Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Ben wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> (edit)
> > > > > 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.

It doesn't matter what you 'call' them, Ben...in the end they have to
hire from a pool of applicants; if there are equal numbers of women
and men applying, and if they have similar merit, it's easy to show
discrimination if only one sex or color is hired.


> > >> 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.

Again, you're imposing a criteria that doesn' exist. If a company has
a particular person they want there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
them hiring that person, UNLESS that is the same race, and sex of the
person they always hire. :-)
>
>
> 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?

No. There is no suble discrimination against boys by women and girls
running the schools. Boys still get the lions share of attention and
funding. 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.

Again, prove up your discrimination and we'll talk. :-)

>
> > 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*.

And FOUND in already won lawsuits. :-)
>
Where is the discrimination> against boys?
> > > >
(edit)
> > > > 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.
>
Your observations are not relevant to equal funding.> > >


> > > > 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.

The way the scientific method works is that one study serves until
another one can add to it or challenge it. So far this is the only
study we have on the amount of attention teachers provide to students.
So, we'll have to go with this one until you can show that there is a
more current study. Just because you don't like the study doesn't
mean it is flawed. And no study is perfect.
>
> > 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.
>
Sure it does. It happens everywhere. If you were a teacher and you
had troublemaking students, you'd tend to place them where you could
keep an eye on them. :-) That's why, with equal FUNDING, single sex
schooling is a good idea for girls. :-)
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > >A study or survey done by a group having no axe to grind showing special perks for girls.

> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
But you still haven't LISTED support the girls are allegedly getting.

>> > > >
> > > > 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.

School funding is school funding. I just want an equal amount spent on
girls, regardless of what girls choose to use it for.

(edit)> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.

No, it's a FACT you can't refute. Look at it this way; if girls get
equal FUNDING and their own classrooms, they don't have to put up with
all the distractions by boys speeding their own education way ahead.
I'm ok with that. :-)
>
> > >
> > > > 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.

So am I. :-)


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.
> >
Think common sense, Ben. If you were a teacher wouldn't you want the
troublemakers where you could best control them and keep an eye on
them? :-)

> > > > 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.

Equal FUNDING; it's the only thing women will end up accepting.
>
> >
> > > > 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.

That's ok; I don't mind for one minute being labeled as a bean
counter; I'd do the same thing for my female divorce clients if I were
a lawyer. :-)

>
> > >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.

It was my impression that equal numbers of men COULD take women's
studies. :-) But, hey...I'm ok with every student spending their
equal money on whatever courses best serve them.

>> Boys don't get special rights for falling behind.
>
> No one is asking for it. I want equal support for the boys.

Then show me the support girls are getting that boys are not. :-)
>
> > 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.

Breast cancer is sponsored thru grant money and private donations. Why
not put forth effort in those areas? I guess men are not as inspired
to do fundraisers?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap
    ... There is no suble discrimination against boys by women and girls ... but only with TOTALLY 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. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap
    ... My thesis is that girls face discrimination when they ... were nothing about your idea that boys are facing discrimination. ... The reality is that lots of schools are using this ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap
    ... There is no suble discrimination against boys by women and girls ... >>> Equal FUNDING is my only concern regardless of how they spend it. ... >> engage in sports means the girls get shortchanged in the classroom. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap
    ... There is no suble discrimination against boys by women and girls ... The "proof" that was used for girls is apparently not good enough to be ... >>> Your observations are not relevant to equal funding. ... single person plan, two-person, or family plan, depending on their ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap
    ... >> My premise is that girls are shortchaged by virtue of unequal funding. ... Show me the adverse effects of discrimination ... > due to boys sports. ... > the acronym for High School Survey of Student Engagement, ...
    (soc.men)
Quantcast