The Destructive Feminization of Our Public School System

The Destructive Feminization of Our Public School System

 

by Jonathon Kneeland

 

Not content with nearly eliminating men from the teaching profession, government and administrators collude with pharmaceutical companies to distort the behaviour of young boys with drugs like Ritalin. This is to make them more manageable in a feminized education system. Boys too strong to submit are simply thrown out of the system and discarded. Their squalid scheme continues as schools now peddle gender confusion. In addition to poisoning the minds of young boys with medication, they now go a step further and tell young boys that it might be better if they simply became girls. And of course, giant pharmaceutical companies are circling like vultures, arms locked with ideologically motivated quacks, ready to pick and tear at the carnage.        

 

Enough of the arrogant fools, who imagine that they are smarter than millions of years of evolution, claim to know enough to discard thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, and then tell us that they know the correct way to educate our children.

 

An Obvious Problem

In the West, males die from suicide at a rate of roughly 3.5 times that of females. They're the victims of about seventy five per cent of all murders and are the perpetrators of nearly all of them. In fact, if men weren't committing murders or other acts of violence, there would be hardly any violent crime to discuss. Young males are, by far, the majority of those prescribed pharmaceuticals to alter behaviour. Men are less likely than women to attend university and about ten times as likely to end up in prison. In all measurable areas, males are not doing well. Of all these statistics, the most troubling is the prescribing of behaviour modifying pharmaceuticals to young boys. It's the most troubling because it demonstrates that something is seriously wrong at the very early stages in boy's lives. Usually, these medications are prescribed shortly after boys are pressed into our public school systems. Perhaps, if we solve this problem, the other problems will naturally decline over time. If boys require medication so that they can function in some arbitrary system that's run by the finished products of that same defective system, then clearly, it is the system that has the real problem.

 

Young boys are being prescribed drugs like Ritalin because mediocre administrators imagine that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is an actual thing. It's not. The term ADHD is the deadly hardened tip on the spear that is the marketing weapon for a multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry. School administrators are happy to play along because to design a school system suited to boys would require effort, thought, and most frightening for any public official, truth telling. It's much easier to allow industry to skewer uniformed and passive families with erroneous medical diagnoses and nonsensical jargon than it is to confess that our entire public school system is run by dangerous but useful fools. They are not useful to civilization or to your average citizen, but to those who benefit from keeping things as they are.                  

 

Education, or Indoctrination & Mass Production?

Writer and life-long educator, John Taylor Gatto, wrote some excellent books exploring the origins, design, defects, and purpose of our public education systems. His best is perhaps The Underground History of American EducationAn Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling. Some editions are titled "...the Prison of Modern Schooling." His work is far too comprehensive and detailed to even begin to articulate here, and so I would just like to quote one tiny but important piece from his Underground History:   "The Prussian mind, which carried the day, had a clear idea what centralized schooling should deliver: l) Obedient soldiers to the army; 2) Obedient workers for mines, factories, and farms; 3) well-subordinated civil servants, trained in their function; 4) Well-subordinated clerks for industry; 5) Citizens who thought alike on most issues; 6) National uniformity in thought, word, and deed."

 

Gatto was referring here to the Prussian influence on our public education system. I recommend that everyone read at least two of his books:  The Underground History of American Education, and Weapons of Mass Instruction. These two books provide the reader with much understanding about the history of our public and compulsory school system. The knowledge he has collected and then passed on to us in these two books should make any reader wonder how they were so easily duped into accepting, on faith, the official proclaimed motives of our public school systems.

 

Gatto is one man, and so we might take his assertions with some skepticism. But then, we should never forget what the brilliant philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel Prize in Literature recipient, Bertrand Russell, had to say about the school system:  "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit."

 

The very sharp and callous H.L Mencken adds to these scathing criticisms: “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”

 

I'll accept Mencken's view as accurate and add to it my own theory that our public school system also acts as a daycare, so that both parents are free to go out and toil away at generally boring and pointless tasks, in order that the economy might grow and shrink at the rate and time decided by people who have taken it upon themselves to decide such things.

