New Column: AAUW Education Report Minimizes Boy Crisis in Our Schools
June 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
My new co-authored column AAUW Education Report Minimizes Boy Crisis in Our Schools (Buffalo News, 5/31/08) discusses the American Association of University Women’s controversial new report. The Washington Post recently reported on the issue in No Crisis For Boys In Schools, Study Says (5/19/08), as did hundreds of other newspapers. The full AAUW report can be see here.
To write a Letter to the Editor of the Buffalo News concerning Report minimizes boy crisis in our schools (5/31/08), write to LetterToEditor@buffnews.com.
The column, co-authored with family law attorney Jeffery M. Leving, is below. To learn more about the boy crisis in education, click here.
AAUW Education Report Minimizes Boy Crisis in Our Schools
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
Boys have trailed girls in most indices of academic performance for at least two decades. In recent years, boys’ educational struggles have finally been acknowledged and explored in the mainstream media. This has resulted in an unfortunate backlash from misguided women’s advocates. The latest example of these advocates’ efforts to minimize or deny the boy crisis in education is the American Association of University Women’s highly-publicized new report “Where the Girls Are: The Facts About Gender Equity in Education."
The AAUW says its report "debunks the myth of a 'boys crisis' in education," but the study provides little evidence to support this contention. According to the Report’s own data, girls get much better grades than boys, are far more likely to graduate college, and are on the good side of a longstanding “literacy gap.”
It is also true that girls are much more likely than boys to graduate high school, and boys are far more likely than girls to be disciplined, suspended, held back, or expelled. The vast majority of learning-disabled students are boys, and boys are four times more likely than girls to receive a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although more girls than boys enroll in high level math and science classes, boys do score a little better in math. However, girls’ advantage in reading is several times as large.
Most of the AAUW report’s claims are superficial and unconvincing. The Report tells us “the crisis is not specific to boys; rather, it is a crisis for African American, Hispanic, and low-income children.” Of course--low income and minority children do not fare as well as children from more advantaged groups. But the boys of any cohort are still behind the girls in most indices.
The Report reassures us that both sexes have stayed the same or improved on standardized tests in the past decade. This isn’t the point--the gender gap isn’t new, but has existed for well over a decade.
The AAUW says the report’s “results put to rest fears of a ‘boys’ crisis’ in education, demonstrating that girls’ gains have not come at boys’ expense.” This is another irrelevant point. Nobody claims the boy crisis exists because of girls' gains--the issue is that boys’ performance fell significantly behind girls’, and has remained behind because we've failed to address boys' problems.
This is not the first time a highly-publicized study has claimed to debunk the boy crisis. In 2005, Duke University announced its study on child wellbeing by telling the media "American boys and girls today are faring almost equally well across key indicators of education, health, safety and risky behavior." Press reports followed suit, with headlines such as "Boys, girls fare equally in U.S.: Study debunks both sides in long debate" and "Boy-girl gender gap? Not so fast."
Yet the study showed nothing of the sort. Boys and girls fared equally in six of the 28 categories studied by the researchers — and girls fared better than boys in 17 of the remaining 22. Even the few advantages the study found for boys were modest. By contrast, many of girls’ advantages were very large.
The new AAUW report, unable to dispel the boy crisis, falls back instead on the alleged wage gap, claiming, "Perhaps the most compelling argument against a boys crisis is that men continue to out earn women in the workplace.” They explain that among all women and men working full time, year-round, median annual earnings for women were 77 percent of men's earnings in 2005.
It has been amply demonstrated that the wage gap is largely caused by the career sacrifices mothers make to care for their children and the primary breadwinner role most fathers assume when their children are born. The wage gap is very questionable in and of itself, and certainly is of no relevance when discussing gender and school performance.
The boy crisis is real. England has widely acknowledged a similar crisis in its system, and has taken steps in recent years to address the problem. The U.S. has not. Instead of giving credence to the AAUW’s unfortunate sophistry, we instead need to focus on how to change our educational system to address boys’ problems.
This column first appeared in The Buffalo News (5/31/08).
Jeffery M. Leving is Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks taught elementary school and high school in Los Angeles Unified School District and others, and was named to "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" three times. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. His website is www.GlennSacks.com.
"));
19 queries. 0.713 seconds.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Quote:
The AAUW says its report "debunks the myth of a 'boys crisis' in education,"
:Unquote
I wonder if they could dispell the myth that boys pay higher auto insurance rates than girls.
They could probably dispell the myth that family law courts are biased against fathers too.
Heck, the could even dispell the myth that the HOLY one is male.
BECAUSE THEY SAID SO. (A woman's always right)
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Who on earth is the Holy one?
Not only that, my school has a 'female welfare officer' (not that she does anything of any worth in that position, she does lots of Oxbridge candidates)
The University I'm applying to has a head for 'women, LGBT, disabled students and international students'
LGBT I can understand, with cases of bullying. Disabled students obviously may need help, international students will obviously need help fitting in and possibly have language difficulties.
Why do women, but not men, need their own special tutor? I suppose you COULD say that men already have an entire faculty devoted to hating them, but then the women's studies faculty are always busy teaching their students to critically and logically accept indoctrination.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Ironically the best thing for boys failing in education is boys' schools. The education system is so ridiculously feminised and made to fit around girls' needs, not boys, that when boys are taught in ways that help boys, the results are astounding.
It needs to start early though, primary school at the latest.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Also, I'd be fascinated to know what has been done in the UK to address the boy crisis? Because I havn't seen any change at all.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Nothing less than equality for women. Nothing more than equality for men.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
its because they are liberal democrats...plain and simple...they love to look progressive with women and minority groups...but help out males!!!...they just won't do it...its to go against the grain of their political party...try having a friendly conversation with a liberal about this issue....they won't admit to seeing any problem...they will dismiss it as nothing...
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Does anyone pay attention to these things? Besides, why is a female organization commenting about a male problem? What authority do they hold to comment about this issue in the first place?
In my opinion, they ought to mind their own business. What would a fish know about repairing bicycles anyway?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
"In my opinion, they ought to mind their own business. What would a fish know about repairing bicycles anyway?"
What would a man know about feminism?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
john,
The conservatives are only a tad bit more compassionate. They are the worst when it comes to taking overzealous measures to protect women. Note that they did not vote against VAWA even though it was a democrat sponsored bill (or maybe they co-sponsored it with the democrats). Like I have said before the problem for MRAs is not Feminists, "liberals" and democrats, its the Chivalrists, conservatives and republicans who side with the "liberals" at every step against men. Of course would be nice if the "liberals" came to senses, but they are on steady diet of leftist kool-aid. Don't expect for them to change anytime soon.
Note: "liberals" are not really liberal as the word meant at some time in history, otherwise they would be tolerant of the views of MRAs and would have genuine concern for injustices against fathers.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
http://www.thenewgendergap.com/
This does a good job (locally) of destroying all the major arguments that boys are really OK. At the end is an exampple of a Dad who is too wrapped up in being a "saviour" of women, so he's willing to sell out all the boys...except his own of course.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
What surprises me about the backlash against acknowledging the boy crisis in schools is that I have yet to see any good, valid reason for the hostile reaction. One would think that people were talking about booting girls out of schools altogether rather than trying to change the curriculum to better help boys learn. The response is so disproportionate that I have to think something else is driving it. Who knows what that might be.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The AAUW tribe is cut from the same cloth as the vapid man-hating harpies At NOW. First and foremost, they are feminist propagandists who can make no credible claim to be doing actual social science.
If you visit AAUW's web site, you will quickly observe that they are 100% about girls and women, and there is no expression of concern about boys and men.
It's clear from the tone of the report that AAUW is petrified that the "boys crisis" may be breaking out into the mainstream media, thus threatening their dominance in molding public opinion.
On a semi-related note, can anybody tell me how to get off AAUW's mailing list? I get a letter every month asking me to join and/or make a donation. I have sent several of these letters back to them with impolite comments about how much I revile their feminist reality distortion machine. Next month -- hello again from your friends at AAUW!
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
ts.... help me here. just what can the reason be for so much angst from the fembots. i just can't get a handle on it. akak.
its not like men are looking for title x or anything. posts from fems soon to follow.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Nice article as usual from Glenn but I do take exception with one thing:
"Nobody claims the boy crisis exists because of girls' gains"
Actually I do claim this, maybe not across the board but I think there is little doubt that teaching styles have been switched to benefit girls at the direct expense of boys.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Pankaj said:
"Note: "liberals" are not really liberal as the word meant at some time in history, otherwise they would be tolerant of the views of MRAs and would have genuine concern for injustices against fathers."
I agree. A true-liberal cares about "liberating" ALL down-trodden groups..........including men. The idea that women are "more equal than men" is when true-liberalism becomes an "Animal Farm." Personally, I consider myself a social-liberal masculist.
I believe that masculism in general is a human rights issue.........not a political issue. The political Left is often too misandrous, and the political Right is often too chivalrous. I also believe that in general societal misandry stems from chivalry, restrictive male socialization of disposability, and gender-feminist bias. As such, I see feminism as only 1/3 of the problem in my opinion (albeit it is an important one).
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
This is from an article that Peg Tyre authored in "Newsweek". Google her if you wish. She studied the school and gender thing for 7 years. and disagrees with the AAUW study.
