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.

"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?
===

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.

"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.
===

"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.

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.

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

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. Even I, totally blind,
felt enormous pressure not to sexualize girls in high school, all the
while also feeling nearly unbearable cultural pressure to get it on
already! So, what gives? If boys are taught that they'd better start
having as much sex as possible in their youth, but are repeatedly
exhorted not to come on to girls, where's this sex supposed to come
from? A casual perusal of younger oriented sites like OkCupid and
Craigslist reveals that today's young, middle to upper class White women
feel no desire to be tied down too soon, sexually or romantically. This
means that they're essentially looking for male buddies who will
entertain them, take them out to cool indie movies, concerts and the
like, all the while wanting neither sex nor much of a romantic
commitment. This is why so few of these women are married in their
thirties.

Orlando

wrote:
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.

This stance surely is as unjust as it gets. Girls wear provocative
clothing precisely because it turns boys on. They practice that ability
to arouse boys from adolescence. So, when their ploys work as designed,
who can fault the boys for becoming aroused? 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. However, forcing boys to
become asexual around girls while girls prance around in revealing
clothing seems entirely unfair and biased. 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.

Orlando

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

wrote:
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.

Oh? So, girls need to wear skimpy clothing in order to feel pleased
with themselves? Who are you kidding? Girls are taught to wear that
sort of clothing because it turns boys on. It's part of the
socialization process of becoming sexualized.

Male arousal is really none of my concern. Each person is totally
responsible for their own self control and that includes arousal.

Cause and effect. You can't stamp out the effect without also adjusting
its cause.

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.

Boys can't be boys at girls' expense, but girls can be girls at boys'
expense? How is this fair?

And again, boys can't trample the rights of girls just because they
can't find self control.

They wouldn't need to exercise so much self control if they weren't
mercilessly teased.

Orlando