|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I surely didn't read the entirety of this "study". But the parts I read were glaringly suspect and sounded like a feminist viewpoint to me. Ugh. Take this brief example from the horrid gender construction section:
Many boys are strongly entrenched in educationally unhelpful masculinities and it would be an act of courage on their part and skill on the teacher’s part to get them to step aside from their construction to examine it critically.
Boys are entrenched in unhelpful masculinities? Pretty clear they are saying masculine is "BAD." We need to help them step away from it!! Is there such a think as an unhelpful femininity? LOL! I bet not! How do they get away with this sort of thing and keep a straight face? Let's try it the other way this time:
Many girls are strongly entrenched in educationally unhelpful femininities and it would be an act of courage on their part and skill on the teacher’s part to get them to step aside from their construction to examine it critically.
Right. Just how long do you think that paragraph would last?
This looks like an anti-boy anti-male document to me. Put togeter by what Rich Zubaty calls "manholes." It's a shame that they didn't have Steve Biddulph the Australian author of "Raising Boys" help out with this. He is well known and respected in Australia and is considered an international authority. He wouldn't have let this crap stand.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 14, @03:16AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to read to whole report (which I intend on doing), but from what I have read so far I must respectfully disagree with you, Tom.
First, let me quote you:
"Is there such a think as an unhelpful femininity? LOL! I bet not!"
The first paragraph on page 26 explicitly states that social constructions of femininity are not always advantageous to females.
Having only read a small portion of the report, my TENTATIVE opinion of the piece is that it is not particularly biased in either direction. My first reaction to the author's statements that many stereotypical masculine traits are of negative consequence to boys in school was to cry "biased!". However, reading deeper into the report, I found that many of the traits the author was referring to were not disadvantageous because they are masculine per se; rather, he seems to be stating that many of these traits have become stereotypically attached to the qualifier "masculine". Hence, I am interpreting the author to be saying that "masculine traits", meaning those socially unacceptable behaviors affixed, through a cultural mechanism, to the term "masculine" are, in fact, of negative consequence to boys.
I, in this case, would have to strongly agree with the author. He does not seem to be saying that masculinity is, per se, negative, but that many traits which many boys today percieve to be masculine are having negative consequences on their ability to learn. The author states what many of these traits and behaviors are, and I don't think he is incorrect. If we teach boys that doing well in school is "masculine", we aren't attacking masculinity as such, nor are we "feminizing" boys. We are simply teaching them that learning is cool or whatever. The point is, I don't think he is attacking masculinity as the CAUSE of the problem, but rather, he is stating that those deleterious traits and behaviors which many people (erroneously, IMHO)percieve to be masculine are often hurting boys.
Secondly, I don't believe that because the author seeks to find ways to benefit both boys and girls in the education system means that it is "feminist slant". The pendulum swings both ways, and just because it is at one extreme now doesn't make the other extreme any less sexist and hateful and hurtful to our children. Should we, in our attempt to help our sons, ignore the girls? That seems to be what got the boys in this mess in the first place. You can't just ignore one group while you help the other and expect the ignored group to fare well. The suggestion that we need to look for ways to help both females and males academically does not equate to radical feminism.
However, the author does say that male teachers, and even the presence of fathers in the boys lives, will not necessarily help boys academically. In fact, he calls these notions "myths". I disagree with him here on the basis of numerous journal articles, as well as crime statistics, which seem to show otherwise. The best and most influential teachers I ever had were male. Every single damn one. And I tremble to think where I might be without my father. The dismissal of these influences as "myths" is disturbing.
Nonetheless, I don't percieve this report to be actively biased (though, as I said, I haven't read the whole thing). In fact, at a glance, it seems pretty objective to me.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 14, @03:26AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
In the preceding post I cited the first paragraph of p. 26 as stating that femininity can be disadvantageous to females. I meant to cite the first paragraph on p. 32. Sorry...
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback hobbes. I said at the time that I hadn't read the entire file and I suppose I should read the entire study and make a decision at that point.
