Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > 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.
> > > > > > >
> Monetarily. That's how.

In other words, you can't.

>
>
> > > > > > > > > >> 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.
>
> Then you lose the debate.

Not really. Given that every time I've given you material in the past
you've either failed to read it or actually run away from the debate,
your "moral authority" to demand anything from me vanished long ago.
In that respect, you've lost every single debate in which we've engaged
where I provided you with sources. So now, knowing your pattern, I
don't bother.

> If you provide me with a valid govt. study
> or even a study by some non-reliigous, non-men's group, I'll be happy
> to look at.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior--in other words,
you're lying.

> If you provide an actual study, and a quote from it,
> indicating that girls are getting educational perks boys are not
> getting. You would have the moral high ground, if I won't read it. :-)

There's no "if" involved.

> The problem you have is that you can't get milk from a rock. There is
> no study.

Just out of curiousity, when the big push came in the late 80's/early
90's to improve the lot of girls in school, did you ever see an
equivalent push for boys, even when their performance plummeted? And
your insistence now that everything is equal for boys and girls with
the scholastic performance of boys dropping--are you of the opinion
that the boys are so naturally inferior to the girls with regards to
intelligence and ability?

>
>
> 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.
>
> I'm assuming nothing. You have not provided a quote from a valid
> study, nor have you cited one. Telling a person to go yahoo is NOT
> proof of any sort.

Then you understand you'd be unable to prove I'm lying...I even gave
you names. Good enough for me. :)

> >
> >(edit)>
> > 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.
> >>
> So, better get crakin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> Ah, but so what?

Then you agree. Again, good.

> There's no problem at all with informing parents, and
> there has been media attention provided about Ridalin.....so, there you
> go. As to recommendations, I have no problem at all with parents of
> children who disrupt the classroom, homeschooling or providing
> independent study. It's all good.

Single sex education would be the way to go.

> >
> > > 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?
>
> I'm telling you that it isn't feminism that's pushing drugs on these
> kids. It's their own parents.

Oh, surely you have a study to prove this lol.

> >
> > >> > >
> > > > > > > . 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.
>
> You're still backtracking, Ben. It's there in black and white for all
> to go back and see.

Then you shouldn't have trouble quoting me. In context.

> Boys have equal rights.

Then let's start enforcing them.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
>
> Sure it does answer your question. Those who volunteer and start
> organizations may be qualified to receive funding for them. For
> example, in my youngest son's last public school experience, there were
> 5 kids who wanted to start a special science group for making bots, and
> entering them in competitions.
> These kids and their parents and a couple of teachers started meeting
> after school to do this and one of the teachers applied for some
> scholarship money to help the group purchase supplies. They needed at
> least 12 kids so the kids went about soliciting their classmates to
> join the group, and 'voila' funding.

I would argue that scholarship money--which by its nature targets
specific purposes--differs from regular funding from the school itself.
The scholarship was probably supplied by an interested private party.
You've still failed to answer the question explicitly, so you've
answered it implicitly.

>
> >>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Fathers wanting to see football games on the weekends are not in
> school. And so few boys to men become football players that it isn't
> worth the tax dollars going into it.

If the purpose of high school football was to create pro football
players, I'd agree. We could also say the same of girl's field hockey
and soccer.

> I know a dad who loved to watch
> his son play football, and his son was injured in the program, so much
> so, that now his son is all but braindead. This father is now lobbying
> AGAINST football in schools as there are so many other things more
> needed, like exercise for health, nutrition eduction, music, art, etc.

You must have some singular-purpose schools in your area. The schools
around here manage to provide all that as well as football. In fact,
one of the problems is motivating enough students to participate in all
the activities.

> In fact, he feels that public schools would be better off building
> swimming pools so that ALL the students get opportunity instead of a
> few jocks.

The students that want to participate in something here can, but not
everyone in everything. As far as making the team goes, that's based
on performance. That's not a bad lesson for kids to learn.

>
> Voters manage to keep the> principles separate and distinct. And,
> mothers see the value in sports
> > programs as well as fathers.
>
> Mothers want to keep their boys involved in education.

As do fathers. You'd be lying if you tried to claim that fathers would
allow their children's educations to go to hell so they could play
sports. And just for grins, did you ever hear about the woman in Texas
who killed to get her daughter on the cheerleading squad? Think she
was prioritizing education?

> Pretending that
> their sons are going to earn big bucks playing football is like winning
> the lottery. :-) There are simply better choices out there.

Kids can do more than one activity.

>
> >> >
> > > > 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.
>
> How equal is too equal when it comes to funding?

When you can't demonstrate how one group is harmed, but can demonstrate
that another is.

> >
> > > 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?
>
> Are you talking about insurance policies based on the free market
> rather than tax collected dollars for educaiton? It wasn't valid.

Lame attempt to twist the example on your part. If you couldn't
respond, you should have just said so.

> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Clearly it is....and no matter what patterns of male greed you go thru,
> I will call you on that.

"Call" all you like, and I'll continue to note that you can't provide
any indication at all that girls in the classroom are harmed by boys
playing sports.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> No. Money talks, Ben. If boys are getting more educational funding
> that isn't fair.

Show me where they're getting more in the classrooms than girls.

>
>
> 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.
>
> I wasn't about to go anywhere for it. As usual, you simply failed to
> prove your point.

No, I simply refused to respond to your usual spurious demands for
cites that you then skip out on. Change your pattern of behavior, and
you might see some results.

> >
> > > 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.
>
> They're getting more funding, Ben. That's all I need to show.

Then you've lost the debate.

> >
> > > 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.
>
> Asked and answered. I'd sure hate to be your accountant. ;-)

My accountant loves me--she knows I give her relevant information and
don't confuse apples with oranges.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where The Boys Arent
    ... >> about same-sex schools for boys, with the notion that boys would ... And, as long as the funding is completely EQUAL, they may continue to ... That contributes to their failure rates> in schools. ... > I think both genders would benefit from single-sex education. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Where The Boys Arent
    ... >> about same-sex schools for boys, with the notion that boys would ... And, as long as the funding is completely EQUAL, they may continue to ... That contributes to their failure rates> in schools. ... > I think both genders would benefit from single-sex education. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: video of a woman pumping gas
    ... "Thirty years ago it was girls, not boys, who were lagging. ... strong, steady progress toward parity in schools, but feminist ...
    (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: For Catfish: Boys education comments
    ... 'The Trouble With Boys' ... "Thirty years ago it was girls, not boys, who were lagging. ... strong, steady progress toward parity in schools, but feminist ...
    (soc.men)