Don't Help Boys Catch up in School, Because if You Do, Girls Might Be in Danger of Not Being Ahead Anymore
April 22nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom. They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree."
I love this--the girls are way ahead in school, but England, unlike the US, finally decides to try to devote some resources to boys so they won't fall further behind. And now the alarm is being sounded because efforts to help boys might--might!--someday put girls at risk of...not being ahead anymore.
Interesting too to see people upset about "gender-specific initiatives"--that only seems to be a problem when the gender being aided is the male gender.
The story is below--thanks to Malcolm, a reader, for sending it.
'Girls risk falling behind in the classroom'
4/21/08
A "significant proportion" of girls are struggling to read but many are not getting enough help, it is claimed.
About a quarter define themselves as "non-readers" because they find books boring and fear being labelled a "geek".
They are also less likely to get encouragement from family members to pick up a novel at home.
A study by the National Literacy Trust, a reading charity, says many young girls were "in danger of being overlooked by current policy drives".
At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom.
They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree.
A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys.
But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives.
"));
19 queries. 0.628 seconds.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
This is truly shocking from a moral sense, but I'm not at all surprised. Apparently women are also the only gender in NGOs, not just the government.
I'll never forget the 'equal opportunities commission' report that said although girls outrank boys in every field in education, upper-class boys outperform poor girls. Therefore girls are let down in education.
That was exactly what it said.
From an agency that I pay taxes for.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I understand: Girls must outpace boys or there is no equality. And, gentlemen, we have now entered Wonderland, where up is down, and in is out.
I've read a lot about the gender gap in education, and two points in the public discourse on this issue are especially outrageous to me:
FIRST, some writers (including one whose piece appeared in Time Magazine a few weeks ago) attribute boys lagging behind girls in education to the fact that we are too soft on boys. Did you get that? Consider that when girls were behind boys in almost every measure of educational achievement, educators said there must be a problem with the schools. But now that boys have fallen behind girls, these same people say there's a problem with the boys. (You see, people who suggest the education gender gap requires attention are painted as somehow opposing female empowerment, so they use this as an excuse to free them of any such obligation.) Of course, attributing the education gender gap to some male-wide deficiency borders on misandry, but that's a word these enlightened educators don't know. Tell me, why is it so difficult to believe that the same sorts of constricting gender stereotypes that held girls back for so long in school now may be hurting boys in different ways? And why are people so reluctant to acknowledge that when EITHER gender falls behind, it's a problem for all of us?"
SECOND, sometimes feminists will oppose any assistance in education for boys by citing -- brace yourself -- the wage gap. That's right. The oldest feminist canard in their playbook. As if making sure boys do as well in school as girls is somehow inappropriate because men make more money on average. Ah, can you say "apples and oranges"? (And don't even get me started on the "wage gap.") It is, of course, impossible to even know where to begin to challenge that sort of lunacy. I, for one, am of the antiquated belief that an education is not a privilege, it's a right -- a right as imperative, as fundamental as our most cherished freedoms -- and when we allow boys, as a class, to fall behind girls, there is something downright immoral, dare I say -- evil, about that.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Maybe I'm missing something here ... but boys turn into men ... or put another way for these Feminists simpletons .. your cute baby boy will turn into a man ….
So I don’t understand why women would want to see their sons with less education than their daughters …
So the question is … why aren’t women outraged with this?
If boys are disadvantaged growing up and when they become men have less of an education than women …. that will leave men with lower paying jobs .. leading to poverty ….which leads to unrest .. leading to anger … and ultimately violence ….
I must be missing something here .. because every left wing talking head is supposed to be against that.
Have I got it wrong?
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The situation regarding boys, girls and educational achievement is even more dire than it appears. As compared to past performance, when schools supposedly favored boys, the present performance of ALL students is MUCH WORSE. Girls have "pulled ahead' of boys even as girls have performed worse than they used to. It is just that boys do SO much worse than they used to do, that, in comparison, the girls are doing "better." And feminists are happy.
This is another way that feminism is "improving" our society. You go, girls!
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
While this may not be the most important issue on the site, it is the one I hold most dear, having been a student and a tutor. The problem here is that while there has been much focus and attention on encouraging girls to succeed in the last 15 years, there have not been many examples of specific academic programs targeted towards them (sports are another matter). That gives people a lot of ammo against this measure, while I have only anecdotes of how school curriculum has silently geared itself towards girls, and only common sense to argue that boys behavior in elementary school does not warrant medication and removal. These days, every subject is geared more and more towards discussion rather than analysis and concrete fact. Twenty students can give their interpretation on a work of literature, half of them can sound the same, and it is not considered a waste of class time. For many boys this is like a root canal. My younger brother, who is only 19, had projects that involved more than glue, paper and a posterboard well into late high school. Crafts, paints, and fabrics were required to create these visual projects, and he hated that he was being graded on artistic merit over his skills at, say, writing or math. Like me, he isn't good with a paintbrush or a pair of scissors. His handwriting is attrocious. Yet he can design a circuit to put in an electric guitar. That kind of talent wasn't rewarded until he got to college. This would have hurt anyone with less strive to succeed, but none of this was (as far as we have been told), a conceited effort to appeal to girls in the class. Too bad that is still what it did.
College, however, is little better. For whatever reason, college age women are damn good at studying. They can ace a test no sweat. Try asking them to remember material from last semester, and they are just as empty headed as the guys who blew off the class. Studying for the test is one thing, but it does not make one much smarter. I still remember how I was the only male invited to a panel of freshman to discuss on-campus issues, and that I was the only one who opened his mouth for more than two minutes, while the young ladies sat there, quiet and arms crossed, content to know they can brag about this to friends. I still remember how many of them aced their exams, but couldn't speak in class without using the word "like" five times while regurgitating what the professor said.
The numbers don't tell the truth. School age girls showed clearly better grades to me, and clearly more effort to earn them, but rarely a greater demonstration of what they were supposed to learn.
With boys, it is clear; they have no motivation. They don't try as hard, because no one tells them to, or because they feel it isn't worth it. The younger ones are medicated and removed from class when they shouldn't be. My mother is a teacher in elementary ed, and has never looked at the boys in her class and labeled them as candidates for ADD. Maybe that is because she raised three sons, and knows how to get them to do their class work.
If they just show boys that someone cares about their success, if only someone gives them a bit of a spark of inspiration, we will see great strides. The competitive nature of men means that just a bit of motivation is enough to get them to try and outdo each other. This doesn't happen though, because they do not see a reason to.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Another tragic byproduct of the feminist school reform movement, other than the fact that males are now being under-represented in school and college, is that there is precious little advocacy to help males with traditionally female careers..........such as nursing, teaching, counseling, and home-making.
Not only that, but why aren't the feminists likewise helping men to achieve the sexual equality and power that women have held over men for thousands of years?
MXY
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
If they don't educate boys more then the boys can't get good jobs to pay Higher Child Support payments. Of course that would actually make sense....we can't have that!
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Umm, I think if they would have polled boys, they would have found similar, if not more numbers of boys that found books boring and fearing being perceived as a geek.
I can't tell you how much crap I got in elementary, middle, and high school simply because I did like to read and didn't care if I was a geek. I can't speak for him, but I actually think my brother acted dumb in school because it is social suicide for boys to be smart or actually care about school. They're expected to slack off, talk back, and generally distance themselves from education in order to sit at the cool table.
College was better. But then, I did go to an engineering school.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Why does it matter if the boy gets a few extra books for free (savings for the parents, not the boy)? This in no way helps the boys. What we need is to change the way education is administered. The current system is definitely not working for boys and pouring more money into the same bad system will hardly help any boys
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
this is one reason i won't be voting for a democrat....they usually pander to the feminists. the first lady, mrs bush stated that boys are are need of help in a barbara walters interview about a year ago..now i can't imagine mrs clinton stating that boys need help.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Its the usual crap- a problem is only a problem if its a female problem. Not only that, but to help girls is to help society, but to help boys is to hurt girls. When you see people like these running around desperately looking for reasons not to help boys you have to wonder just how much of boys' current under-performance is accidental and how much of it is engineered.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Is anybody actually surprised by this?
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Classic....
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Here is another element -- it is the school system's misandry via gender employment discrimination.
Elementary and college administration has become a female dominated profession.
Where can you find a male Dean of Students, and even more rarely, a male community college president?
The entire K-12 and college administration has been co-opted by feminists.
Every college and university has a Women's Center and a Women's Studies program.
Try to locate a Men's Studies Center or a course on the history of masculinity.
Glenn, I do not want to use the "N"-word you despise --- but maybe it is time to investigate the degree of gender discrimination that is accepted and institutionalized?
Feminasties?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
"This includes additional cash to buy books for boys."
As though this will change the real problem - the class room environment and teachers. Toss a couple books at the boy and the teachers will suddenly and sincerely care. This (misdirection) places blame on the boy's. As far as I see it, these children could memorise a set of encyclopedias and it wouldn't matter unless those directly involved change their attitude/position. Use that funding to replace these teachers and board members. (They could actually make teachers more accountable for the success of students. It reminds me a bit of the weather-man who never has to be right. Has anyone heard of a teacher dismissed for failure to teach? Back-up plan.......blame the parents)
"But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives."
1) They're not reducing funding for girls now are they. 2) Wasn't this problem created in-part by "gender-specific initiatives" for girls.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Scott,
The Geeks shall inherit the earth.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Wait a minute. So when programs are put in place to help girls in school its about ensuring equal opportunity but programs put in place for boys its sexist?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
(A.P.) -- "The Geeks shall inherit the earth."
Acutally, it will be the video editors.
They are reasonably classified as geeks. But they are also artists.
Well, the software code writers might prevail. If they start to concentrate on better compressed video algorythyms.
I thought geeks didn't believe in inheriting anything?
Don't they just want to break the code and move on?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
One of the saddest and at the same time best things about this whole issue is that individual men will suffer because of this but society never will. There will be no "lesson learned" because the boys/men will suck it up and still do what needs to be done. They will still invent. They will still discover. They will still drag the world forward no matter how much it resists. Thats what we do. We know that a degree doesn't make the man. True accomplishment comes in the real world.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I’m sure there’s a lot of parents with sons who are equally as unhappy with this mentality of “girls should do better than boys”. Who is the National Literacy Trust to decide if the sons should lag behind in intellectual development for the benefit of the daughters of other parents?
I think this is why – even though it’s been criticized by some snobs in literacy circles – the Harry Potter series has done much to improve the level of reading skills in children: it’s made it popular and ‘cool’. More books about kids having adventures need to be filling up our (global ‘our’, that is) schools, there’s plenty out there: the ‘Artemis Fowl’ series by Eoin Coifer, Terry Pratchett’s ‘Bromeliad Trilogy’, the ‘Johnny Maxwell’ series and the ‘Wee Free men’ series; Lemony Snicket’s ‘The Series of Unfortunate Events’ (which I don’t personally like very much but a lot of kids seem to think is the bees’ knees), ‘The Dark is Rising’ series by Susan Cooper, the ‘Goosebumps’ books; to name just a few.
Less outdated ‘Nancy Drew’, ‘Narnia’ or ‘the Hardy Boys’ and more updated children’s literature needs be supplied by the school libraries. Give kids books with characters they can relate to and maybe they’ll want to read them!
There may also be a more physical side to the learning issues children are currently facing too. There has been several interesting studies in the affects diet has on mental development and learning; for instance, fish oil seems to have a positive effect on cognitive ability (though not advisable for children with fish allergies, of course) and is being promoted as a learning aid:
http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2007/200607.asp
http://www.rch.org.au/kidsinfo/factsheets.cfm?doc_id=9984
This was also featured in a eight-part documentary by Robert Winston on the human brain (or was it ‘A Child’s World’? Can’t completely recall. Anyone else see it?)
Another factor is the affects of food additives, which are being blamed for contributing to ADHD:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/2025678.htm
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22933523-5014717,00.html
I think there needs to be an overall study in what is affecting the study patterns in all children. Throwing more books at the boys and saying “here, read this!” isn’t going to help if the kid’s having difficulty because of outside influences.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
They had a book fair at my sons elementary school. I kept looking for book with a strong pro boy message. The librarian and I talked and we agreed they just don't make books like that anymore. It is not politically correct to leave the girls, just the boys. The books all have to have some bossy smart mouth girl character to trump the boy power parade. Think of the new Jonny Quest with a girl named Jessie as a counter point to Jonny. It was no fun after that addition. I finally got him a copy of a very old book called the Mad Scientists Club, all boy, all adventure, all the time. If anyone knows of any other books please feel free to name them.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Easy bring back single-sex schools, split the boys and girls up.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
"Kelly M. Bray Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm"
yep and all the women in 20 years time will be asking "where have all the real men gone" as I keep saying on this and many other blogs, western society is self-distrusting and this is a good example why.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
No parent wants their sons to fail. No teacher wants their male students to fail. I think for a long time, males outperformed females in school. If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it? Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies? If boys need extra help, and it seems they do, then similar programs can be developed for them. For instance, I remember reading about a school that experimented with separating the boys from the girls and teaching the girls more traditionally but teaching the boys very unconventionally—there were no desks, they got up every 10 or so minutes to do something physical, etc. And it seemed to work.
The problem is not your usual nemesis the feminists; it is a lack of funding for education and an emphasis on a “No Child Left Behind” type of atmosphere of testing, testing, testing. Teaching to the test. Get rid of art, recess, games, and just do math and reading. It’s not sexist to recognize that a group has different needs and to try to meet those needs. It is sexist to throw much more money at boys sports rather than girls sports. See the difference? I know that some people would call targeting boys’ poorer achievement sexist, but if there is data to back it up, then you have nothing to worry about. We feminists with sons want them to excel. I want my son to crush the girls. (In school.)