"In elementary-school classrooms—where teachers increasingly put an emphasis on language and a premium on sitting quietly and speaking in turn—the mismatch between boys and school can become painfully obvious. "Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."
Two years ago Kelley King, principal of Douglass Elementary School in Boulder, Colo., looked at the gap between boys and girls and decided to take action. Boys were lagging 10 points behind girls in reading and 14 points in writing. Many more boys than girls were being labeled as learning disabled, too. So King asked her teachers to buy copies of Gurian's book "The Minds of Boys," on boy-friendly classrooms, and in the fall of 2004 she launched a bold experiment. Whenever possible, teachers replaced lecture time with fast-moving lessons that all kids could enjoy. Three weeks ago, instead of discussing the book "The View From Saturday," teacher Pam Unrau divided her third graders into small groups, and one student in each group pretended to be a character from the book. Classes are noisier, Unrau says, but the boys are closing the gap. Last spring, Douglass girls scored an average of 106 on state writing tests, while boys got a respectable 101."
NOTE: Peg Tyre is putting out a book of her research called "The Trouble With Boys" in September 2008. I believe this is a GOLDEN opportunity to do anything we can to support her and get her some quality media face time. I'm not any good at this marketing stuff, so if anyone has idea please let me know as I will help.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Since when did we come to believe that the quality of a child's education should be measured by how much his father and his mother earn?
Since when did it become appropriate to believe that a good liberal arts education isn't a fundamental right of every citizen of this nation, something of immeasurable value separate and apart from a paycheck, an essential foundation for leading a civilized life that members of both genders should obtain?
Oh, I get it -- when we needed to concoct a justification for saying it's OK that boys are falling behind.
Boys could commit mass suicide across the nation and some damned feminist would point to the "wage gap" to
prove it's not a concern.
It is, of course, positions such as this that engender disprepute of the entire feminist movement.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Correction:
Feminist 1st Commandment: When in doubt, trot out the "wage gap."
Since when did we come to believe that the quality of a child's education should be measured by how much his father and his mother earn?
Since when did it become appropriate to believe that a good liberal arts education isn't a fundamental right of every citizen of this nation, something of immeasurable value separate and apart from a paycheck, an essential foundation for leading a civilized life that members of both genders should obtain?
Oh, I get it -- when we needed to concoct a justification for saying it's OK that boys are falling behind.
I submit that Boys could commit mass suicide across the nation and some damned feminist would point to the "wage gap" to prove it's not a concern.
It is, of course, positions such as this that engender disprepute of the entire feminist movement.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
If men are expected to be accepting of women in the work-place, than women should also be expected to be accepting of men in the home-place. If men are supposedly "insecure" of marrying-up, then perhaps women are also "insecure" of marrying-down. I can't help but think that the latter problem is the bigger one.
It is too bad that society cares more about the economic equality of women than the sexual equality of men. If women have access to traditional male privilege (such as work and politics), then men should also have access to traditional female privilege (such as low rates of disposability, the pursuit of happiness, and the abolition of chivalry).
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
>Nobody claims the boy crisis exists because of girls' gains--the issue is that boys’ performance fell significantly behind girls’, and has remained behind because we've failed to address boys' problems.
Actually, I and many others claim that the boy crisis exists because of the different treatment that boys and girls receive. This is due, at least in part, by the gains that women have made in altering the educational landscape.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Roy, does the AAUW solicitation come with a business reply postage envelope?
I know a person who affixes them to heavy objects for the return. A box full of dirt, lead, rocks, whatever.
That seems to get the "do not solicit" idea across pretty effectively.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Congrats, Glenn. I'm glad to see this bogus report get exposed. The NY Times ate it up, as usual, and so did alot of other media. But surprisingly, some did not. USA Today's editorial board refuted it, for one, and a few others printed columns that criticized the report. Even a pro affirmative action blog, "Color and Money," thoroughly refuted it and criticized it as disengenuous and aimed at diverting attention from the gender gap in education that boys face.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
"girls’ gains have not come at boys’ expense.”
That statement reminds me of Plato's dialogue "The Theaetetus", in which Socrates successfully refutes the relativism of the Sophists. Replace "taller" with "doing better in school" in the excerpt below. - even though the analogy is not exact, it gives you an idea of how the AAUW is pulling the wool over our eyes:
Socrates: ..I suppose we shall assert that nothing can become greater or less, either in size or number, so long as it remains equal to iteslf. Is it not so?
Theaetetus: Yes.
Socrates: And secondly, that a thing to which nothing is added and from which nothing is taken away is neither increased nor diminished, but always remains the same in amount?
Theaetetus: Undoubtedly.
Socr: And must we not say, thirdly, that a thing which was not at an earlier moment cannot be at a later moment without becoming and being in process of becoming?
Theaetetus: It certainly seems so.
Socrates: Now these three admissions, I fancy, fight among themselves in our minds..when we say that I, being of the height you see, without gaining or losing in size, may within a year be taller (as I am now) than a youth like you, and later on be shorter, not because I have lost anything in bulk, but because you have grown? For apparently I am later what I was not before, and yet have not become so, for without the process of becoming the result is impossible, and I could not be in process of becoming shorter without losing some of my bulk.
Confused? That's the idea.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I believe there is a root to this entire situation that must acknowledged.
The all-pervasive bullying and power of the feminists is what this report and the media response show.
Think about how BEYOND SCREWED UP this situation is.
They are publishing news stories based on a study about BOYS education from the American Association of University WOMEN.
They are not even putting in a side-by-side opposing point of view.
I reiterate, they are publishing news stories based on a study about BOYS education from the American Association of University WOMEN.
That is CRAZINESS.
This is no better than when the media used to publicize stories about smoking and health using studies from the tobacco companies (circa 1940's).
Man, I feel the SCANNERS head explosion coming on again.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Chris,
That's a good point. One must realize that all gender issues and debates are defined and viewed solely from the female perspective. In this gynocentric country in which we live, women even define the terms of the debate.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Pankaj, that is very insightful:
"What would a fish know about repairing bicycles anyway?"
Actually Steinem painted herself into a corner..if women don't need men, why does a women's organization comment on studies done on boys? Theoretically, the fish should be completely oblivious of the bicycle. Oh well, they do need someone to hate and subjegate.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Norman L Says: "ne must realize that all gender issues and debates are defined and viewed solely from the female perspective. In this gynocentric country in which we live, women even define the terms of the debate."
That's changing Norman, rapidly, mostly due to "useless whiners" like us.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Norman L said:
"Actually Steinem painted herself into a corner..if women don't need men, why does a women's organization comment on studies done on boys?"
Norman L, you referring to Steinem really set off my alarm bells.
The ABSOLUTE, BEYOND A DOUBT, FREAKING ME OUT, HOLY MOSES, thing that gives me HEAD-EXPLOSION-SYNDROME is that Steinem and several other "Heroines of Feminism" were MARRIED TO RICH GUYS"
They only had time to go around causing trouble and getting attention because their husbands gave them an allowance. OMG!!!! It kills me every time I think about it. I have NEVER been able to get over that one.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
In their zeal to promote the interrests of women, this feminist organization has thrown our sons under the bus. There is a misandry at work here that is downright evil. And if any of these women are mothers with sons, they really are twisted beyond redemption.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Yes Chris, and at the same time they were claiming that one way in which they were being oppressed, is that their husbands gave them an "allowance". They looked the gift horse in the mouth, then rammed arsenic down his throat.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The usual hatred with feminists- female problems are an injustice against all women and must be remedied forthwith, male problems are all fictional and must be either minimized, or preferably, ignored.
Lets make no mistake here, people, these women make these claims not because they fear belief in a boy crisis will lead to girls being ignored, but because they fear it will lead to boys being helped. Plain and simple. They want boys to do badly, so that girls get more degrees and more positions of power. Why wouldn’t they see it this way given that they believe the world would be better if run by women? They cant take us out as men so they take us out as boys, cowards that they are.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
"The new AAUW report, unable to dispel the boy crisis, falls back instead on the alleged wage gap, claiming, "Perhaps the most compelling argument against a boys crisis is that men continue to out earn women in the workplace.” They explain that among all women and men working full time, year-round, median annual earnings for women were 77 percent of men's earnings in 2005."
This really is pathetic. As per usual, if feminists can't win a debate the so-called 'pay gap' is the final straw they clutch at. Anyone with half a brain would realise that the success of men and women in the workplace is a product of many factors, of which the education system is only one.
This quote essentially bells the cat. It is clear from this that they are not interested in the issue, only in pushing their own spurious agendas and grievances.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
The problem with these issues is that if you wait until there is a genuine crisis, it is often too late to do much and the problems have become too deeply entrenched.
For a long time there has been growing evidence from things like the growing education gap, rising male suicide rates etc. that a growing number of males are seriously in trouble. Moreover, the evidence has been steadily growing. Sometimes a bit of alarmism is better than a lot of complacency.
As a society, we spend vast amounts of time worrying about trivial issues. Yet we cannot deal with real problems.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 am
Excellent discussion of the AAUW article.
http://www.colorandmoney.blogspot.com/
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Nick, that's WHY we spend so much time on the trivial problems. Then we can avoid the tough decisions and actions.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Tim Murray said...
