In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back

Gini wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/13348609.htm
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
BY RICK MONTGOMERY
KANSAS CITY, Mo.

(edit most of article)

"When girls were thought to be hurting in schools, the approach was to
change the schools," said boys advocate Manthey. "When it's boys who are
in
trouble, people say, `Change the boy.'"

When girls were being shortchanged in schools, it was because of
discrimination against girls. They discovered that girls were not
getting as much teacher attention, time on computers and sports
funding. Boys are NOT facing discrimination.
===
Really? How many boys do you have on which to base this conclusion?

I'm not sure how that would be relevant to this particular discussion,
but I have three sons and no daughters. However, at one point in my
life I did teach school, and noticed the kinds of discrimination
against girls, first hand. Even today, if you walk into most K-6
classrooms, the boys desks (especially the boys who disrupt the
classroom) are placed closer to the teacher, taking up even more of the
teacher's time that might go to less disruptive students. There is
talk of having some separate sex education and as long as the girls get
equal funding, it is my impression that it would be a win for girls.


===

wrote:

How can u say "Boys are NOT facing discrimination." and actually
believe it?

Discrimination requires some action; girls and women are NOT
discriminating against boys in the classroom. There has been not one
single study showing discrimination against boys.


Girls can go to schools dressed as hookers with their boobs on display
(not to mention their panties) and if a boy notices these things (which
is normal for a heterosexual boy), he's automatically branded a
potential sexual predator.

Girls have traditionally worn dresses to school which has subjected
them to actions by boys like 'dress up' days so boys could see their
undies. Of course, boys can no longer BE boys at the expense of
others, so today, yes....such a pervert would be branded a pervert.
And, if the school wants to set a dress policy, I have no particular
objection to that as long as it is gender neutral......i.e. that girls
can wear pants if they like, etc.

He's the one with the problem, not the undressed girl. And why
parents let their daughters dress so scantily is another discussion
altogether.

Hon, our daughters are not responsible for the bad behavior of our
sons; it's just that simply. If you are concerned about the rising of
your son's penis, in America, you can't make the girls wear bee-keeper
suits. He has to control his own behavior. Those who can't control
themselves often seek control over others.

I have a normal active son. Boys don't sit around all the time and play
tea party.

Nor need they. No one is making them. If you don't like the school
curriculum your son has, go to another school or change it from within.
But I can assure you that boys will get no special perks there, just
because some of them are incapable of studying.

They like to run about and need more physical activity because they
have testosterone.

Little boys don't have that much testosterone, normally. In fact, most
little pre-teen girls are bigger, stronger and more mature than boys of
the same age. If you don't like your sons being schoold with your
daughters, I have absolutely zero objection to you putting him in an
all boy school, with equal funding going to the all girl schools. But
I don't think you're really up for that.

It's a physiological fact. I removed my son from a school because they
didn't allow the kids access to a playground, which is detrimental to
girls but disastrous for boys.

I would have removed girls or boys from such a school. Elementary
school age children all need large muscle activities.

They need to get rid of that energy by running around and climbing on
the monkey bars.

Sure, so do the girls. Even when kids simply get tired in the
afternoon, after a long morning of math and history, etc. it's good to
go for a 'runround'.

I always look for high energy or strenous activities for him, like
hockey, soccer, football, swimming, running, etc.

There's not a thing wrong with that. My sister sent her daughter to
tennis camp, gymnastics and Tai Quan Do. They all need physical
activity.

It's amazing when you look at the stats about ritalin use and ADHD.
Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with the disorder and be
prescribed the drug. I'm lucky enough to have a great pediatrician who
tells me my son is a normal active boy who is STILL maturing. Other
parents aren't so fortunate to get good advice.

There's no law FORCING parents to put their kids on Ritalin. However,
many parents who can't afford a one-on-one education for their kid,
chooses Ritilin over not being able to have that child in school. A
child who is too disruptive to the other children will be removed and
sent to a classroom with other difficult kids. That's ok too, but then
no one in that room will be getting a top notch education.

I'm not looking for special rights for him, but I will fight tooth and
nail against anyone who tries to undermine his learning because of his
sex.

There is not ONE STUDY showing discrimination against boys in
school....not one. But you are free to believe there is discrimination
if you like. Even here you have not been able to show how you think
your son has faced discrimination.

wrote:

I seriously hope you don't need clarification about testosterone.