One teeny tiny thing you men could do to help boys out would be to volunteer in your child’s classroom once in awhile. Or at a school event. Not all the time (I know you are busy supporting women and paying for female governmental entitlements). But get involved; read a story to the class, help the kids with reading—let them see you there. Kids love to see dads in school helping out.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
I found this in a Wikipedia article. I had to laugh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Adventures_of_Jonny_Quest
"Announcement of Jessie Bannon's inclusion caused a backlash among certain Quest fans; TV Guide's editors feared that Jonny and Jessie would become romantically entangled.[80] The television magazine declared that "Jonny & Co. have always gotten along just fine without any icky females," and a Miami Herald columnist called her an "effort to rewrite the past to conform to the socio-political mandates of the present...This is PC—pretty crazy—run amok."[81] "
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 am
I don't know anything about Jonny Quest, but I would guess that the addition of a girl had less to do with trying to conform to socio-political mandates and much more to do with increasing the potential readership circle. I would never have wanted to read a book all about boys, but if girls were added, I would have considered it at least. I think it's capitalism more than anything.
I think books can have a strong boy message and still have girl characters in them. Boys and girls do mix in our society after all. It doesn't hurt to have some interaction between them.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
jeana -- "Kids love to see dads in school helping out."
I have to repress expressing how much I resent your naive BS.
(jeana) -- "One teeny tiny thing you men could do to help boys out would be to volunteer in your child’s classroom once in awhile."
Please go tomorrow to your school's principal's office, and ask them how men can get involved.
You are either a hypocrite, or a hopeless optimist. Maybe just an idealist.
I still appreciate your voice.
Even when you are foolish and marginally insightful at the same time.
Do you understand how dangerous it is for men to interact with kids in an institutional setting?
Why are there no more than 15% male K-12 teachers today?
Do you believe that is a social accident?
Please provide your explanation....
We're still friends. A good argument is OK?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 am
MasculistXY Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
yep the dems and reps have to go, in the case of Australia where I live Labor and Liberal party's have to go, the only answer to save the west is for men on mass to b@ll up and start a new political party, two party systems does not work.Many people think my idea of a strike is
silly but I can not see any choice.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 am
"But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives."
There would not be as much need for any gender-specific measures to help boys if the educational establishment had not stacked things so much in favour of girls to begin with.
You often hear feminists talking about how men feel threatened when their 'privileges' are under attack from women. Yet in reality women tend to be a lot more jealous and insecure when they feel that their advantages are in danger of being eroded. Just look at the number of women's groups fighting to defend the status quo in the family law system, instead of allowing a fairer deal for men.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 am
feminists - any guy that dates one of these is a fool, keep them single and breed them out....
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 am
Jeana, I volunteer in the both my kids schools. I have an autistic son, and I work with disabled children, and help other parents deal with the system. I volunteer in the classrooms, and in seven years I have only missed chaperoning one field trip. I am a member of school WatchD.O.G.S and do informal school security and lunch duty. I was at a PTA meeting last night, the old president was a man, the new president is a man. I was at a Scout meeting tonight, and I will be at a school play tomorrow night. When my son was diagnosed I quit my job and stayed at home for a year to get him help. I used up all my savings doing so. Then I started my own business to be close to my children. I doubt you have done ten percent of what I have done for my children and many others. When you have put your time where your mouth is, come back and report. In the meantime your assumptions about men are condescending, sexist, and ignorant.
BTW... What is wrong with writing books just for boys? There are many just for girls, few for boys.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
A few years back I read an article by a British feminist who said that we should not worry about addressing the problems of boys in schools until such a time that women had achieved equal representation in top positions in the workforce, or something to that effect.
This is a none-too-subtle way of saying 'pay up or the kid gets it'!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Kelly says "BTW... What is wrong with writing books just for boys? There are many just for girls, few for boys."
The problem is that feminists don't have enough legitimate grievances to keep their movement going. So they have to focus on every little piece of petty stupid nonsense to try to find some more issues to work with.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Tim Murray says "FIRST, some writers (including one whose piece appeared in Time Magazine a few weeks ago) attribute boys lagging behind girls in education to the fact that we are too soft on boys. Did you get that? Consider that when girls were behind boys in almost every measure of educational achievement, educators said there must be a problem with the schools. But now that boys have fallen behind girls, these same people say there's a problem with the boys. (You see, people who suggest the education gender gap requires attention are painted as somehow opposing female empowerment, so they use this as an excuse to free them of any such obligation.)"
This kind of thinking is common when it comes to all gender disparities. If males are more successful than females in any area, this is considered automatic evidence of sexism and discrimination against females. Yet if females are more successful elsewhere, this is considered automatic evidence that females are simply better. It is a Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose argument. The problem is that no amount of evidence or logic can penetrate a rigged argument.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Any guy that dates Jeana would would be a fool, the Jeana type should be screened out also single for life is the only way.
Kelly M. Bray, BTW Jeana is also arrogant.
.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 am
"Kelly M. Bray, BTW Jeana is also arrogant."
Stunned reaction!!! No..say it ain't so!!!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
When it is eventually 95% females in college, 95% females holding Master's Degree, etc... these souless, unethical women's groups will still be producing pseudo-studies to push the victimhood agenda. They do not care AT ALL about fairness or harmony. They want female domination...PERIOD. F-them.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Please, for the love of God, separate schools by gender. Oh please, oh please! But, you have to do it fairly. Male teacher in the male schools, female teachers in the female schools, the same funding levels, etc... Oh God, please let them do that. I would love nothing more than to sit back and watch the males DOMINATE females on standardized tests and in just about every subject in the schools. Please, Gods of Fairness, let this happen. Females cannot compete on an equal playing field. That's why they always whine and have "special" rules to meet their "special needs".
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Please, for the love of God, separate schools by gender. Oh please, oh please! But, you have to do it fairly. Male teacher in the male schools, female teachers in the female schools, the same funding levels, etc... Oh God, please let them do that. I would love nothing more than to sit back and watch the males DOMINATE females on standardized tests and in just about every subject in the schools. Please, Gods of Fairness, let this happen. Females cannot compete on an equal playing field. That's why they always whine and have "special" rules to meet their "special needs".
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 am
test
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Chris D Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
yep as I said breed them out, if a guy is in the dating phase he must administer the feminist test, is she is one dump her in the first few dates.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Jeana says "No parent wants their sons to fail. No teacher wants their male students to fail."
You're right. The world is perfect. No-one has bad intentions. No-one has destructive agendas. Let's all hold hands and sing merry songs!
"I think for a long time, males outperformed females in school. If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it? Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies?"
This is an all-or-nothing type of argument. Either we have to have an education system completely geared to girls, or we have to ignore girls or not worry about their education. Not everything is this black and white. There are shades of grey.
It is not about knocking efforts to give girls an equal chance. The point is that the system has become too heavily favourable towards girls.
"The problem is not your usual nemesis the feminists; it is a lack of funding for education and an emphasis on a “No Child Left Behind” type of atmosphere of testing, testing, testing."
So because education is 'underfunded' girls have to get the available resources and boys miss out. Great. Maybe one day when there is limitless resources we can address these problems.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 am
"No teacher wants their male students to fail."
Actually that is not true. Personal experience - teachers do want male students to fail. There is no other way to explain why boys are loaded up with Ritalin and punished for playing openly with girls in a way that may seem sexual to adults by HELLO! Juvie JAIL TIME. (Sometimes makes me think they are trying to keep boys from exploring heterosexuality?)
"I think for a long time, males outperformed females in school. If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it?"
Classic. Please read Glenn's post. You are committing the same distortion Glenn has made this post about. Excuse me mam, but your man-hating feminism is showing.
"Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies?"
Another hysterical classic. And going to school is helping them not get married and have babies? Check out the teen pregnancy and illegitimacy (aka no daddy to help out, no family) rates before 1920 and then talk about this.
If boys need extra help, and it seems they do, then similar programs can be developed for them.
Programs? Who is going to develop those? And why? Lets increase the dose of Ritalin.. that ought to do it.
"For instance, I remember reading about a school that experimented with separating the boys from the girls and teaching the girls more traditionally but teaching the boys very unconventionally—there were no desks, they got up every 10 or so minutes to do something physical, etc. And it seemed to work."
Aahh.. make the boys feel they are "special" right? Why not just give back recess and play times as they were given before? There are millions of dollars of private and public money being spent to increase female interest in maths and sciences - EXCLUSIVELY. Why not end this sexism? Besides, why is the same thing never thought about men?
"The problem is not your usual nemesis the feminists; it is a lack of funding for education and an emphasis on a “No Child Left Behind” type of atmosphere of testing, testing, testing. Teaching to the test. Get rid of art, recess, games, and just do math and reading."
Agree on getting demented programs out of school, or rather take schools out of govt. programs. Lack of funding? Not really.. lack of authority to fire teachers. Lack of competition in schools which is being killed using tax payer dollars. Pay teachers more? Hell no! Pay Good Teachers, that is up to you - otherwise they can move to a different school which may appreciate their skills better.
"It’s not sexist to recognize that a group has different needs and to try to meet those needs. It is sexist to throw much more money at boys sports rather than girls sports. See the difference? I know that some people would call targeting boys’ poorer achievement sexist, but if there is data to back it up, then you have nothing to worry about. We feminists with sons want them to excel. I want my son to crush the girls. (In school.)"
You say one thing, and then support the other... but then I don't blame you. It is hard for you to read without introducing feminist perspective into reality.
"One teeny tiny thing you men could do to help boys out would be to volunteer in your child’s classroom once in awhile. Or at a school event. Not all the time (I know you are busy supporting women and paying for female governmental entitlements). But get involved; read a story to the class, help the kids with reading—let them see you there. Kids love to see dads in school helping out."
How about homeschooling? I suggest pay for your family and let your husband stay at home and homeschool the kids. For many years men have done this for women. So why not a reverse the roles around for lets say 20 years? Which by the way is probably the reason why boys excelled at school before. A teacher can never teach a child what a parent can.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 am
Would you consider it sexist to change the entire system because somebody pretended that one gender group had been shortchanged? Is it sexist to lie through your arse to get all attention focussed on only one gender for two decades. Is it sexist to do this based on studies that only looked at girls and never at boys?
If Carol Gilligan had surveyed boys as well as girls what would she have found? We'll never know because the boys just didn't matter. And boys know this too. Why do you think ninety percent of youth suicides are boys?
The boys sports pay the bills for the girls sports at virtually every level. It should be based on the level of participation rather than total population. Feminists want half the money even though the participation level for women is only a fraction that of men. They want their own set-aside competitions AND entry to the mens'. Contrast with domestic violence where male victims can't get funding or help even to the artificially low level feminists claim of male victims.
What about other mothers' sons - or daughters? Care much about them?
I see a stark difference. In the late eighties certain claims were made by feminists which have subsequently been proven false. Nevertheless significant changes were undertaken in western education systems to make them more "girl friendly". Since that time boys performance and outcomes have consistantly declined. We now have a real gender gap that DIDN'T exist originally. The starting point was reasonably neutral outcomes for the two genders.
Yes there is data to prove this, unlike the falsehoods that were purveyed twenty years ago.
Here's some reading for you...
The War Against Boys - Christina Hoff Summers.
This is one area that has feminists and feminism written all over it. And it should be to their everlasting shame. The treatment of boys in our culture, much of it directly a consequence of feminist advocacy, demonstrates how truly despicable feminists are.
Here's one feminist in action...
Don't trust your kids along(sic) with male teens
Yep, treat them all as though they're paedophiles. Of course if they are abused by a female we all snicker and look the other way. We'll even make him pay her way if he gets her pregnant.
When you start advocating for affirmative action programs to encourage men into teaching or childcare I will take you seriously. Until then it's clear you want men to have only "volunteer" status with regard to children.
As long as we continue to teach boys that men can't be trusted with children we will continue to let them down.
How far behind do boys need to be before we've achieved equality?
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 am
Jeana Says:
"One teeny tiny thing you men could do to help boys out would be to volunteer in your child’s classroom once in awhile."
Just so we can handle this little comment here real quick... I don't even have children but I still volunteer to help out with an after school science program at the local middle school which runs age appropriate science experiments for the kids and promotes discussion of the topics involved while experts are there to answer questions and point the kids in the right direction to find the information for themselves when new questions arise and we aren't there to answer.
It is important that you understand that these problems do not exist due to lack of interest in volunteering... these problems exist due to the unrealistic expectation that all children learn in exactly the same way and that teachers are forced to follow state approved teaching methods that as luck would have it seem to change as a function of the administration.
Our educational system is totally screwy and has been for a long time... that doesn't mean that children cannot succeed... but it does mean that there can be significant obstacles in their way that the system has put there.
I am not a teacher by the way... but the national science foundation loves these sort of outreach programs as a part of their broader impacts criteria (which in case you are unaware actually has a female focus even though all indications are that boys need more help in school).
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:24 am
jeana says " We feminists with sons want them to excel. I want my son to crush the girls. (In school.)" and "No parent wants their sons to fail."
Even if this argument is true, surely there are as many fathers with daughters. So that kind of cancels the argument out.
The logic of your argument seems to be that because most people have close relations of the opposite sex, this should eliminate most gender bias and conflicts. If this is so, why are there any problems at all?
Even if feminist women with sons don't want their sons to fail, they probably want other people's sons to fail. Moreover, some feminists might well believe that sacrificing their son's future is a fair price to pay for the greater good of advancing women and extracting a price from men. After all, you don't make omelettes without breaking a few eggshells.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Jeana:
Did you miss the entire point of Glenn's post? Nobody is proposing actively holding girls back so that boys can get ahead. The point is precisely that "similar programs" are being resisted, whether or not it is by our "usual nemesis the feminists" -- what you call the people who are blocking such programs is completely irrelevant.
Girls receive much more funding for sports per participant. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/dads-put-your-daughters-in-rowing.html
That's pretty insulting and patronising. Are you implying that if only "us men" (a homogenous group, of course) would put in a "teeny tiny" bit of effort instead of sitting around doing nothing, the world would be a better place? And although of course volunteering is great, surely this publically funded system should be fair as it stands?
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 am
Isn't this the obverse of the very rationale the AAUW used to massively overhaul public school curriculum? To make it more touchy feely? less competitive? in other words girl friendly? and to totally alienate boys from education? It is the boys who are now underserved- I won't hold my breath waiting for the AAUW to do anyting about that other than to reinforce the status quo.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Jeana reckons "No parent wants their sons to fail. No teacher wants their male students to fail. "
What a wonderful world it is-now lets all hold hands and sing "Koombaya".
I suppose this absolutist piece of non-sense was arrived at after you interviewed every parent and teacher on the face of the planet. Fact is there are many people including parents and teachers who have bought the idea that the world would be a better place if everything was run by women and it is not difficult to imagine that such people would indeed want boys to fail so that the positions of power go to women not men. And that of course is just the ones doing it for ideological reasons, there are bound to be people who sabotage boys just to be abusive.
"The problem is not your usual nemesis the feminists;"
Yes, it is. who does you think brought about all these changes? The patriarchy?
"One teeny tiny thing you men could do to help boys out would be to volunteer in your child’s classroom once in a while"
Yes, madam, it sounds like a great way to get arrested because some hysterical woman freaks out because she sees a strange man talking to her kids a couple of times.
To be fair to Jeana, she does seem to be in support of special programs for boys, eg " If boys need extra help, and it seems they do, then similar programs can be developed for them", but she's expressed herself badly and i think some people are misunderstanding her.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
jeana: "I think for a long time, males outperformed females in school. If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it? Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies?"
Oh Jeana and your strawmen...who said this? Who is knocking girls doing well in school? So you have the myopic view that what is good for boys is automatically bad for girls too huh? What we are knocking is the fact that feminists fight (and continue to fight) so hard for women/girls in school, but rarely is ever anything done for boys. And the moment something is done for boys, who is leading the charge to rescind the gender-based improvements? Drum roll...that's right, feminists. So until our nemesis (feminism) drops its gynocentric world view, they will continue to be our enemy. Period. If feminists were really interested in equality they would see boys falling behind as a bad thing...but what mainstream feminist group would ever say such a thing? Please feel free to point me to a NOW page that says so.
Geez Jeana, add to intelligent conversation, please. It's good to have feminists around, but the incessant strawman tactics only serve to undermine your position. And while your at it, re-read Jason's note below in response to your pass the buck note on volunteering:
Jason: "It is important that you understand that these problems do not exist due to lack of interest in volunteering... these problems exist due to the unrealistic expectation that all children learn in exactly the same way and that teachers are forced to follow state approved teaching methods that as luck would have it seem to change as a function of the administration."
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 am
I do have to say that boys would benefit from different teaching styles. Throwing them into their own class with no desks and such is a bit extreme, but it isn't because they are animals. Young boys in school are high energy, and enjoy competition between each other. They work well with a fast paced class structure and respond well to being referred to on a last name basis. I have seen similar methods used in classes I had as a child where (for whatever reason) there were all boys, and I found students who never said a word before piping up with answers and questions and challenges.
As for sports, there is rarely any such thing as more funding for men's sports. My old school district refused to pay for a men's volleyball team, even though the girls had one. The boys who were interested had to play it intramural style against other schools (yes, there was a team ready to go). I have read of how Utah has had to decimate its wrestling programs at the collegiate level due to Title IX, while one school gave scholarships to any girl interested in the rowing team - no experience required.
Regardless, while some may not like what Jeana expressed, she does show concern and makes some valid points. I hope everyone has interest in discussing the topic further.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Males must achieve or they do not get to reproduce. Equality of oppurtunity does not mean equality of outcome. Ask the Cubs.
Someone recommended Summer's "War Against Boys" and I have to agree that it is an interesting book.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200005/war-against-boys
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Michael Claymore,
Your first paragraph was spot on. Part of the problem is that a lot of schoolteachers tend to see their role as social engineers, who want to mould the future society according to their own fashionable ideologies.
So it is not inconceivable that many teachers would see their role as laying the foundations for future success by women, and favour girls accordingly.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
taiden: "Regardless, while some may not like what Jeana expressed, she does show concern and makes some valid points. "
I'm fine with several of her points, but to start out with an obvious strawman dig shows her complete lack of respect, understanding, or both of our point: we want girls to be successful...we are fine with girls being successful, but we also want boys to be just as successful. The article referenced by GS is a perfect example of feminist logic as I would bet that either the author or the editor or (more likely) both call themselves feminists. To many feminists continuing to fight the Gender War, the success of boys means a failure on the part of girls - as if both genders can't be equally successful. This article sounds too much like: boys were so successful for so long, so now we need to hold them down so girls can be successful. What does this mean? Girls can't compete on a level playing field? I don't believe that...as an egalitarian, I don't buy it.
It's sad really: to many feminists (Jeana included) an attack on the movement equals an attack on women. What many (most?) feminists seem to miss is the fact that their movement has been hijacked by chivalrists and female supremacists.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
"No parent wants their sons to fail. No teacher wants their male students to fail. I think for a long time, males outperformed females in school. If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it? Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies? If boys need extra help, and it seems they do, then similar programs can be developed for them."
That's our point, Jeana. Glenn's post was about the opposition to anything that will address the concerns of boys.
"For instance, I remember reading about a school that experimented with separating the boys from the girls and teaching the girls more traditionally but teaching the boys very unconventionally—there were no desks, they got up every 10 or so minutes to do something physical, etc. And it seemed to work."
(The following isn't a slight against you, Jeana; I'm merely addressing the topic itself.)
Most of this problem stems from us treating boys and girls as though they're radically different from one another. I'm appalled when I read the details of the plans people have for single-sex education...with the girls reading and writing and sitting behing desks, while the boys reenact LORD OF THE FLIES in their jockey shorts outside. I wasn't always a great student, but I never hated the structure of education itself, or reading and answering discussion questions, LEARNING. But I would dread school every day if it was this alleged "boy-friendly" approach, with constant competition and confrontation. It's thoroughly anti-male to suggest that boys can't sit still and pay attention to the teacher. *I* certainly had no problem doing it...
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
bmmmg: anyone suggesting Lord of the Flies in gym shorts as they way to teach boys is taking it to the extreme. I have seen that a different pace and a different attitude from the teacher can encourage boys to take a more active role in the subject being taught. I wasn't a competitive person myself a child, but when there was a bit of competition in scholastics (which I excelled at over sports), I was as good as anyone in the classroom.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
A little competition in the classroom can be a good thing, yes, but that's not an argument for segregating classes. Girls are just as competitive as boys, and anyone who argues otherwise obviously doesn't cover high-school athletics (as I do).
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Kelly M. Bray said: "I finally got him a copy of a very old book called the Mad Scientists Club, all boy, all adventure, all the time. If anyone knows of any other books please feel free to name them."
Oh my! I had that book when I was young (in the 1960s) and *loved* it. Also from that era was My Side of the Mountain, another adventure story, as well as Dandelion Wine, The Illustrated Man, The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, A Canticle for Leibowitz, and other classic sci-fi. Modern versions would include David Brin's Uplift Universe series (Sundiver, Startide Rising, The Uplift War, Brightness Reef, Heaven's Reach, Infinity's Shore, Earth, etc.), The Postman, etc. And though Brin is a product of political correctness and thus many of his most powerful characters are women, he doesn't base his strong female characters using the stereotype of owing their strength to male weakness.
Good luck finding engaging reading for your sons.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
And though Brin is a product of political correctness and thus many of his most powerful characters are women, he doesn't base his strong female characters using the stereotype of owing their strength to male weakness.
Thats the zero sum game coming into play again. There is nothing wrong with having a strong female character or a strong male character but why does seem that in order to have one means that the other is flawed?
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
To anyone on here that wants to paints those who push back HARD at feminists' propaganda as "extreme", etc...., kiss my posterior. There is very much a conspiracy. Not only that, it is so entrenched and protected by legal, regulatory, and political corruptions, those perpetrating it don't even feel the need to hide it well. For one TINY example, go check out the website WWW.THEFIRE.ORG right now. Anyone who dares stand up against the PC machine or even that wants to maintain freedom of their own mind is ostracized and weeded out. That is just the tiniest of examples. I don't think reasoning and compromise is possible with many feminists. I think you have to push back and push back hard; they are determined zealots who care nothing of fairness......they are, essentially, social lawyers for the female gender....always representing their clients NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Sorry, got over-emotional. If you choose to go check out WWW.THEFIRE.ORG, look at the piece and associated documents on TEACHERS COLLEGE. Thank you, that is all.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
If there is a state funded,biased ,anti-male cultural hysteria against our boys, men must take justice into their own hands,
spend time with the boys playing stickball in the streets, or soccer in the parks, and get to know these boys, and ask them how school is going, and buy a huge watermellon and share it with them.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
chris d
" I think you have to push back and push back hard; "
MCA, I get the feeling only a few bold men are pushing at all.
Doing some anonymous pamphleteering with a few facts, with a few websites, can be considered doing some pushing.
commenting on other blogs, and directing them to mens rights sites can be considered "doing some pushing"
If we all just did a little, we could force a discussion in this election year!!
If we all just did a little!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I don't think Jeana's heart is in the wrong place. This must be a pretty intimidating place to post a message for someone like Jeana. I would comment on this: "If a drive to help females stay in school was successful, then why would you knock it?"
No fair-minded person would knock that (did anyone here knock it? I hope not). No, the problem is that back when girls were being outperformed by boys, EVERYBODY agreed there's a problem with the schools (and there was). Now that boys are being outperformed, a lot of people are saying there's a problem with the boys. Or with their fathers (because they refuse to get involved and all.) The schools are fine, you see. Solution? Tell the boys to work harder, pump them full of Ritalin, and shame their fathers for not making their presence felt at school more (and some of those fathers are working two jobs to make ends meet). Everybody, even the commentators here, realizes it's politically incorrect to want to help boys because it's been drummed into everyone's head that males are privileged.
Let me ask a very serious question -- it's not meant in any way to be flippant: If males are indeed privileged, doesn't it alarm anyone how poorly boys are performing -- with all their privilege? Isn't something terribly, terribly wrong that the privileged class has slipped so badly?
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Well said Tim (at 2:55p). I believe that is exactly the problem I have with this issue: when girls were behind, everyone snapped to and came to their aid. When boys are behind, everyone blames the boys or worse, states there is no problem. Now tell me: if men/boys and women/girls are supposed to be equal, then why is it that one gender (ie: girls/women) deserve more support then the other?
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
This is something that is very serious, probably one of the most serious things that the MRM will have to tackle. Boys are falling way behind girls in school, from K-12 and into college. Why do we still have people saying girls need more attention than boys in schools given the statistical evidence of boys falling behind in almost all scholastic endeavors? This title of this article, "Girls falling behind in the classroom" is very misleading as to the reality. Even within the article, the author admits that boys are falling behind girls in school. Here is the quote:
"At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom.
They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree. A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys. But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives".
So, let me get this straight. Even though it is a FACT that boys fall behind in school and college, we want to stifle funding for bringing up boys educational levels because we are worried that there is a POSSIBILITY that girls may suffer scholastically. Here is an idea; when boys start to score on par with girls scholastically, and when men start to graduate college in the same numbers as women, I will be 110% behind making sure that both men and women have the same help. However, the FACT that sending a little more educational funding to help boys achieve up to the level of girls outweighs the POSSIBILITY (and not probability) that girls’ scholastic achievement will fall slightly. Now I don't want to take anything away from girls that would help them succeed in life. I have a niece, and I know that many men who read Glenn's site have daughters. We very much want these girls to grow up and be successful women. However, I also have a nephew, and many men who read Glenn's site have sons. We want them to grow up and be just as educated and successful as our daughters. However, the FACT (not the POSSIBILITY) is that it is very clear that we have a crisis of boys not making the grade. This is not speculation, this is happening TODAY. NOW. If we stop trying to find a solution due to a POSSIBILITY, then we are failing our sons, just like we would be failing our daughters if they were falling behind. And an article like this one is just another bit of salt in an already deep wound.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
(jeana asked) -- "Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies?"
That is a very interesting question.
Because it assumes you think men think women have a choice to either be fertile, or smart.
Girl.
Men have no interest whatsoever in controlling your choices.
There really is no Evil Patriarchy anymore. We do not care enough about women to maintain it.
Get educated. Have babies. Have babies and educate them. I really could care less....
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Al
great point, as the writer of the article was a media lace curtain "spin writer".
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Jeana said:
"Would you rather girls drop out of school to get married or have babies?"
We need to be careful with comments like that, as they are intended to "poison the well" and induce compliance in audiences out of guilt and shame alone.
I am quite okay with women in the work force. The question is if women are okay with men NOT in the workplace. Are women prepared to provide for a man? For every woman who resents being "barefoot and pregnant" there is a man who resents being objectified by his money.
It is too bad that most feminists don't much care for the sexual equality of men.................after all, the market value of the human body is still monopolized by women, with sales of Playboy far exceeding those of Playgirl.
MXY
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
KARMA:
“Any guy that dates Jeana would be a fool, the Jeana type should be screened out also single for life is the only way.
Kelly M. Bray, BTW Jeana is also arrogant.”
Ha ha Karma; not only am I married, I bred.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Kelly M. Bray:
“When you have put your time where your mouth is, come back and report. In the meantime your assumptions about men are condescending, sexist, and ignorant.”
I’m glad you volunteer. But you are one of VERY few who do. Sorry, but it’s not condescending, sexist or ignorant to point out the truth.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Roy: “Do you understand how dangerous it is for men to interact with kids in an institutional setting?
Why are there no more than 15% male K-12 teachers today?
Do you believe that is a social accident?”
There are 12% of male teachers because the pay sucks, not because they are keeping men out. It is not dangerous for a father to interact with kids at school. If that father can’t keep his hands off the little girls after being told 3 times, then that father will be asked to leave (this happened recently). But you can come to school, go on field trips, etc. Yes you can, AND you won’t be arrested.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Jeana said:
"There are 12% of male teachers because the pay sucks, not because they are keeping men out."
I would say that your hypothesis is valid enough............but mainly because seldom to females even wish to raise enough money to support an entire family and men are left with having to enter the more high-paying (and more disposable) jobs in order to do so. Besides, being an elementary school teacher hardly makes a man sexy in the eyes of the ladies.
However, I would say there are other forces at work here as well. One, elementary teaching is traditionally a feminine job, and feminists usually care more about encouraging more women into masculine occupations than getting more men into feminine ones. Men need to be encouraged to be nurses, teachers, counselors, and homemakers.Two, I would say that false accusations of pedophilia or rape is indeed a HUGE obstacle preventing many men from entering childcare-related jobs (in social psychology, we call this fear "stereotype threat"). Just lately on Glenn's blog there was a story about a man who was accused of being "creepy" when he was barely even loitering and another story about a 22 year old female who got a slap on the wrist for having sexual relations with a 14 year old boy.
There are two important things to keep in mind about herjury (bait-rape):
1). It is just as stressful and traumatic as actual rape.
2). It happens about just as often as actual rape.
Just as many women avoid walking alone at night due to the possiblity of rape, so do many men avoid teaching due to the possibility of herjury.
MXY
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Jeana Says:
"There are 12% of male teachers because the pay sucks, not because they are keeping men out."
This is bull shit.
In the NYC school district the starting salery for a new teacher fresh out of college is $40,000+... at maximum the pay in the same district is over six figures.
Head out to the suburbs and the salaries are even higher than that.
Most entry level jobs available to graduates with a college degree are not outside thousands and thousands of dollars more than the starting salary of a teacher... with many being less in the 35K range.
None of those jobs guarantee that you'll be making 6 figures by the time you retire either... and then there is a sizable pension and retirement fund available if you take proper advantage of it.... neither of which is guaranteed at other places.
The reasons men do not become teachers isn't because of money... the alternatives aren't exactly allowing young men to break the bank except in very specific circumstances.
A friend of mine just started an entry level consulting position for IBM with a new Masters Degree and is making around 60K... that is with a graduate level degree in a technical field... had he become a teacher instead he would just about be getting tenure and earning circa 50K... without owing additional money for a graduate education.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Just as a further note... teachers work hard for their money and deserve more respect and admiration than they are given... I am just saying that the reason men are not properly represented in the teaching force is not a money issue otherwise we would see a correlation between district salary and the population of men... we don't.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
MasculistXY: “Another tragic byproduct of the feminist school reform movement, other than the fact that males are now being under-represented in school and college, is that there is precious little advocacy to help males with traditionally female careers..........such as nursing, teaching, counseling, and home-making. Not only that, but why aren't the feminists likewise helping men to achieve the sexual equality and power that women have held over men for thousands of years?”
1) The question is, why aren’t MRAs helping men break into those traditionally female careers? Feminists helped women break into male-dominated professions. Are we also supposed to help you with female-dominated professions? Isn’t that what your movement is all about (aside from trashing feminists)?
2) If we held so much power over men for thousands of years, wouldn’t we be running things? I mean, really?
3) “Homemaking” was something you took in college in the olden days to snag a husband. Is that even offered in college anymore?
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Since this story is about England, the thing I would like to know is how much more poorly are boys actually doing? I wasn’t aware there was any significant difference between males and females. In fact, I thought (and I have not done research) that it was males who were doing better than females overall.
There is a problem with the diagnosis of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) that pegs boys as having a mental illness when in fact, they are just being boys. We medicate everyone in our society because Big Pharma is so very powerful. But I do not know what linkage this has to schools, specifically, boys doing worse.
But I still believe that if you want your sons to do better, then help them out—volunteer at their school, get them a tutor, read to them every night, let them see you reading yourself. There are a lot of things you can do. Those who work 2 jobs are exempted from volunteering. But the others still can make some time.
If you allow them to watch tv and play video games instead of doing a little homework, no wonder they slip behind. If your sons are slipping behind, then talk with the teacher and see what suggestions she has. Teachers can only do so much—they have poorer, average, and higher performing kids in one classroom and they can’t individually teach them all.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
jeana claims "But you can come to school, go on field trips, etc. Yes you can, AND you won’t be arrested."
Arrest may not be a certainty, but it is a possibility. Check the story on Victor Emmer, madam.
"Are we also supposed to help you with female-dominated professions? Isn’t that what your movement is all about (aside from trashing feminists)?"
I notice she snuck in the idea that feminists are "helping" men by using the word also, which means "in addition to". Where have you helped us, madam? I've said it before and i'll say it again- we need some rational and honest trolls on this website.
" If we held so much power over men for thousands of years, wouldn’t we be running things? I mean, really?"
No you wouldnt, because, contrary to feminist doctrine, men arent as stupid as they are randy. For the good of society, including women themselves, men cant allow themselves to be sexually blackmailed into handing control over to the sex that's most likely to abuse their power over others.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
jeana reckons "I wasn’t aware there was any significant difference between males and females. In fact, I thought (and I have not done research) that it was males who were doing better than females overall. "
This woman cant be serious. Even the feminist sources admit girls are doing better in most subjects. Why are you arguing about something you are clearly ignorant of? And given that you claim to have a son dont you think this is something you should have looked into by now?
"But I still believe that if you want your sons to do better, then help them out—volunteer at their school, get them a tutor, read to them every night, let them see you reading yourself. There are a lot of things you can do. "
I see, so its the fault of the dads, not the system. Volunteering at school is not so easy when you work 40-50 in a factory as it is when you are a housewife. Most working class families cant afford a tutor, and what you learn by sitting there watching dad read is beyond me, except maybe "wow, my dad's really boring."
"If you allow them to watch tv and play video games instead of doing a little homework, no wonder they slip behind. If your sons are slipping behind, then talk with the teacher and see what suggestions she has."
So once again it's dad's fault, where is mom in all this? Working down the coal mine, no doubt. She spends more time with the kids-if they are slacking off it's more her fault than dad's
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Michael Claymore:
I am not a troll and I am not a "madam". I'm not that old. "Also" meant helping boys in addition to already helping girls. I didn't say feminists specifically helped boys. That was your invention.
Just because I don't have facts before me or don't know about an issue doesn't make me ignorant. I am NOT suggesting that boys failing is only men's fault. But you are all males, this is a male blog, and I am suggesting to you males something that you males can do. It is difficult to take time off work; this I know. But you can do it a couple times a year, I bet. Aren't you guys always talking about how we women are feminizing boys by our mere presence? I was trying to give you some helpful advice. And letting kids see you read helps encourage them to read too.
Kumon is a great tutoring place--only math and reading are worked on. About $85 a month for one of them. It totally helped my son since he had an idiot Kindergarten teacher. If you can't afford it, you can buy the workbooks in a book store.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
"Just because I don't have facts before me or don't know about an issue doesn't make me ignorant." Ok, well maybe it does.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Jeana said:
"1) The question is, why aren’t MRAs helping men break into those traditionally female careers? Feminists helped women break into male-dominated professions. Are we also supposed to help you with female-dominated professions? Isn’t that what your movement is all about (aside from trashing feminists)?"
I would say many masculists and MRA's are currently helping men break into traditionally female careers, slowly but surely, despite the shaming messages from both men and women to act manly and tough. However, unlike feminism, men do not have the luxury of chivalrous females rushing to our aid in the same numbers that men have rushed to the aid of females in need. While there are many male feminists, there are precious few female masculists. There is also the power of the feminist lobby...........I hear that there is only 1 men's rights lobbyist in the entire country! Also remember that it is GENDER-FEMINISM, not EQUITY-FEMINISM, that many of us have a problem with. I might actually venture that you might be more anti-masculist than I am anti-feminist. I do realize that both movements put an over-reliance on certain scapegoats...........too many feminists blame the patriachy, and masculism too often blames feminism for our less-than-savory state of affairs. Personally, I believe that gender-feminism is only 1/3 to blame for misandry. Chivalry and restrictive male socilalization must also be taken into account as forces that keep men "in their dire place".
Jeanna said:
"2) If we held so much power over men for thousands of years, wouldn’t we be running things? I mean, really?"
The key word is phenomenology. Power and privilege are indeed in the eyes of the beholder. One person's mountain is another person's molehill, and the grass is only greener if you like the color green. Men and women traditionally exerted different kinds of power over the opposite gender throughout history and enjoyed a disparity in types of privilege. The following is a quote from philosopher Kant in 1798: "Feminine traits are called weakness. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs." You might be interested in Warren Farrell's "myth of male power" which is a very balanced book about gender politics (warren farrell considers himself both a masculist and a feminist). Not only is the pay gap a myth (see warren farrell's "why men earn more") but the spending gap is very real (see bernice kanner's "pocketbook power").
Jeanna said:
"3) “Homemaking” was something you took in college in the olden days to snag a husband. Is that even offered in college anymore?"
I believe that high schools should include training males in home-ec and females in auto-shop. That way, males can learn how to cook and clean while females can learn how to change their own flat tires without relying on chivalrous motorists.
Just as many men were threatened by feminism in the 1970's, so will many women be threatened by masculism in the current age.
"Man is not the enemy, he is the fellow victim."-Betty Frieden
MXY
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I am not anti-masculist (does that mean anti-MRA?). I am anti-I-hate-feminists-just-because-oh-and-women-suck-too.
"Power and privilege are indeed in the eyes of the beholder." I agree. This is why feminists and MRAs can't agree on this issue. I do not see 10,000 years of female privilege and male oppression, but many MRAs do. It is hard to have a conversation when you are at two ends of the spectrum.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Jeanna said:
"I am not anti-masculist (does that mean anti-MRA?). I am anti-I-hate-feminists-just-because-oh-and-women-suck-too."
I see masculism as a general term (just like the term "feminism"). I view the terms "MRA" and "masculist" as interchangeable. I have not heard of the term "WWA" (womans rights activist), but I am sure it exists somewhere.
Many of us are likewise "anti-I-hate-masculists-just-because-oh-and-men-suck-too". I suspect that many women become feminists due to their bad experiences with men, and that many men also become masculists due to their bad experiences with women. This is okay...........as long as emotion doesn't precede logic and that misandry and misogyny are avoided.
MXY
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I made a typo in my previous post. I meant to use the initials WRA, not WWA, to represent "woman's rights activist".
Apologies,
MXY
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, MasculistXY,
I think I agree with you. It seems like a good number of men on this site have had bad experiences with females. And the others just like to think they have. And I think the same could be said for people on feminist sites.
I have just discovered feministing.com. So far I like it. Although some of them remind me of some of you.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Jeana Says:
" I do not see 10,000 years of female privilege and male oppression, but many MRAs do. It is hard to have a conversation when you are at two ends of the spectrum."
Frankly I don't care about 10,000 years ago... or 5000 years ago... or 1000 years ago quite nearly as much as I care about right now... the year 2008.
This whole competition about who has privaledge and who was oppressed is getting really boring... pain and suffering are not and should not be a competition for anyone.
Life has been hard in different ways for different groups all throughout history... we've got two options... we can compete to see which group was the biggest loser and then cheer triumphantly when we discover who it was... or we can look at society, notice problems that require resolution... and fix them.
Boys are in need of help in school at the moment... the main solution isn't for men to volunteer more... the main solution isn't for fathers to read more at home or work less... the main solution is to fix how we teach our children in schools.
How do I know this is the main solution?... because boys weren't always falling behind like they are today... and they weren't doing better because their fathers spent more time volunteering at school or reading at home.
What happened was the educational system was radically altered to better accomodate girls in school... and as a result boys fell by the waste side... that is the critical point when all this started to change.
If boys started to do worse when the educational system was changed... why would the solution be to change the way fathers are while leaving the education system exactly as it is currently?
It makes no sense.
It would be like me going to the doctor for a problem... them prescribing me medication to handle that problem... and as a resuly I develop a new problem... and when I go back to resolve it they tell me I should just sleep more to resolve it instead of maybe looking at altering the dosage or the type of medication they put me on.
The system was broken for boys when society attempted to fix it for girls... the solution is to find a middle of the road compromise that accomodates most children... not to leave things as they are (ideal for girls)... and then try to blame men and boys for the fact that they don't thrive under the current system.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Jeana. Wrong again! I am not a minority at my school. The last two PTA presidents are men. Half the PTA meeting attendees were men. One third of the school volunteers are men. The other two thirds are women, they are all stay at home moms. How do they do that you ask? Lottery winners...trust funds.....self made millionaires???? No, they are stay at home moms because their husbands work double to give them the opportunity. So when men are volunteering at the school they are stepping up to the plate. When the women are stepping up to the plate to volunteer, so are the men at work to give them the chance. Either way men are doing their part whether you see them or not.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Kelly,
I only have my own school to look at. I think it's great that dads are so involved at your school. Not so much at my school. For special events, lots of dads come (like Back to School Night, Talent Show, etc.). Most of the volunteers are stay-at-home moms. They always have been. But there are more women who take off work to go to school events (at my school at least). And I suspect that at your school, there are a fair number of working mothers who volunteer; they can't be all stay-at-home). Plus, I doubt the men work double. More likely, the families do without the extra perks that a second income brings. (Do they look like millionaires to you?)
I still think that more men (women too, but we're talking about men) getting more involved with their kids' education can only be a good thing.
One more thing: you asked above "What is wrong with writing books just for boys?". Nothing is wrong with it. But it seemed that some were wanting to write off all books just because there are girls in them. Unless the girl characters are like Scrappy Doo (i.e., unnecessary and annoying), in which case I would understand.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jason,
I agree that some of the problem is how kids are taught in school. I disagree that the entire school system was changed to accommodate girls. Teaching methods are always being updated, revised, changed, with the express goal of making it easier for kids to learn. Not boys, not girls, but kids.
You don’t agree that parents helping kids out or taking an interest in education is all that important, but I think it is. The kids who do the best, regardless of gender, have parental involvement in their education. They make their kids to homework and extra credit; they take their kids to museums and other learning opportunities, etc. They push their kids (sometimes too hard) to excel. And it virtually always works, learning disabilities aside.
What exactly about the educational system unfairly gives girls an advantage? I don’t think anything. But I would be very interested to know. If boys are falling behind, then of course something needs to be done to target them and educators are most likely looking for a solution.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Maybe the problem is as simple as more women are working now than ever before and more people of both genders are working longer hours outside the home. Therefore, there’s not the traditional stay at home mom to make the kids do their work. And maybe more girls than boys would be more likely to pick up a book or do homework on their own without prodding. Plus, with video games and 200 channels to choose from, kids are turning into little couch potatoes (which is why childhood obesity has developed into a huge problem).
