Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > (edit)
> > > > > 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;
> >
> > No, they don't. The can go with the product that best suits their
> > needs.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Let's say I need a plumber. I don't have to give one thought to
> > diversity. I can hire whoever I deem best for the job, for whatever
> > reason.
>
> You aren't a business, Ben. You're an individual. When most companies
> look for employees

Independent contractors aren't employees. Until you get past this
point, you're wasting both our time.

>and don't hire in-house, they hire from a pool of
> metitorious applicants. You can hire a clown to do your plumbing, if
> that suits you.
>
> >
> > > > > >> 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.
> >
> > Screening for the best service/product for your organization from among
> > independent contractors is a criteria that doesn't exist? Are you sure
> > you're a business owner?
>
> I'm not speaking of individuals, Ben; I'm speaking of companies...and
> even in the govt. they have to hire fairly from a pool of qualified
> applicants.

Whhooosh! Right over the top of your head.

>
> > > 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.
> >
> > That would be the party line, yes.
>
> Again, it would require PROOF same as for the girls/women.

The "proof" that was used for girls is apparently not good enough to be
used for boys, now.

>
> >
> > > 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. :-)
> >
> > Then tell me what you'll accept as proof.
> >
> You erased it. :-)

You know better than that, Hy--I erase nothing without noting it.

> I would accept a study/survey done by someone
> without an axe to grind.
> > > >
> > > > > 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. :-)
> >
> > Well, some burglars who have fallen through skylights in buildings they
> > were trying to burgle won lawsuits as well.
>
> My point WON!

That people file spurious suits, many based on false allegations?
Sure, I'll give you that one.

> >
> > > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Sure they are.
> >
> Not so. Boys are still getting more than their fair share in sports
> funding.

Define "fair share". Are any girls sports programs being dismantled?
Are any girls being denied the opportunity to play sports?

> > > > >
>
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > That's not the way it works. The scientific method concerns itself
> > with methodology and peer review, and includes ways for the hypothesis
> > to be disproven as well (which is why the theory of intelligent design,
> > true or not, can never be subjected to the scientific method, because
> > there's no way it can be proven false). Flawed studies don't 'work' at
> > any level, unless they've been conducted to achieve a predetermined
> > result and then encoded into law. That's social engineering, not
> > science.
>
> I don't find the study flawed. :-)

Gee, there's a shock.

> That you do is your problem.

It's not just me. The study has not held up to peer review. I think
that trumps your opinion. :)

> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't like it *because* it's flawed--it's not flawed *because* I
> > don't like it.
>
> Indeed.
> >
> > > And no study is perfect.
> >
> > They should at least be honest and non-partisan, wouldn't you think?
> >
> They have been.
> > > >
> > > > > 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 the aides are there.
>
> No teacher has an aide 24-7. The aides are only there part time, and
> discipline must be maintained full time.

There goes your credibility regarding you being in the schools on a
regular basis.

> >
> > > That's why, with equal FUNDING, single sex> > schooling is a good idea for girls. :-)
> >
> > Personally, I'd welcome single sex schooling.
>
> Me too, but only with TOTALLY EQUAL FUNDING.

Absolutely. Take away the preferential treatment 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.
> >
> > Which groups would you consider having no ax to grind?
> >
> No men's womens rights groups, i.e. "the independent women's forum",
> "focus on the family", James Dobson, etc.
> NOW, etc.

Ah, so you'll only accept feminist-sponsored "studies". Hmmm...how
about a feminist-sponsored study that was later soundly trashed by real
researchers?

> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > I'm waiting to see what you'll accept as proof.
> >
> Asked and answered. If you can't show where girls ever received
> educational perks, surely you can't be asking for the same for boys
> because nothing is still nothing.

Given the "studies" you'd find acceptable, I'm afraid all I'd be doing
is wasting my time. All you're really seeking is support for your
predetermined opinion.

> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Again, show me where sports for either boys or girls shortchanged the
> > other in the classroom.
>
> Where that girl doesn't get equal funding, she's being shortchanged.

In the classroom? How so? Show me that she's getting less education
than the boys, particularly the boys who play sports.

>
>
> See, here's where your argument falls apart.
> > Girls were doing just fine in the classroom, so there was really no
> > correlation. But since equality of outcome is deemed more important
> > than equality of opportunity, sports programs for boys had to be
> > dismantled in order to make sure that the exact same amount of momey
> > was spent on a far smaller percentage of girls who wanted to play.
> > There wasn't even any consideration for a per pupil cost, just the
> > bottom line. In essence, Title IX disriminated against boys.
> >
> Equal educational funding has nothing to do with outcome, just
> opportunity. If you have a son and I have a daughter and we each get
> $1800. per year to spend on them, your son can play football, while my
> daughter takes more science and math. :-)

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here, schools are
supported primarily by residential taxes--the more the house is worth,
the more the homeowner pays. There is no magic "per pupil" fee set for
those who have kids in school. All the children in the classrooms have
the same resources and the same level of instruction--no one is losing
out because of the football players.

And it's interesting that your argument revolves around *girls* being
shortchanged, when, in reality, if your theory was valid, it would be
all students who didn't play sports. Yet you never mention boys.
That's telling.

>
>
> > >
> > > (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.
> >
> > I don't concern myself with refuting apples-to-oranges comparisons.
>
> If there are 5 boys in the class that act up and disrupt on 0 girls,
> the girls are being cheated by the boys, and so are the non-disruptive
> boys. Thsoe boys don't belong there, PERIOD.

I'll agree that there are some children so ED that they don't belong in
a regular classroom, but you can thank your progressive legislators for
that.

> >
> > > 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. :-)
> >
> > lol I suspect single-sex classrooms wouldn't have the outcome you
> > think, but I'd be willing to try it.
>
> Cool I can hardly wait. Equal funding rocks.

Not more than equal opportunity.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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? :-)
> >
> > Not if they have their own aides.
>
> But they don't. You're not in the classroom on a regular basis if you
> think students get aides the whole school day, every day. All those
> aides do is part time.

Sorry, you've already lost the credibility challenge here.

>
> And, I have troublemakers in my own> classroom--I can control them just
> fine from anywhere in the room.
>
> Ben, what you suggest doesn't make sense. A teacher can control
> troublemakers when they have easier access to them...and that's just
> the way it is.
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Show me where the girls were shortchanged in the classroom. Sports
> > aren't education.
>
> Girls are shortchaged every time they don't get equal funding, Ben.
> Suppose we look at you, and your workmate, Bob...both of you make the
> same salary, but Bob gets $50.00 a week more because he plays
> basketball on the weekend. :-) How do you feel about that? ;-)

Are you suggesting the boys get paid to play sports? Bad analogy, Hy.
Let's look at another one. In my department, employees are provided a
health care plan that suits their family situation--they can choose a
single person plan, two-person, or family plan, depending on their
needs. Several years ago, one of the avowed bachelors here began
complaining that the employees with the family plans were getting a
better benefit for the same work, because their health care plan was
worth more.

If you looked only at numbers, he'd be right. But, a closer look would
show that any employee can go back and forth into any health care plan
as their family status changes. I myself went from a single person
plan to the family plan to the two-person plan. Employees don't get
"paid" for their health care, and, if their spouse has a better plan,
they don't get paid for not using the health care here. All employees
have equal access--they make their own decisions as to how to use it.
Employees with family plans don't pocket more money than those with
single person plans.

What you would advocate is that each employee receive only the single
person plan, regardless of need or situation. To that end, you would
yank the family plan out from under families.

> >
> > >
> > > > > > > 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. Backlash 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 agree. It will undermine their arguments.
> >
> > > 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. :-)
> >
> > The way things are going, there will be fewer and fewer female divorce
> > clients--which, again, is a very good thing...for men.
> >
> That sounds good to me. Oh, let me know how that thing goes with your
> employer and Bob's extra $50. per week.

Call me when you come up with a valid analogy.

> > >
> > > > > >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.
> >
> > Provide equal classroom resources, let the rest shake out according to
> > student interests.
>
> Just give each child a budget. They and their parents can decide how
> to spend it.

Right after you show me how sports programs shortchange the girls in
the classrooms.

> >
> > >
> > > >> 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. :-)
> >
> > Are you going to tell me what you'll accept as proof?
> >
> I already did.

Well, not really. All you're telling me is that you'll only accept
gender feminist 'studies'--it doesn't take Karnak to figure out what
those will say. Were you surprised by the results of studies done by
tobacco companies?

> > >
>
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> No, women raise $$$$$ FOR IT. Where are the men? And, can't men prove
> up need in grant writing?

They probably could, if they were more inclined to do so. But given
the amount of research that shows the prostate cancer risk for men is
significant, why do they have to lobby for equal funding?

>
> > >
> > > Breast cancer is sponsored thru grant money and private donations.
> >
> > If those organizations make more money available for breast cancer
> > research and treatment, then there isn't as much available for prostate
> > cancer.
>
> Women die younger from breast cancer than men of prostate, AND men get
> breast cancer.
> >
> > > Why> > not put forth effort in those areas? I guess men are not as inspired
> > > to do fundraisers?
> >
> > They may not be, but it probably has little to do with lack of
> > inspiration.
>
> Sure it does. Get crackin, Ben. Before I leave in Jan. please provide
>
> . some source of discrimination against boys

Title IX. Tell me again how many girls sports programs were
dismantled? Also, are we drugging the girls at the same clip we're
drugging the boys?

> . some source of special rights allotted to girls

I never claimed special rights, only more attention and resources. Are
you seriously going to try and deny that there are more programs for
girls than boys? How many men's resource centers do you see on
campuses?

> . some source of discrimination in granting

VAWA.

> . some reason why boys and girls should not have equal FUNDING
> . ETC.

Right after you show me how the girls are shortchanged in the
classrooms, which is what you're claiming.

.

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
    ... 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
    ... discrimination if only one sex or color is hired. ... There is no suble discrimination against boys by women and girls ... >> Equal FUNDING is my only concern regardless of how they spend it. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap P[ART 4
    ... >>> Girls are shortchaged every time they don't get equal funding, ... Boys get more educational dollars ... >> single person plan, two-person, or family plan, depending on their ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Boys education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap P[ART 4
    ... >>> Girls are shortchaged every time they don't get equal funding, ... Boys get more educational dollars ... that sports programs for boys shortchange girls in the classroom, ... >> single person plan, two-person, or family plan, depending on their ...
    (soc.men)