I don't see how testosterone is relevant to a post regarding special
rights for boys.
Having testosterone certainly does not imply that special rights be
provided or how boys face discrimination.

Just as I did, talk to doctors, counselors, and do your research. Or
better yet, go to your schools, especially middle and high, and see how
many boys are in special ed as opposed to boys. Let me tell you it is
rare that I meet parents of a boy who haven't been told that their son
needs ritalin or a similar drug.

Parents CHOOSE whether or not to place a child on Ritilan....it is a
parent's choice, and schools choose to sideline children who are
disruptive in class. It certainly is not fair to other students if
their education is being denied by the disruptive actions of one or two
students. The school cannot force your child to have Ritilin, but
the can do what is best for the other students.

wrote:

I seriously hope you don't need clarification about testosterone.

I don't see how testosterone is relevant to a post regarding special
rights for boys.
Having testosterone certainly does not imply that special rights be
provided or how boys face discrimination.

Just as I did, talk to doctors, counselors, and do your research. Or
better yet, go to your schools, especially middle and high, and see how
many boys are in special ed as opposed to boys. Let me tell you it is
rare that I meet parents of a boy who haven't been told that their son
needs ritalin or a similar drug.

Parents CHOOSE whether or not to place a child on Ritilan....it is a
parent's choice, and schools choose to sideline children who are
disruptive in class. It certainly is not fair to other students if
their education is being denied by the disruptive actions of one or two
students. The school cannot force your child to have Ritilin, but
the can do what is best for the other students.

Your ignorance and lack of reading skills is apparent.

On 9 Dec 2005 08:03:13 -0800, "Hyerdahl" wrote:

When girls were being shortchanged in schools, it was because of
discrimination against girls. They discovered that girls were not
getting as much teacher attention, time on computers and sports
funding. Boys are NOT facing discrimination. They have an equal
playing field in school already.

Total bull**** lie, as usual from hyperdung. Any casual look will
uncover that, you fool. The attitudes in schools and colleges are so
anti-male that we're approaching a 60/40 enrollment ratio, you
asswipe.

Viking wrote:
On 9 Dec 2005 08:03:13 -0800, "Hyerdahl" wrote:

When girls were being shortchanged in schools, it was because of
discrimination against girls. They discovered that girls were not
getting as much teacher attention, time on computers and sports
funding. Boys are NOT facing discrimination. They have an equal
playing field in school already.

Total bull**** lie, as usual from hyperdung. Any casual look will
uncover that, you fool. The attitudes in schools and colleges are so
anti-male that we're approaching a 60/40 enrollment ratio, you
asswipe.

So...show us a STUDY or scientific data showing how boys are facing
rampant invideous discrimination in school. "Attitudes", however are
very hard to show, as you know when it comes to showing how men
discriminate against women in the workplace. Hmmmmm

On 9 Dec 2005 12:55:06 -0800, "Hyerdahl" wrote:

Discrimination requires some action; girls and women are NOT
discriminating against boys in the classroom. There has been not one
single study showing discrimination against boys.

A) Not true, asswipe. I've read such studies in the paper. Look them
up before making that claim. B) Even if there were no such studies,
that does NOT prove there is no dicrimination, you moron. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

On 9 Dec 2005 13:15:36 -0800, "Hyerdahl" wrote:

So...show us a STUDY or scientific data showing how boys are facing
rampant invideous discrimination in school. "Attitudes", however are
very hard to show, as you know when it comes to showing how men
discriminate against women in the workplace. Hmmmmm

I've already posted on this in this thread to you, timewaster dog****.
You're making the claim there is no discrimination, you back it up,
asshole. And even if there were no such studies, that obviously does
not prove there is no discrimination, you moron. As I've already said,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you timewaster
dog****.

You're the one making the claim that boys face no discrimination in
school with is pathetically laughable. OK, you believe that, prove it.

On 9 Dec 2005 12:59:27 -0800, "Hyerdahl" wrote:


wrote:

I seriously hope you don't need clarification about testosterone.

I don't see how testosterone is relevant to a post regarding special
rights for boys.
Having testosterone certainly does not imply that special rights be
provided or how boys face discrimination.

Quit stalling, moron. Not even you can be so dense to have
misunderstood the OP's point.