Never, but never, put mens' welfare in the hands of women, particularly feminists. They will flush it down the toilet.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am
I wonder... If the education gap is all about family income BUT NOT the gender (according to AAUW research)... then why does AAUW exist at all? It should be renamed to American Association of Poor Students and start caring for children and young people from low income families instead of just women. Isn't it logical?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 am
Factory,
precisely what I was getting at.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that annoys me about these sorts of studies is that you have what is obviously agenda-driven, self-serving propaganda being represented as independent, impartial analysis, and often portrayed as such by the media.
The quote about the wage gap really gives it away as junk scholarship that should be recycled for toilet paper. Aside from the non-existent merits of the wage gap, any sensible person would know that the earnings of men and women is a result of many factors. To use something only vaguely related to the issue as conclusive evidence like this is ridiculous.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 am
Norman L. Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
"girls’ gains have not come at boys’ expense.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminists tend to apply that argument selectively. If males are more successful in any area of society, they pretend that everything men have achieved is at the expense of women and apply zero-sum analysis. Yet if females are more successful, they say it's not at the expense of males.
In reality, I think that things that are good for men and boys are more mutually beneficial. While policies that favour women over men tend to be mutually destructive.
This is because women are far more likely to want to trade up in finding a partner. So if you have a society with far more successful men than women, enough women will still be able to attach themselves to successful men to make sure everyone is taken care of.
But if there are more successful women than men, there will be a lot more marginalised men as well as women who can't find sufficiently eligible partners. So it is mutually destructive.
So, if anything we should focus more on boys success than girls.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 am
If these women would stop and think, they would realize how important it is to get boys/men better educated.
I mean, with 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce, and 40% of children being born out of wedlock in the U.S., these women should be pushing for a massive upgrade in education of boys/men.
Why? So they can demand more child support, of course!
What woman wants to hitch her child support wagon to the kind of donkey-boy our schools are churning out? How can she profit from that?
No ladies. You should demand that your future child support slaves be educated to the max. They should be chained to their desks. Incarcerated if they fail to get their GEDs. These bums are a walking child support collection nightmare for you until such time as they get serious academic credentials.
THEN, you can have your sleaze-dripping lawyer drag your chosen man-slave into court and say:
"Your honor, this is a highy educated man. He has a B.S. degree, a Masters degree, etc., etc. He should be earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and my client Cruella here, demands her fair share of what he SHOULD be earning, not the paltry sum that he actually earns in his lazy, underperforming W-2!"
Yes AAUW. If you "women" learned anything in "Univeristy", you would realize how much it is in your beloved selfish interests to maximize the education (i.e., imputable earnings power) of your future man slaves.
Duh!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 am
By the way, as someone who has taught at the university level, as well as having employed many, many people who are graduates of our various educational institutions, I could offer a few observations on the "great" performance of women in entering and graduating from universities and what this means.
1. College courses test a person's propensity for task compliance and detail work much more so than their ability or effectiveness. Most "tests" and grading in universities (and high schools) is about testing a person's propensity for doing detailed, non-IQ-taxing, clerical-like work. Yep. Clerical like work.
2. Most colleges and universities teach very few useful skills. There is much irrelevant make-work in colleges, and U.S. colleges in particular churn out graduates who: (i) can't spell, (ii) can't write, (iii) have frighteningly limited vocabularies, (iv) can't speak a 2nd language, (v) can't do even average levels algebra or geometry or linear algebra or statistics and no calculus, and (vi) can't write any computer programs, code, or scripts of any practical utility.
3. In other words, most college degrees issued in the U.S. have little or no value whatsoever to an employer.
4. Employers who actually need real skills among college graduates tend to go to the very top schools to find those students exhibiting actual and significant standards of accomplishment in work-relevant skill areas. These same employers would properly interpret someone getting "good" grades in any of the other universities (i.e., 90% of them) as indicative that the person is likely to e somewhat responsible and would get to work on time. (And then they would mis-spell, write terribly, and make math errors all day long at the job they arrived to on-time.)
So, I would assert that as much as it is true that smart, educated people have a real advantage in life in America, the fact of the matter is, 80% to 90% of people coming out of college in the U.S. have done nothing in college which can evidence that they are either very smart or very educated.
College is a major, major system of illusion in America. And not surprisingly, in other G-7 countries, they have a completely different system of education. I.e., most people don't go to "college", they get trained with skills. College is accessed on real merit most civilized nations, which by its more rigorous nature, requires the very upper percentiles of students.
Now who wants to guess the predominant gender of the uppermost percentiles of students in top universities in the world?
Ask Larry Summers.
What America is doing in the vast majority of its universities is handing out "grades" to "students" who act like good little doobies. Assignments on time. Lots of stuff memorized and churned out. Neat handwriting. Careful organization and preparation. In a word -- most American colleges are rewarding their students most for good clerical work -- because that is all that they teach.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 am
AnonymousPamphleteer,
Stop giving classified information to the enemy. If you were in the military and divulged information like that on an unsecure forum, you would be facing court-martial for treason. So, please do not post this anywhere else. LOL
But, seriously, how screwed up is our system when giving profiteering women ways to steal more from us is the only way to get our sons better educated without resorting to expensive private boys' schools.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 am
Tim Says:
"Boys could commit mass suicide across the nation and some damned feminist would point to the "wage gap" to
prove it's not a concern."
If someone wants to apply the logic that since boys performance has improved over the last two decades that is shouldn't matter that girls performance has improved more rapidly... we can equally declare that since women's salaries have continually improved, it shouldn't matter if men earn more or not... they should just be happy the trend is upward, right?
It's funny how when women percieve themselevs behind in something they deem it appropriate to compare themselves to men... but when boys are behind in something we are only supposed to compare boys now to boys before.
The lack of logical consistancy is mind boggling.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Would there be any information about boys in Canada as well?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 am
There is no way a society can be healthy if the boys and men are unhappy.
By attempting to deny this crisis, the AAUW is hurting everybody.
Their lack of honesty (and the wage gap... I think I am justified here in the reaction: WTF???) about the results shows that this is not an error of interpretation. They are partisan in an area where partisanship is particularly disgraceful. They should not be taken seriously.
They say that one group's needs can be addressed without neglecting another. I agree. Let's help the boys.
PS: MXY - thanks for the compliment on that other thread :)
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 am
**callum Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
"In my opinion, they ought to mind their own business. What would a fish know about repairing bicycles anyway?"
What would a man know about feminism?
**
Nice one. It is a bit different though right? Feminism is something that can be defined. A crisis with boys being studied by a group that caters to women's agenda is a little more then simply commenting on "masculinity" no?
Is there an oposite of Feminism?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
"Nice one. It is a bit different though right? Feminism is something that can be defined. A crisis with boys being studied by a group that caters to women's agenda is a little more then simply commenting on "masculinity" no? "
I suppose. I have no problem with them commenting on the issue. I do have a problem with them saying they want equality when they will penly fight against equality when it advantages males. Also when they fight against equality in order to benefit women (affirmative action etc)
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Golly....wonder what song they'd be singing if the gender gap was reversed?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
We should establish an amber alert system that points outmisandry in the classroom so we can boycott it, picket it and generally rise up against it....
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
They've forgotten the New York Times piece from last year that reported that recent college graduates in major US cities are paid more if they're female.
Hear that AAUW? People who graduate from college this decade are better paid if they're women! Shouldn't that be more relevant to what's going on in schools right now than a wage gap in Baby Boomer salaries?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
"Shouldn't that be more relevant to what's going on in schools right now than a wage gap in Baby Boomer salaries?"
Not really, the reason men earn more is not because of lack of opportuntiy for women but because they work more. Men work more hours, for more years, in worse jobs, are more likely to commute, are more likely to move for their job.
As I've said before, the only way to stop the wage gap is literaly to enslave women and force them to work as much as men do. And that's just not nice!
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
The government of the province that I live in has actually published a document in order to try to improve boy's literacy skills. According to the "Why Boys" page:
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
The AAUW is not backing away from their agenda, facts or no facts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
Chris C, and Callum, excellent points.
On the point Chris raised: Did you notice the feminists' reaction when the NY TImes reported the young women are actually OUTEARNING their male peers in big cities? Did you notice the dancing in the streets? The partying? The full page ads touting the victory for feminism? Are they taking this as an indication that the gender wage gap may be accounted for by factors OTHER THAN discrimination? Hmm? Well . . . no. Instead they are bellyaching because -- it's going to hurt women. Did you get that? The focus is always on women. Never mind that we've got a generation of boys who don't read. The feminists are crying because some men don't like dating women who are more successful than they are, they claim -- you know, our fragile male egos and all (remember gender stereotyping is OK if it's directed at males). The point is, even when women achieve gender superiority, the radical feminists still manage to invent excuses to wrap women in the garb of perpetual victimhood.
As for raising the so-called "wage gap" as some sort of twisted justification for boys falling behind in school: Excuse me, but why are we measuring the quality of a child's education based on a comparison of how much his father and his mother earn? The inanity of this argument is breathtaking.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Justin asked: "Golly....wonder what song they'd be singing if the gender gap was reversed?"
