Mathematics – The Final Frontier In The Feminist War Against Boys

By Philip Jones

Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it’s kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, ” Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests”.

This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking “What is the `Femi` Brigade’s` Endgame” ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?

Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let’s examine this business with maths and education more closely. As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.

In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.

For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject.

They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.

Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.

The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and – increasingly – degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.

Boys tend to like ‘sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.

Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ‘soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.

The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.

Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.

It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected.

The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Miseducation of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.

The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ‘sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.

During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.

But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects – it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.

Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking – and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.

This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.

In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.

Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and uncool. And being feminine is their deepest dread.

This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.

But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.

Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers – taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.

Read the rest (and part two) here.

5 thoughts on “Mathematics – The Final Frontier In The Feminist War Against Boys

  1. If you claim that boys are now being unfairly discriminated against, you need to do a better job. The alone proof that girls get better grades and go to college more often than boys. What you people seem to ignore is that girls have always gotten better grades than boys — in the heyday of male dominance AND in the current era. The difference between now and 50 years ago is that 50 years ago girls’ grades would fall when they reached puberty.

    What probably caused girls to do poorly once they reached puberty was the knowledge that boys didn’t like smart girls. It was even explicitly taught to girls: don’t be smart or the boys won’t like you. Your thesis is based entirely on the fact that girls do better in school. So the assumption is that there is something wrong with our society’s treatment of boys because they are doing worse. But here’s another explanation: ADOLESCENT GIRLS ARE DOING BETTER THAN BOYS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY ARE FINALLY REACHING THEIR FULL ACADEMIC POTENTIAL, NOT BECAUSE BOYS ARE SUDDENLY DOING WORSE IN SCHOOL.

    If you are not satisfied with this, that could be a good research topic. But there’s no reason to think that it has anything to do with feminism, since this difference was there way before feminism arose.

    And my question to you is in another arena. Are the girls who get better grades actually earning more money when they pass out? If not, then all they got from their years of study a bunch of student loans and lost years in which they didn’t get any job experience.

    Overall I think kids are getting smarter, and that goes for boys as well as girls.

  2. I remember reading that post of yours FWO. Thanks for the comment. Anyone who looks into this and doesn’t see the feminist (misandric) agenda is an idiot.

    Of course, dumbing down the males (the only real obstacle to tyranny) just so happens to fit in neatly with the (male) banker funded ideology of hate and death.

    Funny that.

  3. Irlandes is correct. I wrote about this in my post “Another Super Bowl Sunday Myth” on my blog:

    “As Hyde and her colleagues looked across the test data, they found something they didn’t expect: In most states they reviewed, and at most grade levels, there weren’t any questions that involved complex problem-solving, the ability needed to succeed in high levels of science and math. If tests don’t assess these reasoning skills, they may not be taught, putting American students at a disadvantage to students in other countries with more challenging tests, the researchers said.”

    In other words, they admit that the tests have been dumbed down so that girls can score as high as boys. Their own article debunks the very myth that they are trying to perpetuate.


  4. I want to say loudly and clearly I don’t know much about this study. But, I did read something recently which stated the study used math tests which completely eliminated hard problem solving, which is where males triumph.

    In other words, as always, if true, the deck was stacked to cause the desired result. And, boys still have greater natural talent in math.

  5. Thanks to the suffragettes, women now have choices!

    But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

    Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.

    “The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

    Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

    There is a ton of heartache, and a lot of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.

    Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes history fast and FUN!

    Each exciting episode is a about 10 minutes – perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

    Subscribe free at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s