If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... 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 The Duke University study published in 2005 entitled Assessing Gilligan vs. Sommers: Gender-Specific Trends in Child and Youth Well-Being in the United States, 1985 to 2001. The study is based on 28 child well-being indicators. Of the 28 indicators, 6 are equivalent for boys and girls. Of the remaining 22 indicators, 17 favor girls and 5 favor boys. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
"Hyerdahl" wrote .................................. 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. === Really? When did you wrap up your inquiry of EVERY study of boy/girl bias in school? === |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... 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 The Duke University study published in 2005 entitled Assessing Gilligan vs. Sommers: Gender-Specific Trends in Child and Youth Well-Being in the United States, 1985 to 2001. The study is based on 28 child well-being indicators. Of the 28 indicators, 6 are equivalent for boys and girls. Of the remaining 22 indicators, 17 favor girls and 5 favor boys. And, in an example of just how deep-rooted the tendancy to advocate for girls over boys really is, I recall there was some controversy over Duke's press release regarding this study. The data clearly showed that girls were at the advantage and boys were at the disadvantage, yet the press release decided to ignore the data and trumpeted a contrary conclusion. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... 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. === It is very relevent. Having a multicultural family, I grew quite frustrated with white high school officials telling me that there was no racial discrimination in the school, which flew in the face of the reality of the black kids in the school. === |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
"JayR" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... 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 The Duke University study published in 2005 entitled Assessing Gilligan vs. Sommers: Gender-Specific Trends in Child and Youth Well-Being in the United States, 1985 to 2001. The study is based on 28 child well-being indicators. Of the 28 indicators, 6 are equivalent for boys and girls. Of the remaining 22 indicators, 17 favor girls and 5 favor boys. And, in an example of just how deep-rooted the tendancy to advocate for girls over boys really is, I recall there was some controversy over Duke's press release regarding this study. The data clearly showed that girls were at the advantage and boys were at the disadvantage, yet the press release decided to ignore the data and trumpeted a contrary conclusion. That's correct. And the use of language in the debate twists the reality that girls are routinely favored over boys. Take for instance "gender-sensitive programs" really means programs to favor girls at the expense of boys. "Girl crisis" really is feminist speak used to demand special rights, treatment, and favoritism for girls. The "Women's Education Equity Act" really means Congress has passed legislation favorable to women even though more women complete high school and college than men. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
Hyerdahl wrote:
I'm not sure how that would be relevant to this particular discussion, but I have three sons and no daughters. Cool then you can easily see how society denies boys EQUAL expression of feelings in fact boys to men are programmed to supress their feelings. However, at one point in my life I did teach school, and noticed the kinds of discrimination against girls, first hand. Girls are permitted to be girls at the expense of boys feelings, emotions, expressing themselves so you bet little Jimmy plays bad. 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. Girls are permitted to be girls at the expense of boys feelings, emotions, expressing themselves so you bet little Jimmy plays bad. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote: wrote: Hon, our daughters are not responsible for the bad behavior of our sons; it's just that simple. 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. This stance surely is as unjust as it gets. Girls wear provocative clothing precisely because it turns boys on. No, girls wear clothing to please THEMSELVES, but even if girls have other motivations we don't put girls in bee-keeper suits in order that boys don't need to control themselves. Each of us is totally responsible for our own behavior, no matter what a person wears. They practice that ability to arouse boys from adolescence. So, when their ploys work as designed, who can fault the boys for becoming aroused? Male arousal is really none of my concern. Each person is totally responsible for their own self control and that includes arousal. Granted, boys need to learn proper ways of letting girls know that they're aroused by their appearance or demeanor. Merely giving boys license to grope or make lude remarks won't help address the tension. Boys can't BE boys at the expense of everyone else, Orlando. So, you're right that we DON'T give boys special rights to make lude remarks in school or to grope. And even if it did "address the tension" girls don't owe boys sex. It's just that simple. Boys must control themselves, and their daddy's too. However, forcing boys to become asexual around girls while girls prance around in revealing clothing seems entirely unfair and biased. Now you're being ridiculous. Schools can and do impose dress codes; if the school says no belly buttons showing, that can be implimented. If you want a dress code at your son's school, go to the school board. See what can be done. But don't expect girls to dress a certain way just so your son won't be turned on. It's not going to happen. And outside of school, i.e at malls or movies, etc. girls can wear pretty much what they like. And again, boys can't trample the rights of girls just because they can't find self control. If attire is supposed to be modest, then that modesty should apply to both genders. If not, then the consequence of certain attire must be accepted. No, Orlando....groping is against the law no matter how turned on your son is. So no, laddish behavior is not going to be accepted, and if you look at the current court cases on schoolhouse sexual harassment,you will see I'm correct. Orlando |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In gender wars, advocates for boys battle back
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | October 19th 05 05:36 AM |
HOW MEN ARE PUT DOWN AND HOW TO GET BACK UP! | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | October 3rd 05 04:34 PM |
| Most families *at risk* w CPS' assessment tools broad, vague | Kane | General | 13 | February 20th 04 06:02 PM |
Sarah Key's huge balls (also: Kids can SQUAT motionless for hours) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 2 | August 4th 03 10:24 PM |