 

Both industry and politics were exclusively run by men during the historical period from which our modern public school system was created. 1819 is when, according to Gatto, the Prussian influence really began to take root, and in the late 1800's, Frederick Taylor contributed "scientific management" to humanity – a gift we're stuck with to this day and one that appears likely to never go away, even for a minute. Taylor's theory was that workers knew too much and that their traditional skills should be broken down into tiny pieces so that they could be as efficient as possible and also be trained very quickly. He was definitely practical but far more suited to refining machines than to helping human beings reach their full potential as enlightened individuals.        

A system as harmful and bungled as our public education system would have never been created by women. Women have a superior intuition of and care for the overall health of a society. Men are more inclined toward power and immediate practicality. Yell away at me, dear reader, I don't make the rules. Evolution and biology make the rules and those who pay attention simply notice them.   

 

So, a system that was designed by old and powerful men for young and naive men, for the purpose of mass producing soldiers, dull and compliant factory workers, and non-thinking administrators, is now staffed mainly by women and indoctrinates girls as well as boys. It's no wonder the thing is producing a steady supply of suicides, drug addiction, drop-outs, and incarceration for a sizable percentage of its compelled clients.      

 

Sit Still, Boys!

According to a recent study conducted by Richard Ingersoll, Professor of Education and Sociology at University of Pennsylvania, nine out of ten elementary school teachers are female. This would necessarily mean that, on average, the classroom would be feminine in nature. This is likely fine for girls. For many boys, it's not.

 

I struggled immensely in school. I left after finishing grade eight. This is despite the fact that I found the work to be very easy whenever I actually tried. I had female teachers every year except for grade five, and that year, I did very well. I was too young to understand why, but I understand now, and I'll share it with you. My grade five teacher was very dominant in the classroom and although he never physically assaulted any student, the underlying and unspoken threat always seemed to be there. He would occasionally surprise me by, very loudly and with what seemed like all his strength, hitting the top of my desk with a yardstick. That noise in that proximity brought you back into his world instantaneously. This happened to any male student the second the teacher noticed that the student was absent mentally. In addition to the yardstick technique, he would also occasionally throw one of the old wood and felt chalkboard erasers. These would go whizzing by and hit the wall in the back of the classroom. Other times, he would simply yell in a very stern and deep voice. Sometimes, for reasons that I now completely understand, he would tell us that he'd had enough of us and for us to go outside and play. On one occasion that I've never forgotten, he told us to go outside and play, and added "don't climb on the big rock in the corner" – there was a giant truck sized rock that sat precariously near the bottom of a mountain slope. He added "I don't really care if you break your neck. You're just not allowed to play on it."

 

I've learned a lot about people, organizations, and systems since that time. Now much older, I look back and think that my sole male teacher knew what he was doing. He made it very clear that he was not your friend and that the classroom was his. As it turned out, he was your friend and was on your side, just not in a way that you could understand at the time. Had all of my teachers been of this type, who knows how differently things might have turned out.

 

I don't mean to say by all this that my female teachers didn't know what they were doing. And I don't assert that my male teacher was more competent or superior in any way. But what he did have, and constantly displayed, was maleness. He had an intuition and, perhaps unconsciously, possessed the qualities that facilitated harmony through our shared evolved psychology. I don't think that any of this can be taught or mimicked. We're evolved primates and have innate natures that have been shaped by millions of years of evolution.

 

Boys and girls are not the same. In many ways, they aren't even similar. It's an odd thing that in 2019 this actually needs to be stated. This fact on its own says more about our modern public education system than I ever could. Sex is not a social construct. It's the result of evolution and has been honed for survival over millions of years. The foolish ranting of crackpot activists will never alter this fact, no matter how much they scream, complain, and pour stolen public money into foolish indoctrination schemes.       

 

Boys and Girls are Different Animals.

I won't speak for girls because I have no way to know what it's like to be a girl. But I can tell you what it was like to be a young boy. I can tell you, with certainty, that the feminine nature of our public school system is hopelessly boring and stifling for healthy young boys. It contains nothing that is natural or interesting to boys and most of the efforts of female teachers seem to be designed to suppress maleness.

