For a long time, the claim that schools are “feminizing” boys seemed plausible on the surface, so I repeated it without examining what it actually meant. But the recent rise in misogyny, especially on the right, forced me to take a harder look at narratives that feed it. What I found was a story that is not only historically wrong, but politically convenient for the very system harming our kids. This essay traces the real origins of the teaching profession, why blaming women is a category error, and how misdiagnosing the problem only strengthens the machinery of obedience in our schools.
In general, I think that labelling the phenomenon "feminization" is just probably unnecessarily polemical, and in the end doesn't even really help describe concretely what it is that is happening. Like, I get what they mean, but it can be explained more clearly, and with less of the culture-war baggage, if they just focus on the actual effects, and less on the gendered blame game.
Thank you for this. I agree with much of what you say, However, while there are definitely similarities, the way in which schools have been "feminised" in the UK is slightly different, and I can see the hand of majority female educators (teachers and planners) in this, in recent decades. For example, the replacement of exams with course work, which most girls apparently prefer; the content of curricula moving too often from objective facts to "lived experience"; and a growing misunderstanding of how boys fail to thrive if they have to sit still for long periods of time (although I accept what you say about bureaucratic necessity). Of course these are generalisations, and I – like you – was not a typical girl. Having worked in schools though, I can see how the current direction of travel benefits girls and young women, and fails to inspire and motivate young men.
See here's the thing: I don't think it's being done because girls prefer it. I think it's being done because teachers prefer it and because most teachers are women it is then presumed that it's a feminine thing and being done to benefit women. There are plenty of women who do not prefer that kind of work, who do not prefer to sit still all day, and guess what, they would never dream of going into teaching!
So again it's a category error. I can assure you there are some boys who also like this arrangement. There are certainly male teachers who like this arrangement as well because they participate in it, but think about the type of man who goes into teaching right now? In other words, it is probably accurate to say that a higher percentage of women are naturally agreeable and willing to do as they're told by people in authority--I can believe that is both biologically and sociologically programmed over thousands of years as such, so whatever the female students are given to do by their teachers, they are more likely to adapt to, and at least pretend to like. But as a parent of three girls and a former teacher and a tutor who has the benefit of seeing students outside of the school setting, but talking about their schoolwork, I can tell you at least 90% of the female students I tutor despise school, no matter how well they do on paper. They are just better at faking it. They do what they need to do to do well. Fewer of them rebel.
The kind of work you're talking about is easier for the teachers because when it's not objective, they don't have to worry that the students will get things wrong and they will be blamed because the students don't know what they're supposed to know. There are so many other jobs right now for smart women and smart men who are less risk averse, less insecure, less envious of people who have more talent than they do and I would argue despite it being 2026, there are more of those jobs in fields still dominated by men, while smart women are becoming entrepreneurs.
So who's left to go into teaching? And ultimately who runs education? Not these individuals at the school level, but groups largely made up of men high up in the political power structure who revel in the fact that they can attract so many fawning sycophants of their power.
There are exceptions that prove my point. One of the best schools in England, if not the best school in England is run by a woman. If you're not familiar with her, I would strongly recommend that you look into Michaela School and Katherine Birbalsingh. She's a powerhouse and both male and female students at her school do well. People like n power in the rest of the school system where she is are constantly looking to find fault with her, to take her down even, but they can't--the evidence that her methods work is too powerful.
I would also suggest you refrain from equating traits like submissiveness, the ability to sit still for long periods of time, obedience, etc., with "feminine" traits. Doing so is in itself sexist. All humans have these traits and varying degrees, and to the extent that women have them on display more often is probably as much to do with socialization, and with the fact that western culture has been patriarchal for thousands of years then it has to do with our being female. When you are generally speaking in a physically weaker position relative to those empower over you, these are adaptive traits--maybe we should be more concerned about the fact that we are continuing to encourage females to "fawn" despite it being the 21st C, rather than upset that we're now doing it to boys too. Maybe we should do it to nobody?
Many thanks indeed for this. You make a lot of very interesting points – and there is a lot of truth in what you say.
I am a huge admirer of Katharine Birbalsingh – but I can also say that, unfortunately, she is a one-off and absolutely not typical of teachers (male or female) in the UK. And of course I am generalising in talking about so-called male and female traits – nonetheless there are some significant differences between boys and girls (as a mother, I have both, and I have worked as a therapist with both in school). We are deceiving ourselves if we think otherwise.
