Top of Form 1

Logged in as: echidne (Logout

Bottom of Form 1

##

I will read, reread and digest this fastinating post over the next few days.

Until then, A Rule for Life. Anything that George Gilder says is too silly for serious people to take seriously. The man is a loon who has survived most of his adult life on the charity of right-wing crackpots who think he's a genius.
EPT |   | 01.22.06 - 5:25 pm | #

#

I like "fastinating"!
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 5:27 pm | #

#

And Christina Hoff Sommers is a fraud who can't hold the floor against real scientists who know what they're talking about. See her frantic call on the Diane Rehm show last winter, the show in which three real scientists pointed out that the only demonstrated difference in the mental abilities between the gender is a very small difference in the ability to imagine what a moving figure would look like in the imagination. This difference in AVERAGE scores was shown to be able to be corrected with training.

Hoff Sommers, frantic to protect her trade mark schtick, made a complete fool of her foolish self.

I'm not sure if the archieve of the show goes back far enough to provide it but I'll never forget the pleasure it gave me.
EPT |   | 01.22.06 - 5:31 pm | #

#

A goddess of the snakes couldn't ever be less than fastinating.
EPT |   | 01.22.06 - 5:32 pm | #

#

EPT is right-- George Gilder completely and permanently discredited himself in the 90s with his predictions that the high tech boom would continue indefinately:

Wired: Are the recent sky-high stock valuations a sign of prosperity, or madness?

Gilder: I don't think Internet valuations are crazy, I think they reflect a fundamental embrace of huge opportunities. Virtually all forecasts estimate something like a thousandfold rise in Internet traffic over the next five years. That means that if you are an Internet company today, you are dealing with only a tenth of 1 percent of your potential traffic in just a couple of years. In 10 years, at this rate, there would be a millionfold increase.


This is from a wired interview:

http://www.wired.com/wired/ archi...rophets_pr.html

But as usual the wingnuts have no shame, they'll just keep resurecting the losers if wingnuttia (see Bill Bennett and Oliver North).
Riesz Fischer |   | 01.22.06 - 5:43 pm | #

#

I used to read a lot of Gilder. He has actually mellowed somewhat over time. He used to be a very open woman-hater but now it's slightly disguised.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 5:57 pm | #

#

uh, that's of wingnuttia, of course.

And as far as women's rights are concerned, of course we have to fight the brownshirts tooth and nail, but I don't think they're going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

Now that we've had a taste of equality of the sexes (we're not there yet but we've come a long way) I can't see us going back. My doctor is a woman, there are woman managers at work, I've worked with woman engineers, I watch women athletes, and I just don't think the obedient kiss-asses of the right are going to be able to force the women back in the kitchen.

The thing that does worry me is abortion rights. If Stripsearch Sammy is confirmed I'm afraid we'll go back to the back alley abortions. The Fake Christians, who of course don't really value life, will be in a position to cause much unnecessary death and misery.
Riesz Fischer |   | 01.22.06 - 6:04 pm | #

#

Excellent commentary.
jawbone |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 6:49 pm | #

#

I was just watching NBC News (yeah, I'll have to jump in the shower in a minute) and they had a segment on the Boys in Chrisis, or whatever they're calling it. It was by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, and they are doing another segment tomorrow morning on Today.

I think it's clear this is part of an organized push by the right and I think we have to do something to counter it.
Riesz Fischer |   | 01.22.06 - 6:58 pm | #

#

Notice how it's a crisis if boys are having difficulty in reading and writing, but it's perfectly okay if girls are having difficulty in math and science. And pretty much if boys and men aren't monopolizing any particular field in any institution (unless it's a traditionally designated "feminine" field to begin with), then oh no, the shit has hit the fan and society will crumble! Women with doctorates and masters degrees won't be able to find husbands who will dump sperm in them, so they can-- at long glorious last-- be merry little Stepford wives, shielded from the big scary public sphere.....the sky is falling, ah!!! Please.....