 

Young boys, left to explore naturally, like to play war games; engage in hunting games; play fight – most adolescent male mammals do this; light various things on fire; build things; break things; build things to break bigger things with; take things apart; test their physical limits; test their own courage and the courage of their friends; and if the material and technical knowledge are available, blow things up. I once had a tiny piece of shrapnel imbed itself just below my eye when I was about ten. I and some friends had come into possession of a portion of one of our dad's ammunition collections, and thought it would be fun to experiment by placing various sized cartridges on a large rock and then to throw other large rocks on top of them to set them off. I've talked to many men since about this, and it turns out that this, and things like it, are far more common than you might think.

Boys are naturally in awe of power and of powerful things. They show a huge interest in things like fighter jets, locomotives, and ship engines. They make idols of great fighters, warriors, athletes, and explorers. I think that this is innate and a product of our evolution. A primate that comes into the possession and mastery of real power will be able to provide for and protect a family or a tribe. Boys also instantly and instinctively recognize more dominant males. Again, this is part of our evolution. Many mammals have this recognizable trait and it doesn't require teaching. Maleness is not a social construct. If your school is telling you that it is, get the hell out of there, as soon as possible.

 

Boys setup a physical hierarchy amongst themselves at a very early age. Things tend to go very smoothly once these hierarchies are settled. Boys who move a lot to new schools frequently get in fights – I've experienced this. This is also for very simple evolutionary reasons. Once these fights take place, the boy's place in the hierarchy is established and, usually, everyone moves on very quickly afterward. Quite often, the two boys who got into a fight with each other will end up as friends. I've experienced this and witnessed it in others. This also clearly shows an evolutionary purpose and is likely innate. Our primate ancestors would have benefitted from knowing the strengths and weaknesses of various members of the tribe, and this knowledge likely would have been useful.

 

Channeling the Dangerous into the Useful

Our behaviour has been formed by our evolution. Some of this behaviour we share with other animals. Much of it is unnecessary or harmful in our modern world. For example, males have innate evolved traits that cause them to end up at war. This becomes obvious when you consider that in all times and in all places, much of human effort has been spent preparing for, defending from, avoiding, or waging wars. This is true of male chimpanzees and some insects as well. Groups of adolescent boys naturally enjoy breaking off into groups and playing war games. This used to be done outside with toy weapons, but now largely takes place via video games. In many societies, young men form gangs and engage in war-like tribal behaviour that often results in escalating acts of reciprocal violence and retaliation. Often, this behaviour begins as young men attempt to seek status and the attention of females. We are dealing with powerful evolutionary forces here and it is unwise to simply deny that these forces exist or to invent idiotic theories about social constructs. Repression never works and usually leads to more and bigger problems. Let's acknowledge our nature and channel and develop it into something useful.

 

Once we begin to honestly acknowledge that boys have an innate nature, we can begin to design school environments that they will naturally succeed in. One environment that I have witnessed working well for boys is that of judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu. I believe the main reason for this is that within these traditional systems of learning and combat, there are unspoken hierarchies that are based on strength, courtesy, and mutual respect, and therefore, are in harmony with the innate psychology of boys.

 

Once someone has been in judo or Brazilian jiu-jitsu for any length of time, they will find themselves frequently transitioning between the role of student, teacher, and combatant. When training with less experienced opponents, the player will provide openings and adjust his strength and techniques to help his opponent learn. When training with opponents of roughly equal skill, the player has an opportunity to go all out in what I would call combat mode. When training with those of higher skill and experience, the player has an opportunity to apply slightly riskier and more technical attacks without the risk of being injured by his opponent – in this case he is relying on the same courtesy that he is expected to show towards those of lesser skill than himself. This is nearly a perfect system of trust, courtesy and mutual respect, based on a desire to help each other succeed and grow as a group. The whole thing is built on strength of character and competence developed over time, with the help of others. It is the most honest and sincere human interaction that I have witnessed, and boys understand it instinctively.

 

We hear much these days about bullying in schools. I have seen almost nothing in the way of bullying in judo or jiu-jitsu schools. A bully is going to get straightened out very quickly by older and more skilled fighters. The old rule of treat-others-the-way-you-want-to-be-treated is presented in real life and in the most simple, honest, and brutal way possible. Boys also understand this instinctively. Martial arts is an excellent way to teach young people that once you are in a position of power over another human being, it's time for compassion and generosity, rather than dominance or cruelty. There is no reason why this philosophy cannot extend into the relationships between all human beings as well as the relationships between humans and animals.   

 

I believe that we would be doing ourselves and our boys a favour by introducing judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu into our public school system starting in elementary school. Judo, sumo, or kendo became mandatory in Japanese schools in 2012. While I understand their motives, I think that's going a little too far. It should be possible for some students to opt out of such a thing. There are some boys whose nature makes them unsuitable for combat sports. For all others, it should be strongly encouraged.

 

There is no reason why schools could not implement traditional judo or Brazilian jiu-jitsu classes three times a week and have students spend the first hour and a half of their school day in them. This would make the rest of the day much easier for teachers and students, as the boys would be physically spent and also would have had a positive outlet for any aggression or combativeness that they might have had.

 

In addition to martial arts, boys should also be encouraged to play games that satisfy their natural interest in war. This could be done with both video games and by playing physically active games outside. Boys enjoy these types of games and it is very clear that participating in them comes naturally. There is absolutely no benefit in suppressing these natural desires. If you do, they're going to come out in other ways that are likely to be highly undesirable.

 

In addition to satisfying boy's natural instincts for combat and war games, intense exercise brings on a post-exercise state that is relaxed and conducive to learning and creativity. Would this not be preferable warping boy's nature through pharmaceuticals or feminization schemes?                                             

 

The Boy & the Machine

Boys are naturally curious about machines. They should be offered the opportunity to design, build, modify, and freely experiment with machines of all kinds. This should begin as soon as boys begin school. They should be spending at least an hour each day in a well equipped workshop. It is very likely that industry would participate in this, keeping the costs relatively low.

 

Starting at around age fourteen, boys should be offered the opportunity to enroll in programs that expose them to industry and to mentors. They should visit facilities where the machines of the world are designed, built, and repaired. This should include as wide a range as possible, from ship and aircraft manufacturing to robots and medical equipment. They should spend time in engineering firms and machine shops. They should be placed with mentors in these industries for periods of time long enough to expose the students to the nature of the work and it's academic requirements.

 

In conjunction with all of this, there must be an emphasis on the practical applications of math, science, and English and how these disciplines relate to the development of machines and technology. For example, there is no need to wait until boys have grown and left school for them to begin to use the Machinery's Handbook. They could begin to use and understand it as early as grade five. Education, currently, is hopelessly abstract. This is relatively easy to fix.

 

There is no need for boys to annoy their teachers by sitting in class, frustrated, and daydreaming about fighter jets, ships, or other machinery. Take them out into the world and let them see and touch the real thing, and let them know that soon they will be able to participate in designing and building these things.

 

The Idea Deficit

Because our public school system is primarily a tool of indoctrination, real debate is discouraged. Boys should be taken out into the world to witness our legal and political systems in action. These experiences should later be debated and discussed in class with the aim of allowing the students to explore ideas freely and without coercion by administrators or teachers. They should argue from all sides of the issues and teachers should only intervene if a student is sure that they have the correct answer. The teacher might interject at that point only to introduce uncertainty and to plant the idea that it is actually extremely difficult to know the ultimate truth on any topic.

 

This free play with ideas will produce strong and competent adults. This is much preferable to the oversensitive, overly emotional, and fragile infants that our public school system is currently producing.

 

The Boys Only School              

To achieve all of this, the preferable option is probably a boy's school. A school dedicated to helping the boy succeed in becoming a useful, independent, strong, and freethinking man would very much benefit our current society. However, such a man is a threat to the established order, which is perhaps why so much effort has been put into eliminating the male from the boy. It's going to be up to men and boys, and the women who care about them, to create their own education system, or at least to demand a say in our current system. Those who speak up will face attacks and vitriol from administrators and crazed leftist activists; however, the alternative is much, much worse. We cannot carry on as we are.        



Help Support This Work

Follow on Twitter & Help Share