I'm not a believer in 'the patriarchy' – but then I grew up with Elizabeth II on the throne and Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and wondered what it would be like to have men in charge. It was a time when girls really could do anything and everything, without baggage. I never felt constrained in any way – things are actually worse now. I simply do not understand the 'fawning' you mention, or the 'learned helplessness', of so many girls today – I certainly don't encourage it – and I haven't seen that trait in boys. Thank again for your comments.
This may sound like an odd question in the 21st century. But could it be boys simply learn best from other men because boys aspire to have healthy male role models? As a boy mom, I am keenly aware of this fact, and I am just thankful that my husband is a good man and father. If there were more male teachers, and better male role models in general, this might go a long way towards boys shaping up and being able to learn more, and perhaps if teachers were paid better wages then men would become teachers. I keep hearing how American teachers are overworked, underpaid, and sadly under so much social pressure and stress to be politically correct rather than honest.
I genuinely think the entire structure of schooling is bad for all children because it stresses obedience and conformity over independence and agency, and whether their male or female that attracts specific kinds of adults. I think boys and girls who have female teachers who are no nonsense and more interested in developing their students than in fitting in with their colleagues or being obedient to their supervisors, would do better.
Teachers don't need to be role models. They just need to be great facilitators of what children are intrinsically interested in doing which is learning how to live life on planet Earth. Unfortunately, the current system attracts people who think the job is molding and training kids to fit into a specific structure, not to develop their unique talents and interests.
If I am honest, the “feminization ZOMG” narrative seemed explanatory at first, but is probably just good old fashioned sexism repackaged. I am no feminist, but the more I read it, the more it reeks.
I have never blamed women for the education system. I've blamed the school boards, the teachers union, and every damned communist that wanted to take over the school. School boards have hired pedophiles and try to protect them. The union's been subverted and teachers have to teach lgbt+ bullshit. Most teachers in cities are liberals and they eat this shit up.
We need to return control back over to the school boards and the districts and get rid of the national teacher's union.
Thanks for writing this. I don't entirely buy into it, but it never hurts (often helps) to read divergent opinions. I think your historical presentation is spot on. But that was then, this is now.
To test a hypothesis, I often reverse positions, putting A in place of B and B in place of A. If my premise is that schools discriminate against boys, then I will use the same observations and see if they support the premise that schools discriminate against girls.
Without burrowing in, I would say, "No." Our schools, college included, are biased, even bigoted against white men. Imagine any teacher's continued employment opportunities if they in any way castigated blacks for the world's problems. Is it different for boys and men? I'd say, not so much. Blaming men for the world's problems, right there in the classroom, is acceptable. Blaming girls and women is not.
I acknowledge that I have proved nothing here, so accept what I say, or not. But at least consider it.
Also, there's a difference between what something is becoming, and whether something was a conspiracy to make it that way. The way this is being discussed on social media is as if it's NEW and a product strictly of feminism, when in fact feminism may in fact be a product of IT.
If you read all the way to the end, you see that I definitely acknowledge more recent developments, but my point is how did that happen in the first place? When you have a coerced system to begin with, and it recruits on the basis of low and low standards, what do you expect to get? And ultimately, isn't progressive, radical feminism, the kind that treats men and boys is defective girls, merely just another branch on the collectivist tree? We know people empower have used identity politics for generations to coalesce power around a small group of elect, who simply know what's best for everyone.
I know I veered a little from what you were getting at. I absolutely agree that the problem is almost always that factions of various sorts gain control of what should be impartial government entities, and use them to their own advantage.
Hitler did this to extremes, and he was a progressive.
Progressivism is inherently collectivist b/c it disregards human nature, which is inherently individualist. Collectivism doesn’t scale past the family—at most your immediate neighborhood, but any more than that, and people will always cease to care beyond their own personal benefit, and that’s as it should be too.
I'll go so far as to say I care about everybody in the world. But when it comes to to feeling the loss when someone dies, or the joy when there is a birth, it does stay pretty local.
An Individualist, of which I am clearly one, has a right to insist on their right to their own lifestyle. Socialists have no right to insist that everyone live according to their lifestyle.
100% agree, but the difference between us and the socialists is we not only recognize we don’t have the right to insist, but also we recognize even if we pretend we have that “right” reality will prove us wrong. Every. Single. Time. People will say “No,” because that is their right, and the “insisting” quickly turns into FORCING, which then turns into murder, and that kind of cognitive dissonance is too much for them to handle—they fancy themselves the “good guys” after all.
