HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Negative stereotypes abou...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:31 AM

Negative stereotypes about boys hinder their academic achievement

Negative stereotypes about boys may hinder their achievement, while assuring them that girls and boys are equally academic may help them achieve. From a very young age, children think boys are academically inferior to girls, and they believe adults think so, too. Even at these very young ages, boys' performance on an academic task is affected by messages that suggest that girls will do better than they will.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/sfri-nsa020513.php

15 replies, 1393 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Negative stereotypes about boys hinder their academic achievement (Original post)
DavidDvorkin Feb 2013 OP
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #1
DavidDvorkin Feb 2013 #2
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #3
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #5
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #7
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #8
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #9
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #10
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #11
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #13
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #15
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2013 #12
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #14
seabeyond Feb 2013 #4
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #6

Response to DavidDvorkin (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:37 AM

1. Yep. This is one of the reasons patriarchy sucks.

It denies both men and women their individuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:38 AM

2. I don't see how the stereotype that boys are inferior is attributable to patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:45 AM

3. A large part of patriarchy is assigned gender roles.

Different genders have different "realms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:09 PM

5. So basically "patriarchy" is a catch-all label to describe anything you don't like.

Gotcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

7. I have said nothing of the sort, but feel free to believe whatever you can

imagine.

Patriarchy is largely gender-based social roles and beliefs based on "traditional" norms. I put the word "traditional" in quotes because some of the roles or standards have been reversed over the course of human, western history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:04 PM

8. And yet, when it was widely assumed that girls were academically inferior, that was "patriarchy",too

See, I call BS. I think "patriarchy" is merely shorthand for saying that everything bad on Planet Earth is the fault of some nefarious penis conspiracy. It's ridiculous.

That's awful generous of you, however, to "permit" me to think what I want. Some folks can't even seem to manage that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:16 PM

9. If patriarchy was a "nefarious penis conspiracy,"

I would either like it a lot more, or a lot less. "Nefarious Penis Conspiracy" actually sounds like a really cool band name, in my opinion, and will easily be the best phrase in this thread.

However, patriarchy is supported by both men and women. Broadly, no one gender is at fault, though on some specific issues, such as rape, men are clearly more to blame than women.

Patriarchy has two common meanings, one is a system of rule by males, which we used to have, and the other is rigid gender roles, which are weakening, to my delight. Both of those definitions are overly narrow. If patriarchy just meant, "men suck," then I would consider it fallacious, and I would argue against it. There have been some groups that have used the term that way, but they are not taken seriously by very many.

True, women were seen as academically inferior for a long time, but this has switched, and a rigid, sexist gender role is still present.

That's awful generous of you, however, to "permit" me to think what I want.


You're very welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:37 PM

10. If one wants to say "traditional gender roles", one can just say that.

To blame it on "The Patriarchy™" is to accept a particular, narrow narrative promulgated by folks with a definite agenda. Yes, traditional gender roles- often perpetuated by religions with a patriarchal orientation- are thankfully getting less restrictive. That's a good thing.

Blaming it on "The Patriarchy" is merely a tool by which, again, all evil is ascribed to one male-based system perpetuated, apparently, to ensure unlimited masturbatory access to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue and oppress half of humanity by allowing people to look at naked boobs on the interwebs. It totally ignores the biggest elephant in the room- religion- for one.

I note, however, that "gender is an artificial, meaningless construct" seems to be this week's talking point, sort of how "men can't be feminists" was the talking point a few weeks ago.

Which begs the question: If gender doesn't exist, how are "we" supposed to know who is "allowed" to call themselves Feminists, and who isn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:46 PM

11. Hmmm...

If one wants to say "traditional gender roles", one can just say that.

To blame it on "The Patriarchy" is to accept a particular, narrow narrative promulgated by folks with a definite agenda.


I think this is actually a good rhetorical call. I think I will use other words and phrases when outside of school.

It totally ignores the biggest elephant in the room- religion- for one.


You're preaching to the choir on that one. (pun intended)

I note, however, that "gender is an artificial, meaningless construct" seems to be this week's talking point, sort of how "men can't be feminists" was the talking point a few weeks ago.


I agree with that, but I think almost everything is meaningless.

Which begs the question: If gender doesn't exist, how are "we" supposed to know who is "allowed" to call themselves Feminists, and who isn't?


Short answer: I don't know.
Longer answer: There are actually many different types of feminism, so when someone says, "I am a feminist," we don't really know what they believe and don't believe. I don't think any one group of feminists can be considered the real feminists, just like no one group of Christians can claim to be the real Christians. When I took my first women's studies class, one of the first things our professor told us was that social movements are very messy, and not always universally, clearly defined. OWS is a fantastic example of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 05:38 PM

13. Everyone should be get at least a cursory grounding in Korzybyski & General Semantics, IMHO

good way to remind the old brain about the limitations of semantic maps, labels, and the like.

Edited to add: When I have, previously, self-identified as a "Feminist", I have gone by the definition popularized on signs and t-shirts at places like the March For Womens Lives I attended in DC, in 2004; namely, "Feminism is the radical idea that women are people", radical, of course intended facetiously. Or that Feminism was the struggle for equal rights regardless of gender. Both seemingly straightforward, no-brainer concepts to me. Which is why I was surprised by the vehement arguments we recently saw pretty much drawing a stark line in the sand about "Men can't be Feminists".

Particularly in light of other things I've heard in recent years, complaints bemoaning young women disassociating themselves from the label "Feminist" because the label was perceived, wrongly we were told, as representing something intolerant, non inclusive, and most importantly meaning something other than (incorrectly, so it went) "the struggle for equal rights regardless of gender".

So again, it struck me as odd that all of a sudden there was this move to define the label more rigidly, and non-inclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:32 PM

15. I don't even think "traditional" is an operative word.

Jonas Salk was the product of a "traditional patriarchal culture". How many "Jonas'" are out there today, but fail to achieve because they learned by age four that they weren't smart like the girls.

As you've noted, "patriarchy" appears to swing every which-way, depending on the desired point to be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 05:33 PM

12. Nefarious Penis Conspiracy opened for The Reverand Horton Heat at the Paradise in Boston in '93

I found them to be a mediocre garage band at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:21 PM

14. Yes, but the flyers around town were epic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:04 PM

4. while assuring them that girls and boys are equally academic may help them achieve.

it worked in my home. it is what we consistently promoted from day one in our boys. it is what we addressed with school. i could not agree more.

i would tell a teacher that we had high expectations and i expected teachers to feel the same when it came to my kids.

thanks for this post. i will read more of it later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:12 PM

6. I think all kids are different, and respond to different stuff.

I come from a long line of freethinkers, early readers, essentially people who found school too friggin' slow and boring, rote and repetitive.

I don't know what the immediate answer is, but as a parent I can tell you that job #1 for all of us needs to be funding schools adequately (maybe by taking money from the Military Industrial Complex and the Drug War?) and getting class sizes down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread