Cambridge University

You might be persuaded that the record number of students accepted by universities announced yesterday should be a cause of celebration.

But whether this  new admissions record will be  reflected in a generally more educated populace is a moot point.


Students from the University of Wolverhampton heard  speaking on the radio a few months ago suggest not.  They sounded more like they’d walked off a building site than out of a university library. Even the writing of Cambridge English undergraduates is devoid of syntax and grammar, according to one don who spoke to me a couple of years ago.

So are our graduates any better ‘educated’ than their forebears who left school at 14 a hundred years ago?  Finding my gran’s school leaving exam report the other month made me wonder. I was re-shelving some of my late father’s classic and theology books when a sheet of yellowed and crumbling paper fell to the ground.  It was his mother’s school leaving certificate. A humble confectioner’s daughter born in 1874, she had been  educated, for free, at Sheffield Central School. This plain grey-haired old lady I remember, with her sweet hammer smashing rock for us, had left school at 14 back in 1888, but, I learnt to my surprise,  with a clutch of top school leaving passes in  French, English, History, Maths, Bible Studies and Latin. It made me think.

Who was the better educated I pondered? My gran or the Wolverhampton students, whose command of English was conspicuous by its absence and who had even less Latin.

In an age obsessed with the idea that more equals ‘good’, what these admission stats really represent is disguised. As well as the promise of meaningless qualifications they also mask an astonishing gender gap in university enrolment – one both the Government and the universities seem quite indifferent to, and that barely made a headline last week.   Over a third of  all 18-year-old girls sign onto higher education  in Britain, but only a quarter of boys . The lower down the social scale, the wider the gap gets.

So what I hear you say.  Aren’t boys better off not  drinking and drugging their way through three years of higher education at the expense of long-term debt?  Aren’t they better off getting other skills and a head start in the world of work? Were it so, then fine. That’s if the ugly gender gap didn’t mark young people’s employment too.  Among men under the age of 25, 17.8 per cent are unemployed, compared with 13.9 per cent of young women . School no longer works for boys.

Teaching discriminates in favour of girls. More girls teach, further discriminating against boys. It’s a vicious circle. It’s the same with medicine. It matters not that the NHS needs more doctors, it still trains more women, though over their career lifetimes they commit fewer hours, work more part time and give fewer overall years in return for the taxpayer’s investment in their education. It is bonkers.

We are glutting the education profession with women, who like doctors,  are not just less committed – demanding more family friendly treatment (but the same income) for the investment in them –  but not what boys and especially fatherless boys need.

Ideally, the value of  education should not be judged in narrow productivity terms but the Alice in Wonderland feminisation of higher education is such that we now have to. When you learn that it means even a 5-year-old infant starting year one is no longer guaranteed a dedicated teacher for her class, it is time say enough is enough.

All  around the country this September will be infants finding themselves the guinea pigs in a (female) teacher job share experiment. Don’t please anyone tell me that this is a good arrangement, least of all for a first year at school.

The growing gender divide at university level is nothing short of disastrous. It is a product of an over-feminised school system and curriculum and an over preoccupation with gender parity. Mary Curnick Cook, the head of UCA,  alone has warned of this. She has said schools are failing boys. She is right, whether or not the 80,000 more girls completing UCAS applications than boys reflects a lack of aspiration in boys or an educational deficiency in them.

I simply cannot believe that the male psyche does not possess a desire as strong as its female equivalent to achieve high levels of academic success – an idea posited in this report here. It is  not my experience of my sons and their friends. Go to any old fashioned all-boys school and you can smell the competition and aspiration in the air.

But outside the independent sector, boys have discrimination against women in the ‘STEM’ subjects rammed down their throats.  All they will hear is how unfair it all is. All they will  experience are ‘pushes’ to raise girl numbers. By contrast, none will be the beneficiaries of corresponding campaigns to encourage them to take up these subjects, despite the known shortages of doctors, engineers and physicists. All I hear of is triple A starred science A level boys failing to get into medical school.

If George Osborne wants to improve productivity in this country he needs to take a long hard look and start to promote his own sex.

250 COMMENTS

  1. What does it say about our society that we are prepared to ‘medicate’ boys for the convenience of female teachers? Could even Orwell have imagined this?

  2. Very good, very brave article which unfortunately will make little difference. We live in an age of identity politics rather than one where individual character or merit count. Women are designated victims of all men and nothing currently can change that. A privately schooled daughter of a millionaire is required to be advantaged even further over the life of a comprehensively schooled son of a single mother brought up in social housing. It does not make society more equal or better but current political fashion states that this is the preferred outcome.

  3. What I don’t understand is why feminism, raging against the patriarchy none it’s assumption of women as carers, constantly focuses on flexi time for women ‘the carers’. If these career women are so hell bent on a career then surely they should marry men who are happy to stay home.
    As indicated in a recent CW article, ultimately feminists and those pushing this ideology know that the vast majority of women – if given the choice between working full time and having their husbands not work and look after their children or staying at home full time – would choose the latter. They therefore force other people to provide the financial backing that should be within the family a well as the social structure to facilitate something that should be within the family alone.
    I would be interested to see if, in nations where they don’t have a national health service for example or where schooling is privately paid for, how many of these part time roles for women are facilitated. I think that money and the customer having the ability to choose would ensure it was very limited and only for those who are truly excellent at what they do.
    The difficulty with having nationalised care, education etc is that we actually don’t have the opportunity to do so unless you are very rich.

    • “If these career women are so hell bent on a career then surely they should marry men who are happy to stay home.”

      I think the reality is that career women are even more likely to indulge in hypergamy than women that are in average jobs. Women on £100,000 a year could marry good looking guys that are happy to be decorative, bake cakes and look after the kids – for a half share of £50,000 a year I’m sure they’d find takers. However, ambitious women are ambitious in their choice of men too.

      This indicates there’s quite a big difference in the nature of male “ambition” and female “ambition”.

  4. Great piece. As William Collins explained in his piece ‘The Trouble With Boys’, the education gender gap started in the 1987/8 academic year, when the replacement of O Levels by GCSEs enabled teachers’ pro-girl bias to manifest itself in grades (through higher grades in the continuous assessments). The gap has been with us ever since. Collins’s piece is here:

    http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=121

    His piece, ‘Teachers’ Unfairness to Boys?”:

    http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=437

    Nicky Morgan is the Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. What a toxic combination of roles! We publicly challenged her over the education gender gap and got a predictably derisory response:

    https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/the-department-for-education-doesnt-consider-boys-under-achievement-as-a-problem-to-be-addressed/

      • Do you really expect anyone to take anything posted by someone capable of nothing more substantial than a puerile schoolgirl sneer seriously?

        • Well, a “puerile schoolgirl sneer” is the only really appropriate response. Mike’s not really adding to the discussion, just airing the difficulties his poor bruised male ego is having with a world in which men are no longer the dominant gender. It’s similar to hearing the last gasps of a dying breed.

          • Men have never been the ‘dominant gender’. Other than that I cannot be bothered to comment on what is another predictably puerile comment from you. I would just point out though that the article supporting this comment thread is written by a woman who disagrees with you. She clearly fears ‘a world in which men are no longer the dominant gender’, as does any woman with an adult brain.

          • We didn’t need to wait till then. Males are dominant amongst all primates. Females have had the problem of having to breastfeed half a dozen children for most of our history. It is only in the last 100 years that other forms of living have been possible.

          • Your comment reveals an unnattractive nastiness in your attitude towards men. Talking about a dominant gender is a way of establishing your unnassailable victimhood, but a gender-based view of society is too simplistic to be convincing.

          • An “unattractive nastiness” – nice use of misogynistic language there! (Reducing women’s worth to their desirability, in case you can’t work it out)

            By the way, I’m male…

          • Kanaris wrote:

            By the way, I’m male…

            Possibly male, certainly not a man.

            That aside, your pseudonym is most apt: Kanaris was incompetent and dishonest.

          • Balls and a brain might form the beginnings. The rest requires a decent upbringing and a lifetime of practice. I fear it’s far too late for you, even if it were physically possible.

          • I remember when the change to GCSEs occured. The main reason openly stated was to help girls because they were not as good at exams as boys but do better when continuously assessed.

            I suppose it is possible to believe that exams unfairly penalise girls as a method of assesme. It is much more plausable that teacher assesment unfairly advantages girls than exams advantage boys given the exam markers do not know the sex of the student and assessors know it very well.

            There is a very obvious difference in how educational gaps between girls and boys are treated. When girls are disadvantaged, either historically or in subject areas such as STEM huge efforts are put in place to address the disadvantage. When boys are disadvanatged, as in everything but STEM, nothing is done at all. If you believe in equality of treatment this cannot be right.

            It is interesting that you dismiss the reference that was given solely on the basis that it was posted on a mens rights web site. Dismissing something solely on the basis of who says it is usually considered bigotry. If you read it you would say it was well sourced with a sensible and detailed analysis of available figures.

            Did you put mens rights in quotes because you believe they do not exist or that men should have no rights?

          • I’m not disagreeing that there are differences in the ways different genders learn, and that certain pedagogical methods advantage one group over the other and vice versa. What I do find hard to believe is that there’s a systemic bias against boys.

            I’m dismissing anything posted on any “men’s rights” website because of the toxic behaviour of most “Men’s Rights” activists – anyone who seriously associates themselves with people who seriously believe they have a right to rape have automatically taken themselves beyond the pale of acceptable discussion.

            I’ve put it in quotes because the concept is a fallacy in a society which continues to vastly privilege males

          • Kanaris, if you really believe society ‘vastly privileges males’ you clearly haven’t bothered to read our manifesto, which will demonstrate the assertion is ludicrous, in relation to 20 areas. I suggest you do so, then you’ll be in a position to debate from a position of understanding about men’s rights.

            Right now, you’re coming across as just another ‘white knight’ seeking female approval, happy to throw men and boys under the train in the process.

          • You are right of course. “Equality of Outcome” is aimed predominantly at girls. All the focus is on getting girls to do better at STEM. There is no focus on getting boys to be better at languages and art. It is, of course, a waste of time and money. Those with the aptitude will rise to the top if they are allowed to do so – they just need teachers to stop wasting time with those that don’t have the aptitude and they will do fine.

          • Excellent post, Kanaris.

            Males have had it their own way for millennia.

            Now that women are finally beginning to overthrow the patriarchy, they are worried their privileged position is under threat.

            Get used to it, boys.

            This is just the beginning.

          • I had a suspicion that Kanaris is actually that well known internet troll and cellar dwelling, cat loving lunatic Feminist_Failure / Fabian_Delusions, now it’s confirmed. How many personalities have you Kate?

          • Mr_Twister wrote:

            Kanaris is hoping his attitude will get him laid!

            I doubt he has the tools for the job.

          • Doesn’t take much for you to demonstrate that equality is not what you’re after.

            Women and girls are favored in every system we have in place in the West, and you celebrate that it will get more and more in our favor.

            Meanwhile, we’re less happy every decade since 1940.

          • Do you seriously not appreciate how much Feminism has done for women like us?

