Sex-segregated public school classrooms on rise

And thus bad news for idealogical feminist pigs (oink oink, sob sob!).

Studies have shown that both sexes do better in single-sex classes, especially boys' improvement in reading and writing.

There are only two things that worry me. One is that they are specifying math in the article. Making math single-sex benefits girls more than boys, since boys already are slightly superior in that area anyway. Girls and college students already have enough programs to increase their enrollment and achievement in math and science. Educators and lawmakers should be focusing on other subjects; math and science are the LAST ones they should worry about.

The other thing is that the article says:
"If a school creates a single-sex class, it would not be required to offer the other gender its own similar class, but it would have to offer a coed version of it." Why would that be a stipulation, if all the classes are already co-ed anyway? It sounds like a potential excuse to give girls more of an advantage, if they are given single-sex classes in which they are already superior performers (in other words virtually ALL subjects besides math and science). Also what's the big deal about foreign languages? Although it is true boys stand to gain in that area, the bill should be focusing more on English (reading and writing). This bill does sound like it will continue to foster sexism in the schools, but it is still probably an improvement over what we have now. Hopefully if the Democrats get control of Congress, they will not try to roll it back..watch out!!

Note: they quote the AAUW (American Association of University Women), in addition to NOW in the article. If any of you guys have never heard of the AAUW, be assured they are as sexist and full of hatred, and have almost as much of an impact, as NOW (their impact is more indirect, since obviously they work through the education system).

-Axolotl

"Separate is inherently unequal" is true for the (so-called) races and is also for the sexes. That boys and girls may both learn better in single-sex classes is not the point. It's not relevant that whites (supposedly) learn more and better in all-white classes or that the same for blacks mayalso be tru if they attend 'historically black' colleges or schools. The point is that what these people are going for is a return to segregation of people based pretty much on their indellible characteristics. This is wrong. It would justify any number of other kinds of single-sex-only institutionalizations, such as for example, single-sex (ie, female-only) banks in Germany, hotel floors in Britain, subway cars in Japan... you get the idea. The segregation of the sexes (or 'races', or by people's height, or whatever) based in indellible characteristics is wrong-- period. This what they are doing doesn't represent progress, but regress.

Here in Austin, Texas, we already have an all girl school opening pretty soon but no similar all boy school.

Which is exactly what I expect to be the outcome of it. More girl's schools and few if any for boys.
By the way, in my opinion segregation plain sucks and I'm glad coeducation was undisputed when I went to school.

Since the SOWs, NOWs and AAUWs haven't quite figured out how to exterminate everything male or at least ship it off to a prison somewhere, this will inevitably be used to the benefit of those poor, underprivileged dears with vaginas. It's more of the same, unless single-sex schools and classes are required for BOTH genders, and the teachers are of the same gender. That would be quite helpful, but if it doesn't benefit women and only women at the direct expense of men or even boys, our governments don't do it. Hence the fact that single-sex public schools for boys will never happen, but single-sex public schools for girls are already happening.

Single-sex classes does not amount to the big-time segregation that some of you guys are implying, especially since these are two-sex schools anyway, and only SOME of the classes would be single-sex. If complete integration is desired, shouldn't we let girls join the Boy Scouts, go to the Citadel, and be on men's wrestling teams? I seem to remember reading a few posts against those ideas.

The analogy between race and gender isn't really a good one. Girls were not gradually "integrated" into a "boys education system", as blacks were into a white system. Racial segregation kept blacks from receiving the same quality education as whites. Boys and girls have ALWAYS been together (at the same public schools).

Boys are behind in almost every subject area. Should we force some boys to go to what are now all-girls schools, in the name of "integration", and that that will somehow allow them to catch up? The fact is that boys and girls are known to have somewhat different needs. Single-sex classes has been studied, and found to benefit both sexes. I'm afraid I don't see what is bad about that? I would rather see our sons get educated well, than to imagine that a few single-sex classes will lead to massive societal segregation. That is a big leap.

--axolotl

I'm a big supporter of segregating the sexes for education, axolotl. My problem with what's happening is that this will be applied as follows:

Is a girl doing worse than any boy in a subject or in general? If yes, create a separate girl's school/class to address her special needs. The boys can take whatever is left over, if anything.

This will be used as an excuse to remove resources from the inadequate educational environment boys are already struggling with, all to serve the ficticious needs of the poor girls, afflicted as they are with what is (according to the actions of feminists) the worst handicap on the planet: vaginas. Remember that the education system already favoured girls when the AAUW published their rhetoric claiming girls were being shortchanged. Objective reality is irrelevant to these psychotics, as is genuine human need.

This isn't about addressing the very real crisis facing boys in public schools, it's about giving girls more and more and more, because they're so "oppressed" you see. This never was and never will be intended to provide better educations for anyone, it's about the feminist agenda.

Under no circumstances will our feminist-dominated governments ever allow anything which explicitly serves the needs of a male human being, howsoever legitimate and demonstrably real those needs may be. Aside from the fact that men don't matter in society, that's thoughtcrime, since we're all rapists and oppressors, you know. Only women can have problems, disadvantages or needs under the new orthodoxy.

....And there were three girls in my troupe and that was several decades ago. In my lifetime anyway I have not known a time when boy scouts was exclusively for boys. I was in Beavers, cubs, and scouts and there were girls in all of them with us. At least 50% of our leaders were female as well and in beavers about 80% were female.

Girls are not excluded from anything which makes 'male only' anything extremely difficult to achieve.

"[It may be applied this way]: Is a girl doing worse than any boy in a subject or in general? If yes, create a separate girl's school/class to address her special needs. The boys can take whatever is left over, if anything."

I basically agreee - in fact as I mentioned, based on what was said in the article, math and science in particular (in which girls are "behind" in) seem to be targeted. (Although I don't think they would do that for just one girl - they would find some other way to give HER special allowance/advantage!).

I'm not sure I agree that this isn't mainly about boys..do you mean because that was not specifically mentioned in the article as being targeted by the bill, or do you actually mean that is not a major issue at all? Oh well, at least in the British system, they do seem to be helping boys catch up via single sex classes. Too bad we are not as far ahead as the British on this issue. That is probably because feminism does not have quite as much power in Britain, as it does here. We don't want to piss off any feminists, do we? The mentality is that whatever is good for males, is necessarily bad for females. I don't know how much of that outlook is due to spite, or if feminists do not understand basic logic.

(Paragon: I did not know that those groups had already been integrated, sorry about my ignorance on the issue! It was way back in the 70's when I myself was in the Scouts.)
-Axolotl