What you’re thinking of as Progressivism isn’t what its originators intended.
The original Progressives were populists at war with the Republican party for becoming a tool of globocorp international.
The progs you’re talking about…well…they don’t resemble them. They just stole the name. A guy named Rothschild took over Bob LaFollette’s magazine, The Progressive, in Madison, Wisconsin…after its previous editor—a literall Communist and pink diaper baby, Erwin Knoll—died in the early ‘90s.
But I don't like the old progressive movement, either. One of the earliest progressives, Woodrow Wilson was a racist. The progressive movement tried to keep that buried, but a hundred years later, we all know. Progressive darling, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist, and world class bigot. I've tracked the politics of the nineteenth century, and there is a clear connection between the KKK and the progressive movement. I would say that the progressive movement evolved out of the KKK. BTW, Hitler was a progressive. And the democratic party was and still is the party of institutional racism.
Fantastic reframe of this whole debate. The insight that confusing institutional control with femininity is the real issue here helped me reconsider alot. I used to teach middle school and saw firsthand how the system punishes any kid who cant sit still for hours, boy or girl. Seems like we've spent decades blaming the wrong variable while bureacratic sameness continues crushing actual learning.
What people describe as “feminization” is not feminine. It is authoritarian collectivism engineering a convenient misunderstanding, ensuring that men blame women instead of confronting the system that is harming their children.
Reminder that for 50 years—1915 to 1965—the fruit and flower of multiple generations of the bravest, healthiest, intelligent American and European men of prime breeding age were selected for automated industrialized slaughter by the millions. At the behest of global banksters who used every tool of propaganda and policy to force nations into war again and again…for steel, oil, transportation, armaments, and other profits (meaning debt for those paying for the materiel).
When “Fighting Bob” LaFollette filibustered US Senate for three days in early 1917 to try to keep the Armed Ship Bill from passing, the Senate invented cloture to make sure such a thing would never again slow down delivery of the banksters/central bankers’ will.
In his March 1917 pamphlet, “The Armed Ship Bill Meant War,” LaFolette noted that already by then, $70 billion in debt had ALREADY piled up ($1.76 trillion in today’s dollars), before the US was even involved. And he pointed out how people would bend and groan under that, and the additional, debt for generations to come.
It was women who held society—and industry—together in this and subsequent periods. They weren’t “feminists.” And, yes, the war industries like shipbuilding loved getting them as workers precisely because they could be paid less than men of equal skill (my mom and favorite aunt were shipfitters, riggers, and sheet metal workers both at the shipyard and other companies).
The other piece not discussed in your essay:
The “smart fraction” of women has been very badly treated by that authoritarian collectivism. With the obliteration of so many high quality of men in bankster war, you’d think that we couldn’t afford to waste ANY high intelligence. But here we are.
In 2018 an Anon laid out the machinations he perceived behind the 20th century war drafts—in which for the first time governments deliberately scientifically selected who would live and who would die. But here is the overall thread…
I don't think that it is a very helpful idea to 'blame' people, let alone groups of people.
But you haven't even addressed several important parts of the 'feminisation' thesis. For example: are more boys medicated to stay in school than girls? Is the amount of 'recess' (which could be very productive but is seen as wasted time) a better fit for boy's vs girl's natural psychology? Is overt competitive speech or compliant speech valued?
It is a rather simple fact that if you do a deep dive into the psychology of boys vs girls, and then compare that with the values of school, you will find that the current values of school fit girls better than boys. Regardless of who is at fault... boys are being castrated by the system.
The other option, of course, is that girls, being biologically selected over many generations for social cohesion and functioning, are more easily domesticated. That doesn’t make school “a better fit” for them. Just that maybe they crack quicker, or are medicated through social pressure/resultant biological effects rather than externally inflicted pharmaceuticals.
Well, that seems a bit contradictory. If we take as given your view that girls have been biologically selected for social cohesion… and if you include under ‘social cohesion’ all of the aspects of boys behavior, in opposite, that I listed… then school would be a better fit.
If a group of pygmy’s and giants were both in a school with four foot high ceilings… the pygmy’s would be a ‘better fit’. And contrariwise, if the school had huge desks and chairs an all, then the giants would be a ‘better fit’.
I blame feminists for claiming they are about equality, but are silent about male-only military draft registration, and female-only reproductive rights,
I understand exactly what you’re pointing to. The public education system—by design—operates on broad-brush instruction. It categorises, standardises, and conditions pupils to fit predetermined frameworks. Those who align progress smoothly; those who question or deviate are often labelled, sidelined, or redirected. That is not accidental—it is bureaucracy functioning as intended.