I did go back and read page 32. His mention of femininity and girls is more a side comment than anything else. He seems to be trying to say that boys and girls both can take on expectations and roles via their culture that may impede their learning. I agree with this though I must say that his presentation lacks balance and sensitivity to boys and men.
Boys are biologically different and I didn't see a thing in his report that honored this important fact. When little boys go to school at age 5 they are in the middle of their 2nd testosterone flood. (the first is in utero and the third hits at puberty) They need to MOVE due to this physical difference and it is at that point that they are told at school to sit and be quiet! Of course the girls can sit and be quiet so why can't the boys??? It's a freaking set up! Just like the fems he sees it as all socially constructed. No physical differences.... That's a joke. To not focus on our physical differences and their impact on our learning is profoundly suspect and again smacks of the feminist bias. (we are all the same and men need to act more like women)
What I disagree with vehemently is to connect these roles and expectations with MASCULINITY. Roles and expectations are something we take on as we grow. Masculinity is something we are born with. We can't change it. The dictionary says masculinity is "Something traditionally considered to be characteristic of a male." The tactic of the feminists has been to attack masculinity (traditionally male) and by doing this they attack and villainize all men. Look at the DV situation where violence has been blamed not on psychopathology, drugs, or impulse control disorders but on masculinity. We have allowed them to define violence as masculine and by doing this the dominoes all fall down and say loud and clear that there is something inherently wrong with all men! As soon as they are born there is something wrong with them. I can see the same strategy here in condemning masculinity. Condemn the masculine and shame the boys into submission. Read Thundercloud's wonderful story about the Eagle as a perfect example. (post #5 in this thread)
Of course we need to consider girls in making any decision about the future course of education. That is a given. However, we need to give the boys loving attention to their needs just as we have with the girls. To imply that we need to focus on both boys and girls again sounds like the feminists simply not wanting to be loving and helpful to the boys. An easy way out is to say we need to focus on both.
Maybe I will read the rest of it.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My initial reason for looking into the gender problems in our society was fear for my two boys.
Our oldest constantly received teacher reviews along the lines of "won't stay focused", "won't sit still", etc... and yet he can sit for hours building a lego battleship, or putting together a model. He's a habitual reader. When he gets to choose the TV program he invariably chooses TLC, the History Channel, or National Geographic. Additionally this boy doesn't have a violent bone in his body.
My personal experience with this child tells me that his problems in the educational system are not HIS problems... but rather THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS problems. Yet over and over we're told that he's got the problem, that maybe he'd be better on ridelin (or however it's spelled... it certainly was NEVER going to cross my boys lips.
I've come to the conclusion that the changes made to enhance the educational experience for girls have had an adverse affect on the education my kids are receiving. I tend to think the solution may be a move to seperate boys and girls classes, which would allow a "gender specific" teaching style. My wife believes this would help with the youngest (an outgoing, gregarious 7 year old) but not with the oldest (very introverted). I tend to think that they would both benefit from a more "tactile, hands on" teaching methodology. If such a school were available today my kids would be in it tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This report strongly supports the view that boys can be addressed within a gender
equity framework. The Gender Equity Taskforce outlined five strategic domains for
action in Australian schools, as follows:
· Understanding the process of gender construction
· Curriculum, teaching, and learning
· Violence and school culture
· Post-school pathways
· Supporting change.
Of these, this report places particular importance on gender construction, teaching
and learning, and supporting change. [Pages 26-27]
A number of commentators report that there are differences in preferences for books
between boys and girls as well as differences in the ways that books are read. For
example, it has been reported that boys tend to prefer to read action, fantasy,
adventure, and ‘blood and thunder’ texts and read more for information whereas
girls tend to enjoy books that depict the dissection of relationships (Millard, 1997).
On these bases, some have suggested that books more appropriate to boys’
interests need to be selected. Others, however, have argued that this simply
reinforces dominant masculinities. One suggestion is that when texts are selected
that have the potential for reinforcing dominant masculinities, this be seized as an
opportunity for critical dissection of masculinity and an analysis of how gender is
constructed – using the text as a prime example of gender construction (Millard,
1997). Thus, schools ought to provide a broad range of texts and the inclusion of
‘boy-friendly texts’ “be to show how masculinity is constructed by the narratives,
rather than a simple acceptance of the ‘heroic’ image” (Millard, 1997, p. 161).
What Millard describes here is a form of ‘critical literacy’. This has been found to be
effective in enhancing literacy in students and also equips boys with the
interpretative skills they need to examine dominant cultural practices associated with
masculinity (Ludowyke & Scanlon, 1997). Critical literacy “translates into boys
actively connecting with the written material by asking critical questions about the
accuracy, relevance, bias, truth, defects and politics of a piece of writing” (Hawkes,
2001, p. 110). [Pages 63-64]
I have read the entire report, and I can assure you that it is actively biased and not at all objective. It is more concerned with somehow 'reconstructing' boys to make them fit in with the existing education system than changing the education system to better suit boys. When the perception was that girls were being shortchanged by the education system there was no doubt that the (male-constructed) system was at fault. Perhaps you guys have forgotten some of the things that were being said a mere ten years ago or so; that boys were 'shouting down' the girls in class or 'hogging' the teacher's attention, and that boys were better at the old 'all or nothing' exams and so had an 'unfair' advantage over the girls. As with all other feminist ideology, the problems of females are caused by males, while the problems of males are caused by themselves. If only men were more like women (actually, if they were women), there would be no problems.
Literacy for boys
declined between 1975 and 1995 with 70% of boys in 1975 demonstrating mastery
of reading compared with 66% in 1995. In contrast, girls’ mastery of reading
increased from 73% to 74% between 1975 and 1995 (Marks & Ainley, 1997). [Page 63]
No analysis of this decline in boys' performance is given, instead it is followed by an unconnected call for reading exercises to be turned into exercises in the deconstruction of 'dominant masculinities'. So, boys can read books that they have been denied during the last 25 years - the kind of books that they like to read - but only if the energetic, heroic, in-charge male characters are then rubbished. Those of you who have not yet acquainted yourselves with deconstruction and cultural Marxism should do so as soon as possible.
I cannot express my anger at the glib hatefulness of this report on boys' education. It reeks of gender feminism and, if taken seriously, will further entrench anti-male thought within the Australian education system (how different is the situation anywhere in the Western world?). The idea that needs to be eliminated is that academic achievement is unmasculine, not the idea that masculinity itself is at fault. Pathologising masculinity will only serve to increase the feeling that academic achievement is 'feminine', that you can only do well educationally if you are less masculine. Strange, then, that boys are doing worse now, having been raised by feminist mothers in a feminised society, than they were a quarter of a century ago in the bad old days of 'patriarchy'.
Feminism endlessly remakes itself in order to stay 'on target' to the goal of inverting male and female roles within society. Within a feminist education system, boys will always do worse than girls, and all attempts at improving the lot of boys will operate in such a way as to further entrench the situation. Thus it is assumed that the problem lies with boys themselves, because an education system in which girls do better than boys is seen as a correct education system; one that requires no fixing. So, we cannot simply give boys the kind of books they like to read; we took them away precisely to damage boys academic performance. If we give boys those books we must find some other way of disengaging boys' interest; by ruthlessly denigrating the very masculine characters that boys enjoy reading about. That has nothing to do with reading and everything to do with feminist ideology. Similarly, special classes for boys require their failure within the mainstream classes. Boys are thus perceived as people who will inevitably fail; of whom failure is expected as a matter of course; whose educational requirements are a deviation from the (female) norm. Deconstructing masculinity will not improve boys' educational performance, but its failure as a strategy will be seen as evidence that even greater attacks on masculinity are needed. This is the future for boys within an education system that is consciously hostile to the male presence.
