"MCP"  wrote in message 
news:y3ohj.148946$S37.110162@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dylan_evans/2007/12/boys_and_their_toys.html
>
> The boisterous play that was once an accepted feature of boys' behaviour 
> is
> now ruthlessly curbed by a feminist-inspired thought police
>
> At last, some evidence-based thinking from the mandarins who set 
> educational
> policy. A report issued by the Department for Children, Schools and 
> Families
> has finally dared to challenge the feminisation of the classroom that has
> inflicted so much damage on the psychological development of boys in the 
> past
> few decades.
>
> The report, entitled Confident, Capable and Creative: Supporting Boys'
> Achievements, begins by acknowledging that boys are achieving less well 
> than
> girls across all areas of learning. For a number of years, girls have been
> outpeforming boys at A-level. Studies have increasingly pointed out that 
> these
> sex differences in achievement reflect a pattern that can be traced back 
> to to
> primary school. Speculating on the reasons for this relatively new 
> phenomenon,
> educationalists got it wrong, predictably citing explanations that fitted 
> with
> their preconceptions but which had no evidential basis. It was, they 
> argued,
> because girls work harder - and because boys are victims of a "laddish"
> culture in which being studious is not seen as "cool". They entirely 
> neglected
> the real reason - the feminisation of education.
>
> The increasing focus on coursework, and corresponding diminished emphasis 
> on
> examinations, during secondary education is one manifestation of this 
> process.
> But the rot really begins in primary school. The boisterous play that was 
> once
> a generally accepted feature of young boys' behaviour is now ruthlessly 
> curbed
> at primary schools by a new cadre of feminist-inspired thought police who 
> have
> been brainwashed into thinking that all sex differences (or, in their ugly
> parlance, "gender differences") are cultural. Men are more aggressive than
> women, the ideology goes, because as boys they were encouraged to play 
> with
> guns rather than with dolls. Since we don't like aggression, we can cut 
> out
> the problem by reversing this cultural conditioning.
>
> In stark contradiction of this ideology, scientific research has been
> accumulating showing that some sex differences are innate and stretch back 
> to
> the very first months of life. In studies conducted by the Cambridge
> psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, little boys as young as one showed a 
> stronger
> preference to watch a film of cars (mechanical systems), than a film of a
> person's face (with a lot of emotional expression). Little girls showed 
> the
> opposite preference. Baron-Cohen found similar differences in babies as 
> young
> as one day old; one-day old boys look for longer at a mechanical mobile 
> than
> one-day old girls. These differences are too early for culture to have 
> played
> a role in shaping them.
>
> Culture can play a role in reinforcing or counteracting these innate sex
> differences, but there is a world of difference between recognising this, 
> and
> claiming that culture creates such differences in the first place. If 
> culture
> interacts with sex differences, rather than creating them, then trying to
> fight those natural differences can have unintended consequences. The 
> report
> issued by the Department for Children, Schools and Families recognises 
> this.
> "Could it be", it asks, "that boys are developing negative images of
> themselves as learners and essentially disengaging from formal learning 
> right
> from the start? If they are picking up messages that their natural 
> curiosity
> is wrong, their exploratory drives will be stifled. If they perceive that
> their strengths, interests and learning preferences are not respected, 
> they
> will lose interest in the learning process."
>
> Nowhere is this law of unintended consequences more evident than in the
> controversy surrounding the question of toy guns. Play involving toy guns 
> has
> many of the cues that boys naturally find more interesting than girls. 
> When
> teachers stop them playing with guns, therefore, they are implicitly 
> sending
> boys the message that their natural curiosity is wrong. The result is not 
> that
> boys switch to a different (feminine) kind of curiosity. Rather, the 
> result is
> that they switch off.


Biology is destiny. The reason boys like things that shoot is that it's 
practise for when they get older and shoot their cum into a female's pussy. 
You may scoff but everything we do has reproduction at its core. Our anatomy 
and sex play the most important role in life and regardless of what we learn 
will never change it. A female will always think like a whore because she is 
the sex that gets pregnant and subconsciously knows she needs material goods 
for 2.




>
> In recognising that some sex differences are innate rather than cultural, 
> the
> new report corrects a dangerous mistake that has marred much modern
> educational thinking. But in one respect, the report goes too far in 
> shifting
> the burden of explanation towards biology. The reason that teachers stop 
> boys
> playing with guns is, it claims, because "adults can find this type of 
> play
> particularly challenging and have a natural instinct to stop it". This is
> nonsense. It is not "adults" in general who find this type of play
> "challenging", but female primary school teachers, many of whom have been
> unduly influenced by feminist propaganda. The impulse to stop such play is
> certainly not "a natural instinct", but a culturally-conditioned piece of
> behaviour. It is this, and not the natural tendency of boys to play with
> weapons, that we should be trying reverse.
>
>
> -- 
> Gender, sexual orientation, skin color and ethnicity are accidents at 
> birth,
> not an entitlement for lifelong victimhood.
>
>
>