Are Single Sex Schools Really the Answer?
A Georgia school system is set to go single-sex:
Will single sex classrooms lead to better outcomes in this Georgia school? It's hard to say, given that there are so many other variables that might be at play leading to the poor test scores, drop out rates and pregnancies. The article mentions that single sex schools tend to be private institutions with updated technology and ample resources, not poor school systems like Greene County's. It will be interesting to see if there is improvement or not.
Nearly four decades after this rural Georgia county stopped segregating its schools by race, it wants to divide students again—this time by sex. Greene County is set to become the first school district in the nation to go entirely single-sex, with boys and girls in separate classrooms—a move born of desperation over years of poor test scores, soaring dropout rates and high numbers of teenage pregnancies.
"At the rate we're moving, we're never going to catch up," Superintendent Shawn McCollough told parents in an impassioned speech last week. "If we're going to take some steps, let's take some big steps."
This pine-shrouded county of about 14,400 people between Atlanta and Augusta has in recent years become a magnet for retirees moving into luxury developments along the shore of Lake Oconee. But the vast majority of longtime residents—and most of the 2,000 students in the county's schools—are black and working class.
Will single sex classrooms lead to better outcomes in this Georgia school? It's hard to say, given that there are so many other variables that might be at play leading to the poor test scores, drop out rates and pregnancies. The article mentions that single sex schools tend to be private institutions with updated technology and ample resources, not poor school systems like Greene County's. It will be interesting to see if there is improvement or not.
posted by Helen at 2:37 PM
96 Comments:
I wonder if there are going to be any city-slickers nosin' around about that 14th Amendment stuff.
Public funding and "separate but equal" have been an issue before.
At the very least this move should decrease the incidence of girl-to-boy cootie infection. About damn time, if you ask me.
Bugs,
The teachers union has been downplaying the seriousness of that problem for decades.
However, I don't believe single-sex classrooms will end the tyranny unless the boys are taught by men who are willing to speak truth to power. Fat chance since that will jeopardize their tenure.
Sigh.
i went to an all boys school, i found that since the teachers in that school, Knew about boys, they could tailor the lessons accordingly.
there was a girls school nearby, so there was a bit of boy girl contact. my school was consistently top in the town in exams and results and sports.
Also, boys won't misbehave as much because they will no longer be trying to impress the girls, and the girls will be more likely to speak up in class because they won't be afraid to look smart in front of the boys, he said.
Seems boys are the whole problem anyway. Either that or the teachers and school administrators need to look at things a differently.
It will be interesting to see if there is improvement or not.
With no built-in options for students to attend a co-ed school in the district, it will also be interesting to see if this will be found constitutional. Public funds and all; sex segregation. (See VMI).
With no built-in options for students to attend a co-ed school in the district, it will also be interesting to see if this will be found constitutional. Public funds and all; sex segregation. (See VMI).
I doubt there would be a constitutional issue since they aren't segregating by race or religion. Sex segregation doesn't seem to be a problem if you're talking about an all female school or organization. It only seems to be a problem for some people if you're talking about an all male school or organization.
So here's the plan - declare that you're sending all of the girls to same sex classes. By default, that'll mean all of the boys are going to same sex classes as well. Only, you can't market it as being any benefit to the boys or certain people will complain.
Will they be reading I Know My Name is Alice in English class, or The Hobbit and Ender's Game?
So when exactly is the Supreme Court going to refund all the money the VMI and The Citadel were forced to spend fighting for their schools, only to be told that because they were the "wrong sex" that they couldn't continue unless they let girls in?
I recall that the same people behind the lawsuits against them were in the process of establishing the very first New York Girls Leadership School at the very same time. There are at least five of those now, magically untouched by the rulings that nearly shut down VMI and the Citadel until they admitted girls.
Will it help? Only if the boys' teachers are mostly male. Otherwise it's just the same ole same ole. I don't think the problems are entirely with the students, you see.
"Are Single Sex Schools Really the Answer?"
Yes, they are. Next topic.
Seems like the pregnancy problem could have been addressed by not letting the kids have sex in the classroom.
Detroit Public Schools had a few all-boys schools briefly, 10-15 years ago. They got sued, big-time. Parents of girls who tried to enroll their children got intimidated. It was weird, but brief. I don't know what the reasoning was behind trying only all-boys schools and not all-girls schools as well.
The girl who made all the fuss at Citadel until she finally got in.....
didn't she quit?
"The girl who made all the fuss at Citadel until she finally got in.....
didn't she quit?"
---
My memory of it was that she didn't make the cut / meet the standards so she washed out. She was too out of shape.
Either way, though, she didn't finish the program.
Shannon Faulkner didn't last one week.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/08/citadel.women/
The problem with separate but equal is that it is never separate and equal. One side will eventually get the better equipment, the better teachers and the better facilities. Then there will be the inevitable lawsuit.
Will single sex classrooms lead to better outcomes in this Georgia school?
Yes I believe it will. But dogwood is right. Unless there are male teachers the academic results will not be what they might.
And, as cham said, then there will be the inevitable lawsuits.
And it won't surprise me in the least that if the girls excel it will be because the boys were always holding them back but if the boys it excel (which I doubt will happen in male unfriendly school environment) it will be because people are trying harder to help the boys and it's not fair to the girls.
If they really have separate boys and girls high schools, they will have to be careful to offer exactly the same electives and extra-extracurriculars.
The second that the boys school has a science club or the girls school has a poetry club, the schools will get sued.
It will never be easy. There is always going to be girls who wish to take wood shop, metal shop, etc. And why not? Boys that wish to take home economics, maybe play field hockey. I mean, not my son, but perhaps somebody's.
Things like that could be done in vocational - technical centers , as they often are now. They could be called gender neutral vocational centers. And be separate schools, not near a boys or girls school That would be politically correct, but at least get the job done. And look at all the extra tax money we could blow.
I think we are going to have to get a lot more silly than we are now, before we head back toward sanity.
