But for an "education expert" to be unaware of these facts is a serious failing.

This was not an "education expert," but a Culture War propagandist. We need to learn to tell the difference. And to stop calling their propaganda "science."

I've watched over the past three decades or so as the public schools in the U.S. have systematically removed from their premises everything that might interest or hold the attention of boys. Few elementary schools have recess anymore, and as the boys get into junior high and high school, they find that (unless they are varsity players in a revenue sport) their access to physical fitness activities or facilities is sharply restricted. Classroom demonstrations have been eliminated and labs are either gone or so watered down that the activities are pretty much meaningless. Anything resembling individual or unstructured learning time is gone. Boys get forced into group learning situations that are no-win situations: if the boy works hard to make the group succeed, the entire group gets the credit, but if they don't and the group fails, they take the blame individually.

All boy role models are gone from the schools. Traditional heroes of Western culture, and the things that they accomplished, are now denigrated; the only thing pupils learn about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson is that they owned slaves. Women of mostly minimal accomplishment are held out as being the icons to follow. There is little juvenile fiction written for boys anymore, and what there is tends to portray the male characters in a negative light. And of course, male teachers have been purged from the system. Likely, the only adult male that the average student will ever encounter on the campus is the janitor. And students are indoctrinated in political philosophies that are usually most attractive to girls; these are held out as being the only correct ways to think.

Finally, there's the fact that the girls are portrayed to the boys as being simultaneously strong women who are better at anything than a boy is, and delicate no-touch flowers who must not be argued with or upset in any way, lest they fall completely apart. If sex is dying, as several articles I've seen this week proclaim, this is where it starts: boys at all levels of schooling, from elememtary to college, take a look at the girls around them and decide that the reward (whatever it might be) isn't worth the risk.

From Lehmann's article:

"Have all the avenues of male-bashing now been so exhausted that it must be extended to children?"

Nope, not at all. For such folk this is a holy war, where there are only true believers and infidels, and all targets are fair game. There is no such thing as an innocent male. If they can be neutered before they even reach puberty, so much the better.

If you start with the conceit that a boy is simply a broken girl, the problems boys have in school isn't a surprise.

All boy role models are gone from the schools. Traditional heroes of Western culture, and the things that they accomplished, are now denigrated; the only thing pupils learn about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson is that they owned slaves. Women of mostly minimal accomplishment are held out as being the icons to follow. ~ Cousin Dave at August 17, 2016 6:54 AM

Add to that the current crop of Navy SEALs or Army Rangers or fighters with mad ninja skills on popular television are women.

All a boy can do is retreat to his basement and play a video game that lets him pretend he's a large-breasted Angeline Jolie clone in tight shorts and a skimpy top exploring tombs and dungeons.

Instead, they're revenge-seekers, looking for excuses to take their hatred of men and boys mainstream...

Fair enough as far as it goes, but in my experience this aspect is derivative, not primary.

The primary driver is Marxism. Feminism is merely a vehicle for Marxism (a quality feminist the movement shares with, for example, environmentalism).

In one recently-publicized example, an LGBT activist admitted the pro-gay-marriage bandwagon was a false front. The real objective is to destroy the institution of marriage and the nuclear family. That's a Marxist agenda, part of the broader effort to destroy all competing centers of social, cultural and political influence.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lesbian-activist-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-144222847.html?ref=gs

Cousin Dave, I'm not saying we don't have problems with how we treat boys in schools, but some of your rant sounds iffy.

"... as the boys get into junior high and high school, they find that (unless they are varsity players in a revenue sport) their access to physical fitness activities or facilities is sharply restricted. Classroom demonstrations have been eliminated and labs are either gone or so watered down that the activities are pretty much meaningless."

What's your basis for this information? High schools have REAL fitness centers now and more sports and clubs than ever. Three of my friends are physics teachers in public schools, and my little brother recently graduated from high school. My stepdad tutors physics on the side. Labs are very much still a thing, as are projects like building various types of small cars, musical instruments, water wheels, motors...

Kids are doing projects I never got to do.

Recently someone on here made the statement that metal/wood shop is no longer taught in schools. It is!

"Boys get forced into group learning situations that are no-win situations: if the boy works hard to make the group succeed, the entire group gets the credit, but if they don't and the group fails, they take the blame individually."

This applies to anyone of either sex who works on a group project, and always has. There are lots of jokes about that. Group projects are preparation for real life.

Why is this different for boys?

"Likely, the only adult male that the average student will ever encounter on the campus is the janitor."

43% of high school teachers are male. In middle school and elementary school it's more like 18%, but that's been the same for 40+ years. Teaching young children, which is as much "care taking" as education, attracts more women than men for reasons that are obvious. Men aren't getting chased out. Being male is a huge advantage if you want a teaching job, precisely because men are "underrepresented."