However, the author does say that male teachers, and even the presence of fathers in the boys lives, will not necessarily help boys academically. In fact, he calls these notions "myths". I disagree with him here on the basis of numerous journal articles, as well as crime statistics, which seem to show otherwise. The best and most influential teachers I ever had were male. Every single damn one. And I tremble to think where I might be without my father. The dismissal of these influences as "myths" is disturbing. [hobbes, in the post I'm replying to]
A few years ago I read in a newspaper article that both boys and girls preferred being taught by men. The author of the article drew the rather bizarre conclusion that this indicated that boys were more insecure than girls! Feminist hostiltiy to men and especially to fathers is no secret to regular visitors to this site. Funny how positive role models are so important to girls but of no importance to boys. And they say there are no differences between the sexes. Creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thanks to you Uberganger. This is an excellent and informative post. Very helpful. This should be archived somewhere.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Tom. I hope the links to deconstruction, cultural Marxism and fathers were useful. I think it's important not to accept gender issues on the terms feminists have laid down, but to look beyond that at how and why those feminist attitudes and beliefs exist. Ultimately feminism is only a perspective, and I can see no reason why it should be the only perspective or even the ruling perspective. It would probably be a good thing for the entire ideology to be completely swallowed up by a new perspective; dissected, criticised, inverted, transformed and reconstructed as some kind of 'masculism'. After a few decades of that masculism, perhaps a new feminism will emerge and perform the same process of dissection, criticism, etc. It may take several of these cycles to bring gender issues to a stable conclusion - like an iterative mathematical function that progressively closes in on the solution. Whatever the case, the current feminist cycle has run its course. It is becoming increasingly pathological, demanding not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome, which all too often means discriminating against men. Something new is needed now, and that's what the men's movement is for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 18, @09:02PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the delayed response... I seem to have quite a lot of things going on at the moment (holidays and such), and so I have not been able to read the entire report yet. Consequently, I cannot really offer a reasoned reply or rebuttal to your comments, as I would be arguing from a premise based in ignorance.
Suffice it to say that I think you make really good points, and I also find it peculiar that the author seeks to find a way to assimilate the male into an existing eduation system, rather than alter the system to accomodate the male.
Thanks for the feedback...
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Au contraire, I think it would stand, because girls aren't supposed to be stereotypically 'feminine.' IE, wearing dresses, playing with dolls, pretending to cook, be mothers, etc. Whereas boys, according to feminist ideals, should be doing these things [okay, except for the dresses] because it'll help them be more like girls, which is better. [The logic doesn't follow, I'm well aware]
It's something that always confused me, just let kids be themselves - if they want to play with "World War III" or "House" does it matter that much if it's boys or girls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many empirical studies have shown that males are very much better at teaching and promulgating in children the concept of "consensual validation". What is "consensual validation"? "Consensual validation" is rewarding ethically correct behavior and punishing behavior which is ethically incorrect. It is teaching and promulgating just and civil behavior. Sigmund Freud, the illustrious Psychoanalyst, stated words (this may not be an exact quote) that:"Females do not have and can not develop a sense of justice but rather make their decisions based upon feelings of affection or hostility." The empirical studies seem to corroborate his observations. We all know of instances of which females do, indeed, promulgate and teach just behavior (Joan of Arc-the French national heroine), however. However, given both the theoretical and empirical evidence available, masculine behavior is associated with justice and civility much more than feminine behavior. The same argues against both the premises and conclusions of feminist dogma which is just that, dogmatic malicious propoganda whose malicious end is to justify the concepts of unjust privilege for females and the persecution of males.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole thing reminds me alot of the old Indian boarding schools that some of our ancsestors were forced to attend.
Once at these schools, Indian boys were forced to cut their hair short and both boys and girls were made to wear clothing completely alien to them.
The whole point of these boarding schools was to teach Indians to NOT be Indians. And to teach them how to be "white".
There is nothing wrong with being white, but, there is also nothing wrong with being Indian, or whatever you may be. yet these schools were put in place to IRRATICATE a peoples NATURAL way of nature and make them behave in ways that were toataly UN-natural to them. The damage to us as an ethnic group, because of these "programs" was and is still to this day devistateing.
The point is that all too often with boys, in education, the exact SAME mentality and approach are being utilized!
The saying at the time that the boarding schools had was; "In order to save the person, we must first kill the indian..."
In preasent day education, the same attitude is obvious.
"In order to save the boy, we must first kill the MALE..." No one says it out right, but it is obviously an un-written policy, never the less.
