Further feminisation of education?

While this move is welcome, it made me realise how much was missing from even the basic aspects of sex education, which I was taught not that long ago (I’m now 21) in my all-girls school.

Despite the programme of study being titled sex and relationships and education, there was little guidance on forming healthy relationships – including the ideas of support, commitment and mutual respect. When relationships were discussed, they were treated in a clinical manner – as little more than sex.

Entirely true, relationships are important. Also entirely true, sex is great fun.

But it is also true, on average and across the people, that male and female attitudes to sex are slightly different. There are indeed women to whom a shag is just a shag, men to whom nothing without true love is even remotely enjoyable or even possible. But that ain’t the way to bet now, is it?

To then insist that sex education should be about relationships is to do what we did with exams and coursework, feminise education to a point.

This may or may not be a good idea but that is what the idea is.

37 comments on “Further feminisation of education?

  1. My car mechanics evening classes were all about changing the oil filter and adjusting the tappets. No discussion at all of the lovely country drives and the jolly day-trips to the coast it could take me on.

  2. The idea of trusting TEACHERS, of all people, to tell children ANYTHING about social and interpersonal behaviour is both insane and abhorrent. Barring politicians, there is no more politicised group than teachers.

  3. wat is entirely correct.

    The state is–in this country under the FFC’s BluLabour remit to help CM wherever it can– is doing a piss poor job already with just the stick-it-in etc mechanics. As with 6 year olds pestered with knowledge of all manner of goings on that most of them might hopefully never need to know or care about their entire lives.

    If emotional advice is next only shudders remain when thinking about what femmi-marxist dreck the state will attempt to instil.

  4. I don’t know why these people keep insisting on the state doing all this.

    I’m 50-50 on whether sex-ed should even be in the state’s curriculum in the first place but if it is it should be bare-bones ‘tab-a-into-slot-b’, this is how pregnancy works, what STD’s are (and how to avoid them), and ‘this is a condom and the pill’.

    Relationships, butt stuff, the more complicated forms of human sexuality and gender should simply be left to the family responsibility – yes, even if they choose to punt and/or provide bad info.

  5. This message has been pushed for some time now – always sex and relationship education. Nearly always a female pushing it too.
    Heard on the radio the other day how 5yr olds should be getting sex ed. with lessons concentrating on consent! Delivered by some charity or outside quango, not teachers. Ostensibly cos the kids are embarrassed with their teachers talking about sex, but could easily be a way to ensure the ‘proper’ things are taught. Oh, and it would be compulsory in all schools, state run or otherwise.

  6. You need to be told how to use your emotions?

    You want someone to tell you how to feel?

    Sorry, luv, Gene Roddenberry beat you to it by 50 years.

  7. @ Jimmers

    I’d like to see that happen in some of the RoPer schools. A quick accusation of racism (it’s against their religion to educate girls) and it’ll stop. That’s assuming they ever dared in the first place.

  8. Agammamon

    Your advice is precisely the reason why the Cultural Left has waged unrelenting war on the traditional nuclear family model for the better part of 5 decades….

  9. Tim

    And the feminisation of education has had huge consequences, including the complete collapse of discipline and standards and a generation of snowflake morons who chant ‘Oh,Jeremy Corbyn’ as the country hurtles on the road to Pyongyang. Ecks has the right idea- it needs to be stopped and reversed…..

  10. Mmm. Well, yes. The masculine ideal is that the alpha guy screws lots of women and abandons them to raise kids as single mothers, while he spends all his days down the boozer or on the sports pitch. Or if he generously deigns to visit his family – perhaps he likes all his cooking and cleaning and washing and ironing to be done for him – then it’s as a reigning monarch from his comfortable throne by the fire, with a beer in one hand and the TV remote in the other, and no back-talk from the woman or she’ll get a beating.

    Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
    [Al Qur’aan, Surah 4 (Surah an Nisah), ayah 34.]

    But when alpha bloke creates all these hundreds of fatherless children on benefits, the taxpayer gets stuck paying for their upbringing instead. Some people think that’s something to be avoided, and tell the politicians so – maybe that’s why the government are so interested in this?

    “Heard on the radio the other day how 5yr olds should be getting sex ed. with lessons concentrating on consent!”

    You don’t think consent is important?

  11. NiV

    Oddly I think what you describe is a disgrace, whether perpetrated by a RoP adherent or anyone else (Don’t imagine many genuine Muslims have a beer in hand but each to their own) – however, do you really think being lectured by an overwhelmingly female teacher population on relationships at school is going to counteract the tendencies you describe?

  12. Penis NV

    As Joni Mitchell used to sing: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”.

  13. Or, TMB, as Hegel put it: “the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk”

  14. I’m 50-50 on whether sex-ed should even be in the state’s curriculum in the first place but if it is it should be bare-bones ‘tab-a-into-slot-b’, this is how pregnancy works, what STD’s are (and how to avoid them), and ‘this is a condom and the pill’.

    I’d favour removing “sex education” from the state curriculum completely. All the necessary information is widely available on the web, so today’s teenagers don’t need to have embarrassing lectures from teachers or parents. Men and women have been forming mutually rewarding relationships for time immemorial, so ‘relationship education’ is unnecessary, too.

    As for consent, a woman consents when she opens her legs without the threat of violence or having been drugged. Given how difficult it is for consenting adults to insert an erect penis into a wet vagina, and how vulnerable an erect penis is if thrust into a dry vagina, I am deeply sceptical about most reports of rape, unless violence or involuntary drugging are involved. Real rape is rare, which is why the feminazis have relentlessly focused on broadening its definition. They will not rest until every man is a psychologically emasculated soyboy, and feminized ‘sex and relationship education’ is part of the plan.

  15. “But when alpha bloke creates all these hundreds of fatherless children on benefits, the taxpayer gets stuck paying for their upbringing instead.”

    The taxpayer isn’t stuck. The government chooses to give benefits; the taxpayer chooses the government.

    Government = Enablers

    The illegitimate birth rate among U.S. blacks was 23.6% in 1965. It is now 72%. The black family has collapsed thanks to the government giving benefits.

    The Left’s solution? Give MORE benefits!

  16. “Oddly I think what you describe is a disgrace, whether perpetrated by a RoP adherent or anyone else (Don’t imagine many genuine Muslims have a beer in hand but each to their own)”

    It used to be how our culture worked. It still is how Islamic culture works. It’s what we’re really talking about when we refer to the “masculine” culture that cultural feminisation has changed.

    Kids get dropped into this social and legal minefield without a map. Boys, in particular, are especially lost. Their parents are frequently unhelpful – either too embarrassed to talk about it, or with maps that are 30 years out of date, or radically at variance with the law and modern society. Children need to learn what the rules are, when they can be bent, and when they can’t, and how to get to where they want to go without doing something stupid or over-the-line that winds up wrecking the rest of their lives.

    Whether teachers and governments do a good job of that is a different matter, but I don’t think there can be any doubt that kids need education in this area. It’s getting very complicated.

    “Not for five year olds.”

    So when “Uncle Bison” gives 5-year old Katy her “secret special hugs” and tells her not to tell her parents, she doesn’t need to know that lack of consent matters? When the fourteen year old school bully invites her round the back of the bike sheds to play ‘doctors’, consent doesn’t matter? When she’s told she’s flying out next week to Pakistan to marry her older cousin?

    She needs to know not because at five it’s something she’s expected to be doing, but because at five she becomes a target.

    Kids need to know about stuff *before* it becomes an issue, and their moral matrix is set very early. As the Jesuits said, “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man.” If you learn the principle of informed consent early on, it becomes a part of “how it is”, rather than an abstract principle that has to be learned (often badly). and consent as a concept is thoroughly libertarian. The problem is elsewhere.

  17. “The taxpayer isn’t stuck. The government chooses to give benefits; the taxpayer chooses the government. “

    True. It doesn’t stop voters complaining, though.

    “The illegitimate birth rate among U.S. blacks was 23.6% in 1965. It is now 72%. The black family has collapsed thanks to the government giving benefits. The Left’s solution? Give MORE benefits!”

    But what do you think society should do instead? Teach black kids about the need for responsible parenting?

    “Men and women have been forming mutually rewarding relationships for time immemorial, so ‘relationship education’ is unnecessary, too. As for consent, a woman consents when she opens her legs without the threat of violence or having been drugged.”

    Brilliant! I can see you’ve got the idea…

  18. So when “Uncle Bison” gives 5-year old Katy her “secret special hugs”

    🙂
    That’s not a secret special hug – that’s to comfort the child traumatised by Auntie Penis, her deep voice and her kisses which are so bristly in the afternoon.

  19. “This may or may not be a good idea ”

    I think we have enough evidence now to say that it’s an extremely bad idea.

  20. “But what do you think society should do instead? Teach black kids about the need for responsible parenting?”

    Stop subsidising deviant behaviour?

    “Brilliant! I can see you’ve got the idea…”

    You, however, would probably prefer a state-sanctioned, ideologically-driven, gender-bending, feminist-friendly and anti-family definition of ‘consent’ that implants the notion that all ‘unreconstructed’ men are sexual predators and that gives every neurotic woman the opportunity to claim she was raped because her ‘consent’ was no more than grunted.

    As for children, consent is learned at home and in the family. I have had a daughter. She started to learn about consent by being asked in the bath to wash her “private parts”….

  21. These ‘children’ are on the web most of the time, do you think they will listen to a stuffy teacher?

    What will 1 hour a week do against hours of online time being told something different?

    What does the music they listen tell them about consent?

  22. @ NiV
    Do you know any alpha guys? I do, lots of them
    We raise our kids in monogamous families.
    The gamma/delta guys screw gamma/delta women and leave them to raise kids supported by the state.
    Sure, we could screw lots of beta/.gamma women, but most of us have better things to do.

  23. “Stop subsidising deviant behaviour?”

    Doesnt work. The fathers carry on as before, and the kids suffer. The people making the decisions are different from those paying the price. That’s the problem the welfare was introduced to solve in the first place.

    “You, however, would probably prefer a state-sanctioned, ideologically-driven, gender-bending, feminist-friendly and anti-family definition of ‘consent’ that implants the notion that all ‘unreconstructed’ men are sexual predators and that gives every neurotic woman the opportunity to claim she was raped because her ‘consent’ was no more than grunted.”

    Nope. This is the usual crap of assuming anyone who disagrees with your approach is the enemy.

    As I keep saying, the authoritarian left don’t give a toss about the poor, women, the disabled, blacks, gays, Muslims, or any of the other groups they hide behind. (As demonstrated by their utter indifference to Muslims doing all the same things they complain about elsewhere, and indeed their own history.) Their idea is to find groups for which there is growing public sympathy, but which less intelligent conservatives can be relied upon to oppose, use that to portray the right wing as bigoted oppressors of helpless minorities, and thereby justify an authoritarian crackdown on the right.

    And the idiot right fall into the trap every single time.

    They expend huge efforts fighting against the poor, the women, the blacks, the gays, whatever – desperately trying to maintain the unpopular authoritarian traditions of the previous generation – and thereby prove to any neutral bystanders that the left are absolutely correct about the right, and their crackdown on those savages fully justified. The big problem with that being that it’s everybody else’s freedoms that you’re making it possible for them to take away, too.

    I’m a libertarian. That means I’m all in favour of informed consent, and freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and enabling people to do whatever the hell they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, even if we disapprove, disagree, or dislike it. That means you, and that also means all those groups the left hides behind. And my hope would be that the libertarian right could demonstrate that the right wing can be pro-liberty too, that they’re not all the hateful bigots the left make them out to be, and that if any of those persecuted minorities want to turn to the right instead, they’d be welcomed. The idea being to remove the left’s justifications for taking away everybody’s liberties.

    So no, I don’t like state-sanctioned rules and regulations. I oppose the left’s ideology. I consider gender-bending as one of those matters for people’s freedom to do whatever the hell they like so long as it harms nobody else. I approve of the equal rights sort of feminist but oppose the women’s rights man-hating type. I’ve got no problem with traditional families, but don’t think it should be compulsory. And I oppose absolutely the notion that all ‘unreconstructed’ men are sexual predators – which is why it’s seriously fucking unhelpful when people say things like: “As for consent, a woman consents when she opens her legs without the threat of violence or having been drugged.” I can’t think of any more effective way to implant that particular notion!

