We continually hear that girls are cheated in our schools because of inherent gender bias, and that we must focus on girls to correct deficiencies in math and science, self-esteem, and female-oriented learning. Me, me, me, focus on me!

Of course, we don't hear about poor performance by boys in reading and writing, that boys get worse grades, that fewer boys graduate from high school, and that there are structures hindering boys' learning. (For example, boys tend to learn by doing, by being active. But, we force them to sit quietly in a seat all day and listen to an instructor---usually female---lecture to them.)

It strikes me that adolescent girls are not the females having problems with low self-worth. That problem seems to manifest itself more in certain feminists. With their constant outcry for special protections and extra funding and government watchdogs and on and on and on, one could easily come to the conclusion that these feminists believe they just aren't able to take care of themselves.

Is there anything we can do to help these women gain some self-esteem. Well, as my old granddad always used to say, "Panty liners give a woman confidence." Maybe we could encourage them to wear them all month long.

Feminism continues to manipulate the data and scream about the discrimination. Their theme song is getting a little boring, over and over---Twist and Shout, Twist and Shout. Or as my old math teacher always used to say, "Garbage in, Garbage out."

Title IX and Men's Studies Programs
The most ironic example of this tendency can be seen in the application of Title IX, which says that there is to be no discrimination in public education based on gender. Feminists constantly tackle college sports programs as being unfair to women. But then they ignore the far greater and far more relevant discrepancy between women's and men's studies programs.

Few colleges even have men's programs. The few programs that do exist are often controlled by the women's studies division, which means they are really women's studies for men. Yet women still have the chutzpah to complain about men getting nicer locker rooms or a few more scholarships. Or as my old granddad always used to say, "Your learning curve is a very small circle."

I think the biggest problem with women's studies and classes for girls is that they are about segregation, isolation, and division even if males are not explicitly excluded. Feminists immediately attack any male-only institutions as tools of the patriarchy, where men gather in secret to plan and implement their oppression of and hegemony over women. And now these same feminists have created and lead programs that are for all practical purposes, female-only. Anyone care to guess what they are really doing in there?

Feminist Thought Police: What Are They Hiding?
A friend of mine recently asked for information from several departments at the University of Washington---a state supported university. He asked for budgets from the intercollegiate sports department as well as from 22 women's units and organizations---Women's Studies, Center for Women's Health Research, Law Women's Caucus, Women's Information Center, on campus branch of N.O.W., etc. The sports department sent back an accounting report from KPMG Peat Marwick. The women's groups sent back next to nothing. Not one budget. Does someone have something to hide here? Perhaps a journalist with a little more clout could investigate further.

The report from KPMG Peat Marwick revealed that Husky women's sports received $1.7 million more than was required by Title IX. Most of this money came from the men's football program. Still, I hear about men's nicer locker rooms or a few more scholarships.

If this isn't bad enough, currently there is a movement to integrate women's studies into all other disciplines. Scary stuff. I recently noticed a televised university course entitled "Jewish Studies." Here are five titles from the list of ten lectures: "Gender and Assimilation," "The Sexual Politics of Jewish Identity," "Exploring Jewish Feminism," "Gender & Ideology in Israeli Writing," and "Yiddish Poems & Women Poets."

I wonder what other subjects are going to look like after they have been integrated? I can just imagine a story problem in an "integrated" math book: If Jill had five apples and Jack beat her up and stole three apples, how many would she have left? Of course, the correct answer would be "None, because her anorexia and selflessness would compel her to donate the apples to the local food bank. Besides, she would be too traumatized to eat." Is this the future of education? Or is it as my old granddad always used to say: "Demagogy, not pedagogy"?

Logic: Instrument of evil male oppressors?
What can we conclude from this? Well, nothing, of course. We all know that logic is another instrument of the evil male conspiracy to keep women oppressed. So logic, deduction, and reasoning are out. Feelings are much more important. Well, in that case, I "feel" that it is quaint that illogical people tend to hate logic. Or as my granddad always used to say, "Logic is the scarecrow of fools and the beacon for the wise."

Balder's granddad liked to paraphrase feminine hygiene commercials and T.H. Huxley.