Oh and I love that little tidbit; "women won't be able to find husbands." Yeah, that's women's sole purpose in life and while pursuing higher education. Yeah, men just pick up wives and children on the side, it's not such a big life-reaffirming thing for them, as it is for women according to the wingnuts. Ugh....what century is it again?
Pseudo-Adrienne |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 7:05 pm | #

#

Pseudo-Adrienne: Oh and I love that little tidbit; "women won't be able to find husbands." Yeah, that's women's sole purpose in life and while pursuing higher education.

Yeah, back in the 40s and 50s they used to say that women went to college to meet a husband. In fact that was considered humorous and ususally was accompanied by a condescending laugh.

The wingnuts pine for those "simpler times".
Riesz Fischer |   | 01.22.06 - 7:17 pm | #

#

Hey Riesz,

My stepmother actually became upset with me when I told her I had no desire to date while I'm in college and eventually law school. (And I've never been out on a date, save for the two high school proms I attended with some guy-friends.) I mean shit, what's the big deal?! I like books, taking the LSATs, and studying right now. That's my purpose in life thank you very much. And she really didn't have a room to talk about "going to college so you can meet a boy," since she's never went anyway. She's a stereotypical "Southern Belle," I'm afraid to say.

And I do care about boys succeeding in school. I have two nephews myself and I worry about them because every male in my family has a learning disability. But why does it have to turn into a "well it's girls' and feminists' fault, because girls are doing too well and feminists run everything." Yeah right.

Surely, there's a different and certainly a more productive way to confront this issue, without turning it into a conservative-wingnut screed against women earning professional degrees, and ultimately feminism.
Pseudo-Adrienne |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 7:29 pm | #

#

That is so brilliant that I have nothing to add to it, Goddess! Like a breath of fresh air.
Helga Fremlin |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 7:48 pm | #

#

"Notice how it's a 'crisis' if boys are having difficulty in reading and writing but it's perfectly ok if girls are having difficulty in math and science." Precisely, Pseudo-Adrienne.
And the exact same 'discussions' are taking place in Australia btw.
Helga Fremlin |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 7:53 pm | #

#

excellent post echidne

(If I may shamelessly plagerize a previous post of mine)

I find it endlessly ironic that many people who think that gender characteristics are so genetic that boys canít possibly learn to adapt also think that a bunch of female teachers are capable of making the schools more masculine. They must feel this way, or else more of them would be arguing to make schools more masculine by encouraging more men to work in elementary and early childhood education.

I care about how well boys are doing in school, too. The really frustrating part is that there's only so much women can do by ourselves. I can read more books meant for boys so I can make better recommendations for the boys that come into the store, but, as long as it's women that are at the bookstores and libraries, taking them to the bookstores and libraries*, and teaching them how to read in the first place, it's not going make more than a dent.

*I do see lots of great fathers come into the store. I have noticed, however, that they are almost never the parents asking me for help pushing their sons to read more.

I also request that my manager put more guys working in the kids section - although not as strongly as I possibly should.
Mickle |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 8:05 pm | #

#

I was just watching NBC News (yeah, I'll have to jump in the shower in a minute) and they had a segment on the Boys in Chrisis, or whatever they're calling it. It was by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, and they are doing another segment tomorrow morning on Today.

I think it's clear this is part of an organized push by the right and I think we have to do something to counter it.


I tried to e-mail Alter but can't find his real e-mail address anywhere. So I wrote a letter to the editor. A pointless exercize, unless done in large numbers.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 8:43 pm | #

#

As to the girls being described as "obedient little ciphers"- this reminds me of when I had a female dalmatian, and had more or less trained her. A man I know said- "oh, females are easier to train, they're more docile" and I thought- if he thought males were easier to train, he probably would have called them more intelligent, not more docile. Nobody was saying boys were better because they were more obedient, back in the day.
Elena |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 9:02 pm | #

#

Yeah, back in the 40s and 50s they used to say that women went to college to meet a husband. In fact that was considered humorous and ususally was accompanied by a condescending laugh.

Heck, my parents were still telling me that in the 60's. "Of course you're going to college, how else do you expect to find a husband?"
deja pseu |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 10:11 pm | #

#

Why must They always compare boys unfavorably at the expense of girls? Why can't they compare boys year over year to previous studies that show an increase/decrease/flatline on their grades? Why is it necessary to blame girls and feminists for the failure of the boys AND THEIR PARENTS?