    “As for children, consent is learned at home and in the family.”

    *Some* homes. *Some* families.

    There are a significant number of parents who don’t understand these issues themselves. (As you lot demonstrate.) Worse, there are others who don’t *want* their kids to understand they can say ‘no’. And the same principle applies to lots of other knowledge. A lot of parents teach their children arithmetic – but you still have to sit through lessons on it at school.

    “Do you know any alpha guys? I do, lots of them
    We raise our kids in monogamous families.”

    Those aren’t alpha males. Monogamy is a feminine concept.

  24. NiV – “The masculine ideal is that the alpha guy screws lots of women and abandons them to raise kids as single mothers, while he spends all his days down the boozer or on the sports pitch.”

    Sorry but where is this masculine ideal being expressed precisely? To take the obvious example – James Bond screws a lot of women. Very masculine. How many children has he had? I would think that having children plays virtually no role whatsoever in masculine ideals. It is very big in female literature though. Where taming the Alpha Male and having his children is pretty much the Alpha (ha!) and Omega of anything women write about.

    “But when alpha bloke creates all these hundreds of fatherless children on benefits, the taxpayer gets stuck paying for their upbringing instead.”

    Indeed. But a more accurate way of describing that would be that when women fail to trap the Alpha of their dreams with a child, they turn to the tax payer instead. We are not subsidising the life style of Alpha males. We are subsidising the life choices of the women who want to have children but not a husband.

    “Those aren’t alpha males. Monogamy is a feminine concept.”

    No, monogamy is a Christian concept. It is not a masculine one which is obvious. But it is not a female one either.

  25. NiV: “persecuted minorities”

    WTF are you talking about?

    SMfS: “No, monogamy is a Christian concept.”

    Wuh?

  26. NIV: “Mmm. Well, yes. The masculine ideal is that the alpha guy screws lots of women and abandons them to raise kids as single mothers, while he spends all his days down the boozer or on the sports pitch. Or if he generously deigns to visit his family – perhaps he likes all his cooking and cleaning and washing and ironing to be done for him – then it’s as a reigning monarch from his comfortable throne by the fire, with a beer in one hand and the TV remote in the other, and no back-talk from the woman or she’ll get a beating.”

    What you describe is not alpha male behaviour. Weak men usually make this mistake because they are projecting. Sure many losers would do this kind of thing if they had the opportunity, and that is part of the reason they are not and will never be alpha.

    What early sex and relationship education is targeted at is the family unit that functions appropriately and does all of this properly. By introducing broken cultural Marxist thinking at a very young age they break the chain of family teaching which has existed forever and replace it with something not fit to survive into the future within the family, and so break the family.

  27. Gamecock – “Wuh?”

    No one else on the planet is interested in monogamy. The idea of a faithful, life-long single partner appears to be unique to the Christian world. Or pretty much close to it.

  28. “What you describe is not alpha male behaviour. Weak men usually make this mistake because they are projecting. Sure many losers would do this kind of thing if they had the opportunity, and that is part of the reason they are not and will never be alpha.”

    The term “alpha male” is derived from the observation of animal behaviour. The strongest male mates with a group of females (and protects them) and the other males get nothing. Most human societies don’t have alpha males at all; humans are, as you say, generally monogamous. But the alpha male behaviour inherited from our pre-human ancestors is still part of the mix, and it sometimes comes out when opportunity arises.

    The Sultan Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif “the bloodthirsty” of the Moroccan Alaouite dynasty is alleged to have fathered 867 children, (525 sons and 342 daughters, suggesting a bit of selective infanticide was going on). He led an army against the Ottomans, on one occasion decorating the walls of his city with the heads of 10,000 slain enemies. Definitely not weak.

    Sexual relationships exist somewhere on the spectrum between male and female ideals – constrained as they are by both the economics of the situation and the negotiation between partners. When the male has all the power, and the economic resources to do so, the result is closer to the male end of that spectrum. Hence Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif. (Or Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, or Silvio Berlusconi…) But males do it even without the power of a sultan, and philandering men fathering many children by serial girlfriends, often several at once, and then abandoning them is a common pattern in human societies, and is very obviously based on the alpha male animal behaviour.

    In our modern, feminised society, we don’t consider that as good behaviour, and we tell our boys that it’s not an indication of strength. From a wider social and economic perspective, it’s certainly arguable that it’s not. But that’s only because we as a society don’t consider the epitome of masculine behaviour to be good/strong, which is what this argument is about.

    The question is simply how far along the spectrum do we go? Have we gone too far towards the feminine end? The ideal is probably somewhere in the middle – not at *either* extreme.

  29. NiV – “Most human societies don’t have alpha males at all; humans are, as you say, generally monogamous.”

    Don’t be daft. Every human society has an alpha male. They may be socially constrained from mating with all the females, but they are still clearly the dominant males and often accepted as such. In fact British Army officer recruitment improved massively when they stopped trying to impose men who looked right on paper and held leaderless trials to find out who was really Alpha and promote those.

    “But males do it even without the power of a sultan, and philandering men fathering many children by serial girlfriends, often several at once, and then abandoning them is a common pattern in human societies, and is very obviously based on the alpha male animal behaviour.”

    The philandering might be. But the abandonment? That may or may not be. Depends. I notice you exclude all female agency from that. The Moroccan Sultan is at one end of male behaviour – and he abandoned none of his children – because he did not have to consider what women want. But Bill Clinton did. He was famously attractive to women even when it was obvious what sort of man he is. Even today. So that is not one end of the spectrum. That is one Alpha male meeting the expectations and desires of a great many women.

    “In our modern, feminised society, we don’t consider that as good behaviour, and we tell our boys that it’s not an indication of strength.”

    No, feminists are fine with the zipless f*ck to coin a phrase. The Christians are the people who object to men getting women pregnant and then running. Or more specifically the Christians of northern Europe. Italians a little less so. Feminists are only concerned about consent. If the two consent to sex, that is all for the good. Except for the feminists who just hate all men on principle.

  30. SMFS “No one else on the planet is interested in monogamy. The idea of a faithful, life-long single partner appears to be unique to the Christian world. Or pretty much close to it.”

    European pagans were monogamous. It may be a Christian idea, but it is an earlier European idea first.

  31. NIV “The term “alpha male” is derived from the observation of animal behaviour. The strongest male mates with a group of females (and protects them) and the other males get nothing. Most human societies don’t have alpha males at all; humans are, as you say, generally monogamous. But the alpha male behaviour inherited from our pre-human ancestors is still part of the mix, and it sometimes comes out when opportunity arises.”

    Humans are not animals that function in this way. Humans (at least European humans) are investors in tribe, family and children. They are not abandoners.

    Of course European human groups have alpha males- those are the males that are natural leaders in groups of other males and those males which high ranking (intelligent and attractive) females wish to have father an protect their children. Alpha males in European human society are those males most able and willing to provide for and protect their children, because in that society it ensures most reproductive success.

    Regarding the Sultan of wherever an how many wives and children- this is not European society but you will notice that he protects and provides for his wives and children, very different to the picture you provided of the feckless male in your previous post which via projection you portray as an alpha. But of course middle eastern ways are not European ways and the definition of alpha in that society is different.

  32. “Doesnt work. The fathers carry on as before, and the kids suffer.”

    What you have forgotten is that women are the gatekeepers to sex occurring (unless they are raped of course). So of course men wouldn’t want to behave any differently if single mothers no longer received State benefits, they’d still want to shag anything that moved.

    What would change is the number of women prepared to open their legs (or do so without some pretty decent contraception) for them. Women would go back to demanding sex with men who were prepared to hang around and pay for their offspring, and some cast iron guarantees (like marriage first) rather than a quick bunk up with any old alpha male wannabe and fall back on the State when he fucks off (which he always does).

    If you want to change sexual behaviour, aim your incentives at women. Then things will change. You’d have to get pretty draconian on men before they stopped thinking with their lower brains.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.