|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 09:45 AM June 25th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Just did a Google on NOW and single-sex education and didn't come up with anything saying NOW supported single-sex ed in the past, but pages that show they have been against it. So, they may in fact just be keeping consistent with their previous opinions and these opinions are not being followed by Michigan; this of course really annoys them because after all, they are always right despite evidence to the contrary!
I had the rare privilege of having the single-sex and coed experience both during my high school years; I spent a year at a private boys' school and the other years of high school at a public coed school. All in all, I learned more that one year in the boys' school than all the other years in the public school combined. The level of distraction in a single-sex school during the day is substantially less and anyone with half a brain understand why. I don't think the curriculum or quality of teaching was much different in either place.
NOW's problem is that they think teen-agers can act like adults. They can't; it's hormonally impossible! A lot of things are avoided by using single-sex ed and both boys and girls benefit from the lack of distraction and the socialization with their own sex exclusively at such a formative period.
Teen pregnancy rates are bound to be way down, too.
What is NOW afraid of? I figure they are afraid that boys will start to do better in school without the girls around, and that scares them. NOW likes things just the way they are going now: girls out-academing boys at almost every way it can be measured. They are terrified that, egad, boys will start to rebound if a new (new??) approach is taken.
Single-sex education may well be the only way left to males to get us out the feminist-dominated atmosphere of today's current school situation. As an MRA, thus, I am all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:42 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
There's another tangent that everyone here is aware of regarding the "boy's education crisis."
That is, simply, K-12 is controlled entirely by women, with male sycophant principals and superintendents assuring the prosperity of the educational matriarchy.
If same-sex schools could be created, perhaps along the lines of many cities' "model schools" experiments, then something interesting might happen.
Young men might actually go into the teaching profession again.
Currently, it is almost career suicide for a young man to seek to become a K-12 teacher.
He will live under a feminazi administrative regime which can at any time accuse him of sexual harrassment, pedophilia, or worse.
There is not a 7th-grade male teacher in the country who can walk into his classroom without the intimate fear of being prosecuted under false charges by any of his female students.
Same-sex schools would be the end of feminism.
Because then men could again teach young men, just as in ancient times, without the toxin of modern feminism.
Ironically, women would benefit from this.
Why?
Because there would be actual men to attract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 01:47 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, interesting point about NOW's position on single sex ed. That is, about them not having a history of supporting all-female schools. Especially public schools, I guess. I'm not sure about the American Association of University Women's stand on single sex ed. That organization trumpeted the "girl crisis in education" back in the early '90s and for years afterwards. It still is banging that tired drum, I think.
It seems that many feminists are quick to insist that tradionally all-male organizations be open to girls/ women, but that females be allowed to have whatever gender-exclusive organizations and facilities they prefer. I've noticed that organizations like private all-male high schools will have programs and services open to both sexes, but that the all-female schools will not. Same with the YMCA compared to the YWCA. Hasn't there even been cases where girls have tried to get the Boy Scouts to admit girls? Same with all-male sports teams, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:59 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that many feminists are quick to insist that tradionally all-male organizations be open to girls/women, but that females be allowed to have whatever gender-exclusive organizations and facilities they prefer...
Yep, I have noticed that, too. They want coed whatever and sigle-sex (female-only) whatever as an option, but if it's male-only, it must be stopped! Feminists will defend this 2x-standard by saying that all-male organizations are "inherently oppressive" while all-female ones are "inherently liberating", which is why a company made up of 90% women for example draws no scrutiny while one made up of 90% men does (corollary: when have you ever seen a business trumpet itself as "man-owned/man-founded" like "woman-owned/woman-founded" companies do, and it goes utterly unchallended but instead, draws investors and gov't- and feminist-inspired sycophantish overtures from all manner of people and institutions?).
There is no end to the weird double-think that feminists and many people, alas, of both sexes brainwashed by them, are capable of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 02:47 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe radical feminists want coed school systems. However, they want those systems to present an atmosphere that is conducive to the ways females think and learn at the expense of males. In this way, females are can continue to advance academically (in the areas tested) leaving males in their dust. The sad part is the school systems are not honing skills inherently more present in males on average; spatial ability for example. The females may be outpacing the males by the standards in use; however, society looses when male skill sets die from neglect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:49 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, you got it 100% right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:54 PM June 25th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Currently there are 66 all-women colleges and
5 all-male colleges in America.
(This excludes the theological and rabinnical schools.)
NOW has never protested the gender-oppression of the 66 all-female institutions.
Because "all-female" is not an oppressive social form.
Nor is "majority female" (i.e. 57% of university enrollments being female)...
You see, once you define your gender as the victimized class, you can never be anything other than oppressed.
Even if you are the objectively dominant gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 08:12 AM June 26th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
In high school, the girls can be extremely distracting - dressing explicitly and attracting attention to their sexuality.
This would be much less prevalent in an all boys environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Return of the King on 10:23 AM June 26th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Schools advance less able girls which results in grade inflation - and public schools instill feminist orthodoxy into mainstream society which can discourage boys.
Public education is predicated upon feminism, and feminsism is interested in the success of girls alone.
This is why NOW opposes single sex schools. They already own the system... Why change what they engineered while men sat around watching their son's fail for the last 30 years...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 11:43 AM June 26th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
N.O.W. has consistently opposed single-sex education, but like their gender-free language in family court situations, this opposition goes but so far.
In NYC, for instance, in the early 90s the vehemently opposed a single-sex school for boys--complete with marching, etc. When 7 yrs later the same was proposed for girls, they opposed it--very, very quietly. THAT school exists and flourishes to this day. To the casual observer, their actions seems consistent. Yeah. Just like their support for women in combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:09 PM June 26th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course N.O.W. wants single sex schools.
But just for GIRLS, though...!
Girls, yes. Boys, no.
Now THAT'S equality! (sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by blaze4metal on 11:05 AM June 27th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I go to Texas A&M University. It used to be all-guys until 1963. Now whenever you hear that being said, all the females cheer as if they were there and took part in this victory. You don't hear anything about NOW wanting to make all-female colleges CO-ED, or all-female gyms coed. All they care about is themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 05:44 PM June 28th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
..because school was dull and boring enough as it was. And I'm also glad it was only until noon compared to the "whole-time schools" they are trying to introduce here now.
I dislike the school system anyway. School did give me a few useful basics but at the cost of an enormous amount of time (13 years until graduation here, it was 12 years in East Germany). Its model is so hopelessly outdated that the old-fashioned and unedifying idea of single-sex schools comes as no surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:22 PM June 28th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Its model is so hopelessly outdated that the old-fashioned and unedifying idea of single-sex schools comes as no surprise..."
Scott is trying to migrate all this dialogue onto his new server, and we're still debating the archived issues!
Scott --- my sympathy for your heroic efforts.
So, n.j. -- is your point that schooling as an institution has become irrelevant?
Or dysfunctional?
Or political?
What, precisely, is your thesis on the state of education?
Your main argument?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "In