Many of you have emailed me with one particular story. I haven't posted on it yet because when I saw the title at Slate, I thought it was a parody: "Snips, Snails, and Puppy Dog Tails: There's finally proof that boys do ruin schools for girls."
I simply think that if a man wrote this--it has to be a parody and if it's not, we need to bring back tar and feathering.
Girls' schools are clinging on tenaciously in the public sector here in Britain: More girls go to single-sex schools than boys. In inner London, parental preferences for girls' schools are particularly pronounced. The Guardian has reported that more than half of inner-London girls attend girls' schools, and just over a quarter of boys attend boys' schools. The result, of course, is that the mixed schools contain a disproportionate number of boys.
Parents make these choices because of a widely held belief that girls thrive in single-sex environments. But is that true? And what are the implications for the girls left surrounded by emotionally retarded adolescent males? (my emphasis added).
Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.
It is all rather troubling, especially for the parents of little angels like my daughters. Evidently, it is impossible to satisfy the—apparently justified—parental demand to educate girls in single-sex schools and boys in mixed classes. (Not for the first time in my life, I conclude that the world doesn't have enough girls in it.)
...A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers—and riot police.
I simply think that if a man wrote this--it has to be a parody and if it's not, we need to bring back tar and feathering.
posted by Helen at 7:37 PM
41 Comments:
Wow. That is pretty hate-filled.
And yet... it is wholly within the range of respectable opinion.
Yamantaka,
It is not respectable at all --it's hideous and it is only because it is discriminatory against males that Slate even published such crap. The part where this beta- male says "Not for the first time in my life, I conclude that the world doesn't have enough girls in it" indicates that this man is one sick puppy--hating not only himself, but half of his fellow human beings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I teach at a small Arts college and I have to say from observation that the boys -are- emotionally behind the girls when they start as freshman. But it is not a bad thing, it just is. The boys still want to be ninjas while the girls are mainly interested in smoking and having sex. The thing is, this seems to be normal developmentally. The boys must be building the pieces they need from experience, and while they are in college all those pieces fall into place. By the time they graduate, they are mature and able to match their actions to the way they feel. (Physically they change from boys to men during this time too while the girls seem almost done when they start.) The boys are often more mature and have a solid direction than the girls do, which is not the case at all when they start.
The sad part is that by the time the boys are finished growing up, too many (not all fortunately) of the girls have decided boys are stupid and never change their minds.
Given that boys and girls mature differently, even if they end up pretty equal around 22 or so, it seems like a combination of tailored single sex and co-ed education would be best. As the article you link to shows though, no one seems to care if the education system is working for boys.
(sorry for the extra posts, my mouse sometimes doesn't work and it turned out the browser was just thinking...)
Yeah, I know it's a rotten thing to write. I was being ironic.
As a parent with two boys in a boys-only Catholic school, my considered opinion is
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
First item: Whenever our classes go on field trips, the guides or hosts are THRILLED at their behavior. Hanging out at the fringes, I listen carefully at the comments, typically something like:
"Man, if this is what kids are like from Catholic schools, when I have kids you can bet that's where they're going."
Why ? Simply -- the school has a code of conduct that is enforced.
Second point: When we interviewed the school many years ago, three different teachers told my wife (an Ed Psych) something like "I'd much rather teach boys than girls. Yes, they're high-energy, but you can use that to your advantage if you plan the curriculum." All of them had taught at mixed-gender public schools before taking a cut in pay to come to a school where education mattered, not baby-sitting.
Boys and girls are different, to be sure. But boys are only "worse" if you aren't prepared to actually, you know, work for a living, since girls as a group have somewhat more tolerance for prolonged sedentary activity. That's great for the lazy teachers, but it really doesn't have much to do with anything else.
I really don't think that there are all that many bad students, but there are a lot of bad parents.
This sort of inane blather is intended for one purpose only: to offend males and the people close to them. No sane person possibly could have written this tripe. I suggest that the writer be institutionalized in a partiarchal Taliban asylyum. The boys who go to school with the writer's daughter need to be warned she is being raised by a nut, so beware.
Here is yet another of my tedious takes on the psycho-babble that is "boys are bad":
I am going to have a nice short glass of Makers Mark with just a splash and a half of water (no ice), walk all seven of my formerly stray dogs, read a little detective fiction (the one with the hero saving some hot tomato from peril), and slip off into the land of nod where I will either be chased by deamons or pursue one of my nearly naked fantasy women--either way I'll wake in a sweat.
I have my own troubles to deal with and I am flagrantly bored with academia and its never-ending furrowed brow. If it weren't this topic it would be another, then another, then another... That comment is not meant as a slander against the lovely host of this blog, her profession in general, nor the commentors here, but as a diversionary line meant to focus attention on more demanding topics. I apologize for being a boor.
One reason life was better when ____ is that people didn't fret so much about the details of life and just lived it. Deal with it. Get over yourselves. Things is like that sometimes. Don't worry about it. Mind your own business. And all that.
Y'all get some sleep; tomorrow is another day and we've got a lot of work to do.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
Technically, Yamantaka is correct. If you were to say this sort of thing in person, especially in a childhood education class, you'd see nary a raised eyebrow.
We (as a society) spend years telling boys that they are inherently predators (see Zaslow's "Moving On" column in today's WSJ), that they are damaged goods, that they can never be as smart, as well-behaved, as good as girls. We stigmatize normal boy behaviors, eliminate tag and recess, and focus on helping the girls (who are pretty much outperforming boys in school, and have been for almost 20 years, if not longer).
And then we wonder why they act out so much. I wonder how much is due to boys deciding (at the unconscious level, if not consciously) that if they are going to be considered evil or defective, they might as well live down to that image.
Dr. Helen, yamantaka and garou do seem to bracket the truth. Articles and statements such as this appear and are not, in normal circumstances, considered inappropriate. That harms boys.
One must wonder exactly how damaged our boys are? How many are damaged? How many find a way to out-think the hate?
Boys of any race are the new niggers, it seems.
Being a black boy in America has to be the hardest thing in the world.
God help this country.
Yamantka,
I did understand that you were being ironic. I hope you did not feel that my anger was in any way directed towards you!
We should be doing more than raising our eyebrows when people engage in this level of discriminatory discourse; the normal response to this type of hatred, prejudice and sexism is outright indignation and mockery--this type of hatred--for that is what it is--should not be tolerated as "normal" in our society--it is anything but.
Discrimination against women is sexism.... discrimination against men /boys is ... funny, as Farrell said
etahasgard1986,
And discrimination against girl/women used to be seen as funny too, until people who cared actually tried to do something about it. The problem is, too many people, both men and women don't believe that men or boys can feel, hurt, or even deserve anything better than a laugh.
Since when have girls become little angels? Sure they may not be as physically disruptive as boys, but they rule in the passive-aggressive manipulative and judgmental arena. You can just forget cinnamon, spice and everything nice. Most of the time girls, women, ladies, whatever you want to call them, scare the heck out of me. Give me a classroom of boys any day.
Not parody, but tongue in cheek?
I must be broken, because between the comments here and the ones I scanned at Slate, I am surprised that no one thinks that this was just an obnoxious semi-serious piece couched with tongue in cheek humor.
I agree that the basic argument is sexist, and that such an argument, reversed, would have the howls of feminists, I am just saying that the phrases "retarded", "angels", are not to be taken seriously and were not meant to be taken seriously by the author. They are in the same vein as the ironic comments of Yamantaka above.
On the other hand, no one before me seems to have mentioned this, so I assume I am just broken.
For what it's worth,
Western " civilization" more and more treats males as inferior creatures that should be controlled like animals,
And Middle Eastern Muslims treat females as inferior creatures that should be controlled like animals,
I must be from another planet.
Feminists ( and other forms of leftist life ) are the western version of the Taliban.
Discrimination against women is sexism.... discrimination against men /boys is ... funny, as Farrell said
I would put it like this:
Discrimination against women is sexism.... discrimination against men is ... SCIENCE!
I don't know how serious this Tim Harford is, but he also has written another column "Why Polygamy is good for women"!
http://www.slate.com/id/2136453/
Without going into too long an argument, girls (generally) are rule-makers and rule-followers while boys are rule-testers. Give girls few or no rules and they'll make some that suit them. Give boys few or no rules and they'll push until they find a rule/boundary, if one exists.
Of course boys *may* be more difficult in a setting that would appear to demand reasonable rules of conduct. However, I don't know about England, but enforcing *any* rule about behavior in US schools seems bootless.
Having coached many boys, it is my experience that all but the most hopeless (perhaps sociopathic, even) *want* a reasonable set of rules. Kept reasonable (i.e. explainable to them, whether they agree or not) and to the minimum required, boys respond to rules by acting like true men.
My own impression from teaching high school (don't know how that translates into Americanese... in Australia, 'high school' means years 7-12) for a year:
I prefer to teach boys than girls overall, (although having said that I have some wonderful students who are girls). Boys do struggle with the constraints of the classroom (sit still, be quiet and listen/read/write) more than girls, but they're also much more straightforward to deal with. Boys who are bad at least do you the service of actually breaking the rules; girls who are bad tend to sit and snipe and bitch and generally make things personal.
Boys have to be disciplined more often, but also handle that discipline better; the same boy whose face you chewed off fifteen minutes ago often wants to be your friend now, whereas girls are more likely to bear grudges.
Having said that, I'm a large loud man which gives me a decided advantage in building rapport with teenage boys; for some teachers the aggression and energy of boys is much more difficult to deal with. But the idea that 'boys are bad', if true at all, is only true in societies with a chronic absence of fathers.
"But the idea that 'boys are bad', if true at all, is only true in societies with a chronic absence of fathers."
Um, no, the boys without the fathers can be charming, personable, friendly and sweet. The only difference between the ones without the fathers and the ones with the fathers is those that ones with fathers managed to stay in school, stay away from bad influences and control their behavior.
I smell satire.
Satire has to be exaggerated. Based on reality, but stretched to absurdity, to highlight certain aspects of the real world.
Since the attitude portrayed in the article prevails at many schools, it can't be satire. It might be how he really feels, or it might be fiction.
But it's just not absurd.
Suppose someone wrote in 1948 that they hated black people, and that if a blacks marched for civil rights, they'd use fire hoses, dogs and nightsticks on them.
It wouldn't be satire.
Neither is this.
Tim Hartford? Who the heck is he?
I view this article with nothing more than indifference.
Teaching Sunday School for 6-8 year olds has made me prefer single-sex environments either way -- that is, I'd take either an all-boy group or an all-girl group before a mixed group, though admittedly they usually get two men to tag-team the all-boy groups at my church, and so I've never had an all-male group for more than one Sunday (and then only because none of the girls showed up.) I have, however, taught mixed groups for two years, and an all-female group this year, and though I'm sad that the girls just aren't as interested in a lot of the "fun" stuff (and have a tendency to talk back in a far more teenager-ish fashion than their male counterparts,) there's far less posturing and showing off from both sides when it's a single-sex group.
I don't have any boys who start breaking out into random Star Wars talk in the middle of a lesson, I don't have girls who will primly sit off in the corner and say "I don't NEED to wiggle" (at the age of 6!) and in general I get far less of the sillier behavior from either group, when they're separated. If anything, I'd say that the presence of the opposite sex gives kids the excuse to ruin school for themselves, but hey, I'm dealing with the "ugh, girls are gross"/"boys are icky!!" age group here.
(and I thought that different rates of emotional development between the sexes was more or less confirmed? I mean, "retarded" still does have a straightforward meaning, right?)
