Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> 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.

Freelance columnists aren't employees, they're independent contractors.
To the extent that they can provide a service the organization is
looking for, they get work. If they can't do that, they don't. Let
the best person win.

>
> >> 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.

There is no "hiring policy" for independent contractors. They either
provide the best service/product for that organization's purpose or
they 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.
>
> If there are suble forms of discrimination we can talk, but there are
> not.

lol Amazing how the same criteria can be claimed to indicate two
different things, depending on the gender, isn't it?

> Women and girls are NOT discriminating against men and boys in
> school.

Who said it was women and girls? Unless you're referring to female
teachers/school administrators.

> 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. > >

There's been discrimination *claimed*.

> > > >
> > > > > 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.

So you agree with my observations.

> >
> > > 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.

Yes, it was. The methodology was terrible, the conclusions drawn in
contradiction to the researchers' own observations, and it was never
subjected to peer review. And yet somehow, it managed to find in favor
of girls...maybe because it was commissioned by the AAUW? When you go
into a research project with a firm idea of what you want, that's
usually what you get.

> And even today, the same is happening with boys desks
> being placed closer to the teacher.

Sounds like a regional difference to me. Doesn't happen round here.

>
>
> > > 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.

Tell me what you'd accept as proof.

> >
> > >
> > > > 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.

And there we go. Somehow, this, to you, equates to the type of
attention and support the girls get.

> > > >
> > > > 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?

No one has ever been able to demonstrate that the fact that more boys
engage in sports means the girls get shortchanged in the classroom.

> > > >
> > > > > 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. :-)

As far as independent contractors go? Exactly.

> >
> > >
> > > 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.

To the extent that misbehavior disrupts the classroom, *all* the
students are losing teacher time, so this can't be discrimination. For
you to equate this kind of attention with that dedicated to student
learning is just misdirection.

> >
> > > 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.

As I said above, this is probably a regional difference. I get to all
the elementary schools around here, and I don't share your
observations.

> > >
> > > > > 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.

Then show me where the girls were shortchanged in the classroom because
of boys' sports programs. You can't.

>
> > > 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.

Depends on the nature of the backlash. Sooner or later, feminists will
be shown that they only concern themselves with counting beans.

> >If you
> don't like that take sports programs out of the schools.

As long as all the women's studies departments, music programs, art
programs, etc go with them, I'm fine with that.

>
>
> > > > > 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.

I used it to show how *you* relied on numbers alone to indicate
discrimination, because it was an argument we had before.

>
> > > > > 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.

No one is asking for it. I want equal support for the boys.

> 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.

A better analogy would be dollars spent on prostate cancer as opposed
to those spent on breast cancer. Men and women are both at risk, but
breast cancer is prioritized.

.

Quantcast