Justin, they've been there, done that: Many of us older MRAs vividly recall that steaming pile of horse manure entitled "Shortchanging Girls," so you should do a Google search on it. It's a tour de force in hypocrisy and mendacity.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Glenn: I think that a REAL wage gap would be a reasonable proxy for measuring the effectiveness in education. Higher educated people make more, and to get advanced degrees the assumption is that one has to do well in school.
In the last AAUW study, the wage gap was something like 12 cents for women in the workforce 10+ years, and 5 cents for women less than 10 years in the workforce. (This is the gap when job type, tenure, consecutive years worked, hours, etc are controlled for) Another thing to look at is that women in major cities are earning more, fresh out of college, than men are. This seems to make sense to me.
Back in 1992, or thereabouts, when the whole ‘girls in crisis’ thing happened, girls did better in reading/writing; but were getting hosed in math and science. With 16 years worth of making math and science better for women, we SHOULD see a closing of the wage gap. Women should be better at engineering, economics, finance, physics, chemistry, and all other forms of professions that are math and science based. With this increased skill, women should be making better wages. And, with a still superior edge in the language skills, women should be out earning men in the professions that are language centric.
Another point to make: with 16 years of girl power in education the pattern of the wage gap makes even more sense. The women who have been working for 10+ years would have little to no impact from these improvements. The women who are in the less than 10 year group should have had at least 6 years of their education in this environment, thus should have some, if not all, of the benefit of improvements in the way girls are taught math and sciences. Furthermore, women surpassing men entering the workforce, in the big cities, make sense. These women have had all of the benefit of increased math and science skill, and enjoy a clear lead in language skills.
I have two more points to make: 1) it is good for society that women’s math and science achievement is on statistical par with men’s, this is a real win for the education system; 2) this is not a zero sum game, boy’s achievement in language can be improved with hurting girls. Hell, Point 1 pretty much proves Point 2; men have not gotten math and science stupid in the last 16 years, both men and women have gotten better, it is just the gap that has closed.
Later,
B
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Really the amazing thing is that if you used the same methodology in the 60's, there was no girls' crisis either. The girls' scores were increasing and so was their participation in sports.
As an educator, the problem is we look at results. The "Boy Crisis" is NOT about results, it's about OPPORTUNITY.
The boys that are succeeding are in spite of the current educational system, not because of it. The girls are given more opportunities in athletics, science, and math. The curriculum is tailored to them in most subjects, but especially in English, social studies and the arts. If you check the AAUW's blog page, they rant about separating the genders for core classes because it *might* turn into separate but unequal. First. they don't mention that in many districts science teachers are evaluated on how well they teach to the girls, and have been to teach "science-lite" because according to researchers, the girls can't handle correction. (Gee, and why have our scores fallen in comparison to other countries?) So basically keeping the boys in with the girls forces them to be taught as girls, thus ensuring defeat for all involved. Secondly, and more egregiously, they completely ignore all of the "No-Boys Allowed" Science programs. Some how.. separate but equal is so much worse to them than complete discrimination.
http://nwlc.blogs.com/womenstake/2008/05/aclu-shakes-thi.html?cid=116647814#comment-116647814
Scary thing is, many schools go to them for consulting work
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
# Akhi Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
We should establish an amber alert system that points outmisandry in the classroom so we can boycott it, picket it and generally rise up against it....
This is very true. The problem is for too long "good" parents of good students told their boys it must just be them or they need to just deal with it. The "not-so good" parents of boys didn't care what happened to their boys. It's time for parents, especially mothers, to stand up and fight so their sons may have equal rights and opportunities in the classrooms.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
If there is an understanding of how boys are being put down in schools, stunted from growth and learning, there would not be this argument about who is getting what. There is rise in the number of female engineers and scientists, but I believe is temporary and will last only on the basis of huge support through female oriented encouragement programs. There are a some hardcore female engineers and scientists, but feminists will not like the proportions if only good merit based select people are left in the profession.
I am against both forcing boys to learn in feminine oriented classes, because it hurts them in ways they are too young to know and the rest of society teaches them to point blame at themselves. Both of these factors make sure that the perpetrators of the gender domination are never brought to light. Then inspite of this - women are given preferential treatment at jobs and higher education - sometimes due to feminist/chivalrist pressures and predatory sexist individuals on others. And even if they see this happening feminists claim to keep insisting that men like to hire other men, because they are men. Sorry its the other way around, but that is reality so never-mind if you are a feminist.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Look at the "wage gap" between men and lesbians, then tell me whether the 70% number is more likely driven by partriarchal oppression or the Cinderella complex.
Any woman bringing up the supposed "wage gap" instantly loses credibility, and I tell them so. Either they are pitifully and pathetically stupid, or they are conniving liars who think YOU are pathetically stupid. The sniff test is easy: "If you could save 30% just by hiring women instead of men, say, to rip off your old roof, pump out your septic tank, or catch Alaskan crab, why would you ever hire a man?" Oh, that's right! Women don't like to do dirty or dangerous jobs, but expect to be paid as if they did.
If you have children in school, I encourage you to contact the superintendent of your district and let her know how you feel about this issue. Please don't just sit here preaching to the choir. You have a computer- look up her number and call her right now! Ask her what she thinks of the AAUW report. Share your concerns. Attend the next school board meeting and speak out! Bring your friends. Ask them what they are doing about it and why they haven't done more. Make sure they understand YOUR expectations of THEM.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
# Burke Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Would there be any information about boys in Canada as well?
--------------------------------
This is a relatively detailed argument in the Province of Saskatchewan. Neatly debunks the most popular arguments...chiefly, the economic/social class argument.
Seriously, it's a good read.
"Several articles available on the internet refer to a series of studies whose findings suggest that all or nearly all the gender disparity in education performance can be attributed to poor boys. This comparatively small group of students, according to the studies, super under-perform. This has the effect of drawing down non-poor boys and thus generalizing the problem of poor performance over the entire population."
....
"If we grow the sample size of poor boys to beyond 20% then the group becomes too large to consider it a super-under performing group. Truly, the idea of a small super-underperforming group cannot explain the gender gap."
http://www.thenewgendergap.com/
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Factory Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
#
....
"If we grow the sample size of poor boys to beyond 20% then the group becomes too large to consider it a super-under performing group. Truly, the idea of a small super-underperforming group cannot explain the gender gap."
That's another point. You can tell the feminists are bent on complete and total control and the schools are at best passive partners when you look at intersection of the rights of minorities, especially lower SEC, and the rights of girls. Lafayette HS in affluent west St. Louis County offered a space program - just to the girls. The boys were told if they wanted to participate, they had to join the AFROTC and then pay for it themselves through that program. So yes, girls that had two professional parents and got Benzes and Beemers for their birthdays were given a free opportunity over boys that got up at 5:30am to catch a 6am 2hour bus ride out to their school.
Who would dare say just because they are girls, they deserve more opportunities than an economically strapped African American boy??
Oh wait. feminists and Lafayette HS in Wildwood, MO
The principal that defended this sexism has since retired and refused to name the teacher responsible or I would post his email and phone number.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
One question for all of you:
Please explain why you insist on using the word "crisis" to define "boys and girls are making gains, girls faster though".
How is this a "crisis"? And aren't girls behind in math and science? So is there a girl crisis?
I think if there is a crisis, it is for the poor and for minority students. I think "concern" might be way better a choice of word than "crisis". But it is just my opinion.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Ahhhhh. Jeana speaks again. The voice of UNreason herself.
Okay Jeana. Imagine you are a parent. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you have two high school-age daughters, we'll call them Lisa and Mary.
Okay, here's Lisa's history. She was consistently at the 40th percentile of her class up until 3 years ago. She used to state that she hated school and could not wait to get out and had no plans for college. Then, things changed. She started showing dramatic improvement. She has kept improving year after year. She is now at the 70th percentile, states that she likes school and wants to attend college to improve her life.
Here is Mary's story. She used to be a good student. Up until 3 years ago, she was at the 70th percentile of her class and stated she liked school and planned to go to college to improve her life. Then, things started going downhill. She has, over time, fallen to the 40th percentile of her class. She now states that she loathes school and does not want to go to college. Finally, to add insult to injury, she frequently gets in trouble and was told she has a learning disability. She was put in "SLOW" classes and expectations of her are now low.
So Jeana, being their mother, whose academic life are you worried more about at this point?
P.S. I can already see one of your arguments coming from a mile away. You'll say that alot of boys scores have actually improved over the years, just not as quickly as girls. That is a phony argument. College admissions officers don't care if a student did as well as someone that applied in 1975. They look at student applicants relative to the performance of their peers.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
jeana Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
One question for all of you:
Please explain why you insist on using the word "crisis" to define "boys and girls are making gains, girls faster though".
How is this a "crisis"? And aren't girls behind in math and science? So is there a girl crisis?
Actually, I addressed both above, but just summarize:
The gender gap in math and science is primarily from a lack of desire on girls' part. They are afforded more opportunities. On the other hand, it is a crisis of OPPORTUNITY, not outcomes for the boys. There is an erosion of rights and opportunities for the boys which results in lack of participation and lack of academic growth.