Teachers and the government aren’t going to be able to solve this on their own.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Jeana presumes to tell us what men are "ALLOWED TO DO AT A SCHOOL." The best part---it doesn't even phase her. It's like men are cattle at a slaughterhause and they are our masters. "We LET em' out to get fresh air, we LET em' interact at least an hour per day. We LET em' have privileges; but, naturally, if they don't do AS WE SAY, we have to punish them.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Well, Chris, what would your solution be? And don't say "change the entire educational system". That's like saying, "End the patriarchy/matriarchy". Can you give a specific example of what can be done to better help boys?
And why do you think I am feigning "intellectualism" or "commitment to fairness"? Because you know I'm right? (That lack of parental involvement is part of the problem.)
April 24th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Chris,
I don't even know what you're referring to.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Jeana, I often agree with the essence of what you're saying when you comment on some threads (in this case I take what you're saying is that parents should be more involved in their children's lives and I completely agree--these days we're ALL, mom and dad alike, too busy with our own sh!t to watch closely over our kids), however what I don't appreciate is your and others constant allusion to the fact that men are ALWAYS to blame for everything. Literally.
The fact that boys are doing bad in schools and government isn't doing squat to help them, no that has to be male gender's fault (even though goverment is comprised of female-pandering male politicians). The fact that everywhere you look boys are told thru TV and other media that they are idiots who will not amount to nothing ... men's fault (even though a lot of women also knock men when they complain about said portrayal and almost NEVER participate in rallies to educate advertisors that negative male gender stereotypes are just as bad as the female one). The fact that boys are told that competition is bad (read: sexist/misogynist) if your opponent is a girl even thoug the girl has insisted that yes really she wants to be treated exactly like how a boy would treat another boy etc and etc ... you got it ... men's fault again!
I'll presume that because you're a feminist, as opposed to a egalitarian, and only interested in the furthering of female privilege and advancement, you cant even see that it is so much more than fathers not volunteering and reading to their kids.
The fact of the matter is Jeana ... is that all fathers could come out in droves and volunteer and it would have very little effect because the problem is of a higher element. We live in a society that espouses the ideas outlined in the OP: that girls are just inherently smarter than boys or to look out for boys is to ignore girls or some other such nonsense.
It is misandry glaring you in the face just as how it would have been misogyny if you replaced the word boy with girl.
Most of the men here have daughters and in all the times I've visited this blog I've never heard anyone saying the do NOT want their daughters to success and get ahead. Yet the first thing you ask us is why are we knocking girls by discussing the fallback of boys in schools? I mean .... Huh?
Anyways, I won't get on your case about that again since Lance and others have already addressed you on that.
I just want you to keep in mind that just as how, back in the olden days, one might argue that misogyny kept women down ... misandry and a culture that encourages contempt for males is very damaging to our boys. We know that boys can do better than how they are doing in schools today .... a 1000 times better, but why aren't they? Your only answer so far is that because fathers don't volunteer and read to their sons. Do you have any other diagnosis? Preferably something on more societal and empirical level?
Putting aside how you feel about other MRA issues and the fact that you think MRAs are just whiners, I'm surprised you're not more passionate about this particular issue considering that you're the mother of male child. I've always been sympathetic to all human beings but when I had my sons ... the male perspective became even more clear and important for me to understand. That is not to say that I have abandoned the female perspective. I am after all female and I'm not all that old ... I could still end up having another child which might turn out to be a girl.
But I can guarantee you, having a clear perspective of both sides allows you to look at the world in a whole new light. And I think, even though you'll probably never admit it here, you are beginning to have a better understanding of the male psyche over all. Alot of your prejudices and biases have been confronted and you strike me as an intelligent woman. You MUST have so far realised that perhaps, perhaps what you thought you knew about men and feminism is not exactly what you thought they were.
I know hanging out at this blog have certainly helped me to understand the men in my life better, particularly my husband in situations in which I'm just at a loss to understand him. I hope you stick around, for your benefit as well as ours (because we can continue to debunk most, if not all, your feminist misconceptions, propaganda and naivete).
April 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Correction to the above:
Most of the men here have daughters and in all the times I've visited this blog I've never heard anyone saying THEY do NOT want their daughters to SUCCEED(sp?) and get ahead.
Also to the following should include:
I hope you stick around, for your benefit as well as ours (because we can continue to debunk most, if not all, your feminist misconceptions, propaganda and naivete, as well as learn something from you too whenever the mood strikes you to be intellectually honest).
April 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Jeana says "Teachers and the government aren’t going to be able to solve this on their own."
Indeed, but neither reading to one's child and volunteering will solve this on its own. It will only temporarily stem the problem, if that.
Government, society need to understand that when you put in a system that is hostile to boys, they will underperform, they will rebel and become a menace to society. Now I would like to hear how you propose we educate the general public about this grave problem and by so doing get government officials to take this issue seriously.
You placing the blame at men's feet for not volunteering and reading to their sons is just another feminist ploy to eshew responsibility for the greater society (which is ironic that is what you people trick others into believing). And then you girls accuse men, and not also yourselves, for being selfish. Seems as if the only time feminists want men around is when they need a break from the kids, need their sperm or when they are loaded. I'm not saying you're like this Jeana ... but that is basically your argument since you always claime to solely represent the female perspective. Therefore, anything you advocate for is only initially for the benefit of women. Men, children, society in general may only receive residual benefit.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Davina, thanks for your responses to Jeana.
Jeana, there is good news for you. You are ignorant (and the victim of feminist lies), but not stupid. Stupid can't be fixed. Your ignorance can. The feminist tunnel-vision will have to go, though. Also, ignorance is (obviously for you) bliss. As you educate yourself, you will become less happy about the world around you because you do have males (husband and son) in your life about whom you care. I suggest this is a small price to pay, and it is the least you can do for them -- and for yourself.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jeana Says:
"Teaching methods are always being updated, revised, changed, with the express goal of making it easier for kids to learn. Not boys, not girls, but kids."
Wrong... they weren't always being updated, revised and changed. That is a VERY recent phenomenon... if you don't believe me go ahead and ask the senior teachers in your school.
My mother has been a teacher since the 1970's... none of this crap of constant "updates and revisions" was going on back then.
Teachers has more freedom then to deal with students in the manner they thought was best, not being dictated to by the state what some business man or author or psychologist thinks is best even though not one of them ever spent a day in the classroom.
In NYC the appointed chancellor never taught a day in his life.
You can dissagree all you want about the system being changed to accomodate girls with the unforseen result of hindering boys... but look at the time table of when boys scores started to drop.
The time is well correlated to when all these "updates and revisions" started being instituted.
That being said, correlation isn't necessarily causation... but I do know that this drop is not correlated at all to the prevalence of dad's volunteering at schools or reading more at home. And if there is no correlation, then there is no causation.
Correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for developing a causal chain... therefore you're suggestion doesn't hold water.
"You don’t agree that parents helping kids out or taking an interest in education is all that important, but I think it is."
Don't tell me what I think... I never said any such thing.
What I am saying is that parents helping out more isn't going to solve the root of the problem because the root is the system that is no longer properly developed for the teaching of boys.
Don't try to act as if I don't agree that parents should be helping their children... that is preposterous. Parents are the single most important educational force in a child's life, especially early on.
The problem comes in when the kids get older... how do you expect parents to help their kids in physics and chemistry when the average adult doesn't understand that stuff themselves?
What is your knowledge of physics like?... could you help your child do an integration by parts problem?... or would you leave it to the teachers whose job it is to know those things and pass that knowledge on.
You are foisting all of the responsibility onto parents when in our society we have accepted a division of labor when it comes to educating our children... the schools are supposed to supply a gender neutral educational environment and at present they don't.
If you see no merit in fixing it, I am forced to ask myself why?... especially when as you state, updates and revisions are common in today's schools... so why the resistance to revisions that might help those who are doing the most poorly?
"What exactly about the educational system unfairly gives girls an advantage? I don’t think anything."
Let me flip this question for you... what exactly about the previous education system unfairly gave boys an advantage?
If you can't quantify the answer to that question then why were changes required to help girls twenty years ago?
Obviously they changed something Jeana... I can tell you what it was, but I'd rather see if you know how things developed.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
One further point.
I think it is safe to say that we can factor the parents out of the equation here simply because both boys and girls have parents.
We aren't comparing children from broken homes to children with complete families... we aren't comparing children from affluent areas to children from impoverished areas.
Both the boys and the girls would have the same average family background and available educational resources.
Exactly why would a father reading more at home be *more* helpful to his son than his daughter?
Such a change would be entirely gender neutral... unless you are suggesting that fathers should favor their sons in order to help them catch up... but that makes no sense as parents should help all their children equally.
When comparing the average performance of boys and girls in school... the family can effectively be factored out entirely as the cause.
That isn't to say that parents shouldn't do everything they can to help their kids... but that isn't what the problem here really is.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Davina,
“Most of the men here have daughters and in all the times I've visited this blog I've never heard anyone saying the do NOT want their daughters to success and get ahead. Yet the first thing you ask us is why are we knocking girls by discussing the fallback of boys in schools? I mean .... Huh?”
Maybe the males on this topic did not come out and say exactly that they did not want girls to be successful, but that is what I read into all of their remarks. There seems to be disgust at the fact that little girls are apparently doing better than little boys. Why wouldn’t I think that they were knocking girls? It’s like when I hear disgust, loathing, and hatred in some of the posters’ remarks and yet I’m told (even by you) that oh no, it’s just a little bitterness, that’s all.
I’m not stupid. I know how they think and I can read between the lines (although it’s rarely necessary to do that).
And the things I think are rarely debunked by any of you. You give me things to think about, and I may somewhat alter my perception of certain issues, but I usually don’t change my mind. I don’t need to. It’s much more important to be able to see the other person’s perspective than to try to force yours on them.
Also, I really don’t get the message in society that girls/women are smarter than boys/men. I think the message in society is that males are still the more capable ones and the smarter ones. But that is from my perspective. I hone in on anti-female messages the way you MRAs hone in on anti-male messages.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:54 am
GOOD NEWS! I decided to do some research on the supposed boys-doing-poorer-in-schools phenomenon. It turns out that boys aren’t really doing worse. The differences in achievement can be attributed to race and socio-economic class. Girls are, however, increasing their achievement faster than boys. Girls do better in certain subjects, boys in others.
The rate of boys going to college has dropped as the rate of girls has increased, but part of these statistics include non-traditional students (women in 2-year colleges and older women going back to school after raising a family). Males are graduating in higher numbers than they were in the 70s, although that growth is not as fast as for females. High school age boys are doing worse (apparently high school girls are too), but this could be because the emphasis has been on increasing skills in elementary education.
So the real focus should be on looking at the school performance of high schoolers, both male and female. Also, the performance of boys specifically should be examined in terms of special education (boys are 2/3 of special ed) and racial/socio-economic status. This is a far bigger problem than gender.
This is good news, right?
“Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and Girls” (by the Education Sector, an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan education think tank). Lots of information that should put your angry male hearts to rest for a brief moment.
http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=378705
April 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Jeana,
Did you even read that article, or just the title?
Let me quote them for everyone here:
"In fact, with a few exceptions, American boys are scoring higher and achieving more than they ever have before. But girls have just improved their performance on some measures even faster. As a result, girls have narrowed or even closed some academic gaps that previously favored boys, while other long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened, leading to the belief that boys are falling behind."
Please note how they are casting the issue... boys aren't performing worse than girls because boys of today are performing better than boys did in the past.
That is what they are saying... but the argument isn't even logical.
You cannot prove that boys aren't falling behind girls in school by asserting that modern boys are doing better than boys in the past.
You don't gain any information about girl-boy comparative performance by looking at historical boy-boy comparative performance... surely you understand this, right?
Take a close look at what the article says in this specific paragraph:
The historical gap between girls and boys in previously boy dominated subjects has closed while the historical gap between girls and boys in previously girl dominated subjects has widened.
How on earth can you sit there with a straight face and think that is alright?... why shouldn't there be a specific focus on trying to help close the gap between girls and boys in the areas where the gap has widened?
This isn't about bringing girls down... it is about helping boys rise up in areas that they are getting left behind.
If you don't think that is necessary on a national level, then we should begin dismantaling all of the social programs meant to enable girls to achieve in areas like math and science... afterall, why do they need specific social programs in areas they are traditionally weak, if boys don't deserve the same thing.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I've continued to read through this little "gem" of an article and can't help but be astounded by the fact that the author is deliberately drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence they themselves report:
"At age 17, gaps between boys and girls in reading are also not that much different from what they were in 1971, but they are significantly bigger than they were in the late 1980s, before achievement for both genders—and particularly boys—began to decline."
Apparently since the late 1980's (again I draw attention to time correlation)... achievement for both boys and girls declined... but particularly so for boys (i.e. their performance dropped significantly more than girls).
Yet the conclusion is that boys are just fine and not in need of specific help.
Either this author is delusional, or has an adgenda.
The evidence is staring them right in the face that there is a gender related educational problem and they can't help but trying to cast it solely as a racial or socioeconomic issue.
Certainly those are factors as well... but the gender statistics span all races and all economic strata... if they are asserting that rich white boys are doing just as well as girls... that just indicates that boys of other races and from poorer backgrounds are doing even worse than girls in their same demographics than the averages would indicate specifically because the average would be brought up by the rich boys.
Are we supposed to not care about boys unless they are rich and white???... because that is what this article seems to be saying.
That boys in general only have a problem if rich white boys fall behind.
It's really quite the insidious argument.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
If females weren't so obsessed with marrying up and thumbing their noses at low income males, I suspect that the boy crisis wouldn't be as serious of an issue as it is. However, the sad reality is that women now enjoy the fruits of two different power sources.........sexual power and economic power............while men are left with the sloppy seconds.
MXY
April 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Jason: "The evidence is staring them right in the face that there is a gender related educational problem and they can't help but trying to cast it solely as a racial or socioeconomic issue."
Excellent breakdown Jason. I think your sentence above is very telling. Every time feminists cast their wide "victim net" to include all women, they will throw race/class right out the window. However, whenever someone points out an area where men are (or traditionally have been) discriminated against, feminists will always drop back to race/class as a way to explain it away. Well at least feminists are consistent: many (most?) of them are hypocrites.
I also point to the prevalence of the use of mind altering drugs and "special ed" in schools. Boys are prescribed these measures far more then girls. This suggests to me that schools are designed for girls far more then for boys and that boys are far more likely to "fall out" of this more female-friendly setting (otherwise, prescription rates would probably be close to the same). A boy is not a broken girl. Boys have special needs just as girls have special needs. If classes were taught in a manner more consistent with how boys learn, then I posit that fewer of these sorts of measures would be needed.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Stupid little Jeana never stops. She said, "Maybe the males on this topic did not come out and say exactly that they did not want girls to be successful, but that is what I read into all of their remarks. There seems to be disgust at the fact that little girls are apparently doing better than little boys". Shut up, idiot. No one believes your little games. Of course, that is what your selfish, one-sided little minds reads into the remarks. Duh.
Jeana also said, "Also, I really don’t get the message in society that girls/women are smarter than boys/men. I think the message in society is that males are still the more capable ones and the smarter ones." Ditto. Again, we know that's the way your warped little feminist brain works. That is why we are so frustrated. Men are trying to work out a "fair" society with women incapable or unwilling to be fair. That's why I don't even try. God bless my brothers out there still using diplomacy, your patience and just hearts impress me. As for me, I gave up on reasoning with these selfish an unreasonable woman. I am, metaphorically, in battle gear.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Lance,
I agree with you completely... the issue isn't about making the educational environment less friendly towards girls... it is about making the educational environment more friendly towards boys.
What do I mean by this exactly?
Well the prevailing social trend in education for the past two decades or so has been one where educators are constantly barraged with the need to encourage girls to excel... that girls need to be praised and offered special attention because they have historically been educationally disadvantaged compared to boys.
On the surface that all sounds well and good except for the fact that inherent in that attitude is the belief that not only do boys not require encouragement... but that they could even probably do a bit without it to knock them down a peg or two.
Regardless of the educational programs in place, that is the attitude that has been actively fostered amongst educators... and anyone who doesn't think it's taken a toll is kidding themselves.
I will share a personal anecdote on the subject from when I was in high school in the early 1990's.
I always did well in school, and never really had to put much effort in to math and science classes in order to excel. Anyway, one year a girl and I won each a prestigeous award related to scientific research we had performed... it was announced over the loud speaker in the morning.
I was really happy about winning something at the time as it is always nice to feel like your efforts have been recognized.
Later on that day, I go into my foreign language class and I kid you not... the exact words out of my teachers mouth were "I didn't know you were smart"
No "congratulations"... no "good job" or "I'm proud of you"... just the implication that my teacher thought I was stupid, and for no reason.
I had one of the highest gpa's in my class, yet this teacher had to suggest that she always was under the impression that I was a dolt.
Can you imagine a teacher saying something similar to the girl who won the same award?... not offering their congratulations, but instead saying "wow, you won a science award... I didn't know you were smart".
That isn't encouraging... it is insulting... and that was the general atmosphere of highschool, that even when you achieved and excelled, someone was always there to try and knock you down a peg instead of trying to lift you up higher.
That is what changed in the 1980's... it wasn't the alteration in teaching methods that did boys in... it was the alteration in teaching attitude that girls need to be encouraged and motivated at every turn, and boys don't.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
My brother works at a park in food service and he told me once of this boy who he had heard adult counselors (women) labeling 'troublemaker' and was on Ritalin or something. He had cause to pass thru the summer camp and saw said boy desperately asking if they could play a PCish dodge ball sort of game but was made to sit and do some sort of crafty project.
My brothers response was, "No wonder the parents can't get him to bed at night. Send the kid to basketball camp or baseball camp and get his butt run off all day and I bet he'll sleep just fine. They chain him to a table all day and wonder why he can't stay still when he gets home?"
It seems summer camp isn't even a place for boys.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Jeana, your post on the education gap for boys is more crap from you. Women always like to mire down debates in semantics. It works to your advantage because, as a woman, you have excellent verbal skills and love running your mouth. All I need to know is, EDUCATION = BETTER JOBS AND MONEY = MORE POWER. Women doing better in school means more power for them. Your arguments about men actually doing better and better based off the past is completely ridiculous and you know it. You are the type of feminut deceiver that would say "Men used to only live to 55 back in the 1940's so, although women are living longer, men are still doing better than ever". You suck. To top it all off, women dominate the educational system, particularly in grade school. Political correctness is also a force multiplier for women because relatively few can have profound effects because it is difficult for a man to challenge them and keep his career. Bottom LIne: a) females doing better in school gives them more power, and b) there has been a direct correlation between women calling the shots in schools and male students slipping behind female ones (it is no coincidence).
April 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Jason: "I agree with you completely... the issue isn't about making the educational environment less friendly towards girls... it is about making the educational environment more friendly towards boys."
Agreed. I am not usually in favor of splitting people up based upon their gender/race, but it may be worthwhile to consider better tracking in school. I know when I has in HS (and below), there were different "tracks" for proficiency in each subject. I'm my school, there were four or five different tracks. Well I suggest that we take this to the next level and have a "male oriented" track and an equivalent "female oriented" track for each subject as well.
Actually, my guess is even the "lower tracks" would evaporate into the more specialized gender tracks. Sure, some individuals just need help - regardless of gender - but one has to wonder how many boys (or tomboy girls) in the lower tracks were just being taught incorrectly for their leaning style and are just being treated as broken girls? I myself was "miss-tracked" until I started taking all AP courses and beating the pants off my peers in science - regardless of track.
I think your point on encouragement is spot on. How often do you turn on TV and you get the "she (or I) as a girl did pretty good" as if we are all supposed to applaud. When are we going to get to the point where we just encourage (or discourage) regardless of gender?
April 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Jeana, I don't have the time to respond to you now but I will later if this thread is still around when I check back here.
Chris D, kindly spear (or spare?) us the name calling. Certainly I've had moments when I'm just stunned at Jeana's intellectual dishonesty, but seriously it is not necessary with such an attack. Jeana might be grossly uninformed, intellectually dishonest and frustrating like hell, but she is neither an idiot nor is she stupid as far as I've seen.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Davina: *applause*
Excellent points. I am reading back over some of the comments I missed this week, and I think yours were some of the best comments I read underscoring the real problems that we are trying to deal with here. The fact is they are not attributable to one thing (ie: men not volunteering or whatever) but they are systemic.
Thanks for your perspective!
April 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
One clarification, this should have read:
The fact is [the problems] are not attributable to only one or two things (ie: men not volunteering or whatever) but they are systemic and therefore attributable to those things and much much more.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Jason et al.,
Yes, I did read the article (twice actually). I chose to link to that one because it was done by a non-partisan group that is all about education. Also because it mentioned the things I've been hearing here and elsewhere--feminists are "feminizing" boys, there's this major "boy crisis", etc. and attempted to deal with that using actual data. Not just what a bunch of MRAs think is true. The fact that both both boys and girls have done better and that girls have made more gains does not mean that boys are suffering. Maybe you should go back and read it again. The entire article was about comparing boys and girls; not just boys now and boys then. I don't get why you people are so loathe to actually look at the data. The article mentioned also that girls are doing worse in one area (I think math) than they used to, but no one is calling it a "girl crisis".
You seem to want to believe that boys are really doing poorly and that it is all feminists' and the government (controlled by feminits, of course) fault. I guess I'm not going to change your mind. But "intellectually dishonest" I am not. That would better describe all of you who refuse to accept something that challenges your belief systems.
And since the data showed the biggest gaps in performance were due to disability, race & economic situation, isn't it natural to then focus our attention there? And do you actually think the article said we should only care about white boys? Seriously, read it again.
Last thing, Jason, you quoted girls and boys performance declining at 17. They specifically said that high school kids were not making the gains that younger kids were and said it was because of the emphasis on elementary education. Yes, boys are doing worse, but not that much worse. And not enough to call it anything close to a "crisis".
April 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Chris D,
Why is it that if you MRAs see society as promoting the view that women are all smarter than men and I see the opposite that I am an idiot and you are right? I was responding to someone who made the comment that that is what they thought. Well, I disagree. I don't see that. I am not going to pretend that I agree with you because I really don't care what you think. That is my honest opinion. You're not right about everything.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
You seem to want to believe that boys are really doing poorly and that it is all feminists' and the government (controlled by feminits, of course) fault.
No what is being said is, and Glenn's title reflects this, is that it seems to be just peachy keen to introduce all kinds of programs, initiatives, and things to help girls perform in school but as soon as someone tries to divert some of that juicy funding to people trip over themselves to press the Patriarchy Panic Button.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
So since girls are not doing as well in math and science, can I expect some funding to go to them? Or will you push the Matriarchy Panic Button?
April 25th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jeana Says:
"The fact that both both boys and girls have done better and that girls have made more gains does not mean that boys are suffering."
Can I use this argument the next time a woman brings up the "wage gap"?
Can I just say "The fact is that both men and women are earning more than they ever have historically, and that things aren't exactly even yet doesn't mean women are suffering?"
Or would you declare that a cop out as the whole point of trying to achieve gender parity is that things equal out?
I doubt you would accept a world where women earned more, but the pace at which men's salaries increased was much larger, leading to a growing disparity.
This of course leaves out the debate of whether or not a wage gap actually exists... but apparently it shouldn't matter as women earn more now than they historically have, that has never been denied, hence women should rejoice :)
I bring this argument up as while I doubt you will ever see why this line of reasoning is bogus in the context of education, I bet you'll see the problem with it immediately when the gender suffering from such an argument is female.
"Yes, boys are doing worse, but not that much worse. And not enough to call it anything close to a "crisis"."
I don't care if you call it a crisis or not... the fact is that boys are doing worse, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with providing extra services to help them catch up.
As a matter of fact there is something very right about helping boys specifically because they are doing worse... as when you say "not much worse"... the article you site specifically states that "long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened"... those gaps aren't miniscule, they are quite significant enough to require attention.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jeana Says:
"So since girls are not doing as well in math and science, can I expect some funding to go to them? Or will you push the Matriarchy Panic Button?"
You mean like these programs?
http://www.nea.org/webresources/mathsciencegirlslinks.html
Please note what it says at the top of this educators webpage:
"Research describes how schools are experienced differently by females and males. As early as nursery school and continuing through college, boys and girls sitting in the same classroom, listening to the same teachers, using the same textbooks experience different educations. Many statistics show that these disparities too often shortchange girls in mathematics and science. Below you will find some resources that can be used to encourage girls to achieve success in math and science."
See that?... they acknowledge quite clearly that boys and girls experience school differently... and that since girls are being "shortchanged" by the system in math and science they provide resources to be used for encouraging girls to succeed in those areas.
Why aren't they just saying that mothers should be volunteering more or doing more math problems at home?... I am confused... isn't that the solution you proposed for areas where boys are behind?
April 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
First off I want to say that Jason is bang on on all of this. To bolster an argument which needs no bolstering I found this thru his NEA link above:
http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/DropoutReport.pdf
The report is called "When Girls don't Graduate We all Fail" and the report shows the dropout rates split between males and females and then broken down by race on page 5 of the pdf. Males drop out at higher rates by a minimum of 5% and yet the report is not "When STUDENTS Don't Graduate We All Fail."
Want to stick with this statement Jeana?
April 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Lewis,
Great find... I actually saw that article when I was perusing the website as well, but wasn't sure if I should have brought it up here or not.
Since you have brought it to everyones attention though, there are a few things I'd like to specifically say about the report that made me wonder if the people writing it have had a serious cognitive malfunction.
When you locate that article through the NEA site, here is what you see as the title:
"When Girls Don't Graduate, We All Fail
A Report Finds that Girls Drop Out of High School at Almost the Same Rate as Boys"
Does everyone see that?... no, you aren't hallucinating.
It specifically says that a report has discovered that girls are dropping out ALMOST as often as boys... and therefore we are failing our girls.
It is almost too unbelievable to read... as I said before, the information is staring these people right in the face and they are either willfully ignorant... or have an adgenda.
The report goes onto suggest methods to reduce the female drop our rate (note that it doesn't indicate any measures are needed to reduce the male drop out rate which by their own admission is worse):
"Combating sexual harassment in schools; both boys and girls report that they drop out in part because they do not feel safe at school."
"Providing better support for pregnant and parenting students—pregnancy and parenting responsibilities play a significant role in many girls' decisions to drop out of school."
"Ensuring equal access for girls to career and technical education classes. These classes provide training for high-skill, high-wage jobs; offering career education programs that emphsize the link between academic work, college success, and careers has been proven to reduce dropout rates."
"Ensuring equal access for girls to after-school programs, including athletics. Studies show that participation improves graduation rates and academic achievement."
Those are the four areas they identify as requiring specific adjustment.
So basically what they are saying in the third and fourth statements is that girls are dropping out almost as much as boys because boys have more access to after-school programs and more access to career and technical education classes.
That's right... girls are better off than boys... but are still somehow being held back by the fact that boys have more access to things. It's enough to make ones head spin in disbelief.
The only thing they even mention which includes boys is sexual harassment... well if that is the only problem for boys in school... and boys are dropping out more than girls... wouldn't this also imply that boys are suffering more from sexual harassment in school than girls are?
Or are there other reasons boys are dropping out?... the report doesn't really care about exploring that question.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
In the search field I used graduate, girls and fail and it was the top of the list.
http://www.nea.org/app/search/performSearch.do?queryText=graduate+girls+fail&viewDir=%2Findex+html
This is a national organization of the people who are teaching in our schools.
Boys are being treated just fine my eye.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Lewis,
You made things tough on yourself... all you had to do was search for "girls" and it is the first on the list.
By comparison, the first article when you search for "boys" is an issue of equal social importance... that teachers are learning how to Crank That Soulja Boy (for those who don't know what that is... it is a dance).
