TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Male teacher numbers so low experts warn of negative impact on [ONLY FEMALE] students

4InTheMorningIWokeUp

September 23, 2015
176 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://archive.is/J2AIb
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Male teacher numbers so low experts warn of negative impact on [ONLY FEMALE] students
Author

4InTheMorningIWokeUp

Upvotes 176
Comments 103
Date September 23, 2015 12:14 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3m060j/male_teacher_numbers_so_low_experts_warn_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/male-teacher-numbers-so-low-experts-warn-of.970842
https://theredarchive.com/post/970842

Comments

[–]HotZone_ 74 points75 points76 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

THE number of male teachers has plummeted to such an alarming level that it threatens to damage the development of a generation of young female students.

Just 16 per cent of teachers in primary school classrooms are men prompting warnings of a negative impact on children — particularly girls in need of male role models.

Jaw. On. Floor.

[–]tio1w 51 points52 points53 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I just find it funny that you people still haven't grasped the basic problem of all MensRights.

Unless it affects females (directly or indirectly) society as a whole (and this includes most males) doesn't give a flying fuck.

It's the same thing with the small number of males in universities. The major issue with it is that women will have trouble marrying up.

When are you going to accept reality? What will it take?

[–]HotZone_ 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I understand the problem full well. Although I'm still occasionally shocked by just how much society doesn't give a shit about males. One would think that even feminists would at least extend empathy to boys. But I don't think these attitudes are inevitable. Some degree of gynocentrism is probably inevitable, but the current extreme misandry can be countered. Mothers with boys will probably play a big role.

[–]tio1w 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

One would think that even feminists would at least extend empathy to boys.

Why?!

Quite on the contrary. Boys are of no value to them because they don't provide value until adulthood. Their main concern is to mold them into good obedient slaves.

But I don't think these attitudes are inevitable.

You are wrong. Asking women to empathize with males and not looking at them from a purely utilitarian perspective is akin to asking a pig to grow wings and fly to Saturn

Mothers with boys will probably play a big role.

Not one bit. I consider the fact that women are allowed to raise boys under no supervision a big part of the problem. Women are abusive to boys at incredible rates. It just so happens that again, no one gives a shit.

It's the same with circumcision, the status quo is mainly perpetuated by the mothers, not the fathers.

[–]chavelah 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The inactivist movement in America was started by a mother, and most of the intactivists I know are mothers. Would you like to stop by a protest and "supervise" us?

Fathers are much more likely to insist on circumcision than mothers, but you can hardly blame them - it's quite the emotional leap to realize that your parents hacked off the end of your dick and permanently damaged your sexual functioning.

[–]blueoak9 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And that's only one example. Second wives have been very, very active in the fights around child support extortion and alimony. Karen Straughan attributes her activism to being the mother of two boys. etc.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In regards to second wives its very plausible that they're only really protecting their own monetary interests. Every penny paid in alimony or child support is a penny not in her control.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They are certainly doing that but how do you separate that from looking out for their husbands' interests?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If someone does something for which there will be personal gain i do not consider it altruism. They might be looking out for the husbands interests as well becauae those interests line up with hers at that time.

[–]tio1w -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

its very plausible that they're only really protecting their own monetary interests

BINGO.

[–]HotZone_ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it's quite the emotional leap to realize that your parents hacked off the end of your dick and permanently damaged your sexual functioning.

Gee, that sounds really supportive of men who have been "hacked." You're only proving the guy's point.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huh? I'm not going to use pretty words to describe genital mutilation. Nor is it my goal to be "supportive" of men who want to visit this atrocity on their offspring rather than accept the fact that their penis has been mutilated. The victims who are blindly determined to replicate their own victimhood are the worst problem at this point - and that's also true in places where the victims are predominantly female. I feel pity for all such people - but my pity doesn't make me want to allow them to hack up the genitals of their offspring.

[–]HotZone_ 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You are wrong. Asking women to empathize with males and not looking at them from a purely utilitarian perspective is akin to asking a pig to grow wings and fly to Saturn

Uh-huh. Do women look at their fathers and sons from a purely utilitarian perspective? I certainly agree that males seem to have much more empathy toward females than vice versa, but you paint women as though they are pure psychopaths. The reality is that most women don't have the slightest clue just how bad things have become for men and boys. Most women aren't even feminists. When Norah Vincent lived as a man for six months she said afterwards that females are basically clueless about the male experience. They have also been taught since infancy that men have "oppressed" women historically. It can be difficult to find empathy toward someone you view as an oppressor, as you yourself demonstrate. But these attitudes can be corrected, or at least minimized.