I also pointed out that that minorities and lower SEC whites lose out when it comes to girls' rights. Thats another reason it's a crisis. The worst affected are those boys. Rich white boys will survive in spite of the educational system, not because of it.
It has become a crisis specifically because of what it's doing to those less well off boys.
But they still push Title IX and favoritism education for the girls.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Oh, by the way Jeana. As a minority myself, I am offended by the way you and the AAUW use us to obfuscate this argument. The discussion is about gender. By your logic, the cops should not pay attention to burglars because murderers exist. Wake up.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Jeana, talk about double standards. if men were 60% of college students would you think that was a problem? if girls were behind boys from elementary school through college? if girls were 5 times more likely to be put on drugs like ritalin? if in some school districts 20% of the girls were drugged to make them conform? if girls were much more likely to be suspended, to drop out of school, to feel that education was "irrelevant" to their lives, and even to commit suicide, would that be a "crisis"?
the hypocrisy of feminists on this issue makes me sick. why do you care so little about boys? do you hate them because they will be men someday?
that is, if they survive.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I am not questioning the fact that there are some things that need to change for boys in the educational system. And I do not think that the rash of boys being prescribed Ritalin is ok. I think that ADD is way over-diagnosed.
I am only wanting to know why you use the term “crisis”. You do not like it when the word “victim” is used for females molested or who allege rape. So I want to understand why you use “crisis” when I really don’t think there is a crisis. That is it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Chris D,
The fact is that minority boys and girls do have a harder time. That is not obfuscating any fact. It is not racist to want minorities to do better. Or the poor.
And Chris, I do want boys to succeed. Boys rule and girls drool, after all. I do have a son. Who’s half minority (or actually, probably considered totally minority since anything less than 100% Caucasian is not considered “white”).
So don’t be too bitter with me on this issue. As you are on every other issue with me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
jimbo,
"the hypocrisy of feminists on this issue makes me sick. why do you care so little about boys? do you hate them because they will be men someday?"
Real feminists do not hate boys or men. Psychos do. I still think that it is not a crisis. I just wanted your opinions. I don't see a crisis with my son.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Jeana said:
"The fact is that minority boys and girls do have a harder time. That is not obfuscating any fact. It is not racist to want minorities to do better. Or the poor."
It ABSOLUTELY is obfuscating the topic of concern. You and the AAUW are guilty as charged. The topic of discussion is the concept of a "boy crisis" in education. Using minorities to change the subject is so low class and obvious. Again, as a minority myself, it offends me that feminist (which includes you) are using us as sympathetic diversions.
Honest to God. I don't even mean this sarcastically. I absolutely just do not get it with you Jeana. If you are truly not just being a pundit, then our brains our wired completely different.
I'm a concrete thinker more so than abstract. When I break things down, they are very accessible to people. For you not to be able to conceive of what I say just bewilders me. It's one thing to disagree, but another to not even be able to identify with the general thought process of another.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
jeana, it's a crisis because it's bad and getting worse. it's a crisis because millions of boys are affected and the cost to them and to society will be enormous. and it is without a doubt far more severe in scope and effect than any legitimate worries about the number of girls who choose to become engineers. i think the attitude that feminists have towards this issue shows their true colors. Any decent person should care about all children, boys and girls. the fact that many feminists want to deny and ignore boys' problems shows me that they are haters. I used to think of myself as a feminist. one of the issues that made me turn against feminists is they way they've responded to girls' educational success and boys' problems: deny/ignore the boys problems, demand more special programs for the girls. when you help the group that's doing better and ignore the group that's doing worse, that's called discrimination.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Aaron M: So girls have more opportunities than boys? How so? You named one example of a science program that was geared toward girls.
I went back and read your posts.
"Secondly, and more egregiously, they completely ignore all of the "No-Boys Allowed" Science programs. Some how.. separate but equal is so much worse to them than complete discrimination. "
What does this mean?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Chris,
How is looking at data that clearly shows minorities of both sexes have it worse is somehow avoiding the real gender-related issue? You want to see a gender issue here, but I don’t think that is as large as a racial or socio-economic one.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Jeana, oh Jeana. How many times can I show you the same thing? You never respond either. You just CHOOSE not to see anything that contradicts your pre made up mind.
Here is the definition of victim:
"one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment"
Again, as I've told you MANY times, presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our legal system. To say that an accuser is a VICTIM prior to any investigation is to forgo due process.
Here is the definition of crisis:
" situation that has reached a critical phase"
I suppose the argument could be made that it is too strong of a word but there is alot of evidence to argue otherwise. In any case, it is an argument of degree and has less potentially adverse implications than calling an accuser a victim.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Jimbo,
To help girls in math and science, two subjects where boys are doing better, is not helping fuel your crisis. Boys obviously need more help in reading and language arts. And they should get it. I'm not saying they shouldn't.
While I can agree that bringing up the pay gap is not relevant (and I am apparently the only one who thinks one exists, but that's ok), I think a more pertinent issue is the future for both boys and girls. Manufacturing and technical jobs are outsourced overseas, and that doesn't leave a whole lot of hope to boys who cannot see a future for themselves.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Chris:
Then come up with another word besides "victim". But make sure you can apply it also to burglery, mugging, etc. people.
And so if a person is acquitted but is actually guilty, is his "victim" really a "victim"? I think that "victim" should be in the eye of the beholder.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Jeana said,
"How is looking at data that clearly shows minorities of both sexes have it worse is somehow avoiding the real gender-related issue? You want to see a gender issue here, but I don’t think that is as large as a racial or socio-economic one."
Jeana, I gotta be honest. I would say alot of things to you if this was not a regulated blog. You are either incapable or unwilling to cut men any slack and listen, I mean really listen, to any of our concerns.
Okay Jeana, I'm gonna put this to you AS SIMPLY as I possibly can and I'm going to use an example based on a female-centered issue so that you might actually pay attention.
Okay, let's pretend that a goup called the Americn Association of University Men (AAUM) exist. They publish a report. The report is entitled "Argument Against the Alleged Gender Wage Gap"
Now, the report performs a cursory glossing-over of some statistics about wages. It talks about how women make more than they used to 20 years ago so that they are actually improving.
Then, HOWEVER, the report completely veers off. It changes focus to discuss foreigners here on work visas. It list the many ways in which these visa workers have lower wages and tougher conditions in the American workplace compared to American women.
How would you feel about that Jeana??? Would you not feel that the report was biased and trying to minimize the issue of American women's wages? Would you not feel that the issue of the visa workers was out of place in that report and an obvious diversionary tactic??
I'm sure you'll say no to all those questions; I don't even know why I try.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Jeana said,
"Then come up with another word besides "victim". "
Okay, that's easy. There have been other words around forever; it is only feminist politics that have allowed the word victim to be used so cavalierly.
ALTERNATIVES: ACCUSER or COMPLAINANT.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Chris,
1) I already said that I think the wage gap was irrelevant in talking about boys' performance in school. So your 11:35 post doesn't make sense to me.
2) Thank you for your suggestions. He was still wrong.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Jeana Says:
"How is looking at data that clearly shows minorities of both sexes have it worse is somehow avoiding the real gender-related issue? You want to see a gender issue here, but I don’t think that is as large as a racial or socio-economic one."
How is it avoiding the issue?
Because when someone else looks at the data they can similarly state that it clearly shows that boys have it worse than girls across identicle ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
The "avoiding" part comes in when they claim "Hey look... it seems like boys are falling behind in comparison to girls"... and you come back and say "nevermind all that... look at the racial and socioeconomic differences".
You don't say "wow, that is interesting, I see that in the data too... plus I also see racial and socioeconomic disparity"... you are trying to change the focus entirely and brush the gender based issue under the rug in the process.
Do children who come from minorities and/or poor economic backgrounds have troubles in school compared to those from wealthier backgrounds?... absolutely.
But boys also are having trouble when compared to girls.... this is something you do not acknowledge as being a significant social problem that needs to be addressed.
So far as your argument goes, it shouldn't matter that rich white boys do worse than rich white girls until poor minority boys are doing equally to the rich white boys.
The problem with such an assertion is that even if we got all of the girls and all of the boys to match the wealthy social groups... the boys would STILL be behind the girls.
You are not addressing the entire problem, and you will never address the entire problem until you view it as a gender based issue as well as a socioeconomic based issue.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Jeana, read this article:
http://www.thenewgendergap.com/
Then tell me you don't see how your son might be disadvantaged. I suspect your attitude will fall neatly in line with the letter to the editor missive at the end though.
Oh yeah, this is a whole bunch of that "evidence" and "statistics" and "data" you guys keep asking me to produce.
Bon apetite.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
jeana wants a new term for "victim." The proper term in the context of allegations is "alleged victim."
jeana wants to know why raising the red herring of race is inappropriate in a conversation about a gender gap: Because the topic is sex/gender, not race. Sheesh, how much more clear and simple can you get?
jeana also raises the issue of the so-called 'pay gap:' It's been shown conclusively, over and over again, that there is no pay gap. On average men get paid more than women because they earn more.
jeana wonders why race is not germane to the conversation: Well, it can be but it's most relevant when using race to cluster the data, and when you do you find that boys do worse than girls across all races (as well as SES classes). So in that context it's relevant and proves the point we're making here.