Why don't we hear from the parents of the girls that talk about what they're doing to help their daughters be successful? What aren't the boys' families doing?

In my personal experience, I've been working on teaching my daughter to read. You see, *I* like to read. My SIL isn't teaching her son. Instead, they're focusing on sports. So will it be my feminist fault that my nephew can't read when he goes to kindergarten while my daughter can?

Hmmm....Quick! Study me!
Arachne |   | 01.22.06 - 10:13 pm | #

#

I find it interesting,(but somewhat sad), that the rhetoric here about this issue is couched in the same terms as the rhetoric about female dysphoria caused by discrimination was couched in a few decades ago. It was considered a "left wing feminist plot" etc.etc. It was in fact an attempt to give women the opportunity to achieve whatever their talents would allow. It is not finished but there has been progress. Now, all politics aside, a problem in the education of boys has been brought to the attention of the public and I read the same kind of harsh comments here and now that I heard "there and then". I suppose such stridency will always be part of the landscape but it adds nothing to solving a very human problem.

As for more male teachers in the elementary schools; imagine yourself walking into your daughter's second grade class and you find her being hugged by Mr. Smith. Is your first thought, "What a caring man." or is it "He might be a molester." That is why there are no males willing to risk their careers in elementary schools.
Terry |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 10:15 pm | #

#

As has been mentioned before, there's also a substantial segment of the population that believes that reading and other intellectual pursuits are "sissified" compared to more manly endeavors like watching NASCAR or sacking the opposing team's quarterback. And it's not like their sons are picking up on that attitude or anything.
deja pseu |   | Email | 01.22.06 - 10:17 pm | #

#

Now, all politics aside, a problem in the education of boys has been brought to the attention of the public and I read the same kind of harsh comments here

In my post? I address what I see as false definitions of the problem, point out where the real problem lies (to do with race and income) and present some additional evidence which is not taken into account in analyzing the problem.

What I feel harsh about is the zero-sum game that is used to present this problem, the attempt to argue that the total is a fixe cake and we must give more of that cake to boys than to girls. And that is what the right wing wants to achieve.

The problem is real, but it is not one related to girls. That is where the harshness arises from, if there is any.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 10:24 pm | #

#

As for more male teachers in the elementary schools; imagine yourself walking into your daughter's second grade class and you find her being hugged by Mr. Smith. Is your first thought, "What a caring man." or is it "He might be a molester." That is why there are no males willing to risk their careers in elementary schools.

But it's not very realistic to assume that all males are molesters. Is that what people do? Seems sexist to me.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 10:24 pm | #

#

Echidne, thanks so much for these posts. Despite somewhat unequal rates of participation (and those numbers don't look overly skewed to me, actually, in aggregate, when you compare them to the population at large) in postsecondary education, it's still a very gendered experience.

My students last term, who were in the "Business Marketing" program, were almost universally (self?) streamed by gender. The men all wanted to go into management or sales, and the women all wanted to go into marketing or PR. I'd really like to see someone do a discussion of the "gendering" of occupations, and the actual numbers of participants (broken down by gender) in those jobs.

Case in point, I'm willing to bet that most people think of technical writing (my profession) as "masculine," but the last statistics I've seen (1999) indicate it's vastly female-dominated.
Interrobang |   | Email | Homepage | 01.22.06 - 10:47 pm | #

#

"Why must They always compare boys unfavorably at the expense of girls? Why can't they compare boys year over year to previous studies that show an increase/decrease/flatline on their grades?"

I do have to say that this isn't as easy as it sounds, especially when it comes to the lower grades. Standards have changed a lot, so comparing actual grades or test scores doesn't really help. What does help is knowing that only boys (on average) have fallen behind, despite higher standards. 'Course, as Echidne pointe out, it's really just lower class and minority boys.

And Terry, I second what Echidne said about men in elementary school classrooms. In fact, I think the fact that we can't imagine that boys and men could possibly be nice without an ulterior motive is connected to why boys are falling behind in reading, above and beyond the fact that it means fewer male teachers. It's also not as if men never teach elementary school. I know quite a few.
Mickle |   | Email | Homepage | 01.23.06 - 1:32 am | #

#

Great commentary. As a mother of boys I worry that they'll be able to excel at school a lot (oldest starts next year). At the same time, I get really annoyed by the, "isn't it terrible that girls are doing so well and who will they marry" sentiment.

