[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Time to Re-Write Title IX?
posted by Scott on Monday July 02, @01:49PM
from the news/Title-IX dept.
News Neil Steyskal writes "Monday, the Washington Times published a good column on Title IX, which prevents single-sex programs in government schools. It implies, but unfortunately it doesn't explicitly show, that the schools are designed for girls."

Source: The Washington Times [newspaper]

Title: Rethinking Title IX

Author: Leonard Sax

Date: July 2, 2001

Reversible Contraceptive for Men Being Tested | Colorado Allows Custodial Parents to Relocate at Will  >

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Biology != destiny. (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on Monday July 02, @02:46PM EST (#1)
There were too many overgernalizations in this article. I think men and women should be able to participate in sports equally in proportion to their demonstrated interest, so while I'm totally against title IX, I didn't find this article compelling.

On top of that, the author sounds like he's trying to pander to gender politics from the way he touts how women are so much better developed in brain structure and mental development than men. Women's advanced brain structures certainly didn't account for all the young male geniuses out there who've invented technology, philosophy, and other great cultural advances.
Re:Biology != destiny. (Score:2)
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Monday July 02, @03:16PM EST (#2)
(User #187 Info)
It's been scientific dogma for years and years that girls mature both emotionally and physically faster than boys. Certainly, it has been proven. I agree with you, though, that the author is putting too much emphasis on those facts as they relate to the overall intelligence of a human being.

As a child, I outperformed most of my classmates (boys and girls) in a wide range of academic pursuits. Did I have an overdeveloped brain? I doubt it. I simply had nothing better to do than to pay attention and soak up the knowledge. I was a curious kid. I enjoyed learning and experimenting with new things, particularly language and writing (and, yes, I demonstrated greater talent and skill in those areas most of the time than my female counterparts).

I would also point out that because the brain of a 17-year-old male looks like the brain of a 13-year-old female does not indicate that he has diminished intelligence.

It's been stated over and again that the brain is mostly a mystery to science, and I think the conclusions drawn by the physical development of the brain here are based too much on inconclusive evidence. Who is to say, really, that the physical brain development of a male is responsible for his lower test scores when compared to females? Was it not just 30-40 years ago when males were supposedly dominating test scores in school?

Perhaps the problem is not itself biological, but a total misunderstanding of how to apply different learning techniques to different types of students, which, I think, is the author's major (but elusive) point.

No, biology does not equal destiny. I know it and you know it. Let's hope our educators know it and do not stigmatize half our young population as "stupid" simply because they have penises.

Re:Biology != destiny. (Score:2)
by frank h on Monday July 02, @04:01PM EST (#3)
(User #141 Info)
Michael Gurian, in his book "Boys And Girls Learn Differently!" says that, while the upper half of a boys brain develops more slowly, and that the communication between the two sides of the brain rarely develop the same kind of cooperation in men as in women, the lower half of the boys brain develops much faster, allowing better performance in abstract process such as mathematics and mechanics. Further, the "fight or flight" mechanisms that made men better hunters and warriors over the last 100,000 years or so are particularly well developed among boys by the time they are in their late teens. And these mechanism are NOT obsolete: warfare has not been erradicated, and hunting may, again, become a primary means of feeding one's family.

I read the article with great interest, expecting to find at the end that he had also recognized these things. But, alas, he appears to be clueless. Either that or he's trying to make men and boys out to be disadvantaged, to be victims in their own rite, and therefore in need of special attention.

Frankly, I don't need for myself or my son to be treated as "victims" or special cases. I just want the public school teachers to recognize that my son and my daughters learn differently, and to exploit the differences where they can and mitigate them where they can't.
Re:Biology != destiny. (Score:2)
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Monday July 02, @04:37PM EST (#4)
(User #187 Info)
Hey, frankh... do you think you could send your information about Gurian's book to the author of this commentary? Perhaps he'll write on the topic again sometime and include what you've provided. I'm going to look for this book online as well because you've got me interested. Thanks!

Re:Biology != destiny. (Score:2)
by frank h on Monday July 02, @06:54PM EST (#5)
(User #141 Info)
For anyone who's interested in Michael Gurina and his work, go to his website at:

He runs the Michael Gurian Educational Institute in Missouri, and you can find out more about the book I mentioned as well as the Institute there.
interesting (Score:1)
by Tom on Monday July 02, @10:21PM EST (#6)
(User #192 Info)

I too felt that the article was a bit one sided and seemed to paint boys as inferior. I kept waiting for him to explain why boys have for 30 years outscored girls on the SAT's by an average of 30 points. That fact seems strongly inconsistent with his assertions.
Right direction... wrong argument. (Score:1)
by cheddah on Tuesday July 03, @10:06AM EST (#7)
(User #190 Info)

By making the comparison that a 17 year old male's brain physically looks like a 13 year old girl's brain is about as ridiculous as saying that a male's brain is more intelligent because it is physically larger.

Why did the author of this article seemingly pander to the feminists in order to bring up the very valid argument that most contemporary school systems are not designing programs that enable the natural abilities of boys? Why not just come out and speak the truth?


[an error occurred while processing this directive]