Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > (edit)
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > >I don't have to Ben; how equal is too equal?
> >
> > Your entire argument is that the girls are being shortchanged. Tell me
> > how. And tell me why it's only the girls.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 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?
> > >
> > > I told you I'd accept any govt. sponsored study not proposed by a male
> > > rights group, NOW, or the Independent Women's Forum (they aren't
> > > independent.) etc.
> >
> > Okay, then which sponsors would be acceptable to you? And why does it
> > have to be a government study?
>
> Govt. studies are the most difficult to pretend existence of space
> ships landing on circle crops and they have several people running them
> so they are less inclined to contain bias. And, you haven't even
> presented me with a study from any other credible group.

That's right, I haven't. Given your response history, I don't waste my
time with requests like this from you. I *did* tell you where to find
them. It should be unbelievably easy for you to prove me a liar by
simply going and looking where I told you to look...assuming I'm lying.


Regarding group credibility, the methodology of the study is far more
determinant of its validity than the sponsoring group (though the
motivation of the study would have to be taken into consideration). I
wouldn't even mind NOW and AAUW studies if they were done using the
scientific method.

>
> >> >
> > > > > > > > > It 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?
>
> I guess for the same reason women do, for breast cancer. Even the
> Lillith Faire donated money to breast cancer research.

I'm talking about lobbying from the goernment.

> > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > True, but when you donate money you're allowed to pick a cause. :-)
> >
> > Which brings us back to prioritizing and favoring.
>
> No, it means that women are out there raising money for what THEY want
> to support. Where are the men?

As far as raising money from private donors, men just aren't as
inclined to do this as women are, for whatever reasons.

> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
>
> Parents, along with doctors decide what drugs children should have;
> it's not up to you, Ben.

Parents rely far too much on "expert" opinion, and sometimes will do or
approve of things that they wouldn't do otherwise, simply because some
authority figure recommended it.

> It's not my fault if the parents of unruly
> boys decide to opt for drugs in order to keep them in school. Why
> shoot the messenger here?

Why would you think I'm shooting the messenger when I'm commenting on
the message?

>
> > > >
> > > > > . some source of special rights allotted to girls
> > > >
> > > > I never claimed special rights, only more attention and resources.
> > >
> > > Translation: You can't prove unequal rights so you use platitutdes?
> > > Good to know.
> >
> > I'm just trying to ease your confusion. I never said anything about
> > special rights.
>
> Sure you did. You clearly stated that you wanted boys to have equal
> rights, and when I mentioned that boys already had equal rights....you
> backtracked.

I did? Somehow I doubt that. My comments were on attention and
resources, not rights.

> >
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Resource Centers are sponsored by clubs, volunteers, and contributions,
> > > BEN.
> >
> > So if I can show you that these organizations get money and resources
> > from universities and from student dollars, you'll concede that I'm
> > right?
>
> Grant money is handled on the same principle, Ben. If you have a
> volunteer organization that requests funding, that organization can get
> available funding. The problem you bitter boys have is that men are
> not VOLUNTEERING and, thus, don't qualify for matching funds, or space
> for their activities. Do you see how this works now?

I see it doesn't answer my question, so it remains: will you or won't
you?

>
> > > Sports programs are paid for with education money.
> >
> > Sports programs are paid for by tax dollars, as approved by the voters.
>
> Sports funds come from the same funds from which educational dollars
> are drawn. Most public schools are funded thru property taxes, with
> the rich providing more endowed schools than the poor. But paying
> English teachers is funded the same way the football team is funded.
> :-)

As are all the municipal workers in any given jurisdiction. You gloss
over my point--if the voters didn't see any value to sports programs,
they wouldn't vote for the budget. Voters manage to keep the
principles separate and distinct. And, mothers see the value in sports
programs as well as fathers.

>
> > I would bet you a large sum of money right now that if every single
> > program not directly related to the classroom were to be removed, the
> > excess money would either be eliminated from the budget or the
> > teacher's unions would try and get it for their members.
>
> The schools could simply show what money was being spent in total, and
> divi that up per student. Of course, teachers are the most underpaid
> professionals, for their educational dollar, which is why you really
> have to love kids if you're a teacher. But I'm ok with keeping the
> per student dollar apart from the teacher salaries.
>
> > > If you don't like sharing, get it out of the schools.
> >
> > I share fine, Hy--I'm not the one taking programs apart to satisfy some
> > immature notion of 'equality'.
>
> Equality is not an "immature notion", but.

As applied by feminists, it certainly can be.

> In fact, it's a principle
> for which the western world is most fond. I suggest that bitter boys
> like you find it "immature" only when women demand it. :-)

I notice you snipped the two examples I gave you of 'equality' vs
'fairness', and gee, one of them involved a MAN making an immature
demand. What were you afraid of?

>
> >
> >> > >
> > > > Right after you show me how the girls are shortchanged in the
> > > > classrooms, which is what you're claiming.
> > >
> > > Equal funding already the moral high road here, Ben. :-)
> >
> > Fairness would be the moral high road, Hy.
>
> Equal funding IS fairness, Ben.

Clearly, it's not.

> >
> > > I don't have> > to show that slaves were shortchanged in order to show that slavery is
> > > wrong either.
> >
> > I can show the slaves were shortchanged. Show me the girls were.
>
> Girls are shortchanged in the four corners of the document giving boys
> more funding. I don't need to go any further than that.

You do if you want to prove your point. But you can't. So noted.
Tell you what--I'll even accept you telling me where to go and look for
the material, you don't even have to bring it here.

> All I need to
> do is show the bottom line, just like for any other issue where the
> funding is not equal.

There's more to life than the bottom line, Hy. I would have thought
you would have grasped that by now. Show me the boys in the classrooms
are getting more than the girls in the classrooms.

> You should really try this logic with the IRS
> ...Ben. Try to explain to them that just because line "X" does not
> equal line "Y"....that he is just using immature notions of equality.
> :-)

Apples and oranges. Come back when you have a valid comparison.

.

Relevant Pages