. Holy Shit!
The majority of folks in NZ say over and over
they’re preferring by massive amounts Helen Clarke as PM. That indicates they’ve cowed to her teams social engineering. I rest my case there.
As for the idea of strands of feminism some good some bad. Nada. Laughable. Smell the coffee.
I’ve yet to meet one in over 20 years of
looking who comes remotely close to acknowledging the plight of men. To the contrary they appear so utterly and unconscionably
self absorbed, displaying such staggeringly arrogant level of demanding, often shrilly, exageratedly and abusively over several decades
whilst turning a blind eye to the plight of men
as to be beyond reproach.
Think of it this way.
Insted of trying to delude ourselves and mentally
invent some new kind of sanitised communism or nazzism or Klu Klux Clan, by carrying on the name feminist as though it’s a virtuous label,
try seeing it for what it is – a vindictive, ill inspired and highly damaging social movement which misguidedly set about creating class warfare – positing womenfolk as victims and mensfolk as the patriarchal other who need to be reformed/ overthrown. Never mind that niether gender had overall power historically. Let’s just make men suffer for supposed past gender-class injustices.
Well, I’m now shoulder to shoulder with growing numbers who’ve said enough’s enough.
I’m looking for reconciliation with self proclaimed feminists and thier supporters, but it will only come when they acknowledge the depth and breadth of thier harm to the rest of us, rather like the oppressive whites have had to do in South Africa to bring about reconcilliation there.
Until then you can be certain I will staunchly defend myself and others I see beng harmed by feminists.
Also, if your gonna ask me to stop using ad hominums (calling a spade a spade –
as in feminazzi, naive, fuckwit, ballbuster etc) I’d respect you much more if you did so openly in this forum where we can be accountable to all in this virtual community.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 1:12 am
whoa, whoa, whoa..
do you think the feminist movement should never have happened in the first place?
if so, how do you think the massive male/female power imbalance that was present in the first half of the 20th century (males having most if not all of the meaningful power) should have been addressed?
or do you reject the assertion that males had most if not all of the meaningful power during the first half of the 20th century?
that’s not what ad-hominem means. ad-hominem means attacking me for my beliefs or my personality, rather than attacking my argument. thus, claiming that i have been ‘brainwashed’ by feminist thought is an ad-hominem argument. it’s tantamount to calling me stupid, which is (unsurprisingly) not going to convince me of anything at all, nor in any way endear me to your point of view.
Comment by damian — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 1:26 am
Damian,
Get a grip mate.
First off you’re not being called stupid. Far from it. Naive and misinformed yes. Stupid no. If I thought that I wouldn’t even bother trying to talk to you.
Now go read Warren Farrel’s ‘The myth of Male Power’, talk to several men in nz who’ve been through the family court there. Check out mensnewsdaily.com, angryharry.com. Fred Reed;
Go see the UK fathers for justice website.
In brief I encourage you to get more informed then I’ll debate.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 1:53 am
ok, i will, but it won’t be for at least a week, i have a very busy schedule. could you summarise mr farrell’s arguments in the meantime?
Comment by damian — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 6:17 am
Stephen:
My take is that few people really understand what is going on, which is partly why this site exists. Also, it isn’t clear that there is a better alternative at present.
Well I’m happily married to one, and I’ve know many 1970s feminists who are extremely uncomfortable at the direction their sisters have taken.
I do so openly in the forum rules, which include: “Do not post questions or comments…about the the moderating of this forum”. OK, I know nobody ever actually reads these things; but it is there.
In this case, I’ll break the rules and repeat my backchannel request to you publically:
“I would appreciate it if you could take care to avoid any “ad hominums” in future, because this is one of the primary weapons that is used against us by the feminists. We need to call each other on it where necessary and keep the debate focused on verifiable facts, logical arguments, and worthwhile principles.”
Damian is quite right when he says that a personal attack:
Comment by JohnP — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 8:45 am
John,
I can’t really see NZers being ignorant about how the PC soc/fem-cabal is re-engineering thier lives. Too many folks are cut too often, too deep and too personally for that.
I haven’t met your missus in ages, so don’t really know her very well these days.
I would say this though. If she identifies herself as a feminist perhaps it’s time she found another monicer. The f word has become so tainted as to be synonymous with, well the f word. Just hearing it raises the hackles of many these days. Like hearing the word Stalinist, Maoist, National Socialist etc.
I don’t really see how NZers can claim to be ignorant of the effects of soc-fem PC re-engineering of thier society. Too many cuts, too deep and too personal for that. NZ is simply a backwater where organising to move beyond anachronistic practices like misandry takes a bit longer.
‘It isn’t clear that there is a better alternative at present’. True. But the grassroots groundswell against PC social engineering is occuring as recent polls there suggest.
Thankyou for asking me up front to avoid using ‘ad hominums’.
I’m disappointed that I’m thus being asked to censure my speech on the grounds that ‘it is one of the primary weapons used against us by the feminists’.
In my view one of the primary reasons we’ve gotten so screwed over by feminists is we’ve allowed ourselves to be duped into refraining from calling a spade a spade. Whilst allowing them to call us what they like. We been PCed – publically cowed you could call it.