This is not a criticism of teachers as individuals. Many enter education with genuine intent to help young people. The issue is the system itself, which increasingly prioritises compliance over critical thinking and administration over truth.
The question now is simple and honest:
Do we continue serving a system that programs people to fit it, or do we help people regain the ability to think, build, and act independently?
We are working on alternatives—outside the public framework—that focus on real understanding, practical capability, and sovereignty of thought. This is about helping people, not attacking institutions.
If you feel aligned with that direction and would like to help make a meaningful change, please get in touch.
I would really love to take a look at the specific study and the questions and things like that because they seem to be leaping to the conclusion that these teachers would be more lenient, as opposed to giving better grades to girls because the standards are set up such that they penalize noncompliance in the classroom, which is not necessarily a female trade. It's just more likely to be seen in females for a variety of reasons most of which have to do with socialization not biology. In other words, grading standards, most of which, by the way are set by people in power well above the teachers, reward compliance that again is a problem with the system. It's not some kind of feminist bias against boys.
And again, I hate that I have to keep saying this: I'm not denying that there are people inside of our school system who are legitimately biased against boys and men. They make no secret of it. What I'm saying is they are not actually the problem in the system, they are a symptom of the problem inherent in the system.
You’re right to ask for the underlying study and the framing. That instinct matters.
Where these broadcasts often mislead is by collapsing system design into personal blame. The issue isn’t that teachers are “lenient” or “biased” as individuals; it’s that assessment frameworks reward compliance signals (organisation, presentation, behavioural alignment) alongside academic output. That structure predictably advantages some behaviours over others—without anyone needing ill intent.
When media headlines personalise a structural issue, two things happen:
Practitioners feel attacked and defensively disengage.
The system itself escapes scrutiny.
That pattern repeats across education, health, and governance. The work now is learning to spot when a narrative redirects attention away from design and toward people. Once you see that, the control mechanism loses its grip.
Thanks for sharing the link. It’s a useful example of how selective interpretation becomes a broadcast tool.
Notice the move: a complex, multi-country dataset is distilled into a headline that provokes identity conflict. Teachers are pushed to defend themselves; parents are pushed to pick sides. Meanwhile, the structural incentives behind grading remain untouched.
This is how control operates in public discourse:
Simplify.
Personalise.
Polarise.
Move on.
The opportunity is learning to pause at that step and ask, “What structure benefits from this framing?” That question alone changes the conversation.
Another female teacher here who most decidedly does not give better grades to female students. This is a broad generalization based more on your opinion than data, not to mention it being incredibly insulting.
This conversation isn’t an accusation against teachers—female or male. It’s about how centrally designed standards shape outcomes, regardless of who applies them. When behaviour, presentation, and compliance are embedded into marking criteria, the system—not the teacher—does the sorting.
Media framing then amplifies the wrong takeaway, triggering backlash from educators who never acted that way. That backlash is part of the control loop: it polarises, exhausts, and prevents a sober examination of the framework itself.
The constructive response isn’t denial or defensiveness—it’s insisting that systems be evaluated honestly, without turning professionals into targets.
What connects this discussion to the bigger picture—education, health, work, and the coming decade—is pattern recognition.
When systems are under strain, broadcasts increasingly:
Trigger emotional backlash.
Redirect blame to individuals.
Prevent structural reform.
Keep people arguing horizontally while control remains vertical.
The resolution isn’t outrage or protest. It’s withdrawing consent from broken frameworks and building quieter, parallel ways of learning and measuring real capability—outside bureaucratic distortion.
That’s the work we explore here week by week: learning to identify control, understanding how narratives are used, and discussing lawful ways people can regain clarity and agency before the next cycle tightens.
Those who find this line of inquiry useful tend to stay in touch through the weekly and monthly posts. It’s not about ideology—it’s about seeing clearly, early enough to act wisely.
In general, I think that labelling the phenomenon "feminization" is just probably unnecessarily polemical, and in the end doesn't even really help describe concretely what it is that is happening. Like, I get what they mean, but it can be explained more clearly, and with less of the culture-war baggage, if they just focus on the actual effects, and less on the gendered blame game.
Exactly! I went along with it at first bc I got the gist of the point but it was lazy of me and I wanted to examine the premises.