Cham and I agree on this issue.
There will be a perceived difference and then a lawsuit.
I also agree with Kim Du Toit. Single sex schools will have a beneficial result. And then the teachers will tear them down. If single sex programs lead to better academic performance, then the educational environment was poorly managed by the teachers and administrators. They cannot have their faces rubbed in the mess they have created.
www.thacher.org
That's my school and when I went there it was all boys. Many of my 40 classmates have gone on to become quite influential; you’d recognize some names.
Quite a few will also admit that they had trouble assimilating in a heterosexual world. Spend your entire adolescence isolated from the other sex, and when you finally come out I believe that most will experience culture-shock.
Although the school is rolling in dough now, it was virtually broke when I went there. So it’s not just the money… What they had, and continue to have, is a faculty willing to devote whatever time it takes to make sure that each individual student excels. That task, from what I have heard, was easier (for the faculty) when it didn’t have to deal with tension between the sexes of the student body.
The bonds that are created between classmates in a single-sex high school are stronger than any other I can imagine. College life, fraternities, and sororities, do not compare. Lifelong alliances develop. But the isolation, while without a doubt raising academic performance among its other benefits, has a high cost in terms of slowed socialization in the “real world”.
The school is now co-ed. It had to become so because in the late 70's because they couldn't attract enough students. I believe that in the long run, coed is best because we live in a coed world. In a coed school, however, we lose the closeness, camaraderie, and life long friendships of same-sex bonding, as well as the intellectual curiosity created when raging hormones are forced to seek outlets other than chasing tail.
So maybe the Georgia idea can create the best of both worlds. It will indeed be interesting.
In the case of the boys and girls school where i went too, and my friends did of both sexes.
there was some cross pollination, some courses were in the girls site, some in the boys. because they had the best course. but generally people were treated the same, it wasnt ban all girls in the boys school ban all boys in the girls. it was only allowed for certain subjects.
my school was run by the dela salle brothers, the girls school was run by nuns. it works because people are different and of different skills.
This might be great for the boys, but I feel for the girls. Girls have an odd way of creating social cliques. The clique leaders are often judgemental, controlling, exclusive and manipulative. Luckily, high school only lasts 4 years.
But Cham, I went to a co-ed high school and there were still cliques. I don't know if it would have been better at an all-girl school. I suppose without the boys to impress, the alpha girls might have been less brutal to the lesser girls. Or, who knows, maybe moreso?
All I know was that when the boys quit having cooties I switched over as soon as I could. I spent my high school years with a mix of both male and female friends, those big girl cliques were scary.
When I first got out in the work world I took a job in a company where many of the young office staff were female and attended all-girl Catholic schools. Their social skills were abysmal: cackling, whispering, secrets, control, backstabbing, you name it, they did it. Thank God I was the lone female in a 30 person sales team and I didn't have to deal with it much. Of course, I made 3x what the girls did and was driving around in a company car. Those girls didn't like me much.
Cham, you're giving me flashbacks of my working days. Yes, I knew plenty of those women too.
I spent 7-12 going to school with just guys and it worked for me. We all still dated and had contact with girls, it is a biological imperative!
I am cautiously optimistic about this being helpful. But I still believe that much of the public school problem is due to the monopoly and disinterested parents.
Trey
Unless they go a step further and stop treating the boys like girls, then it won't make any difference.
Good point J. I think that is where having a lot of male teachers would come in. But I would wager that the school system does not have many male teachers in the first place.
Men teaching boys might be very different than women teaching boys.
Trey
"Men teaching boys might be very different than women teaching boys."
Yes, usually (in my experience, of course - that's all I can speak from). But women who understand boys can make good teachers for boys too. Men who don't understand boys, or men who seem weak, not so much.
Seems like both boys and girls should be taught by both men and women - doesn't that just make sense? But there aren't very many men teaching, particularly in the elementary grades.
My own boy responds well to strong ("tough") male teachers or to strong females who don't treat him like a girl that can't behave. My girl does not like male teachers and tends to withdraw at first. (We homeschool, but they are in classroom situations periodically.) When a teacher makes an effort to get to know and understand them, and treat them as individuals, both kids respond well. Duh?
When I was a teenager, I marched several seasons with a drum and bugle corps in Vancouver, Washington. Drum corps is like marching band on steroids; all brass instruments (no woodwinds), a drum line, and a color guard. We practiced almost every day during the summer, and we traveled all over the country, marching and competing against other corps. Those were good times. And although there were (and still are, thankfully) a handful of all-male corps at the time, we were co-ed.
One summer, we were traveling through the Deep South, in 100-degree heat, and the air conditioning on one of the buses broke down. In order to keep the ladies comfortable, the men and boys of the corps all agreed to move into the bus with the broken A/C, and the ladies would take the other bus, at least until we could get to a mechanic. So we grabbed our pillows and books and stuff and made the switch. This arrangement also meant that, for the men at least, we could all strip down to our underwear with no worries. And we did...it was THAT friggin' hot. We pulled all the windows down and tried to stay as comfortable as possible until the sun went down.
That day was one of the most memorable of my entire drum corps experience. The whole dynamic of the corps changed, if only for a brief time. It was like the pressure was off somehow, and we could be ourselves. There we were, cruising across the Lake Ponchartrain Causeway in our skivvies, finally able to really let our hair down. I sat next to a guy in the drum line that had been pretty much a stranger to me the whole summer, and we talked for hours. The sense of comraderie and fellowship was wonderful. And when we finally got the A/C fixed, it was with a sense of real reluctance that we went back to our old arrangement.
That experience has always been a kind of touchstone for me when it comes to the issue of men needing the company of other men. It's a necessity so far as I'm concerned, yet the forums available to us for such fellowship are fast dwindling. "Men's clubs," Augusta National, VMI and the Citadel, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts...everywhere you turn, it seems like our manly institutions are either under threat or receiving constant ridicule. Don't believe me? Think about the general attitude, in the media and among feminists, toward the male ritual of the "hunting/fishing trip" or other such traditionally male activities. Think about the recent popularity of the "man-cave" and the "man-camp"...phenomena that are nothing less than a desperate attempt by some of us to recapture a place where we can be ourselves. And I'm not talking about the freedom simply to belch and fart without excusing ourselves. It's more than that.
All this is not to say that single-sex schools are necessarily the answer to the problems down here in Georgia. But there is definitely merit to the idea.
I briefly considered attending an all-male college...Hampden Sydney College, in Virginia. The only reason I went elsewhere was because they didn't have quite the biology department I was looking for.
And by the way...I'm not gay. I feel like I shouldn't even have to mention that, but I think these days people tend to assume that the only reason anyone would want to attend a single-sex institution must have nothing to do with academics.
Okay, this is kind of a rambling post. But I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.
I get it and understand completely.
Women have female only gyms, female only courses, female only clubs, Yet Men dont have that and are not allowed it.
Are women saying they are better they need more connection to other women. and that men dont. Men have a unspoken need to be around other men, sometimes as a test of manhood, to see who is better, a sense of competition, Bonding like sloan happend during that bus, its what makes us men better we are more content, happier with our lives.. then its back to how it was and its not as good.
single sex schols, can bring a deeper connectin to the other males, but it also can bring about the reverse. Which is exactly what happens in all schools. single and co ed.
re Sloan's comment:
I don't know why people wouldn't understand that both men and women might enjoy activities with members of their own sex sometimes.
A few months ago some men came to our house to help my husband with "manly" chores - replacing some siding, heavy yard work. They worked really hard, but they all enjoyed the time. They had a chance, and a reason, to spend time together and really talk - not just superficial stuff. When I would come out with drinks and such, I could hear the kind of deep conversations they were having. Afterwards, all of them talked about what a great day it had been. And though I could have been working out there too, it would have been different for them if I (or other women) had been there. I was happy to stay out of their way for many reasons.
We have a potential problem with an upcoming Cub Scout campout. At Cub level, the boys need a parent at all activities. The campouts are male-only. But 2 boys have fathers who do not participate - their moms take them to all the meetings. So the leaders are trying to figure out how to include these boys without compromising the male-only atmosphere. I hope they can work it out because I want my boy to experience that, and I'd like these other boy to experience it too, since it seems they don't get it with their own dads.
mercurior:
What is preventing you from gathering a few buddies and taking off for the weekend? Gathering a 4-some and setting a tee-time? Joining together everymorning when you're retired for coffee? What about the military service when you
re younger, which for generations helped young men to bond? Sure women are allowed to serve now too, but don't tell me there's not an awful lot of man-to-man alone time. How about organizing your own gathering of guys to play cards, as many of our grandfathers did? Or joining a mens over40 basketball or hockey league?
Sadly, it looks like too many of you have been feminized already, or not taught independence or to think for yourselves. In the examples above, nobody is going to stop you from keeping guy friends and bonding with them.
The complaining and "poor me I'm a victim" attitudes are offputting, and perhaps that is why fellow men don't want to play/travel/hang out with you? Still, you can't blame women/the government for that, can you? I think when you're more secure in your own personal choices, the more likely the guys don't object when the occasional wife joins her husband, say, for a cup of coffee before they head out later to a medical appointment. Or if somebody's daughter in town visiting replaces a member of that gold 4some one week, because another guy can't make it.
Men can tolerate this because they understand that they are free to "bond" with the guys any time they like; indeed, sometimes they even seem to like the new daughter/wife joining them.
Go out and do it for yourself, son. Ironically, that's the empowering message most of those who seek same-sex companionship yearn for, and obviously have not learned. But don't put it on someone else for not "allowing" you those opportunities.
Also, plenty of guys get together and take their sons camping without the organizational aspect like Scouts. If you have the equipment, it really frees you up not to worry about fatherless sons, or the kids who have never been outdoors before. Do it for yourself, and usually your range of options open up.
"Also, plenty of guys get together and take their sons camping without the organizational aspect like Scouts."
Sure, they can, and many do. And they have fun. But there is also something fun about a whole bunch of guys doing it together. Sometimes a group like the scouts gives them an impetus to get going. They may do something they have never thought of doing before. That's one reason why people join groups. It's also a way to meet people with similar interests. Men can get together and go camping; it's not always easy to find other men to go camping with.
It is cool to hang with the guys, but we sometimes get the feeling that many women do not approve of our behavior. Well, enough women who are willing to sue or protest or try to shut down the organizations that provide a framework for us to do so.
That pisses us off.
Obviously, Mary and Marbel are not among that number. It makes me wish that more people understood things the way they do.
Trey
I think you misunderstood this sentence, mabel: "Also, plenty of guys get together and take their sons camping without the organizational aspect like Scouts."
I know a group of about 10 or 15 guys, many friends from town and classmates from over 20 years ago, who rent sites at different state parks every year with their son(s), nephews, assorted others. Quantitywise, they probably rival a scout "pack". Yes, they are "together", just like the scouts, but with fees paid directly and no required "meetings" or formal "badgework".
The point is: they didn't need a group structure to organize them, motivate them, or help them purchase equipment/transportation/a campground large enough to accommodate the group.
It's probably self-fulfilling in that way: if your father went only as a group and needed structure as motivation, chances are you're not going to "find other men to go camping with". As opposed to those carrying on their own traditions of spending outdoors times with their sons, and friends they've kept over the years.
Plus, the area/region of the country you live in may make a big difference (suburban/urban v. country outskirts/rural). Along with the adult's vocations: office worker v. tradesman; businessman v. farmer.
At some point though, we need to accept these lifestyle differences, and take some individual responsibility instead of laying it all on the organizational rules and planning efforts. The more traditions that have died out, the harder it is to keep ones' independence in keeping them going.
Still, we shouldn't lazily accept that without help, it can't be done, or "it's not easy" to find friends/families to go outside, "something they may have never thought of doing before".