            Without Feminism, you would still be unable to vote, unable to enter the professions, and basically be the property of your husband.

          • BS. The vote came from the suffragettes (who wouldn’t be caught dead complaining about how men sit on the train). Early feminists wanted the vote only for the rich white women; they actively campaigned against black people from voting and wanted a fee charged so the poor couldn’t afford it. Keep in mind that men didn’t have the right to vote back then either unless they owned land, which changed when they were all sent to war. Even today, men can’t vote in the US or get a drivers license or financial aid unless they sign their life to the state, whereas I get to vote unconditionally.

            And none of this matters anymore. Saying something was needed 100 years ago doesn’t mean we need it today. We HAVE equal rights and opportunities. What rights are you fighting for now?

          • The women of Britain were given the right to vote because the government of the day had to give it to the men returning from the trenches after fighting the bloodiest war in history, or face the possibility of a violent revolution. Feminism had nothing to do with it, and few women wanted it at the time because they didn’t want to do what men had to do to get it..

          • The women of the SUFFRAGETTE movement were SUFFRAGETTES – they were fighting specifically for women’s SUFFRAGE. Their movement has been hijacked by feminists, and it’s a disgrace.

          • The Suffragettes, those feminist geniuses, DELAYED female emancipation. For a detailed account read Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’.

          • There never was a patriarchy. We’ve had Queens and female PMs. The nation was run much the same way while women were in charge. We still had wars, executions, crime, social strife and so on.

          • Deluded_Fabian_Feminist_Kate wrote, in bold face (suggesting that her madness increases as the moon rises):

            Get used to it, boys. This is just the beginning.

            and thereby demonstrated her severe disconnection from reality.

            What you think a beginning is simply the beginning of the end of feminism. Get used to it sweetheart.

          • Nah. This is the beginning of the backlash. You’ve had it easy up till now, as people sat back and assumed feminist knew what they were talking about.

            Now they look at the huge council estates full of single-mums and young men without fathers running riot and are thinking “how the hell did we end up here? Oh, it was feminism telling us kids didn’t need dads”. We’ve got a divorce rate going through the roof and women that filed for divorce admitting they should have cut their ex-husbands more slack. We’ve got young women that grew up with absent fathers discovering he’s absent because mum made it impossible for him to have access, despite him spending 10’s of thousands of pounds to fight for his right in court. We’ve got married couples realising in middle age that what they were told they should want from a relationship when they were teenagers isn’t what either of them really want.

            The feminist pigeons are coming home to roost and men and women are at last organising themselves to counter your pseudo -scientific nonsense with real facts. Feminism is over. It is recognised by women all over the western world as a toxic Marxist propaganda tool aimed at weakening the west that has done immense harm to women as well as men and ruined the lives of billions of children. It is the beginning alright – the beginning of the end for feminism.

          • “in which men are no longer the dominant gender.”

            I’m sorry, how many female PMs have we had? Men still seem pretty dominant to me.

            Thing is the world didn’t change that much when we did have a female PM, because fundamentally politicians have to react to events and to the needs of their party, their donors and sometimes (but not very often) the electorate. Consequently, in a democracy, the gender of the PM isn’t that important.

          • I hope you never get dragged through a family court and have to face the loss of your children and being yoked as a financial slave, purely on the whim of a bored and cheating wife. Mens rights activism arises from such experiences.

          • Oh he’s definitely lining himself up for that. White knights are the most vulnerable to female abuse. He will be eaten up and spat out by some abusive feminazi and it will take 30 years for his psychotherapist to unravel the damage

          • No.

            Explain how holding women accountable for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome relates to a “bruised male ego”?

            Please explain how a demand for equal funding for men’s cancer screening is symptomatic of a bruised ego?

            Are all the men who are denied access to their children simply bleating about their bruised ego?

            The feminist movement has parroted the same clichés for thirty years now. You fail utterly to change anybody’s mind.

      • Increasing numbers of people including Kathy Gyngell are taking men’s rights seriously and also waking up to the misandrous bigotry of feminists. You come across as one of those bigots yourself.
        Let’s see who is the ‘dying breed’.

        • Oh yeah? And you think it’s a good idea to ally yourself with Dylan Roof, Roosh V and Paul Elam?

          And as an aside, I don’t have an issue with men, I have an issue with masculinity.

          • From what the two of you have posted, it’s obvious that Kanaris is more of a man than you will ever be. He is well-adjusted, at ease with himself and respectful towards women, whereas you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about women and seem desperately insecure and aggressive.

            Maybe you’re compensating for something, if you know what I mean?

            If you’re anything like this in real life, then I and all my female friends would choose Kanaris over you in an instant.

          • Ouch, ooh, aah, oh, no, please, please Kate, no, not the lash of your catty schoolgirl tongue. Not the less than emasculating shaming language. No, no please. Please don’t imply, yet again, that I have a small and inadequate penis in front of my mates. Not that, anything but that. I promise I’ll be tame from now on, if you don’t shame me in front of everyone.

            More seriously, the man preferences of you and your friends are irrelevant because the decision is not yours. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that women like you will never be in a position to accept or reject me or men like me, nor that your opinion of me is of no interest to me. Perhaps that’s the root of your problem?

            Yet again your outbursts suggest an immature twelve year old. You’re saying more about yourself than about me and I’d stop making a bloody fool of myself were I you. Thankfully, I’m not and you won’t.

          • “If you’re anything like this in real life, then I and all my female friends would choose Kanaris over you in an instant.”

            In much the same way as Andrea Dworkin married a gay man. No great loss to the rest of us I’m sure.

          • We don’t care whether you think someone is “more of a man” than someone else. Nobody cares who you find attractive. You think William is obliged to be attractive to you? You don’t get to define him as a man. If he tried to define your femininity you would be the first person to shriek about oppression. But your ideology blinds you to your own hypocrisy.
            When are you people going to understand that the things that kept men silent thirty years ago just don’t work anymore?
            You are failing to keep us silent.

          • Dylan Roof is a delusional racist and has nothing to do with men’s rights, while Roosh is a “pickup artist” who just wants in our pants. Neither have anything to with men’s rights, unlike Paul Elam, who you mentioned.

            Most of my friends and I like masculinity and femininity. It’s part of this beautiful world.

          • Oh, oops, didn’t mean Dylan Roof. Meant Elliot Rodgers. Oh, and that guy who shot up the movie theater a few weeks ago.

            I think Roosh would beg to differ about not being an MRA

          • Roosh wrote a lengthy post that he is not an MRA. In fact, those two groups tend to lock horns a lot. Elliot Rodgers also wasn’t one bit of MRA. He subscribed to a group that hates “pickup artists” though. He also described himself as a god and hated everyone. Quite a messed up guy.

            Did the movie theater shooting have anything to do with men’s rights? Didn’t hear anything about him being involved in anything like that.

            I’ll help you out… The one you’re trying to think of is the Marc Lepine shooting in the 80s. That was actual hatred of women in tech, though that predates any men’s rights group by 10 years.

          • And you read Roosh’s posts? Can you not feel your braincells dying?

            Have you read Rodger’s manifesto? He uses the language of the “Men’s Right’s Movement”. Say he’s not associated with MRA’s is like saying Lenin wasn’t a Marxist.

            Indeed the movie shooting did – look at the research that’s been done on his internet activity… IIRC he spent a lot of time on /r/redpill…

          • I’m not saying Roosh isn’t a nutcase. But I’ve only ever seen his type and MRA type disagree. The former wants to get girls, the latter wants independence from girls and to deal with issues like suicide and family court. Nothing alike.

            Rodgers wrote a 100+ page manifesto describing himself as “God” and how much he hated that girls didnt like him and how much he hates the guys that girls did like instead (hence his hatred of “pickup artists”). Nothing to do with rights or helping anyone. He was a psychotic narcissist and his family and doctor knew about it. I don’t recall him being anti-feminist even. He hated the world because it didn’t give him everything he “deserves” since he’s “God”. Messed up.

            I’ll have to look into the theater shooting as I never heard anything about that.

          • False dichotomy. A bit like saying if you are against Communism you must be a Fascist.

            If you can only debate by resorting to logical fallacies this isn’t the place for you.

          • I have allied myself with Paul Elam.
            You try to conflate him with Dylan Roof and Roosh V.
            You fail, and in failing, you illustrate the weakness of your position.

      • Only those with an interest in the human rights of men and boys, and who want to see an end to the state’s assaults on those rights in 20 areas, as outlined in our 80-page-long general election manifesto:

        https://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/141228-v7-general-election-manifesto.pdf

        Do you have no interest in the human rights of of 32 million men and boys in the UK? Can you think of any areas where the state specifically assaults the human rights of women and girls?

        • Oh, that was the election manifesto that got you less votes than Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol Party wasn’t it?

          And you did say this, didn’t you: “I think unattractive women are drawn to feminism like moths to a flame,”

          “We really shouldn’t deny that some of these are unattractive women who see more attractive women get something they don’t and they’re jealous and angry at the way the world works.”

          • Mike got the same percentage of the vote in his constituency that UKIP got fifteen years ago.

            You think we’re going away. You think that your words make a difference. But you are not going to stop us.

            We are going to get stronger and stronger, and nothing you can say will stop us.

    • Progressives and Feminists care about Equality between the genders. We want every little girl to grow up knowing that she can do anything she wants to, just the same as the boys in her class.

      And it’s a myth that we don’t care about men and boys. Patriarchy hurts men too, by impelling them to conform to outmoded stereotypes of masculinity that undoubtedly contribute towards higher male suicide rates, for example.

      Feminists and men who are feminist allies should work together against patriarchy. That would benefit all of us.

      • “Patriarchy hurts men too, by impelling them to conform to outmoded stereotypes of masculinity that undoubtedly contribute towards higher male suicide rates, for example.”

        YES! More of this please!

        • Thanks for the encouragement Kanaris. More from you as well please. It’s good to have a male ally on here against the reactionary stuff that gets posted. Especially a male ally as articulate and reasonable as you.

        • Male suicide is too often the last, desperate, ‘no way forward and no way out’ response of men who have been driven to it by the relentless assaults of a viciously misandrous gynocentric state bent on privileging women at the expense of men. It is not in any way a consequence of those men’s own opinions of or attitudes to themselves, their role or their place in society. To suggest otherwise is simply ‘victim blaming’ and despicable.

      • “Feminists and men who are feminist allies should work together against patriarchy.”

        Yawn, same feminist argument. Why don’t you guys admit that you focused so much on females that you forgot about males. Also it’s getting very annoying that every time people take the time to look into the problems or males you guys show up and say, “B-b-b-but w-w-w-we’re helping too!”

        Yet you have no proof of how you helped men and not to mention I find some of you to be procrastinators. You say you’re gonna help men, but you put it off until later, however later never comes. Take a seat and watch other people, especially non-feminists, do a better job than what little effort you feminists could ever put in.

      • Feminism absolutely hurts men and boys. NOW (the largest feminist organization in the world) opposes equal parenting acts, for starters. Or look how they’re pushing to remove due process from campus sexual assault cases.

        There is no definition of patriarchy that describes the systems in the West. It’s highly favorable towards us women and girls.

