Don't blame girls, women [Gender wars in education]

USA Today ^ | 28 August 2003 | Jacqueline E. Woods

[Lorianne]

Don't blame girls, women By Jacqueline E. Woods The American Association of University Women (AAUW) is troubled by recent suggestions that girls and women are somehow to blame for the fact that boys are not excelling in certain academic areas. Is there a "gender war" being waged against boys, as some have claimed? Gender inequity in education is a complex issue. Two years ago, AAUW published "Beyond the 'Gender Wars,' " a summary of the views of some of America's foremost researchers of boys and girls regarding a range of gender-equity questions. One of the major conclusions shared by these researchers was that we do not need to "fix the boys" or "fix the girls."

[Dark Knight]

>>A Business Week report stated recently that MBA programs are one of a few remaining "old boy domains," but it failed to mention the comparable underrepresentation of women in computer and information science, technology and engineering courses and careers. Nor did it mention that women's participation in computer science courses actually has been declining for the past 20 years. <<

Oddly enough, women are totally able to be in those areas of inquiry, but choose not to go. No one is complaining that the women trying to be MBAs (computer scientists, or engineers) are being shut out. Why? Because they are not shut out, they are being recruited. Good money is being spent trying to get women into those fields. LOTS OF MONEY! Maybe money that could be spent on actually educating someone. Equality of opportunity is great. Equality of outcome is silly (and wasteful).

DK

[banjo joe]

Nor did it mention that women's participation in computer science courses actually has been declining for the past 20 years. Perhaps men, as a group, are more naturally suited for some jobs.

The power of linear thinking.

[Patriotways]

this book was use in America until 1903 New England Primer { The Real Education Book that America needs to get Back too}
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c849d088d.htm

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Do you think that men, in general, have a natural aptitude for some subjects which is superior to that of most women for the same subjects?

Hunting and protecting property comes to mind. Men suck at gathering. I get nauseated in Toys'R'Us, Walmarts, and the like.

I even observe this in my dogs. On a walk, the male looks down the street to see what’s about as if to spot a meal on the foot or watch for an approaching threat. The female just checks the trash cans as if she was shopping.

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

[Think free or die]

" When they get the firemen and policemen jobs (pardon me but I am too old to say firefighters and police officers), watch out. Don’t get caught in a burning building or trapped by a gang of thugs, ‘cause the women can’t help."

When I take my sons to the seashore, I am uncomfortable when I see women in the lifeguard stands. When it comes to ocean rescue and riptides, I'd much rather trust my sons' safety to strapping young men. There are lots of things women do and do well, but in terms of sheer size and strength, there are differences. I'm a reasonably strong and fit woman, but I know I could easily be overwhelmed by the physical force of the ocean. When our 6 year old son started to get in trouble with a riptide last year, I was very impressed with the speed and strength with which the lifeguard responded. Had my son been just a few feet further from shore, I might not have been able to help him in by myself. Danger can come up quickly, and sometimes there's no substitute for a strong man.

[Think free or die]

"We have the elementary grades being almost entirely staffed by women."

All our sons' school teachers have been women, which is typical. In our experience, the best teachers have been women who are raising, or have raised, sons. The experience of raising little boys is the best way to learn what makes them tick and what is normal boy behavior. These teachers tend to adapt their teaching styles to support boys to a greater extent. They're also less likely to get upset over normal boyish behavior.

Even though I grew up with a brother, I really didn't understand the depth of differences between boys and girls. Until I had sons of my own, I didn't fully appreciate the hard-wired differences in the brains and bodies of boys and girls. My husband has had the last laugh hearing me admit that!

[IronJack]

This "statistical equality" is residue from the desegregation policies of the Civil Rights movement. It's a sledgehammer approach to perceived disparities, and an attempt to create with numbers an "equity" nature never intended.

In other words, maybe women aren't becoming engineers because women don't WANT to become engineers. "Poppycock!" say the social arbiters. "And to prove you wrong, we'll force a generation of women to become engineers for the Glorious Cause!"

[redangus]

What this women fails to mention is that it was her group and their poorly researched and reviewed, but widely accepted report, that started all the anti-boy nonsense in the first place. Now that they have the advantage they see no reason to re-examine educational policy. It is very much in line with the way leftist always work. They use the system(voting booth, school boards, liberal churches etc.) to fight the system then once they have the power or advantage they slam the door on everyone else and dismantle the system.

[Think free or die]

"No. You cannot have an "aptitude" for something that holds no interest for you"

I beg to differ. Our son has a terrific ability to read music and play piano. Sadly, he dislikes it and will probably never fully develop the talent.

There are differences in how boys and girls develop physically and in the way their brains function. Girls develop fine motor skills earlier, making penmanship and paperwork comparatively easier for them in the early grades. Boys tend to be more spatially oriented that girls. That lends itself to architecture or engineering, for example. There are other documented differences in the scientific literature if you wanted to pursue it. These tendencies may not apply to all boys or all girls, obviously, but they have implications for education and, ultimately career choices.

[bulldogs]

" had to pull my oldest son out of gubmint school when his third grade (female) teacher punished him constantly for being a boy. Her statement to me, "I don't like little boys."


Good for you. I screamed at my son's principle for banning catch with a football. It is good to here from real women that don't want thier sons femminized.

[waterstraat]

but it failed to mention the comparable underrepresentation of women in computer and information science, technology and engineering courses and careers. Nor did it mention that women's participation in computer science courses actually has been declining for the past 20 years. << Oddly enough, women are totally able to be in those areas of inquiry, but choose not to go

There is nothing "odd" about it. Women can realize that these types of professions will have no jobs in america in just a few years. Women are much more practical. Women are choosing to go into professions that guarantee them a well paying job, e.g. like being a doctor - a huge increase in the number of women in medical school.

What puzzles me is why you would think any woman would want to go into computer science or engineering when everyone knows that only chinese and indians will have jobs in those fields.

[Dark Knight]

AAUW says you are wrong.
Page three of their executive summary of Women at Work

http://www.aauw.org/member_center/publications/Women_at_Work.pdf

"Compared to men, women today are actually less likely than their counterparts from 20 years ago to be majoring in high growth fields. Compared to men, women today are less likely to study in a field that will prepare them for work in science, engineering or information technology.

Furthermore, women-more than men-remain highly concentrated in specific occupations, and little has changed in these numbers or kinds of occupations in the past 20 years. The U.S. Census Bureau identifies 500 different occupations but almost one-third of women today are concentrated in just 10 of these occupations...."

I was very amused that you were able to be both sexist and racist in just two paragraphs. People, men and women that can't study, will never compete with people that do. If a culture values education, and work ethic is compared to one that doesn't, guess who wins? Guess who you'll be working at a low paying job for?

>>Women are much more practical. Women are choosing to go into professions that guarantee them a well paying job, e.g. like being a doctor - a huge increase in the number of women in medical school. <<

Can you guess what ten jobs one third of women go into? Did you say clerical, nursing, teaching...

Now I really don't know if those women don't mean something to you and you want to concentrate on the glamorous jobs like doctors and lawyers, but I do care about them. The silly notion that one sex is more practical than the other is just that, silly.

A very funny fast food commercial was aired, a bunch of people were getting on an elevator and one had some meal deal bag. The bag kept getting passed to a higher up entering the elevator until the CEO had it. The CEO gave it to the scruffy IT guy that was in to fix his email.

If you don't understand technology, you will be a servant to it.

DK

[waterstraat]

Compared to men, women today are less likely to study in a field that will prepare them for work in science, engineering or information technology.

Apparently, you are the only one left in america who doesnt know that engineering and IT jobs are disappearing and are being outsourced. For example, GM is now outsourcing 38% of its engineering to foreign countries and plans to greatly increase that. Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, etc are all cutting back on engineering in america, and expanding engineering in asia.

as far as nursing and teaching, there will be plenty of jobs for women to stay employed, as the baby boomer get sick and old, and as we continue record immigration to demand more and more schools and teachers.

The american jobs with growth in a global economy are where the college women today are positioning themselves. As far as science, some of it will be outsourced, and other jobs which will remain here, like some research, vetinarians, environmental, etc, are being entered by women.

[stands2reason]

There are some in this forum whose kneejerk feminism makes them think we shouldn't get all worked up on boy's achievement in school because ---they can just be " car garage mechanics, ditch diggers, coal miners, and the like." So, boys don't need school as much as girls do.

[Dark Knight]

>>Apparently, you are the only one left in america who doesnt know that engineering and IT jobs are disappearing and are being outsourced. For example, GM is now outsourcing 38% of its engineering to foreign countries and plans to greatly increase that. Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, etc are all cutting back on engineering in america, and expanding engineering in asia. <<

The IT sky is falling!!! Beware!!! No one can make it in IT anymore, the jobs are gone.

Maybe Bureau of Labor projections will calm your fears (I know they are just projections).

http://www.bls.gov/oco/images/ocotjc09.gif

>>Professional and related occupations are projected to grow faster and add more jobs than any other major occupational group, with 7 million new jobs by 2010. Three-fourths of this job growth is expected among computer and mathematical occupations; healthcare practitioners and technical occupations; and education, training, and library occupations. With 5.2 million job openings due to replacement needs, professional and related occupations are the only major group projected to generate more openings from job growth than from replacement needs.<<

When I look at the chart, Computer Support specialists, computer software engineers applications, computer software engineers system software, were on the increasing list. Of course, if you are being the most practical, the number one job is combined food prep and service workers. We know that is a cush job with high wages. It is also a female dominated field and a tough job.

Did you bother to read the AAUW article. Oh well.

I just find it funny that you think Americans can't compete in the open market. But you know what I find even more amusing?

That people believe the medias doom and gloom when they are wrong, and don't bother to fact check.

DK

[Billthedrill]

What hypocritical rot! This is the very same organization that has nearly broken its collective arm patting itself on the back for its support of the relentlessly zero-sum Title IX means of promoting "gender equity" at the expense of boys' sports in Ohio and New York. Now we are told that the very same measures that put Title IX into force are NOT the ones to be used to measure the lack of boys' advancement in non-sports fields? And why not, may I ask?

[Lorianne]

I agree. Numerical disparities don't necessarily equal discrimination.

However, Title IX involved a lot more than sports. It forced public schools to allow girls equal access to classes they were previously excluded from, such as drafting and other techinical trades... which was blatantly discrimination.

When you have policies specifically excluding people based on sex or race from publically funded educational opportunities, that's disrimination. But 50/50 parity is not the measuring stick we should use to determine if discrimination has ended. That's why comparing girls to boys on a 50/50 parity basis in every area of education is ridiculous.

Each side is guilty of hypocrisy. If 50/50 parity IS the basis for determining fairness or unfairness, then that would apply to the fewer number of women in engineering schools. You can't have it both ways.

[Arioch7]

I decided to post a reply to this thread because it piqued my interest.

Last night, I was reading Frontpage magazines discussion about women and combat and today I was discussing my siblings child-rearing abilities with a friend and I was disgusted by those practices. I will explain further below but let me add that this thread coincidentally is what I have been talking about for the last few days with friends.

I will start with the "Combat" issue in regards to women. I went on a scuba trip Saturday. We went to Halibut Point off of Rockport, Massachusetts. I have new gear that I am not familiar with. The trip started wih a longer than quarter mile trip with 75+ pounds of gear. The entry point was large granite slabs being buffeted by surge and tide that could rip you away 10 feet in a second if you did not hold on. Swimming in such was SOMETIMES possible if enough effort was applied... you still would stand still in the water.

I wont go into the technical details but certain accidents happened that made the dive extremely strenuous. It involved two more rock entries in overpowering surf.

Diving forces a lot of fatigue on a person so this was quite a workout.

After this, we had to hike the stuff up the same way. This was a great dive but it was quite the ordeal. I still have a pleasant achy, wrecked feeling today. :)

My point is that while I was reading the discussion at Frontpagemag, I could not shake the feeling that what I did on Saturday would be almost impossible for most women to do. While I was reading about academia's intellectualization of the concept of women front line soldiers, I realized that such discussions were not anchored in empirical REALITY, but idealogical concerns of the eggheads themselves.

Do not get me wrong, I know women divers that are far superior to me in diving skill. Hell, the list is to big to post. I have had the argument with woman friends here in Mass, and they are adamant on this issue. One told me that a well trained squad of women could beat a male squad every time. It might sound chauvanistic to disagree with her but I have to agree with reality more than ideaology. Some people don't like it but I tend to side with reality. Perhaps this is why some left leaning scholars discuss that reality is subjective. Looked at philosophically, I can appreciate this but they espouse this belief to shroud the truth.

My brother and his wife do not let thier son's play with ANY agressive toys. Military toys and cowboy toys are considered EVIL. I get them a junior Aircraft Carrier Battlegroup for the kids every year, LOL! They consider toy guns EVIL!

Is it not ironic that kids are going more crazy by the year? (Statistically they are not but the numbers are relatively high.) Psychologists have long moaned against "Repression" as a cause for violent action when one practices this for a long term.

Why dont Sociologists lament the repression of generations of little boys? The education system drugs kids that roughhouse, they eliminate playing "guns" bcause of the violent connotation.

Little boys LOVE to play these games, I dare say it is "Hard-wired". They have been repressed for decades and I know this as truth. I have experienced it personally. It did not affect me but who can say what effect it can have on a larger population.

Maybe wan can expect rude, violent, dishonorable kids? Wait, that has already happened.

I am sorry for the long post but my point is that "Feminazation" of the school system HAS taken place with dire results.

A school system and society (At least in Mass.) that considers Eastern Traditional Martial Arts(Best character and peace builder I have ever seen.) as "Evil" or too "Violent" while extolling leftist principles and feeding boys mind altering drugs is beneath contempt.

I liked your posts and admire the point about 50/50 parity.

I am not going to edit this as I am going to leave and enjoy Labor day so I hope you will forgive any typos.

As for rambling buzzed posts that have points difficult to detect, here they are...

1/Women should not serve in combat. 2/Schools are INDEED biased against males. 3/Perhaps Arioch should skip masive drunken grandstanding? :D