To sum it all up I always use the following story;
One day a Woman captured an Eagle, and she told the Eagle that in order to gain his freedom he must do as she told him and become a Sparrow.
The eagle replied; "I am an Eagle, I cannot become anything I am not."
The woman said; "Then you will not have your freedom, untill you become what I feel is best for you to be."
So the Eagle, not haveing any choice, agreed to allow the woman to teach him to be a sparrow.
So the woman showed the Eagle all the places sparrows go, and all the foods that sparrows ate. and when a year had passed and the Eagle had learned everything about being a sparrow, the woman set the Eagle free.
Then one day she was walking on the plains and saw the Eagle.He was flying in circles, as Eagles do. "That is not what a sparrow does!" the woman said angrily. Then she saw the Eagle dive from the sky and capture a rabbit, as Eagles do.
"That is not what a sparrow does!" the woman said angrily.
With that, she aimed her rifle and shot the Eagle.
When she came up to the Eagle she shouted; "You are a sparrow!"
The Eagle replied.; "No, I tried to live as a Sparrow. But when I approached "other" sparrows, they fled in fear. When I tried to eat what sparrows eat, seeds and insects, My digestive system rejected them. I was starveing. so I caught a rabbit so I wouldn't starve.
You are a stupid woman." the Eagle went on. "You took an Eagle and tried to turn me into something I cannot possibly be. Then when I turned to my proper nature, you get angry at ME!"
At that the woman became even angrier, and said to the Eagle; "But now because you would not become what I wanted you too, I have shot you, and now you will die!"
The Eagle looked at her wisely, and said; "No, I will not die. ...You were shooting at a Sparrow. I am an Eagle...,"
Whith that, the Eagle spread his wings and flew away.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud said:
The point is that all too often with boys, in education, the exact SAME mentality and approach are being utilized! The saying at the time that the boarding schools had was; "In order to save the person, we must first kill the indian..."
Exactly. Save the boy from masculinity.
So sory to hear what your people have endured TC. It's important to hear though. Now I can speak for your cause as you speak for men. Ho.
Being a storyteller I particularly appreciated the Eagle story. Perfect story. Many thanks.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
Thank you.
But credit for that story goes to the spirits of my elders.
As far as what my people have endured.
Yeah, it's been quite a journey. but we're still here.
And now it seems, that men in general are going through a similar journey. It is gonna be rough, but some day we will ALL be able to say, as men, "we endured it but we're still here."
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you tell us more about where this story came from?
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actualy, The story, "Eagle to sparrow" was inspired by my ancetors and their way of story-telling. useing metaphores to get a point accross.
This story just came to me, one day when at my place of work.. my supervisors were ordering me to "Stop being Indian." (Don't ask, I didn't get it either.)
So I told them that story.
It was lost on them, of course. (I was fired later on for what was called "un-realated reasons") (Yeah, right.)
In the case of the men's movement, particularly when it came to the feminization of boys this story works just as well.
But, like my racist supervisors, the story is lost on feminists, as they are about as "deep" as a paper plate.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 14, @11:16AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I briefly read through an article from Mens News Daily about this report and the thing that struck me the most was that the authors had the audacity to brand reputable research into how the presence of fathers is essential for boys accademic performance as a 'myth'. (An article about this finding can be found on Angry Harry Dot Com).
How long do these feminists think they can get away with telling such ludicrous lies?
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 14, @12:37PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I sometimes think this stuff will never end. I remember in high school having to go to a class where they taught us about rape and how us boys needed to learn to not be aggressive. The lady teaching us told us a story about how she was almost raped because when she told her boyfriend "no" he complained of having blue balls. She said she still said no but that he made her feel terribly guilty about hurting him. She felt bad because she thought she was causing him pain. She said she talked about 'blue balls' to a friend soon after and he said there is no such thing and he was just trying to coerce her into having sex. She was telling this as if she was truly almost raped. Telling this story to us guys was making us feel guilty about this and the very existence of rape. I know this, it was very obvious there was other boys in there who were not too happy. We were in 9th grade. Looking back, I'm not too happy about this.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse - That's a scary story. It exemplifies what can happen when bigotry goes unchallanged. What does a woman know about blue balls anyway? Sheeesh! Like a man going to 9th grade girls and talking about PMS! One of the fascinating things I have noticed about radical feminists is their complete lack of knowledge of being in a male body yet they can teach everyone about this experience. They would be the first to yelp that men can't know a woman's experience.
