 |
posted by Adam on 11:30 AM June 28th, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
CJ writes "For the past five graduating classes, girls have made up a majority of Boston's top-ranked high school seniors. The girls' share of the No. 1 rank started creeping up and reached 80 percent this year. This numbers reflects decades of local and national efforts to broaden girls' career aspirations and guide them into college, educators say (when will the boys receive the same?) A lot of the reasons women made gains are the specific programs made for them -- programs for math, for science, mentoring that give them a high level of support," Said Andrew M. Sum, director of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. Other quotes from the article in the Boston Globe: it is girls' nature to be more focused, "Guys are not as organized as we are, "They're boys -- they mature a little bit after we do." As graduates lined up Friday afternoon in the gymnasiums, seniors pointed out the academic divide, far more girls wore honor society vests than boys. It is clear that secondary academic institutions (especially in MA) have become hostile environments for boys, and nurturing empowering environments for girls. Feminism is to blame for the war on boys. If boys are achieving higher scores on standardized testing, why are they so behind in academia? Please write your opinions to the Globe on this article, and do what you can to support programs that will restore academic honesty and equality to secondary education.
article"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two interesting quotes from another board emphasize the discrepancy in male/female college enrollment.
One poster notes that if only whites from the 30K+ income bracket are looked at, then the influx of men outnumbers that of women 52% to 48%. He goes on to note that the great advantage in female enrollment comes poor students.
The other poster agrees, having cited the huge gap (chasm) between females and males in black America: for every 100 black men with an assoc. degree, 188 black females; 100 males with a bach. deg., 192 females; 100 males with a mast. deg., 221 females. But the explanation he gives is telling:
"This very statistic highlights the disparity of girl-only programs in poor communities. Middle-class and wealthy families can usually compensate for the difference, but in poor areas where many people live on the edge, the impact a supplemental program can make is often the difference between success and failure. Thus, poor communities have served as the perfect "lab" to showcase the results of favoring one gender over the other."
This is the consequence of the myriad girl-only programs in K-12, the promoting of grrl power and the snubbing of boys for the last 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:24 PM June 29th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this it true. Very good response on this topic matter.
Thanks
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Maybe girls have got the focus and the commitment more than boys," said Ngoc Hanh Nguyen, 17, East Boston High School's valedictorian."They're patient, they try to perservere through everything and they're willing to learn."
Of course! After 25 years of concentrated effort to make schools better for girls, it's the boys fault for not keeping up.
Sounds a lot like the arguments against women's sufferage or against civil rights. It's not that the system is slanted against them, it's that they're lazy, and weak, and naturally inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:16 PM June 29th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, right on. What total crap. And it's everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that academics is a tool of politics, as opposed to a way to become more productive in society. The decidedly socialist "gate-keeping" nature of these institutions with their various labels, awards and "titles," are simply mechanisms to determine the futures of other people.
One line of a list of gender double-standards, asked why it's considered a problem that boys exceed girls in math and science, but not that girls exceed boys in everything else?
I'd think we shoud why no one bothered to look at the amount of money spent on either gender-- perhaps some heads would roll if this gender-discrimination was exposed, and perhaps it turned out that 80% of FUNDS for specialized academic programs were invested entirely towards females?
As for women being "more focused," it also follows that women are more conformist and less innovative and independent-thinkers-- and unfortunately not only is there no test to measure this ability, but likewise this is precisely what schools seek to weed out in their indoctrination proceedings.
The solution is to simply end public schools, since a competitive system of entirely private ones would be forced fire teachers and eliminate programs that didn't work for most students-- but this won't happen, and definitely not in Massachussets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'm officially confused. This article once again claims that boys mature more slowly than girls, specifically stating that female high school students are that much more mature than their male counterparts.
So tell me again why the 14 year old boy three stories up was old enough to handle sex with a 23 year old, but a similar 14 year old girl would be horribly harmed by a 23 year old man? Aren't girls more mature?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