To a certain extent education is a zero-sum game in the sense that there is only so much money and other resources to go around. And so I think that at the very least we need to shift our priorities and resources from girls (who receive more than an equal share anyway) to boys. In times of limited resources we need to be smart about using them on the most most needy groups, and in the case of education that's boys. This will surely P-O the feminists, but I say screw 'em. They didn't care about robbing Peter to pay Paula during the "Shortchanging Girls" days so we owe them no consideration now that the tide has turned.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am
jeana Says:
"June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Aaron M: So girls have more opportunities than boys? How so? You named one example of a science program that was geared toward girls.
I went back and read your posts.
"Secondly, and more egregiously, they completely ignore all of the "No-Boys Allowed" Science programs. Some how.. separate but equal is so much worse to them than complete discrimination. "
What does this mean?"
The AAUW is also upset about gender-specific classes at public schools. They and the National Women's Law Center are fighting when schools divide boys and girls for the core classes. They preach that it will lead to discrimination against the girls in STEM subjects. What they have ignored is the fact that most universities and colleges offer "no-boys allowed" science programs. Most are in-house, but many are offered to the schools as community out-reach programs. I gave an example of one, but I can name at least 10 in the St. Louis area off the top of my head. Not only that, for the ones that are co-ed, many offer scholarships to the girls - only. Again, the schools offer rich white girls more opportunities than the lower SEC minorities and white boys.
On top of that, most reading teachers are women and most reading material is female centric and boys' writing is often limited due to school policies. Case in point - my son in second grade was reading a book called "Vampirates" Yes, it was about Vampire Pirates and somewhere around a middle school reading level. I was proud that he was fighting through the vocabulary and verbage. On the other hand, the teacher saw it is a violent book (never having read it, just looking at the cover and the title) told him to leave it at home and then offered him a sports book - Allie's Basketball Dream. So she took a boy that was reading 5 grade levels up about something he was interested in and gave him a 2nd/3rd grade level book about a girl wanting to play basketball. He was a second grade male hockey player. He didn't care about reading about basketball at all, let alone about a girl that wanted to play. To make it better, when I was talking to another parent about it, she told me that her son had to redo his biography because he wrote it about his great grandfather who fought in WWII. Again these are examples, but it is repeated over and over again.
Then don't even get me started on the opportunities girls have in extra-curriculars and sports.
There isn't one area in schools where the system treats the boys equally.
The BEST a boy can hope for is individual teachers to treat them fairly - but those teachers should be careful because treating the boys fairly often means being accused of discrimination. Then the teachers know - where as descriminating agaisnt boys is seen as "progressive" or "leveling the playing field" descriminating agaisnt the girls will be a reprimand or even losing your job.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Any way education systems of each and every nation emphasize on conformity, concentration, memory , vocabulary and presentation.These are stock feminine qualities. Unless we make our education system more practical, more problem oriented, more liberal to non-conformity we would see girls outperforming boys.Math and Science involve a bit of spatial thinking and problem solving skills.No wonder girls flounder in this aspect. I would never value such education system or respect who have been advantaged through this meaningless process.
Humanity is WASTING A LOT OF MASCULINE ENERGY through this thrash of a education system, that bears no resemblance to the real world.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
There is an age old and effective method of governance, which was employed by Imperial Britian. It goes by name "Divide and Rule". When the state divides a problem along racial and religious lines, the inherent push to solve that problem would be weakened.
This report is all about the same. When feminists divide boys on racial lines, society would view the problem as "isolated" or "insignificant". I am not surprised by the report. Strategy of "Divide and Rule" has been applied on our ancestors with a glorious success.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Jeana said:
"To help girls in math and science, two subjects where boys are doing better, is not helping fuel your crisis. Boys obviously need more help in reading and language arts. And they should get it. I'm not saying they shouldn't."
I generally agree with that statement. However, there still appears to be a boy crisis when all is said and done (partly due to societal chivalry, and not just feminism). Just as society helped females with their crisis in the 70's, I am also hoping society will return the favor and help out the boys.
Jeana said:
"While I can agree that bringing up the pay gap is not relevant (and I am apparently the only one who thinks one exists, but that's ok), I think a more pertinent issue is the future for both boys and girls."
When research is considered, it appears that the pay-gap is indeed a myth. Warren Farrell has covered the issue in his book "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap." I believe an economics journal even published evidence by a female author to a similar effect (if anyone knows the reference, feel free to post). The existence of male disposability is one of the key items that challenges the pay-gap. However, it appears that the female dominated "spending gap" is not a myth (see Bernice Kanner's "Pocketbook Power"). Females control/influence about 85% of consumer spending.
The feminist in me wants to see more women at the top. The masculist in me wants to see fewer men at the bottom. However, I think conformity and self-fulfilling prophecy play a part in this discrepancy..........not necessarily patriachy or matriachy.
MXY
June 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Aaron,
Thank you for your response. I have no experience with female-only classes. I don’t know why they’d exist.
As for your example with you son, if you don’t like a situation like that, then go to the teacher and talk to her about it. I would doubt that she was trying to keep your son down. Maybe she was just overworked and not really paying attention. If he could do higher level work, then push for him to get it. You could have said that if she thought that book was too violent, then you’d both find another. But the book she picked out was too easy. You as a parent have a lot of control, which you may not realize. The squeaky wheel is the one that gets noticed, after all.
My son wrote a story about birds in love and kissing each other (he’s in 1st grade) and he had to re-write it because it wasn’t appropriate. I don’t know why. But there are also District and state policies that we maybe don’t know about that kind of bind teachers’ hands. But if you are unhappy with something in your son’s school, then by all means tell them. You have that right.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
MasculistXY:
When I say I see a pay gap, I am not saying that it is because evil men are deliberately keeping all women down, although that does happen (to both genders). I understand that men have more consistent work lives because they generally do not take off time to have kids. I know that this is an important reason. I know that the types of work men and women do are very important and need to be factored in.
The pay gap I am concerned with is between me and a co-worker of the same grade and he getting more money. That type. You can’t compare apples and oranges (although it is interesting to compare what a nurse makes to what a truck driver makes). So I’m not really disagreeing.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
"Females control/influence about 85% of consumer spending. "
When I first heard someone say this (I think Pankaj), I immediately got defensive. Then I thought about it. And as I'm reading a fictional book, "Confessions of a Shopaholic", I can see myself in her.
I hate to admit that I think we do spend more. But SOMEONE has to keep this economy propped up.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
# jeana Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
"Thank you for your response. I have no experience with female-only classes. I don’t know why they’d exist."
They actually exist to introduce "girl friendly" science to middle school girls. On the face it's a good idea, when taught right, girls do better without boys and boys do better without girls especially in grades 6-9. The problem is, the schools need to offer the same opportunities to both genders, and they aren't always doing that and if they do have co-ed classes, the need to teach to maximize the potential of all students, not just the girls.
I did talk to his teacher and the principal. Being a teacher, I hate going over another teacher's head, but his teacher said that she was afraid the girls' parents would complain. I asked if it would be OK if Sam went into the hall to read during SSR, but she said it would just be easier to find another book. Problem is, THAT was the book he wanted to read. The principal was very sympathetic, and offered to let a few boys come sit in a conference room if their choices disturbed the girls.
"The pay gap I am concerned with is between me and a co-worker of the same grade and he getting more money. That type. You can’t compare apples and oranges (although it is interesting to compare what a nurse makes to what a truck driver makes). So I’m not really disagreeing."
I saw somewhere that if you compare wages in the same field - marketing, HR, telecom, teaching, etc, there was less than 3% variance between genders in most fields. The ones that were more heavily skewed were teaching (men tended to coach more), engineering (men by 5%) and telecom (women by 6%)
One thing that wasn't brought up was the grade gender gap. Most of this above talks about testing issues. Girls actually do better with grades in nearly all academic areas, including math and science. A large part of this is that neatness and homework enter into grading assuming they are accurate measures of proficiencies. In most cases, not being neat or not doing homework is an effort issue, not an academic issue. If a student doesn't do their homework they get a zero, while a student that has limited understanding might slop down enough to get a C. Giving a zero on not turned in homework affects the grade even more than not understanding it.
I had one teacher in hs that did not require homework if you had an A on the tests. Even though he gave the departmental tests just like everyone else, his students did better on those and the standardized tests. My best friend was one of those people that got an A+ in the class but a D for effort - for not turning in any homework, the whole year
June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Aaron,
I didn't realize you were a teacher, so I didn't mean to give you advice regarding teachers.
So when you were a teacher (or if you still are), did/do you see teachers deliberately favoring girls or was it subconscious? Or was most of it just teaching style? And did you ever talk to others in teacher meetings about it?
June 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Jeana,
This may surprise you, but it has always been the case that teachers favor girls more than boys. This may not always be feminist inspired, (most commonly its chivalrist inspired) but sometimes its also done by some teachers that tend to have (general or predatory?) sexual interest in girls (yes, there are a teachers who get away with this sort of stuff as long as they don't act on it and do something stupid). These teachers are often not rejected by the girls but encouraged (I have witnessed this myself a whole lot of times)
But coming back to point, can you mention one grant donation worth 5 million dollars to improve the interest of boys in dance and painting? Because I can show you multiple grant/donations to improve interests of girls in math and science. The joke is on them though - there is no need for a young woman to deal with math or science. She can earn well (very well in fact) regardless of her mathematical or scientific ability. She can see it, but the overgenerous and self-centered politicians, bureaucrats and feminists fail to grasp the simple concept or ignore it to keep their jobs.