      • Ah yes, the patriarchy. That complex of male power that allowed women from Queen Elizabeth I to Margaret Thatcher to run the show without being deposed by an all-male led coup. In fact the only challenge to Elizabeth’s power came from another woman – and she had her executed (powerful women are so non-violent, not)

      • ” We want every little girl to grow up knowing that she can do anything she wants to, just the same as the boys in her class.”

        Boys can’t carry babies to full term. You’re talking nonsense.

      • No, we aren’t going to work against “patriarchy” because what you really mean by “patriarchy” is capitalism, and what you are attempting to replace it with is an agrarian Marxist feminism rather like that proposed by Pol Pot in Cambodia but with women in charge and men relegated to the position of sperm donors and wage slaves.

        It ain’t gonna happen.

  5. What I find amusing is this constant feminazi assertion that your career empowers and defines you. I’m a man, I don’t think that. My career is what I do to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, it’s a necessary evil not a good in its own right. Soon as I win the lottery I’m telling the boss to stuff it and I’ll be most happy as the male equivalent of a ‘lady that lunches’ and being home enough to pick up the kids from school.

  6. I can understand your naturally gynocentric fears (things are soon going to become difficult and then unpleasant for women if men don’t stop abandoning their traditional roles and start putting right the problems women are causing and clearing up the mess they are making). As a man, however, I’m confident that, regardless of their education, the younger members of my sex have the wit and ability to succeed despite the discrimination they face. That they are coming, in increasing numbers, to realise that life is easier without the burden of a woman and children round their necks suggests they are unlikely to want to share their eventual success with the entirely unproductive nuisance who made it so difficult.

    Women should expect the development of a broad masculine political consciousness and growing resistance to the institutionalised privilege of women, which cannot but include ever louder demands for the dismantling of the welfare state that impoverishes men for the benefit of women.

    • Well you’ve mentioned one relatively small problem with the rise of feminism, but the really big problems are the huge social housing estates where there are only single mums and no men at all. These have now decayed into a kind of “Sodom and Gomorrah” situation. This has been largely driven by feminism, and even David Lammy identified it as one of the main causes of the Tottenham riots.

      • Could you explain what the ‘relatively small problem’ I’ve mentioned is?

        The ‘really big problems’ you say I haven’t mentioned are, I think, implicit in

        ‘… growing resistance to their increasing institutionalised privilege,
        which cannot but include ever louder demands for the dismantling of the
        welfare state that impoverishes men for the benefit of women.

        Specifically in ‘ever louder demands for the dismantling of the
        welfare state that impoverishes men for the benefit of women.

        The ‘huge social housing estates where there are only single mums‘ are the consequence of that transfer of wealth to women from men via the welfare state.

        Feel free to disagree.

  7. EVERYONES getting a raw deal on education since the pogrom on grammar schools and Bliars “education, education, education” lie.

  8. It matters not that the NHS needs more doctors, it still trains more women, though over their career lifetimes they commit fewer hours, work more part time and give fewer overall years in return for the taxpayer’s investment in their education. It is bonkers.

    We are glutting the education profession with women, who like doctors, are not just less committed – demanding more family friendly treatment (but the same income) for the investment in them – but not what boys and especially fatherless boys need.

    How dare you, Ms. Gyngell.

    With your incredibly broad, sweeping generalization, you are gravely insulting the hard-working female teachers and doctors by saying they are less hard-working than their male counterparts.

    As a teacher, I assure you I work just as hard as – if not harder than – my male colleagues.

    Likewise, if I were a medical doctor, a career path I chose not to go down, I fail to see why I would not be as hardworking as my male colleagues.

    You are an embarrassment to our gender, Ms. Gyngell.

    You need to apologize. Fast.

    • Can you not read?

      It doesn’t matter how hard-working you are. If you aren’t in the work-place, owing to giving birth and generally raising your entirely-dependent children, your employer doesn’t get the benefit. When the employer is the tax-payer, it matters just a little bit.

      It’s very easy to understand.

      • That’s because society still expects women to bear the brunt of childcare and the housework. Studies show that women still do the vast majority of the housework, even where both partners are working full time.

        Norway and Sweden have far more progressive childcare policies and attitudes and fathers there are almost as likely as mothers to stay home and look after the children.

        • As soon as you read a feminist describe childcare and housework as a “brunt,” you know you’ve got a killer on the loose.

        • Generally, it is women who want children, often desperately so, not men, who are usually happy enough to have them (because he will have been brought up to give a woman everything she asks for) but would often be as happy not to. Yet again, you’re simply repeating the age old gynocentric whine that it isn’t fair that men aren’t doing enough in the opinion of women to give women what women think they are entitled to. Women want it and men must do ‘their share’ of making sure women get it.

          Men are deciding in increasing numbers that there is more to life than being a beast of burden, endless cash machine and trouble shooter for women. Women are realising in increasing numbers that the game is almost up, which is the point of this article.

          Men are under no obligation to provide anything for women. If you want real equality with us, do what we do and provide what you think is your absolute right for yourselves.

        • Feminist_Failure wrote:

          Norway and Sweden have far more progressive childcare policies … ‘

          For ‘progressive childcare policies’ read aggressive anti male policies‘.

          • “For ‘progressive childcare policies’ read aggressive anti male policies’.”

            How is it anti-male for the State to invest in free childcare, thus enabling more parents to re-enter the workplace?

          • You’re not very good at straw men. However, you offer a good opportunity to reiterate some simple points that seem to be beyond your ability to grasp.

            1) The state has no money, so it can invest in nothing and money that is spent for no return is not an investment but a cost. It takes the money it spends so freely partly from those tax payers who work in the productive sector of the economy. None of the millions in every western society who are employed in the public sector are productive.

            2) Nothing in life is ‘free’ and all human labour must be paid for, in some way or another. Ergo, there is no such thing as ‘free childcare’, that is a Fabian delusion.

            3) Since men pay more than two and a half times as much in tax as women and women are the primary beneficiaries of ‘free’ childcare, especially the very large number of single mothers, the taxes that pay for ‘free’ childcare are overwhelmingly paid by men for the care of children that are not their own. Thus the cost of ‘free’ childcare represents an unfair burden on men, particularly those who do not have children, and so is objectively an anti male policy.

            4) Parents who have chosen to have children have no right to ‘re-enter the workplace’ at the expense of others, notwithstanding that those parents who do are invariably less productive than people without children.

        • They don’t breastfeed much in Scandinavia either. But here, women have been encouraged to breastfeed as much as possible, which releases oxytocin in the mother causing her to bind very closely to her child – and then refuse to go back to work.

    • I’m surprised you have any male colleagues. Driving male teachers out of education was always a primary feminist tenet. Well done.

    • This is not about you, so keep your narcissism out of this. It’s about gender-typical differences in work ethic, as explained by world-renowned sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim, who discovered that while four in seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is:

      https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/why-most-people-at-the-top-of-major-companies-are-men-dr-catherine-hakims-preference-theory-2000/

      Dr Hakim is a credit to her gender, as is Kathy Gyngell. Both have very fine brains – and unlike you, they engage them before communicating.

      • It’s very kind of you to mansplain how women should behave in order to be a “credit” to our gender.

        • “Mansplain”. What a foolish term. As though reason and logic don’t apply regardless of where they come from. It’s clearly just used as a lever to dismiss men and inconvenient truths from the conversation.

        • Feminist_Failure / Fabian_Delusions / Kate / Kanaris wrote:

          It’s very kind of you to mansplain how women should behave in order to be a “credit” to our gender.

          That’s the kind of guy Mike is but, if you think about, he’s really only discharging a tiny fraction of the debt mankind owes to those feminists, such as your silly self, who have spent decades telling us how we should behave in order to be a “credit” to our sex (not gender).

    • What you dismiss as ‘broad, sweeping generalisations’ are actually demonstrable facts based on hard data. The NHS is falling apart because so many female doctors are leaving or moving to part-time work.
      Stop making an idiot of yourself by coming on here and denying reality.

      • Doctors are leaving to work abroad for a number of reasons. They left in droves in the 1970’s when higher rate tax went right up. They’re leaving now also because of the volume of work expected of them, and many are retiring because of their age, (the boomer generation).

        There is an issue raised about the volume of women working in general practice and working part- time. Isn’t that an issue for each independent general practice, who themselves agree their Doctors hours?. maybe one part time Doctor in a village is better than no Doctor. If women are not to be offered part time work then they will have to be replaced by overseas students with equivalent grades (who according to stats are emigrating home), or local men with lower grades; since there is a general shortage of Doctors, what is in the publics best interest?

        excerpt:The number of doctors applying to the GMC for Certificates of Good Standing (CGSs), a document which enables them to register with an overseas regulatory body or employer, has remained at a constant of more than 4,700 per year for the past two years, according to new figures obtained by Pulse.
        GP leaders have said it is ‘alarming’ that taxpayers’ money is being invested in training graduates to become GPs, only for them to leave the NHS and have warned that the numbers could be higher, with many coming to train in the UK and returning to their country of origin to practice.
        Last year Pulse reported that the number of CGS applications had risen by over 12% since 2008. The latest GMC figures show that the numbers are still increasing, although at a slower rate, with a a total of 4,741 UK-trained doctors obtained CGSs in 2013 – up from 4,726 in 2012.

        http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-practice-life-news/5000-doctors-a-year-considering-leaving-the-uk-to-emigrate-abroad/20007366.article#.Vc6vBvlViko

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html

        • None of this is relevant to the reality that women that are highly trained to work in the NHS at cost to the taxpayer are not actually staying in the NHS very long. You have simply raised an additional issue that is not relevant to the subject at hand.

  9. Stop trying to find excuses and just admit it. Women are more intelligent than men, as the latest A-level results prove. That’s not to say men aren’t better in other areas. Men are still, on average, superior in upper body strength, although the strength gap is also closing as physical jobs decline and more and more women are working out (Ronda Rousey is a case in point, while Serena Williams is as powerful as most male tennis professionals – something unthinkable 30 years ago).

    But women are also more empathetic, better at understanding people, more conciliatory and less prone to act rashly. The same goes for the City and Wall Street as for politics.

    As Harriet Harman once said, if Lehman Brothers were Lehman Sisters, the current economic crisis might have been averted. The greed and recklessness of the bankers, who are mainly men, is as one female CEO put it, “typical male behaviour. A penis competition.”

    Look, I understand many men are failing to adjust to this new world order where their old dominance is fading fast, partly due to the Feminist movement but also due to the decline of manufacturing and mining which required typically male attributes.

    In many ways, I pity men for their increasing irrelevance in today’s world and the crisis in masculinity, which was articulated in Hannah Rosin’s book “The End of Men”. The increase in male suicide is a problem that society needs to confront.

    That’s why, as a Feminist, I believe women should work together with men and boys to re-invent masculinity for the 21st Century. The extinction of outmoded patriarchal attitudes is a must if men themselves are not going to become increasingly marginalized and useless in the modern world.

    • “That’s why, as a Feminist, I believe women should work together with men and boys to re-invent masculinity for the 21st Century.”

      I guarantee you feminists like you are going to cherry-pick the parts you like and the parts you don’t like just like you always do. By the way what you’re suggesting is indoctrination which is pretty bad. Also you know what gets very annoying? How you feminists are quick to roll your eyes on problems about men, yet was it long ago men were doing the same thing to us? I believe it was during the 1900s, but times changed and people got more sophisticated.

      And if you guys had any real honor of your so called equality you would take the time to help out men they need it.

    • “Women are more intelligent than men”

      Except that science has shown their IQ figures are almost exactly the same. You’re a teacher? I do hope it’s in an all-girl school.

      “But women are also more empathetic, better at understanding people, more conciliatory”

      Oh yes, Maggie Thatcher was well known for all of those things. Sweeping generalisation, much?

      “As Harriet Harman once said, if Lehman Brothers were Lehman Sisters, the current economic crisis might have been averted.”

      Harriet Harman, lawyer. She’s definitely the go-to person for economics advice then.

      “In many ways, I pity men for their increasing irrelevance in today’s world”

      When the followers of Islam have reached 50% in Europe, we’ll see how irrelevant masculinity is.

    • “I pity men for their increasing irrelevance in today’s world”

      LOL. You’re so stupid you don’t even know how stupid that is.

      You live in a building that was probably designed and definitely built by men.
      You depend on electricity that is provided and maintained by male engineers and technicians.
      Your plumbing system was designed, built and is maintained by men.
      You use a transport network that is designed and built by men.
      Your food is provided by a delivery network that largely depends on male labour; only the front staff in the supermarket tend to be female.
      Even your clothes have usually got to you via a that same male dominated transport network.
      You’re writing your comment on a computer and transmitting it over the internet; all provided by male engineers, software designers and maintained by male technicians.

      If a mischievous fairy was to wave her magic wand and remove all men from the labour market overnight, society would collapse with days.

      If she was to do the same to women instead, there would be serious problems for schools and hospitals, both of which depend on female labour, and a few other niche industries, but society would pretty much continue on as normal.

    • Fabian_Solutions, there, bang on cue with another bout of New World Order spite and empty drivel.

      “If in doubt, lie.”

      * Female intelligence centres more around to the mean. Men are more likely to be geniuses and dunces. The A-level results demonstrate only decades of intensifying, feminised subjugation of males in education. Hamstringing boys is not how you prove women are “better” than men.
      * Women are not more empathetic or understanding at all. This is a feminist myth well at odds with historic data on women’s infidelity and far higher propensity for the abuse of children and partners. Women commit less murder these days largely because the state has picked up that baton. Female leaders have always proven as adept as men at warmongering and destruction. It’s feminists who have ensured that the history books omit these ugly facts.
      * The strength gap cannot “close” at all. Such a thing is biologically impossible.
      * The reason that strength is less a desired quality in work today is because feminism led the destruction of profitable industry and a move to widespread tertiary sector work in which women could enjoy comfort and flexibility; indeed these are the fields that had to be expanded (sometimes invented) to allow women what feminists demanded and now women control and dominate them. Such sectors are almost always a drain on the economy. Society has fallen over backward to allow women individual freedoms in the workplace, at the cost of society.

      There is no place for feminism, especially feminists who resort to the command “Look…” Your creed got its wish. Family and community have been destroyed and the male corpses are piling up ever quicker and everyone has suffered for it. Women can work with men, but not until the feminist cult is killed stone dead.

      • “Female intelligence centres more around to the mean”

        ” decades of intensifying, feminised subjugation of males in education”

        Where is the scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to support these claims?

        • A five year University of Ulster study has shown that female teachers deliberately mark boys down – even when they do better in tests and exams than their female counterparts.
          The five-year research project, funded by the Departments of Education and Justice in Northern Ireland, found “systemic flaws” in teaching techniques led to teachers discriminating overtly against male students.

          • What they have a tendency to do is discriminate against boy offering good test results who behave badly, but over compensate or reward boys with similar results who behave well, and they actually get better grades than girls do with the same results.

            excerpt :. It seems like out-and-out discrimination, except there is an interesting wrinkle: teachers didn’t downgrade boys who had identical test scores to girls if they seemed to share the girls’ positive attitude toward learning. In fact, the opposite seemed to occur: the well-socialized boys received a small grade “bonus” for their good behavior relative to other boys, suggesting that teachers may be overcompensating when they encounter boys whose behavior exceeds expectations. In other words, boys who match girls on both test scores and behavior get better grades than girls do, but boys who don’t are graded more harshly. Which means that the issue of what to do with underperforming boys just got a lot more complicated.

            http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

          • She’s always lying to support her viewpoint. She claims to be a libertarian but I think we can safely say she’s yet another Marxist feminist.

          • I suppose that once again you were hoping that we wouldn’t read the article you linked to. You were selective in your choice of paragraph to post here. It actually begins with this hard and fast statement:-

            “A new study on gender disparities in elementary-school performance — the first study to examine both objective and subjective performance — found that boys were given lower grades than girls, even in cases (such as math and science) where their test scores were either equal to or higher than the girls’ test scores.”

            Turns out that boys were being marked down because the teachers didn’t like their attitude. I saw this happen with my eldest son with his Eng Lit teacher. She hated him, he was too flippant, but in particular she hated the fact he got good grades without even trying. She was always griping about it to me. In the end I told her outright to get stuffed. He didn’t like her, she didn’t like him, the problem had escalated, but he wasn’t obliged to be “professional” about it – but she WAS.

          • Mad Mez the Gynocentric Gynocrat wrote:

            What they have a tendency to do is discriminate against boy offering
            good test results who behave badly, but over compensate or reward boys with similar results who behave well
            the well-socialized boys received a small grade “bonus” for their good behavior relative to other boys … but boys who don’t [match girls on both test scores and behavior] are graded more harshly. Which means that the issue of what to do with underperforming boys just got a lot more complicated.’

            Were you to take off your gynocentric spectacles, you’d see that what you have described is nothing more nor less than conditional ‘mummy love’ behaviour on the part of women teachers. Those boys who please mummy, who may be a misandrist, by behaving like docile girls get a treat while those who displease her by behaving like normal boys get the stick.

            The issue of what to do with ‘underperforming’ (sic) boys ‘just got’ a lot simpler: prohibit women from teaching boys. Problem solved.

      • A US university study of 12 million people, concludes there is effectively no difference between the sexes in terms of intelligence (cognitive ability), personality traits and morality. Stereotyping exacerbates gender differences.

        excerpt: “Gender stereotypes can influence beliefs and create the impression that the differences are large, said Zlatan Krizan, an associate professor of psychology at ISU. To separate fact from fiction, Krizan and colleagues Ethan Zell, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Sabrina Teeter, a graduate student at Western Carolina University, conducted a meta-synthesis of more than 100 meta-analyses of gender differences. Combined, the studies they aggregated included more than 12 million people.

        Their report, published in American Psychologist, found an almost 80 percent overlap for more than 75 percent of the psychological characteristics, such as risk taking, occupational stress and morality. Simply put, our differences are not so profound.

        “This is important because it suggests that when it comes to most psychological attributes, we are relatively similar to one another as men and women,” Krizan said. “This was true regardless of whether we looked at cognitive domains, such as intelligence; social personality domains, such as personality traits; or at well-being, such as satisfaction with life.”

        – See more at: http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2015/01/29/genderdifferences#sthash.vdI6KDUk.dpuf

        • I’ve got fingernails but I choose not to paint them. We’ve all got brains, but we choose to use them differently.

          Once again I don’t live in the US, I don’t know what men and women are like there. Seen from here it’s pretty weird.

    • Why is it that naked bigotry is acceptable as long as the target is men ‘Women are more intelligent than men’.

      The reality is that intelligence is a slippery multi-faceted concept which is difficult to measure. There are strange anomolies like the continued rise in measured IQ since the inception of measurments. To the extent it can be measured the relevant aspects when comparing men and women are:
      1. There is a distribution of intelligence in men and women. Talking about the inteligence of either as if there is a single value per sex is meaningless.
      2. The median and average values are about the same but the spread of intellgence in men is greater. the chance of a man or woman being more or less intelligent than each other is the same but the chance of a man being very intelligent or exceptionally stupid is greater.

      Even if there was a difference in the average intelligence it should not mean that both sexs are treated with equal respect and care. The problem with modern gender politicsis that there is a very significant community of misandric bigots who describe themselves as feminists andstridently oppose the idea that men can be disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. All of societies ills are blamed on men. There is essentially no equivalent to this movement (thank goodness) for men. The net results is that women are significantly advantaged in almost every area of life: education, policing/legal/penal policy, and health standout in paticular. There is a continuous push towards increasing these advantages. This is the inevitable result of highlighting and addressing every area where women are or appear to be disadvantaged with respect to men but ignoring all those that affect men.

      Almost no one in the modern western world is opposed to feminisms core tenet that women should be treated equally to men, the paradox is that many feminists oppose the treatment of men equally to women.

    • Typical. When boys were outscoring girls at school, it was a crisis. When girls outscore boys, it’s just “girls are smarter than boys”. Maybe you should look at how the classroom environment has been changed to favour girls instead of jumping to conclusions.

    • The only thing wrong with masculinity is women like you trying to eradicate it. Masculinity has given you almost every invention, medical and technological advancement, building structure and almost every repair and maintenance you have at your fingertips. Based on all the inventions and advancements in this world, to say women are smarter than men, is a complete and total joke. The only difference is feminists like yourself always make everything a competition. You don’t see men writing articles and comments about how much smarter men are than women for all we’ve given to society.

      • Masculinity and men with brains are different things. Men have given a great deal to society, masculinity has not. Masculinity is testosterone driven machismo, muscle power, (now replaced by power tools), the excess which can result in inappropriate brute force and violence (could be why there are more men in prison than women).

        Then there is the ‘male ego’ which is a serious relationship buster. Some men have difficulty being humble because they confuse it with weakness and loss of ‘masculinity’, but being ‘humble’ is what is required in the modern workplace .

        Humble men and confident women are more successful in work and love….

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-therapist-is-in/200910/humble-men-and-confident-women-are-more-successful

        • Eric wrote:

          Humble men … are more successful in … love‘.

          That’ll be why you’ve written that load of blue pill rubbish then.

          • Yeah. If a man submits to everything his feminazi wife demands, she might not throw him out. The moment he stands up to her – he’s out no his ear.

            Very much like things were back in Victorian times when the roles were reversed. So much for progress.

    • If women are more intelligent than men how come only 3 out of 59 Nobel Prize winners (about 5%) in the last 5 years have been women. Even then, one of them was Malala Yousafzai a Pakistani women’s rights activist, who was shot by an Islamic extremist and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize more out of sympathy than for her achievements.Women have had better than equal access to educational and job opportunities in the west (aided by women only scholarships and bursaries along with the feminisation of the education systems) for at least half a century, so what is the excuse for their failure to contribute at the highest level?

    • On average men and women are equal in intelligence, but to get this average you have far more male geniuses and far more male dunces. Today’s education system is completely set up for female bias, and female teachers have also been shown to over mark girls and under mark boys based on non-academic criteria. Eugenic type arguments about the superiority of women smacks of Nazism and is so not 21st century and so not true. Nature has given women abilities to succeed as mothers and men ones that help them succeed as fathers. They are hardwired. So physically we are not equal but we are also not inferior, just provenly different to each other.

      Serena Williams and Venus both got beaten comprehensively by Karsten Braasch ranked 203rd in the men’s game at the time. He said he took it easy on them as well. Industrialisation has made it possible for women to join the work force and do jobs they physically could not do before, and home appliances has made housework a trivial task compared to the past. Throw in the rise in obesity and the average woman is weaker than in the past. So are most men to be honest.

      More women are heartless to the opposite sex then men, even towards children. Women murder and abuse them far more than men. Nothing more like a catfight than arguments between opposing feminist women. You really hate “equity” feminists like Christina Hoff-Sommers don’t you? Who does all the rescuing in natural disasters, but as victims are not allowed by the UN to collect food parcels…men. Causalities in war 98% men. Empathy does not equate to compassion, something men have in abundance.

      Harriet Harman as a source of wisdom. Please save us. She has not a clue about economics. She is the one who thinks fathers are unnecessary. There is crisis in the family and it is all down to feminists promoting fatherless families and career first women. No one left to look after the children. The teenager girls fall pray to groomers or childhood pregnancy and the directionless boys join street gangs or get abused by predatory female teachers who do not get locked up. What a wonderful legacy for feminism. Guess why distraught fathers, separated by feminist courts from their children, commit suicide, it is not hard.

      There is nothing wrong with masculinity but a lot wrong with feminist gender theory. Western women have never had so many privileges, ones men have never had, the safety net gets ever larger but the ability of men to hold it up only falls lower. It is ironic that it is men that maintain the feminist world. #Heforshe makes this only to clear.

      If only we had more women engineers and scientists it would solved the problem. We know what this really means. The out loud thinking of the feminist elite is deafening. Lets get rid of the men, make them poor, uneducated, undesirables, and outlaw heterosexual sex just in case, so we can have the women all to ourselves. We hear you loud and clear. That is why more men are beginning to adjust, going MGTOW, avoid unviable (gender) feminist style relationships, and non-feminist women are becoming alarmed. Women are making a crisis for themselves. Men are just starting to realise if the women can be selfish, so can they, with no more responsibility to provide children and a home, they are free to look after themselves for a change. Marriage is impossible to consider, logically, any more. If Hilary Clinton manages to become president it will be the final signal for men to walk away from the feminist tyranny, because it will be on full show. I feel sorry for the non-feminist women who did not ask for this. If they want the assistance of men we will be here to help as always, as complementary but equal individuals, as always.

  10. There are simply too many people going to uni. Quite average people are now going. Why?

    It seems young men haven’t changed their thinking much – if they are average, then they will always earn an average income and a university education isn’t going to help much, so they are better of becoming an electrician or plumber. They don’t want to waste three years of their life on low income in higher education when they can be earning.

    Young women are thinking differently. If they are average they can go to university and come out and get a clerical job somewhere getting an average or below average salary. Result! – because with an average or below average salary you don’t have to pay back any of the loan. So, because young women are still not that interested in careers, and average women in particular are far more interested in marriage and babies, university is treated by them as an excuse to party and indulge in hypergamy.

    Change the way that uni loans are repaid and watch those time-wasting girls doing film and media studies, or veterinary nursing or modern dance flood out of university and straight to the HR department of your nearest TopShop.

    • “So, because young women are still not that interested in careers, and average women in particular are far more interested in marriage and babies”

      Jesus God have you ever actually spoken to a woman, or more specifically a young woman? Or is this coming from Cloud Cuckooland?

      • Engage brain Kanaris. What opportunities does a woman of average IQ and ability have open to her Kanaris?

        Is she going to be the next Germain Greer? Maggie Thatcher? The Queen? By definition, no. All these people are women that are far from average.

        Average people end up in average jobs getting £21,000 a year, living in 3 -bed semis and driving a Ford Focus.

        None of them have ever needed to go to university to achieve that station in life. So why would they? Just for the hell of it really. Many don’t make it past the 1st year when they realise that university is oversold to them and is about as exciting as a holiday with 3000 people with Aspergers.

        So women with average intelligence aren’t actually stupid. Best thing an average woman can get out of uni is marriage to a man on £80,000 a year. It’s obvious isn’t it really? It’s not an anti-feminism thing – it’s just human nature.

        And as for talking to young women then yes, the reason I know this is going on is because my niece is doing exactly that – she’s studying archeology, no hope of a well paid job, never going to pay the loan back, has no intention of doing so – she’s just waiting for her boyfriend to graduate because he’s a year ahead of her at uni with a proper career ahead of him. Got to be more interesting than working on the tills at ASDA right? Some other moron’s paying for it all so why not? Get some tax out before you start having to pay in.

        Sure, you have 25% of women going to uni because they are looking to get a proper career out of it, and they have the ability to make the most out of uni, but the excess women above and beyond that 25% are there to party and meet men that are training to be solicitors and brain surgeons and so on. That’s why more women are going to uni than men – they have other motivations rather than simply getting a good career.

          • No, Kanaris, you can come to the conclusion by logical analysis too.

            There are substantially more women going to uni than men. However, men and women have the same IQ, so the “extra” women that are going must be closer to being average than the men. We know that about 30% of graduates end up in jobs that pay average wages – and if you are on an average wage you don’t need to repay your loan.

            So, there is no evidence available that would suggest that men of average ability are going to uni and ending up in average jobs and thus ending up unable to repay their loans. The application of simple arithmetic would suggest that the 30% of “extra” women that are going to uni are more likely to be nearer to average in terms of ability than their male counterparts and thus more likely to end up in a dead end job with the loan unpaid.

            As you go down the social scale the problem gets more distinct. Young men from poorer backgrounds will only go to uni if they think it will pay off, because if they don’t get a good job at the end of it nobody is going to support them – if it isn’t going to pay off then vocational training and an apprenticeship is a better option. Young women from poorer backgrounds, however, have great freedom and multiple options if uni doesn’t pay off. They can get a job, get married, get pregnant and go on bennies, or go and live off mum and dad, and nobody bats an eyelid, and of course uni can pay off in more ways than the obvious because it makes hypergamy dating so much easier – the top 25% of future male earners are right there waiting to be snaffled up by the astute “Joanne Average” girl who has clicked on that hypergamy is the best way for her to have an easy life.

            People come up with new fangled ideas all the time, and feminism is one of them, but human nature simply never changes.

          • ” However, men and women have the same IQ, so the “extra” women that are going must be closer to being average than the men.”

            Please explain how you came to the conclusion that the 30% of additional women going to Uni must all be average compared to men (if both sexes have equal intelligence).

            “And as for talking to young women then yes, the reason I know this is going on is because my niece is doing exactly that – she’s studying archeology, no hope of a well paid job, never going to pay the loan back, has no intention of doing so”

            I bothered to check this out, there are 7,200 archeologist/anthropologists in the US, with job growth of 1400, 2012-2020. So a lot of competition but not impossible. Some people study further and go on to work in areas like forensics.

            “Young women from poorer backgrounds, however, have great freedom and multiple options if uni doesn’t pay off. They can get a job, get married, get pregnant and go on bennies,”

            If young women don’t go to Uni, jobs open to them are generally much more poorly paid. Most secretarial/clerical jobs pay well below the average, and in some parts of the country close to minimum wage. cosmetics, hairdessing, shop work, similar. That means they have very few choices open to them, because earning below average wage means they have no option other than living with mum and dad, permanently sharing with a friend or getting married. Parenting applies as a choice available to both men and women, generally why people get married. Only further education can secure sufficient income to ensure future security for women.

          • It’s really quite simple. If fewer men are going, there is a greater chance that the men that do go are intelligent. If a large number of women are going then many of the extra women have to be drawn from a broader pool of women, thus some of them must be low intelligence.

            The unis are getting paid £9000 per student per year. That’s for 900 hours of lectures, so each lecture is worth £10 per student per hour. Stick 50 students in a lecture hall for an hour and the uni is getting £50. The unis are falling over themselves to get as many people in as poss. It’s just a racket. No wonder AC Grayling is keen to get in on the act. The unis are more than happy to find young people that want to watch Coronation Street all day at the London University of the South Bank for £9000 a year and give them a useless media studies degree at the end of the day (assuming they bother to make it to the end – the girl that lives opposite me gave her media studies course up after 18 months).

            As for archeology in the US, I know nothing about it. I live in the UK. I know archeology in the UK doesn’t pay well because I have two friends working for English Heritage and they get paid well below the average wage. Like I say, my niece openly states she only took the course because it sounded interesting and allowed her to mark time until her boyfriend graduated and got himself a proper job, after which they will move in together. Human nature doesn’t change much. She just wants to get married and have babies, so good luck to her. I doubt that she’s unique, she certainly doesn’t see to be, so I’m guessing there are plenty of other girls doing a similar thing, which is why such a high percentage of uni loans are not getting repaid.

          • “If fewer men are going, there is a greater chance that the men that do go are intelligent. If a large number of women are going then many of the extra women have to be drawn from a broader pool of women, thus some of them must be low intelligence.”

            There was I thinking that entry was based on grades. If there are 30% more women going to Uni, that figure could be ‘because of more women going along with the same amount of men’, or it could also be because ‘less men are going to Uni resulting in more women going’. Ether way selection by the Uni should be based on grades, not gender; so there is no difference at all in terms of intelligence drawn from the same pool of British schools.

            As I wrote before there are a lot of people of either gender going to Uni to study subjects in what seems to have minimal application in the working world, and that is the issue. Subjects like geography, history, philosophy don’t have an obvious connection to work, but appeal to boys and girls who studied those subjects to A level. (Career planning from aged 12?) Generally speaking in both the US and Germany – so I suspect here too, 60% of post graduates can’t get jobs in their chosen field.

            Students are only able to study those courses because of the availability of student loans for them.

          • Nah. unis just want to make money. So they create a lot of courses of their own and fling them out on the market to see what the uptake is. Girls just happen to be the ones biting. So they expand the courses available, which means expanding the courses that girls are interested in – like watching telly and calling it media studies. It has become a fantastic money spinner for the unis at the bottom of the tree, like South Bank. It’s these unis that are expanding like hell.

            Students loans are available for any course. It could be a degree in contemplating the navel. Grades are set to ensure uptake and maximum income. Result – people with getting on degree courses with average ability at vast expense to the taxpayer with loans they will never pay back and have no intention of doing so. It happens that most of these must be girls – just because all the extra uptake in courses occurred after Blair expanded the uni system – before that it was mostly boys that went to uni and the courses were mostly STEM.

            This is not a feminist issue as such, It is just a bloody racket being run by the unis at taxpayers expense and contributing 3% of the nations net debt.

          • There we agree. I think career or even vocational guidance happens far too late in the school system if at all, and the end result is far too many people persuing largely (but not entirely) academic subjects just for the sake of it, in higher ed and loading the bill on the tax payer. Basically Tony Blairs ‘leveling everybody out’ policy gone mad. I don’t think this is a feminist issue either, it’s just that marketing, HR, IT jobs, PR, nursing, teaching jobs which appeal to women, now have an access to graduates only gate, which involves taking on a lot of debt so requires having familes late. I wrote a few weeks ago that having an optional (to them) 4 day week, and generally more part-time work in well paid jobs available to men and women (on a par with the Netherlands), could help relieve this situation, because it would allow people to work their way through Uni employed in their specialist area, while studying part time on line; (rather like the old day release or sandwich set up), which seems to be the future anyway..

          • I wouldn’t expect an idiot like you to be aware that the skills needed to obtain a history degree have many applications ‘in the working world’, and geography is a little more than knowing where nuts come from, which I suspect is what most of us would like to know about you. Both subjects are certainly of far more economic relevance than women’s studies and other associated rubbish that too many women are studying at the expense of men.

    • A lot of men like you need to grow up and accept the fact that 21st century British women aren’t going to be passive, sweet, submissive little housewives any more.

      Today’s women are independent. We want to pursue our own careers, our own dreams. We like men just as much as before, but we don’t need a man to look after us or protect us. We aren’t damsels in distress.

      We are your equals and want to be treated that way.

      • Stop making false accusations because just like you he’s sharing opinion just like everybody else. God you feminists are stupid.

      • Some women don’t want to be submissive little housewives, and at the other extreme you have sub-slaves dressing up as geishas and attending to their husband’s every whim.

        It is part of the rich tapestry of human existence. Consequently I don’t have to do anything you say, not even “grow up” according to your definition of the term. Learn to live with it.

      • You aren’t damsels in distress, eh?
        I guess that’s why you all had a collective fainting fit over scientist Matt Taylor’s shirt and want to replace applause with ‘jazz-hands’, because some of you delicate flowers get ‘triggered’ by clapping.
        Silly girl!

      • Feminist_Failure wrote:

        Today’s women are independent.

        But only for as long as the government makes men give you a handout, a hand up and a head start, which is why ‘a lot of men’ are, increasingly, deciding to leave you to your ‘independence’ and do without you, hence Miss Gyngell’s concern about institutional discrimination against men and boys.

        Feminist_Failure also wrote:

        We aren’t damsels in distress. We are your equals and want to be treated that way.

        You are allowed to spout such adolescent nonsense because men make the safe, comfortable and relatively carefree world you exist in. However, very, very few women could live a day in a man’s shoes and none want to. You don’t have a clue what equality might mean for you. If you had you wouldn’t be whining like a spoiled child who thinks everyone else at the party has had more cake than she.

        It’s you who needs to grow up.

      • No. They’ll be groomed, drug addicted and raped by Muslims and blacks. You’re not equals and you never will be.

  11. I don’t think little George is interested in much beyond keeping the Tories in office, so… where to start? As we all know, there has been a collapse of morality leading to divorce and family break ups. Little boys are weaker than little girls by any measure, and, especially revelant here: emotionally. Many boys are seriously damaged by their dysfunctional families before they ever get to school. This is not due to discrimination, it’s due to the irresponsible actions of adults, but it puts many boys at a disadvantage.

    Boys in general behave worse in school because once past the infant stage they have more drive than girls and are more adventurous. Therefore, boys need discipline more than girls and suffer more from the lack of it. Discipline not only prevents disruption of the classroom but also brings security to troubled children. Boundaries are reassuring. Anyone who has stood in front of a present-day class knows there are no effective sanctions against bad behaviour. There are of course those teachers who can control a class by sheer force of personality, just as there are teachers who are inspirational, but they are few and far between. Most teachers are just average, and encouraged to be mere dispensers of the syllabus.

    I think also the National Curriculum style of teaching suits girls better than boys. Clear attainments, the subject matter chopped up into portions, the year all laid out in lesson plans and little room for digression, diversion, exploration or adventure. The endless emphasis of PC values is also emphatically boring. Girls may be being stretched, but boys are being tamed to live a feminised world. No wonder they are disaffected.

    Do I think teachers deliberately discrimate against boys? No. Most teachers I meet are just tired.

    • I think it is much simpler than that. Subjects are taught that are based on achieving equality of outcome rather than fulfilling the needs of the workplace. This gives girls the chance to shine in those subjects for which there is little call in the workplace. If we focussed on STEM and de-emphasised art, languages, English literature and geography then girls wouldn’t do so well in school but school would fit our current needs as a society better.

        • Oh yeah, people with arts degrees are overwhelmed with demand. In your universe at least…..

          Meanwhile, back on planet Earth….

          • Wow, you really search high and low for the required propaganda to support your case don’t you?

            So basically Samsung has one arts graduate that designs the case of their mobiles phones and 500 graduate engineers designing what goes inside.

          • it has nothing to do with ‘art’, creativity is a thinking process , and that article wasn’t propoganda, it’s what actually employers are looking for- a menas to create a business edge – innovative business development requires creative thinking

          • Yeah, engineering is inherently creative. So they aren’t looking for geographers, people with a deep knowledge of English literature, artists and whatever. Just STEM. What they want is for STEM graduates to be a little bit more creative because patents are valuable – and patents need out-of-the-box thinking. Nothing to do with art, geography, or literature.

          • All business revolves around finding creative solutions to problems, has nothing to do with English lit, although some subjects can help develop the neuron paths which increase creativity, like studying music can also help improve maths, some subjects are inter-related

          • You still haven’t explained why secondary schools need to provide art, music, eng lit courses which fill up the majority if the curriculum when the country needs more STEM. Saying “well music can improve your maths” is pretty weak, the easiest and most direct way to improve your maths is to study maths.

      • English literature, geography and languages are three of the ‘facilitating’ subjects preferred by Russell Group universities. And the CBI Director General this week called for STEAM subjects not just STEM. The ‘A’ is for Arts.

        • Strange, my son has just been accepted onto a computer science course at a Russell Group uni with none of those subjects. In fact none of the 5 Russell Group universities asked him for those subjects.

          You made it up. Must be another left-winger, they’re forever making stuff up to suit their arguments based on “the end justifies the means no matter how many lies you have to tell”. Go and find some other left-wingers to play with – you can lie to each other and convince yourselves Labour will win with Corbyn in charge

          • ‘Some advanced level subjects are more frequently required for entry to degree courses than others. We call these subjects ‘facilitating’ because choosing them at advanced level leaves open a wide range of options for university study. These facilitating subjects include: Maths and further maths; Physics; Biology; Chemistry; History; Geography; Modern and classical languages; English Literature.’

            From the Russell Group website (scroll down). Perhaps they’re making it up too.

            http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/faqs

            That said, it’s gratifying to hear that Russell Group accept candidates without facilitating subjects when they recognise potential. It was Michael Gove who perpetrated the myth that candidates must have three facilitating subjects to attend Russell Group unis. The unis contradicted him and said two were desirable but having three wasn’t essential. But the DfE still judge schools on the ‘% of A level students achieving AAB or higher in at least 2 facilitating subjects’. And, no, I’m not making that up either. Check out School Performance Tables. Here’s an example (scroll down):

            http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=134693

          • Lets take an example. Only UCL insists on a modern language – but if you don’t have one you will still get in, having a mdern language just become part of the course. Consequently it can hardly be claimed that being skilled in a modern language is a pre-requisite for having the skills to get to UCL, they just want their graudates to be multilingual.

            But also bear in mind that the Russell Group was set up to campaign for greater research funding – teaching in the Russell Group has always come adistant second. It has gained notoriety because schools and FE colleges are using entries to the Russell Group to promote themselves.

  12. Feminism has nothing to do with equality. It is a supremacist movement with a tunnel vision agenda of denigrating boys and dehumanizing men and fathers.

  13. When the deck is normally stacked against you at work, the natural
    tendency will be to do what you can to improve your situation; that could be one reason why more women are going to Uni. Also boys are often late learners, considering it’s more manly to be interested in sport than reading. A decade or more ago there was widespread recognition that there’s a need for literature which appeals to boys, nothing’s really changed.
    The difference in the stats might be that the number of boys going to Uni
    hasn’t changed, but the increase in figures are proportionately more
    girls. This might be because the careers available to girls, eg marketing, PR, nursing, medicine, teaching, now require degrees, whereas the new apprenticeships like electrician, plumbing, carpentry are aimed at boys and don’t. There are some vocational subjects which girls can do like hairdressing, teaching assistant and care of course, and those are also available to boys (who take them up).

    Even for infants the school week is split into different subjects, so there’s no harm at all in a job share in which one teacher take on ‘games’ teaching skills like craft which develops dexterity, and ‘play’, and another teacher maybe specializing in reading and numbers. That’s a good use of resources, adds to numbers of available teachers who might otherwise not be interested in working, (there’s a shortage), and shouldn’t be a problem for a child used to more than one adult.
    “All they will hear is how unfair it all is”, that isn’t something which is taught in schools, children are encouraged to achieve not the reverse, which more likely to be seen on an adult blog rather than in class.

    Since the govt is removing Uni funding, taxpayers funding female doctors isn’t an issue, what is an issue is replacing the number of Doctors who are emigrating and having enough qualified Doctors in the UK.

    There’s likely to be more competition for some places than others however I checked applications stats for the University of Oxford Medical Sciences division and these are the results (59% of applicants were female, 241 applicants from overseas) :
    excerpt

    “Any applicant who did not register for (or registered late) or did not sit the test had their application deemed incomplete, and was notified that their application was no longer under consideration.

    Approximately 24% of applicants submitted an open application, comparable to 2013.
    29 applicants applied for deferred entry (27 in 2013) applied for deferred entry. Of these, 11 were interviewed, and none received an offer of a place for 2016 (compared to three last year who were offered places for 2015).
    59% of applicants were female (57% in 2013).
    67% of applicants offered A-levels.
    There were 241 international fee-paying applicants who made complete applications.
    20 graduates submitted applications (9 of these were international applicants).
    Overall, approximately 33% of applicants who made complete applications were short-listed (31% in 2013).

    • Mad Mez, the Gynocentric Gynocrat wrote:

      — The usual secondhand, long discredited, nonsensical gynocentric rubbish —

      Come back to us when you have something pertinent, and rational, to add to the discussion Mez. Until then you might be more gainfully employed rescuing cats.

        • Mad Mez, the Gynocentric Gynocrat wrote:

          I’m not interested in stooping to your level Gruff‘.

          For which see my reply re. catty and non-emasculating female shaming language to that strange multi-personalitied creature Deluded_Fabian_Feminist_Kate_Kanaris.

          Your replies might have more force were you actually able to stoop to my level, Mez.

    • No Mez, it’s quite simple, we don’t need all these people to go to uni. Boys have worked that out. and so have girls, but the girls are going there for entirely different reasons….

      • There’s no ‘no’ about it, you’re stating the same thing as my post…not so many boys are going to Uni because opportunities are available for them which don’t require degrees, govt policy for years now has been to introduce more apprenticeships, (directly aimed at boys), while the jobs which appeal for women in medicine, education, or involving communication, (marketing, PR) require degrees. I also copied over from Oxfrd Uni medical school site exactly what’s happening re entrance. .

        • No. 30% of the girls are going for parties and hypergamy. Not interested in education at all, except media studiies allows you to watch an awful lot of telly, which has to be better than working at ASDA.

          Please do at least try to re-enter the real world Mez. Open your eyes to what’s really going on. Try talking to real people instead of just reading articles in newspapers that are just spreading the current propaganda of the political parties they support.

          • “30% of the girls are going for parties and hypergamy. Not interested in education at all, except media studiies allows you to watch an awful lot of telly, which has to be better than working at ASDA.”

            inuendo is easy – where’s your proof?
            People of both sexes are going to Uni because ‘some’ employers are looking for graduates as a means of accessing suitability instead of training people on the job. How many men go to Uni to take degrees in history, geography and philosophy? , are they there just to meet women?

          • You’ve been reading the papers too much. My son has just walked into two jobs straight from school at 18. We’ve got apprenticeships at my place of work.

            OK Mez, what are these people going to uni for if it isn’t to get a job that can’t even pay back the loan, i.e. it is below the national average?

            I talk to people Mex, that’s why I know what is going on. You just read the newspapers which are just regurgitating propaganda for the political parties they support – they are told the lines to take, and increasingly painting a fantasy picture of modern Britain entirely out of tune with the citizens own experience.

          • in other words no evidence, just some anecdotal link based on the odd person you know, yet you still came up with the 30% apparently imaginary figure.

          • If a third of women but a quarter of men are going to uni then 33% more women are going to uni than men. That is simply re-jigging the figures that are taken from the Telegraph as Kathy has linked to.

            If the IQ of men and women are similar than we can assume that 33% of women that go to uni are not as able as the men that are going, unless something really strange is going on and very average guys are going to uni while the smart ones stay at home.

          • The grades are whatever the uni decides the grades should be Mez, in whatever the subjects the uni decides. Then the degrees themselves are set by the unis as well.

            I asked my uni how they determined degree grades and they told me they just take the distribution of results, they are always normally distributed and then they gave the firsts to the ones at the top of the distribution, the 2:1 to those just above the average, the 2:2s to those just below average and the rest given to the bottom of the distribution. Not based on “does this person know enough to do the job well or not?” at all. Worse, the 1sts all went to the Chinese – after all they pay big money to go to UK unis so you don’t want to put them off.

            If you want to get good grades at uni tell them you’re thinking of staying on to do a doctorate. Kerching! That’s another money spinner so the uni will fall over itself to make sure you get the grades you need.

            My uni was in the top 5 for electronics in the country and there are over 100 unis offering degrees in electronics.

            The whole thing is a racket. There were 80 kids on my course – today they would each be paying £10 per hour – that’s £800 per hour of lectures. How come they are paying the same as the music degree with only 10 people on the course, or contemporary dance with just 5! It’s a sick joke and we all know it, but we buy into it because it gives us some sort of status and extra income (or at least it did…..)

        • The last time I checked statistics on apprenticeships there were more female apprentices at both higher and middle levels than males. The data was in a report about women and work and was talking about how there needed to be more apprenticeships for women. I know a woman who trained to be a doctor because this is a great profession to combine with looking after her children. She has said that a lot of her women friends who studied medicine chose it for the same reason. She worked part-time for many years and now isn’t working as a doctor. I’m just trying to inject a bit of reality about the way the world works.

          • Apprenticeships for women are expanding more then there have been and across more vocations than I was aware of – even in education, maybe teaching assistants. I’m not sure. Women strong in science are bound to be attracted to medicine, because of the opportunity to work part time, if it was more accepted elswehere, could be less of a draw but there just needs to be more Doctors. The boomers are retiring, and there’s en masse emigration owing to the level of admin in place in the UK. (The preference seems to be Australia).

            ://www.gov.uk/government/news/apprenticeships-no-longer-just-jobs-for-the-boys

            loads of apprenticeships going in engineering they can’t get filled

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9445255/Why-arent-engineering-firms-employing-more-women.html

  14. Oh dear. What a lot of generalised statements and anecdotes about how boys are discriminated against and ‘less committed’ women are taking their jobs. And if the don who said ‘a couple of years ago’ Cambridge undergrads lacked spelling and grammar, what does this tell us about Cambridge admissions? The anecdote implies Cambridge admissions tutors can’t spot inaccurate and poor spelling on applications.

    • Got anything worthwhile to say, based on your vast experience as a secondary teacher? Or are you simply just another example of the poor quality of UK secondary school teachers?

      • I seem to have attracted an ad-hominem attack based on the name I post under. Are you saying the article is not crammed full of generalised statements and anecdotes? Or that the Cambridge don wasn’t implying Cambridge admissions tutors are so stupid they can’t recognise poor grammar or spelling on applicants’ forms and allow these candidates to join what is supposed to be an ‘elite’ university?

        And here is your evidence that UK secondary school teachers are ‘poor quality’?

        • You’re the one giving us an example of your poor quality. When are you going to give us some actual meat to this debate to counter what is said?

          Sounds like your firing blanks…

          • Another ad hominem attack. I ask you for evidence to justify your generalised statement that UK secondary teachers are ‘poor quality. But instead of doing so, you claim the evidence is my ‘poor quality’. So let’s look at some facts:

            1 In the last round of the OECD PISA tests (2012), UK 15 year-olds scored at the OECD average in reading and maths, and ABOVE average in Science.

            2 In the last round of the Trends in Maths and Science Tests (TIMSS 2011), the Maths performance of Englsh 14 year-olds was only beaten by a significant amount by six countries. Eight countries had similar scores and twenty-seven had scores significantly below England. In Science, English 14 year-olds were beaten by a significant amount by eight countries. Ten countries had similar scores and thirty-one countries performed at a significantly lower level.

            If UK secondary school teachers were ‘poor quality’ surely the UK would be at the bottom of these international league tables? And here’s the evidence if you think I’m making it up:

            For PISA see here: http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/12/pisa-2012-results-show-a-slight-improvement-for-uk-how-disappointing-for-michael-gove/

            For TIMSS data see here: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/TMEZ01/TMEZ01Ch1.pdf

          • Funny, teachers were saying the PISA tables were meaningless when the scores were bad, now you’re relying on them to bolster the claim your any good.

            If you want to see just how good your education is, put kids through their GCSE two years after they’ve left school and see how much they still remember. You know as well as I do it will be FA. Huge amounts of taxpayer money being used to fund an education system which aims at teaching kids 95% of stuff they will never need to know. Then we’ve exported this tripe to the rest of the world.

          • When were UK PISA scores ‘bad’? The UK has performed consistently since 2006 and the UK position actually improved slightly in 2012 (but it was statistically insignificant).

            I’m old enough to have taken O levels. If I’d have retaken them 2 years later without revision it would be likely I’d have forgotten much of it. But revision would have helped recall.

            95%? A slight exaggeration. How do we know what we need to know until we’ve learnt it? How do we know what will interest us until we’ve been introduced to it? All pupils should have access to a broad, balanced curriculum until 16 (no dropping subjects at 14). They should not be denied access because someone thinks what they’re learning is useless. In any case, education is not just the acquisition of knowledge but having the competence to apply that knowledge.

  15. I notice one of the ‘Six of the Best’ (about how a ‘century of feminism has failed us’) in my alert turns out to be an article written in May and which is closed for comments. Does this suggest you’re struggling to find six ‘best’ articles this week? Can we look forward to more old articles being resurrected in the future under the banner of newness?

  16. The central assumption in this article is wrong.
    Just by an individual going to University this does not equal an educational or life outcome success.
    Furthermore, 1/3 of females and 1/4 of males at 18 going onto to go to University is far too high for our economy.
    To be gender neutral on this issue is also key. Too many people are going to University- male and female. Too many people who are outside of top 10% of intelligence are going. They are not academically excellent and because of the decline in standards of GCSE’s and A Levels since the mid 1990’s, it is even more difficult to assess those of the top 10% from those who are not in the top 10%.

    What we need are our young people trained for the jobs that our economy has. What we are not achieving at this moment is this objective, especially by pretending everyone is equally intelligent and that everyone should be going to University.

    Lets have some common sense and a whole top to bottom review of our economy, and the types of training our young people need. And only 10% of the population at aged 18 should be going to University, this is roughly the amount of jobs out there which require a University education, and not the 40% or 50% that the government is targeting.

  17. I went to medical school. There were plenty of women on the course too, and that was 44 years ago. What we need are more places at medical school. But it’s a very expensve course to teach. I had a grant. It was a 5 year course and then two 6 months elective in hospital. Juniors are not well paid, so the millstone around the neck is big. I also did a Ph.D which was paid for by a research council, as they are today, which includes living expenses. But it’s all getting silly regarding loans and costs. Silly because in my day only about 8% of pupils went to university, not 50%. That’s why there are no grants. It’s unaffordable. Oh, you mean Wolverhampton poly. The so called up-grades are purely cosmetic. If it ain’t Russel Group, it ain’t a university.

    • I agree, also according to my ‘napkin’ math, even part time work covers the cost of training Doctors through taxes (higher rate, plus training pay back), paid over a working life time
      Silly, because 60% of post grads elsewhere (probably here too) can’t find a job in their chosen field, and that same training cash could have funded more men entering medicine to create a better gender balance.

    • Don’t medical students get their education for free?

      I believe a large number of the available places at med school are flogged off to foreigners.

      Unis have always sought to unbermine the UK. Look how they gave nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan and India. These places are brim full of Marxist 5th columnists.

  18. Feminism’s clichés are tired. Look at the feminist posts below – the same old worn out phrases about the male ego and historical oppression.

    People are seeing through the lie that women are the only gender that suffers – or has ever suffered – from discrimination and inequality.

    That lie conflicts with the actual experiences of far too many people.

  19. I’m on holiday in the Med at present and have spent an enjoyable hour or so reading this comments stream, which is fascinating. Apart from it being a total wipeout of the usual little feminist crew, who are by any measure simply insane, what strikes me is the relative absence of reasoned female contributions. One would have thought that a website entitled The Conservative Woman would have a significant input from, well, conservative women. Or even women, irrespective of their political leanings, or none.

    Are women disinterested in their sons’ education? Are they disinterested in current affairs. Or are they so comfortable in what feminism and the ridiculous gynocentricity that feminists have managed to bring about amongst us suits them, and they don’t want to rock the boat?