Beware of relying too much on groups, was my intent.
"The complaining and "poor me I'm a victim" attitudes are offputting, and perhaps that is why fellow men don't want to play/travel/hang out with you? Still, you can't blame women/the government for that, can you? I think when you're more secure in your own personal choices, the more likely the guys don't object when the occasional wife joins her husband, say, for a cup of coffee before they head out later to a medical appointment. Or if somebody's daughter in town visiting replaces a member of that gold 4some one week, because another guy can't make it."
--------
Read through the stuff that Mary wrote above. She simply can't help but insult men.
I think men are getting so used to harridans like her that they don't even notice it anymore. It's just part of life and society.
Trey:
Again, maybe it's where I live (upper midwest), but I think that there really are plenty of us, it's just the other ones who get the presstime.
That's why it really saddens me when some commenter's here think because you are a woman, you are automatically against them.
I mean, from the women I know, we WANT responsible, independent strong men who aren't always looking to blame others. Plus, like someone said above (maybe it was me :-) ?... the guys who really know they can go hang with the other guys any time they want, tend not to have such rigid "no girls allowed ever!! attitudes.
One woman golfing with them every now and then, or joining them for coffee, doesn't change the whole group dynamic where they suddenly can't be themselves or act regularly. She is a guest at their table, so to speak. These men, I've found, also don't express sadness or sympathy to a guy whose wife maybe bears a daughter either. (To me, there's nothing sadder than the insecurity shown when that whiff of sexism comes out... like your whole life/lifestyle as a man will change because you didn't transmit that extra chromosome. It's more underground now, but I've it seen it there up close in those more insecure in their maleness.)
My favorites are the guys who have their guy times, but also have family time too: hunting together on Thanksgiving Day after the meal ends. Pond skating on the holidays with the family after the inside festivities wrap up. Teaching the boys and girls good hunter safety rules, even if the child -- of either gender -- ultimately decides to pursue something else, concentrate on another sport say. And fishing too -- that's one that plenty of individuals like, girls and guys.
If you've made room for same-sex bonding traditions in your schedule, and respect family together times too, chances are you're better balanced, healthier for being outside, and more likely to raise strong sons and daughters. Ironically, with enough same-sex times built in, there really does seem to be less stereotypical comments and attitudes spawned in making generalities about the opposite sex, I've found. Which is natural, really...
She simply can't help but insult men.
And here we go with those generalities again... :-)
For the record, I wasn't insulting "men". I was challenging the lazy assumptions of an individual, who in this case happened to be a man.
BIG difference, unless you seem to think "men" are so weakened at this point by societal discrimination, that they can't understand/handle such honest criticism meant only to help them explore other alernatives, and take responsibility for themselves.
I'd say the same thing to a woman who was complaining about her options too, without looking at all the things she could do to better herself.
I think men are getting so used to harridans like her that they don't even notice it anymore. It's just part of life and society.
The proof is in the pudding. Sounds like more men are willing to spend time with me, than are with you or mercurior.
Wonder why that is, eh? (Insert sex/whore comment here, naturally... I can surely see that one coming)
Men shouldn't tolerate viragos like Mary in real life. Don't get used to it, point it out.
Give the little lady consequences to her actions (i.e. running her mouth).
Mary, I didn't misunderstand. I was sloppy in my cut/paste of your comment.
My point is simply this: organized groups can help people to get connected, or get started in something new. In our case, joining scouts was very helpful in getting acclimated to a new state. Some men might join because they have never camped, don't know anyone who camps, and want some help. Etc.
Sure, we can do things without organized groups, and we would if such were not available. I am not advocating relying solely on organized groups. I am pointing out that they can be valuable for many people. And single-sex groups can be valuable for the same reasons.
You notice that by pointing out her hate speech, I become a target for her.
My point, Mary, was that organized institutions, clubs, etc. that are specifically for men are not "officially", socially sanctioned in the way they used to be. And I think that's a shame. I certainly don't let it stop me from hanging out with the boys.
Sadly, it looks like too many of you have been feminized already, or not taught independence or to think for yourselves. - Mary
Not insulting men, eh? So the plural in the above about men being robot-bitches was directed towards one individual.
You're some piece of work Mary. Hard to take someone seriously when they keep changing their tune like a drunken fiddler.
For the record, I wasn't insulting "men". I was challenging the lazy assumptions of an individual, who in this case happened to be a man.
For the record, Mary, I found your reply profoundly insulting. Because you made a whole host of assumptions about me, and ran with them. I was content, however, to try to reply in a civil manner, until your follow-up comment above.
You don't know the first damned thing about me. So don't assume I'm not already doing ALL the things you think well-balanced men ought to be doing, because I am. You simply missed my point entirely.
For the record, Mary, I found your reply profoundly insulting. Because you made a whole host of assumptions about me, and ran with them. I was content, however, to try to reply in a civil manner, until your follow-up comment above.
You don't know the first damned thing about me. So don't assume I'm not already doing ALL the things you think well-balanced men ought to be doing, because I am.
I do feel sorry for you that you were "profoundly insulted" but again, I speculate that says much more about your feelings than it does me.
You suggested there were no opportunities around anymore for you to "bond" with other men; I suggested some rather easy ones. Not so sure what's so insulting about that.
But perhaps it's that miscommunication thing over the internet again. Perhaps you are physically limited -- I can see where a disabled man would indeed have less opportunity to explore some of the options I suggested. Or perhaps you live in a sparsely populated area, where there are transportation concerns about getting together regularly to play cards, have coffee, or get involved in a weekly league with other men.
Not insulting men, eh? So the plural in the above about men being robot-bitches
"Too many of you" referred to those commentors here complaining that "bitches" and other women had shut down all your organized opportunities to get together independently with other men, who clearly are still capable of doing so.
Continue to rant and fight me as the "woman-enemy" though... It gives you another good excuse for why you're not out with your buddies today, instead saving the world for all mankind sitting behind a computer taking on the Evil Woman Plot to stop you from participating in guy activities, eh?
