Skip to comments.The Boys at the Back
Posted on 02/05/2013 7:57:53 AM PST by Academiadotorg
As one critic told me recently, the classroom is no more rigged against boys than workplaces are rigged against lazy and unfocused workers. But unproductive workers are adults not 5-year-olds. If boys are restless and unfocused, why not look for ways to help them do better? As a nation, can we afford not to?
A few decades ago, when we realized that girls languished behind boys in math and science, we mounted a concerted effort to give them more support, with significant success. Shouldnt we do the same for boys? When I made this argument in my book The War Against Boys, almost no one was talking about boys academic, social and vocational problems. Now, 12 years later, the press, books and academic journals are teeming with such accounts. Witness the crop of books in recent years: Leonard Saxs Boys Adrift, Liza Mundys The Richer Sex, Hanna Rosins The End of Men.
In a revised version of the book, Ive changed the subtitle to How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men from How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminalize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling. As our schools have become more feelings-centered, risk-averse, collaboration-oriented and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys characteristic sensibilities. Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more than a decade later, there are major policy reasons besides the stale culture wars of the 1990s to focus on boys schooling.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Boys learn when they are shown there is a purpose. Girls learn to please the teacher.
Lazy teachers find the latter more to their liking.
7-year-old playing an imaginary game at school gets “dispended” for real (Article and Video)
I like her last line:
The rise of women, however long overdue, does not require the fall of men.
This is not that new. It was obvious when I was in Jr. High and High School during the 60s. Boys had to almost stand up and answer questions in class because they wouldn’t be called on.
In the military, I had several experiences with women who were selected for an MOS or below the zone promotion over more qualified men.
The worst was the woman who was selected for Med School the year I graduated who was a music major with one biology course to her credit. Of the guys who applied, most of us had degrees in microbiology, biochemistry, physiology and high medcat scores but we had the wrong package evidently. The female professor I worked for at the time was disgusted and noted that it seriously made her consider going to faith-healers rather than the lowered standards products that the med schools were putting out.
In my second military career and jobs after retirement it was the same thing.
My wife and I noted that our sons also experienced these same issues and my grandson is experiencing some of this as well. If you are a guy, you have to work harder despite any talents.
Women overwhelmingly run education and make the rules, then and now.
For libtards it mandates the fall of one for the rise of another.
They believe everything is zero-sum so men must fall for women to rise. Besides men also deserve it, they believe it’s payback even though those being “paid back” aren’t the ones around today.
It’s why most urban blacks feel no shame for handouts - they are reparations they deserve.
And if we artificially lower standards so women can rise, how is that doing them any favors? How is that really deserving to rise?
Why is it so tremendously important that women must “rise” in the first place? Do we need them all to all act like and compete against men? And how is the competition fair if they aren’t held to the exact same standards, which in places that are trying to make a statement, they either lower standards or have one set for men and one for women.
And why isn’t there the same gusto from these same people to get more men into areas where women dominate - like good male teachers (who used to be a larger presence and benefit to boys), male nurses, etc. Why no big demand for more representation of men in under-represented fields?
(who used to be a larger presence and benefit to boys)
That's a biggie with me for my sons. They attend a charter and thankfully the director, a male, hires a lot of male teachers...my sons have had some very good male teachers at this school. A much higher ratio at this school then I've seen for a long time.
i had plenty in school too, almost all hetero, real men. back when they’d still get physical with you if you didn’t respect them.
with the push on girls, there was a parallel push for more female teachers and administrators, and being libtard zero-sum, it became a much more hostile workplace for male teachers.
see, real guys also buck stupid groupthink because they like common sense. wome are much more likely to go along with the zero tolerance crap because that’s the rules, and generally they go along with what authority tells them to do.
More good points SAM! I have noticed some women try to be aggressive for aggressive sake. Not because there’s a purpose to it, but just to flex their muscles and try to act like men, but to also be contrarian to men. Geez we need men. We need strong men. I love coming to FR and reading the posts from men. I love it when men here put women in their place. That may not even be a popular view among some FReeper women. I love watching a Ted Nugent give a namby pamby British weenie hell...right up in his face!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.