"Profiles in Astonishing Ignorance"

[bloom]

This is about

...that foul-excrescence-masquerading-as-a-kid in Massachusetts who filed a civil rights complaint alleging that, because there are lots of girls on the honor roll, his school discriminates against—you guessed it—boys. Somebody apparently told this lazy little shit’s parents about that idiot “research” supposedly showing that boys are genetically incapable of sitting still for more than 2 minutes at a time, which is why all but 2% of them flunk out of school every year, creating that vast uneducated male underclass with which we are all so familiar. You know, the one that has resulted in the almost total lack of men in positions of power worldwide for the past 27 centuries."http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/01/27/profiles-in-astonishing-ignorance

Great rant about it - excerpts:

But of course the talking points this boy is regurgitating are that he feels the standards need to be lowered to accomodate him. Even worse, he wants boys to get actual special treatment to compensate for the hazy, hard-to-prove special treatment girls are supposedly getting.

Gerry Anglin, Doug Anglin’s father, said the school system should compensate boys for the discrimination by boosting their grades retroactively.

If there isn’t a better symbol of male privilege than giving all the boys in a high school extra points on their report cards just for being male, I don’t know what is.

And that’s what this fuss about bringing boys up to speed is all about–restoring male privilege, creating a system where men are ahead just for being male. All the suggested “reforms” are about making sure that boys don’t have to actually compete with girls by taking away the standards to compete with, like doing work and behaving in class.
http://pandagon.net/2006/01/26/daring-white-boy-rebels-strike-for-stupidity/

This fits "Profiles in Astonishing Ignorance" also:

Andrew (Longmen) goes on to explain the essence of our national identity…

So, we choose this moment, when nuclear weapons are about to fall into the hands of people who hate us so much they will suicide bomb us, to release a spate of films accosting our own culture at its very root — it’s emotional and physical ability to sexually reproduce and defend offspring....

Has it occurred to the great bulk of our people that we need to quit tolerating the forces of internal destruction which work night and day to deconstruct our manliness at a time when our nation faces an absolute need for valor, ferocity, the force of arms, and the defense of the innocent pregnant woman and her children at home? Has it occurred to anyone, anyone at all, that it is immoral to assault masculinity? - http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=82#more-82

[atommom]

1. Wow. Do you suppose that kid will grow up to be pretzeldent someday?

It looks as if he has all the qualifications ... money, doting parents, poor scholastic achievement, a big sense of entitlement, and a complete refusal to take responsibility for anything.

[bloom]

2. yeah

I was thinking someone should suggest to him to go to business school. He'll probably go "far".

And if he's not the "pretzeldent" - he can head something like Enron. Or maybe he'll do both!

[geniph]

3. "it is immoral to assault masculinity"???

WTF? Can we say "dish it out but can't take it"?

LAME!

an "absolute need for ... the force of arms"? In whose opinion? Certainly not mine.

And dude, if your manliness is deconstructed and assaulted by the mere existence of films about gayfolk or transfolk, you have a very, very shaky sexual identity. Methinks thou doth reveal too much...

[bloom]

6. It's really something

how this trend of so-called "male-victimization" or perceived "assaults on masculinity" keeps popping up in stories here and there.


I think there is some kind of concerted effort going on under the radar.

[bliss_eternal]

14. A lost respect for a career specialist--

I used to read a lot of his work, and liked what he had to say about careers, work, etc. Until of course, one day I encountered an article on this issue on his website. He's bought into the whole "white male's are being oppressed in the workplace and society" crap.

I'm sorry but I lost some respect and he lost some credence in my eyes after I read that.

[bliss_eternal]

15. Post above should read "I" instead of "A"

Sorry for the typing error...too late for me to change it. :(

[bloom]

4. "Why the gender lens may not shed light on the latest educational crisis."

Another article about the supposed gender problems in education. This was well said.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135243/?nav=ais

Will Boys Be Boys?
Why the gender lens may not shed light on the latest educational crisis.
By Ann Hulbert
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2006, at 1:07 PM ET


"It's OK, guys, being a haptic learner doesn't necessarily mean you have ADD," a teacher reassured a group of ninth-grade boys who were duly filling out a survey designed to assess their "learning styles." Telling me this story as she flipped through a recent issue of Newsweek announcing the arrival of a "Boy Crisis" in education, my ninth-grade daughter laughed.... <snip>


