Girls get extra school help while boys get Ritalin - "In classrooms nationwide, girls are pulling ahead of boys academically... little is being done to correct the imbalances. All of the major players — schools, education colleges and researchers — largely ignore the gender gap. Instead of pursuing sound solutions, many educators merely advocate prescribing more attention-focusing Ritalin for the boys, who receive the drug at four to eight times the rate of girls, according to different estimates. "Too often the first reaction to an attention problem is 'Let's medicate,' " says Rockville, Md., child psychologist Neil Hoffman. "Some schools are quick to recommend solutions before they've fully evaluated the problem." One reason boys are losing academic ground to girls appears linked to a shift by schools to more word-based learning for which girls' brains are believed to have an advantage. Over the years, even math problems have become more word oriented, according to education researchers. But because schools are doing little to help boys adjust, males risk becoming second-class academic citizens. Already the academic success girls enjoy in high school translates into more college acceptances — 56% of the students on campuses are female. The full impact from this shift is something society has yet to discover. But a drop in earnings for males is one likely result. Workers with only a high school diploma earn $20,000 a year less than those with a bachelor's degree. One fact explains why educators are ignoring boys' needs: You can't address a problem that you don't admit exists. The U.S. Department of Education concedes that no serious research is available comparing different instructional methods that might help boys. In fact, many education researchers are hostile toward research aimed at exploring gender differences in learning. Last April, when Kenneth Dragseth, superintendent of schools in Edina, Minn., presented a paper describing his district's gender gap at the American Educational Research Association's annual meeting in Chicago, he says the reception ranged from chilly to hostile. Female education researchers in the audience questioned whether helping boys would mean hurting girls. Their attitude follows years of lobbying by groups such as the American Association of University Women, which alerted educators to the fact that girls were being shortchanged academically in the fields of math and science. The extra attention helped focus schools on girls' difficulties, but it has made it too easy for educators to overlook the problems of boys. Among them:
•Boys and girls learn differently. The best research on boy-girl learning differences is produced more by accident than by design. The lack of data in this field can hurt girls as much as boys. For instance, as part of an ongoing 20-year dyslexia study focusing on Connecticut schools, Yale neuroscientist and pediatrician Sally Shaywitz discovered that schools were identifying four times as many dyslexic boys as girls. Yet when her team entered schools to screen children, it diagnosed just as many dyslexic girls as boys. Shaywitz found that the mostly female teaching staff was quicker to identify rambunctious boys than quiet girls. The results are just one example of what might be learned about the role gender plays in education, especially in elementary school, where 85% of teachers are women.
• Future teachers aren't trained to deal with learning differences. Therapist Michael Gurian, author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently!, has visited more than 100 education colleges. But he has not found one that offers courses on male-female brain differences. His discovery explains why many new teachers arrive in classrooms clueless about what teaching techniques might work best for boys' learning styles.
• Boys lack advocates. The special efforts made by schools to steer more girls into advanced math and science classes came after powerful advocacy groups embraced the problem. But Gurian and other advocates for boys say they run into resistance from educators who point to males' success in the workforce as proof that advocacy for boys is unnecessary.
In spite of the lack of research, anecdotal evidence shows that far more effective strategies are available for teaching boys than plying them with Ritalin. Patricia Henley runs a boy-friendly charter school in Kansas that hires many male teachers. It also recognizes boys' natural tendency to favor active learning by conducting more class work on the chalkboard and allowing more student movement within the classroom. And the school trains teachers to deal with boys' particular styles. For instance, because boys volunteer answers more slowly than girls do, teachers are told to count to 10 before calling on a student."
Damn patriarchy! We need to help girls even more!
When Will Feminism Be “Enough”? - "Throughout many of my debates with feminists, I've asked a simple question: “When will you stop fighting? What is going to be good enough for you?” Most of them can't give me an answer. It's not because the question is confusing or unfair, but because they can't admit the flaws of their own movement. Women are outperforming men on every metric right now: college enrollment, graduate degrees, consumer spending power, social mobility. Yet we still see major influencers like Alex Cooper of Call Her Daddy claiming women are oppressed and will never be as successful as men, while signing a $125 million, three-year deal with SiriusXM. At a certain point, you have to ask: do these women actually want to be oppressed? I'm a social media influencer, and I'm honest enough to admit that I would not be as successful if I were a man. In fact, I've seen men put out very similar messages to mine, but attractive women will always be at an advantage when it comes to media and entertainment. Anyone who denies this is clinging to a victim mentality that has become more valuable than the truth. Feminists still cite the “gender pay gap” as proof of systemic oppression, despite the fact that it has been debunked so many times I genuinely can't believe it's still used as an argument... This disparity in pay between men and women is not because they're women, but because the jobs women choose are generally lower paying. But admitting that would undermine one of feminism’s last remaining grievances, so the myth persists. If feminism delivered what it promised, women should be thriving. Instead, the opposite has happened. Despite having more freedom, choice, and opportunity than any generation of women in history, women today are unhappier than ever. Researchers call it the “paradox of declining female happiness,” and it tracks neatly with the paradox of choice, which argues that an overabundance of options leads to anxiety and decision paralysis. Our current culture floods us with the idea that having an endless pool of choices is sexy and cool, but it's only making us more anxious. Ironically, married moms in America are the happiest demographic, as cited by a 2025 report. But the data only gets more inconvenient for feminists from here. Feminism promised to elevate womanhood. Instead, it erased it. In their effort to "smash the patriarchy" feminists dismantled the very category they claimed to be fighting for. Today, even the most “educated” scholars in our society can't clearly define what a woman is... And the consequences are tangible: biological women are being beaten by male competitors in their own sports and competitions. Both Caitlyn Jenner and Dylan Mulvaney have been named “Woman of the Year” by major publications... The rise of radical individualism alongside feminism has devastated the institutions that hold society together. Traditionally, men's duty to society was to protect women and children. Women’s duty was to bear and care for children. But feminism erased women from any sense of social obligation, replacing duty with the singular pursuit of personal “happiness,” and then placed that happiness on a pedestal above everything else, including the continuation of civilization itself. Based on current U.S. birth rates, deaths are projected to outpace births by 2030. If the trend continues, we are on a trajectory toward demographic collapse within the next few centuries. The anti-suffragettes of the 19th century—women who opposed the passage of the 19th amendment—predicted nearly every crisis I've just described. They predicted the birth rates dropping from an average of 5 children in 1870 to just 2 children by 1940. They predicted the demonization and domination of men. They were also right about what the institution of marriage and family would look like. In 1900, the rate of births outside of marriage was only 4%. By 2010, that number reached 41%. Even Susan B. Anthony, arguably the most well-known suffragette in history, framed the movement as the result of persistent activism by a committed minority. Many of the foundational rights—property, education, social influence—were already in place by that point, and most women were satisfied, even in 1897. So what, exactly, was feminism still fighting for? Many feminists today argue that the movement must continue because women and children are still endangered by violent men. But they refuse to admit that their own movement made this worse. Feminism did not keep its promise to protect women and children. In fact, children are in more danger now than before the movement gained full cultural dominance. According to the National Incidence Study, the rate of overall endangerment standard maltreatment for children living with two married biological parents is about 16 per 1,000. The rate for children in all other circumstances is more than 52 per 1,000; the worst cases occurring in one biological parent cohabitating with an unmarried partner. In the U.S., women account for a slight majority of child maltreatment perpetrators—typically around 53% to 56%, compared to roughly 42% to 46% for men. Additionally, children from fatherless homes represent 90% of homeless kids, 85% of kids with behavioral disorders, 70% of kids in juvenile facilities, and 75% of kids in adolescent substance abuse treatment centers. Feminism told women they didn’t need men and their children paid the price. After a century of organized feminism, women are three times more likely than men to have mental health problems. Children are more at risk for maltreatment than ever. Divorce rates are higher than ever... When you destroy the patriarchy—the very system that has been put in place to protect you—chaos and perversion takes hold. Feminism has ultimately become a vehicle for policies that have harmed the very women and families it claims to champion. So I'll ask the question again: Will feminists ever admit that their movement made things worse for women? Or will they keep marching, no matter how much wreckage they leave behind?"
