Ban Public Education

Ban Public Education

Three decades of progressively worse anti-male bias in courts, schools, government, and industry didn’t change the ratio of earnings of male to female BS degree holders--it took one and a half women to earn as much as one man before, and it takes one and a half today [National Center of Education Statistics (NCES 98-086), "Gender Differences in Earnings Among Young Adults Entering the Labor Market"]. Discriminating against men simply because men are the best employees, don't sue their own employers for "discrimination" or "harassment", don't take one fifth of the year off for maternity and child care leave, excel in all standardized tests, have a higher work consistency, and don't create hostile work environments for their fellow employees, did not benefit real women. All claims by feminists to the contrary are fraudulent.

Boys constitute two thirds of those whose SAT scores would ordinarily have them in college, but anti-male bias reduced them to two fifths of BS degree recipients. Bigots who implemented this systemic anti-male bias would allow it to continue. They don't and never will admit that their bigotry undermined society, robbed the economy of $trillions, violates the Constitution, & is now illegal with CCRI. Crowding males out reduced the "annual earning power" of just one year’s crop of graduates by four billion dollars, by seventeen billion dollars compared to if they had all been men, and by almost three hundred billion dollars if in the last two decades they had all been men. They would have earned almost three trillion dollars more over the last two decades--& they would have been better husbands and fathers.

This bears repeating: If all BS degree recipients in the last two decades had been men, their additional contribution to GDP would have been almost three trillion dollars--and they would have been better husbands and fathers.

The return on investment of educating a male is 6 times the cost of his education (ROI = 6x). The lower earning potential of women produces a negative return on the investment (ROI = .9). Including the above GDP loss decreases ROI to 0.29, and including the four decade increase in education costs from five percent ot 8 percent of GDP decreases ROI to 0.10. It is not rational. Every statistical analysis demonstrates it to be a catastrophe. It increased gender warefare, crime, incarceration, illegitimacy, divorce, fatherlessness; reduced incomes, international test scores, Personal Savings; all point to the same pattern of social implosion.

The crowning glory of feminism, though, is the TIMSS--where the American 12th grade boy scores 219 points lower than the Norwegian 12th grade boy, 117 points lower than the Russian boy, 115 points lower than the Cypriot boy, 78 lower than the Australian boy, 53 points lower than the Canadian boy, and 24 points lower than the French boy. Well below him is the American 12th grade girl, another 53 points lower, and 196 points lower than a Norwegian boy! Yet 12th graders from countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, whose 8th graders scored more than 100 points higher than ours, weren't even included. Such a LOW score must have required a conscious effort on behalf of educators to impart systemic ignorance. Is it at all possible to achieve even lower scores? Can American girls be even further de-educated? Can their scores decline more than 219 points below Norway's? Is 393 higher than a girl would score if she just guessed? Could someone who knows the subject intentionally score lower than 393? From 8th to 12th grade, while most nations scores improved dramatically, our boys scored 56 points lower and our girls score a whopping 104 points lower. Nobody else came even close. It is the bottom of the Peter Principle Curve--no matter what we do, the only direction other than zero is up. It is rock bottom.

OPTIONS: