The feminised world of home education

From time to time, some fool accuses me of misogyny, on the grounds that I sometimes say sharp things about women who get on my nerves. The assumption underlying such criticism is that while it is OK to engage in verbal rough and tumble with men, where women are concerned one must tread more carefully in order to avoid upsetting their more delicate sensibilities. I like this idea, with its Victorian suggestion of women as sensitive, maidenly-modest creatures who cannot engage in tough debate. I am bound to say that it does not accord with my own experience, either professionally or within my family, but perhaps the women with whom I come into contact in real life, who are perfectly able to argue with me on equal terms, are the exception.

This started me thinking about the nature of home education in this country. There is no doubt at all that it is predominantly a female activity. There are men involved, people like Mike Fortune-Wood and Imran Shah, but they are definitely the exceptions. Most of those with primary responsibility for their children's education are women. There has been some talk in recent years about the so-called 'feminisation' of schools and education. Many children do not encounter male teaches at all until the age of eleven and there has been speculation that the fact that nurseries and primary schools are staffed almost exclusively by women might have an effect, particularly upon boys. The idea is that boys do not get to see male role models in everyday life. Those from single parent families often have to turn to sports stars for their role models and this might not always be a good thing, especially when one considers the lifestyles and attitudes displayed by many of these celebrities. One would not really want one's son to copy some of the more well known footballers or get the idea that that is how men should behave. For home educated boys, the situation might be even more like this, because if there were to be no father at home then their life could be entirely dominated by female influence.

It could of course be argued that growing in an environment dominated by women might be no bad thing for boys. Perhaps women are less likely to tolerate some of the more idiotic behaviour to which boys are inclined. Maybe women will provide a softening and refining influence, which will cause the boys to grow up as more sensitive and thoughtful individuals. This argument has been advanced. I wonder if this has actually had any effect upon home educated boys? Has anybody noticed any differences in teenage boys and young men who were raised at home and did not attend school at all? Could the constant exposure to women have had a civilising effect upon them? There is scope here for an interesting piece of research, I fancy.

As far as my own misogyny is concerned, I can only say that I find idiots irritating. If a given group is primarily composed of women and contains many idiots, then statistically I am more likely to be irritated by a woman in the group than a man. This may, as the person who commented yesterday suggested, be because my mother did not hug me enough when I was a child. On the other hand, it may be a simple statistical artefact caused by the relative proportions of men and women in the world of home education. I have to say, it was quaint to find somebody putting forward the Oedipus Complex as an explanation for a grown man's behaviour. Many people today reject Freud's theories completely and dismiss him as a humbug, but there are still those who buy in to his peculiar ideas. It is to be hoped that the person who commented yesterday will share more insights into my early life!