The people concerned about an oversaturation of women teachers in elementary school seem to be the same people who understand that genders naturally choose different career paths, and who emphasize the traditional roles of women. Yes, once upon a time, in the days of one schoolhouse, teachers of young kids were men--but that's basically because women weren't allowed yet.

"Add to that the current crop of Navy SEALs or Army Rangers or fighters with mad ninja skills on popular television are women."

Six, American Grit, Live to Tell, Surviving the Cut... Those are all about male special forces and on TV now. The Reaper also is in production.

We've also got endless TV shows like Daredevil, The Flash, Arrow and Luke Cage for the Marveltards who would never be interested in the armed forces.

Conan, what TV show features women SEALS? Fox was going to do one in 2014, but it never made it to pilot. Probably because it sucked.

"All a boy can do is retreat to his basement and play a video game that lets him pretend he's a large-breasted Angeline Jolie clone in tight shorts and a skimpy top exploring tombs and dungeons."

Tomb Raider is an old game whose newer titles aren't even that popular. Angelina Jolie never played Lara Croft in a video game, nor was Lara Croft based on her. Jolie was in a movie based on the game, which was HUGELY successful with men despite terrible reviews. Lara Croft with her bouncing boobs and lovingly rendered ass was most definitely created to titillate male players--NOT to force them into an effeminate role.

If you think male gamers have a dearth of aggressive male characters to play, then you just don't know video games.

@Lastango: "The primary driver is Marxism. Feminism is merely a vehicle for Marxism"

This. Feminists are useful idiots helping spread the Cultural Marxism / Corporatism of the Powers That Be. This explains why so many of the most destructive feminists have been men -- including the current President and Vice-President of the U.S.

One of the most clever rhetorical tricks of this ilk has been to conflate the term "women" with "feminists." Thus, "anti-feminist" equals "anti-woman" -- which is unthinkable and forbidden in our supposedly "Patriarchal" society.

An atomized, dependent population is a compliant population. Yes, Mom must go to work; the kid(s) must go to daycare; Dad must simply go.

Anyone else notice that the now-ubiquitous "critical theory" approach of the academy only "deconstructs" and never actually constructs something else? Should we ignore that "deconstruct" is another term for "destroy"?

When all other institutions have been destroyed, all that will be left will be the power of the state over the lone individual.

Why do we sit back and allow the traditions and institutions which underpin our culture and society to be systematically attacked and destroyed?

"What's your basis for this information? High schools have REAL fitness centers now and more sports and clubs than ever. Three of my friends are physics teachers in public schools, and my little brother recently graduated from high school. "

I'm going by what I am told by high schoolers and recent college grads that I've interviewed for jobs, and it correlates to my experience in college (although that was a while ago). In college, Title IX has wiped up non-revenue sports for men, and the necessity of maintaining equally-sized and equipped facilities for men and women, even though sports in general are far more popular with men, means that men and boys have trouble getting access to facilities while some women's and girls' facilities go unused.

As for the labs, liability has killed most of the natural-sciences labs. They do still get to do some mechanical stuff. But chemistry lab is pretty much dead, and what is left of it doesn't hold interest; you can only do the cornstarch trick so many times. Physics labs have removed anything capable of developing velocity or voltage. I don't know about biology labs, but I suspect the story is similar.

"43% of high school teachers are male. "

Yea for high school, although a fair number of those are coaches or staff for the revenue sports. In lower grades, the percentage is under 20%, and at the K-3 level, it's under 5%. My sister-in-law taught sixth grade at two schools over about six years. The total number of male faculty in the two schools combined was 1 -- one of the schools had a male assistant principal. No male teachers at all.

There are a lot of elementary schools these days, particularly in urban areas, which have no playground areas. In place of recess, students are expected to "sit quietly" for a period of time each day and amuse themselves somehow (usually with phones, if they have them). This is way about 80% of children under 10 who are prescribed behavior-modifying drugs are boys.

"Being male is a huge advantage if you want a teaching job,..."

And a lifetime on the sex offender registry.

High schools have REAL fitness centers now and more sports and clubs than ever.
________________________________________

Yes. From what I've heard, European visitors (who are no slouches when it comes to being sports fans) are shocked by how much money American schools tend to put into their sports facilities.

Frankly, I'm quite grateful that, despite my moving around a lot as a kid, I never had to endure a school or students that put sports above academics - schools like that existed, unfortunately, long before WWII, or TV, as certain century-old classic novels and movies will tell you. My mother would never have tolerated that environment for her kids. Exercise was one thing, 24-hour sports worship was another. There's a reason that people who go for the latter tend to be seen as shallow by their peers, whether as teens, or later, as adults.

