Underachievement of white boys

I'd be interested to know what you (or indeed others):

*Think of my more psychological reflections*:

I tried to address psychology in my post last night.

cut & paste error while trying to format the response land bit you posted should read
𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙨𝙖𝙬 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙫𝙪𝙡𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙚𝙚𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩. 𝙄𝙩 𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙙𝙚, 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙪𝙥, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖 𝙈𝙖𝙣 𝙎𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝘽𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝘽𝙞𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙'𝙨 𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙨, 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨:

𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙.

𝗪𝘆𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝟯 𝗦𝘂𝗻 𝟮𝟰-𝗔𝘂𝗴-𝟮𝟱 𝟮𝟯:𝟯𝟴:𝟯𝟮
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻𝗻𝘆𝗠𝗼, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟯/𝟰 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 (𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗲)

𝘠𝘦𝘴 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘦𝘸, 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘔 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳

𝗜𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗿, 𝗶𝗺𝗼, 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱
𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘧 𝘐’𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘵 16, 𝘣𝘺 20 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥, 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴/𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥-𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵.

I𝙩'𝙨 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙨/𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙜𝙮𝙣𝙮 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙘𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮
𝘐 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘆𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 "𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗻, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻" 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱.
𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭.

𝗢𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 "𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗮𝗱𝗲" 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 - 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 ...

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 "𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹, 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲" 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲.
𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 3 𝘥𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴, 2 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 ( 1 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵) 𝘴𝘰 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯

(𝗬𝗼𝘂'𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆.... 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀)
𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 40 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦.

….
𝗬𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗛 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗼.
𝘈𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦

𝗦𝗼..𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗻? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁?
& 𝗐𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇, 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗋𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝗏𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗆 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗇, 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗋𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗉𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗐𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇. 𝖣𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝖠𝖻𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗍. 𝖨 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝖼𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐𝗅𝖾𝖽𝗀𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝗷𝗼𝗯? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺? 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀?

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝘆 (𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻) "𝗼𝗵, 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 "𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆" (𝗶𝗲 𝗕𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲) 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 "𝗼𝘂𝗿" 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀.
𝖨 𝗁𝗈𝗉𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝖺𝗌𝗇’𝗍 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗍𝗍𝖺𝖼𝗄, 𝗂𝖿 𝗂𝗍 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝖨 𝗌𝖺𝗒 𝖨 𝗁𝖾𝗅𝗉𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗆𝗆𝗂𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖢𝖵 𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗍 𝗒𝖾𝖺𝗋. 𝖧𝖾 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝖿𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝖨𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝖽 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗁𝖾𝗅𝗉 𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗀𝖾𝗍 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇.

𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗼. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼.
𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝗉𝖾𝗈𝗉𝗅𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗋𝖽 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗀𝗅𝗈𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝗌𝗄𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗂-𝗌𝗄𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝗆𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝖾𝗌𝗍. 𝖤𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝖿 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗃𝗈𝖻𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖻𝖺𝖼𝗄. 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝖥𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗀𝖾 𝗈𝗋 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉 (𝖻𝗈𝗍𝗁 𝖨𝖬𝖧𝖮 𝗌𝗇𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗈𝗂𝗅 𝗌𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗌𝗆𝖾𝗇, 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗄𝖾𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗇𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗈𝗂𝗅) 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌.

𝗟𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗺𝗲, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 (𝗜 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀) 𝗶𝘀 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻. (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿, 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻).
𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗻 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻) 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗻 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻)

𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁
𝖠𝗇𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗐𝗇𝗌 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗇𝖾, 𝗌𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗒 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗇’𝗍 𝗁𝖺𝖽 𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗃𝗈𝖻. 𝖲𝗂𝗑 𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗁𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗌𝖾𝖺𝗌𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄, 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗌𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗆𝖾 …

𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖺𝗂𝖽 𝖾𝗅𝗌𝖾𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝖺𝗇𝗒 𝗀𝖾𝗍 𝗎𝗉 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗀𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗍 𝗎𝗉 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗅𝖾𝖿𝗍 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗀𝗈 (𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅 𝗆𝖾). 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗅𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗌, 𝗇𝗈 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝗈 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗈𝗉𝗌…
𝖠𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗍 𝖨 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆 𝖨 𝖽𝗈𝗇’𝗍 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇

𝗠𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸, 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽
𝖶𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖨 𝖽𝗂𝖽 𝖺𝗌𝗄 𝗆𝗒 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗁𝖾𝗅𝗉 (𝗌𝖾𝖾 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋) 𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝖨 𝗀𝗈𝗍 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝖬𝖺𝗇 𝗎𝗉, 𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖾𝗄.

𝗦𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀.
𝖠 𝗅𝗈𝗍 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝗌𝖺𝗂𝖽 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗈𝗑𝗂𝖼 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗒 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗇𝗈 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝗇𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗑𝗂𝖼 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗒 (𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖺𝗒)

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲. 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 . 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻: 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗼).
𝖬𝗒 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾, 𝖨 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄 𝖻𝗒 𝖺 𝖿𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖺𝗀𝗎𝖾, 𝟣𝟧 𝗒𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗆𝖾, 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗀𝗇 𝖻𝗈𝗋𝗇. 𝖤𝗇𝖽𝖾𝖽 𝗎𝗉 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌 𝖻𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗄 𝖽𝗈𝗐𝗇 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗅𝗈𝗈𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗆𝗒 𝗃𝗈𝖻 𝖺𝖿𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗇𝖾𝖺𝗋𝗅𝗒 𝟤𝟢 𝗒𝖾𝖺𝗋𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾.

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲. 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 . 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻: 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗼).
𝖶𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖨 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝖨 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗇𝖺𝗌𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗍, 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝖿𝖾𝖾𝗅 𝗀𝗈𝗈𝖽 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗏𝖾 𝖻𝗒 𝗁𝗎𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗌

David, it seems that women teachers are the problem, in your view. Women have been in classrooms for over a century and a half, even back in those halcyon days when you were at school, and there were jobs for the boys, trade schools, etc etc.
So why were these women doing an ok job then, and not now - maybe it's some other factors..
And I do agree with the poster who described her terror of her nuns.
I went to a small grammar school for girls, and several of our women teachers could have quelled a riot and stopped a runaway horse with a withering glance.
Conversely I must confess to being part of the group that sometimes reduced our male English teacher to tears, and leaving the room: sorry, Mr G..

www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-and-a-level-grading-what-you-need-to-know/gcse-and-a-level-grading-what-you-need-to-know

Growstuff this might be helpful

I'd be interested to know what you (or indeed others):

*Think of my more psychological reflections*:

Since after all,

^How one feels about oneself as not employed or employed, or as a man or woman, or as a parental role model - as a teacher, or one being taught, whether its a man or woman in an individual example -

is inseparable from the the larger political forces at play...

Its my POV we cant discuss one without the other

Ah, Hi there, JohhnyMo. A swim, in this weather?

foxie48

growstuff

foxie48 The grading of GCSEs is norm referenced with a results curve which is more or less the same every year for individual subjects. The point is that the system won't allow a 100% pass rate. I agree that there are alternative qualifications, but they weren't being discussed.

I don't think it is. Please see the attached letter dated 20/03/23

committees.parliament.uk/publications/39051/documents/191996/default/

I could point out the holes in that, I'm afraid, but I'm a bit busy atm. It's a whitewash of what really happens. Maybe I'll come to it later, if I find time.

growstuff

foxie48 The grading of GCSEs is norm referenced with a results curve which is more or less the same every year for individual subjects. The point is that the system won't allow a 100% pass rate. I agree that there are alternative qualifications, but they weren't being discussed.

Growstuff my point about the alternative quals wasn't aimed at you but at other posts that suggested the curriculum needs changing. Actually there's been a lot of change, particularly around the basic skills area which recognises that some children won't get even a foundation level at maths GCSE but they still need to be numerate to function in society. There's also been an opening up of vocational quals with links to FE colleges that have been reasonably successful in engaging disaffected youngsters but it is an uphill battle in some schools.

Wyllow3

I've been wondering a bit if JohnnyMo is going to come back in the comment on the many answers to the queries he/she set up.

Just popped him/her in the search engine and the name appears for the very first time 4 days ago....then stopped suddenly yesterday.

Bank holiday maybe, but a little disappointing, as we've subsequently commented so much on the O/P.

I was at the gym this morning, I was writing a response to your post

I've been wondering a bit if JohnnyMo is going to come back in the comment on the many answers to the queries he/she set up.

Just popped him/her in the search engine and the name appears for the very first time 4 days ago....then stopped suddenly yesterday.

Bank holiday maybe, but a little disappointing, as we've subsequently commented so much on the O/P.

growstuff

foxie48 The grading of GCSEs is norm referenced with a results curve which is more or less the same every year for individual subjects. The point is that the system won't allow a 100% pass rate. I agree that there are alternative qualifications, but they weren't being discussed.

I don't think it is. Please see the attached letter dated 20/03/23

committees.parliament.uk/publications/39051/documents/191996/default/

foxie48 The grading of GCSEs is norm referenced with a results curve which is more or less the same every year for individual subjects. The point is that the system won't allow a 100% pass rate. I agree that there are alternative qualifications, but they weren't being discussed.

We are not feminising it David.

We are equalising it.

It feels to you as a family traditional male (not in the very bad ways, of course1)

That equalising = taking over.

I don't experience women as taking over, I don't know how other women feel here: but in my lifetime I've watched women enter male areas and a male power structure bit by bit:

And the result certainly does not practically or emotionally feel like some kind of a win

It feels like some kind of a balance.

In the 1960s the teaching profession was already "feminised" with female teachers over represented in primary school and with male teachers over represented in every leadership role and the secondary sector. On teaching practice in the late 60's in a secondary school in a disadvantages area of Birmingham I was given an English bottom set. All boys who arrived at my first lesson with comics and football annuals. A lad explained that I didn't need to teach them, Sir did his marking whilst they read comics and kept their mouths shut. That was how people kept discipline in the 60's! Thank goodness that changed but no wonder we have older generations who do not value education, some of them never got any!

If men have deserted the 'education industry' it is because of poor pay. Men are disproportionately represented in the higher echelons of Higher Education where the pay is extremely high*. It is people at that level who make decisions and decide policies, and it is very much a man's world.

AI gives the figures:

While specific numbers vary depending on the data source and date, a significant majority of Vice-Chancellors in the UK are male. For example, one report from February 2024 stated that 83% of Vice-Chancellors identify as male, and earlier data from October 2017 found that 80% of Vice-Chancellors at the UK's top 50 universities were male. This reflects a persistent underrepresentation of women in these top leadership roles despite their higher numbers in the overall university workforce.

Key Statistics:
A 2024 report from Times Higher Education indicated that 83% of Vice-Chancellors identify as male.
In October 2017, analysis by Green Park and Operation Black Vote found that 80% of Vice-Chancellors at the UK's top 50 universities were male.

The Trend:
Although the proportion of female Vice-Chancellors has been increasing, progress has been slow, and men continue to dominate these senior leadership positions.

I'm not sure why 'feminising' education would necessarily be a bad thing - I just don't think it is happening. What happened in the 60s is just not relevant to now, either. It may be true, David that your education in the 1960s was good for you in the 1960s, but there are questions around whether it would be good for you in the 2020s, whether the education you had would be good for other people now, and whether it was universally good then. I doubt it, as disabilities such as Dyslexia were not recognised and large numbers of people were simply written off and left to a lifetime of illiteracy.

The world has moved on, and education has to move with it. Whether it is moving in the right direction is up for debate, but harking back to 60 years ago is pointless.

*(from Student Beans) In 2021-2022 the average salary for vice-chancellors of Russell Group universities increased by 6% to £413,000, including pensions and benefits on top of their basic salaries. We now have the latest data for the 2022-23 year too which has shown that across the UK’s 24 Russell Group universities, the average salary still exceeds £400,000, with more than two-thirds of them awarding vice-chancellors pay rises over the last year.

However, the reality is many VCs are earning much, much more, with the vice-chancellor of Oxford University taking home a whopping £1,048,000 per year.

The problem is the lack of esteem in this country for academic and intellectual achievement.

Clever and ambitious children almost always have parents behind them who encourage them to study, and want them to do so and do everything they can to help them. This help has nothing to do with wealth or money or access to resources.

In too many white working class families this ambition and desire to see their children do well in school is missing. Not all, not among most immigrant communities. what we need to do is not help the children but chnage the mind set of their parents.

The idea that unpleasant men are drawn to a particular political point if view isn't true I am afraid, the left is soaked in a different type of misogyny than the right that's all.

I’m really blaming the whole education industry, which has become more feminized progressively, men are still deserting the education industry you are not going to get them back.

I believe the education system that I experienced prepared children better for the world in the 1960s than the current system does in the 2020s. My main criticism is the lack of respect and discipline that schools tolerate, resulting in many children lacking confidence as well as basic skills when they leave,

Children that have good parenting have a big advantage, those that don’t are being failed because schools are not giving them the basic discipline they need. For what it’s worth boys suffer more than girls, which brings us back to the OP, many boys under achieve.

In the last half part of the last century colleges had to run basic skills classes alongside the apprenticeship courses because young men left school with poor English and numeracy skills. Sadly nothing has changed but the job market has and kids need these skills for most jobs. Fwiw GCSE s are not norm referenced, there's a variety of pathways for young people including more vocational courses and additional support in schools ie pupil premium is allocated depending on how many pupils get free school meals, not race, ethnicity or gender. If you want to understand why white working class boys do badly at school you need to look at the culture they come from first and foremost. These boys start to fail from the first year they attend school which is why it's so sad that Sure start was disbanded by the last government.

MadameFeuveral

White privilege is a nonsense term that belongs in the bin.

White privilege just means that white people don't suffer the same discrimination as non-whites

keepingquiet

Casdon

I think I’ve entered a parallel universe.

No, I think David is in it!

And JohnnyMo, who has been with Gransnet for 3/4 days only (unless is appearing in another guise)

Is appearing to me, to be orchestrating or trying to orchestrate or, imo, failing to orchestrate the whole pitch of this thread

It's my opinion his/her posts are soaked not only in misogyny but also the kind of inadequacy that drives some men to attack women, and not even in a subtle way

Gaslighting: accusing women of negativity when in fact (as in, the strength of single women with children, or the female teacher who can often quell poor behaviour in a young male in ways that men cannot) they are being powerful in a good way.

The portrayal of "poor working class men, who are the only ones not getting affirmative action" has to be turned on its head.

Obviously we have long seen the whines of some of the more privileged men when women "invade" their territory.

But some men of all backgrounds who cant stand intelligent or talented women from their own class because - quite simply ...

They used to be "in control, in charge" in times going or gone. They used to be the ones who bought home the money, and it's a threat when it isn't the case anymore.

(You'll get men into caring or teaching when you pay more, quite simply.... women still tolerate earning less)

But I have met some wonderful talented, and caring male care workers, who do it as they love to care for people.

I recently over several days met in total 5 labourers and got talking to them.

With the 2 young ones, they were very open, loved their kids, respected their wives, took part in housework, didnt have problems engaging with me when I suggested something a little different.

One grumpy older man grumped at me taking charge of a difficult situation (they were sent out without proper tools, so we used mine and I took part) ...until we got talking properly and he said how he was urging his daughter to stand up to her boyfriend as bf didn't want her to do a traditional mans job.

So we are apparently left with a group of men who don't want to take opportunities that are there.

Yes, at a political level we need to work harder providing opportunities for both young men and women, and of course we are now very aware this includes emotional or MH support too.

So..whats the problems with and for a number of men? Why are they domestic abusers, needing control at any cost?

Are they grumpy about it not being as easy as it was to get a job? Why blame women for taking them? Why not get off their backsides?

They are ideal material for racists. They cry (if not blaming women) "oh, well "they" (ie BAME people) are taking "our" jobs.

Not so. It's the direction capitalism is taking, outsourcing production abroad, that is taking their jobs. But they are encouraged to blame non whites by the likes of Farage and co.

Locally, and it can't just be me, what I see (I think this happens in stable working class communities) is Fathers working in various trades taking their sons on. (and of course sometimes daughters, or like my decorator, a woman who has taken her son on).

So we are left with the remainders: the disaffected group of young men (and of course some women) growing into disaffected older men (and some women)

Because they need jobs to go to and support to do that

We can provide jobs (eg, jobs in caring) but when there isnt there isnt the take up....