Not one bit. I consider the fact that women are allowed to raise boys under no supervision a big part of the problem.

I agree that it is akin to child abuse to willingly raise a child without a male involved. But you're simply wrong that women with boys are of no value to the men's rights movement. A lot of women like Karen Straughan become concerned about men's rights when they give birth to sons. My own sister gave a copy of "the war against boys" to her son's teacher; the teacher said she had already been given several copies by several different mothers.

The real battle here is not against "female nature" but ignorance combined with a small number of malevolent feminists and their powerful enablers.

[–]xNOM 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Most women are not psychopaths. They are just never forced to fully grow up. They have an emotional effective age of 12-16 for a man, on average IMO.

[–]Revet-ment 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When Norah Vincent lived as a man for six months she said afterwards that females are basically clueless about the male experience.

I suspect that this has something to do with how attitudes about the other gender are commonly portrayed. How many times have you heard on tv or in movies 'I'll never understand women'? Whereas in media women are usually perplexed not by men themselves, but how men are so simple, and they don't understand how men can enjoy 'dumb' activities like sports (Women get this too, but never from men; always from 'less shallow' women). It's been drilled into us from birth.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Uh-huh. Do women look at their fathers and sons from a purely utilitarian perspective?

Florence Nightingale thought so. She said "Women have no sympathy." https://books.google.com/books?id=totpAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=They+scream+out+at+you+for+sympathy+all+day+long&hl=en#v=onepage&q=iota&f=false

The relevant letter starts at the very bottom of page 13.

Yes of course there are wives and mothers who care about men. Her point was that it was working class women who cared about their men. She was saying that women of her own class were callous and selfish.

[–]BigLebowskiBot -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So racially he's pretty cool?

[–]Murky42 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Broad sweeping generalizations.

Calm your tits and stop presuming outliers are an indication that all women are literally satan.

Generalizations aren't per se false. That being said if you say all of X is Y you better name some damned strong evidence for you claims and I don't see any in your post.

[–]RedditorJemi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Quite on the contrary. Boys are of no value to them because they don't provide value until adulthood.

Currently no. But they're trying to change that.

But I don't think these attitudes are inevitable.

You are wrong. Asking women to empathize with males and not looking at them from a purely utilitarian perspective is akin to asking a pig to grow wings and fly to Saturn

Well said, but I think you're exaggerating. I wouldn't bother with men's rights if I didn't think there was hope.

Mothers with boys will probably play a big role.

Not one bit. I consider the fact that women are allowed to raise boys under no supervision a big part of the problem. Women are abusive to boys at incredible rates. It just so happens that again, no one gives a shit.

You're right about this. But I don't think you understood /u/HotZone_'s point. Even though there are a metric ass ton of abusive mothers, it's still wrong to discount those mothers who are actually loving and non-abusive to their children. These women, although somewhat rare, are able to set an example to society as a whole - and they will defend their son's against misandry, especially as they learn to identify it for what it is.

It's the same with circumcision, the status quo is mainly perpetuated by the mothers, not the fathers.

I definitely need a citation for this. This is 180 degrees contrary to what is commonly believed in the intactivist community.

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus Christ. No. Most parents of both sexes are loving and non-abusive towards their children, and will defend their children with bearlike ferocity. When you muck around in gender-rights issues, you hear a lot of bad stories. Those stories are true, but all those non-fucked-up people out there living their lives and raising their kids? They didn't disappear when you started paying attention to the bad stuff.

[–]tio1w -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Quite on the contrary. Boys are of no value to them because they don't provide value until adulthood. 

Currently no. But they're trying to change that.

I actually thought about that while writing.

Yes, boys (some very young) do sometimes provide value as sex toys for women. Still the crux of my argument remains. They might care but it's the kind of care you show towards a fun toy. You might be sad that once broken it won't be as much fun.

I would never call that empathy.

These women, although somewhat rare, are able to set an example to society as a whole - and they will defend their son's against misandry, especially as they learn to identify it for what it is.

Outliers might occur obviously but the fact remains, that's a supplicant strategy. It'll lead nowhere. You don't stop bullying by telling the bully that (s)he's hurting you. They won't care and it might make things even worse.