Spanish govt study finds huge backslide in people identifying as feminists - especially among young peple! Majority says it's political manipulation. : r/MensRights - "I am familiar with Spanish law and the situation in Spain. It is almost certainly the country where radical feminism has most successfully implanted its misandric ideology in laws and institutions. Furthermore, the most high-profile radical feminists (led by the former Minister of Equality, Irene Montero) have shown nothing more than that they are out of their minds and completely disconnected from the reality that Spanish youth experience in their daily lives. I believe this is why they have had the opposite effect on young people, along with the fact that they are now seen as pathetic, hysterical screamers and hypocrites who demand from others what they do not want for themselves. I hope more data like this continues to emerge, because Spain is certainly the country that most needs to change its gender policies."
Gains in women’s rights haven't made women happier. Why is that? - "Evidence supports the idea that women’s rights and roles in the home in the US and Europe have not moved in step with changes in the workplace. Therefore, because women with jobs often do most of the chores and childcare, they shoulder a dual burden that cuts into their sleep and fun... When the dual burden is carefully measured – as it has been across European countries – the results illustrate the influence that expectations have on how happy we feel. Experiencing the dual burden leads working women in Sweden, for example, to feel more miserable than their counterparts in Greece, probably because Swedes’ expectations around gender equality are more ambitious. (Fewer than 35% of Swedish women do three-quarters of the housework, compared to 81% of Greek women.)... The social history of Switzerland, where women weren’t allowed to vote until 1971, reveals the subtleties of employment expectations on happiness. A decade after Swiss women gained suffrage, the country’s citizens voted in a referendum on whether the constitution should be amended to state that women deserve equal pay for equal work. Different parts of Switzerland voted very differently. Unsurprisingly, cantons (Swiss states) with a high proportion of votes in favor of the amendment were recorded as having a small gender wage gap some years later. But strangely, working women in areas with strong traditional values – where most people had voted against equal pay – were happier than working women in liberal cantons. Even though their salaries were further below those of the men around them, the women in more traditional communities were less likely to report discrimination than their countrywomen in more liberal areas. This inside-out result probably arises from different cognitive comparisons. Women in liberal communities are less happy and notice discrimination because they automatically compare their opportunities and salary to everyone else around them, men included"
When you add paid and unpaid work, married men do more work than married women, but the feminists can't accept that. But they are right about expectations - feminism tells women that they're oppressed, so women become unhappy
Clearly traditional women in Switzerland were just stupid and didn't know that they were being oppressed, because discrimination can never be in your head (despite the findings of the Dartmouth scar experiment)
Feminism against Jennifer Love Hewitt - "Many opined that these crude comments and attacks on Hewitt were the inevitable work of patriarchy, of men dominating and humiliating women by holding them to impossible ideals. These patriarchs, we are told, sexualize girls, then scorn them for aging. They dehumanize, reducing the vast subjectivity of a woman to a fleshy body—a mere ornament to be ogled. This is what we might call the feminist thesis of discourse about women. The feminist thesis claims that impossible standards of beauty are weapons of male control, used to denigrate and subjugate. This thesis is widely promoted, especially among educated elites, but it is implausible. The explanation is too simple, too ideologically convenient. A more plausible account must look not to patriarchy, but to two broader, interrelated social trends. First, the second and third feminist revolutions, which emphasized sexual liberation, have exacerbated intrasexual competition among women, where sexual allure becomes a primary instrument for securing status and desirability. Second, these same feminist revolutions have dismantled the reverence for motherhood that once dignified maternal bodies and honored aging women for their roles as caretakers of children and custodians of a civilization’s moral memory. The result is a society in which women are no longer respected for maternal dignity, for gaining weight or aging naturally. Instead, they are compelled to remain sexually alluring as long as possible, using cosmetics, fitness regimens, and eventually surgery in a vain battle against time itself. Competition for youth, thinness, and sexual capital is more intense than ever. The sanctity of motherhood is no longer honored but dismissed as an antiquated norm, a holdover or vestigial organ to be removed or transcended, but certainly not celebrated. Not only is the feminist thesis wrong, it is the opposite of the truth. It is feminism, not patriarchy, that has given rise to the impossible ideals now tormenting ordinary and famous women alike. It is feminism that encourages the barbs that sting aging women with maternal bodies. It is feminism that has vitiated the power of the wise, dignified woman, trading it for the fleeting currency of sexual capital. In many traditional (that is, patriarchal) societies, motherhood, and the plump body that often accompanied it, conferred dignity, not derision. The aging female body, marked by the strains of pregnancy and the labors of childcare, was not treated as an undesirable sexual body but was lifted above sexuality altogether. The Roman matrona exemplified chastity and exercised moral authority, robed in a stola and often commanding the household (domus). She did not compete with younger women for sexual allure; she guided the moral development of her children, inculcating Roman virtues and the ways of the ancestors (mos maiorem). The Victorian “angel in the house” likewise was not a seductress, but a sanctified presence whose maternal role eclipsed the fleeting intrigues of romantic dalliance. Religious iconography reinforces this elevation of motherhood across Western civilization, celebrating Mary and other saints for their uniquely feminine contributions to life. They were depicted not as sexual, but as motherly beauties. Plump, reserved, life-bearing beings. The cultural reverence for motherhood did not survive the feminist revolutions of the twentieth century. Many feminists rejected the maternal ideal, the “angel in the house,” as repressive, claiming it was a role devised by men to confine women to domestic servitude. In its place, they celebrated the image of the liberated, “autonomous” woman, sexually expressive, economically independent, and freed from the burdens of biology. Feminism rejoiced in the ruin of the sanctified mother and matron. But in shattering what they called the tyranny of motherhood, feminists also destroyed its public dignity. What was once considered the culmination of feminine virtue, the highest expression of woman’s life-bearing gift, became simply a degraded body, a ruined, sagging, and scarred body desperately competing against younger, firmer, more nubile bodies. And the older woman, once celebrated as a matriarch, was now expected to maintain sexual relevance or risk obsolescence. Women fled the putative prison of motherhood only to enter the harsher incarceration of constant sexual competition. The intensity of female sexual competition cannot be explained solely by reference to male preferences or desires. The feminist errs profoundly in dividing the world into men and women, oppressors and oppressed. Women do not, in fact, share many interests and often have more in common with men than with one another. They are not comrades. They are rivals. If homo homini lupus est, then femina feminae vulpes est. Woman is a fox to woman, cunning and covert in her competition. As the status of motherhood declines and the number of sexually liberated competitors increases, the pressure intensifies. Women’s competition is often indirect and psychological rather than physical. They disparage one another’s bodies, mocking flab, scars, wrinkles, not always to please men, but to wound rivals. The goal is twofold. To diminish the other’s sexual status and to erode her confidence. A woman who is timid, insecure, and ashamed is far easier to surpass. She is less of a threat. Indeed, a cynic or a realist might contend that feminism itself is a tactic of intrasexual competition... Traditionalism, whatever its faults, reveres the maternal and discourages ferocious intrasexual competition among women. No, the real source of this cruelty, beyond the ordinary pettiness of human nature, is feminism itself and its long war against the so-called tyranny of motherhood. In the name of liberation, feminism has intensified sexual competition and degraded the mother and the matron. It has encouraged a desperate quest for the fountain of youth, not in the New World, but in the scalpel of the plastic surgeon."
Rothmus 🏴 on X - "The Deputy Prime Minister is reminding everyone that Scotland is a tolerant and inclusive society. In leftist doublespeak, this means placing this community above the Scottish people. It shields them from criticism and ignores their wrongdoings because holding any member accountable supposedly stains the entire group, and the community’s sanctity places it above scrutiny. It also means locals must accommodate every cultural demand, including wearing the hijab apparently (hail Western feminism). Assimilation is a one-way obligation where you adapt to the newcomers. They have no duty to adapt to you, because your culture either doesn’t exist or is evil by definition. Capitulation dressed up as virtue."
Rothmus 🏴 on X - "A tale of two feminisms. In 2017, during her presidential campaign, Marine Le Pen visited Lebanon. She was asked to wear a headscarf for her meeting with The Grand Mufti. She refused, told reporters to pass along her regards, and left without attending. “You will transmit my regards to the Grand Mufti but I will not wear a veil.” She pointed out that two years earlier she’d met Egypt’s Grand Imam at Al-Azhar and no veil was required. She accused the Mufti’s team of trying to present her with a “fait accompli.” It’s not respect or tolerance or acceptance. They wanted her wearing the veil as a sign of submission and humiliation. She did not let them score that point. Her words: “the headscarf is a symbol of a woman’s submission. I’m not putting it on.”"
