Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
School experimenting with gender separation
Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2007-08-21 19:29
Story here. Excerpt:
'Separating boys and girls is an educational trend that has gained momentum from research showing profound physiological differences between the sexes at young ages.
Chris Raeker, principal at Carman Trails, began looking into single-sex education as boys' discipline problems rose and test scores dropped.
...
But critics, such as Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, argue that single-sex schools promote sexual stereotypes and lead to inequalities.
"Even when such classes start out on equal footing, when schools in America get split into genders, the girls always end up getting the short end of the stick," Gandy said. "There is still sexism in this society. There are still people who want to return to what they see as the proper role of the sexes."'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
So, Gandy objects?
Why doesn't she object to women-only floors in hotels, women-only subway cars, women-only banks, women-only gyms, etc., etc.?
Personally I think sex-segregated schools are not a good idea. I think what needs doing is better training for teachers to handle different learning styles. But what galls me is how Gandy can be a classic feminist-separatist on one hand and an advocate for inclusion on the other. It comes as no surprise the distinction rests with perceived gains and losses. It looks like boys will gain from classroom separation so she is against it. If something else looks like girls or women will gain from it, she is for it. Utterly mercenary from start to finish.
Agreed
Studies have shown that boys-only learning environments help boys so therefore Gandy is against it. As long as the current school system persists, girls will excel over boys (her primary goal in this department, no matter what comes out of her mouth).
Re So, Gandy objects?
mcc99 wrote:
Why doesn't she object to women-only floors in hotels, women-only subway cars, women-only banks, women-only gyms, etc., etc.?
Why segregated sports programs (federally subsidized and mandated to boot)? Gandy sees gross oppression of women in segregation in the military, education, etc. So why are some university golfers prevented from competing with other golfers based on their sex?
How does she jump back and forth from the "nothing less than complete gender integration" position to the 1940's style "separate but equal" (Oh Kim the lover of title IX) in a heartbeat - and get away with it?
Another Fine Kim Gandy Eekwality Argument
A quick Google on "women's-only colleges in the United States" pops up a list of 67 women-only institutions.
I have searched in vain for any statement by Kim Gandy objecting to these sexist, segregationist schools.
Gandy is the poster girl for hypocritical unethical feminists. She is transparently dishonest, sexist, and pathogically prejudiced.
Perhaps that's why N.O.W., which claims 500,000 members, cannot attract more than 4,500 aging white upper-class hags to their recent annual national conventions.
Don't debate with feminists
Who gives a toss for what Kim Gandy says? Why do we have to hear her worthless hypocritical opinion all the time? We all know what her view will be - if it looks like it could be good for boys, she will find an objection to it. So just cut her out of this debate.
There is certainly something to be said for single-sex education. Both boys and girls seem to gain by it, although there might also be some danger in excessive separation. Perhaps one answer is to segregate for certain classes, but bring boys and girls together for other activities. Let's not be judgemental until some clear results have been established.
mc99.........Well said!
mc99: "It looks like boys will gain from classroom separation so she is against it. If something else looks like girls or women will gain from it, she is for it. Utterly mercenary from start to finish."
Bottom line. Its never about equality, simply superiority. Girls are doing better in school, something NOW supports because they don't want improvement in boys education. They love the female advantage and would like to see boys fall even further behind. This single sex experiment seems to be working. Both boys and girls are improving. The problem for feminists is boys are catching up to girls reading skills. White, feminist, superiority groups are hyper sensitive women who are indiminated by men and want what they perceive is male power. Equality? Bullshit! Also keep in mind that NOW is trying, but failing, with their attempt to manupulate society with their perverse ideology that all men hate women. I pity NOW, they see gender as a collective unit ultimately ignoring individuality. Gandy has stated recently that it is MORE important for women to attain college degrees. Her philsophy is based on gender discrimination because of a the low percentage of women in the construction industry. Ms. Gandy: Does the physical disparity have any impact on a male dominated profession? Essentially, a boys education is secondary. Education is not simply based on employment, but the human need to expand intellect. Apparently Gandy is happy with educated women and men who become ditch diggers.
anthony
Paul P
...writes:
"Who gives a toss for what Kim Gandy says."
Like it or not, Gandy does have some influence on gender issues. We must anaylize her ideology in order for us to battle. Feminism vs MRA.....Feminsts have declared war, a war I accept only as a peacefull and non-violent war. We will win. The reality....our gender insight incorportates more intellect, we are not stifled with political correctness, and dare I say, were correct 99.99999% of the time. Damn, I'm in a good mood this evening. This glass is definately half full.
anthony
4500?
Is that really how many attendees they had?
If MRAs could only get 4500 attendees at a conference on men's rights. We got lotsa work to do, guys.
Gandy does not say anything remotely intelligient.
The advantage she has is that 99.9% of women are herd creatures that would follow another woman off of a cliff if it is in defiance of a man.
Women tend to herd together in groups and guard their little inner circles with violence and namecalling which is why feminism spread so quickly. It caters to what most women are; parasites.
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Yes... Success for N.O.W. = .009%
Of course, you have to take into account the extremely unreliable N.O.W. allegation that they have 500,000 actual "members."
It's quite possible that 4,500 attendees accounted for 90% of N.O.W.s actual membership.
We'll never know.
Because Kim Gandy can keep a secret!