There are professions a young woman can take up that will pay more in an few hours what a well qualified Phd can make over a couple of months. Then there are long term professions like "custodial mommy" and ex-wives which promise lucrative salaries without much effort. And they are going for it. Like they say - you can put feathers on a duck, but you cannot make it a peacock. Except in this case you are trying to pluck feathers from a peacock to make it into a duck.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I forgot to clarify that my experience may be more extreme than most people here, but that is because I am not from the same part of the world. Although I am also familiar - to what happens in US colleges and universities. You would be surprised how easy it is to notice the gender bias once you keep your eyes open.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
jeana....why can't there be programs for boys only like girls recieve?...don't girls and women get all kinds of help...where is the help for the boys?....double standard!
June 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
John,
I am not against a boys-only program that targets the unique needs of boys. Just not in math or science, because you already rule in those. I think girls-only programs were necessary before, but now that girls have caught up and in some cases surpassed boys, then I would have to agree that boys should also receive the help they need.
Anyway, help shouldn't be dependent upon gender. It should go to those who need it for whatever they need it for, regardless of gender.
(I would have been against this before, but you people have helped me change my view on this.)
June 4th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
"Jeana Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Aaron,
I didn't realize you were a teacher, so I didn't mean to give you advice regarding teachers.
So when you were a teacher (or if you still are), did/do you see teachers deliberately favoring girls or was it subconscious? Or was most of it just teaching style? And did you ever talk to others in teacher meetings about it?"
Don't apologize. It was great advice.
It was a wide range. I used to teach in a public school. After Sam had his issues, I went to the English department chair at our school (middle school building). She said they had a HUGE problem convincing the elementary teachers to broaden their horizons, but she was told there wasn't the gender gap in primary grades. Not only that it was hard to convince the mostly female teachers to get excited about reading about sports or feel comfortable reading about conflict, especially wars. She was actually more upset than I was because I was annoyed at what they did to one boy. She knew what they did in general and had to deal with the affects. In the 6th grade reading strategies class for kids that were bordering on retention due to No Child Left Behind, it was easily 70-80% male. She took that class, and magically was able to get the boys reading and writing better by not only allowing but encouraging them to read the books they were interested in - sports, graphic novels, fantasy, etc. As for the rest, it was anything from going to lunch "ladies first" or saying "you know the boys" Then of course I was reprimanded because I told the girls I was going to treat them like ladies - and have them clean up after the boys. I told the principal if they were willing to take the benefits of Ladies first, the should be ready to take the consequences. She wasn't amused. I would have hated to see what happened if I would have said "oh you know the girls" when some didn't get a concept or were talking in the halls.
I finally left public schools when the science program came up. One of my former bussed (lower SEC Minority) students went to that high school. He wanted to go and would have been a great person to send. He was the essence of what is right with bussing. He came out to our schools and worked hard ,did his homework and was a great kid. Instead they sent 8 white girls, 1 African American girl, and 1 Asian girl. He emailed me, asking why. I had no answer for him besides "that's just the way it is." I talked to my principal, the district science coordinator, and the principal at the high school. The science coordinator said he was told it was out of his hands and the other two basically told me it wasn't my business, that I didn't understand the finer points of what they were doing. (Kissing up to suburban moms)
That was when I left the public schools. Now I work in a small private school. It's amazing that we actually teach to the kids, not worry about offending the voters. I thought about working in an inner city school, but my wife nixed that idea.
Honestly, It's not a crisis for my son because I know I can fill in the gaps. It is becoming a crisis for two reasons. First is the fact that they're tying to limit the number of boys that can major in Math, Physics, and Engineering but ignoring heavily female majors of Social Work, Elementary Ed, and Counseling - where it would actually be helpful to have more diversity. Secondly it is a crisis now for those lower SEC boys. I can tell my son that the African American students deserve more opportunities because we come from 5 generations of college education. We have the historical momentum so to speak that the African Americans just don't have to draw upon.
On the other hand the reasons given as to why girls get more opportunities in sports, education, etc is because of the past. The other excuse is that the historical momentum still discourages girls from playing sports or going into STEM subjects. One problem, the girls have the same parents as the boys. Whereas an African American mother can't decide to develop multiple generations of college education, even she - and all parents - can chose to treat their children equally. How can I tell my son that his sister gets more opportunities because people that don't know me or our family assume that I push her into "female" pursuits. He knows better. My daughter is in select soccer and top honors in science fair last year.
Think about this: showing preference to the girls today punishes the boys because they couldn't go back in time to correct previous transgressions or can't telepathically direct parents to treat their own children fairly.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Jeana says "The pay gap I am concerned with is between me and a co-worker of the same grade and he getting more money. That type. You can’t compare apples and oranges (although it is interesting to compare what a nurse makes to what a truck driver makes). So I’m not really disagreeing."
I have yet to find one credible study that shows women are actually paid less than men for the same job. Most studies that purport to show this usually end up being based on ridiculously flawed concepts of equal work. For example, I saw a study a few years back that claimed that women get paid 10% less than men for doing the same job. Yet when you look at the fine print, it turned out the 'same job' simply meant the same title. So an accountant for a small shop was treated the same as an accountant for a larger business etc.
When assessing equal work, many variables come into play. So it is not that difficult for people to selectively pick certain variables and ignore others to show that women are being denied equal pay for equal work.
To the extent that there is a pay gap, I suspect it actually works in favour of women. That is, when all is considered women probably actually get paid more on average for the same work as men. For example, women receive equal prizemoney for major tennis tournaments as the men, even though women play shorter matches. So if you adjust for this, the women are being paid far more per hour for the time on court.
The point about this whole 'equal pay' issue is that feminists are not genuinely interested in equal pay for equal work. They want women to be guaranteed equal outcomes regardless of the amount of work.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:37 am
A lot of posters here have tried to draw comparisons between the present problems with boys and past problems with girls. While I am not an expert on education, I don't believe that girls ever lagged behind boys to the same extent that boys now lag behind girls.
I think that traditionally girls outperformed boys in reading, writing and languages while boys traditionally outperformed girls in maths and science by similar margins. In other words, the strengths and weaknesses were fairly even overall.
But in recent times girls have virtually closed the gap on boys in math and science, while girls have moved further ahead in reading, writing and languages. So the net result is that girls are much further ahead.
Feminists basically manufactured a girl crisis and used this as an excuse to stack things further in favour of girls and against boys.
Because men are nearly always judged more according to their earnings ability and success, we should if anything be more concerned with the performance of boys than girls.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:47 am
jeana Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
"Females control/influence about 85% of consumer spending. "
When I first heard someone say this (I think Pankaj), I immediately got defensive. Then I thought about it. And as I'm reading a fictional book, "Confessions of a Shopaholic", I can see myself in her.
I hate to admit that I think we do spend more. But SOMEONE has to keep this economy propped up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So having changed your view on this, you have now discovered that spending is a virtue rather than a vice.
Not only do women account for more private consumption, but women also consume more government-funded services. So overall women consume much more of society's resources than men do.
When it comes to keeping the economy going, stimulating the demand side is relatively easy. There are any number of ways you can stimulate demand. But increasing supply, or the productive side of the economy, is the hard bit.
Men produce most of society's wealth. Women consume most of it. So therefore men are the pampered, privileged gender while women are the downtrodden, oppressed gender. :-)
June 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
TS Says: - “What surprises me about the backlash against acknowledging the boy crisis in schools is that I have yet to see any good, valid reason for the hostile reaction. One would think that people were talking about booting girls out of schools altogether rather than trying to change the curriculum to better help boys learn. The response is so disproportionate that I have to think something else is driving it. Who knows what that might be.”
In all areas of inequality for men from prison/criminal justice reform to shared parenting/divorce court to education to sexual harassment/civil arena there is great hostility to anything that empathizes with men. It wouldn’t surprise you to think that those who promote hate against men are hostile to men or did you think that misandry was mostly about mere contempt for men?
AnonymousPamphleteer - I say to you…..What is more important self esteem or self confidence? Cuz our schools are big on the latter and weak on actual skills training. Our school teach everyone that someone else will do the work and you will tell em how to do it, but sine we want everyone to go to college and someone must do the work? How? Too many chefs and too few cooks?
And jeana, if men are the major producers and women the major consumers......who is needed more in a time of scarcity?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
jeana Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
"John,
I am not against a boys-only program that targets the unique needs of boys. Just not in math or science, because you already rule in those. I think girls-only programs were necessary before, but now that girls have caught up and in some cases surpassed boys, then I would have to agree that boys should also receive the help they need. "
The problem is, boys need boys-only programs because feminist groups have pushed so hard to have science teachers teach to the girls' learning styles. The goal of a school should not be to eliminate gender gaps, it should be to enable each student, regardless of gender, to reach his or her fullest potential. Spending more time effort and money on girls to eliminate the gap is sexist. That means they are slighting the entire spectrum of boys, from lower end to gifted, and retarding their progress. Not only that, it isn't even a zero-sum game. Since 92 when the Clinton administration pushed schools to fix the gender gap for girls (again, ignoring the more glaring reading gap for boys) the girls' test scores have gone up, but the aggregate scores have actually dropped because boys scores have fallen more than the girls' scores have risen.