The cultural diagnoses of what's behind male school dilemmas are wobbly as well. In the New Republic, Whitmire points to a college-bound "verbally drenched curriculum" as the culprit, arguing that boys, whose verbal skills lag behind girls', are handicapped by the ever more literacy-focused course of study that he maintains has become crucial preparation for the world of "information-based work." But surely in a high-tech era, when math and science skills matter more than ever, boys get some benefit from their greater computer savvy and confidence in quantitative skills. (I'd be curious to know what evidence Whitmire has of a new emphasis during the 1990s on a verbal curriculum.) Other complaints about boy-averse pedagogy also don't quite add up—in part because they contradict one another. Sommers blamed a touchy-feely, progressive ethos for alienating boys in the classroom; males, she argued, thrive on no-nonsense authority, accountability, clarity, and peer rivalry. But now Newsweek blames roughly the opposite atmosphere for boy trouble: the competitive, cut-and-dried, standardized-test-obsessed (and recessless) pedagogical emphasis of the last decade. So much speculative certainty doesn't really shed much light on the puzzle of what's deterring young men from college.

Viewing school issues primarily through a gender lens has a way of encouraging a search for one-size-fits-all prescriptions for each sex. But what the array of motley evidence about males suggests is the wisdom of being wary about just that. It's worth noting that boys' test scores tend to be more variable than girls', with more of them at the tippy top, and many more down at the bottom. There may be biological forces at work, but at the moment the most marked contrasts in educational performance and college attendance show up between races and social classes; minority and poor males lag furthest behind, especially in college attendance. (Black women now receive twice as many college degrees as black men.) Gender equity may be the sexier goal to push for, but right now socioeconomic inequality is the greater obstacle to overcome.

In the meantime, both sexes—as international comparisons show—could stand to make more progress in math and verbal skills in our competitive global world. What's truly at stake for American children may not be the intricacies of neural wiring, but the rudimentary habits of working. Citing a recent study by two psychologists (one of them Martin E. P. Seligman, author of Learned Optimism), Washington Post education reporter Jay Mathews called attention to evidence that self-discipline—in particular, a capacity for deferred gratification—may be the best predictor of academic success, better than IQ: Do your homework, and plenty of practicing, before you watch television or sit down to play Xbox. That sounds, I know, like irresistible grist for an argument about whether and why girls might have an innate gift for just that kind of goody-goody, grindlike behavior, but let's not start it. It's a disservice to girls to portray them as destined for diligence, as though conscientious effort were a second-rate recourse for slower or steadier minds, rather than what is really is: a crucial choice that helps ensure long-term success. And it's an even bigger disservice to boys and their college prospects to reinforce the idea that discipline and self-denial are sissy stuff.

[bloom]

5. Quiz

Even though the boys may not have ADD (mentioned in the previous post ) this study could be interesting as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x17502

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm

There is also a quiz you can take to see if you have more of a "stereotypical" male of female brain. (Alas - I have a "male" ie. more systematic one, myself).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html

[geniph]

7. Well, unsurprisingly,

I "flunked" the empathy quotient test. I scored 16, which isn't surprising if you realize that I'm one of the rare females with Asperger's Syndrome. I score 43 on the Systematizing test, which again is consonant with mild Asperger's (outright autistics tend to systematize everything). (I just realized that last statement IS systematizing.)

[bloom]

8. I wonder if there are not more Asperger women than people realize.

It's easy to stay quiet. If it wasn't for internet boards - we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

My score was similar to yours. And my daughter said she got 60 on her SQ which doesn't surprise me - because of how she excels at system sorts of things - though the thing said that "almost no women score" over 50.

[eridani]

9. I think that women probably have the same tendency toward Aspergers'

It's just that female sex role socialization tends to mute it, so that geeky girls are always a little less geeky than geeky boys. Or maybe biology mutes it--lack of social awareness is much more likely to get women killed.

[mzteris]

11. hmmmm.......

I was 23 on EQ (aspie range) and 38 on SQ (not aspie range). Go figure.

But I could easily take it again and probably score something different.

I have great trouble taking these types of quizzes as I'm very much a "it depends on the circumstances" person. lol . . .

Also, I have a tendency to "overanalyze" the questions. For instance - it said something like "I frequently start hobbies but quickly lose interest." I don't frequently start hobbies - but I think the question was more about quickly losing interest - and as I don't (frequently start hobbies) - how do I know if I'd quickly lose interest?


BTW - FWIW - I DO believe that "average" males "think and learn" DIFFERENTLY from "average" females. And I do believe schools are structured more for the "average female" STYLE of learner than the "average male" STYLE of learning. And that the typical classroom setting stifles most male modes of learning and encourages most female modes of learning.

Bear in mind that I say that as a female who is more likely on the "male mode" end of the learning styles curve. (And had a daughter who was slightly on that end and a niece who was WAY on that end. . .)

[bloom]

12. learning styles....

The funny thing about all this is - it seems that schools - with the regimentation, and systems and structures seems like that fits the "male thinking model" - more than the "female" more empathetic model.

