<p>So therefore your anecdotal evidence becomes fact. You haven't seen it, therefore it doesnt exist. But I have seen it so that is purely anecdotal.
My point is that males can be treated negatively just because of their gender, they are stereotyped and often in a negative way. While doing this to other groups is horrible and demeaning doing it to males is acceptable.
More and more our society is trying to diminish the importance of men and fathers. I believe it is having a negative impact on our society.</p>
<p>I just simply don't see that. Nope, my anecdotal evidence does not become fact. It could support my point, but I wouldn't use it that way, because it's a random incident, just like any other story about who's in the top ten. </p>
<p>My son and his father would both laugh at the idea that they are being diminished or demeaned by society.</p>
<p>People who have historically been at the top, who complain now that they're not, just seem kind of pathetic to me. Thankfully, most men I know are not like that. Just like most whites I know don't think of themselves as members of an oppressed group, though it's always disconcerting when I meet one who does.</p>
<p>Having just sent off a daughter to college and having a young son in elementary school I feel comfortable saying that boys and girls are treated quite differently through their early and formative academic/social years.</p>
<p>The natural rambunctious and unforced behavior of boys is too often seen as something inappropriate and in need of modification (as is the case for our sonmost often by female teachers), whereas the natural unforced behavior of girls is seen as appropriate (as was the case with our daughter). </p>
<p>The net result is that our daughter grew up quite confident and at ease in the classroom (academically/socially) and succeeded beyond any of our hopes or expectations; she was always a natural. We worry that the situation may end up being somewhat different for our son, seeing as his behavior, though natural, is seen as inappropriate.</p>
<p>When our daughter was in the lower grades most of the feedback we received was addressed to her academic and organizational skills, in our sons case it is behavioral advice and critique (while always being told that he is better than most of the boys in his class in this regard), we assume there is a similar emphasis in the classroom instruction itself and it worries us; wont these differences carry throughout a boys academic carrier through the high school years and beyond? </p>
<p>As to these greater social issues, I have no real opinion; but when it comes to my own son, I pause a moment to reflect.</p>
<p>To me it all comes down to perspective. In general, girls are graduating more students in the top 10% of high school classes. In general, more boys score in the top 10% of standardized tests. </p>
<p>Are the schools biased against boys? Are the tests biased against girls? Good cases could be made for either position. As the father of 2 boys and 2 girls I wouldl like to see the schools place a bit more emphasis on the different learning styles of each type of student. I am not sure what to do about the standardized testing . . .</p>
<p>Neither of these things explain why there are fewer boys applying to LACs than girls. Alternatively, it does not explain why fewer girls apply to engineering schools than boys. Some have cited anecdotal evidence from the past about boys going into trades that paid well after high school where girls felt they needed more of an education to earn appropriate pay. In some respects engineering schools are similar, the salaries commanded by engineering grads are higher than liberal arts majors. They just move the "trade school" to after high school instead of during high school for the traditional trade schools.</p>
<p>When MIT was started that was the criticism of the school, it was really just a trade school. It is embodied in its motto, "mind and hand". Now it seems that many schools are trying to add engineering schools or expanding the ones they have (i.e. Harvard, Yale, Princeton). I am not sure if this is an appeal to the boys to keep an even balance on those campuses or not. It should be interesting to watch how this plays out over the next 30 years.</p>
<p>Woodwork: I agree that there can be differences between boys and girls in lots of ways, though I think they are much more complex and subtle than the stereotypes suggest. My S also got a lot of trouble for his inability to sit still, but my D got equal trouble from her inability to refrain from arguing--definitely not a shrinking violet. Both did stellar in school, but neither got much recognition for it--the "good" kids of both genders garnered all the awards and accolades.</p>
<p>Neither of my kids fit gender stereotypes, which is why they (the stereotypes, not the kids) can make me crazy. But both, I believe, would say that it is still easier to be a guy in our society.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just like most whites I know don't think of themselves as members of an oppressed group, though it's always disconcerting when I meet one who does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whites are not a completely homogenous group. Many Europeans encountered discrimination when they came to this country. Some of this discrimination continued well into this century. Most of the discrimination against certain whites, i.e. Irish, Italian, Polish, has generally disappeared. However, the generational memory of those groups can still exist to some degree, though not as pronounced as it was in earlier generations.</p>
<p>Rambunctiousness has always been deplored by teachers who put a premium on "good" behavior, i.e., quietness. But when I reflect on my own high school experience and that of my sons, I see a huge change toward accommodating males. When I was in school, we were all supposed to be at our desks all the time, facing the teacher and quietly listening, taking notes, answering quizzes. Nowadays, in many classes, students work in groups that form and reform according to the topic or the day of the week, etc... Parents who come from other countries have often complained that the classes are "chaotic." Part of the change has to do with the desire to give active boys a chance to move about a bit more. Ditto the emphasis on projects that allow them to "do" rather than just taking down notes. We had lab once a week, by which I mean that the teacher did the experiment and we watched as best we could (there were more than 40 of us in the class). When my older S was in 8th grade, his class went to a university lab. Some of the boys were so destructive of equipement, curtains and furniture that the whole school was disinvited for future years. </p>