You notice that by pointing out her hate speech, I become a target for her.
Wow. You respond to me personally, yet as a woman, I might give you cooties or something typing back. Better wear your bulletproof vest, you "target" you...
Men shouldn't tolerate viragos like Mary in real life. Don't get used to it, point it out. Give the little lady consequences to her actions (i.e. running her mouth).
I swear, if you threaten to take me over your knee and spank me, we're going to bust a gut here laughing. And for the record, I'm not a Virago: I'm a Libra! You're one month off...
Continue to rant and fight me as the "woman-enemy" though... It gives you another good excuse for why you're not out with your buddies today, instead saving the world for all mankind sitting behind a computer taking on the Evil Woman Plot to stop you from participating in guy activities, eh?
You're overstating your importance. It's common among the less intelligent and I certainly do not find it offensive.
You're not the "Woman-enemy", you can't even form a coherent arguement without back-pedaling constantly. You are very funny though, and offer an amusement while I finish up renders at work. You know...work? The reason I can't be "hanging with my buddies" right now. I'm honored that you think I'm saving the world while I'm waiting on my renders to load. I guess men can multi-task!
Keep em' coming sugardoll :D
BTW - Great blog Dr. Helen, just started reading your stuff a few weeks back.
without back-pedaling constantly... Keep em' coming sugardoll
Oh sugar-teats! I stand by everything I've written here...
But tell me "jl", who exactly are you? Did you change your name from "jg" when the going got hot?
Or did you just feel the need to jump in at the last minute, when it was clear your buddies needed a bit of help... ?
Glad to hear you've mastered the art of "multi-tasking" though. Now, can you impress us all by sewing on your own badge, when you're done "working" on that physical rendering job of yours, of course?
I stand by everything I've written here...
I know you do. That's what makes it entertaining.
Now, can you impress us all by sewing on your own badge, when you're done "working" on that physical rendering job of yours, of course?
Nah, sewing is woman's work. You busy? :D
Gotta run, lunchtime. Have fun folks.
I stand by everything I've written here... I know you do. That's what makes it entertaining.
But wait one goshdurned minute... you said, "It's common among the less intelligent and I certainly do not find it offensive. You're not the 'Woman-enemy', you can't even form a coherent arguement without back-pedaling constantly."
And now you're saying I'm not backpedaling... Is this one of those silly opposite games you schoolkids who stayed inside played. "Yes is no, and no is yes."
I hated those gameplaying kids. Really.
Hurry back from your lunch hour though. Must really suck to only get one hour out, and have your life run on a schedule like that.
Oh, and of course I can sew. As can most practical fellows I know. Beats tossing torn pants caught on underbrush, and you'd be amazed how handy it can come in patching up a well-used tent too.
Course, you probably wouldn't know anything about that, huh? Enjoy your Happy Meal!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heehee, a little ruffled are we. Scroll up and review your statements and you'll see the contradictions. Standing by what you say and forming a coherent arguement are not mutually inclusive. I know, I know. Logic is hard. But this ain't high school sugar, and I'm not doing your homework for you. :D
So basically, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Got it. This is also the reason the men in your life are talking about how they can't stand you behind your back.
I really wish you could see how amazingly destructive you are, but ya can't, even after so many reasonable folks tried to address you in a non-condescending manner.
Thankfully my sense of humor is dark and I can't stop smiling.
Moving on :D
1) I prefer a co-ed environment. I suppose the "male bonding" thing works for some people, but not for me.
2) "Single Sex" really means "girls only"
3) I'd wager that the single sex school works on the short term, but that the real cause for success will be all the extra attention, time and money given it.
first of all mary (lower case again) most of my male friends live throughout the country. and strangely they have children, and other things to do.
men being men are vilified by society, i have heard this said, that men shouldnt be with other men because thats a sign of the patriarchy and that keeps women down.
Legally, you cant refuse a girl from joining the scouts. but try getting a boy into the guides. and its no.. thats sexist..
Of course what with the pedophilia hysteria, any man is looked as being weird if they want to be with kids for any amount of time.
so who made the laws, the government. You cant have men only courses in colleges, thats sexism, you cant have men only gyms, thats sexism. yet you can have women only gyms.. thats not sexism. Not content to have their own places, these women want to take what men have, in the name of so called equality. yet it isnt.
Look at all the pedophilia hysteria, would you want to be a male around children.
mary until you live your life as a male, you cannot understand us, better still is if you shut up and think about what we have said. and not just jump to the conclusion we are all wimps. its a discussion,
of course now saying that, i and my fellow men will be told to suck it up, or stop whining, to stop being wimps. (yet why we argue that life isnt fair and we do things about it we are called sexist pigs or misogynists).
There is a suspicion now in society, mary , society that you and your kinds created, that look upon men who want to do things with thier children as somehow sick and twisted. But then again you cant see anything else but your own view. You know nothing about our lives but that which we tell you, dont you think there are other things we dont tell you.
mary, you are a sexist. as men we want equality of treatment by society, but society is pro woman. and if its pro woman its anti male.
of course you will never change your beleif. you will blame me, or sloan or jl, for not doing things. (but we may be doing things that you dont know about)
Mary - I see the conversation has sort of moved on here, but I was thinking about this while waiting at the orthodontist today:
"It's probably self-fulfilling in that way: if your father went only as a group and needed structure as motivation, chances are you're not going to "find other men to go camping with". As opposed to those carrying on their own traditions of spending outdoors times with their sons, and friends they've kept over the years."
It can also work the other way. Sticking with scouts as an example - say a boy with a non-participant father joins scouts, learns to love camping and all that, makes some great friends, grows up, gets married, has kids, and starts new traditions with them.
It has to start somewhere, yes?
I'm getting the impression you have grown up around lots of men who do these "male-bonding" sorts of things on a regular basis, and carry that on through generations. Not everyone has that, but many people would like it.