"From what I've heard, European visitors (who are no slouches when it comes to being sports fans) are shocked by how much money American schools tend to put into their sports facilities."

This is because in Europe, sports don't exist at taxpayer ecpense they way they do in American public schools.

Sports are the purview of clubs, which often are very competitive at building athletes that go on to compete at the college and professional level.

American public schools are jacks of all trades and dont have the time, the coaches, the money or the focus to turn anyone in to a college or professional athlete.

American Legion baeball, USA volleyball, USA and NRA shooting. AAU diving. Club soccer. Tennis Academies. This is where the Division one athletes come from, not high school programs.

"This is where the Division one athletes come from, not high school programs. "

Not true for the revenue sports. If you consider the major SEC and Big 12 programs to be nearly the equivalent of the NFL in talent (and a lot of people do), their players are coming out of high school, and many of those players have been groomed as players since the early grades. About half of MLB's domestic players are drafted directly out of high school. In a lot of the U.S., high school football and basketball are in themselves revenue sources for the school.

For the non-rev sports, I mostly agree with you. There are still some exceptions in track and field, and gymnastics.

"About half of MLB's domestic players are drafted directly out of high school."

Just because they didnt go to college doesnt mean that they come out of high school baseball programs. The season is too short to develop a professional level player. And many high schools dont have baseball programs.
They are all spending most of their summer at Camps or playing American Legion ball. This is where the scouts are looking.

Across the entire upper half of the US, the weather simply isn't good enough to have an outdoor baseball season during the school year.

Where I live American Legion ball has kept high schools from even offering it. In the fall it would compete with football, and in the spring, it would compete with Soccer. There waa no demand.

http://www.legion.org/baseball/teams

Boys who struggle in school often drop-out, find it difficult to gain employment, and often end up at the bottom of the social pile; these boys are also much more likely to come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds.
______________________________________

Sure. But there's still a big difference between kids who "struggle" and who still can't get better than C's, and kids who are just plain lazy and arrogant. The former suggests low IQs and maybe serious problems at home. The latter group, unfortunately, is hardly a small problem - at least in the US. (See below for more about Australia.)

It's been said that a couple of reasons for the difference between girls and boys in academic achievement are that

1) it was a lot easier for boys to think of non-macho arenas, such as college and reading in general, as being manly pursuits back in the days when it was normal for girls to be discouraged from going to college - or from being brainy in general. Now that girls are often urged to use their brains to their limits, boys feel the "need" to spend as much time as possible in anti-intellectual places girls just don't go - whether it's American football or violent video games. It's become common for boys to complain that "reading is for girls." (This is something that even the son of Jon Scieszka kept saying well into his teens, in 2002; Jon Scieszka is the popular children's writer and "nationally recognized reading advocate" who founded "Guys Read.")

2) It's not that easy for girls to get high-paying jobs without going to college, so even if THEY'RE feeling lazy and arrogant, they know they can't afford to get nothing but B's. Whereas high-paying blue-collar jobs (like mining and lumberjacking) are still available for men, and even women who want THOSE jobs don't always want to tackle the harassment that comes with them. Even restaurant work - being a cook or a high-paid chef - can be pretty nasty for a woman, as Anthony Bourdain made clear in "Kitchen Confidential."

More on point 1:

https://goodmenproject.com/education-2/reading-is-for-girls-gint-aras/

From 2014.
By Mr. Gint Aras.

First paragraphs:

"I was quite surprised the first time someone told me reading was for girls. I was in 2nd grade, enrolled in a new school, and a boy asked what I liked doing. I told him and he scoffed, 'Reading’s for girls. What do you really like to do?'

"Later, I asked my grandfather why the kid spoke this way. My grandfather would read me stories before bed each Saturday night when I went over to stay at his home, and some of my favorite childhood memories are linked to the feeling of warmth I experienced listening to him read. He was a war refugee and didn’t mince words. 'That kid is an idiot,' he said. 'Unfortunately, he’s learned from fools, and fools will learn from him.'..."

(snip)

And, from a thread here in April:

"You know all that hokey vernacular (Australians) use? - it's because they don't know the correct words to use. The average Australian has the vocabulary of an American junior high school student. I'm not kidding."

mopey at April 15, 2016 1:37 PM

"Hate to say it, but I have seen some of this.

"Truth is, when you meet someone outside of their native country, it is usually because they are some of the best and the brightest.
I have a Australian friend who is one of the brightest guys I know. However, his American wife had little good to say about Australia.

"They lived there for three years. Their two daughters started school over there, and when they moved to Laramie Wyoming, the mediocre public schools were so far ahead of what they learned in Australia that both girls had to repeat an entire academic year..."

Isab at April 15, 2016 3:59 PM