Thank you for this. I agree with much of what you say, However, while there are definitely similarities, the way in which schools have been "feminised" in the UK is slightly different, and I can see the hand of majority female educators (teachers and planners) in this, in recent decades. For example, the replacement of exams with course work, which most girls apparently prefer; the content of curricula moving too often from objective facts to "lived experience"; and a growing misunderstanding of how boys fail to thrive if they have to sit still for long periods of time (although I accept what you say about bureaucratic necessity). Of course these are generalisations, and I – like you – was not a typical girl. Having worked in schools though, I can see how the current direction of travel benefits girls and young women, and fails to inspire and motivate young men.
See here's the thing: I don't think it's being done because girls prefer it. I think it's being done because teachers prefer it and because most teachers are women it is then presumed that it's a feminine thing and being done to benefit women. There are plenty of women who do not prefer that kind of work, who do not prefer to sit still all day, and guess what, they would never dream of going into teaching!
So again it's a category error. I can assure you there are some boys who also like this arrangement. There are certainly male teachers who like this arrangement as well because they participate in it, but think about the type of man who goes into teaching right now? In other words, it is probably accurate to say that a higher percentage of women are naturally agreeable and willing to do as they're told by people in authority--I can believe that is both biologically and sociologically programmed over thousands of years as such, so whatever the female students are given to do by their teachers, they are more likely to adapt to, and at least pretend to like. But as a parent of three girls and a former teacher and a tutor who has the benefit of seeing students outside of the school setting, but talking about their schoolwork, I can tell you at least 90% of the female students I tutor despise school, no matter how well they do on paper. They are just better at faking it. They do what they need to do to do well. Fewer of them rebel.
The kind of work you're talking about is easier for the teachers because when it's not objective, they don't have to worry that the students will get things wrong and they will be blamed because the students don't know what they're supposed to know. There are so many other jobs right now for smart women and smart men who are less risk averse, less insecure, less envious of people who have more talent than they do and I would argue despite it being 2026, there are more of those jobs in fields still dominated by men, while smart women are becoming entrepreneurs.
So who's left to go into teaching? And ultimately who runs education? Not these individuals at the school level, but groups largely made up of men high up in the political power structure who revel in the fact that they can attract so many fawning sycophants of their power.
There are exceptions that prove my point. One of the best schools in England, if not the best school in England is run by a woman. If you're not familiar with her, I would strongly recommend that you look into Michaela School and Katherine Birbalsingh. She's a powerhouse and both male and female students at her school do well. People like n power in the rest of the school system where she is are constantly looking to find fault with her, to take her down even, but they can't--the evidence that her methods work is too powerful.
I would also suggest you refrain from equating traits like submissiveness, the ability to sit still for long periods of time, obedience, etc., with "feminine" traits. Doing so is in itself sexist. All humans have these traits and varying degrees, and to the extent that women have them on display more often is probably as much to do with socialization, and with the fact that western culture has been patriarchal for thousands of years then it has to do with our being female. When you are generally speaking in a physically weaker position relative to those empower over you, these are adaptive traits--maybe we should be more concerned about the fact that we are continuing to encourage females to "fawn" despite it being the 21st C, rather than upset that we're now doing it to boys too. Maybe we should do it to nobody?
Many thanks indeed for this. You make a lot of very interesting points – and there is a lot of truth in what you say.
I am a huge admirer of Katharine Birbalsingh – but I can also say that, unfortunately, she is a one-off and absolutely not typical of teachers (male or female) in the UK. And of course I am generalising in talking about so-called male and female traits – nonetheless there are some significant differences between boys and girls (as a mother, I have both, and I have worked as a therapist with both in school). We are deceiving ourselves if we think otherwise.
I'm not a believer in 'the patriarchy' – but then I grew up with Elizabeth II on the throne and Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and wondered what it would be like to have men in charge. It was a time when girls really could do anything and everything, without baggage. I never felt constrained in any way – things are actually worse now. I simply do not understand the 'fawning' you mention, or the 'learned helplessness', of so many girls today – I certainly don't encourage it – and I haven't seen that trait in boys. Thank again for your comments.
This may sound like an odd question in the 21st century. But could it be boys simply learn best from other men because boys aspire to have healthy male role models? As a boy mom, I am keenly aware of this fact, and I am just thankful that my husband is a good man and father. If there were more male teachers, and better male role models in general, this might go a long way towards boys shaping up and being able to learn more, and perhaps if teachers were paid better wages then men would become teachers. I keep hearing how American teachers are overworked, underpaid, and sadly under so much social pressure and stress to be politically correct rather than honest.
