Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > >I just did. Money is easy to count.
> >
> > Money isn't the issue. It is, however, the easiest thing to measure
> > and manipulate.
>
> And that makes things very clear. Each student should have the same
> funding.

Then why can't you show me how sports programs for girls and boys are
shortchanging the students in the classrooms? It should be relatively
easy, if it's true. I even told you I wasn't being sarcastic, I'd
really like to know what you have besides some beans in front of you.

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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.
> > > >
> No. In the past you did just as you did here and tell folks to do a
> google search. :-)

Lemme see: In various debates, I provided you with numerous court
cases on paternity fraud, I provided you with the Black's Law
Dictionary definition of fraud, I provided you with stats from the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I provided you with
DOJ sexual assault stats, I provided you with an article regarding
domestic violence enforcement in Massachusetts, I've provided you with
California and Georgia statutes on paternity fraud, I provided you with
congressional language regarding partial birth abortion...and those are
just the ones I can think of sitting here. You have uniformally failed
to respond. Conversely, when you've posted a link or an article, I
read it and commented on it.

So tell me again why I would bother providing you with information.
You're not interested in responding to outside information, only in
manipulating your requests and responses to make yourself appear to
have the high ground.

>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Sure there is; you just don't have anything. There is no 'there'
> > > there.
> >
> > So in your view, boys' performance plummeting is just a natural
> > outcome.
> >
> I think that men and boys have, in the past, survived on their perks
> from being male, and that they no longer have most of those. I think
> if Title IX provides equality that boys will simply have to work harder
> to attain the same level of perks. When I was eight years old, my
> father lost his job, and my mother supported the family with her job.
> My mother's job required more education (which she had) and paid less
> than the job my father lost. When my father was finally hired, it was
> by the father of a friend. When my mother got her job, she had to
> apply. Nepotism at it's finest. As women become more and more equal,
> in terms of how they are hired and promoted, boys and men lose the
> perks they once had. The same is true of Title IX issues. If more
> girls are getting equal funding, of necessity, more boys will not have
> the same funding they once had,

With regards to sports programs, that's exactly what's happening.
Participation by boys is being driven by the interest levels of the
girls. That's neither equal nor fair, particularly in light of the
fact that both genders are receiving equal funding in the classroom.

> and perhaps there will be less
> incentive for boys to go to school.

IMO, there's not much doubt but that boys are disengaging from school.


> > > > >
> 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?
> > >
> > > The only observation I recall about classroom discrimination were the
> > > ones based on teachers calling on boys more and Title IX issues. I
> > > don't recall any other 'push' for anything for girls.
> >
> > Of course not. lol
> >
> Well, if you do see one, perhaps you could provide something more
> substantial than requesting information on some ethereal "big push"?
> :-)

The focus on girls in school received huge amounts of attention in the
media as well as by lawmakers. Are you trying to tell me you don't
know about any of it?

> > >
> > > 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?
> > > >
> > > No. I have three sons, and I don't think boys lack intelligence or
> > > ability, nor do I think girls are smarter.
> >
> > Then to what do you attribute the disparity in performance?
>
> A difference in perks society used to offer boys that no longer exists.
> I raised my three sons to get out there and kick ***. None of them
> were raised to expect being hired by a friend of their fathers. I knew
> that my boys would be competing with others in matters of employment
> and that they would not have the social perks boys had yesteryear.

None of this sounds related to spending levels, to me.

>
> And, given that this disparity exists even as you claim the girls are
> being shortchanged, how do you support that contention?
> >
> Girls ARE being shortchanged monetarily, regardless of how boys are
> doing. You have to use logic here. It's obvious to me that unequal
> spending is still unequal spending and that the reason men want to get
> rid of Title IX for girls is to keep those perks for their sons.

Then you would be wrong. Men have no problems with girls playing
sports--fathers will enjoy watching their daughters as much as their
sons. Fathers are objecting to boys wrestling programs being abandoned
because not enough girls want to play sports.

> I
> have sons, and they and I don't believe in perks for men and boys or
> women and girls. Equality suits us just fine.

It would only be a perk if girls weren't allowed to play sports while
the boys were funded. Do you have any of that?

> > >
> > > > > 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. :)
> > > >
> > > I never said you were "lying"; I simply said you were UNABLE to
> > > provide support for your contentions.
> >
> > What I said was that if I was lying, it would be easy for you to prove.
> > And you shouldn't mistake an unwillingness to waste my time with an
> > inability to support my argument.
>
> I have no need to "prove" that you can't support your contentions. You
> simply haven't. Any reader can clearly see that you have not supported
> your thesis. It's a matter of logic.

Let the reader decide, then, whether or not supplying you with
information is a waste of my time.



> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > No, feminism and catering to girls has nothing whatsoever to do with
> > > parents medical choices for their kids.
> >
> > *cough*
>
> Coughing doesn't provide cold hard proof either, Ben. I guess that's
> all you can do tho.

So you have cold hard proof feminism isn't involved? Let's see it.

> >
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > With totally equal funding? Sure. I'm thrilled with the notion.
> >
> > I seem to remember you not being very thrilled with the Virginia
> > Military Institute.
>
> Indeed. Young women could not get an equal opportunity there since
> there was already a reputation that lead to big money making ops. Even
> you should be able to see the difference between that and two start-up
> schools with equal funding. :-)

What I see is hypocrisy, especially since you've never denounced
women-only colleges.

>
> > > 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?
> > >
> Because, I am not the one (nor is feminism) sponsoring drugging
> children.
>
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I don't need a study, Ben. Parents choose the medical care their kids
> > > already receive, so your smirk doesn't help you here.
> >
> > Damn, and here I thought my smirk was effective. Besides, you don't
> > recognize when I'm being a wiseass by now?
> >
> Yes, but I'm too logical to fall for it, so I call you on it every
> time.

lol If I have to point it out, you're hardly calling me on it.

>
> > > >
> > > > (edit)> >
> > > > > > Boys have equal rights.
> > > >
> > > > Then let's start enforcing them.
> > > >
> > > > >They're being enforced already. > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You're free to argue that, but it's the same principle. You have to go
> > > thru the granting process and prove up need in the application process.
> > > You have to have people who are interested in the program you want
> > > grant funded.
> >
> > The source of the money is what's important.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> This particular scholarship was funded by a grant from a robotics firm
> and matched with govt. funding.
> And, I have answered your question, specifically. Those who make the
> effort to get funding for programs where a need is provable, generally
> get them. Our nation has wealth for those purposes. But you have to
> ask and prove up need. So...to have some special program for boys
> you'd have to proove there was a need for such and you'd have to go
> thru the grant process, and engage other people to work with the
> program.

I'm familiar with the grant process--I use it frequently myself. The
original premise started out with me asking if the school was
co-mingling it's own money with private grant funds. It wasn't clear
by your example.

>
> >
> > > I've answered your many questions all along here. You just don't like
> > > the answers which really makes you kind of a twitty bitter boy. You
> > > used to do much better than this.
> >
> > I would if you'd answer my questions, or at least provided a relevant
> > counter-point. For some reason, you seem particularly dodgy on this
> > topic.
> >
> > > >Howso? You asked about equal funding and I told you why it was possible that men aren't doing the legwork necessary to get it.

I already responded to that and acknowledged that men were less likely
to engage in raising money. My poiint was that when it came to tax
dollars being made available and being spent, they shouldn't have to,
according to your logic.

> > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Again, if each student were funded they could spend their educational
> > > money on what they, themselves desired. Girls are really being
> > > pigeon-holed into sports, when they might prefer to spend their own
> > > educational dollars on other things.
> >
> > Sports programs were the one area where feminists could find any sort
> > of disparity in participation. They attributed it to funding, when
> > it's clear that it has very little to do with that--this was made clear
> > when boys programs had to be dismantled in order to equalize
> > participation. In other words, girls, by their very lack of equal
> > interest in sports, were able to force institutions to take these
> > opportunities away from boys.
>
> I don't know how many ways I can say this, Ben. Girls want EQUAL
> FUNDING, regardless of how it is spent. :-)

You can say it all you like, but you're not proving girls are being
shortchanged in the classrooms. If you were able to demonstrate that
girls received, say, $500 per head in the classroom while boys received
$600 per head, and the difference was because of spending on boys
sports, you'd have a point and I would agree. But you can't
demonstrate this. You're also attempting to engage in a corelation
without causation.

In addition, there is no increase on spending in the classroom when
boys sports programs get dismantled. If there were, the girls would
find themselves having more money spent on them in the classrooms than
the boys, which would THEN be unequal.

And we're still left with the situation that girls lack of interests in
sports drives the opportunities for boys to engage in them. If you'd
like to talk about unfairness, we can begin there.

> The bottom line still holds true here. And men, trying to disguise
> this money is no longer working for them.
> BTW, did you know that some jurisdications are also trying to dismantle
> the "heat of passion" defense.

Fine with me. I always thought it was a foolish defense, anyways.

> Women are tired of men feeling
> passionate enough to kill

The reverse would also be true.

> or to funds that should be equally divided.

????

