Gunk:"gibber, gibber"

I guess that translates as a "Naomi Wolf isn't a REAL grrrl". Thanks for your input, dear.

Belly,
"Social justice is not the property of the extremes left or right, (X)answers come from majority groups."
X marks: where this confuses 'mob rule' for society/democracy and reality.

You're right that SJ belongs to neither L or R but to all. The source of "the answers" tend to fluctuate either side of but close proximity to the cultural mean (average). i.e. Elections are won or lost by less than + or - 10% of 50/50 (mean).

Both sexes are both to blame to some degree on average. But that can't be used to excuse actions of a group (in this case sporting) from an aberrant (out of the 20%[+ or - 10%] accepted range)behaviour.

What is largely ignored in these discussions is the complex mixtures of factors combine to make these events. It isn't a matter of either black or white but more into the greys or dirty whites.

Yet more methane from the squit.

Ginx thanks for catching that. I think we both realize that labelling a non-conventional woman as defective in some way is an old resort. They think they are doing something clever and new ha ha :)

Antiseptic: Good to see that you've begun reading. Naomi Wolf is a feminist; what is usually referred to as a 'lipstick feminist'. Btw: Have you read anything of The Beauty Myth ? I really think she was writing more widely relevant material at that time; though even then I wasn't a big fan. She has increasingly focused since then on media representations and politics, in which I have only a passing interest. Also bear in mind that she is American; so my regard of the relevance of her recent witing might reflect my own parochialism.

The thing you continue to miss is that feminists don't have to agree on everything. I have told you before that there are many streams of feminist thought. Your expectation that feminists are all of one type (your stereotype of sexless; man hating; hairy and unattractive etc etc) only puts on display how little you know of it. It's as simplistic as expecting all men to agree on everything, or all Catholics; or all of any group you'd like to name. Nevermind. At least you're making an effort to catch up. Good on you.

As to her opinions on education:

1. I posted a link earlier with the facts and figures that show that men dominate decision making positions at all levels and in all areas of education.
2. Women have been teaching, certainly in America, for well over a hundred years; perhaps two. Usually doing the hands on teaching; men who stayed in teaching (considered a lowly job for a fellow) typically went up into non teaching positions such as school inspector or other administrative roles. That is, education at the student/teacher level has been 'feminized' for well over a hundred years. It was considered an extension of the domesic role. Female influence in teaching long precedes the advent of feminism.

cont'd

3. Men have continued to (largely) choose traditional male areas of study; only females' choices have changed as new opportunities have become available to them; they have chosen some non-traditional areas and many do out perform the men even though the areas are male dominated and managed.
4. Increasingly raising educational levels has been an outcome of decisions made in the economic sector; not in education per se. That is the last century's innovation; that employability increases with formal credentials (personally, despite my education and passion for learning, I think that's a pity).
5. That there are fields of social analysis (feminist analysis is but one) of such trends is what has made it possible to know how students are performing. Where males are struggling; to whatever extent they may be; it's not predominantly* men who care or act to address that; but women (whether or not they are feminists), because they are the ones most likely to be providing teaching and school counseling.

Oh and here is a link so that you can browse some of the historica trends yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ZvxvBlnMvIC&dq=history+of+women+in+education+australia&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=all&ei=1vErSsalKZnqtAPRlpjeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#PPA124,M1

cont'd

As to the biological reductionist nonsense - that has long been shown to be outdated and ridiculously inadequate as an explanation for human behaviour. It's also very disheartening; because it posits that people are just wind up robots who never advance beyond grunt level. It removes the possibity of innovation and choice.

Btw you'd know and understand (I hope) how a bell curve operates. The idea of feminism removing obstacles to people attaining their personal best, is that while most males and females might be middle of the curve in some aspect or other, there are going to be a proportion of people at the tails whose capabilities differ markedly. I read somewhere recently that there are greater detectable differences within each sex than between them.

Anyway, the old bio-red theories give no allowance for socio-cultural and environmental factors - like learning to adapt to new evironmental or social demands. (like, think post WW2, for example) Or to the fact that all humans increase survival rates by flocking together ie: by actively working to preserve the group. We know that group is vital because babies who don't have human touch don't thrive.

Therefore, a male's best chance of survival and of reproducing his genes is to preserve the group's interest; not the individual male's at the expense of other's well-being. Rabid, greedy, self-serving individualism is a product of industrialization and of neo-classical economics, not of cro-magnon imperatives. Btw: A lot of formal theory holds that humans survived not by large game hunting but primarily by gathering berries and whatnot, digging, and catching small animals.

To whatever extent man's behviour and preferences hark bak to hunting days - can anyone seriously suggest that the male is trained to focus on an animal but can't see dust or laundry? Puhleeze. Btw - housekeeping itself, like formal education, is a relativly modern phenomenon (certainly in evolutionary terms). Don't be so gullible.