    • Herbert I think all those reasons are a bit true. Except I think the first one could really be a way in to getting women on board. I have been arguing with and trying to educate those around me even if I haven’t been busy writing anything here. Will go and have a look at posts and see if there is anyone I want to argue with…

      • Good on yer Sheela! You’re doing a great job anyway. The serious point, however, is that it is going to take right-minded women to rise up en masse and eject this foul ideology from their lives and their psyches for the good of the society they share with men, and for which they hold joint and several responsibility to make work. Women have agency and they need to start acting as though they have it, not passively acquiescing in the iniquity of what is being perpetrated in their name because it’s easier, or men can be relied on to do the heavy lifting etc. In any case, men cannot overturn the vile attack that is being perpetrated on them because that attack has cleverly turned their defence into a social (indeed actual) crime. Only women could have thought of that one, frankly, and it is only women who can untie that Gordian knot. Responsible women need to take your and Kathy’s and Laura’s lead and decisively strike feminism down. And that includes the the feminist fifth-column in the Conservative Party such as Thereas May who even has herself photographed with a ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ T shirt’ for the Fawcett Socity for god’s sake, and the ‘all things to all men (and especially women) feminist lackey David Cameron. We need the Tory women who have always stood like a backbone in the nation to slough-off this cloying Marxist crap, and stand with (and for) their men: that half of society who defended our nation in two world wars with their blood and their limbs and their lives, in their hundreds of thousands, and whom we saw as old but fiercely proud men with tears streaming down their faces at the VJ ceremonies yesterday. And men still stand ready to do the same today to defend women who claim to be more intelligent than them? Excuse me while I clear my throat onto the floor. Enough is enough is what I say. Women need to get off their backsides and do what needs to be done. This is the time for women to reclaim their dignity, their decency, and their womanliness.

        • I think you’re overestimating women and what they are capable of. Were they able to do what you suggest, we would not be in the mess we are.

        • I tend to agree with William below. Sadly it seems if I look back over my lifetime that women don’t generally have as much agency as we like to think. The majority of women are quite submissive and passive, happy to let men take the lead in their lives. The feminists tend to be those atypical women that think more like men and therefore have greater agency. They are then imposing their views on the majority of women. The majority of the women find themselves in the position of the animals in “Animal Farm” – the leadership may have changed but they are still being told what to do. Unfortunately, because so many feminists are Marxist dedicated to overthrowing the “Patriarchy” (which is merely a re-branding of capitalist democracy) the actually have less interest in providing women with the stability they need to be happy – in fact they are aiming at total cultural revolution which is seldom the best environment to raise children.

          Anti-feminist women like Karen Straughan have become a rare but extremely important voice in the fightback. They are the only ones that provide an interface back from MRA and MGTOW to regular everyday women.

        • Just like to say, I think Dave’s right, us women do let the men “do the heavy lifting”. I can talk for England, but when it comes to the written word I am just not as eloquent as the men here. Phil, Dave, BSO, to name but a few, say all that’s needed perfectly, far, far better than I ever could.
          I hate feminism, it is as you say a foul ideology. It seeks gender supremacy and cares nothing for the welfare of men and boys. I too watched the VJ ceremonies and saw those brave “fiercely proud men” and thought, feminists hang your heads in shame!

          • Well said Jenny. Well said. But women do need to take a brave stand on this. We ALL have a responsibility to guard, protect, and cherish the society in which we live today and avoid the bleak Orwellian dystopia feminists are creating for us. I sense in my bones that a reckoning is coming and women need to stop acquiescing in the gender apartheid before it is too late. That said, you are speaking out, and that is most welcome.

    • I do feel that the comments sections on this website does tend to quickly degenerate into all out war between men and deranged feminists. There are several women that do comment here from a non-feminist female standpoint but they tend to let the men do the heavy lifting.

      I suspect that once you separate out the feminists out of female society the bulk of women are fairly quiet and actually pretty happy to let men do the talking. Certainly they are very unhappy about taking on feminists, which is understandable as feminists have made threats of violence to women. Unfortunately men do need women to speak up for them. Time and time again we see that women that speak up for men get a much more positive response than men do when they speak up for themselves.

      I’d like to see more conversations between Conservative women and the men that frequent this website because frankly it would be far more productive and fresh, and we have reached the right time to have those conversations now that feminism is a spent forced widely regarded as toxic.

      • “Unfortunately men do need women to speak up for them. Time and time again we see that women that speak up for men get a much more positive response than men do when they speak up for themselves.”

        That argument however, lacks ‘men speaking up for women’, which is why there have been various feminist movements over the last century. The feminist movement which seeks supremacy over men and boys, where? there are a number of different groups wth their own interest, it isn’t a political party with an agenda, there are no leaders.

        The movement against rape, domestic violence, FGM, forced marriage and honour killings are all issues which any Western individual of any moral standing should be supporting. They exist and they need everybody to be speaking out against them. Rape must not be tolerated, neither female or male rape, and those twittering in the background that those people are ‘asking for it’, or reasoning that the problem is instead the minority of men who are falsely accused, is why there are feminists in the first place, acquiescence is part of the problem.

        • Feminism is not a century old. You are trying to claim that Suffragettes were feminists. If they were, why were the 2nd wave feminists all Marxist? Don’t you think that Marxistsa and Democrats make strange bedfellows?

          Fact is that Suffragettes would have hated the Marxists of 2nd wave feminism. 2nd wave feminsits have just hijacked the Suffragette movement to give their own tripe a veneer of respectability, just as they are trying to use FGM as a means of garnering support for their Marxist cause. Fact is FGM has been around for centuries and the feminist movement has only just discovered it – that tells you how much feminists care about women.

          Game is up. Feminism = Female Marxism. “Patriarchy” = Democratic capitalism.

          Nobody is buying into your toxic Marxist ideology anymore.

          • Suffragettes were feminists. 2nd wave feminism was generally about equal pay for equal work in the 1970’s, there were marxist feminists then but all feminists groups even then didn’t have the same agenda. This is third wave feminism. Third wave feminism also has different groups persuing different interests. The UN is interested in FGM amongst other issues because it’s illegal in modern Britain, as is domestic violence and rape. It might have been around for centuries in Africa, but we haven’t had the problem right on our doorstep before. The same as honour killings. See wiki below on the variety of feminist groups

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies

    • Anything with men or boys in the title get’s swamped with ‘MGTW’ followers, CW also released a description of the typical ‘Conservative Woman’ a while back which included ‘going to church’. A lesson in how to narrow your potential readership is to focus on religion and pro religious issues, ignore the needs of modern women across the income scale and provide a platform for MGTOW many of whom just don’t like women. Give me a break. Why would young modern women want to post here ?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQfBt_GxYaI

      • MGTOW :A fully-realized MGTOW (there are levels to it) is someone who shuns all relationships with women, short-term, long-term, romantic, and otherwise. He eventually shuns society as a whole: “For all intents and purposes, he does not exist. An urbanite might keep to his own apartment, while someone further out may simply head into the wilderness and go off-grid.”

        http://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8?IR=T

      • 60% of British people describe themselves as “Christian” so are unlikely to find it offensive.

        I’m a deist, but when I have been dragged to church I can tell you it’s full to the brim with young women. I presume there are many women that are Conservative and religious. Those that are Conservative and atheist can form their own website. Laura and Kathy know who they want to communicate with, and they are running the show. I have to say, even as a non-Christian, I find them very impressive. I have respect for Christians because they are at least trying to be good people. Many atheists are too, but since Richard Dawkins came along they seem to have forgotten that good atheists at good Christians have more that unites them than separates them.

        I agree that some of the MGTOW crowd need to consider that they are painting all women with the same broad brush. I have also made that mistake in the heat of the moment so I take this opportunity to apologise. I also feel that much of the talk is very “robust” due to the presence of so many men and I’m not convinced that this is a good thing. As I’ve said before I appreciate that the internet has given the many quiet, passive, sweet-natured women a chance to express themselves but I do think that maybe loud, boisterous, opinionated guys like me are crowding them out and I for one don’t want that. I’d be happy to bow out as long as it didn’t mean the radfems were given free reign.

        • An ICM poll for The Guardian in 2006 asked the question “Which religion do you yourself belong to?” with a response of 64 per cent stating ‘Christian’ and 26 per cent stating ‘None’. In the same survey, 63 per cent claimed they are not religious, with just 33 per cent claiming they are. This suggests that almost a third of the non-religious UK population identify with Christianity out of habit, (maybe Christened but not actually regularly church going). My point is that if you write for ‘Conservative Woman’ , rather than ‘Conservative Christian Woman’, you should be trying to accommodate a variety of different views.

  20. “Mary Curnick Cook … has said schools are failing boys.”

    As a woman, she should be able to keep her job, just.

  21. Here’s an article by Michael Thompson on pbs.org, he’s talking about the fact that now the social inhibitors of girls doing well academically have been removed, girls are generally doing far better at school than boys, and not because boys are being downgraded, (the example in the press of boys being downgraded in Northern Ireland was actually that their marks were being downgraded for poor behaviour, whereas boys with good behaviour, actually got better marks than girls on the same achievement score level). The change is in girls improving, which is happening in the US, Australia, Canada everywhere. Medical schools in the US are now accepting more girls than boys because of higher grades. With higher paid part-time work opportunities, medicine is fast becoming a career for women, and importantly women are competing based on academic grades in science.

    In the article below Michael divides boys educational issues into different groups, some are trying to rationalise these issues, by suggesting we need seperate schools for girls and boys.

    Also scroll down and read the comments by Beth and response by Michael about her giften son with an IQ of 140, who’s struggling with school. Also note that also this is in the US when there are cuts, opportunities for the gifted are the first to go, (should be the other way around if the economy has paramount importance)
    http://www.pbs.org/parents/experts/archive/2011/01/why-so-many-boys-dont-care-abo.html

    Pupil centric teaching is based on the understanding that we all learn in different ways, either primarily visually, audibly or through actual experience. The challenge for teachers is being able to set a lesson which is enabling for all three, which alone takes a lot of planning time, and, with multiple levels of capability within the class because of lack of streaming. I assume means lessons can take maybe longer than China to achieve similar results. China’s teachers say this is what we offer – sink or swim, no help for failures, you’re on your own. China’s children know up front (because they experience it) what the outcome of failure is, so do British children, but what is the difference?, and do British children really understand while at school, the challenges they will face later in work; what different jobs deliver, in a standard of living? somehow I doubt it.

    How are the exceptionally bright best schooled? what motivates boys who are hands on or visual learners?, maybe through variety and complex hands on projects which teach at the same time, with motivators, here’s ‘only’ one 19thC example. Thomas Edison (founded the General Electric Company, invented the electrical lightbulb, commercially viable telephone and motion pictures amongst others). Edison was actually home schooled in reading and religion, (had about 3 months formal education), he was just given 10c every time he finished reading a classic as a motivation. Joined a public library and went thought it, (by the age of about 12 he was working for himself, and a few years later had set up his own mini newspaper business). The only real specialisation in education was when his parents hired a home tutor because they couldn’t answer his questions about physics.

    • Further thought, if more girls than boys are going to go through academia, where are the jobs for them, (employment areas for women traditionally in certain areas including HR and marketing), and a system, which will enable them to take a short career break to have children, and then work part time in ‘good quality’ jobs (like the Netherlands), so that children can spend more time with their parents, better for the children? .

      • 47% of “graduates” are in non-graduate employment.

        If you create a £9000 per year incentive for Oxford Brookes University to create courses for morons to study in Swindon then don’t be surprised that they take full advantage of it.

        It was a Labour policy, therefore corrupt and moronic by definition.

Comments are closed.