When I was in college ('80s) there were lots of groups specifically for women but none for men. Typically when something started for men, women protested because, they claimed, it was sexist. I am pretty sure things have not gotten better since then.
So I do "worry about the fatherless boy" because he's likely growing up in a very feminine environment and I don't think that's so good. (Though the boys I was referring to have fathers, they just don't participate in their scouting activities for reasons I am not privy to.)
Where you read whining and victimization from some of these guys, I just read frustration. But then I try very hard to assume goodwill when communicating via the internet (unless the contrary is very obvious).
yes marbel, we are frustrated at every point.
we try our best, its never good enough, some try to be good fathers, yet that can be looked upon with suspicion, some try to be big brother organisation, but once again suspicion.
we dont have many forums to talk about this subject, dr helens blog is one of the best, she seems to understand men better than most.
Some of the things i say is venting, if i didnt have a place to speak out, i would quite possibly act out the frustrations out.
But today men are not a part of a male childs life. (generally speaking there are always exceptions but i dont count those) whether the mother has divorced the father and is refusing visitation rights, or t. So in a school that is male only, in particular that sense of having a support network, is essential if you dont want children to become monsters.
and yes marbel, the frustration grows every day. when we are not allowed to be heard.
So I do "worry about the fatherless boy" because he's likely growing up in a very feminine environment and I don't think that's so good.
It can be worse than that. I've heard quite a few women say, "I don't need a man to raise a child."
What if her child turns out to be a boy? She has basically said that men are useless in her view. Without a doubt, the boy is going to pick up on that message no matter how loving the mother may be.
My father was a carpenter. We never went camping together because he was too busy working to keep us fed, clothed, and housed. He was a real man. He loved us and showed it by his actions more than his words. I joined the Boy Scouts and stayed in for several years. The Boy Scouts helped me have many of my most fond experiences of childhood. So of course, the Boy Scouts must be destroyed.
--- I've heard quite a few women say, "I don't need a man to raise a child." ---
----------
Society is set up today - and most men just accept "that's the way it is" - with women being able to make all decisions about the child (it's "her" child). Sometimes, with a recalcitrant man, an atom-bomb approach is required by the woman (allege sexual assault in court by the man on the child), but she WILL get her way if she wants.
But it's also the man's child.
THAT sentiment is only reflected in the "pay" part. Child support orders are backed today by draconian measures. Read the Bradley Amendment and read up on men who simply can't pay but are thrown in jail anyway. Thrown in jail for a debt.
Men just accept it. The woman gets the entire say - starting with the decision about whether to have the baby or not in the beginning (abortion) and continuing on. The man gets to pay and do what the woman says if he wants to see "her" child.
Larry, what if her child turns out to be a girl? It is often thought that healthy girls seek out a mate that is like their father, only better! Same thing goes for mothers, but single dads are not an epidemic in the country.
We, men and women, are best as a team. We are greater than the sum of our parts together. A cliche of sorts, but a true fact none the less.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
Standing by what you say and forming a coherent arguement are not mutually inclusive. I know, I know. Logic is hard. But this ain't high school sugar, and I'm not doing your homework for you. :D
So basically, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Eh... Getting your jollies online, eh? Everything I've said above is quite logical and coherent, and I stand by it.
I'm sorry some of you "men" here choose to play the victim cards, but in no way do I think you're representative of all men. Again, maybe it's the location, or those who self-select onto the dr.helen blog...
And not only to I know how to make and win arguments, I also am familiar enough with the word to know how to correctly spell it. Long time since I been in high school too; kinda forget how lame it can be to be in with the general population, as some types tend to get weeded out in higher education.
OK, good luck to all. Hope you find the right blend of schools -- be they public or private -- for your own boys and girls. Or home school, for that matter. I'm just pretty sure the Constitution guarantees that if public funds are spent, you can't split 'em up and not provide the same quality education for either. Hence the many parents who choose parochial same-sex educations, particularly at the high school levels...
We shall see what happens to these poor kids in Georgia, eh?
Trey: once again, I give you accolades for trying to lift this discussion against the boys v. girls silliness that so seem determined to bring it down too... Keep up the good word, my friend! (Some of you desiring more quality-man-time with buddies of your own might choose to imitate the example.)
When I was in college ('80s) there were lots of groups specifically for women but none for men. Typically when something started for men, women protested because, they claimed, it was sexist. I am pretty sure things have not gotten better since then.
Marbel,
Perhaps the distinction is if public funds are being spent? If men are choosing to organize and organize their own activities as I had described, I can't see how anyone could complain. (Or if they did, why anyone would waste a minute of time worrying about it. That type of personal protest can simply be ignored.)
But when we are speaking public taxpayer funding, then I think you have to have some base level of equality for men and women. That is what the sports programs in the school are all about, right?
And the science clubs. And the leadership weekends, etc. If the parents aren't paying privately, it's awful hard to promote one gender over the other nowadays.
Which is why I made the recommendation of self organizing, and avoiding the club's and their rules altogether when at all possible.
I do understand that many people relocate leaving some of their family/friend traditions behind. And surely scouting groups can help fill these voids. But along with that comes compromises because often then you are dealing with fatherless boys who surely need someone to step up as a chaperone (maybe an uncle, or father or another boy, or a family friend could fit the bill?)
Plus, if a group takes United Way funding, or uses other free facilities to meet, instead of someone's garage, then there are rules to be followed there too. But I totally understand that even with these slight restrictions, some of the organized groups are better than no trips or no such get-togethers at all. So I hope you don't think I was "against" things like scouting -- I'm not.
Where you read whining and victimization from some of these guys, I just read frustration. But then I try very hard to assume goodwill when communicating via the internet (unless the contrary is very obvious).
And that is very good advice! I guess "frustration" is a better word to use for them, as you note. It just seems a shame those commentors here who choose to wallow in their frustration and seeming lack of options, rather than take responsibility and not waste the time on blaming others.