So when we search for "girls" we get pages relating how much help they need, even in areas that they surpass boys... and when we search for "boys" we get pages about new dances teachers are learning... nope, nothing to worry about there.
All I see is "Don't concern yourself with the boys... read about this fluff piece instead".
April 27th, 2008 at 1:59 am
The study is from the National Women's Law Center. It certainly has a pro-female slant; but, it's not as bad as the usual female-centric studies out there. I would like to comment on a few things though. #1 - "Although both male and female high school dropouts have disturbingly high rates of unemployment, females face lower employment rates overall. In 2006, 77% of adult male dropouts were employed, compared to only 53% of their female peers. " RESPONSE: The way they present it, these women are pounding the pavement to get jobs but just don't have as much luck as the men. I think taking into consideration that some of these women are not making serious efforts to get jobs due to prostitution, receiving government assistance, support from a man, small kids at home, etc... would paint a clearer picture. #2 - "...the wage gap between men and women is the highest among high school dropouts... Judged against the federal poverty line (FPL), for example, women without high school diplomas earn an average salary about 7% below the FPL." RESPONSE: First off, read some Warren Farrell and it is clear that the wage gap is a myth. Secondly, of course women who drop out will earn less than men. Many of them have illegitamite children and get government assistance. I do not think it is a coincidence that, as stated above, female high graduates earn 7% below the federal poverty line. That is a pretty close figure. Many of these women "game it", otherwise they could either have their government benefits reduced. Also, and this is a HUGE one, many of these women are waitresses. Waitresses NEVER EVER report anywhere near all their tips because it affects their tax returns, eligibility for benefits, etc..... #3 - "More than 50% of Black women, approximately 35% of Hispanic women, and almost 30% of White women who drop out of school are forced to rely on Medicaid. Moreover, female dropouts are more likely to need assistance from these support programs than their male counterparts." RESPONSE: Comments like these are more in keeping with the drivel we are used to seeing from female-centric studies. I feel the use of the word "forced" when referring to these women getting free Medicaid benefits is humorous. These women are DELIGHTED when they get Medicaid, not forced. Those men that are also making super low incomes would be ecstatic to get Medicaid. The whole argument is so obviously a joke. #4 - "The extent to which girls and boys leave school for this reason may differ, however. The Gates survey, for example, found that more girls than boys—80% compared to 71%—said missing too many days of school and not being able to keep up with schoolwork were factors in dropping out." RESPONSE: Again, this one is more in keeping with the spin-is-in approach to the usual female-centered studies. In this case, girls behaving badly is not held against them but rather another sign they are being shortchanged. I think a more accurate hypothesis is that girls are being naughtier and held to a lesser disciplinary accountability than boys. I actually find this really humorous. If males produced a report and said we need to impart more discipline on high school girls to get them to stop missing so many days so they would have brighter futures, the feminist responses would be, "These girls have special needs, they have PMS, they need time to reflect, we don't need more patriarchy, etc....". It is curious how people spin according to the needs of their agenda.
April 27th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Let us not forget the chemical control that schools, doctors, and parents are putting on boys. Seven times as many boys are taking ritalin or like drugs for BEING BOYS as far as I am concerned. Boys do not act like girls and girls do not like boys. Has anyone considered that maybe it is the girls that are not acting normally? Maybe we should give them drugs to be more like children and free some of their inhibitions because it is the only time in their life that they get to be and act like children in its full uninhibited glory!
We are robbing our boys of this and that is more than a crime it is a sin and a shame. Wake up people. Who knows the long term damage we are doing to them.
We are raising a generation of people to believe that it is OK to pop a pill to fit in, what is next? I will tell you. Down the road, because it is a generational brain washing, eventually if you speak out against the government or unjust laws you will be ordered to take a pill. Problem solved. All people are drones, and the free thought button will be disconnected and thrown out with the garbage because there will no longer be a need for such a device.
b
bernies blogs
April 28th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Jeana,
You still think MRAs are whiners... wait a few more years. You have a son and I hope you don't, but unless you willfully neglect the condition of your son, you will get to see everything we are talking about here. Being non-superrich, I am sure your son will have to go through all the trials and tribulations of being a young man. Although it will be too late to help him (and meanwhile you will definitely shut him up by "be a man" kind of teaching), you will get live and irrefutable proof of what people are telling you here.
There is a video documentary done by abc's John Stossel about boys. You ought to see it, maybe that will help your son a lot. That is unless you would rather believe everything MRAs talk about is "whining".
April 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Unfortuntely pankaj many feminists generalize MRAs as whiners that:
1. Don't want to pay child support.
2. Want the right to beat and rape their wives.
3. Are trying to defend their privilges granted to them by "The Patriarchy".
I get the feeling that Jeana will be to busy demanding that one of her "sisters", who made more money than her stay at home husband, get an outrageous amount of child support and alimony after the divorce to notice that her son could end up as one of those stay at home husbands that gets robbed of the relationship he has with his children.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
My son will go to an excellent college, have an excellent career, and have a great life. I am teaching him how to deal with females and males and I will teach him how to survive and thrive. I will not tell him that he only has to pay his way on a date or not give his fiancee an engagement ring. Or tell him that he has a "right" to be a dad who doesn't work in some misguided anti-feminism quest. I want him to be responsible and successful and choose a wife\ with similar aspirations. I don't want him to end up like any of you.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Jason,
What was your link supposed to prove? That there are websites that encourage girls to do better in math and science? The same subjects that we've already agreed that girls do worse in than boys? Is that female privilege? They're websites. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with encouraging girls? Boys do worse in reading, etc., so help them in the subjects they need help in.
And the study I cited already stated that high school boys and girls had a lot of issues and didn't do as well. So yes, girls and boys drop out of high school. Already noted. Doesn't prove there's a "boy crisis in education". In your imaginations. Like most things.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Jeanna said, "I don't want him to end up like any of you."
I admire that you don't want him to end up like us. Many of us were once naive enough to believe in justice, equality, and the goodwill of women. Boy, were we wrong. So, if you really don't want him to end up like us, you're better off preparing him for the potential "not so pleasant" things he will face when dealing with women and marriage. Otherwise, he might just wind up feeling as confused and betrayed as alot of us feel.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The study is from the National Women's Law Center. It certainly has a pro-female slant; but, it's not as bad as the usual female-centric studies out there. I would like to comment on a few things though. #1 - "Although both male and female high school dropouts have disturbingly high rates of unemployment, females face lower employment rates overall. In 2006, 77% of adult male dropouts were employed, compared to only 53% of their female peers. " RESPONSE: The way they present it, these women are pounding the pavement to get jobs but just don't have as much luck as the men. I think taking into consideration that some of these women are not making serious efforts to get jobs due to prostitution, receiving government assistance, support from a man, small kids at home, etc... would paint a clearer picture. #2 - "...the wage gap between men and women is the highest among high school dropouts... Judged against the federal poverty line (FPL), for example, women without high school diplomas earn an average salary about 7% below the FPL." RESPONSE: First off, read some Warren Farrell and it is clear that the wage gap is a myth. Secondly, of course women who drop out will earn less than men. Many of them have illegitamite children and get government assistance. I do not think it is a coincidence that, as stated above, female high graduates earn 7% below the federal poverty line. That is a pretty close figure. Many of these women "game it", otherwise they could either have their government benefits reduced. Also, and this is a HUGE one, many of these women are waitresses. Waitresses NEVER EVER report anywhere near all their tips because it affects their tax returns, eligibility for benefits, etc..... #3 - "More than 50% of Black women, approximately 35% of Hispanic women, and almost 30% of White women who drop out of school are forced to rely on Medicaid. Moreover, female dropouts are more likely to need assistance from these support programs than their male counterparts." RESPONSE: Comments like these are more in keeping with the drivel we are used to seeing from female-centric studies. I feel the use of the word "forced" when referring to these women getting free Medicaid benefits is humorous. These women are DELIGHTED when they get Medicaid, not forced. Those men that are also making super low incomes would be ecstatic to get Medicaid. The whole argument is so obviously a joke. #4 - "The extent to which girls and boys leave school for this reason may differ, however. The Gates survey, for example, found that more girls than boys—80% compared to 71%—said missing too many days of school and not being able to keep up with schoolwork were factors in dropping out." RESPONSE: Again, this one is more in keeping with the spin-is-in approach to the usual female-centered studies. In this case, girls behaving badly is not held against them but rather another sign they are being shortchanged. I think a more accurate hypothesis is that girls are being naughtier and held to a lesser disciplinary accountability than boys. I actually find this really humorous. If males produced a report and said we need to impart more discipline on high school girls to get them to stop missing so many days so they would have brighter futures, the feminist responses would be, "These girls have special needs, they have PMS, they need time to reflect, we don't need more patriarchy, etc....". It is curious how people spin according to the needs of their agenda.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
jeana: "Jason, What was your link supposed to prove? That there are websites that encourage girls to do better in math and science? The same subjects that we've already agreed that girls do worse in than boys? Is that female privilege? "
It is female privilege in that people recognize and accept girls/women do worse and come to their aide - often with the use of tax dollars - yet every time we underscore where boys/men do worse people like you come and try to dissuade us from the facts or try to tell us it our (men's) fault and fight against giving boys the same benefits girls have today. That is the privilege of being a girl/woman: if you have a problem, everyone (male and female) comes to your rescue. If a boy/man has a problem, then it is assumed that he is a whiner, loser, etc.
You make this far too easy jeana.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Jeana Says:
"My son will go to an excellent college, have an excellent career, and have a great life."
That is great, I hope he goes to an excellent college, has an excellent career, and a great life as well.
Unfortunately none of us know what the future will bring... hence your statement that these things WILL happen, it utterly ridiculous. You should HOPE they will happen and do everything in your power to help them come about... but acting like it is a foregone conclusion is just crazy.
For all you know your son will get hooked up with the wrong crowd in high school, end up addicted to drugs and see a life that was full of potential go completely down the drain. Again... I sincerely hope this never happens to your son... but guess what?... No parent ever thinks their kid will end up being a statistic.
Parents do the best they can and then hope that it is enough to ensure the prosperity and strong moral fiber of their children... but ultimately there are no guarantees on how things will turn out.
Acting like all of these things are destined to happen for your child as opposed to requiring constant effort and work is more of a disservice toward his future than you know... men don't get handed things in life as you might suspect, we have to work very hard because it is a competitive atmosphere out there... unless you prepare him to compete, he's in for some trouble.
"I want him to be responsible and successful and choose a wife\ with similar aspirations."
Who doesn't want those things for their children?... but how many parents also end up not liking the choice their children make for mates?
There is a reason the whole "bad mother-in law" stereotype exists... because for some mothers, there is never a woman who is good enough for *their* son.
"I don't want him to end up like any of you."
Sure you do.
I for one went to an excellent college, have an excellent career, and have a great life thus far (I am still early on so who knows what the future will bring... but so far things are good).
By making this statement you are essentially declaring that every guy here has a crappy secondary education, has a crappy job, and thinks their life sucks.
Chances are there are lots of men here who not only have a good education, but also a good career (some posters here are actually rather successful), and enjoy what life has to offer.
So if you are serious about wanting those things for your son, then you cannot simultaneously declare that you don't want him to be like any of us.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Jeana Says:
"What was your link supposed to prove? That there are websites that encourage girls to do better in math and science? The same subjects that we've already agreed that girls do worse in than boys? Is that female privilege? They're websites. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with encouraging girls?"
What is it supposed to prove???
Are you seriously asking that question?
You were the one who said the following:
"So since girls are not doing as well in math and science, can I expect some funding to go to them?"
As if girls weren't currently getting well funded programs to encourage them in math and science.
You asserted this question in response to our call that boys should get funding to help them catch up in the areas they are weak in, such as reading.
You've been spending this entire thread trying to argue that boys don't need special programs, or money, or scholarships, or governementally backed systems to specifically encourage them.
Instead you postuate that the entire issue is one that can be fixed by men reading more at home and volunteering in schools.
How convenient that once I show you ample evidence of all the government funding for social programs to encourage girls that you then try to spin it as if I don't think they deserve it.
I think it is great that girls are getting educational assistance where they are weak... that is why I want the same thing for boys where they need it.
You seem all too comfortable to allow these special programs for girls to exist, but at the mere mention that we mimic their success for boys you suddenly switch gears and say that isn't how to solve the problem and that instead it is all the fault of fathers who don't do enough.
Furthermore, these are not *just* websites, allow me to quote some of them for you:
"Resources for teachers and students include biographies, forums, awards, scholarships and other resources."
"Check the Web site has information about a scientist of the month, mentoring, scholarships, book reviews and discussion forum."
" The club enables girls to consult with experts and role models, exchange ideas, collaborate with peers, and embark a vast array of online and off-line activities."
Notice that there are scholarships, resources, awards, mentorship opportunities, access to experts, and other unmentioned off-line activities.
Acting as if these are just websites for people to visit for information is incorrect.
These organizations are backed by huge amounts of government funding... the same sort of funding you don't want to see going to boys in similar programs.
So let me ask you a similar question to what you asked me... What's wrong with encouraging boys and putting the same amount of money behind it that we put behind girl programs?
"Boys do worse in reading, etc., so help them in the subjects they need help in."
I want to... you are the one who is seeking to deny boys that help in any tangible form other than what fathers are willing to contribute.
I say you should put your money where your mouth is and support government funding... which is exactly what the original blog post was about and what some people are trying to prevent. They are actively seeking to take books out of boys hands when that is the area boys are weak in.
So save your talk about "helping" boys unless you are willing to help them in exactly the same way you would help girls if they had exactly the same symptoms.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 am
@Jason ...
Men their rights and nothing more; women their rights and nothing less." - Susan B Anthony
jeana is a true believer.
