Much has been made about how girls are shortchanged in school. How boys receive more attention, how school curriculum is designed to favour boys. Some nutbars even wrote a paper about elementary schools being painted in primary colours¹ which "... are traditionally assigned to boys."
Perhaps the media is trying to portray the schools as being radical in order to grab attention, but as often as not I find myself shaking my head at the information I get about Canadian schools. Whenever I talk with teachers, I mention that if I were to have children and money, I would send my kids to private schools. The teachers usually roll their eyes and let me know that they hear a lot of that.
I don't have much of a beef about the quality of instruction; I went through the public school system, and many of my teachers were dedicated, conscientious professionals. I take issue with the curriculum. Do our children really need to spend their time studying the plight of women a hundred years ago, or that having two homosexual daddies is as normal as having a mommy and a daddy? Is this the best use of their time when many of them graduate unable to write decently and a few of them can't even read? In short, why are our public schools feeding our kids a diet of the latest pop sociological theories when there is so much else that is more important? What was so wrong about just teaching them things they could use in life, rather than trying to indoctrinate them with trendy liberal ideologies?
I believe that teachers and the über-teachers who create the curriculum became bored with just teaching useful stuff, and decided to start "shaping the next generation," or "engineering a better society." After all, it's so much more interesting than just "teaching," and it's a power rush to boot.
My problem with this is that today's trendy liberal theories are chock-a-block with sacred cows. Today's classes don't seem to teach critical inquiry, rather they seem to preach dogma. Where are the teachers who dare to dislike homosexuality? Where are the teachers who are willing to argue that immigration is harmful? I remember that my teachers would take these unpopular sides in debate, but they always did so with a wink and a smile to indicate that we all knew better. Even then, there were things you didn't question.
Of all of the sacred cows of liberalism, feminism sticks in my craw the most, and in particular the assertion that men—the creatures into which our boys will grow—are self-serving control freaks who use their power to "oppress" women. I hate the fact that our schools teach our boys every day that the best thing they can hope to become is "not as bad as other men." I think that our boys deserve more.
And what of our girls? I applaud the many programs that have been created in the last twenty years to open up opportunities for girls and to listen to what they need. I just don't think that any of those things should be at the expense of boys, even if limited resources dictate that to help boys as much as we help girls we have to back off and help girls a little less. I think that it's a myth that girls need all of the special programs and boys can look after themselves. This both shortchanges boys and insults girls. All of the kids in school are still kids. They all need help to succeed in life.
To deny this, to pretend that boys have some innate advantage that allows us to ignore them... or to pretend that what girls need is encouragement while what boys need is re-shaping... all of these things are borne of the worst kind of bigotry: the kind that turns a blind eye to the humanity of everyday life in the name of theory and dogma. To do this is a terrible example to all of our children.
