Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > (edit)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> Money may not be YOUR issue, but it's certainly mine. :-)

Well duh. I've said right along that you're limited to counting beans,
haven't I? Because you really have nothing else. At. All.

> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > > >
> > It's all about the money, Ben.

Okay then, you have nothing else. So in your world view, with boys
dropping academically both in performance and attendance, and their
sports opportunities being taken away, while girls gain in both areas,
indicates that the girls are being shortchanged? I dunno...I guess it
truly *is* impossible to talk rationally with a zealot.

>
>
> (edit to Ben providing proof that boys are being shortchanged)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
>
> I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about here and now. You
> either have proof boys are being shortchanged, or you don't.
> I've seen no study showing such.

Well, Hy, you yourself acknowledge they're slipping academically, and
you yourself acknowledge that boys sports programs are being taken
away, and you yourself can't show how girls are being shortchanged, and
you yourself acknowledge that girls are gaining academically. And, you
don't look at material supplied to you, so you couldn't "see" a study.


> > > > > >> > > > > you're lying.
> > > > > >>
> > (edit of Ben's need to go back to past debates that prove nothing)

It proves you're lying about checking cites.

> >
> > 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.
>
> I DO have the high ground, while you still have not provided proof.

Sorry, but people who obfuscate and lie and then clip the proof they've
lied really can't claim the high ground.

> >
> > >(edit)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > 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 showing that boys are being shortchanged, or that discrimination against them exists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> >
> No.

I don't believe you.

> The only study I've seen is the one where girls were not being
> called on as often as boys and Title IX studies. If you HAVE other
> studies showing discrimination against boys, show us.

You've already acknowledged some of the discrimination, as indicated
above.

>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> INdeed. Equal spending is just equal spending that should be equal.
> :-)

Your example doesn't relate to spending levels. Got anything else?

>
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > > > No, there is no equality in the bottom line if more is being spent on boys than girls.

No, there's inequality if one is being denied while the other isn't.
Got any of that?

>
> > > > > > >
> (edit of more bellyaching from Ben regarding past posts ...where he
> also provided no debate based on studies.)

Still snipping the proof that you're lying? lol Google is my friend.

>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > > >I don't need it. You made the allegation and then want me to prove up a negative?

*You* said feminism wasn't involved.

> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> I have no objection to men or women-only colleges as long as there is
> equal opportunity.

Given that you define the very existence of a boys-only institution as
an example of inequal opportunity, this is a self-serving definition,
is it not?

>
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> You're the one here inferring that feminism is responsible. I'm the
> one telling you OUTRIGHT that parents are resposible.

And I'M telling YOU outright that parents very often don't have a clue
to what sort of decision to make or how, and simply defer to whatever
the authority figure pushes on them.

> Feminists don't
> determine how your sons act in school, nor how they are treated with
> drugs....YOU DO. I think that common sense prevails here.

Then show me some.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > >Look again; I pointed it out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (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.
>
> Unless you work for an organization that works with grants, no one uses
> it "frequently" so I doubt what you have to say here.

You don't think police departments get lots of grants? Look again,
especially at HSU.

>
> 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.
> >
>
> No, municiple workers are not paid out of education tax dollars unless
> they work for the schools in some fashion.

Odd...my residential tax bill pays for municipal and school taxes, and
funds both entities. Yours don't? The bottom line is that taxpayers
in a community pay the bills for both, and if they want sports, they'll
have sports.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> I don't need any other correlation than to show the unequal funding.
> :-)

Actually, you do. Otherwise your claim that girls are being
shortchanged is invalid.

> >
> > 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.
>
> If each student spends their allotment on the classes provided, it's
> not an issue.

Studens don't get allotments.

> >
> > 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.
>
> Sure, but women don't use this defense as often.

Suuuure they don't.

> >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> I don't have to go that far to show unequal funding.

Then you acknowledge you can't show unequal funding. Good to know. By
the way, you should stop yammering for studies until and unless you can
provide them yourself. :) Unlike you, I'll read what you provide.

.

Quantcast