FWIW (these single-experience comments have little academic value, especially when referencing the 60's and 70's) I attended an all-male non-sectarian prep school in the midwest - blue blazer and gray flannels from 3rd Grade through to graduation in 1969. I attended the University of Virgina, which first admitted women undergraduates in 1970 (yes, the premier state University was all-male for 150 years).
My wife attended an all-female prep school - gray skirt and green blazer - you get it. She went to Smith College, even today all-female.
We were expected to behave, and to study.
We met during Christmas break while in graduate school - been married for thirty years, no problems, great kids and jobs, all the good stuff. Whatever society was doing in our formative years seems to have worked for us.
The prep schools we went to merged in the early 90's, but they separate the genders from 6th through 8th grades, recognizing the different developmental patterns of boys and girls.
The current crop of graduates is by and large socio-pathological.
The only thing we can see that changed is the the behavioral expectations of the faculty, administration and trustees.
Now our public school is the one with standards and behavioral expectations, but our peers can't seem to understand how we can expose our children to "that kind" of education.
Over 20 years ago I attended a Christian denomination-affiliated boarding high school. I noticed that the girl's dormitory was locked up tight every night, with buzzers to alert the staff when any door was opened. In contrast, my dorm (boy's) had no buzzers or locks on the door.
When I asked the school principal about this, he shared with me this wisdom:
"[Parallel], there is a particular difference between girls and boys I would like to point out. If you do something like put locks on doors that girls don't like, they will bitch, moan, complain, not talk to you, hold a grudge, and generally make your life miserable---for about six months. And then they get used to it and life goes on.
"Boys, on the other hand, might generically mention in passing that locking people in buildings isn't such a great idea. But if it's truly a bother they will simply take 'em [the locks] out."
After graduating from this religious denomination-affiliated boarding high school, I went on to a religious denomination-affiliated boarding college halfway across the country. Again, the women's dorm was locked up tight every night, with door buzzers. (The exit doors were even chained, but that's another whole story.) The men's dorm had no alarm system, and the outside door locks were routinely filled with cyanoacrylate glue to ensure ease of access.
Then the men's dorm staff had brilliant idea: the fire alarm system needed upgrading, so it was a perfect opportunity to install an integrated fire/security system with electric locks on the doors. Of course, the electric locks would release in the event of a fire, so it was even safer than chaining the doors!
The guys figured out that if they wanted to leave the dorm at night, they simply had to spray a smoke detector with an aerosol deodorant. The fire alarm went off and they could do what they wanted in the confusion. One test week night the fire alarm went off 5 times.
Not long after that I moved out of the dorm.
Not sure if this was the point of the article's author, but it's hilarious seeing political correctness spewing from the keyboards of right-wingers.
cham --
The only difference between the ones without the fathers and the ones with the fathers is (that those) ones with fathers managed to stay in school, stay away from bad influences and control their behavior.
Only?? That's the bulk of maturity you list there and exerts no small influence on their abilities to be "charming, personable, friendly and sweet".
This isn't pc, David. This is fighting hate and the bigotry of low expectations. That seems to be the primary mode of the left right now - hate and soft bigotry.
satire
check his blog
Here -Fixed it for ya.
If that article isn't bigoted, neither is this.
GRRRRL power gone wrong
There's finally proof that girls do ruin schools for boys.
By Tim Harford
My colleague at the Financial Times, Isabel Berwick, recently mourned the closure of her husbands’ fondly remembered all-boys' school and regretted "a slow societal shift away from boys-only schools and colleges." As the father of two young sons, I am paying attention.
Yet "slow" is the operative word. Boys' schools are clinging on tenaciously in the public sector here in Britain: More boys go to single-sex schools than girls. In inner London, parental preferences for boys' schools are particularly pronounced. The Guardian has reported that more than half of inner-London boys attend boys' schools, and just over a quarter of girls attend girls’ schools. The result, of course, is that the mixed schools contain a disproportionate number of girls.
Parents make these choices because of a widely held belief that boys thrive in single-sex environments. But is that true? And what are the implications for the boys left surrounded by emotionally destructive adolescent females?
We are in the realm of so-called "peer effects" here, and they are notoriously hard to measure. Boys' schools produce good academic results, but that could be because particular types of parents favor such schools, because those schools have a strong historical record, or because of selection. My husband was lucky enough to go to a state-funded, single-sex, selective school in a prosperous neighborhood. His classmates did well in their exams, but there is an embarrassingly large range of explanations as to why.
A new working paper from economists Victor Lavy of Hebrew University and Analía Schlosser of Princeton attempts to unpick the peer effects associated with gender, using data on nearly half a million students passing through Israel's school system in the 1990s. They compared consecutive year groups passing through the same school, figuring that if one year's group was 55 percent girls and the next year's was 55 percent boys, that difference was very likely to be random and thus susceptible to meaningful number crunching.
Their answer chimes perfectly with the conventional wisdom: Girls benefit from being in a classroom with boys, but boys do not benefit from being in a classroom with girls. What is interesting about Lavy and Schlosser's work is that it uses survey data provided by the children to work out what is causing the effects. The survey questions ask, for example, about disrespect in school, respect for teachers, classroom distractions, and relations among students.
Girls pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers with caustic remarks, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more girls are worse than fewer girls, not only because of the Alpha Girl Syndrome causes social competition but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.
It is all rather troubling, especially for the parents of little angels like my sons. Evidently, it is impossible to satisfy the—apparently justified—parental demand to educate boys in single-sex schools and girls in mixed classes. (Not for the first time in my life, I conclude that the world doesn't have enough boys in it.)
Researchers from the University of London's Institute of Education have asked a related question, comparing mixed schools with single-sex schools (from the 1970s, when nonselective single-sex schools were more plentiful) rather than the varying gender balance within mixed schools. Their conclusions, published last year, were subtly different. They found that girls disrupt mixed classrooms surreptitiously, but found that girls did not do any worse if locked up in a single-sex school.
A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting boys' education with their backstabbing little golddiggers. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers—and group therapy.
From Wikipedia: Tim Harford (born 1973) is an English economist and journalist, residing in London. He is the author of two economics books, presenter of BBC television series Trust Me, I'm an Economist, and writer of a humorous weekly column called "Dear Economist" for The Financial Times, in which he uses economic theory to attempt to solve readers' personal problems.
He probably wouldn't dare write an article with the opposite premise, saying how awful girls are. I skimmed through a few comments on the Slate article and there are some decent people over there. There is a comment from a teenage girl who hated the article, because she likes to be around boys.
If you want to read an anti-boy article from a true policy-wonk perspective, go to http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/ESO_BoysAndGirls.pdf. Sara Mead seems to take delight in this kind of stuff, and unfortunately gets away with it; i.e., she gets the admiration and respect from her other policy-wonk peers.
I don't want to be in a classroom with people who have cooties. You know how sometimes you can feel the cooties crawling on you even though you know you haven't touched any girls lately? Can't pay attention to the lecture if I'm all worried about stuff like this.
I know little about the UK people personally, but I can say with certainty the opposite is true in America. I graduated 2003, and in all my years in elementary, middle and high school my female class mates were always 75% more violent and prone to disrupt class.
I seen over 25 fights on school grounds during my high school years 9th-12th grade and everyone of them
was girl against girl.
The point is,it is not biology genetics or hormones it is the failure of the british parents to teach males in there country how to behave, much the same in America how girls are given a free pass on there actions and thus become femm fatales.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
性愛影片色咪咪影片網哈啦聊天室咆哮小老鼠影片aa成人漫畫葉晴貼影片影片轉檔程式情色影片foxy下載色情小說女影片免費下載a片aa免費看情色文學成人小說aa 片免費看影片 aa訊豆豆出租名模情人視訊aaa影片下載城男同志影片免費影片線上直播日本美女寫真集免費av18禁影片18成人卡通成人a片同志影片
Post a Comment
<< Home