What you're saying is that you can get people who are friends with the bully to vouch for you. Good luck with that.

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually thought about that while writing. Yes, boys (some very young) do sometimes provide value as sex toys for women. Still the crux of my argument remains. They might care but it's the kind of care you show towards a fun toy. You might be sad that once broken it won't be as much fun. I would never call that empathy.

I think you missed my sarcasm there. I should have added '/s' to my comment.

Outliers might occur obviously but the fact remains, that's a supplicant strategy. It'll lead nowhere. You don't stop bullying by telling the bully that (s)he's hurting you. They won't care and it might make things even worse.

Women defending their sons against misandry is not 'supplicating'. If any women think they are helping their sons by 'supplicating' then they are totally misguided - but I am confident that the MHRM will eventually become visible enough to these women to change their attitudes as long as they are genuine in their desire to protect their sons.

What you're saying is that you can get people who are friends with the bully to vouch for you. Good luck with that.

No, and all women are not friends with all women. Some women see typical gynocentric and misandric women exactly for what they are. What I'm saying is that some women will stand up to bullies, and in doing so will embolden both other well intentioned women and men to stand up to bullies as well.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who is "you people", because you are not the first to talk about this. You are not special, and not the first person to bring this up. I don't know where you got that idea.

People have talked about how work conditions improved only when women started to enter the workforce and die as a result. And so on.

[–]tio1w -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who is "you people",

People whose jaw drops like /u/HotZone_

because you are not the first to talk about this. You are not special, and not the first person to bring this up. I don't know where you got that idea.

Never even implied that. That's why I find it amazing when there are people in this forum that still find anything amazing about this.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

What "affects" one sex directly without "affecting" the other even indirectly? I think what you mean is we need to identify a gynocentric argument for whatever positions we take on any issue?

I don't think that's possible on a great many issues, as a gynocentric take on some issues—circumcision or the draft, e.g.—can only ever fuel the status quo: either women's opinions on these issues are dictated almost exclusively by the status quo (more so than men's), or there really is a conflict where women might very well lose privileges if men were to advance, or vice versa.

In other words, reforming some things may legitimately have a "negative" effect on one sex but a positive effect on the other, compared to their present status, or at the very least, organized women will be perpetually indifferent on decisions which could either help or harm men.

[–]tio1w 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What "affects" one sex directly without "affecting" the other even indirectly?

For example the fact than man die earlier than women but still after they've provided value on the workforce.

This means that men's health is only a concern in so far as it harms their productivity, after say the age of 65/70 no one cares. If anything having men die earlier than women but still in old age is beneficial to women. It's doesn't affect them, harmfully at least.

This is why you see a shitload of money going into breast cancer and very little to prostate cancer.

[–]Murky42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why you see a shitload of money going into breast cancer and very little to prostate cancer.

Sorry but I think that statement is nonsense.

Breast cancer gets more research because its X1000000 times easier to market. Just flash some tits and say look at me! save da tittaaays!

I can tell you for a fact that a similar approach with prostates would be poorly received.

[–]Tmomp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When are you going to accept reality? What will it take?

The point is that we're trying to do something about it. Raising awareness is a start.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The important takeaway is "society as a whole" means government. It is not just that people think this way. It is that they are eager to use the coercive power of government to push their anti-male agenda.

So if you believe in men's rights, please don't support the government. It really is an all-or-nothing proposition. The SJW wannabee fascists don't care if you support men's rights -- just as long as you keep voting for their preferred candidates. Don't let them play you like a useful idiot.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed.

Jesus H. F**king Christ on a Bike.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude, you can swear in the internet. Fuck. See, it's not that hard.

[–]Captain_Yid 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And you can also bleep out your own swears...not sure why you feel a need to correct him.

[–]Tmomp 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For a moment, think of the mindset that leads to statement like those -- just not caring about boys while simultaneously feeling girls are entitled to everything we can give them.

The sexism and self-righteousness is almost painful.

Racism on the same scale would be shunned as a holdout from the 50s. As would sexism against girls and women. Against men and boys people don't notice it.

[–]MenandBoysareGood 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well they got one thing rights "...they're afraid of being labeled pedophile.". Several years ago while I sat on a park bench watching my (then 6 year old) daughter on a swing from a park bench in front of my house a girl (perhaps 8 years old) walked up to me and began talking. I can't tell you how frightened I was for possibly being labeled a pedophile. I immediately got up and moved up to my daughter but she kept following me. Eventually I just said, "why don't you play with my daughter." or something like that. I doubt it women have that problem.

