Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program

Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program, by Rebecca Urban.

Victorian students will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women, as part of a mandatory new school subject aimed at combating family violence.

The Victorian government will push ahead with the rollout of its $21.8 million respectful relationships education program, despite claims the program fails to consider the multiple and complex drivers of family violence, ignores male victims and amounts to the brainwashing of children.

Evidence has emerged the program risks alienating men — by presenting all men as “bad” and all women as “victims” — a point highlighted in a report evaluating a pilot of the program in 19 schools last year.

This is silly propaganda. For example:

“Being born a male, you have advantages — such as being overly represented in the public sphere — and this will be true whether you personally approve or think you are entitled to this privilege,” states guidance for the Years 7 and 8 curriculum,” it says.

Over-representation is not necessarily evidence of bias, especially when society has been bending over backwards to bias things the other way for decades.

Perhaps over-representation is evidence of out-performance instead? Even apart from different career and family goals, the male and female groups have different statistical characteristics. For example, the IQ distribution in men has a larger standard deviation than in women: only 37% of humans with IQs over 120 (the bottom of managerial level) are female. The imbalance increases as the IQ threshold goes higher. Perhaps that is “male privilege”.


The distribution of g [raw intelligence] in male and female populations. The scale of the horizontal axis is in units of the male standard deviation (15 points, so 120 IQ is at 1.3).

While feminism was a bunch of malcontents and academics exchanging misinformation in an echo chamber, it was fairly harmless. However now that it is impacting real-world policies it has become quite dangerous. The left is more prone to these misinformed enthusiasms because of their preference for theory over empirical evidence — yes, the carbon dioxide theory of global warming jumps to mind.