Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (Edit)
> > > >
> > > > Here, I'll engage in a gesture of good faith. Below you'll find links
> > > > to two decent studies.
> > >
> > > Well, if you're REALLY engaging in "good faith" you'd first provide
> > > some kind of premise you want to prove with your study/survey,
> > > whatever.
> >
> > I've only been saying it for the last 30-odd posts.
>
> We have been talking about several issues in those posts so your
> premise needed to be stated, but I did it for you below.

Several issues that revolved around one central claim.

>
> >
> > > And you might even provide a quote from it. But no....Ben,
> > > you didn't do that so I'll have do your homework for you here.
> >
> > Perhaps you'll focus more on your own.
> >
> > > The
> > > premise you are supposed to prove is that boys are facing
> > > discrimination or are being shortchanged. It's also a nice thing if
> > > you include a quote from the study/survey/whatever and you have not.
> >
> > Why? Wouldn't you rather read the material and draw your own
> > conclusions?
>
> That's now how a thesis is proven, Ben. It's better offer up your
> thesis as to what YOU are trying to prove than to simply submit a
> study.

Well, this is no place for a formal thesis, so you're not getting one,
and the demand is simply silly on your part. Offer them yourself
before you demand them from others. And, you were the one demanding
studies and claiming they didn't exist. You were then supplied with a
study that you didn't (as I predicted) read, and that you claimed
didn't exist in the first place, indicating your lack of knowledge on a
topic you claim to have knowledge.

> If you were writing a paper for a professor, you undoubtably
> would have provided a thesis and a statement or facts from the study,
> and only then a reference to the study.

You're hardly a professor, and this is nothing more than your usual
dodge. lol Which I predicted.

>
> >> >
> > > Read them and comment on them.
> > >
> > > This isn't about mere "comments", Ben. It's about whether or not you
> > > can support your thesis or premise with facts from a study.
> >
> > Commenting would indicate whether or not you agree.
>
> Agree with what, the study, your thesis or a statement you should have
> provided from the thesis?

Still bobbing and weaving, I see. :)

>
> The fact that I provided the chosen material would indicate I believe
> it supports me.
>
> Ah, but you weren't at issue here, your premise was....

And it was supported. You got what you asked for, and now you're
trying to wave it away.

>
> > > In return, I expect you to provide me with a study that shows girls
> > > are being shortchanged in the classroom *because* of boys sports programs.
> > > >
> > > My premise is that girls are shortchaged by virtue of unequal funding.
> > > That has nothing to do with "classroom", but rather educational
> > > funding.
> >
> > It certainly does, since your premise is that girls are being
> > discriminated against.
>
> Are you suggesting that girls can ONLY be "discriminated against" if
> they are actually IN the classroom? :-)

I'm repeating your claim. Can you support it or not? I think not.

>
> Show me the adverse effects of discrimination
> > due to boys sports. And you would also need to include the adverse
> > effects of girls sports on girls who don't play.
> >
> The effects of discrimination from having unequal funding is more than
> enough to prove such discrimination. There is nothing more I need
> there. Boys sports is not the issue here at all, but rather, unequal
> funding for girls.

Right, you have nothing. You've been unable to prove that girls were
denied something because of the boys, which is a central tenet of the
type of discrimination you're trying to claim. Nor have you shown that
the dismantling of boys sports programs evened out the per pupil cost
in the classroom, which is an extension of your claim. In other words,
to repeat, you have nothing. You still haven't even proven the
disparity in after-school spending.

>
>
> > > > http://www.indiana.edu/~nsse/hssse/pdf/hssse_2005_report.pdf
> > > >
> > > I tried accessing this one, assuming you provided a real source "in
> > > good faith" but only got a blank screen.
> > > Do you have some other way to access this?
> >
> > Hmmm...it's a PDF file, so you'd need Adobe Acrobat to view it. Adobe
> > is a free download. I tried to find it in a non-Adobe format, but all
> > I find is incomplete bullet point compilations of findings. HSSSE is
> > the acronym for High School Survey of Student Engagement, and it's
> > conducted by the University of Indiana on over 80,000 students (it
> > looks like it's being done yearly). Among the findings was the fact
> > that male students feel unsupported and disengaged from school at a
> > significantly higher rate than female students. This is greater among
> > youth of color.
>
> Well, I have Adobe, but when I try to load this ...all I get is a blank
> page in Adobe.
> However, just looking at your statement, that male students "feel"
> unsupported and disengaged" from school at a higher rate than females,
> doesn't mean they are.

It does when matched against real world results such as performance and
drop-out rates.

> Nor does it mean they are suffering from
> discrimination.

It's one of several indicators.

> Feelings are not the same as facts.

I agree. It's one of the reasons why feminist "research" usully turns
up to be some vapid diatribe based on feelings. But it's not
"feelings" that indicate performance and drop out rates and drugging
boys.

> So, it would
> appear (without my being able to view the study) that you still have
> not proven your thesis, i.e. that boys are suffering from
> discrimination.

Whether or not *you* accept it isn't a real world indicator of whether
or not it's valid. The reality is that lots of schools are using this
study to evaluate their own insititutions and address the issues they
find there. I'll take their opinions over yours...I'm sure you
understand. :)

>
> > But I'm surprised that someone who has "been in the school" as much as
> > you claim didn't know this survey existed. I knew about it.
>
> I've never claimed that I have "been in the school" for any particular
> length of time at all.

Yes, you did, when we were talking about classroom aides. I told you I
was in the schools on a regular basis, and you claimed to be as well.
When I caught you giving inaccurate information concerning the role of
aides, you scrammed quickly. Now, you're even denying your initial
claim. Your credibility is hissing away.

> However, I have had some connections with
> schools from time to time.

You drive by them on the way to work?

> Now that I'm semi-retired, I will have
> fewer connections with schools.

You'll drive by them less often.

> And, I don't rely upon
> self-aggrandizement to prove up my points;

Apparently you don't rely on knowledge either. You're the one who
implied you knew more than I did about what's going on in schools,
remember?

> I prefer cold hard facts
> from good studies.

No, you don't. You run from cold hard facts or, because I pointed out
at length how quickly you am-scray (you snipped that evidence, by the
way), you're now staying and obfuscating in order to save face.

> >
> > I like Adobe because I can save the document right to desktop, where I
> > can read it much more quickly. I'd copy and paste the entire document,
> > but it's 14 pages long and includes lots of charts and graphs that
> > probably wouldn't translate here very well. The link itself works,
> > because I just opened it in another window. I'm trying to pull out
> > some material, but it won't let me copy.
>
> Well, perhaps I need to upgrade my Adobe, but all I get is a blank page
> in adobe. I may not pursue this since you have not cited material to
> prove up your thesis. But we can talk about the other material you
> cited which I could get.

You're not talking about the material I *did* give you. You failed to
meet me halfway when I made a good faith effort.

>
> > >
> > > > http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/Va_custom/vimdisplays/contentpagedisplay.cfm?content_ID=163
> > > >
> > > I was able to access this and there was absolutely zero mention of boys
> > > being shortchanged in school, nor was there any showing of
> > > discrimination against boys. All it was was a puff peice about why
> > > team sports should be included in school programs.
> >
> > Then you obviously didn't read it (which goes to support my contention
> > that giving you material is a waste of time). It showed the distinct
> > positive correlation between engagement in school activities (not just
> > sports) and academic achievement (this same correlation is mentioned in
> > HSSSE).
>
> Your thesis, was supposed to be one of boys facing discrimination and
> being shortchanged. How would a puff piece showing correlations
> between engagement in school activities and achievement prove that
> point?

lol So you're not denying the contents and accuracy, only trying to
dismiss it as a "puff piece". The "puff piece" cited some pretty cold,
hard facts, the kind you (don't) like.

>
> And, when you know that part of my premise is that boys are
> > having sports opportunities taken away from them, boys tend to engage
> > on sports in higher percentages than girls, and so this is damaging to
> > boys--you know this because I've flat out stated it about a dozen
> > times--then you should have been able to connect those dots.
>
> Your premise and the facts you're trying to use to support it are not
> matching up, Ben.

