Saturday, November 9, 2013

Fred on feminism, schools, education and socialization

The iconoclastic Fred Reed has penned two articles on education, feminist teachers, and what they do to boys who just want to be boys.  I don't agree with all his points, but he does make some very valid arguments, IMHO.  (Lest any of my lady readers take offense, I hasten to add that he's addressing the problems caused by radical feminism.  He's not blaming 'normal women' for them.)

Here's an excerpt from the second article.

All of my teachers in grade school, and perhaps half in high school, were women. They were fine. The reason was that they accepted the masculine view that schools existed to teach content. They did: first arithmetic and then math, and history, English grammar and composition, literature, Latin, and so on. Bless them.

What I dislike is the feminized, therapeutic view of schools as places not to teach anything but to engage in Pavlovian conditioning of kids to female norms of syrupy goodness, non-violence (tag, dodge ball, and wrestling) docility, conformity, and warm interpersonal glop. Learning anything gets short shrift.

. . .

Maybe fifteen years ago I went into a middle school in mostly white, moderately upscale Arlington, Virginia, and found on the wall a student´s project celebrating the contributions of Italians to science—specifically those of of Enrico Fermi to, so help me, “nucler physicts.” On the wall. Without correction. I have seen other examples.

These malfeasances spring from favoring self-esteem (when I am dictator I will have anyone who uses that word hanged) over knowledge. It is not a masculine approach. Nor will it produce the thoughtful, intellectually competent citizenry the country desperately needs.

In a Marine Corps day rooms I once saw a coffee mug inscribed, “To err is human, to forgive divine. Neither of which is Marine Corps policy.” (Why did that come to mind, I wonder?)

Something strange is happening in the United States. A Canadian friend recently said, “I can remember when Americans weren’t afraid of everything.” Just so. Don´t run on the playground because you might fall. Don´t roughhouse because you might get a bruise. Don’t go outside at high noon because you might get skin cancer. Don’t swim after eating, because you might get a cramp. If a child draws a soldier, call a SWAT team because he is a murderous psychopath. Don’t ride a bicycle without a helmet. Fill in the deep end of the pool because someone might drown. Supervise everything. Control everything. Fear everything.

If these are not the neurotic fears of women and capons, please tell me what they are. Such run the schools. They make policy.

There's more at the link, and the first article in the series is also worth reading.  Food for thought.



Roy said...

The following sentence is prominently displayed on Fred's column dated Oct 4, 2013:

"Refusal to respond to questions by beneficiaries is not good policy, but it is fare from sasting large amoung of money."

(I believe what he meant was: " is far from wasting large amounts of money.")

While I agree with a lot of what Fred has to say, he would have a lot more credibility if he would correct the egregious grammar and spelling mistakes found within his own posts.

I know everyone makes mistakes, but Fred was supposed to have been a professional journalist at one time.

Pot, meet kettle.

Radagast said...

IIRC Fred is also legally blind as a result of injuries received in Vietnam, yet still writing. He has a much better excuse than anyone I can think of.