I figure we can work on any learning issues that come up when the kids are in school, but if I raise boys who only want to marry a stupid woman, I'll really have been a failure.
Staci |   | Email | Homepage | 01.23.06 - 1:43 pm | #

#

Don't agree with the folks at all, but I will sport them the need to bring physical exercise back into the school day.
NotThatMo |   | Email | 01.23.06 - 2:50 pm | #

#

Ummm...speaking of wingnuts...I guess this qualifies as leftwingnut ranting.

Do you have kids? NO? I thought not. I am a woman with more letters after my name than I care to count, with over 27 years of formal education. I guess you might say that I am all in favor of educational opportunity for women. I happen to have a daughter and a son and I have seen, firsthand, the discrimination against my son. I was obliged to remove him from public school and he is now homeschooled (at great personal sacrifice). My daughter remains in public school, which seems to have been designed just for her. Now my kids can both flourish.

Yes, males and females are different well before birth. (One of my several degrees is an MD, so I can say this with confidence) I am sick and tired of my child being disrespected for who and what he is. I will teach him that he must never apologize for who he is and never succumb to self-loathing. I will teach my daughter the same thing.

The elevation of one people group must NEVER take place upon the backs of another people group. We never ascend by tearing down. THAT is what is happening now. We need to be humble enough to admit the problem and move forward.
a chai |   | Email | 01.24.06 - 10:32 am | #

#

Well girls and guys I agree with the article mostly, sorry.
And I'm a on the left definitley.
Who cares who they cite if they are saying trou things? let's not lose our critical eye here.
I have boys and girls and there is a difference in how they adjust to school, and hear a lot of comments along these lines from fellow parents with both gender kids, and I frequent mostly academics people (me and wife work for universities and that's our social circle) with normal families, so no race, income or "unusual" families. My experience is that there is something wrong with the public school system in the US, I don't know if it's feminism, post feminism or whatever, it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately we had to move the kids to a more "liberal" (pass me the term) school, more art, music, recess, PE. The kids clearly benefitted, it's sad that we had to abandon the public school system because this is always a failure in my head but on the other hand you cannot play with your kids lives.
If you consider Montessori or waldorf school methods you'll see that they are much more centered on the growing and learning PROCESS than on the notions themselves like unfortunately public schools are, for the system now only the grades are important and to achieve these you just have to "know" things not to learn things, there is a big difference. For sure no child left behind is not helping and it actually goes in the wrong direction big time. And this president has two daughters, which doesn't help either I think.
ciao, Ale
alessandro biglioli |   | Email | 01.24.06 - 10:37 am | #

#

The story never changes. It is always about a fixed education cake and who can get most of it. If girls are doing better it must be hurting boys. That, my dear readers, is the hidden right-wing agenda. Because the wingnuts want to segregate girls and boys in education so that they can bring up "manly and godly" men. Segregated education would also make it a lot easier to give girls' classes less resources and stuff. And I do suspect that there are wingnuts who really would love to see women uneducated so that the "bare-foot and in the kitchen" part would be easier.

So tell me again why there are all these women's colleges?
Tony |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 10:56 am | #

#

What I feel harsh about is the zero-sum game that is used to present this problem, the attempt to argue that the total is a fixe cake and we must give more of that cake to boys than to girls. And that is what the right wing wants to achieve.

But as soon as someone suggests that we segregate classrooms, to give both boys and girls "the kind of cake they need", you start spouting the "discrimination of separate but equal" rhetoric.

I'd like to suggest that maybe separate classrooms can be beneficial to both boys and girls if you can get away from the black helicopter paranoia that this is some "wingnut plot" to subjugate girls.

This is why home schooling is becoming such an attractive option to many. If you have a litte girl or boy, you can teach them in exactly the way they need to be taught.

This is frightening for the moonbats. Since they are so much less fecund than the "wingnuts whose women pop out kids and stay docily in the kitchen" the only way to produce new moonbats is to force wingnut kids into the current moonbat indoctrination stations.

