Education and feminism and Steve Moxon

This seems to be a common complaint of the education system these days. Apparently boys are being held back so that girls look better - not sure I believe that. People seem to be worried about most primary school teachers being women. I was at primary school in the 1950s/1960s and all my teachers - with one exception - were female. So how have things changed?

The other complaint is course work favours girls where exams favour boys. This is definitely a sweeping generalisation. I've come across more than one man who doesn't do well in exams but excels at coursework. I tend to do better in exams than I do at coursework but my mother used to go to pieces in exams. So surely if you have half the marks on the coursework and half on the exam that is fair to both? Or am I missing something?

I am currently reading an interesting book by Steve Moxon called The Woman Racket. I haven't got to the section about education though he has talked about men getting a higher percentage of first class honours degrees and being better than women at maths. His basic theory is that men are discriminated against because in almost any activity women cluster in the middle sections of ability with men at both ends - the best and the worst. Men have bigger brains and higher IQs. I paused to wonder whether that's because they were better at IQ tests but he seems to have ignored that point.

He also argues that the NHS pays more attention to women's health. Germaine Greer argues that's because it's an indirect way of controlling women by screening them for everything under the sun. I've also read somewhere that men in general resist attending for any sort of screening and that is one reason why screening programmes for prostate cancer etc are not considered viable. There is far more at stake than a simple discrimination issue.

Steve Moxon's basic argument is that women have never been discriminated against in any shape or form and have always lived privileged lives and yet they never achieve anything particularly noteworthy. Marie Curie anyone? Florence Nightingale? Rosalind Franklin? He also says we should not judge what happened in the past through the eyes of today. I know what he's getting at but surely nothing would change if we never looked at it differently? He is saying men are the ones who are discriminated against. He hasn't yet annoyed me and while I don't wholly agree with what he is saying it is interesting reading and is backed up by verifiable sources for a change.

Bluestockings and How Not To Shop

Bluestockings by Jane Robinson is absolutely fascinating. It is strange to read how women had to fight for any sort of education as they were not considered worth educating. There's a marvellous quote from a sermon delivered by Dean Burgon of Chichester Cathedral in 1884 'Inferior to us God made you: and our inferiors to the end of time you will remain. But you are none the worse off for that.' The author comments that apparently his audience/congregation, brave souls, dissolved into incredulous laughter. I knew Oxford did not award degrees to women until the 1920s but I had not appreciated that Cambridge was even later - 1948!

I'm about half the way through the book which is written in a very approachable style. There is a comprehensive bibliography at the end and the author spoke to many of the women still alive who were involved in the early days of women's university education which really brings the whole subject to life.

How Not To Shop by Carmen Reid is excellent chick lit with great dialogue and characters. Yes there is a happy ending but there are also problems in the background. Annie Valentine - the heroine - is having to deal with her mother's increasing vagueness and with trying to support her sister through IVF. These issues are not reslolved at the end of the book. It's a real feel good read whether or not you've read the previous books in the series.

Affluenza

I have finally digested Oliver James' latest book - 'Affluenza'. Definitely thought provoking and it certainly made me consider my spending habits seriously. He interviewed people from several different countries - Britain, America, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, China and Singapore. He came to the conclusion that people were happiest in Denmark where it is bad manners to diplay your wealth by conspicuous consumption. In Denmark there is a much smaller gap between rich and poor in any case; household chores are shared relatively equally between men and women and there is no long hours culture. People are not ruled by our materialist gods and are almost impervious to advertising. What you own is secondary to what sort of a person you are.

What came over loud and clear from the whole book is that chasing after material goods will not make you a better person or a happier person. Those who live the happiest and most fulfilled lives are those who work hard enough to supply their basic needs - adequate food shelter and warmth - and who feel they ae part of a community and a family.

The most vital aspect of happiness seeems to be the ability to distinguish between material desires which are needs rather than wants. For example - a roof over my head may be necessary but a 12 bedroomed mansion at the end of a mile long drive is no better at fulfilling this need than a 2 up 2 down terraceed house unless I am providing a home to a large self-sufficient commune with security risks!

I think I was most struck by James' interviews with a middle class Chinese couple who were basically hot housing their small child. He had to learn Japanese, music and painting as well as go to school! From reading the papers and talking to people in the UK it seems that bringing up childdren is very similar in this counrtry in certain strata of society. Do children need to be stuffed full of knowledge rather than allowed to spend their free time doing what they want? Do we turn out better citizens this way? Or is this more about the parents' needs and desires?

The main point of the book was the very old fashioned idea that money can't buy you happiness. This was brought home to me by the single man in New York who had inherited a fortune and made himself another one. He seemed a very discontented person whose only interest was in what he could buy with his money. He couldnt understand why his relationships with women lasted no more than a few dates. Either he got bored or the women ditched him because of his totally un-caring attitude. He knew he was missing something but couldn't understand what. He didn't seem to have any close male friends either. Because money could buy him anything he wanted he'd forgotten that life is a system of give and take and compromises.

The pursuit of money and material goods was not condemned as such but there has to be more in life than this. The ability to enjoy things for their own sake is more important. Humour, vivacity and not taking life or oneself too seriously seemed to be the key to happiness and contentment. You could be rich and still have a fulfilled life but if you were accumulating money and possessions in order to show the world what a successful person you were then this could never lead to contentment or a fulfilled life.

Current reading is 'Why do people get ill?