If you believe non Muslim women shouldn't be forced to wear hijabs, you're a far right extremist
Fall from grace - "Fifty years ago Erin Pizzey answered the call of the sprouting global Women’s Liberation Movement. Inspired by the notion of “women coming together for a greater good”, the young London mother sent in her membership fee. Full of anticipation, Pizzey attended her first group meeting only to see her hopes crushed: “There were posters of women waving guns on the walls and posters of Mao,” she recalled. “Communism was not what I expected or wished for, so I was upset from the start.”... Erin Pizzey became the destitute’s hero, but fellow feminists resented her ways. “My personal experience of an abusive childhood and my work with the women taught me that domestic violence is not a gender issue,” explained Pizzey. “I learned that both men and women are abusive, but this did not agree with women’s groups who were pushing the oppressive-patriarchy narrative. “I did a study of the first hundred women that came into the refuge,” Pizzey recalled. “My conclusion was that 62 were as violent, even more violent than the men they left. I wrote the book Prone to Violence about my therapeutic work with violent women and their children, where I spoke of women as perpetrators of violence. That book changed everything. The people involved with the refuge said to me, ‘You can’t write a book about women being violent or else you won’t get any funds’ to which I replied, ‘That’s not the point — the point is the children.’” The discord culminated at a 1974 church meeting where Pizzey was ousted by the movement she had founded. “We held a conference in our little church hall, asking other groups to come and join us so that we could share what we’ve all been learning. In came group after group after group of highly organised feminists, who converted themselves into the National Federation of Women’s Aid and took over refuges everywhere. At the church meeting I realised that we were going to be erased,” said Pizzey with marked sadness. “I was cancelled and to this day, fifty years later, I am still airbrushed from their history books.” The pain of rejection might be eased by the deep gratitude of the many women and grown-up children who contact Pizzey with thanks for the safety and the security they felt at the refuge. “But still, it is hard to feel like a hero when all your work has been destroyed and discredited.”... “The feminists did celebrate in the House of Lords with a huge number of attendees and star studded names,” replied Pizzey. “They celebrated because in 1974 they invaded the little conference and voted themselves into The Women’s Aid Federation. They were welcomed with open arms at the time by the Department of Health and Social Security, partly because most of them were feminists anyway.” Pizzey was excluded because she rejected what she views as “the false consensus of men as the batterers and women always being on the receiving end”. She was cancelled because she asserted that “domestic abuse is not a gendered issue and that both women and men are abusive”. Pizzey was “airbrushed away” as she calls it, because she committed the ultimate sin in the feminist book — she empathised with men. “Your cancellation brings to mind Warren Farrell, Bettina Arndt and Jordan Peterson who were castigated for highlighting men’s issues,” I told Pizzey. “You are right,” she replied, pointing out that Farrell was the darling of the American NOW (National Organisation of Women) until he began to talk about men’s roles. “To these groups man is the enemy and the patriarchal oppressor,” added Pizzey, “and here lies the difference — they hinge domestic violence on ‘the patriarchy’ where I see it as a human issue; they avoid mixing with men where I made it a point to always have kind, ‘normal’ men at the refuges, as positive male role models for the children.” Pizzey points to “this poisonous ‘patriarchy’” narrative starting in 1969 when the Women’s Liberation Movement came to England. “It was hugely fashionable to call yourself a feminist, after all, we were all told that this is equity feminism and of course we agreed with it; men agreed with equal rights for women too but what they didn’t know was that this was in fact a Trojan horse — from that point on, it was ‘man is the enemy’ which led to the breakup of the family. “These feminists wanted a movement where women could hear each other’s voices, but like so many good intentions, it was taken over and became a weapon against men and fathers — when people look back historically, they’ll see the last 50 years as the Dark Ages.” Therapy is key to breaking the cycle of abuse: “You can talk to a woman who has been born into a war between her parents, and has become violent, and tell her ‘look, these are strategies you learned as a child to survive in a very dangerous environment, but there are other ways of dealing with stress and frustration other than going straight from stress to rage’. That’s the work I did in the refuge but unfortunately, it was hijacked by the feminists, who at that point were looking for a just cause and funding — the refuge idea fell into their lap.”"
We are still told that feminism benefits men and that feminists care about men
Meme - "Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1: This is almost funny coming from the Green Party deputy leader, pictured here with his wife. *wife in niqab*
Mothin Ali @MothinAli: So proud of Sarah for calling out the reform candidate for Makerfield for his abusive misogynistic attitude!"