I genuinely think the entire structure of schooling is bad for all children because it stresses obedience and conformity over independence and agency, and whether their male or female that attracts specific kinds of adults. I think boys and girls who have female teachers who are no nonsense and more interested in developing their students than in fitting in with their colleagues or being obedient to their supervisors, would do better.
Teachers don't need to be role models. They just need to be great facilitators of what children are intrinsically interested in doing which is learning how to live life on planet Earth. Unfortunately, the current system attracts people who think the job is molding and training kids to fit into a specific structure, not to develop their unique talents and interests.
If I am honest, the “feminization ZOMG” narrative seemed explanatory at first, but is probably just good old fashioned sexism repackaged. I am no feminist, but the more I read it, the more it reeks.
That was kind of what happened to me. Initially, it sounded like something worth paying attention to, and then I dug into it.
Really interesting article. Thank you .
I have never blamed women for the education system. I've blamed the school boards, the teachers union, and every damned communist that wanted to take over the school. School boards have hired pedophiles and try to protect them. The union's been subverted and teachers have to teach lgbt+ bullshit. Most teachers in cities are liberals and they eat this shit up.
We need to return control back over to the school boards and the districts and get rid of the national teacher's union.
Thanks for writing this. I don't entirely buy into it, but it never hurts (often helps) to read divergent opinions. I think your historical presentation is spot on. But that was then, this is now.
To test a hypothesis, I often reverse positions, putting A in place of B and B in place of A. If my premise is that schools discriminate against boys, then I will use the same observations and see if they support the premise that schools discriminate against girls.
Without burrowing in, I would say, "No." Our schools, college included, are biased, even bigoted against white men. Imagine any teacher's continued employment opportunities if they in any way castigated blacks for the world's problems. Is it different for boys and men? I'd say, not so much. Blaming men for the world's problems, right there in the classroom, is acceptable. Blaming girls and women is not.
I acknowledge that I have proved nothing here, so accept what I say, or not. But at least consider it.
Everyone should watch this video, and ponder...
https://youtu.be/3hafzBwp--E?si=Y_itdMedeUMzMPbB
Also, there's a difference between what something is becoming, and whether something was a conspiracy to make it that way. The way this is being discussed on social media is as if it's NEW and a product strictly of feminism, when in fact feminism may in fact be a product of IT.
If you read all the way to the end, you see that I definitely acknowledge more recent developments, but my point is how did that happen in the first place? When you have a coerced system to begin with, and it recruits on the basis of low and low standards, what do you expect to get? And ultimately, isn't progressive, radical feminism, the kind that treats men and boys is defective girls, merely just another branch on the collectivist tree? We know people empower have used identity politics for generations to coalesce power around a small group of elect, who simply know what's best for everyone.
I know I veered a little from what you were getting at. I absolutely agree that the problem is almost always that factions of various sorts gain control of what should be impartial government entities, and use them to their own advantage.
Hitler did this to extremes, and he was a progressive.
Progressivism is inherently collectivist b/c it disregards human nature, which is inherently individualist. Collectivism doesn’t scale past the family—at most your immediate neighborhood, but any more than that, and people will always cease to care beyond their own personal benefit, and that’s as it should be too.
I'll go so far as to say I care about everybody in the world. But when it comes to to feeling the loss when someone dies, or the joy when there is a birth, it does stay pretty local.
An Individualist, of which I am clearly one, has a right to insist on their right to their own lifestyle. Socialists have no right to insist that everyone live according to their lifestyle.
100% agree, but the difference between us and the socialists is we not only recognize we don’t have the right to insist, but also we recognize even if we pretend we have that “right” reality will prove us wrong. Every. Single. Time. People will say “No,” because that is their right, and the “insisting” quickly turns into FORCING, which then turns into murder, and that kind of cognitive dissonance is too much for them to handle—they fancy themselves the “good guys” after all.
What you’re thinking of as Progressivism isn’t what its originators intended.
The original Progressives were populists at war with the Republican party for becoming a tool of globocorp international.
The progs you’re talking about…well…they don’t resemble them. They just stole the name. A guy named Rothschild took over Bob LaFollette’s magazine, The Progressive, in Madison, Wisconsin…after its previous editor—a literall Communist and pink diaper baby, Erwin Knoll—died in the early ‘90s.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/
This is a good article, and explains a lot.
