19 October 2005
What is most obviously irritating about this article is its inclusion of a picture of Kevin the Teenager, thus immediately dismissing any possibility that the article may be sympathetic about boy’s failing performance in school by merely reducing them to a comparison with an exaggerated comedy caricature. Before anyone accuses me of not having a sense of humour, could you imagine an article about teenaged girl’s rising incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy being humourously juxtaposed with Vickey Pollard from Little Britain?
As always with discussions of boy’s failing performance in school, the media never dares to mention the feminization of the curriculum, or the way the majority of teachers are female, or the way teachers – male and female alike – are seemingly told that girls are an oppressed minority who need extra special attention and help to compete against those Patriarchally Privileged boys.
Perhaps boy’s performance at English is due to the fact that English, being a very vague humanist subject, attracts mostly females in Higher Education and thus English teachers are mostly female, and often feminists to boot, meaning they don’t really like boys (at my Secondary School, all six English teachers were female, two of them being blatant feminists who could barely conceal their contempt for boys, and who would only speak to us non-vagina-owners in order to tell us off for indulging in wicked activites such as looking out of the window, or breathing.)
Maybe teenaged boys just don’t bother communicating because they learn at an early age that, because they don’t have a vagina, no-one really gives a damn about their opinions, thoughts or complaints. Perhaps they just learn to shut up and not draw attention to themselves. As mentioned above, this article about a serious issue facetiously compares teenaged boys to some comedy sketch character, so in itself this article pretty much shows boys that their struggles in life are the subject of mockery to our nation’s primary news source. Why bother learning to communicate when you’ll just be laughed at?
Perhaps, of course, girls do better at languages simply because girls are, on average, better at verbal subjects than boys. But we can’t suggest that of course. That would maybe lead to the suggestion that boys are, on average, better at other subjects, such as scientific ones, than girls, and that would be a big no-no! That would be heresy against the two founding principals of feminism: (1) Males and Females are identical, in every way, including neurologically, and (2) Females are superior to Males in every way, including neurologically.
Besides, in a hundred-years time, we’ll probably all be talking in html language anyway.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:35 PM