Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > Viking wrote:
> > > > >
> >(edit)
>
> > > > >
> > > > > In the US you cannot serve boys at the expense of girls or girls at the
> > > > > expense of boys. And time will tell whether the Australian law will
> > > > > support such as well. Here in the US
> > > > > we have laws that prevent favoring one sex over the other unless there
> > > > > is some form of discrimination. Clearly, there isn't.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly there is, Hy--disparate impact, and all that.
> > >
> > > Only if you can show DISCRIMINATION.
> >
> > Disparate impact alone has been argued as indicating discrimination
> > when it's the feminists arguing it.> >
> > >
> > > ***, you yourself argued that numbers alone was enough to prove
> > > discrimination
> > > > at the LA Times with regards to a lack of opinion columns written by> women.
> > >
> > > That is provable discrimination tho.
> >
> > How so? It's a marketplace. Men were writing columns the readers
> > wanted to read. Women weren't, apparently. Nor were women submitting
> > columns in the same numbers. Yet there you see discrimination.
>
> Showing a lack of women in the market place when equal numbers of women
> apply for jobs is showing discrimination.

Wrong. It's still a marketplace. Look at it this way. If 200 men and
five women submitted columns to Bride Magazine, and only the women
wrote material the magazine wanted to print, it wouldn't matter a whit
how many men wrote columns. The women would get published. Maybe you
see this as discrimination--I don't.

> If boys are not applying for
> college in the same numbers as girls, that is not showing
> discrimination.

So if women aren't present in the sciences in the same numbers as boys,
it's not discrimination. Gotcha. But you're trying to skip ahead,
anyway.

>
> >
> > > Where is the discrimination
> > > against boys?
> >
> > Sorry, I got distracted by Bebe Neuwirth singing "All That Jazz" (I
> > think her version is superior to Minelli's). Where is the
> > discrimination against boys? Well, feel free to compare the efforts
> > made on girls' behalf to those made for boys.
>
> What efforts? The only efforts for girls were about equal treatment
> i.e. Title IX

Except Title IX was then distorted and used to dismantle boys sports
programs, when girls still had no interest in playing in the same
numbers as boys.

> and trying to bring it to teachers attention that they
> were paying more attention to the boys.

Except the study that 'demonstrated' this was flawed and potentially
biased from the get-go, and the researcher drew conclusions that
weren't even supported by the observations...luckily, this bias was in
girls' favor, eh?

>
> Or the overall suppoprt given to girls as opposed to that given to boys
> (our high school in
> > this area does much more to 'encourage and support' the girls than it
> > does the boys, which is proving contentious at budget time)
>
> How? The only efforts I have ever witnessed are about equal treatment.

I guess we see only what we want to see.

>
> > But probably the biggest indicator of discrimination is the number of
> > feminists barking that there *is* no discrimination, simply because
> > boys performance is plummeting. When girls were perceived as getting
> > short shrift, there was no end of publicity and resources devoted to
> > the 'problem'. To the extent that this has improved things for girls,
> > it would stand to reason that it would do the same for boys. To deny
> > the boys this opportunity is clearly discriminatory.
>
> Again, what opportunities are being DENIED to boys based on
> discrimination.

To have equal attention paid to their problems in school.

> >
> > So the next questions become: What are feminists afraid of? A level
> > playing field?
> >
> > > Who is doing this terrible thing to boys?
> >
> > Nobody is doing anything with the boys. Haven't you been paying
> > attention?
>
> Yes. You seem to want special perks for boys

I want equal perks. You're calling them special to avoid the issue.

> when there is no
> discrimination against boys.

Got it. It was only a "crisis" when it was involving girls.

> Boys already HAVE more than a level
> playing field since there is still more sports funding spent on boys
> even with Title IX.

Tell me again how many girls' sports programs have been dismantled.

>
> >
> > > With the LA> > times, we can cite the talented women who have applied as well as the> > management who won't hire them.
> >
> > The LAT situation concerned free lance writers. Either they can hack
> > it or they can't.
>
> Again, if you HAVE equal numbers applying that is when you can use the
> notion of "disparate impact".

Not in that scenario. Marketplace rules.

>
> What can we show regarding> discrimination against boys in school.
> >
> > Neglect.
> >
> Teachers still pay more> attention to boys
> >
> > No, they're not...not positive attention, anyway.
>
> It doesn't have to BE positive to short the girls on attention tho.

Negative attention shorts *all* the children, not just the girls.

> And if you go into almost any elementary classroom today, the teachers
> tend to place the desks of troublemakers
> (almost always male) close to the teacher.

I'm in elementary classrooms on a regular basis. The teachers around
here 'tend' to do no such thing. The disruptive children very often
have their own aides in the classroom, and they sit where they would
normally be seated.

>
> > > and boys still get more sports funding, even after> > Title IX.
> >
> > Yeah, and what with all those girl's sports programs being
> > dismantled...wait, that isn't happening.
>
> Again, we're still talking generics here, and there is still more
> funding for boys sports. Girls will have to file more lawsuits.

Then file, if they can. I'd welcome the backlash.

>
> > > So, what have you?
> >
> > A grip on reality. You?
>
> You have no third leg to stand on here, Ben. I've clearly shown that
> boys cannot show discrimination against them, using, as you suggest,
> disparate impact.

No, you used a private market example and compared it to a public
insitution supported by tax dollars. Apples and oranges.

> >
> > >
> > >
> > > All of a sudden numbers aren't good anymore? Even when we have
> > > > more than numbers?
> > >
> > > Sure numbers are good, but they have to relate to some discrimination.
> >
> > The inattention to and dismissal of the poor performance is the
> > discrimination.

.

Quantcast