>
> And you still can't demonstrate how any
> > girls were shortchanged in the classrooms. I don't think you could
> > even show how some girls were denied other activities and forced into
> > sports instead.
> >
> > > Plus, I always find it amusing
> > > when bitter twitters say that girls don't "like" sports
> >
> > I think the girls that like sports like them just as much as the boys.
> > I don't think the percentage of girls who like sports is as high as the
> > boys.
> >
> > > when school districts build stadiums instead of swimming pools. :-)
> >
> > Stadiums serve the interests of more people than do swimming pools, but
> > I don't object to pools. I do resent the lack of racquetball courts,
> > however. :)
>
> Well, if you compare the number of girls who would prefer swimming to
> soccer I think you'd be surprised.

Maybe I would. You wouldn't know it by the number of girls who try out
for those activities, though.

> And, swimming is something you do all your life, unlike soccer or
> football or hockey, etc.

We have an over-50 soccer league here that meets and plays once a week.
Granted, they're not as fast... :)

> >
> > > If you're
> > > going to teach a child skills that will last a lifetime, you don't
> > > teach it by sponsoring football or field hockey; you teach it by
> > > providing things like tennis, swimming, weight training, aerobics, etc.
> >
> > Again, you must have very limited schools where you are. Around here,
> > the schools can and do provide all of the above. Besdies, you're
> > really making distinctions without differences.
> >
> No, I'm suggesting that, in the past, boys interests were given more
> import. Today they have to share.

I'm okay with sharing. And, I enjoy watching the girls play soccer and
basketball (figure skating sucks). The more children engaged in sports
the better, as far as I'm concerned. But your rendition of Title IX is
neither fair nor equal.

> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> When push comes to shove in all districts, music gave way to football.

I doubt that.

> > >
> > > Ah, so they tell the girls they don't like sports and then fail to
> > > build tennis courts and swimming pools? :-)
> >
> > No, they offer a whole variety of programs but don't get the attendance
> > they'd like to see.
>
> Do you have a pool in your local schools? Hmmmmm

Just one of them, the newest one built. But there's a great pool at
the rec center and the schools have liberal access to it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > Team based sports are certainly not the only way to learn how to work
> > > well in groups. :-)
> >
> > Of course not. But there are lessons about competing and earning spots
> > based on performance and merit that team sports are particularly
> > well-suited to teach.
> >
> > > And what's wrong with a swim team?
> >
> > Nothing. There's a boys swim team as well as a girls swim team here.
> >
> Perhaps you live in a rich school district; here they're having a hard
> time just paying teachers.

I suspect you live in a wealthier area than I do. I also suspect you
don't have any real idea how much it costs to support a team. My
friend gets paid $1500 to coach the girls per season. It costs about
$75 per girl (maybe $750 total) for uniforms, and they raise this money
through car washes, etc. Buses used to transport the girls to away
games are paid for already as part of the contract the bus service
signs with the school. So we're not talking a lot of money.

>
>
> > (edit)> >
> > >
> > > > The point is that eventually, even dumb Americans are going to come to
> > > the conclusion that kids need skills that will prepare them for real
> > > life and that football does not fit the bill.
> >
> > Says you, someone who has never played team sports. Why are you
> > focusing on football? Do you consider that some sort of male-only
> > ritual? Lessons learned from engaging in sports are very usefull in
> > life as well.
>
> All during high school I was on the vollyball team and gymnastics.

Apparently, you didn't learn anything about the lessons that
participating in team sports can teach.

> As
> to football, it IS a male only ritual and I see no reason to fund it in
> the name of education.

And there it is lol. THAT'S your real issue, and why you keep on
harping about football versus any other sport. Well, for what it's
worth, I see plenty of women supporting their sons playing football,
and there are a couple of teams here that have women on the coaching
staff. And didn't I read something recently about a girl playing high
school football? Apparently she was able to make the team on merit.

> And there are other ways to learn lessons re
> working in groups.
> >
> (edit) >
> > > >> >
> > > You don't have to show harm to enforce equality, Ben.
> >
> > Did you read what you just wrote? How do you know there's inequality
> > without being able to show some sort of disparate impact?
>
> If there is not equal funding, that alone is disparte impact.

So the group performing at higher levels is the victim of disparate
impact? lol Black is white, and we have always been at war with
Oceania. And yet, you deny that the poor performance of the boys is
indicative of disparate impact. Bigot, much?

It's all
> over, Ben; even dumb Americans will be able
> > to see the bottom line eventually.
> >
> > I agree...but it will be the innumerable feminist attempts at social
> > engineering that will be left by the wayside.
>
> Do you tell that to your daughters who want equal funding? :-)

I don't know of anyone's daughter who was denied an opportunity to
engage in sports simply because the boys were playing. I also don't
know of anyone's daughter who was blocked from going inside a classroom
because of boys sports. Do you?

> Nah...it's going to be equal dear.

You're right, it will be. It just won't be *your* version of what's
equal.

.