I wrote several weeks ago about Lawrence Summers, President of Havard, speaking the unvarnished truth about women being inadequate in the area of mathematics. He pointed out, quite truthfully, that it was not only ‘gender’ which accounted for the differing aptitiudes of men and women in society.

The constitution of the National Women’s Studies Association states:

“Women’s Studies . . . is equipping women to transform the world to one that will be free of all oppression . . . a force which furthers the realization of feminist aims.”

The truth of the matter is, of course, that this academic bunch wanted to arrange an androgynous society but with women in charge, so Summers’ comments scuttled their whole idea - hence his unpopularity amongst the feminazi generally.

There is one big problem that these idealists overlook and which is impossible to overcome: it’s women who bear children and who do the mothering. And mothers treat boys and girls differently thus producing girls who want to be mothers and boys who want to be independent.

It’s not that the “feminist system” has never been tried. The Jewish Kibbutz system treated men and women equally. Children were brought up by the state and women were required to work like men and to fight in the armed services. Boys and girls wore the same clothes and played with the same toys. But the system collapsed within a generation and is now abandoned as a failure.

One of the main reasons for its collapse is that the women wanted to be mothers and to look after their kids but were only allowed to do so for two hours a day. As one mother said: “Is it right to make the child return for the night to the children’s home, to say goodnight to it and send it back to sleep among the fifteen or twenty others? This parting from the child before sleep is so unjust!”

Stanley Kurtz in his article: “Can we make boys and girls alike?” sums up the present situation brilliantly when he says:

“True, the last 40 years have seen tremendous changes in the social roles of men and women—changes that could never have happened were there not significant flexibility in gender roles. From the standpoint of feminism’s ideal of androgyny, though, the shift is still very partial. Until the link between women and child rearing completely breaks down, neither corporate boardrooms nor Harvard professorships of mathematics will see numerical parity between men and women. In the meantime, in disproportionate numbers, at critical points in their careers, women will continue to choose mothering over professional work.

“From either a biological or cultural point of view, then, the feminist project of androgyny is ultimately doomed. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t do harm in the meantime. In America, many boys are slipping behind in school; their sisters are significantly more likely to go on to college. Yet thanks largely to the influence of academic feminists, legal and educational resources still flow disproportionately to supposedly victimized girls. In the end, gender won’t disappear, whatever the mavens of women’s studies hope, but the careers of some bright young men probably will.”

It is urgent therefore that the tyranny of female teachers, trying to teach boys how to grow up to be men, is ended. Teaching is a convenient career for women, even mothers, as the hours usually coincide with their own children being in school. For a man, teaching is not so convenient as the pay is not great and he can usually do much better in business. Hence, the prospect faces society that in order to be fair to boys, men might have to be paid more. Female teachers shy away from the ‘solid’ subjects, like maths and science, and many science departments are closing down for lack of teachers to staff them. A good start clould therefore be made by paying extra salaries to science and maths teachers. As these will almost be invariably men, it will kill two birds with one stone by getting men into the classroom and making more science and maths teachers available.

As feminism is now reaching its last gasp, politicians will soon realise that they have nothing to fear in the way of losing votes, except from a small minority of feminatrics who do not have long to hold sway either in academia or in society in general.

Tony Blair’s policy of appointing cabinet members because they possess a vagina has so obviously failed that the new generation of politicians will surely abandon this failed policy in favour of a realistic approach to appointing those with ability regardless of their sex.