Perhaps if I was a guy offering this advice to them, it would not come off so apparently threatening, or make me into a seeming "bitch". And perhaps some really do have personal dislikes built up in them against all women, for whatever reason, and enjoy "fighting back" online. I suspect that is why they are attracted to dr. helen's blog, and perhaps it does take a trained psychologist to help them with their frustrations. Too big a job for me, I can see!
mary until you live your life as a male, you cannot understand us, better still is if you shut up and think about what we have said. and not just jump to the conclusion we are all wimps. its a discussion
Oh, and for the record, I certainly don't think all men are wimps. To the contrary.
But I do find it very very odd that you continue to type in lower case and refuse to Capitalize proper names. Like I say, that's a job for someone bigger than me...
"And not only to I know how to make and win arguments ... "
----
Mary, you don't know how to make and win arguments.
You know how to make irritating and inflammatory statements.
You aren't convincing anyone here of a different point of view, you are simply throwing out unfounded accusations about how people are. You are caustic, not persuasive.
I don't quite get your motivation for doing it, but I don't think it's good.
And not only to I know how to make and win arguments, I also am familiar enough with the word to know how to correctly spell it. - Mary
Ok, but did you know "do" is spelled "d" "o"? But you know what, you're right. A misspelling on my part invalidates anything I may have to say. That's what you were implying right? Such a solid defense to saying that the men here were far too feminized, then recanting and saying that you only meant it to an individual. Or to calling out others for "generalizing" when that is all you have done ad nauseam in most of your posts. Yep, you sure know how to win an arguement (argh! again!).
Glass houses Mary, glass houses. If you took a gander in the mirror I think quite a bit would be clearer. You assume far too much about the posters who disagree with you.
In spite of your presumptuous all-knowing nature I do wish you well and look forward to future spell-checks. Peace be with you and have good night. ;)
"But I do find it very very odd that you continue to type in lower case and refuse to Capitalize proper names. Like I say, that's a job for someone bigger than me... "
Oh but Mary, these are the kinds of trivial issues that bog down a good discussion. Why care how someone types your name? Why make a big deal out of it, out of spelling errors, etc?
Sorry little mabel.
But if somebody is going to try and prove their "smartness" over me, it's only natural they would know how to spell the word argument correctly I think... I know we've got an awful lot of the sensitive feeling boys represented here though, and naturally they should be coddled rather than having one call out their errors like that... No Red Pens in the Classroom! You must be one of the softer ladies behind that movement, eh?
And if I tell someone to Cap my Name, I expect them to have that respect. But you would know nothing about that little mabel, eh?
Lol, this really is a fun place. Stick around sweetie, some of those here will need you to defend them, I see...
A misspelling on my part invalidates anything I may have to say. That's what you were implying right
Just saying, you're kinda stupid, and I certainly wouldn't want you anywhere around my boys. But mabel might let you join her troop... she doesn't know anyone in her area after all, and kinda likes the weaker men.
Peace be with you and have good night.
Eh. Fuck off bud!
I love girlfights. Especially whe the F-word starts to fly...
Sorry, I F'd up the spelling of the word "when".
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry little mabel.
But if somebody is going to try and prove their "smartness" over me, it's only natural they would know how to spell the word argument correctly I think... I know we've got an awful lot of the sensitive feeling boys represented here though, and naturally they should be coddled rather than having one call out their errors like that... No Red Pens in the Classroom! You must be one of the softer ladies behind that movement, eh?
And if I tell someone to Cap my Name, I expect them to have that respect. But you would know nothing about that little mabel, eh?
Lol, this really is a fun place. Stick around sweetie, some of those here will need you to defend them, I see...
A misspelling on my part invalidates anything I may have to say. That's what you were implying right
Just saying, you're kinda stupid, and I certainly wouldn't want you anywhere around my boys. But mabel might let you join her troop... she doesn't know anyone in her area after all, and kinda likes the weaker men.
Peace be with you and have good night.
Eh. Fuck off bud! - Mary
You know what mary, I was wrong about you. You are a classy lady worthy of respect.
In the UK, there is legislation that ANYONE, with any contact with children in a NON parental role. HAVE to be vetted have to get a criminal check. strangely it rarely happens to women.
If you want to volunteer to work as a big brother or that type. you have to give all your details to the police who does a complete check of your life. Jl give up on mary, (see lowercase again on purpose), she loves making out it is always the mans fault. She the the kind of woman who frustrates the mens rights, the equal male system. So in effect she is the problem. Whatever we do is never good enough. so why do anything( then she will say we are doing nothing). This attitude is everywhere, from politicians to mary (lower case again)
this is why Boys and men are rebelling against women, they are frustrated and when frustration grows beyond a certain point boys/men will turn to violence.
Its when people dont listen to what we have to say. Like mary. one day she may well be faced with angry men.
Mary sez:
"Eh. Fuck off bud!"
------
LOL. Mary's starting to get a little frustrated. People are starting to respond with logic, and it's really throwing her game off.
Mary, good arguments are arguments that persuade. Good arguments get people to see the issue in a different way, and they get people to possibly even change their minds. Good arguments bring in facts that people may not have known.
You are not doing any of that. You are apparently high on yourself, thinking you are making good arguments, and you are simply spewing poison. You are brimming with hate and frustration and you are simply trying to blow off steam.
ALL men aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Calm down and take a look at reality.
Self-worth is linked directly to achievement. Boys are divided into "winners" and "losers," and few boys "measure up." Throughout the school years, boys make up the majority of students at the bottom of the class in academic achievement.
Boys are also disproportionately over-represented among those diagnosed as having "learning disabilities" and among those failing academically. The internalized feelings of lack of worth and stupidity attach onto boys' feelings that they are "bad," and many never
recover from this image of themselves as being "dumb." (which is whats being said now.
A sad tale of little boys lost
From education to fatherhood, the role of men in our society has been dangerously undermined
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article637000.ece
No job; no role in fatherhood; no chance of ever buying a house and a very slim chance of being given one (she’s got it, with the kids); and no one expecting anything more of them. And people wonder why the crime rate has soared and the jails are full. There are second and third generations of unemployed coming through; it is a family business. And they are being undercut further by skilled and unskilled labour from Eastern Europe; not much point in bothering, really.
that first comment is from this site http://tinyurl.com/23s5r6 i forgot to add it.
