Teacher's gender affects learning (Study)

One of the reasons I believe men are under represented in the elementary and secondary level of education is because of the possibility of false sexual assault accusations. Any disgruntled brat can make the accusation, especially female students, knowing nothing is going to happen to them personally if they get caught in their lie. However, the male teacher is stigmatized permanently even if the charges are found to be baseless which could take months or even years. He also has to prove he is innocent rather than the other way around. Men just say who needs the hassle?

Interesting that this came out of Stanford.
__________________________________________________
http://www.vius.ca

Must be synchronicity or something, but I was thinking how I would word my post, about men rightfully being AFRAID to teach..then as soon as I click on 'reply' there is Luek's post!
And guess what, it is not just the students who make allegations. I have read about cases where other (female) teachers have reported what THEY determined were abuse of the kids by male teachers.
There was a laughable case here in Florida a few months ago..a male music teacher was accused of fondling 2 students in the back of his classroom, while showing a movie to the class. After the man was fired, after his reputation had been ruined, after he had to sell his house to pay his lawyers..it was revealed that there were several 'weak spots' in the testimony given by the two kids..and get this (this is hysterical!!!!!): It turns out that the accused teacher had also been teaching music privately to the same two kids. And during an initial interview with the police, the two kids told the detective doing the interview to "hurry up, or we will be late for our music lesson!" That is hilarious.. I am laudhing so hard right now i can barelsy type.. !!
It was also part of the 'testimony' that the guy was 'creepy'!!!! ha ha ah aha ah!!!!!!!!!!
-Axolotl

...the problem is (and this needs to be changed yesterday if not sooner) that once accused your career is over. Even if your career has absolutely nothing to do with children (can you tell me how working with telecomunications equipment on hte network side of things for a national wireless carrier is dealing with kids? But once falsely accused I lost my job). The problem is once you get in the system it is the system that never lets you go. Plus people are so damn brainwashed with this "victims are always telling the truth" bull that they assume that even if tons of lies are pointed out that there must be some sort of truth to the story somewhere.

Looking or even being 'creepy' should never be considered as it's such and incredably subjective measure.

Men with a genuine passion for teaching should rightfully be scared to enter that profession. Gifted medical students who are male should also consider research instead of active practice for the same reason. Because it's not what you think, it's what some hyper sensative woman thinks that will cost you everything.

It's funny what is considered proof of accusations these days but it sure isn't funny what happens to those accused.

Heck, as far as I am concerned a false accusation of rape against some one is rougher on that person then being raped is on people who are actually raped because not only is it a violations of trust, and confidence in the system/opposite sex and a brutal violation but it also strips the victim of every cent he has in the world and his ability to earn a living. Rape victims do not suffer that on top of being brutally violated. Their shame is private and they are still fully able to lead a normal life if they choose. Victims of false accusations are not able to do that and their shame is made completely public.

I'm sorry if my post sounded insensitive, in that I saw 'homour' in the case of the music teacher..of course it is really not funny to go throught what he went through, or that this is allowed to happen in our culture.
But it is true what Paragon says, that so many people have this mentality that "even if the accuser(s) are lying, there must be SOME basis for what they are saying..". yeah, and the basis may be that the accuser is paranoid or overly sensitive, or the guy is 'creepy', or some other non-valid reason.
Actually that raises an issue about what I read this morning, about the Karr thing..the District Attorney in Colorado is under a firestorm of criticism, and rightfully so, for having flown the guy back from Thailand and arrested, without any actual evidence that he did what he claimed (killing Benet-Ramsey).
So now the (woman) D.A. is trying to bail herself out by saying, "well, I didn't want to take any chances..after all, the guy had been showing interest in a 5th grader recently, and he was grooming.". What the fuck does that mean? I am not defending Karr, apparently he HAD viewed childhood pornography before..but I think this has something to do with the fact that the DA is a woman, and she considers Karr 'yicky'.
I am really starting to wonder about having women in these sorts of positions. In fact it goes all the way to the top..like Bader-Ginsberg's statements concerning a case before the Court a while back, about the police responding to a crime call.. whether they should need the permission of BOTH spouses before searching their house, even on a domestic violence call. Bader-Ginsberg spouted the standard nonsense about how this shouldn't be a law, since "the woman is scared to death of the man in these cases..scared to come forward..so it wouldn't be good to have that law." Yeah, the woman might be scared to come forward, 'cause she doesn't want to lie to a judge like she did to the police. Anyhow, Bader-Ginsberg ended up voting to allow the law. I guess in this one case, it was constitutional rights trumping bullshit.
-Axolotl

Would the famous (now probably infamous) Coppertone suntanning lotion ad of the late 1950's and 60's be considered "Child Porn?"
Remember the one where the little black dog pulls down the swimsuit bottom of the little blonde girl exposing her untanned backside?

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl

And how about all the images of naked children depicted in masterpiece paintings hundreds of years old and considered priceless? Is it now possible to be charged with child porn if you simply go to a big metropolitan art museum that has these paintings on display? PROBABLY!

Alot of art books from earlier decades are now considered shild pornography.

Remember what they tried to sell the jury as child porn in the Michael Jackson case. All were legal (at the time of publishing anyway) hard cover 'coffee table' art books dipicting nuduty.

I know also (in Canada at least) you are allowed to photograph your own children nude for your own personal familiy albums, but if you show the photographs of your children nude (to embarriss them to a boyfriend or girlfriend or any other completely innocent reason) you then immediately become guilty of making, possessing and distribution of child pornography.

Same goes (again in Canada) for a young female who takes a self nude portrait. She can take it, she can posess it for her own viewing, but as soon as she shows it to some one else, she is guilty. The only exception is if she happens to show it to a male, then he is the only guilty one and she will not be charged.

