this is my cranky face.

[schmerica]

Hey, so, this article includes not only one but TWO vaguely infuriating and bizarre claims within its short length! Not only do we get the classic "Oh noes, the world is being feminized, what will our poor little boys do in girly schools???" but for the same price, we get a free extra helping of "Girls like to read because it's the only place to find real men nowadays!"

No, seriously.

But you could also see this inter-gender "reading gap" as part of a more worrying trend. It is a colossal and unremarked social change that this year far more women than men enrolled at university, and the gap is growing every year.

That is a stunning turnaround, when you consider that it was only 20 years ago that the male-to-female ratio was about four to one. Women are advancing to the front of the service-based economy, not just literate but emotionally literate. It is a fantastic change, wonderful, irresistible.

The question is whether this girl-friendly educational system is starting to be skewed against natural male aptitudes - and there are signs that it is.

Dr Tony Sewell, an educationalist attached to Imperial College, London, says the whole process of instruction has become "feminised".

There is too much coursework, he says, and not enough of the adrenaline-pumping terror of the exam. Boys need competition, he says, or they slump back into apathy and thuggishness.

.......

And as for the girl on the Tube, with her nose buried in her novel, she is on the same quest. The reason women devour so much fiction is that it is the only place where they can find a certain idea of masculinity. It is a spirit that has been regulated out of the workplace and banished from the classroom.

Women turn to fiction, I would guess, because it is the last reservation for men who are neither violent thugs nor politically correct weeds, where a girl can still get her bodice ripped without the bodice ripper being locked up.

Comments

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

Wow. With that much manure, I could fertilize a whole garden.

[sage]

Wow. This guy's managing to be sexist against both males and females at once. That takes talent...

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Oh, not really! It's pretty easy to do when you're dumb.

[timian.livejournal.com]

Finally I have an answer as to why I grew up to become an apathetic thug! I'd beat you with a stick, but I just don't feel like it. I do feel like beating the author of that article though. Dickweed.

[timian.livejournal.com]

::CRIES:: I made the mistake of reading the reactions to the article, expecting to see people ripping that asshole apart, but instead all I saw were people agreeing with him and cheering him on. God! People (i.e. men) can be so stupid. So very, very stupid.

[terpsichoreslyr.livejournal.com]

Gag. It reminds me of this interview on the Today show the other day. Basic premise: Boys are falling behind girls in school. What, oh what shall we do? "Education Guru" says: "30 years ago, to conteract years of neglect by teachers, we tutored girls in math and science so that they could be on par with the boys." Blah blah blah he says some other crap. Matt asks a couple of questions and then he says, "Now we've got to do the same thing for the boys." and goes on to explain how the curriculum needs to be changed and teaching methods need to be changed in order to benefit the boys. And I'm looking at the TV and asking Matt why the hell he isn't pointing out that that is NOT the same thing.

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

It's actually a bizarrely common view in a lot of places: the whole line from 1) Girls are doing well --> 2) Boys (and therefore masculinity) are in a crisis --> 3) everything must be changed to allow masculinity to flourish.

[queenofhell.livejournal.com]

Oh, dude, thats not even the worst. There were a bunch of articles a while ago (here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0525/p11s01-legn.html)'s an example) all about how schools cater to girls, because girls of course love to sit quietly and share feelings, while boys naturally need to run around and do physical things, and thats why boys are behind on the learning curve. As though schools weren't about sitting quietly and learning through a lecture format fifty years ago when boys were outperforming girls!

[terpsichoreslyr.livejournal.com]

Yes! That was my thought too! Boys were still boys back then. And yes, that was one of this education guru's points. It just pissed me off to no end.

[miss-pryss.livejournal.com]

SHE-HULK SMASH!!!!!111!!1

[popfantastic.livejournal.com]

I saw that earlier today. I was hoping it would magically disappear by the time I got home. Clear failure of wish-will on my part that it still exists.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

Well, try harder next time!

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

Awww. Maybe your wish-will is just overworked!

[peter-neverland.livejournal.com]

Wow! I think the guy is majorly threatened. So now the question, is this an insult or a compliment to brilliant women everywhere?

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I don't think it really says anything about women at all.

[peter-neverland.livejournal.com]

I don't know how more women enrolling at the university doesn't say anything about women?

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

The explanation I saw recently for the reading gender gap is that men read nonfiction, not fiction, because they don't want to deal with "complex emotions." Which is why they read Tom Clancy when they do read fiction. Funny, the slants.

As for the exam thing--I did have one class where the professor didn't do exams. When we talked about it at the end of class, I was pretty much the only one, male or female, who preferred that. The rest of them cited "needing pressure to cram" in order to learn. Sure, but do they remember the material they crammed now? I kind of doubt it.

Besides, if you don't have coursework, what the hell goes on the exam?

He seems to have trouble with the concept of "fantasy" as well, which is what romance novels are....

[pearl-o.livejournal.com]

I personally dislike classes without exams simply because exams tend to raise my grades by huge margins when they do come into the grading scheme. Ah, well.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I don't test terribly well in most subjects, at least at the college level ('s funny, 'cos I was good at tests in high school, both regular and standardized).

colour me furious...

[nightlarke.livejournal.com]

There is too much coursework, he says, and not enough of the adrenaline-pumping terror of the exam. Boys need competition, he says, or they slump back into apathy and thuggishness.

Oh, wah wah wah. Because was all know that people always retain information they've crammed into their heads hours before the exam hits. Practical application of said material? That's for wimps!

The reason women devour so much fiction is that it is the only place where they can find a certain idea of masculinity. It is a spirit that has been regulated out of the workplace and banished from the classroom.

Really?

... REALLY?

Yes, oh, yes. You're right, of course. I absolutely go straight for the Tom Clancy as soon as I step through the door of a library. Those manly, manly men just do it for me every time. I go out of my way to read about the kind of man who hasn't yet been banished from the classroom and workplace for, oh, COMING ON TO ANYONE WITH BREASTS or BEING A LOUD, OBNOXIOUS ASSHAT.

... Oh, wait. That's right! I totally DON'T!

(Well, if I do, I generally make sure he's got a guy friend to get it on with eventually. I own my kinks.)

Re: colour me furious...

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I think they mean women read romance novels with alpha-male heroes to get that "idea of masculinity." Everyone knows girls don't like action.

I've long suspected that most romance-novel-reading women don't take them at all seriously and wouldn't want a pushy, arrogant jackass who didn't respect their opinions or desires in real life.