Something hostile to males (was Equity:tennis vs war)

Tim Benham (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:55:37 +1000

[S.McKevit says G.Giffard uncollegial]

Jacquelyn Zimmerman writes:

JZ> I would like to thank Susan McKevitt for this honest
JZ> response. I have been reeling from the reactions to my posting of
JZ> two days ago from H. Furbrow and from members of what appears to
JZ> be his/her camp. I still don't know what I said that prompted
JZ> their attack response. I feel like I thought I was in a tennis
JZ> game, exchanging information, and found out I was really in a war.
JZ> I don't feel wounded, just confused. Perhaps it is the nature of
JZ> this forum for discussion, where all we have is words and where it
JZ> is too cumbersome to do what it takes to have a meaningful
JZ> exchange among people coming from a variety of directions. It's
JZ> hard to ask participants what they mean, which is often necessary
JZ> in order to continue a real discussion and understand where the
JZ> other person is coming from.

While I speak only for myself, I may be able to offer some help in
understanding where H.Furbrow and "his/her camp" are coming from by
drawing your attention to aspects of the framing of this debate which
seem to have so far escaped you.

JZ> As many have already said here, nothing in the discussion so far
JZ> is hostile to males.

(1) Brake's Opening Statement contained a lengthy explanation of why
single-sex education for women is justifiable whereas boys-only classes
are not -- "the latter, much like all-White education, reinforces a
longstanding message branding the excluded group as inferior". This
suggests that being in favor of separate education for boys where
educationally justified is now akin to membership of the KKK, with
women as the next lynching victim.

(2) Brake continued in her 'Policy Considerations' by claiming that
"Discrimination against women is alive and well in education" and
supported this with a list of florid, rarely relevant, and often false
allegations. (I have already detailed numerous faults in my previous
two unanswered posts). This could only create the reasonable
apprehension amongst those concerned with boys' education that the
purpose of these 'Policy Considerations' was to justify further
discriminatory practices which would further worsen the position of
disadvantaged males in the education system.

(3) Brake went on "Single Sex Education Can Serve Important
*Compensatory* Objectives" [All emphases mine]. This, and other
language referring to "remedying *past* discrimation" and justifying
preferential treatment of female students in terms of "the *history*
of discrimination", suggests that female students are owed
compensation by their male peers for events that occurred in the
(possibly remote) past. This is a license for discrimination against
boys with no apparent expiry.

JZ> On the contrary, I have read a lot of soul searching about where
JZ> we go from where we are in getting **all** our children educated.
JZ> To move forward with this discussion then: what prevents the
JZ> country from allowing or what prevents us from accepting
JZ> single-sex schools and programs and classes as one choice among
JZ> many, so that parents could, with their children, consider this
JZ> option in deciding what schooling situation is best for them? In
JZ> other words, why doesn't this choice "go without saying"?

I can suggest a reason. Firstly a system which allows girls-only
schools but forbids boys-only schools is so patently discriminatory
(particularly where boys are performing significantly more poorly) to
the average parent that it will be constantly attacked and eventually
these attacks will breach the legal fog around Title IX. This
frightens the gender war ideologues who despise the notion of
male-only anything. Unfortunately they have so far controlled the

new message to this message