Basically it comes down to the schools need to either free up (and require) teachers to teach to both genders equally in the classroom or free up the boys to take boys only classes.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hi Glenn,
In the same vein as the run of editorial cartoons that always show men as the culprits for pollution, I've noticed that whenever an extreme case of classroom discipline hits the news, the student being disciplined is a boy.
Here's a 9 year old boy in Oregon whose teacher taped him to his chair:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365740_taped05.html
June 6th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Aaron,
It is good to get the perspective of a man/father/teacher. I thought gender-only classes weren't good. But I know boys and girls learn differently. But each should have opportunities. Sometimes this is translated into girls-should-have-more. And having a son myself, I really don't think it's fair.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
jeana, i'm curious what have you come up against in trying to see that your boy gets good/fair treatment the way girls get special attention?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
VOTE REPUBLICAN......FEMINISTS VOTE DEMOCRATIC.....
June 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
# jeana Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
"Aaron,
It is good to get the perspective of a man/father/teacher. I thought gender-only classes weren't good. But I know boys and girls learn differently. But each should have opportunities. Sometimes this is translated into girls-should-have-more. And having a son myself, I really don't think it's fair."
Honestly, even teaching them the exact same way (scientific method - exploration) still worked really well. I'm not saying it should be done all the time, but in middle school it worked really well. I would even suggest adding 9-10 to that mix also. My biggest thing was the girls weren't as demure and the boys weren't as inclined to show off.
After sophomore year, most kids have learned to control their hormones just a bit better and they can and should be recombined for college prep/ vo tech classes.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Aaron...this is slightly off topic, but relevant. I'll keep it brief. One of favorite customers is a talented and committed elementary school teacher with two young sons of her own, and is a proponent of year round schooling, (10 on...3 off) at least in the primary years, and that boys would particularly benefit from such an overhaul. From her own experience, she believes that in the early going, girls have a bit (not much) of an advantage in retaining what they have learned, and that the long summer vacation has greater implications for boys in terms of retention.
(There is much more to her ideas...like the need to impart so much more to kids as the body of knowlege increases) but the idea of shorter but more frequent breaks is certainly worth exploring.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Annie Hunter,
Only about 3% of our entire nation still has an agricultural vocation, so does that mean we are ready to discard the agricutlrual calendar for our schools?
It should have happened a long time ago and it likely hurts girls as well as boys, though not necessarily in equal measure....
June 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
John,
I haven't noticed my son getting less attention than the girls. His teacher put him in an advanced reading class and he is in a speech class. Her evaluations of him show me that she is paying attention to him. I'm happy.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
men and boys deserve male only opportunities...but get none these days because it is seen as sexist...unlike females who get whatever they want...
June 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
john,
I'm not really sure that females get whatever they want, but I think boys and men should get what opportunities they need. I'm not sure male-only things are the way to go, but whatever works should be done.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
jeana, can you name organizations that are just for boys/men?...evertime i turn around theres some organization for women...women start their own business and get a tax break from the govt...men have 3 male only colleges women have 30...its everywhere...please educate me...i'd like to know if there are things out there just for helping male...
June 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
"# Annie Hunter Says:
June 8th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Aaron...this is slightly off topic, but relevant. I'll keep it brief. One of favorite customers is a talented and committed elementary school teacher with two young sons of her own, and is a proponent of year round schooling, (10 on...3 off) at least in the primary years, and that boys would particularly benefit from such an overhaul. From her own experience, she believes that in the early going, girls have a bit (not much) of an advantage in retaining what they have learned, and that the long summer vacation has greater implications for boys in terms of retention.
(There is much more to her ideas...like the need to impart so much more to kids as the body of knowlege increases) but the idea of shorter but more frequent breaks is certainly worth exploring."
Honestly, as a teacher I would love that. . I was lucky enough to teach in a small school (65 kids per grade level) and I had all seventh and 8th graders for two years so I knew them very well. I've never noticed a difference between boys and girls in the classes I've taught. It wouldn't surprise me though. Boys seem to worry about what's new or next to learn while girls do a better job of pure memorization. I do my best to push both genders toward a blend of both.
For anyone interested, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch just wrote a lovely article about the dwindling number of engineers. The female writer interviewed two female scientist/leaders saying we need more females in those areas. Isn't that how we got in the position of needing more engineers - by forgoing teaching all kids science and concentrating on the girls?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/8AD9F227D4F7470F86257464000B143D?OpenDocument
June 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Isn't that how we got in the position of needing more engineers - by forgoing teaching all kids science and concentrating on the girls?
Well, that is one theory...but I question its validity. We've raised three boys, two engineers following in Dad's footsteps, and one environmental science/natural resources major. I think we are teaching ALL kids science, and that post secondary girls are gravitating towards the biological sciences in unprecedented numbers. Just as the shortage of women in engineering can be put down to conscious choice, the overall shortage of engineers (yet to be established) may also be the product of conscious choices by post secondary boys.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:42 am
See, but you have a parent in that profession.
I know biology and vet science are heavily female, but the schools don't worry about getting more men in those professions, or any profession for that matter. They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to equalize the ratio of female engineers, while ignoring or even down right discouraging lower socio-economic boys, both of color and not, from even going to colleges. In fact, changing the ratio of engineers starts to work against the both the quality and quantity because you spend more money on ones that may or may not want to be there, thus taking it away from those that would do well.
It's like getting more oil. Yes we could spend millions to drill in Indiana and yes, you woudl find some small pockets of oil, but really the Gulf and ANWR would have greater yield at a lower cost. I'm not saying ignore or abandon the girls as they've done in the past or are doing to the boys now, but try to find the best engineers, regardless of gender. Just as drilling in the Gulf doesn't mean to stop drilling in Indiana, it means don't sink the majority of resources in Indiana.
Problem is, when it comes down to getting the lily white girls or the young black males, where do you think the schools put their energy? Where do the money and the votes come from? Suburban white girls picking majors is a matter of choice. Poor boys of any race getting into college is a matter of money - but the schools are giving more money and more time to the suburban white girls. If a white man says anything about it, he's being sexist.. If a black man says anything about it, well they don't have the money or power so it doesn't matter to the schools what they say.
There just aren't enough women that stand up for their own sons. They're too tied to the political feminist movement from when they were younger. It's starting to turn.. slowly, but how many generations of boys will we lose before we stop this active academic discrimination enabled by the passive maternal sexism?
I'll say it again - boys that thrive do so in spite of the educational system, not because of it.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:42 am
That the AAUW would deny the existence of an educational gap is par for the course. This is what advocacy agencies do: deny and confuse issues. As long as gender feminists- or others- think that all things can be resolved by the social engineering of results, "discrepancies" will be ignored, depending on whose entitlement group is in the lead.
So join another advocacy group instead- http://www.boysproject.net/index.html
Better yet start your own.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
But Aaron, if both sexes are receiving the same prep for science careers, and girls have stampeded into the biological sciences, then the (yet to be established) dearth of math and engineering majors cannot be put down to the choices of girls. If there is a void to be filled, and it is not about the choices of girls, it is fair to suggest that the choices of boys figure large.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
"But Aaron, if both sexes are receiving the same prep for science careers"
Key statement.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
is bill gates helping in the boys crisis?....why can't boys have their own math science organizations?
June 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
# Annie Hunter Says:
June 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
But Aaron, if both sexes are receiving the same prep for science careers, and girls have stampeded into the biological sciences, then the (yet to be established) dearth of math and engineering majors cannot be put down to the choices of girls. If there is a void to be filled, and it is not about the choices of girls, it is fair to suggest that the choices of boys figure large."
Yes, the key is that boys aren't getting the same opportunities in middle school or in high school and if they make it through that, the receive less funding in college. It's not about the choice by the girls, it's the disparity of opportunities the boys face. The minorities are especially hard hit. My son will have the chance to do what he wants because I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. Boys from lower the lower socio-economic classes don't have the money to pay for their own opportunities and then it's even more dramatic at the university level. THOSE are the boys that are being cheated the most. Remember, schools give those opportunities to rich white girls for free before they even allow the poor black boys to pay for them.
Basically what you're saying is blame the boys for not being engineers, but the problem is they aren't being given the chances. It's not a choice if you don't have a chance. Not only that, in a story about the falling number of engineers, suggesting a solution that over time has shown to be more of hindrance is irresponsible.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
"# john Says:
June 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
is bill gates helping in the boys crisis?....why can't boys have their own math science organizations?"
It's sexist.
Feminist groups throw a hissy fit over private mens' organizations (Augusta, Ms. Burke) I know they even tried getting the boy scouts banned from using the public schools here for a while, until someone pointed out a) the girl scouts also use the same venues for the same price and b) the boy scouts actually allow girls in older grades and female leaders, the girl scouts are sexist all the way through. On top of that, the Feminist groups are the ones fighting against students and their families having the OPTION of single gender education, but are completely OK with girls only education.
Gotta love it.