Nothing more than equality for men and nothing less for women. You do the math.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
rick lynn
mayfieldga@bellsouth.net
Why Males are Falling Behind Academically and Economically
Males are falling behind in greater numbers each year both academically and economically. Our society is still playing out the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong and Females should be protected. This belief allows much aggression toward Males to make them tough. Any sign of weakness or displaying work that is considered more feminine is a negative in the eyes of society that will only react with more aggression toward such Males. Only Males who have been taught from a young age to not value those physical areas sufficiently and who are valued more so for so-called feminine qualities such as patience, understanding, ease of nature, kindness, mildness, and goodness will be able to also develop other information age skills society still feels is feminine such as mental, emotional, social, and academic skills. You see, all of those skills require more patience, ease of nature, and "low average stress along with proper pace and intensity in approaching those mental areas". Since society's belief, Males should be strong allows much more aggression toward Males from day one, Males are operating with much higher average stress that makes learning information age skills much more difficult. Also Males are not given (positive attention) mental, emotional, social, and academic support, knowledge and skills (unless by accident). Society in its ignorance considers such attention and support as coddling the Male child. Society still holds that Males should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
As a result, Males are not given the tools to develop vital mental, emotional, social, and academic areas. This greatly cuts down on their motivation to develop those skills. The combined effect of society only rewarding strength and power to face aggression; neglect in many social and academic areas; not rewarding but acting with more aggression toward Males who attempt to develop mildness, kindness, goodness, and care for others; not caring to reward and in some to many areas even showing more aggression toward Males who display mental, social, and academic knowledge and skills are hurting many Males. Over a period of years, this is leaving many Males grossly unable to compete in the information age. Instead, over those years many Males have sought out and developed over time those qualities that will provide them with a measure of love, honor, respect, and protection from society’s aggression. In this case, we have the power images, body building, and other imagery the Male is seeking to provide them with feelings of self-worth. You see, persons experience feelings of self-worth based on the love, honor, respect, and support they receive from society. Males having been led completely away from those more valuable information age assets from an early age are turning toward those areas society will encourage, reward, and respect in Males. Over a period of years, this leaves Males far behind Females mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills. Therefore, this is creating the ever growing international Male Crisis that will only get worse for Males and then get much worse for Females. Society will continual maintaining this treatment of Males until a critical point is reached.
The truth is in today’s world, little boys need just as much coddling as the girls and just as much mental, emotional, social, and academic support as the girls. While neglect of Male children and boys may have proved useful in the more physical nineteenth century, it is working opposite of need in the information age where it requires much more accumulated mental, emotional, social and academic skills acquired over time. In these areas, Males are being seriously shortchanged.
Yes, it is true girls mature faster than boys for the simple reason that mental, emotional, social, and academic support are seen as coddling the boys. Society has long believed in boys pulling themselves by their bootstraps in those areas. This is leaving many Males far behind girls in many social and academic areas. The increased aggression Males receive from day one, creates three bad things for Males academically, mentally, emotionally, and socially: 1. It creates higher average layers of mental frictions (redefined from higher average stress) which inhibit thinking, learning, and motivation in mental areas. 2. These higher layers of mental frictions also create improper pace and intensity in approaching mental work (apply too much effort when approaching new material) and higher tension that hurts motivation to learn. 3. It creates the Male ego or defensive cushion that the Male develops from an early age to protect them from the aggressions they receive from society. This Male ego or defensive cushion has the negative consequences of further alienating the Male from “any” various mental, emotional, social, and academic supports they “might just” receive from society. When Males hear firm or hard words from others like teachers or others their minds are thinking defense and not thinking about learning and enjoying the learning process.
The combination of high layers of mental frictions and defensive cushion are working to create an impediment to learning that accumulates in harm over time for men. In society today, men are given love, honor, respect, and support or the essentials of their self-worth only on the “condition of sufficient” achievement, money, power, status or image. They must fight through the still present, nineteenth century confrontations allowed by society upon them from an early age to achieve those benefits and feelings of self-worth. Society has now created through prejudice and stereotyping, a form of Gender Cast System through mistreatment of Males and over support of Females early training for Males to perform more menial or physical tasks while women are being prepared for white collar positions.
It is incorrect to view the Male Crisis on role models. The lack of role models is the result of the problem, not the cause. If you had a bag full of sand with a hole in the bottom, you would “not” say there is less sand in the bag; you would say there is a hole in the bottom of the bag. Indeed, we should fix the hole in the bag by providing Males with tools to develop long-term, mental/emotional stability so they can better compete mentally and emotionally in the information age. One professional was attempting to find more role models for Male children. He boasted that a Male child’s esteem goes up when they have one positive role model. What he was unknowingly saying was that Males have such little attention that when they do receive that attention, they are very grateful. This creates the large rise in esteem. The fight for attention could be creating misbehavior in Male children.
Today, many men are becoming angry because they losing more than jobs and status, they are losing out on those things they are seeking most of all, love, honor, respect, support, the essentials of self-worth. The little bites they receive in the various media and the workplace accumulate over time and create much anger that touches on and erodes their feelings of self-worth. As a person loses feelings of self-worth they also lose regard for consequences. If men fall behind more collectively, they may begin to retaliate more collectively, thus ending the present shield of over-protection for women. This will mean much more abuse and crimes against women. It will do well for all parents, teachers, employers to those in various media to be more kind to others, including Males.
For women, due to the nineteenth century belief women should be protected and still in effect today, this has created much overprotection and even indulgence for many women. It is creating very low layers of mental frictions collectively for women. This makes thinking, learning, and motivation mental areas much easier. This protection and continuous attention from day one create a high speed expressway that allows for much continuous, mental, emotional, social and academic support and advancement in many areas over time (years). These two continual supports from society over time create nearly everything a person needs today to succeed in the information age.
For women, due to the nineteenth century belief women should be protected and still in effect today, this has created much overprotection and even indulgence for many women. It is creating very low layers of mental frictions collectively for women. This makes thinking, learning, and motivation mental areas much easier. This protection and continuous attention from day one create a high speed expressway that allows for much mental, emotional, social and academic advancement in many areas over time. These two continual supports from society over time create nearly everything a person needs today to succeed in the information age. Since women are given through overprotection, even indulgence, the benefits of love, honor, respect, and continual support, all of the benefits of self-worth from an early age without qualification (simply for being girls), they are working with much more continual support and interaction to accumulate more continual mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills that can be transformed easily into money, power, status, and image. Even after this, society’s protection, continued support and view toward beauty and charm continually helps them in the information age.
Women are now surging ahead academically and economically due to this overprotection and men are puzzled as to why they are falling behind in those areas. If you remove the old money from older men, the girls are making more. The current beliefs held by both men and women today is that Males learn differently and/or men are simply lazy and do not try hard enough. These false beliefs only add to the growing Male Crisis. The men who believe this and who do not have information to the contrary may believe they are somehow mentally inferior or just not working hard enough. Somehow, humans, men included, tend to reflect the treatment they receive in their lives upon others and do not know or are not allowed by society to say how differential treatment is hurting them. This may lead Males to give up in developing various mental, emotional, social, and academic skills over time. They may limit their interest and desires to smaller windows of fulfillment within their social connections. They will continue to dress up for display, their Male defensive cushion to at least present a plausible image when dealing in areas where they are not as competent. Worse for these Males, they may advance their beliefs and feelings onto their sons from an early age, thus enabling the continuation of the harmful belief of inferiority in the information age.
As for women, they having been told the same teaching that persons are naturally better in some areas or simply work harder. They may truly feel they are simply more intelligent or have worked harder to achieve what they have achieved. In our world, again women like men often reflect their environment and treatment upon others and so do not appreciate difference in treatment. Also, in our world of insecurities, it is no wonder when women achieve, to boost their insecurity, as affects everyone, they will believe this achievement is due to more intelligence or greater effort on their part and not due to any environmental variables.
There is another growing phenomena, this involves the driving of Males from the work place. Part of the reason is there are fewer jobs left for Males in the industrial and other blue collar related areas and more job openings in more white collar areas. But even so, there are other reasons for this change in society. One reason is the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong has left many Males years behind in various mental, emotional, social, and academic areas of learning. This has created a large pool of Male employees who are not able to adapt to information age needs. Another reason is that as more Females enter positions of power and collective control, they are more apt to keep Female employees and lay off Male employees (there is no equal opportunity protection for Males). There is another more complex reason why Females are keeping their jobs and Males are losing their jobs. The nineteenth century belief Females should be protected works in the work place also. It places more constrictions on how jobs, intimidation, force for output, and general respect and care is given to Females. However, society’s allowed aggressions upon Male employees allows much more harsh treatment of Males in terms of verbal abuse, intimidation, job assignments, and lack of respect in general. This difference in treatment over time places the Male in a much more precarious position in deciding whether to continually put up with such mental/emotional abuse or quit or be fired for finally drawing a line at some point. Even when Females face similar treatment on the job, the over all treatment of respect and care usually support them so they are able to carry on and remain employed.
I suspect these reasons are now being played out in society as Business Week said that in the last six months, “From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.”
Due to the advancement of the information age and the continual increase in domination by Females in white collar positions, I see the media now much more dominated by women who have saturated the airways from very light, tinish, and seemingly patronizing words, tones, and inflections to very strong, hard biting words. Society’s protection for women allows these kinds of expressions with impunity. I do not value such words. Due to the confrontations I have experienced, I find such words in men and women much less valuable and even counterfeit. Perhaps this is why many other Males are tuning out and away from the media. I am a very caring person. I feel for everyone. However, I know there are many persons, who respect only strength and power and who see mildness, kindness, and goodness as weakness. I see bank tellers, postal clerks, grocery check out persons, and even civil servants, using their society protected freedoms of expression to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness, usually to those individuals who are the most sincere. Yes, this conduct, perhaps due to much modeling from the media, “does poison the well” for women in general. I am now more on guard all the time. The many women who are using society’s indulgence and using society’s protection to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness to others have poisoned the well for all women. I feel this gulf between men and women cannot continue for very long. I am intelligent and can deal with anyone on any level. I just will not allow my words to be exchanged for counterfeit words. LOL; Fortunately for me, I grew up with a speech impediment so rejection is something I have a great deal of experience. I have learned to value my solitude.
By showing Males and Females how our environments greatly affect thinking and learning, students will have much more respect for themselves and for others. By providing students with tools to approach their lives differently to continually improve their abilities, students will then have a continuous hope of developing in time, many if not all of the qualities they admire in others. Students will then have a continuous hope of changing and becoming better, newer persons with each passing day.
We need to begin teaching Male and Female children and adults how our individual environments greatly affect skills and abilities over time. We need to show Males and Females how differences in treatment do exist in the information age and have hurt Males over time. By providing this understanding, both Males and Females will begin to have much more appreciation for the other in terms of their differences in environment. Males will recognize how their environments are creating their difficulties and remove from their shoulders the false belief they are somehow genetically inferior or simply not working hard enough. Females will perhaps also recognize both how differential treatment has hurt the Male and speak with greater care and understanding rather than the current society allowed verbal, silent abuse, and patronization they presently give to those they feel they have an advantage over. By providing this understanding will the two groups be able to exist in more harmony and maintain better relationships.
To reduce and eliminate this problem and help Males have a more equal footing, parents, teachers, administrators, and all forms of media need to be taught that this critical point and its many areas of Male aggression will begin to increase to a “much higher level” than presently seen. We need to begin teaching parents, teachers, and others who teach and model to children that the extra aggression they have given Males is hurting the Male children’s ability to grow mentally, emotionally, socially, and academically over time. They need to be taught how to treat those students and other Males in society with as much respect and care as they presently provide Female students. This is the only way to help Males begin to catch up in all of the many social areas they are presently lagging. This new way of thinking will be very difficult for the Male parent, teacher, administrator, or other professional for they have been raised with the old, more aggressive ways for many years and have come to rely on their feelings of self-worth based upon their money, power, status, and image. They have also experienced years of aggression, which has been woven into their mind and spirit to create their defensive posture or Male ego that is now more or less imprinted into their personality. Such a spirit will almost invariably imprint this same posture or spirit into the Male children they are raising.
For many Males it will require much cognitive understanding of the problem and a willingness to begin treating Male children with the same respect and give the same positive attention to the Male children as they do with Female children. For women, this means not using Male children as emotional scapegoats as society has allowed them to do in the past. Also women need to begin realizing that using adult Males as emotional scapegoats (with current feelings of protection by society) when they have power over them in some way is a very hazardous way to approach Males. You know, with continuous indulgence so directly related to mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills over time, society would practically have to treat Female and Male children the same in many areas to achieve equality between genders. I see Males and society losing in the end, but this end may be pushed off much farther into the future provided there is much more understanding and action in this area over time. This problem will only get worse unless action is taken now.
We must learn to realize that our current, single/multiple intelligence models were simply accepted out of hand years ago and held on to by many who were in control and apparently felt satisfied enough with their own life. Such ones could not see the tremendous disadvantage and damage such narrow, short-sighted beliefs would have on others, even among some persons who are closely related to them.
I tell those who would still cling to the myth of permanence in ability they are killing their students whereas my theory offers two large, cognitive tools to continually improve ability and hope for children and adults. They are free to choose the myth of permanence in ability or my theory that provides hope and improvement.
The Male Crisis is but one application of my Learning Theory. My Learning Theory provides two large tools we can teach to students and adults to continually improve thinking, learning, motivation to learn, and most importantly, mental/emotional health for all students and adults. My complete Learning Theory and its Cognitive tools are free to all by e-mail – mayfieldga@bellsouth.net Feel free to make copies of all files.
1. I am very fearful of the genetics (modes of learning concepts or brain activity views) approach. I feel this may lead to more giving up on solving the very real social differences causing the problem. I see learning variations more due to differential reinforcement over time and tools provided differentially to boys and girls. I see differences in brain activity due to much differential treatment also, creating different uses of the mind, so not genetically different.
2. I am fearful of the idea of using all Male classrooms that may very incorrectly teach to suposed learning modes and not to the real problem of lack of mental, emotional, social , and academic support from day one along with the extra, detrimental aggression Males receive from day one.
I am fearful of using Male teachers to supposedly teach more discipline or pushing Male students to remain on task when the problems are much more complex and in need of much softer tools and treatment from teachers, parents, and students (cognitive tools to approach their lives more delicately to improve learning and motivation to learn). Learning theory needs to be taught to teachers and parents to end the horrible genetic or fixed intelligence approach.