N.O.W. Becomes High School Curriculum, Part
I
February 9, 2004
by Bernard Chapin
One
of the more exciting parts of my job is the assessment of students
in their learning environments; a process that is known to the outside
world as “seeing them in their classrooms.”
Last week, as I was camped out at a desk in the back taking notes, the student whom I was watching suddenly left to go to the lavatory with his teaching assistant. I leafed through the book he was reading while he was out. Its title is Current Issues in American Democracy and was being used for freshman social studies.
At first glance, it appears a rather innocuous paperback. However, the table of contents contains some eye-catching information.
One particular chapter was called “New Roles for the Sexes.” Based on past experience, I sensed that it called for close examination. The textbook’s analysis of new roles for the sexes began controversially and steadily went downhill from there.
Title IX was quickly introduced and discussed without any reference to its negative effects, such as the gradual extermination of non-lucrative men’s college sports like wrestling and baseball. This should not have surprised me though as even the Bush Administration has refused to do anything about the judiciary’s noxious interpretations of that particular legislation.
Our nation’s past is painted as being quite glum indeed. The following passage amazed me as, without any references or historical timeframe, the authors assert that in America “…men were given almost total control over their wives and children. Women were under the legal authority of their husband or father. They could own property under restricted conditions.” [p.87]
When exactly was that? Every year before 1970? Statements like these need to be qualified and were not universally true. I have no doubt that bizarre laws can be dredged up on the local level but such subjugation was never a rule throughout all localities and decades. No accounting for differences between law at the federal, state or municipal level is made by the textbook.
Then we discover that, “Few women worked outside the home. But those who did work had lower-paying jobs than men.” [p.87]
We should not be surprised that women received lower wages than men in the pre-service economy. Strength and force applied to more jobs and male sweat was intrinsic to more difficult, high paying tasks. Semiconductors, microchips, and automation did not always make our lives the large downy couch that they are today. Coal had to be mined; railroads had to be constructed; roads had to be created, and men were, and are, physically superior to women in these capacities. To our ancestors, there would have been little discussion that toiling in a foundry was “man’s work.” Further, I am sure that if one were to poll modern women, few would say that they wished they could have been manual laborers.
One should never equate difference with discrimination–even if we speak of less equitable times.
In the next few sentences the bias of the writers becomes indisputable. Here we see that they wish to recruit as many readers as possible into the ranks of the easily offended (as if the general public is not already politically correct and oversensitive enough):
Each day at home, in school, and at work, you are faced with many situations that are affected by your gender. For example, the guys are getting together a team to play softball. How would you feel if you are left out of the game just because you are a woman? If you know that you are a better softball player than some of the men, you probably resent [my boldface] being kept out of the game. Suppose your teacher chooses Jose to carry the video camera instead of you because he is male and you are female. Hey, you are not that delicate that you cannot carry a camera.” [p.88]
In other words, “just because you don’t think you are being wronged doesn’t mean that you aren’t.” Be ever vigilant female students because boys may be playing softball without you! What would they say if girls did an activity without boys? Nothing, I’m sure. They’d probably compliment the girls on their exclusive tastes.
These writers are trying to foster resentment more than educate students. What message does their micromanaging of teacher requests send to educators? I suppose that it’s best practice not to randomly ask any students to do anything for you because, if they’re male, then you are extending favorable treatment to them, and, if they are female, then you’re demeaning them. There is no winning in such an environment, which sadly, is an environment found in many of our public schools.
Next, the textbook writers lobby their readers that they too should be contemptuous of all things non-radical:
If you are a woman, the traditional view is that you should be dependent, cooperative, nurturing, emotional and intuitive. You are expected to be coy and flirtatious but not forward toward men, and to be faithful to one man (particularly when you become married). [p. 89]
There is so much wrong with this passage that it is bewildering to know where to start. First, it is feminists like Carol Gilligan and Deborah Tannen who claim women are more cooperative, nurturing, emotional and intuitive than men. I’m a traditionalist and I’d never claim women were more cooperative or intuitive on the aggregate. It is certainly not people like me who believe this. One senses here, and in the pages that follow, that these scholars have not in fact met any traditionalists. They are merely speculating about what their opponents might say. To lend support for this, no citations are given in regards to the “traditional view.”
Unfortunately, these counter-cultural assertions are not made in a trendy newspaper but in a historical book that our school board got swindled into purchasing. Tax dollars paid for it. Its pages have the imprimatur of authority.
A second argument against the above paragraph is the assumption that social pressure causes women to be more coy than men. This is just plain wrong. It is biology and not society that makes women more careful and selective. Being coy yields great reproductive benefit to them. They could impulsively have sex everyday for the rest of their lives if they wanted to, but, at least for the first thousands of years in our existence, there was no pill available to prevent unwanted pregnancies from men they neither liked nor respected.
A woman carefully judges prospective suitors and this is her best insurance policy against both destitution and giving birth to invalids. Women in all societies pick males as mates who possess the best combination of size, strength, and status that they can find. It’s not societal. It occurs species wide.
Lastly here, the expectation that women be faithful to their men is not some random requirement or caprice. It’s a way to ensure that a man stays around. When we were hunters and gatherers, a pregnant woman would not be able to effectively provide for herself if she was with child. They needed someone to put food on the fire and being faithful was a way to guarantee that a man would protect and support you. It was and is a tradeoff. Yet, our culture of contemporary narcissism finds the concept of tradeoffs repugnant.
As Cathy Young stated in a recent book review:
In the age of feminism, she argues, we have paid a lot of attention to women's complaints about men and criticized men for not meeting women's needs—but we've forgotten that men too have needs and women too have faults. Somehow, we've even developed the notion that a woman who seeks to meet her husband's needs is subservient (but a husband who fails to meet his wife's needs is a pig).
In my mind, female promiscuity is one of the biggest reasons why contemporary marriage rates are decreasing. Why should anyone fight and defend a woman destined to be buried in a Y shaped coffin? No one. Promiscuous women have no long-term value and making sacrifices for them is absurd.
If these authors cared about the girls who read this text, then they’d inform them that sexual infidelity is the kiss of death for a woman desiring marriage. Lay the choice out for them clearly so they can understand what they’ll get for what they give up. Want to be single forever? Then do everybody. Let your prospective mates know that you are communal property and there will be few who do anything for you.
I tell high school girls that if they want to gain control over men there is one word they must learn: no. I give them far more useful information than the textbook. That is for certain.
Next, our authors advocate that the young men reading their calumny ruin their lives in the name of the utopian cause:
“Today it is OK for Mike to take care of the kids at home while his wife works.” [p.89]
To be continued and NOW section thoroughly discussed.
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM!
Bernard Chapin is a writer in Chicago.