[–]UsernameIWontRegret 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My high school job was working at a water park- a water park.

During training, I didn't think much of it back then, they told the male employees to avoid most possible contact with children and even if one needs our help we should go get a female employee to help them.

Now that I'm older I realize how much bullshit that was.

[–]Captain_Yid 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I refuse to be afraid of being friendly to a little girl in a public place. That's too much. I'd rather be accused of pedophilia than live like that.

[–]rudelyinterrupts 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem comes after the accusation. No evidence is needed, no testimonial on your part will help, and it will follow you to your job, your social life, and your family.

[–]Captain_Yid 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I understand. But I'd rather assume that tiny risk. But I also walk outside at night and drive a car, knowing there's a chance that I'll be mugged or hit by a drunk.

[–]blueoak9 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I commend you for your principles and willingness to stand by them whatever may come. But a real friend would tell you to take care.

[–]cmumford 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So speaking personally I absolutely love children, and think I'd enjoy being a teacher. (note: have 2 kids and wife is a teacher). I have to be honest and say that the money would be my #1 reason for not teaching. But then again, I feel the need to support my family and do not have the freedom to change to a more rewarding and enriching profession.

That being said, if money were no longer an issue, then my very real fear of a false accusation and being sent to prison would almost surely keep me out of the teaching profession.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Based on a careful re-reading of the article, I think this might be a case of a journalist simply reporting on the findings of a specific research study and elaborating on it with additional content. In other words, the researchers are really the problem.

Glad to hear they're calling for more male teachers though, even if they're only doing it for half of the right reasons. Still, the leaving-out of boys in this consideration is so painfully obvious it's nauseating. Gynocentrism truly is a thing.

[–]ckiemnstr345 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

So it's a standard feminist study. Feminism needs to get out of the social sciences now for them to be taken seriously within the next century.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Feminist researchers are peppered throughout social science and psychology departments, but having worked briefly in both of those fields, I can tell you that the non-feminist researchers always read their work with a grain of salt. They look for what is potentially accurate and incorporate it into their work, while leaving the feminist theory and propaganda behind. This is why the Duluth model is considered outdated in real DV research, and patriarchy theory is even less popular than evolutionary psychology. Feminist "researchers" are anything but—they seek evidence that will bolster their "theory," rather than try to find a theory that explains the evidence. Some of them do better work than others, but as a group they show a clear bias, which is why real researchers don't take them too seriously.

[–]Wargame4life 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but evolutionary psychology has been shown with mathematical agent based modelling so has a form of objective criteria of "Truth" in as much that mathematically evolutionary psychology is possible and makes mathematical sense (certain things).

i.e the case is valid, the execution is not proven

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wasn't trying to dis evolutionary psychology. My feelings about it are mixed and typically dependent on the argument being made and the evidence for it. I simply used it as an example, because it is a hotly contested area of psychological research.

[–]ichors 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is unfalsifiable like feminist theory, so to someone like Popper, it would not be considered a science at all. The main difference between them is that evolutionary psychology actually makes a lot of sense, it produces accurate predictions and seems to work consistently through much of the animal kingdom.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is why the Duluth model is considered outdated in real DV research

But it still hasn't been abolished. How do you explain that?

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because law enforcement and the judiciary haven't kept up with DV research the way psychologists have. Despite what some here think of it, academia is a pretty open environment and allows for exploration of ideas. Law enforcement...not so much. Judicial and LE policies with respect to DV have seriously lagged behind the research, probably because the non-feminist psychologists and social scientists doing it don't have an agenda to see their theories enacted into law the way feminists do. That's just my hypothesis though.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because law enforcement and the judiciary haven't kept up with DV research the way psychologists have.

If the psychologists have been up to date on it more, they would've abolished it or moved for its abolishment by now. Merely criticizing it's antiquity still allows it to exist and be used by law enforcement.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Psychologists don't tend to be activists like feminist researchers are. They do the research for the sake of learning and publishing, and leave policy changes to activists. Should the APA have spoken up after it knew better than Duluth? Probably, but that's not their purview. Point is, psychologists do know Duluth is outdated; it's lawmakers and politicians that do not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Psychologists don't tend to be activists like feminist researchers are.

Well I think it's about time they bloody well should be. Because those lawmakers and politicians still refer to The Duluth Model and haven't learned a darn thing about how useless it is. Decades upon decades later I might add with activists screaming in their faces too. When you have THIS long of a learning deficiency leading to people believing men can't be abused in a domestic sense, I'd say we have a major problem only these people (psychologists, etc) can address. Because it seems activists who oppose The Duluth Model who aren't psychologists or PHDs aren't getting anywhere.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not lack of knowledge, it's lack of will. The people who could change these policies are aware they're out of date, they just feel they have more important things to do. There's no political pressure to do it, and what makes political pressure is mainly hordes of people and media pressure, not activists. Activists just get the ball rolling. What would do more to apply pressure would be hordes of men making noise online (like on this sub). Men's issues are slowly getting more attention though. I think Duluth isn't long for this world....

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists alarmed by the lack of male role models. Doesn't sound right. Masculinity is after all toxic. Wouldn't true feminists be demanding less male teachers?

[–]geniice -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The general assumption is that male teachers will make better male role models than say your average sports star.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

General among feminists, I guess.

Male virtues are vital to humankind, not something inherently bad. Most sports stars are fine role models for both boys and girls. But in school male teachers are better - or would be if they existed. I just don't think many feminists can see it that way.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Glad to hear they're calling for more male teachers though,

I don't think begging for more male teachers is going to help unless you address the root problems like "False Rape Accusations" for example.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Uh, low numbers of male teachers is one of the root problems. If we had equal numbers of male and female teachers, boys probably wouldn't be suffering academically the way they are, which would put them in better positions career-wise, which would keep more of them out of prison and (possibly) lead them to make smarter choices about sex, resulting in less men paying child support. The teacher imbalance ratio affects us during our most critical years—almost every problem later in life can potentially be avoided by ensuring kids have better educators when they're young. More male teachers is exactly what we need.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Uh, low numbers of male teachers is one of the root problems.

Okay, let's say we get a whole slew of male teachers into the school system. Society will still have prejudice towards males working with children and no safety nets for these male teachers should a student falsely accuse them of rape.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It'd still be major progress, and with more male teachers at risk of false accusations in school, schools might actually do something about it. There's absolutely no negative to striving for a 50/50 teacher split.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It'd still be major progress, and with more male teachers at risk of false accusations in school, schools might actually do something about it.

Nope. Because we still live in a culture where any man can be falsely accused of commiting rape and have no recourse, no support, and still lose his career and reputation even when cleared of charges. Like I said, get a support system in place for these male teachers first. Get the school to get off their rear ends and address it before begging for male role models.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see your point about demanding action on the issue, but I don't really see them as being truly mutually exclusive in practice. More male teachers would still be a good thing, even if the problem of false accusations continued.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Uh, low numbers of male teachers is one of the root problems.

It is an effect of the root causes, one of which is false accusations. There are others. For instance most elementary schools are run by what male teachers call a "Henrietta". the principal is a figurehead and Henrietta decides who gets what resources and who gets culled out.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Putting more male teachers in schools would still help solve both those problems. I get that the influences are bi-directional, but I'm not understanding why people don't think more male teachers is a good thing.

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"but I'm not understanding why people don't think more male teachers is a good thing. "

There are people and then there are people. In this case there is a group that don't want any more male teachers - those female teachers who teach because they can't deal with the outside world where men and women work alongside each other. Teaching has become a safe space for women who can't stand men. And they take this out on little boys.

Gender balance in teaching would tear that all up.

[–]EmpathyOverSympathy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not entirely sure that's the problem. I know several female teachers and they don't give me that impression of the educational fields at all. I'm sure there are some teachers like that, but I doubt it's a pandemic in the school system.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman have always been the primary victims of men being oppressed.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We must save the girls from the benefit of having only female teachers who will grade them higher than the male half of their peers, because these girls all have single mothers now and need institutions, some of which are run by the state, to provide father figures!

[–]womblefish 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Female teachers are expected to be teachers.

Male teachers are expected to be teachers, role models for boys, to teach girls how to interact with men, and take on the role of a pseudo-father for children whose mothers have forced their real father out of their lives.

Honestly this talk of male teachers being expected to act as father figures to fatherless children sickens me. Not only are higher and unfair expectations being placed on male teachers, but they're also deliberately attempting to use male teachers to undermine to role of children's real fathers in their childrens lives.