Do we really fear child nudity that much that we have stupidities like that built into our laws?

No child should have a brutal rape be captured and preserved for all time in photographic form. No one would argue with that. Raping a child and recording it is not the same as a nude picture of a child.

But again, it is not the intended purpose of the picture or even what the picture depicts that is important these days, it is only what some hyper sensative person feels the picture might depict.

The fact that some one somewhere might get pleasure from viewing a nude picture of a child somehow is enough to make illegal all depictions of children's bodies. That's not right.

As MRA's who actually have a slightly better understanding of how hte laws work we should even show some willingness to question the justifications of the police in child porn cases. Some one has to. The laws in that regard are incredably over the top.

Of course that opens us up to the critasism that we are "nothing but a bunch of pedophiles ourselves" which could not be any further from the truth. It is that attitude that if you are not in 100% support of rediculious laws that do nothing to protect children that you must somehow be a child sex predetor yourself that creates the problem in the first place. You're not going to rape a child because you question the validity of current child porn regulations. Nor are you saying that you feel depictions of little children being raped is ok and that it should be legal. No. But the current laws make illegal many things that did not harm anyone in creating and are not dangerous in that they will corrupt weak minded people and turn them into sex predators.

From article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/29/sat.scores.ap/index.html

On the SAT, boys' scores fell eight points from 513 to 505 in critical reading and from 538 to 536 in math. Girls' scores fell from 505 to 502 in reading and from 504 to 502 in math.

Though the SAT scores are down across the board, BOYS OUT SCORE GIRLS in both sections; math and critical reading!

Maybe boys aren't so stupid after all and you shouldn't throw rocks at them?

In her book "The War Against Boys", Christina Hoff-Sommers cites a study that showed that when boys and girls are placed in same-sex classrooms, after 1-2 years the boys begin to get much better writing scores than they had previously gotten in mixed classes, and they also score higher than girls that were in girl-only classes! I suspect the mythology about girls being better at reading and writing was a more recent 'observation'..most of the great Western writers have been men (no doubt due to the partriarchy). Even modern writers such as John Updike and William Styron are far superior in their craft, compared to, say, Joyce Carol Oates. Sorry to get off the subject, but I think a lot of times, women writers who are feminists are elevated to the status of "great" writers, solely because of the fact that they ARE women; and they never fail to inject their ideology into their books, even when it is the writing of fiction (which is what I am talking about here).
-Axolotl

In my heart, Stephen King is always going to Trump J. K. Rowling. Chambers of Secrets just can't trump Vampire Town USA, or Hotel Doom. I just cited two of his many amazing books.

..but I think this has something to do with the fact that the DA is a woman, and she considers Karr 'yicky'.
I am really starting to wonder about having women in these sorts of positions.

I'm glad that someone else here is seeing the truth for what it is and not afraid to face that truth no matter how ugly it is.

It is that attitude that if you are not in 100% support of rediculious laws that do nothing to protect children that you must somehow be a child sex predetor yourself that creates the problem in the first place.

This is the same reason why a lot of people don't stand up to these laws becasue they are afraid they will be branded a "pedophile". This is the same reason people don't stand up to feminists because they'll be labelled "misogynists". I guess they have no problem being labelled "pussies" because that is what they are.

I agree completely that is the root of the problem. But, at the same time, if you asked 1000 random males to rate how much they would not like to recieve a particular label I would bet any amount of money that 100% of the men questioned would rate "pedophile" as the label they would dislike the most to obtain.

This makes laws regarding the "protection" of children the absolute most difficult to debate rationally and take reasonable steps to restore balance.

Long after men achieve rights with regards to marrage (divorce, battered spouses, rights in their own homes with regards to their spouces ect...) and in the general opinion towards men and violence, we will still have these completely obsurd rules regarding men and children.

I know myself personally, anyone can call me a misogynist or a pussy or just about anything else all day long and it's like water off a ducks back to me. I laugh it off and make a joke out of it. But the ladel pedophile will envoke a rapid and unfriendly responce from me because of my nightmare of going through the courts having been falsely accused of raping an under aged girl. Even though I was found innocent (which I had to prove) I still can not work anywhere in the coutry in my chosen field that I love.

I know lots of people who have come out of bad marrages that still have their jobs or if they lost them due to the stress of divorce still have the option of working in their field. Nothing I know of can completely excule an individual from society faster then the accusation that they are a pedophile.

No matter how hard you fight you can never defeat that label. Proven innocent in court means nothing. People still merely think you are "lucky, that you got away with it" and subsiquently some treat you even worse because they think the law failed to punish you so they must do it themselves.

I think that's why most MRA organisations won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole. Even MRAs are in favour of hanging suspected child sexual abusers first and asking questions later. Even MRA organisations are so scared to death of even one accusation that they support child sex abusers being thrown at them that that issue is simply avoided by most unless it's in the context of divorce.

Believe me, women don't suddenly learn ho to lie when they get divorced and from birth they learn that if they cry enough they get what they want. By the time they enter pre-school they are already tought to not trust men and report them to authorities for anything they don't like. Women make up rape stories for thousands of purely self serving reasons.

My accuser so far has a 25% success rate (so far) with her delusions. She has charged 4 completly seperate men for 4 completely unrelated rapes and one has been convicted. Though she recieved thousands of dollars in free money just for filing the charges in the first place. Motive? Maybe, I am sure it is for some women. I don't really know in her case. I know only that she is deeply disturbed from hearing her testify against me (Even the judge picked up on it so it must have been plainly obvious for even the most basic individual to see) and knowing from court records (of course not admissible as evidence in the trail) she has been in and out of several mental health institutions for various eating dissorders, suicide attepts and self cutting.

But our society works extremely hard to create monsterous women like the one who accused me. No one is yet willing to look at how we can change it.