But I don't like the old progressive movement, either. One of the earliest progressives, Woodrow Wilson was a racist. The progressive movement tried to keep that buried, but a hundred years later, we all know. Progressive darling, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist, and world class bigot. I've tracked the politics of the nineteenth century, and there is a clear connection between the KKK and the progressive movement. I would say that the progressive movement evolved out of the KKK. BTW, Hitler was a progressive. And the democratic party was and still is the party of institutional racism.
Fantastic reframe of this whole debate. The insight that confusing institutional control with femininity is the real issue here helped me reconsider alot. I used to teach middle school and saw firsthand how the system punishes any kid who cant sit still for hours, boy or girl. Seems like we've spent decades blaming the wrong variable while bureacratic sameness continues crushing actual learning.
Spot on.
What people describe as “feminization” is not feminine. It is authoritarian collectivism engineering a convenient misunderstanding, ensuring that men blame women instead of confronting the system that is harming their children.
Reminder that for 50 years—1915 to 1965—the fruit and flower of multiple generations of the bravest, healthiest, intelligent American and European men of prime breeding age were selected for automated industrialized slaughter by the millions. At the behest of global banksters who used every tool of propaganda and policy to force nations into war again and again…for steel, oil, transportation, armaments, and other profits (meaning debt for those paying for the materiel).
When “Fighting Bob” LaFollette filibustered US Senate for three days in early 1917 to try to keep the Armed Ship Bill from passing, the Senate invented cloture to make sure such a thing would never again slow down delivery of the banksters/central bankers’ will.
In his March 1917 pamphlet, “The Armed Ship Bill Meant War,” LaFolette noted that already by then, $70 billion in debt had ALREADY piled up ($1.76 trillion in today’s dollars), before the US was even involved. And he pointed out how people would bend and groan under that, and the additional, debt for generations to come.
It was women who held society—and industry—together in this and subsequent periods. They weren’t “feminists.” And, yes, the war industries like shipbuilding loved getting them as workers precisely because they could be paid less than men of equal skill (my mom and favorite aunt were shipfitters, riggers, and sheet metal workers both at the shipyard and other companies).
The other piece not discussed in your essay:
The “smart fraction” of women has been very badly treated by that authoritarian collectivism. With the obliteration of so many high quality of men in bankster war, you’d think that we couldn’t afford to waste ANY high intelligence. But here we are.
In 2018 an Anon laid out the machinations he perceived behind the 20th century war drafts—in which for the first time governments deliberately scientifically selected who would live and who would die. But here is the overall thread…
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/191367807
…and infographic summary
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1540865738213.png
Yeah, no...
I don't think that it is a very helpful idea to 'blame' people, let alone groups of people.
But you haven't even addressed several important parts of the 'feminisation' thesis. For example: are more boys medicated to stay in school than girls? Is the amount of 'recess' (which could be very productive but is seen as wasted time) a better fit for boy's vs girl's natural psychology? Is overt competitive speech or compliant speech valued?
It is a rather simple fact that if you do a deep dive into the psychology of boys vs girls, and then compare that with the values of school, you will find that the current values of school fit girls better than boys. Regardless of who is at fault... boys are being castrated by the system.
The other option, of course, is that girls, being biologically selected over many generations for social cohesion and functioning, are more easily domesticated. That doesn’t make school “a better fit” for them. Just that maybe they crack quicker, or are medicated through social pressure/resultant biological effects rather than externally inflicted pharmaceuticals.
Well, that seems a bit contradictory. If we take as given your view that girls have been biologically selected for social cohesion… and if you include under ‘social cohesion’ all of the aspects of boys behavior, in opposite, that I listed… then school would be a better fit.
If a group of pygmy’s and giants were both in a school with four foot high ceilings… the pygmy’s would be a ‘better fit’. And contrariwise, if the school had huge desks and chairs an all, then the giants would be a ‘better fit’.
Maybe read some good social science on this. Start with Cori Clark. You’re out of your depth. Clearly.
Care to be more specific? What specifically did I get wrong? 😑
social science
Kek. Good one, bro.
Feminization is when female nurses go on TikTok and discuss poisoning ICE agents, and conservatives, with no fear of repercussions.
No that’s just evil.
I blame feminists for claiming they are about equality, but are silent about male-only military draft registration, and female-only reproductive rights,
Separate issue
Female teachers give better grades to female students. That is one aspect of the feminization of the culture.
I'm a teacher, or was, and am now a tutor. I never did this and you're painting people with a very broad brush.