This isn't all public education. We have a very good school where I live, but it's well out of the urban centers. We don't have the epidemic of poisoning little boys with Ritalin because they're not behaving like girls, or putting them in detention because they pointed their finger like a gun and when "bang" while playing "cowboys and indians" on the playground. (Whoops make that "cowboys and native americans")
Tony |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 11:14 am | #

#

"The Trouble with Boys" can be summarized as stating that the author believes boys are a different species from girls, need totally different things to thrive at school, and feminism has made the American schools into a place where only girls can strive."

Well sure it can be, if you want to misrepresent it that is. A different species? Need totally different things? Citations, please? 'Feminism' is to blame for everything? Ahem. Did whole sections of this article pass you by? e.g.:

"Boys have always been boys, but the expectations for how they're supposed to act and learn in school have changed. In the last 10 years, thanks in part to activist parents concerned about their children's success, school performance has been measured in two simple ways: how many students are enrolled in accelerated courses and whether test scores stay high. Standardized assessments have become commonplace for kids as young as 6. Curricula have become more rigid. Instead of allowing teachers to instruct kids in the manner and pace that suit each class, some states now tell teachers what, when and how to teach. At the same time, student-teacher ratios have risen, physical education and sports programs have been cut and recess is a distant memory.



For goodness' sake, there is plenty to argue about here, and I certainly wouldn't claim that the issue is cut-and-dried. But is it dishonesty or the simple carelessness of speaking too long to a closed audience that makes you produce straw men like this?
Alan Allport |   | Email | 01.24.06 - 11:21 am | #

#

Thank you for your post and for taking the time to examine the numbers more closely. Any time I read something like this, it reminds me of what my debate coach taught me way back in high school. "If you read somewhere that says 4 out of 5 doctors agreeon something, ask yourself what that really means. Did the people collecting the data only talk to 5 doctors? And who are these doctors? If this is a medical issue, were they talking to specialists in that field, or any doctors they could find? And who do those doctors work for? Could they have political or monetary reasons for their comments?" Since then, I haven't much trusted any statistics I've come across to give a complete picture.

We homeschool now, but when my children were in public school three years ago, my son breezed through all his classes without issue, and my daughter struggled with everything. There may be some parents facing bias against their sons, but I assure you there are also parents who are facing the reverse.

If I had to go out on a limb here, I'd say the real problem with the education of boys lies in the fact that there is no such thing as a "Math Hero" or a "Football Geek". No school that I've ever heard of launches its Academic Decathlon team off to a tournament with a rousing pep-rally. The marching band and cheerleaders and mascot don't show up for the chess team's big meet either, right? I really have nothing against sports, but I think as long as schools breed a culture were the athletically gifted boys are adored and the academically gifted boys are scorned, there won't be any reason - at least in boys' minds - to do well in the classroom.
Jenni |   | 01.24.06 - 11:35 am | #

#

If the teachers portray any of the angry attitude I've read in your blog and in some of the comments of your readers, then it's no wonder the boys are doing so badly in school. I've had personal experience, a boy and a girl, both in high school. My daughter is encouraged and "petted" to perform to her best ability. My son is asked to sit at the back of the class with the other boys because the teacher finds all the boys up front to be distracting to her teaching. I think this blog has lead me to the real problem. There are too many teachers who exhibit the same charactistics as the author of this blog. My daughter will graduate in the top 2% of her class "because" of the teachers. My son will graduate in the top 30% of his class "in spite" of the teachers. Not right wing, not left wing, just middle America making a truthful observation.
Jane |   | Email | 01.24.06 - 11:42 am | #

#

(Where are all of these women's colleges?) As the mother of a son and daughter with some experience with both public and religious private school (we don't belong to the religion, it was just the most convenient), I agree with Echidne. This is anecdotal, but the main problem we have experienced in our otherwise excellent local schools is a lack of adequate math education in the early elementary grades. I observe there are differences in the rate of physical (and I believe mental) maturation between boys and girls and between individual children, and the differences are most pronounced at certain grades (K-2 and middle school). Most teachers and kids here seem to take it in stride, but I sometimes wish there could be a little extra flexibility or range in expectations and opportunities during those years.
Cynthia |   | 01.24.06 - 12:19 pm | #

#

I really have nothing against sports, but I think as long as schools breed a culture were the athletically gifted boys are adored and the academically gifted boys are scorned, there won't be any reason - at least in boys' minds - to do well in the classroom.

