Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Ben wrote:
> 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.

You're making assumptions. Management has the duty to hire qualified
folks from a qualified pool of applicants; they can't get the best
because all you have is a qualified pool of applicants. All they can
hire is the most qualified from that pool. If the pool is comparised
of 20 male and 20 female qualified applicants the hire won't be based
on the marketplace at all.

>> 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.

You are imposing an arbitrary hiring policy rather than getting a pool
of qualified applicants, which is what most companies do today.


> > 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.

If there are suble forms of discrimination we can talk, but there are
not. Women and girls are NOT discriminating against men and boys in
school. Boys already get the lion's share of funding and teacher
attention. AS to science and girls, there has been discrimination
shown in hiring professors and tenure policy in science depts. > >
> > >
> > > > 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.

Equal FUNDING is my only concern regardless of how they spend it.
>
> > 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?

No, it wasn't. And even today, the same is happening with boys desks
being placed closer to the teacher.


> > 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.

So prove your point then. Show me where girls are getting special
treatment.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
Boys already still get more attention than girls because they cause
behavior problems.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> >How does that matter if girls are not getting equal funding?
> > >
> > > > 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.

>>From the pool of the worthy. :-)
>
> >
> > 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 boys are still getting more attention, so the girls ARE getting
cheated.
>
> > 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.

Not so. I know.
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
Equal FUNDING.

> > 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.
>
Who cares. Backless is less important than equal funding.> >If you
don't like that take sports programs out of the schools.


> > > > 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.
>
YOU used a private market example, and I responded to it.

> > > > 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.

Boys don't get special rights for falling behind. That would be a
little like giving men special health care rights because they exhibit
riskier behavior and then take tax money to correct it.

.