That's the leftist spin, and it's crap like this idiot libs fall for!
If there were fewer women and more “male aggression” in Sandy Hook Elementary School, the massacre there never would have taken place, according to a contribution to a leading conservative magazine.

National Review, whose in-house editorial suggested Newtown was the price of the Second Amendment, published a piece on Wednesday from anti-feminist Charlotte Allen suggesting the reason the shooter was able to kill so many students was because Newtown was a “feminized setting:”

But here's what was actually said, and I agree with.

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees. Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak.

More~
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/19/1361521/top-conservative-publication-newtown-happened-because-women-ran-the-school/?mobile=nc

If this isn't sheer bravery in the face of fire, I don't know what is. I don't think an unarmed man would have done better. Probably lots of men out there that would have given up the kids to save his own ass.

http://nation.foxnews.com/victoria-soto/2012/12/16/victoria-soto-heroic-newtown-teacher-sacrificed-own-life-save-kids

It's the nature of men to protect the young and women, this is undeniable.
I'm not discounting the bravery of the women on that horrible day, but men go through life being physically challenged as opposed to women being intellectually challenged.
As a man, I would have looked for a way to disarm the kid, then beat the living Hell out of him.

There are distinct differences in men and women, one in particular being aggression.

Maybe so.
I contend, that any man working in a school, (today), is likely to be metrosexual little lib democrat, that will push the kids out of the way while he's looking for a place to hide. Either that, or a damned child molester.

Funny how times have changed since I went to school, we had more male teachers than female and they were mostly men you could look up to.

I had one or two of those. By high school, most of the men were little lib wimps. We know for a fact that libs have taken the schools. I don't think many of the males are drill instructor types.

I assume Phys-Ed is the exception.

Yep. For the most part.

Don't get me wrong. I had a few good male teachers in high school too. But to think they would be capable, while unarmed, to stop a crazed shooter, is just stupid.

The conservative writer had a good point to make.............the feminization of US males by the left. But he completely blew it by using the school shootings, and saying that a janitor with a bucket, could have stopped it.

It's that kind of dumb shit that only makes the left stronger.

Yep. For the most part.

Don't get me wrong. I had a few good male teachers in high school too. But to think they would be capable, while unarmed, to stop a crazed shooter, is just stupid.

The conservative writer had a good point to make.............the feminization of US males by the left. But he completely blew it by using the school shootings, and saying that a janitor with a bucket, could have stopped it.

It's that kind of dumb shit that only makes the left stronger.

I can't speak for all men, but I would actually look for some kind of weapon to use to stop him, women on the other hand think of the children and getting them to safety, that is how it's always been throughout history.

And the author is a woman.

I still disagree with her premise, that the reason for the shootings was because women ran the school.

If I had a choice between a male teacher, and a trained and armed woman, I'd bet on the woman.

It's easy to sit here and say what we think we would do, but in all likelihood, the shooter would have probably taken out a man first. He started with the authority figures, and moved on from there.

If she had attempted to make a point about the absence of male role models, and the attempts by the left to use drugs and coercion to suppress natural male behavior from our young boys, she would have been onto something. But it's an entirely different subject.

That was not what she claimed, that is the BS Thinkprogress is spewing.
Go back and read the entire article, not just the part I posted, then hit NRO for the full article.

The reason I posted this was to expose the lib bias in everything they do.

All I'll say is that if the principal, whether man or woman, had had a handgun locked up in his/her office and knew how to use it. He/she and quite possibly all of those kids would probably be alive today.

Exactly!
That's part of the authors point, the feminizing of the school system, to the point of being sitting ducks.
Yes, there should be two armed people in school at all times, man or woman, doesn't matter, they need to be trained and required to carry when on school grounds.

Can you imagine if a first responder had been 100 ' away at the time?