Excellent point, Jenni. Thanks. Sort of like the problem in the African American community with disdain for those "acting white" (which includes excelling in school)
Tony |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 3:07 pm | #

#

A point mentioned higher up the thread: the current politically-based trend in teaching to the test.

When I was enjoying my secondary education in the late70s/early 80s, I entered high school having undergone zero standardised tests and having precisely 2 standardised tests to look forward to - the School Certificate in Year 10 and the Higher School Certificate in Year 12 (NSW Australia). The SC and HSC were certainly treated as important valuations, particularly if one wished to go on to tertiary education, but not as life and death. Teachers had a great deal of flexibility in the lower years to emphasise teaching to the strengths and bolstering the weaknesses of individual students.

My children are now completing primary education (my son starts high school this year, my daughter next year), and they have already been subjected to 2 govt. mandated standardised tests in Years 3 and 5. The politicians imposed this on the schools because of a supposed need for "accountability" in education for the benefit of parents.

Utter bollocks. I resent the time stolen from my kids' actual education that was required to be spent on training them to regurgitate for these tests.

I also suspect that these sort of tests very much skew against poorer kids with less educated parents, and that the slight verbal advantages of girls are magnified in poorer families because middle-class educated families do more verbal modelling, so middle-class boys are better coached in verbal areas. If teachers weren't hamstrung by having to teach to the test, they could do more to help the kids (not all of them boys) having difficulties.

If you standardise-test kids at a younger and younger age with public reporting, then the kids with poor results get discouraged at an earlier age, with knock-on effects for the rest of their schooling. Add that in with hamstringing traditional teacher flexibility in covering the curriculum, and you have a system that is almost guaranteed to disadvantage lower-class kids generally, and lower-class boys especially.

I somehow don't see the politicians scrapping the tests any time soon though.
tigtog |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 3:42 pm | #

#

For goodness' sake, there is plenty to argue about here, and I certainly wouldn't claim that the issue is cut-and-dried. But is it dishonesty or the simple carelessness of speaking too long to a closed audience that makes you produce straw men like this?

Heh. I write sarcasm, Alan. I don't have a major magazine to write in, so my straw men are not as dangerous as their straw women. I'm pointing several glaring biases and omissions in this post, biases and omissions that NEVER get addressed in the mainstream coverage. This is not the first post I have written on the topic, not even the second or the third one, and I have also written umpteen letters to the creators of these shows and to the writers of these articles, but none of that has any effect at all. Every year, usually in the early spring, we get another go-around with the same right-wing talking points and with no real education experts. I'm not an education expert, by the way.

So the anger comes from that: people who think like I do are totally ignored today. And repeating the same rational and nicely written post does nothing. After a while one gets very angry and writes a little bit more forcefully.

People like Michael Gurian want to do much nastier things than I do. I want fairness and equality, but he wants male supremacy. Yet, because he smiles people will listen to him. Perhaps I will write a really loving post which covers something nasty.

But you do have a point, of course, when it comes to debates. Get me interviewed in these articles and on the television shows. Better still, get some real education experts in.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 5:57 pm | #

#

What I feel harsh about is the zero-sum game that is used to present this problem, the attempt to argue that the total is a fixe cake and we must give more of that cake to boys than to girls. And that is what the right wing wants to achieve.

But as soon as someone suggests that we segregate classrooms, to give both boys and girls "the kind of cake they need", you start spouting the "discrimination of separate but equal" rhetoric.

I'd like to suggest that maybe separate classrooms can be beneficial to both boys and girls if you can get away from the black helicopter paranoia that this is some "wingnut plot" to subjugate girls.

This is why home schooling is becoming such an attractive option to many. If you have a litte girl or boy, you can teach them in exactly the way they need to be taught.


Tony, having separate classrooms doesn't make the cake flexible. It all comes from the same budget, still.
Indeed, sex-segregated education would be much more expensive because smaller schools would need more teachers and all schools would find offering extras more expensive because they'd have to offer two classes of each extra. It's not going to happen on a wide scale for money reasons, whatever your desires might be.

But I find it interesting that you are for it and homeschooling for the reasons of maintaining patriarchy.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 6:04 pm | #

#

If you have a litte girl or boy, you can teach them in exactly the way they need to be taught.

But every little girl or boy is an individual and what they need to be taught is not necessarily something that can be predicted by looking into their underpants.

Even if there are average differences in the tendency of maturation or in the best teaching methods by sex, it might be the case that one method is best for, say, 60% of boys and 40% of girls. But you would give it to ALL the boys and NONE of the girls.

My forays into reading research literature in the original have warned me that lots of findings are of this type, but then they are popularized into "all boys do this" and "all girls do that".

Then there is the whole question whether the parents are always the best judges on this issue. Consider an abusive and sadistic parent and a child who now can never leave the house.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 6:12 pm | #

#

Heh. I write sarcasm, Alan.

I presume this is a sort of get-out clause that is meant to render you immune to charges of misrepresentation - the old wherzyasensayuma? excuse. Well, sure. But if you abandon the burden or writing honestly then you also forfeit the right to be taken seriously.
Alan Allport |   | Email | 01.24.06 - 8:43 pm | #

#

I presume this is a sort of get-out clause that is meant to render you immune to charges of misrepresentation - the old wherzyasensayuma? excuse. Well, sure. But if you abandon the burden or writing honestly then you also forfeit the right to be taken seriously.

Spend some time reading my blog. I'm extremely honest. Even Tony admits that. If abandoning the burden of writing honestly would mean that one is not taken seriously then none of us should pay any attention to the right-wing ideologues who write on this topic constantly and dishonestly.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 9:08 pm | #

#

But I find it interesting that you are for it and homeschooling for the reasons of maintaining patriarchy.

If by "maintaining patriarchy" you mean not pussifying the boys (or drugging them into submission), I have to agree with you.

This is why homeshooling is critical.
Tony |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 10:31 pm | #

#

But every little girl or boy is an individual and what they need to be taught is not necessarily something that can be predicted by looking into their underpants.

This seems to be a recurring feminist theme, that girls are simply boys with vaginas.

Or as one of the quotes in the article: "Boys are simply defective girls".
Tony |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 10:33 pm | #

#

If by "maintaining patriarchy" you mean not pussifying the boys

This is very insulting to me. Goodbye, Tony. I would prefer it if you no longer post here.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 11:02 pm | #

#

Or as one of the quotes in the article: "Boys are simply defective girls".

Which do you think most parents waiting for the birth of a child would like to have, a boy or a girl? Which gender do you think has been found defective by the famous writers of your religion? Which gender is not wanted, much, in some countries of this world?

And if boys are so biologically different from girls, why is it necessary to make sure that they are educated to reinforce that difference? If it is all biological, what does it matter how the schools are run? Don't the wingnuts (your people, Tony) always tell us that feminism is futile because biology dictates the differences in gender roles and women's subjugation, or religions do the same thing? You can't have it both ways, you know.

I wish you a happy life with nary a woman in sight.
Echidne of the snakes |   | Email | Homepage | 01.25.06 - 7:09 am | #

#

If by "maintaining patriarchy" you mean not pussifying the boys~tony

This is very insulting to me. Goodbye, Tony. I would prefer it if you no longer post here.
Echidne of the snakes


This is extremely insulting to me, as well, Echidne. Thank you for banning him and his misogynistic posts.
A. Nonymuss |   | 01.25.06 - 8:18 am | #

#

I'm extremely honest.

Yes, and I'm sure if you were Peg Tyre of Newsweek and someone 'summarized' your article with the same level of candor then I imagine you'd be every bit as evenminded about it.
Alan Allport |   | Email | 01.25.06 - 9:42 am | #

#

You might find this interesting. It is a bit of a smoking gun explaining the current situation:

Girls Education

I agree that balance and not gender segregation is the answer.
Stephen |   | Homepage | 01.25.06 - 5:08 pm |