Some of the first rules of Psychotherapy I ever learnt many years ago were that if there’s someone behaving stupidly and disrespectfully, you call them on it. You do so openly, accountably to a community. I’d like to do that here.
Bottom line however is that I’m no longer prepared to be some meally mouthed pansy who holds his tongue any longer. I tried that PC garbage and fell flat on my face so to speak.
I now work with a crew of Americans who’ve shocked, enlightened and now delight me.
They appear light years ahead of the kind of PC village mentality i bought into in NZ. There’s no going back.
So you can unilaterally blow me off this forum if you like. All the while allowing young Damian and his like to quote femspeak impugning men (as in men are more violent etc)
That’s your choice. Its your website.
It’ll just confirm for me there’s one little bit more of NZ suffering from cultural capture.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 1:31 pm
Stephen,
I have to agree “Damian, get a grip” or perhaps grow some bollocks! Wake up and smell the coffee!
You have been brainwashed so effectively that it is frightening that you so obviously believe the tripe you are spouting.
Open thine eyes and you will see the crimes being committed about you every day. In the end, it is our children [aka adults of tomorrow] who suffer the most.
People like you just make the situation much more difficult.
Comment by Sparx — Thu 2nd June 2005 @ 5:57 pm
I recall attending the book release and discussion forum for ‘Father and Child Reunion’ several years ago and how excited I became at the level and detail of social policy analysis ( and statistics) concerning men and parenting. I have searched, in vain, for anything similar in New Zealand (ie relating particularly to New Zealand Men and the (uphill) battle for shared custody (among other simple requests). I admit to being ignorant – but would welcome direction as to the thought leaders in New Zealand at this time – particularly so I can get some perspective on my own views – and also to see what I can do to help myself – and others facing what must be one of the worst crimes in human rights to plague our social system.
Comment by Ian Robertshaw — Sun 4th September 2005 @ 11:30 pm
Hi Ian,
Try Stuart Birks website for academic analysis. Try various NZ fathers/family organisations. by surfing around this site and you’ll find the links. Also try Fathers for Justice websites. They are the largest and most successful advocates for fathers to date. Also check out Bob Geldof’s website as he’s staunchly pro-dads.
Good luck.
Stephen Gee
Comment by Stephen — Mon 5th September 2005 @ 3:45 am
Last year I attended my son’s primary school graduation. Only one of the subject awards was presented to a boy and that was for Best Boy Art.
The father next to me lent over to me to say, “That’s one award they couldn’t give to a girl”
Having been closely involved with the school for over ten years this result was not unexpected.
I remember taking my son to meet his first teacher. I had been the ‘at home’ parent during his preschool years and had spent many hours encouraging him with his reading. I commented to her that my he enjoyed reading. She replied with, “That won’t last for long”. Fortunately for him she was his ‘teacher’ for only six months.
For myself (having a wife working full time and working nights) this was to be the begining of an often difficult and ultimately soul destroying relationship with a sexist education system.
Comment by Peter — Tue 14th February 2006 @ 2:20 pm
I was a parent helper (as I have been many many times) on a recent school trip to a musical production.
During the road trip to the theatre, a group of the lasses started to sing. Inexplicably, when some of the lads joined in on the song they were abruptly instructed not to do so by a teacher however the girls were permitted to continue to sing.
I will never forget the looks on the boys faces. It was clear that they were accustomed to being treated in this manner.
For many years I have witnessed similar treatment and worse of boys at school. The women teachers are too afraid to speak out against a sister and the few male teachers fear for their careers.
What will our sons think of their parents when they have grown up, when we all knew what was being perpertrated against them but were too weak to speak out against these injustices.
Comment by Peter — Wed 15th February 2006 @ 2:43 pm
I was picking up my son from school and he gave me a notification from the dental hygenist asking his parents to meet her.
The school dental clinic had been closed since my son had enrolled at the school so every six months I had been taking him to a dentist for a check up and clean.
I went with my son and his preschool brother to see the dental hygenist. When the dental hygenist came out of the clinic into the waiting room I introduced myself to her.
In the crowded waiting room she burst into a triade, accusing me of being a “…hopeless dad…”. She had issue with not being informed of my son’s medical condition.
I politely pointed out to her, that ever since he had been enrolled at the school the dental clinic had been closed and that the parents had not been informed of it’s recent opening. Also, that his medical condition was only a very recent development.
She turned around and slammed the door in my face!
She quite clearly had no regard for my son’s medical confidentiality or feelings.
I have the original dental file from the school on which the dental hygenist wrote, “spoke to father to screw it up!”
Comment by Peter — Wed 15th February 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Half way through year six of primary school our son’s mathematics grades were averaging 30% and falling.
Being a concerned and proactive parent I enrolled him an after school programme with ‘Numberworks’.
Though very expensive at $30/hour, this computer based training proved most helpful for our son.
Within weeks he was consistantly obtaining test results at school of greater than 95% and often 100%!
I knew all along that the problem was not our son’s.
How is it that his achievement could change so dramatically and so quickly with just one hour a week of extra study with a teacher pupil ratio of 8:1? What was wrong with his school that they were unable to educate him to anything near to his potential, given the far greater time they had available to do so?
If they weren’t teaching him mathematics, what have they been teaching him all of these years?
Comment by Peter — Mon 3rd April 2006 @ 12:29 pm