According to the person who doesn't want them to. :)

> First, both boys and girls are free to engage in
> many "school activities"

Not ones that aren't offered because they were taken away.

> and many are offered, from dance company, to
> chess club, to marching band, etc. So, the school never promised you
> a rose garden, nor a menu of sports programs to suit. :-)

The schools offered activities according to the students who wanted to
engage in them. The feminist interpretation of Title IX discriminates
against the boys.

> IOW, there
> are no dots to connect here.

According to....? Because my contentions are supported in the real
world.

> Also, perhaps girls would engage more in
> programs for being fashion models, but the schools don't provide that
> either. :-) :-) :-) :-)

Why would schools want to teach kids how to be airbrushed airheads?

>
> (edit)
> >
> > Now nothing. I've said right along that boys don't get the same
> > support and encouragement in schools that girls get, and I provided a
> > comprehensive survey that says just this.
>
> Nonsense! You provided a puff piece and there was no study showing
> that boys don't get the same support. I feel a song coming on.
> Feelings.....nothing more than feelings.....

And denial isn't a river in Egypt.

>
> I've claimed that boys are> harmed by the removal of sports programs,
> and gave you material that
> > proved students engaging in after school activities are far more
> > engaged in school overall and do better academically than students who
> > don't...boys engage in sports activities more than girls, so taking
> > these opportunities away harms them and helps add to
> > disenfranchisement. I have other material that supports my contentions
> > regarding over-medicating boys, and the differences in learning styles
> > between boys and girls.
> >
> You have NOTHING even vaguely suggesting that boys are facing
> discrimination. All you provided was a puff piece about student
> engagement in all sorts of school activities. Not one thing you
> provided even hinted that boys were either facing discrimination of any
> kind or being "shortchanged". You can't infer that from your study
> since schools do not have to offer fashion modeling to girls just to
> retain their engagement. IN fact, the word was not even used in the
> material you provided. As to how PARENTS choose to medicate their own
> children, that's really none of my concern.

There's sure a lot of sound and fury there, but at the end, all you
have is your own denial of material I provided. Got anything to
counter it? Because without it, your denial--especially in light of
the fact that you, who claimed to be in the schools on a regular basis,
didn't even know about the existence of a major study--is kind of
hollow and really amounts only to your opinion. And we all know what
they say about opinions and assholes. :)

>
> > You claimed girls were getting shortchanged, but can't demonstrate any
> > harm--you're relying solely on correlation without causation concerning
> > dollars alone.
>
> Dollars alone are all I need to show discrimination agaisnt girls.
> AND, you yourself have already referred to that study done showing that
> teachers pay more attention to boys in the classroom. You didn't LIKE
> the study but you talked about, so you know about it. I didn't need to
> provide that again.

Actually, I proved that it was debunked. But show me how that study
correlates the "inattention" to girls in the classroom to of boys
sports. Because the study itself never made that leap. That's
something *you* provided, and *you* don't strike me as a researcher.

>
> In addition, you've not provided any independent
> > verification of your claim(s), so you've not even lived up to the> standard you're demanding of others.
> >
> Asked and answered Ben.

Obfuscated and dodged, Hy.

>
>
> > The ball's in your court. Let's see what you have.
>
> What I "have" is reason:
>
> 1. You have already stipulated to the study showing girls got less
> classroom attention by your
> unsupported claim that it was debunked.

The claim was supported. You didn't agree with it. I'm shocked.

>
> 2. You did NOT provide a clear thesis for what you were trying to
> prove in either study offered.

You don't get a 'thesis', and you got exactly what you asked for. When
you did, you claimed you couldn't open one link and you didn't read the
other. Which supports my claim that giving you material is a waste of
time, but now it's all in one thread for all to see, and remember,
Google is my friend. :)

>
> 3. I filled in your thesis for you and showed you how the material
> did not prove your unstated thesis

Do you even know what you're talking about?

>
> 4. You can't prove up "X" by offering "Z". ;-) I hope this helps.

Your "rebuttal" helped me immensely. Thanks. :)

.