Merc wrote: "Boys are also disproportionately over-represented among those diagnosed as having "learning disabilities" and among those failing academically."
We are over-represented in learning disabilities because so many brain problems have an Y chromosome component. We guys are more genetically fragile!
I think we need special government funding! End the Y oppression! Genetic equality for all!
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
It has always been a known fact that boys benefit more in single sex classes than with the distractions of the girls being in the same classes.
That is why standards have fallen when they decided it would be good to have mixed classes for Political Correct ideas.
sloan: And by the way...I'm not gay.
I used to chat with a girl in Georgia who went by that name. I don't remember if it was her first or middle name. Anyways, I wasn't thinking "you're gay" while reading your post and it wouldn't have even crossed my mind if you hadn't mentioned it. I think the mens-only groups and clubs sounds like a good idea and it is unfortunate that they are constantly under attack. One time I was listening to Dennis Prager and he was saying that it is important for men and women to have close friends of the same sex.
yes its a great idea, clubs where men dont have to watch their language, can sit and talk about nothing. Unfortunatly a lot of feminist organisations, say thats a sign of the patriarchy, and that must mean they are there just to put women back in the house barefoot and pregnant.
but it is different of course if a woman only club appears.
i do doubt that, trey, its sort of leaning towards men are defective women. i have no evidence its true or not if you can find medical studies that say that, i would be interested in reading them. But in todays pro female world i would not be surprised if it wasnt a lie.
Fair enough Mercurior, I appreciate a skeptical mind and will look into some articles this afternoon.
Talk to you then.
Trey
thats what i think is great about being men, we can argue and really get into it.. but that doesnt mean we really hate each other. i have only been in 3 physical fights in my life, afterwards we were friends. we can argue and rant, but it doesnt mean we dont respect the other persons thoughts.
"thats what i think is great about being men, we can argue and really get into it.. but that doesnt mean we really hate each other."
It's true that this characteristic can be hard to find in women. So many women take disagreement too personally, or as a personal attack. It can be entertaining sometimes. When I meet a woman talk always comes around to our kids, so I mention that I homeschool - it's amazing how fast women will rationalize their decision to send their kids to public school. As if we couldn't be friends if we disagree about how to educate our children. Or as if their educational choices matter to me.
Some women take the comment "you think like a man" as a compliment.
OK pal, I am back after a little web search.
There is a ton of stuff on learning disorders and gender out there, most of it available only in the form of the abstract. And out of that, there was the stuff I could pretend to understand! A smaller sample for sure.
The recent area of interest is in XYY and XYYY males, guys with too many Y chromosomes. But that is really not to our point.
The basic idea I have read is that women have less chance of a learning disorder because they have two X chromosomes. If one would lead to a problem, chances are that the other will not have the same problem, so the disorder will not be expressed.
As for us, we have a single X and a single Y, so we have less insurance, and can get hit with either a Y based problem, which women will not get hit by, or an X based problem, which ther are less likely to have because it would require both X chromosomes to be faulty.
Now, this has nothing to do with the over diagnosis of ADHD in males because some teachers prefer teaching to docile, passive learners. Many of us guys are more active learners.
And some of us, like me, really do have ADD. Mine is without hyperactivity, so I did not tick teachers off so much until they contrasted the grades I got from boring everyday work and the scores I got from exciting, pressure filled tests! Given that discrepency, and the lack of understanding in those days (the mid to late 60s) they just accepted that I was lazy and fussed at me for my character issues.
Such is life!
Trey
yes, its a complicated thing, i would have been termed adhd, because i was an over acheiver at school, i failed my exams because my dad died that year and they wouldnt let me explain why it happened.
i was bored with school, going at the slowest pace, i used to become another teacher helping the slower, i could explain it in terms they would get. i got told off several times for helping, complimented a few times for helping.
i couldnt find a direct disease either that is just male orientated, as you said i dont count the xyy, and xyyy, But could these women who have a learning disorder, be taught better than men, so its hidden. more men are colour blind, i know that, but so are some women.
the extensive 1 on 1, the extra support given to women, could that be skewing the results. i dont know. i am just throwing out the ideas. perhaps the other brains on this board can find one.
Sounds like a band-aid fix to me. They aren't addressing the problems, but rather blaming the kids without so much as a word. Clearly the issue is much deeper.
Worse, how does segregation teach children to transition into the "real" world?
because segregation is in the real world. and its pushed for by feminist organisations and other pro fem groups
look at womens studies, women only gyms, look at the way women are anonymous in court cases but men are spread in the papers what they did (even if they didnt do it).
in the UK the equalites commision wanted black boys to be segregated from whites.. this was put forth by trevor phillips a black man.
segregation is already a fact of life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Regarding Mercurior's last comment; the reason that such things like women's only gyms exist is to stop some of the treatment they recieve there like some girls do in co ed schools, sexual harrassment etc, having experienced it myself, I can tell you that this is most definitely necessary until some men learn to respect others.
As for women's studies...are you retarded?? Of course! Its never included in history classes, not in any great detail, so women's journey to becoming equal is often lost within a regular class situation.
Perhaps where you're from women are kept anonymous in court, but here they're treated in the same way as men, only anonymous with very good reason.
I'm fresh out of high school, and so I know what I'm talking about, having just spent 5 years in a single sex school. My results were not any better or worse than my peers at co ed schools, but I did see so many girls socially stunted by lack of interaction with the opposite sex. It definitely depends on the child in question, what's right for one is not necessarily right for the other. They can't treat young people as a single entity in this kind of study, perhaps instead of looking at things like socioeconomic backgrounds and class sizes, they should be looking at individual students' interests and personality types.
Sorry for the rant, but that pissed me off.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
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..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home