Hello,
It’s good to hear from you.
I understand exactly what you’re pointing to. The public education system—by design—operates on broad-brush instruction. It categorises, standardises, and conditions pupils to fit predetermined frameworks. Those who align progress smoothly; those who question or deviate are often labelled, sidelined, or redirected. That is not accidental—it is bureaucracy functioning as intended.
This is not a criticism of teachers as individuals. Many enter education with genuine intent to help young people. The issue is the system itself, which increasingly prioritises compliance over critical thinking and administration over truth.
The question now is simple and honest:
Do we continue serving a system that programs people to fit it, or do we help people regain the ability to think, build, and act independently?
We are working on alternatives—outside the public framework—that focus on real understanding, practical capability, and sovereignty of thought. This is about helping people, not attacking institutions.
If you feel aligned with that direction and would like to help make a meaningful change, please get in touch.
Take a look at this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672
I would really love to take a look at the specific study and the questions and things like that because they seem to be leaping to the conclusion that these teachers would be more lenient, as opposed to giving better grades to girls because the standards are set up such that they penalize noncompliance in the classroom, which is not necessarily a female trade. It's just more likely to be seen in females for a variety of reasons most of which have to do with socialization not biology. In other words, grading standards, most of which, by the way are set by people in power well above the teachers, reward compliance that again is a problem with the system. It's not some kind of feminist bias against boys.
And again, I hate that I have to keep saying this: I'm not denying that there are people inside of our school system who are legitimately biased against boys and men. They make no secret of it. What I'm saying is they are not actually the problem in the system, they are a symptom of the problem inherent in the system.
Reply to The Reason We Learn
You’re right to ask for the underlying study and the framing. That instinct matters.
Where these broadcasts often mislead is by collapsing system design into personal blame. The issue isn’t that teachers are “lenient” or “biased” as individuals; it’s that assessment frameworks reward compliance signals (organisation, presentation, behavioural alignment) alongside academic output. That structure predictably advantages some behaviours over others—without anyone needing ill intent.
When media headlines personalise a structural issue, two things happen:
Practitioners feel attacked and defensively disengage.
The system itself escapes scrutiny.
That pattern repeats across education, health, and governance. The work now is learning to spot when a narrative redirects attention away from design and toward people. Once you see that, the control mechanism loses its grip.
Reply to Frank
Thanks for sharing the link. It’s a useful example of how selective interpretation becomes a broadcast tool.
Notice the move: a complex, multi-country dataset is distilled into a headline that provokes identity conflict. Teachers are pushed to defend themselves; parents are pushed to pick sides. Meanwhile, the structural incentives behind grading remain untouched.
This is how control operates in public discourse:
Simplify.
Personalise.
Polarise.
Move on.
The opportunity is learning to pause at that step and ask, “What structure benefits from this framing?” That question alone changes the conversation.
Another female teacher here who most decidedly does not give better grades to female students. This is a broad generalization based more on your opinion than data, not to mention it being incredibly insulting.
Reply to Shannon Mitchell
I hear the frustration, and it’s fair.
This conversation isn’t an accusation against teachers—female or male. It’s about how centrally designed standards shape outcomes, regardless of who applies them. When behaviour, presentation, and compliance are embedded into marking criteria, the system—not the teacher—does the sorting.
Media framing then amplifies the wrong takeaway, triggering backlash from educators who never acted that way. That backlash is part of the control loop: it polarises, exhausts, and prevents a sober examination of the framework itself.
The constructive response isn’t denial or defensiveness—it’s insisting that systems be evaluated honestly, without turning professionals into targets.
The BBC article said it, not me
What connects this discussion to the bigger picture—education, health, work, and the coming decade—is pattern recognition.
When systems are under strain, broadcasts increasingly:
Trigger emotional backlash.
Redirect blame to individuals.
Prevent structural reform.
Keep people arguing horizontally while control remains vertical.
The resolution isn’t outrage or protest. It’s withdrawing consent from broken frameworks and building quieter, parallel ways of learning and measuring real capability—outside bureaucratic distortion.
That’s the work we explore here week by week: learning to identify control, understanding how narratives are used, and discussing lawful ways people can regain clarity and agency before the next cycle tightens.
Those who find this line of inquiry useful tend to stay in touch through the weekly and monthly posts. It’s not about ideology—it’s about seeing clearly, early enough to act wisely.
Progress starts with recognition.
Good points. Thanks.
A man being a dickhead.
Classic.
LOL, you're a fantasist.