I think with the male model - people like to know what is expected and to be rewarded for doing what is expected.

If schools followed a more female model - everyone would probably be expected to help each other more. It might be more like the one room schoolhouse - where everyone was a teacher and a student and it sounded like MORE pandemonium, not less.

The people trying to argue that boys are disadvantaged are trying to argue that they shouldn't be expected to behave themselves - and I don't think that argument makes sense. And I really have to wonder if they understand the whole systemizing mindset at all.

---------

As far as the "I frequently start hobbies... question - I probably made assumptions based on what I thought they meant - "often" being a relative term anyway. Since I've read about Aspergers and I know that people tend to be focused about whatever hobby they happen to have at the time -whether they do it for 6 months or 6 years - I sort of assumed that might be what they were talking about.

I agree that such tests seem awfully subjective - esp. when the quizee is expected to rate intensity - and people might rate that very differently. But I got to thinking about it and with this test - how intense people rate things "strongly agreeing" or "slightly agreeing" - could mean something in and of itself. I tend to NOT see myself on the extremes for instance. Except when it comes to maps and such.

[bloom]

10. Blog entry about the people responsible for this manufactured problem ->

Boys’ Failure Directly Linked To Women’s Movement By Presumably Uneducated Colorado Teen

“Girls tend to be more compliant and willing to sit down and do what they’re told. Boys are less tolerant of that,” said. “If they don’t have control and they’re not interested, they’re less likely to buy in. So we really need to approach it that way, and not make everyone act and behave like girls.”

...The chump lamenting this tragedy of boys’ difficulties in maintaining their god-given upper hand is Kathy Stevens, spinal fluid expert and co-author of the book that started it all: The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind in School and in Life. Stevens accepts without hesitation the notion that anything girls are good at automatically acquires an undesirable feminine taint. She takes it for granted that any boy in his right mind would rather drop out and pursue a career of baby-impaling than acquire that dreadful taint. She neglects to conclude that perhaps it’s the “whole male structure” itself that’s screwing over these boys.

You know the structure to which I allude. Patriarchy.

Stevens’ boss, co-author, co-crisis instigator, and co-patriarchy-enthusiast is Michael Gurian. Gurian has manufactured his crisis on the basis of his “discovery” that boys and girls “learn differently.” His thesis is that boys suffer, not because of social factors like absentee parents, poverty, or social conditioning, but from their natural genetic antipathy to being forced to “act like girls.” Having successfully promoted his genetics-based boy-crisis in national media (Newsweek, People) he is pleased to hawk his institute’s educational materials to schools that live in fear of rocking the patriarchal boat by matriculating too many chicks, and to families who feel confident getting their parenting advice from corporate consultants featured in magazines that alternate between cover stories on Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie.

Parental “training packages” start at $80....

The Twisty Solution: single-sex classrooms. Let the girls read books, and let the boys jab each others’ eyes out with pointed sticks. It’s only natural."

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/04/boys-achievement-crisis/

[femrap]

13. About the same time I started reading that women were getting

most of the college degrees....higher numbers of admittance to law schools than males....etc.....I started hearing about how boys were being pooped on in school. Boo-hoo. And their mothers are complaining about it.

Funny...they seem to always get worse grades but those 'great connections' (good ol' boy network) seem to get them the highest paying jobs....with NO CEILING whatsoever.

This sense of entitlement just awes me....wouldn't it be fun to act just like an entitled male for a day? I would love to do drag for a day....did it for Halloween years and years ago....still have the mustache and spirit gum...lol.

[NMMNG]

16. Half-baked nonsense

Schools have always been about sitting down, being quiet and listening to the teacher. Do you think back in the 1800's/early 1900's that kids in the 1-room school houses were jumping around, watching video presentations and playing on computers? Of course not! They were sitting quietly while the teacher spoke, answering questions when asked, and getting paddlings or standing in the corner if they misbehaved.

This whole notion that sitting quietly is a new trend is pure hogwash trumped up by apologists for boys who are doing poorly because their parents don't teach them to become good students. If one has been trained from 2 years of age to do nothing but watch tv (while jumping around no less), play the X-box, and play with loud electronic toys, is it any wonder one is "incapable" of sitting down and focusing for more than two minutes?

[lukasahero]

17. Thank you!

You have touched on the one thing that has bothered me about this whole "new" discussion - historically, girls have not had the same educational opportunities as boys so just who the heck were sit down/shut up classes designed for in the first place? Um, that would be boys.

This doesn't go back twenty years. It doesn't go back a hundred years. It goes back to the beginning of organized education but suddenly it's the fault of education being designed for girls. Since when?

Good grief, they make all the rules and we get faulted when we perform better under their rules than they do? Give me a break.