If fatherlessness is a problem (and it is) the solution is to change family law to make it easier to fathers to be involved in their children's lives.

This whole idea that children don't need their father in their lives, that just about any 'male figure' can just be slotted in to take their place, is just plain idiotic and has terrible consequences for children. And is just plain insulting to fathers.

[–]whatpaper 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Female teachers are supposed to be role models too. 'role model' is simply an adult kids can look up to.

Female teachers do help kids interact with women in the future.

The undervaluation of fatherhood is a huge problem, but let's not pretend it's the only problem we have.

Single moms would still exist even if fathers were as valued as mothers.

The presence of a father does not remove the need of other male role-models in kids lives.

A male teacher is a really poor substitute for a father. That doesn't mean that the lack of male teachers isn't a problem we should try to fix.

[–]warspite88 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

one thing you men need to get through your heads. as history always repeats itself.

  1. society does not give a shit about mens well being. individual men with power and money yes, but average men are fodder.

  2. even if a mens right movement goes mainstream and society takes notice. men will never get the showering of freedom and benefits, entitlements and protections women and girls enjoy. instead the new mens movement will morph into a "making men men again" where society relaxes the feminist laws that ruin mens lives while making new laws that call for men to do what society says of them at the time. such as shame them into marrying, or shame them into paying more taxes, or shame men going into the military because a huge war is about to start and millions of fodder bodies are needed and women are not expected to fill the quota.

there will be support for more male teachers only because society deems it will benefit girls and women.

[–]CzechoslovakianJesus 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I have no words, only pure hatred. Maybe it's time we let western civilization collapse and let somebody else take over for a while.

[–]tio1w 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

let somebody else take over for a while.

You mean women?

[–]CzechoslovakianJesus 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Or Islam, Buddhism, Marxislm-Leninsm (this kind of crazy shit never happened in the USSR,) a number of things really.

[–]Dnile1000BC 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Or Islam, Buddhism, Marxislm-Leninsm (this kind of crazy shit never happened in the USSR,) a number of things really.

Agreed totally. Let the totalitarian anti-human rights regimes take over a for a century or two and see how women like it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yet the SJW's defend Islam almost as much as women.

[–]Dnile1000BC 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yet the SJW's defend Islam almost as much as women.

Which is why they need to live a generation or two under an islamic regime to really get to know what they're defending.

[–]CzechoslovakianJesus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paying jizya sometimes seems like a favourable alternative to living in a society that thinks Gender Studies is in any way useful to anything except for Gender Studies professors' paychecks.

[–]Wargame4life 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

this kind of crazy shit never happened in the USSR,

yeah because they are too busy starving to death or killing innocent people, there is a reason the USSR doesn't exist anymore

[–]CzechoslovakianJesus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Starvation wasn't a problem after WWII. I think it has more to do with it having a brutal, austere variant of Socialism (i.e. everybody has what they need, nothing more and nothing less) as opposed to the whiny, wishy-washy I-want-free-shit kind that Tumblr and many college activists love.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of a piece i ran into earlier today complaining that women of color are suffering. You know why they are suffering? Because so many of their men are in jail! I can hear Hillary now, "Women are the primary victims of male incarceration!"

That said, i'm not sure i'd want my kids taught by some dude who looks like HP Lovecraft!

[–]bakedpotato486 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That said, i'm not sure i'd want my kids taught by some dude who looks like HP Lovecraft!

wut?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu teaches kindergarten."

https://scottkenemore.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/lovecraftsmiling.jpg

[–]bakedpotato486 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He'd make an excellent literature teacher.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As long as he stays away from certain texts...

[–]666Evo 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course it's Australia. This place is going to the dogs.

[–]Wargame4life 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it really is, i cant believe some of the shit i have seen come out of australis, i used to think it was a pretty chilled out dudes paradise of laid back aussie guys drinking and enjoying the outdoors.

seems its run instead by hysterical manginas

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Girls need positive male role models to help them to be successful in relationships and in careers. Especially since many girls don't have a father in the picture, since mummy drove him away for fun and profit.

[–]Wargame4life 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

que tumblr to give them all the life advice they need.

"men like curves etc" and watch society in decay.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men in Australia need to complain about the article.

They just do not care about men and boys at all.

[–]lethatis 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism in action

[–]chaku89 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah seriously who would be so dumb to become a teacher nowadays? Bad salary and if an SJW wants to ruin your carrier he easil can by saying you lust after the children.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All about the girls, as always.

[–]scanspeak 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So where are the male quotas?

[–]pazz 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very high risk being a male in a profession with lots of children. Very little reward. This horrible ratio will continue to push men out of professions like teaching.

[–]Wargame4life 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

not my problem, don't care, you reap what you sow, if you make it a hostile working environment people of talent will go elsewhere and that is exactly what they are doing.

[–]tio1w 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Until there is no place to go to. No refuge so to speak.

[–]Wargame4life -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

nonsense what these dopey SJW dont understand is that the actual people on the cutting edge of industry technology finance politics etc dont actually pander to this bullshit.

Everyone pays lip service to the "yay equality" but when your life is on the line and you have to choose between the top male surgeon or the top female surgeon you will hands down choose the top male surgeon.

the more batshit feminist nonsense is in the media the more it subconciously cements teh fact women are incapable and cannot compete on merit, this has the effect of men being seen as more competent and capable so when people make decisions they generally leave women out of it.

the higher the stakes the more likely women get excluded precisely because of the feminists bullshit.

[–]Murky42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You see this is an actually sexist comment.

Low female representation in an industry does not mean that the few women in that industry are only there by virtue of their sex.

If both are top surgeons then fuck it both are gonna be close to being the same quality.

If you have to pick the very best surgeon in the world odds are higher of him being male. This has more to do with the fact that the male pool is bigger then an inherent difference between the sexes.

Lets take your sentence and modify it a bit:

Everyone pays lip service to the "yay equality" but when your kids need a good education and you have to choose between the top male teacher or the top female teacher you will hands down choose the top female teacher.

Before you call me some feminazi I actually do believe there are on average inherent differences between men and women. The key portion to remember is ON AVERAGE.

[–]Wargame4life -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

your error is in not realising that teaching is not a high stakes high level situation.

give me an example of a high stake environment based entirely on competency (any at all) which is dominated by women not men.

the argument that women world wide dont occupy and never have occupied in any majority any area in be it professional or social that involves extremely high stake high competition is not a "Numbers game"

your point would be valid if surgery was one area which males dominated but there were others where females dominated.

but in the entire spectrum of life you will be hard pressed to find any avenue or pursuit or task which women outnumber men which is high stakes and taxing/difficult.

that is not a coincidence if men and women were completely equal in potential (statistically) there would be some avenues and areas where women dominate in performance (and there aren't)

[–]Murky42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women don't dominate those sorts of field generally that isn't something I am trying to dispute.

Men are undeniably risk takers and are more likely to thrive in those environments.

That being said its not exactly unheard of that some women can thrive in those environments. The problem with your statement in the first place was that you made it sound like the mere thought that a woman could possibly be a decent surgeon was absurd.

Women are less likely to be in certain industries. The women that are in those industries however either suck shit and go away. Or because they are non average they thrive.

A female surgeon has the same education and performs the same work. Plenty of women out there that do a highly competitive job just as good as men. They will never be a majority but that doesn't matter because you do not need to belong to a majority group to deliver results.

If you have to pick the very best surgeon in the world odds are higher of him being male. This has more to do with the fact that the male pool is bigger then an inherent difference between the sexes.

I'll admit that this bit isn't true though as your argument is solid.

On a completely unrelated note though I don't consider that a problem in the slightest. As long as no gender quotas are made its not really an issue.

So many people these days find the notion that people might be inherently different so offensive for some godforsaken reason. I say differences are fine variety and diversity is the spice of life.

[–]15253734563 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ty for using archive.is

[–]quantum_titties 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I read the article and I think its assertion that children are more likely to not have positive male role models in their life is right. But I don't get why young girls are the ones they think will be most damaged? Why would it not be a concern equally for all children?

The article seems pretty insightful so I feel like I must be the one who is missing something.

[–]8767sddd8676876 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because boys and men make decisions on behalf of everyone as deemed by the patriarchy they are inducted to upon birth.

What is that induction? The cutting off of the most pleasurable part of their body. It's what gives men their patriarchy powers, which is why not having male teachers only affects girls and women. It's also why having special scholarships and opportunities for women even when women have 2/3 representation in school, is still only affecting women.

Because men have the patriarchy, and believe because of the patriarchy, that they are too good for school. Otherwise, this wouldn't be happening.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter