School Shooting Appears Tied to Bullying, Gender Stereotypes

Christina Hoff Sommers, in her classic "The War Against Boys" (2000) notes that ideological feminists and 'gender equity' educators, mis-interpret these kind of statistics cited here, as evidence that there is (paraphrasing) "something wrong with masculinity as it is imposed by our patriachal society". Then they say we need to raise boys differently (i.e. more like girls).
And this is what the progressive educators have been doing for the last 30 years - girl-centered education. But hasn't the problem gotten worse? Hoff Sommers says, correctly so, that kids need be subjected to discipline as they are raised, by parents as well as teachers and others. Instead, schools are afraid to punish kids because they fear litigation by the parents, who are too wimpy to raise their kids right, and because of laissez-faire school atmospheres generated by these 'progressive' educators. It really isn't that difficult a concept, actually it's common sense (as Sommers points out): if you let kids, especially boys, get away with whatever they want, then guess what: they might do bad things (like pick on other kids!).
I guess I could also mention my own pet theory here, that as boys have been subjected to these attempts to raise them more like girls, it stands to reason that there will be those boys who respond by actually becoming more 'effiminate', in behavior or some other aspects I suppose; where as the boys who have rebelled against this upbringing, and who are not being raised in a disciplining atmosphere (see above), pick on and bully these more 'effiminate' boys. It is a problem which may take decades to correct - as soon as somebody sees the problem for what it is. And in the meantime, at least one whole generation of boys (and girls) will grow up, irrepairably harmed by these policies.

-Axolotl

It's pretty well accepted that schools have become incorporated into the Gender Wars.

Their are several levels to this --

Perhaps most critically, schools are controlled by a generation of women who are the aging 3rd wave of radical feminism.

Emphasis on "aging." These gals are mad, sad, and bad. (It's all about their post-menopausal brain chemistry... but that's another post entirely.)

With few exceptions, female teachers are totally unable to understand boy's learning styles and needs. Why? Because they themselves were successfully schooled in feminist learning "theory."

Secondly, girls are very sophisticated emotional predators by the time they arrive at Jr. High School.

(Read - Rachel Simmon's ODD GIRL OUT: THE HIDDEN CULTURE OF AGGRESSION IN GIRLS.)

Most intelligent girls have "guy friends" that they like and depend upon because the bitches are so vile and aggressive.

Ask any high school girl to name her personal ENEMIES. The culprits will be 100% FEMALE!

Much of the protocol in schools is designed for behavioral modification of boy's natural physical activity.

Can you think of a better way to demoralize and dehumanize a species than making an innately testosterone-driven individual sit in a row and "be quiet until called upon" for 16 freakin' YEARS!

In a civilized culture truly dedicated to gender equality, this syndrome would be immediately recognized as an ideologically-driven regime of TORTURE based soley on gender.

Well, maybe that's a bit extreme?

Do ya'll think so?

They didn't really come up with 'student-centered education' unitl approx. the 80's. This is when the schools started wanting the students to 'find themselves', define themselves and focus on creativity and do away with rote learning. This has been a big mistake. Also, many boys started being educated (and raised) more like girls, especially in the 90's and later.
Young boys need to be taught discipline in the classroom. They need it more than girls, though girls need it to. What we need is a return to the 'old-fashioned' discipline style used before the 80's, before all this laissez-faire shit. The problem is a combination of feminists wanting to do away with masculinity, and well-intentioned (except for the ones who are feminists)educators who have fucked up a whole generation of kids, with their 'progressive' methods.

-Axolotl

Well, I don't think feminists want to do away with masculinity. Verily, they use the encultured traits of masculintity well to their advantage often. For instance, one of the greatest fears of speaking out against ideological and gender feminism (and so on) is the threat of the classically trained chivalric male stamping on you for "mistreating" the "little ladies", even though they are now little more than muscle for furthering ther agenda. Being raised in an environment where things such as reading--and even thinking!-- are frowned upon and considered "unmanly" (ironic, because intellectualism was, until the post-second world war days, considered very masculine, and I definitely still consider intellectualism masculine), then I would certainly agree that something desperately has to be changed about male socialiaztoan and enculturaion, and i'm surprised that I don't see more of you here agreeing with that; hey, let's not fall into the dualistic trap of "whatever 'they' say 'we' must dismiss as false". There are many things to consider when thinking of the harm of toxic male enculturation. Think about peoples' fear of walking down the street at night (even in the damn suburbs now!). I read three newspapers and several online publications, and there doesn't seem to be a day that goes by without hearing about some, mostly young, man killing another man. Or how about all the young men being rounded up and herded to trade schools, believeing that that is all it is to be a man now: impress your girl by being a simian-like wage labourer (not that I'm knocking those skills but just considering the social ramifications and consequences often not considered). Or raising them to be ultra-competitive so that they can then, what?, work for big business and participate in some of the greatest atrocities, abhorrances against nature, and dehumanization processes going down today? Or raise them to suppress more tender emotions to favour more fiery emotions and then witness some of them possibly cause nuclear destruction, destruction on an unprecedented level? (Although girls, being raised more like boys have always been, may take the initiative to execute this instead.) Or more insidiously, biological destruction, perpetrated by a small group or just one lonely, depressed, and angry male working in a makeshift biochemisty lab somewhere? No, I'm sorry, but society can't return to an old fashioned way of raising boys, it is no longer feasible or relevent, and actually, well obviously, quite dangerous. Besides, boys' upbringing hasn't really changed that much anyway; there were no real concerted efforts to change the socialization of boys like how girls' socialization was altered. Rather, it got dragged along in a hurried attempt to keep some pace with the girls' new socialization (and this includes what's happening in the schools, of course), but it never actually kept pace, rather having their roles only intensify while/due to women's roles and choices became/becoming increasingly varied, while boys were left in the dust(due credit to Warren Farrell here). Of course, feminists (well-intentioned ones, and yes they did and even still do exist!) can't do to boys what they did for girls; that takes masculinists or MRAs and their supporters to do that, and not the league of feminists and feminist-minded people in the article.

Young boys need to be taught discipline in the classroom. They need it more than girls, though girls need it to. What we need is a return to the 'old-fashioned' discipline style used before the 80's, before all this laissez-faire shit.

I remember back in school that only the boys received corporal punishment while the girls didn't so I don't think a return to "tradition" is what we need,instead we need to be truly inclusive in corporal punishment by not excluding by gender. Girls and women need discipline especially considering the outrageous behavior of females today.

There are many things to consider when thinking of the harm of toxic male enculturation. Think about peoples' fear of walking down the street at night (even in the damn suburbs now!). I read three newspapers and several online publications, and there doesn't seem to be a day that goes by without hearing about some, mostly young, man killing another man.

You sound like one the assholes shoving ritalin down boy's throats. I've seen stories which detail WOMEN who rob MEN on the street and rob men in other ways so "masculinity" in itself is not the problem.

Or raise them to suppress more tender emotions to favour more fiery emotions and then witness some of them possibly cause nuclear destruction, destruction on an unprecedented level?

It isn't the "suppression of tender emotions" that's the problem it's the "suppression of constitutional rights for men" that's the problem and these men that you consider "dangerous" and "evil" may have their backs to the wall by a misandric society out to get them and any legal recourse has been taken away from them so they have no choice but to do what they have to do.

(Although girls, being raised more like boys have always been, may take the initiative to execute this instead.)

Females live in the "here and now" and they will do anything that they feel benefits them,no matter who gets hurt. Females have been doing their destruction since the beginning of time,long before feminism tried to change the gender roles,so females doing damage is nothing new. Except maybe to you.

Or more insidiously, biological destruction, perpetrated by a small group or just one lonely, depressed, and angry male working in a makeshift biochemisty lab somewhere? No, I'm sorry, but society can't return to an old fashioned way of raising boys, it is no longer feasible or relevent, and actually, well obviously, quite dangerous.

Chivilary is quite dangerous and outdated as it is a tool for FEMALES to use against MALES and it's promoted by the closet case pussy whips and self serving females and it is chivilary that no longer needs to be taught to boys as it is an outdated concept. Also boys need to be taught to be "your own man" and not to be what females want you to be also boys need to be taught the true nature of females at an early age as females become emotional terrorists real quick and boys need to be taught about female's "blame and shame" games. These are the only changes to "masculinity" that I would make,changes that actually help boys instead of trying to emasculate them.

but it never actually kept pace, rather having their roles only intensify while/due to women's roles and choices became/becoming increasingly varied, while boys were left in the dust(due credit to Warren Farrell here)

Agreed. I would like to see boys and men given more choices on issues that concern them.

Of course, feminists (well-intentioned ones, and yes they did and even still do exist!) can't do to boys what they did for girls; that takes masculinists or MRAs and their supporters to do that, and not the league of feminists and feminist-minded people in the article.

Feminism is NOT well intentioned for men and it never was meant to be neither was it a legitimate political movement since women had privileges that men never had and women were never really oppressed. Women were NEVER required by law to be drafted or sign up with selective service and women could take nice,soft,cushy jobs while men were EXPECTED to take the more dangerous jobs. As far as feminists running to MRA's,well that's just another case of women running to men to bail them out of trouble however it does take a man to make a boy into a man so MRA's would be needed.

Hi MM, unfortunately it is often the case, that when one mentions wanting to return to a previous level of discipline in the classroom, it is wrongly taken to mean a return to corporal punishment. Of course I (and most people) are not advocating that.
I mean things like stricter learning methods, e.g. rewarding a student for doing well and NOT rewarding those who do not (i.e. the giving of 'stars' like they used to do); and what is wrong with some amount of learning by rote? The way I remember it, that is what they used to use with good results. So some students exhibit a little anxiety - big deal. The overcoming of anxiety strengthens a person.
The fact is there is currently too much emphasis given in the class room, on letting students 'explore their talents', themselves define what is meant to be successful, and vague relativistic ideas like that. I guess I am desiring a return to stricter methods, but that does not mean intimidating kids.
(As an example of the kind of shit going on here in Florida schools, teachers have been told not to use red ink to mark wrong answers on tests, because it invokes anxiety in some of the students!! The situation cannot get much more ridiculous than that..can it??)

-Axolotl

Your equating of a socialization of boys which inculcutes some level of masculinity in them, with increase in beatings etc., is totally ridiculous. In fact you contradict yourself, by implying this, then later in your post saying that the socialization of boys hasn't changed much lately. If anything, the level of violence in schools has risen CONCURRENTLY WITH the increased raising of boys more like girls. I would recommend that you read Hoff Sommers' book, which directly addresses these issues and would show you the errors in your thinking (unless of course you are a feminist, because then you are probably incorrigible).
-Axolotl