What is it..pride?

Loss of what they had before, or thought they had before?

Anger? ....blame?... Depression?

But when it's depression, and anger, loss of pride in self and so on, connected with not having a job...

Men find it hard to talk, to ask for help

And its usually women who try and persuade them to get help: we are more prepared to accept help, not be ashamed of it

So men need to change with the times.

*So help is being offered. It's in the campaigns to help men specifically, talk more. It's in the campaigns on a personal level in Job Centres or in GP surgeries or in schools to persuade boys and men of all ages, for example, to take up the computer courses on offer, the schemes that do exist: that it;s worth getting an education not giving up and blaming others.

Finally, I will give a personal example. I was in a coercively abusive controlling marriage with a man, and I was fundamentally a strong and very well educated woman . I let things happen: love and compassion and wanting to please is strong in many women (and some men too).

But when the dust settled more, what I saw was a man who felt threatened because he was vulnerable himself, but could not bear to feel that. It hurt his pride, because of the way he was brought up, the expectations of what a Man Should Be, and encountering a woman who although not Big and Successful in the world's terms, had achieved more than him in other ways:

And it could not be tolerated.

Tying it all together, I think that men are now offered help, men from all backgrounds, but they need to take it up

White privilege is a nonsense term that belongs in the bin.

I think that at least some of the problem is low levels of aspiration, coupled with bravado. The reality is that for all kinds of structural reasons many children from low-income families probably won't stay at school beyond the earliest chance to escape, and they won't get the best jobs or go to university. It's better for their self-esteem to tell themselves and others that they don't care - that they are natural rebels, and that qualifications are for 'swots' or 'posh people' than it is to buy into the (spurious) narrative that life is a meritocracy and they are at the bottom of the pile because they deserve to be.

I taught in an FE college in a very deprived area in the 80s, and I saw this play out over and over. If I could find a reason for students to learn that didn't involve losing face they could do very well. For a while their mothers' child benefit relied on their attending regularly and passing interim exams to stay on the course (I was teaching GCSE/O and A level), and this was an incentive. They could say to friends that the only reason they were there was because the family needed the money (which a lot of them did) but without the sanction it would have been difficult for them to admit they enjoyed at least some of the classes.

Another thing was that in many cases if they passed exams they would be the first in the family to do so. Their fathers and grandfathers had been guaranteed jobs without qualifications, and in many cases the older generations were suspicious of people who had them. Certificates were 'pieces of paper', and students were 'layabouts' and weren't in the 'real world'. The mass unemployment of the 80s and the numerous 'schemes' that young people had to go on to get any money at all were (rightly IMO) derided as exploitative and pointless, as as soon as the scheme ended they were sacked and a new school leaver took their place as free labour. This reduced aspiration further. The area was an ex-industrial one, and unemployment hit boys harder than girls, who traditionally had families very young and didn't have careers. Learning to type or getting a few O levels could mean they'd get a clerical job, so this wasn't seen as a threat when they were young. I saw a lot of marriages flounder when the man was unemployed and the wife came back into education having grown up a bit, though - many of the women flourished and often it didn't go down well. 'Getting above yourself' was frowned upon in many families, probably for the same reasons they don't engage with school - fear of being looked down upon.

I left FE teaching in the early 90s, and I'm sure things have changed - for one thing General Education isn't taught in colleges any more, and the employment situation is different - but I suspect the psychology will be the same.

Also - 'white privilege' does not mean that all white people come from homes that give them advantages over others. It means that being white ensures that you do not suffer from racism and systemic disadvantage. I think the term is misleading. I am in a few local history FB groups and I often see people comment on photos of barefoot children with 'so much for white privilege', and it's clear that many people have misunderstood the meaning. Many white people are (and always have been) disadvantaged compared with other white people but even privileged people of colour can face racism, and systems can be stacked against them.

David49

Men expect to be in control of their situation that is not the reality of many classrooms, women are more tolerant and allow indiscipline to get through the day.

So if you like women can hack it and we have seen the results

Not quite sure where this is coming from?

Have you been in a classroom since you left school yourself?

Where do you get these notions from, David49