The only problem with gender I had when I was seven was with French nouns and how to master their rules.

Who’d have thought that today’s little girls would be at the mercy of a very different gender orthodoxy? According to the head of the Girl Guides, who now speaks on their behalf, they are ‘boxed in by gender stereotyping’.

It’s a disgrace, and clearly referring to them as la or elle in French lessons is no longer on.

Her girl guiding poll (I would just love to see the questions she devised to elicit the so-right-on replies it got), the ever-accommodating Guardian reported yesterday, found Britain’s oppressed girls lack the confidence to speak freely. Not because they were shoved into childcare at six months, or because Mum and Dad broke up before they were two, or for any other likely psychological reason, but because of their gender. What’s more they complained gender stereotyping (as girls presumably) affected what they wore and impacted on their participation at school.

Funny, I’ve not noticed girls, ante or post feminism, reluctant to mouth off, wear what they want (from hot pants to hippie, from Gothic to grunge) or be backward in coming forward when it comes to school.

I’m pretty sure they’ve already shoved the boys to the side of the proverbial playing field and out-compete them at every stage of education.

With the Guardian onside, the Guides’ uber-feminist ‘bebodyconfident’ leaders can be free with fake news.

Nor do they have to worry about too much kick-back from the Boy Scouts. There leader is one Ms Ann Limb and she is on a gender mission of her own – to increase the number of girls in the Scouts.


  1. God has made us men and women, boys and girls; not something neutral whereby we may attempt to change our sex, and fail to do so, and instead do physical damage to ourselves in the process; and psychological damage too.

    Once again the sin and abomination of man is turning our society into a parody of civilization. The Church, especially, has failed in its role to call men to repentance and to sanity; and the folks who suffer most are the children. I must blame the two Archbishops for this especially.

    Child protection is not about a career path on big salaries hunting for jobs, or rather non-jobs, in the public sector; it is about returning to the obvious truths of reality: namely that we are men and women, boys and girls – and that none of us should be held hostage to some idiots who have their own problems, which, however, should be dealt with discreetly and in private, not in public.

  2. Soon – if not now – boys will have no space of their own and no male role models. The scouts admit girls and are led by a woman; children brought up in fatherless homes are farmed out to childcare (usually women) and then taught mostly by women. During childhood and adolescence they’ll be told that their masculinity is an optional added extra. In the unlikely event they ever go to church, it’s likely that the service will be conducted by a woman.

    All this revenge for ‘male patriarchy’. And then people wonder why a growing number of young men find uber-patriarchal Islam, with boundaries between male and female far stronger than those our own culture abandoned, attractive and convert.

    • In Teddington the scout groups do indeed go to churches where the overwhelming likelihood is of a woman leading the service.

      One question, do the guides admit boys (In the unlikely situation that a boy would want to join)?

        • Neither can I. They aren’t allowed to anything interesting, like getting lost on a 20 mile hike, or camping in real tents without loos and showers and all that stuff, or building a raft and floating on it down a major river towards a weir, or taking on a herd of bullocks that objected to our presence, or, or, or…..

          • Blame the lawyers. Yes it’s all safer/supervised, but it’s still more interesting than sitting on backsides at home.

          • The Scouts who used to be involved with our congregation (before their lack of interest in God, and our lack of interest in the promulgating of homosexuality and other things that they now do parted them from us) do exciting things such as stand in a circle throwing a soft ball to one another. Wow. I mean, wow. Really worth paying a fortune for uniform and subs.

            Our church youth group (when we had one, 5 years ago, before the locals pretty much dissed God altogether) used to go to Bushy Park and play wide games, football, and all sorts of things. The scouts *could* still be doing things like that, they choose not to. Pointless.

          • It becomes less adventurous over the winter, but here: fires, knives/whittling/boys-stabbing-themselves, archery, shooting, ‘pioneering’, night hikes, weekend & summer camp (week) events. They’ve had ‘survival’ nights sleeping in hammocks slung from trees etc. done assault courses, built rafts, canoeed, rock-climbed, gorge-scrambled, gone on hiking ‘expeditions’ (with leaders lurking at a fair distance) etc. No weirs and often close to outdoor activity centres with dodgy showers/loos, but it’s good stuff.

          • We may be forced to build a wall around London.

            I think the bigger threat is modern parenting. The girls like my daughter explicitly chose the derring-do and are quite committed, going to most weekend and holiday events. But we rarely see half of the boys beyond the weekly 90 mins at the Scout hut.

            My view is that the Scout leaders are volunteers working quite hard to lay on the extras (where all the best fun happens) and there is a duty to support them. If enough parents don’t make the effort to get up at the crack of dawn to deliver/collect kids from somewhere very muddy, or go make polite conversation at the annual barbecues, then it all dies. Quite a lot of parents don’t appear to think like me these days i.e. seem to treat it as just another slot-filler in their child’s term-time schedule.

          • Ours have been known (and still do) build dogsleds and race them (sometimes pulling them themselves) sled dogs are kind of rare in these parts. But it’s been awhile since I’ve seen a Boy Scout knife or axe, except of course on E-Bay

          • ooooh, the very concept of a “boy” scout is so judgmental, you bigot, gender stereotypist, boxed-in, anti-bebodyconfident, !!!

            Or … Is it ???!!??!?

    • “And then people wonder why a growing number of young men find uber-patriarchal Islam, with boundaries between male and female far stronger and more punitive than those our own culture abandoned, attractive and convert.”

      This is one of two extremes. The other is voluntary isolation from women, i.e. MGTOW. Neither are healthy.

      As a man who called himself a feminist for 30 years but, for a good while now, no longer, I despair at the self-obsessed daughters of the women I admired in those difficult days. They now alienate the very people whose support they ought to value. The fools.

    • It is a curiosity that as women push their way into formerly “men only” fields the only men pushing their way into female fields seem to be transgender and bitterly resisted.

      Privilege won’t be replaced by an “equality” that is nothing more than a swapping of privilege but our stupid politicians and “leaders” don’t seem able to grasp that. Hence we have idiocies like the “Women and Equalities Committee”.

  3. Not sure I dare show that Guardian article to 14-year-old daughter because I’m certain she’ll ‘go ballistic’ and her well-rehearsed hit-by-express-train argument will be that it’s incredibly patronising to girls. One of the phrases last time was “why do they think we’re so weak that we need..”

    Perhaps it’s just here, but I think this is missing a trick. She goes to still quite traditional Scouts with a long-standing bunch of girl-friends who want and expects no favours, beyond girl-only tents etc. They’re actually learning to respect the reality of biological differences between the sexes first hand e.g. on average boys are stronger than the girls, but you can’t use that fact to judge at an individual level etc. I think it’s *much* better for both sexes than having them in silos like Guides whining about gender-oppression.

    Some of her comments this year:

    “Boys are easier, they’ll just talk to you and crack a joke or something.. girls are erm.. complicated.. so jugmental! Competitive! It can take weeks before they’ll say anything to you”

    “Everything is easier for girls. We can just so stuff. I feel sorry for boys”

    “I’m NEVER watching it again?!? Why do they have to change everything?!? Why do they think we’re so weak that we just can’t cope without a woman as a role model?!? [Dr Who]

  4. BBC R4 Today so called “Sport News” reported calls that the coach of the England Women’s soccer team should be a woman. Without challenge of course.

    • This business about the sacking of that chap whose name I can’t remember is particularly unedifying. The FA should be ashamed, as should the Telegraph (from whom I heard the story). It struck me as Orwellian.

    • The one before last was a woman. She did nowhere near as well as the man who followed her did with the same set of players.

  5. Let me give you a real proven example of subconscious gender bias.
    When the English test papers of primary school kids are marked independently in gender blind conditions the attainment gap of boys improves by a third. This is a fact backed by good academic research.
    Junior school teachers (90% women) mark boys more harshly. They have a preconceived belief that boys do worse at English. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. It is also believed that many carry a bias against boys who are often worse behaved in their female centred learning environments.

    • That’s a jaw-dropping claim to make. Any chance you can point me in the direction of the research? I don’t disbelieve you, I’d just like to beat my liberal friends over the head with something they can’t deny.

        • The link’s perfect, many thanks.

          I wish I still lived on Planet
          Earth… This really is a conspiracy of the stupid, the gullible, the
          arrogant, the over-ambitious and… well now I’ve started to splutter, better go and lie down. Kudos to the local Cornish paper for publishing it.

          • Back again! I believe that there is similar research on this theme from other western countries. As you will know the under-performance of boys is a phenomena which covers the entire west.
            For me it is not that the research itself is astounding. When you think about it, sub conscious bias is incredibly common in human beings. We all enjoy ‘conformation bias’ to a greater or lessor extent. The real news would actually be if there were no bias, especially in a profession which is 90% of one gender coming from 90% from one strata of society.. ( lets be frank they are almost all middle class).

            The real shocker here is how the establishment and MSM completely ignore this and any other research which stands up for boys. It runs so completely against their prevailing narrative. Accepting it is profoundly scary for them.

          • Well yes, exactly. I could forgive it if it was a genuine accident but, as you say, we know about confirmational bias. Yet it’s being willfully overlooked! This is criminal. It has effects which echo down the decades of the lives of half the population. Test papers should be anonimised immediately. Sigh… I’m so naive.

      • Just ask them why, if it’s all social construction and there are no differences between sexes, they’re not obviously concerned about the very significant ‘gender-gap’ in English GCSE outcomes. etc. That all we hear about is girls and STEM.

    • Long ago, in the days of the 11+, in one part of the country it was found that considerably more girls than boys were passing into the local Grammar Schools. The marking (based on an IQ paper and teachers’ assessments of their ability – about equal weight to each) was therefore changed. Boys were given a slightly lower pass mark than the girls to make the numbers passing into Grammar Schools approximately equal. This seemed logical, as girls at that age are more mature than boys, both mentally and physically. But by the time they took O-Levels, the results for boys and girls were about equal – the boys had caught up.

    • Preconceived ideas like that are very common, I find, even, perhaps especially, among those who pride themselves on their lack of prejudice.

  6. Of course there are girls who lack confidence, same as there are shy, reticent boys – that’s just the spectrum of human personality. But the notion that today’s girls and young women are being systematically conditioned into being mice, scared to speak and dominated by hordes of overly-assertive, self-assured young males, is risible, completely at odds with both our own observations and the objective evidence that the major concerns are now to be found amongst boys.

    As the writer points out, it is unarguable that girls now overwhelmingly outperform boys throughout their educations and in general are emerging much better prepared for adult life. Yet still the likes of the linked Guardian article routinely appear, underpinned by biased surveys from which partisan conclusions are presented as unassailable truths.

    Faced with a loaded question such as, “Do you think the advertising industry should make sure adverts show more positive, diverse representation of your sex?”, with which 95% are supposed to have agreed, it’s a wonder as many as 5% apparently took the opposite view (“No, actually I would prefer that adverts were more negative and conformist.”). Yet this sort of rhetorical tosh masquerades as serious research.

    • Agree with everything you say. It is indeed ludicrous to suggest that girls are being in some way coerced or conditioned into stereotypical roles that they don’t want and that don’t suit them. And who is supposed to be doing this stereotyping anyway? The patriarchy – in the form of fathers who are not there and male primary school teachers who are even more absent? The advertising industry that dare not portray any female as anything other than cool, competent and in control, but who have spent decades trashing men as useless and idiotic? The media who are standard bearers for every PC idea that surfaces, and employ endless numbers of twittering feminist writers and presenters?The government that throw taxpayers money at programmes to promote girls over boys at every turn?

      If you want to know what negative stereotyping is really like, try being the sex that is constantly being told that it is intrinsically “toxic” (do girls ever hear anyone saying that about them?) and is responsible for every war, even when they are just children.

      So what is it about the female sex, that it must always believe it is a victim, no matter what the circumstances? Well, I can answer my own question from long observation and experience. Far too many women embrace victimhood because it pays. Big time. There is nothing like whining about being discriminated against, to get the white knight mentality of the male sex stirred into overdrive to come riding to the rescue, giving you everything you demand and more. It has worked a treat in politics, in education, in healthcare, in sport and in business. It is lunacy, as the heading of this article attests. And it is getting utterly tiresome. One day, the female sex will cry wolf once too often, and no male will come running. Of course that will all be our fault again, but the shaming tactic will have run its course and nobody will care any more.

      • > One day, the female sex will cry wolf once too often, and no male will come running.

        Because there would be no males. Men do not grow on trees, they have to mature from boys, and this requires at the very least achieving independence from female authority (originally from one’s mother, but now, with the ongoing feminisation of society, I am not even sure. From the state?)

        If you fail to raise your boys into men – you girls will have no men to marry to, you will have no grandchildren and no one to cover your healthcare and state-provided services later in life.

        Isn’t that what happens?

        • The American Franciscan, Richard Rohr, has written several books about the transition of boys into men. In traditional societies, boys often had a transitional event – e.g. teenage boys were sent off into the wilderness to fend for themselves for a time; when they returned they were taught to become men by elder men, and became treated as men. This was necessary as children, boys and girls, are mainly brought up by their mother. Boys have to learn to break away from their mother, in a sense, to become men. Girls do not have to do this in the same way, as they learn to become women more gradually from their mothers. This does not happen in modern societies (national service was in a kind of way a substitute). Often, with no father-figure, many boys/young men can run wild, forming anti-social gangs. With the increase in fatherless families, this is likely to become worse.

  7. whine, whine, whine …

    Meanwhile, back in reality, boys are not girls nor vice-versa, nor are these “interchangeable” “gender” “roles”, but a hard biological differenciation.

  8. This is, of course, just another example of a patently ‘false premise’ type of argument, which in this case is so obviously being employed for the purpose of “justifying” yet more favourable treatment for girls vis-a-vis boys.

    Do those who employ this kind of argument (and its relative, the ‘straw man’ argument), not realize that there are some of us who are able to see through what they’re up to?

  9. The most ardent feminists are adolescent and young adult females who are not married and do not have children and they are strongly represented in the academy, the media and left wing politics where they make a lot of noise. I doubt whether many mothers of children or either sex believe that a special effort is still needed to encourage girls to succeed at school, university or at work. Why we should listen to women who do not have children rather than those who do when judging how children fare in real life, rather than through the lens of ideology, is something that’s obvious, as is so much else, only to the Guardian and its readers. There probably isn’t a mother of sons in the country who goes along with this claptrap. Nowadays, most of them will themselves be ex-feminists of some kind who have grown up.

Comments are closed.