It works both ways.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, I don't like this new idea that being assaulted and raped is the exact same as a woman saying "I don't really feel like it."
"com'on."
"Oh, all right." That isn't rape. Or almost going along with it even if you don't really feel like it. The guy in her story sounds kind of annoying, but not a potential rapist.
I rememeber a few articles Dan Savage had about a guy who didn't stop immediately after she said she wanted to, and the woman asked if she'd been raped - he answered "No." Quite a few readers were pissed off at him.
Oh, yeah, I've heard guys say blueballs are made up. I asked my boyfriend about it awhile ago, said it had happened once, and sucked. So, I believe him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so if a WOMAN bugs a man who doesn't feel like haveing sex and he finaly gives in..., That would be rape too, then, would it not?
By THAT definition, of course it would.
But funny how definitions quickly change when conserning a man.
Don't look for any male teachers talking to a class of GIRLS about that, though. Right?
Right.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O my god! When you look at it that way... I've been raped! I've been raped!!
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Good one TC.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it WOULD work, but you forget that men are never raped. And men always want sex, so a man would never not feel like having sex. And men always enjoy sex, even if they're unconscious and later ordered to pay child support, so he wouldn't say it was rape anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 15, @03:21PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"And men always enjoy sex, even if they're unconscious and later ordered to pay child support, so he wouldn't say it was rape anyway."
HAHA, that's great, crescent. The amazing thing is that the sadists in black robes really do believe it - reading the statement, they wouldn't recognize it as sarcasm...
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While faffing about on the internet, I came accross a website called Accuracy In Academia, which describes itself thus:
Accuracy In Academia, a nonprofit public service organization based in Washington, D.C., seeks the reassertion of traditional academic ethics in our universities. We contend that academic freedom is threatened by a progressive ideological orthodoxy, pervasive in the intellectual community, which degrades professional standards in teaching and scholarship, and inhibits speech and research which contradict orthodox views.
It's well worth a look. Click the 'Campus Report' option on the menu and check out some of the archived stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found some more interesting stuff relating to boys in education in a book called 'Sex, Lies and Feminism' by Peter Zohrab. You can download it in PDF form here. Of particular relevance is the following quote:
Thomas (1993) points out that, at kindergarten and primary school, girls out-perform boys -- and this may be a result of the preponderance of female teachers at that level. He cites surveys which showed that teachers consistently praised girls more than boys, and criticised boys more than girls.
Research evidence from UCLA supports this. When kindergarten children learned reading from a self-teaching machine, the boys did better than the girls. But when they were taught to read by a woman teacher, the girls did better than the boys. [Page 72]
The 'Thomas' referred to, incidentally, is 'Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man' by David Thomas, a book which debunked many feminist myths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was taught to read and write (english) by ALL female teachers. Not one man.
...So..., Ever notice what a lousy speller I am...?
Disclaimer; To be fair, though, I also speak Cherokee. I haven't spoken English all my life. So maybe that is a SLIGHT factor..., MAYBE...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of all of the teachers that I had up to sixth grade, the one I enjoyed the most, and the one who engaged me the most was Maynard Weber. He did the same for my younger brother. But then, unfortunately, he left teaching to go into the stock market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
frank.
Yeah, that's why it is too bad there aren't MORE guys in the teaching field.
I doubt we'd see this disparagie in boy's education, if there were.
This is one reason I'm in favor of single sex schools, at least on the elementary level.
Women should maybe just teach girls, Men just teach boys.
But, well, we all know the feminists would NEVER have THAT. Well, Women teaching all girls is okay, where the fembots are concerned. But men teaching only boys!????!
Why, That would be excluding FEMALES!!! and that's just SEXIST!!
..Yeah, those Whacky feminists...,
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