<p>There are many ways of subtly encouraging or discouraging students. Assumptions as to what boys or girls are better at, whom to call on to do certain things, answer certain kinds of questions. Sometimes teachers do not mean to discriminate but end up doing so. When my S was in 3rd grade, he always raised his hand in math class. The teacher used to pass over him regularly, making him feel unvalued. We brought it up at parent-teacher conference. Her explanation was that she knew he knew the stuff; she wanted to find out who else knew it or did not know it, so she could help those who did not. There was no gender discrimination element in her strategy, and once explained to my S, he was okay with it. But one by-product of this experience is that he learned to keep his knowledge to himself even in more advanced classes.</p>
<p>Just yesterday, I was at a meeting where one senior person showed up in a T-shirt with a highly suggestive message on it. I don't know how the young women at the meeting felt about it It does not seem to have changed much from ten years ago when a male colleague used to put up a girlie calendar in a public space; he could not understand why the women in the office were uncomfortable having to see it every day.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>
[quote]
My S also got a lot of trouble for his inability to sit still
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the point that Woodwork is making is embodied in your statement. I have encountered the same comments coming from teachers about my boys. I am not sure why sitting still is appropriate behavior, though it clearly is required many times. Perhaps schools should put together more "active" learning environments for those that need that type of learning. Not everyone can sit still.</p>
<p>Here are a few links to articles on that discuss this topic -</p>
<p>A New Gender Gap - Business Week:</p>
<p>Its a Bart Simpsons Culture - Business Week:</p>
<p>Why Can't We Let Boys Be Boys - Business Week:</p>
<p>The Gender Gap, Boys Lagging - 60 Minutes:</p>
<p>To echo what Marite just said, my boys, who are active learners, always did best in group projects . . . though some teachers still have trouble with this teaching style/method. Not a general rule, just a data point.</p>
<p>Eagle--of course this is historically true. Not just Eastern Europeans; there were plenty "No Irish Need Apply" signs, too. But these were a product of an attitude of those groups being "not white enough" as perceived by the dominant group. And thankfully, that is mostly a phenomenon of the past.</p>
<p>What I was refering to is the generic "it's tough to be a white man in the United STates today, we're the ones getting screwed" attitude. That whiteness itself is a burden. Please...</p>
<p>Like I said, I don't know too many people who espouse that, but I cringe whenever I hear it.</p>
<p>Eagle:</p>
<p>But I think the encouragement of the "active learning style" gives permission to boys to be rambunctious and thus to get into trouble. They don't have clear ideas as to what is allowed, and like many kids, they try to test those limits. When everybody was supposed to sit still, boys could still get into trouble, but they knew when they had transgressed. </p>
<p>Interestingly, my S went to a school that shared a building with a more traditional program. My S's school was "alternative" and attracted an majority middle class population from the town; the traditional program attracted an overwhelmingly low SES,African-American population. the parents in this traditional program liked the greater discipline and the clearer structure. The middle class parents in our program liked the opportunity for their kids to "self-realize."</p>
<p>Eagle--I agree that sitting still is not an ideal, nor keeping quiet, which my D couldn't do. Like Marite says, the requirement is much more relaxed than it used to be, so I don't see it as some part of a higher societal war on males.</p>
<p>I still go back to what I said earlier on this thread: high school rewards girls for being "good", raising ther hands quietly, staying up all night memorizing dates because that's what you are suppposed to do. So more of them get the grades needed for top colleges. BUT, in the business world, the same qualities are not valued. You need to be ambitious, aggressive, think outside the box, be willing to step forward with your ideas, etc. That is one reason we see so many more men leading corporations and making major money on Wall Street, etc (those qualities are less rewarded in females). The other reason (aside from discrimination which still does exist) is that so many women drop out of the work force, or would rather take less competitive jobs so they can spend more time with their families. While I agree this is a generalization, there is something about our educational system that prepares women to succeed in college but not the real world.<br>
About men and LACs - my teenage son said he would never apply to an LAC. He LOVES sports and looks forward to going to college games rather than just watching them on TV. It's not just about playing sports, it's about being able to go to the game and being surrounded by others who want to do the same. I know there are girls who enjoy watching sports, too, but there just seem to be fewer of them who are so obsessed (don't talk to my son during the Final 4 - he's busy).</p>
<p>Catherine:</p>
<p>Schools have always valued quiet students. It did not prevent girls from being passed over when a math question came up; it did not prevent girls from being assumed not to be interested in physics or sciences; it did not prevent me from having to learn how to sew and embroider while my brother did not. It did not open doors to women to HYP until the 1970s (now, talk about being in a real minority and in a fishbowl!). As I said, schools today are far more accommodating the type of rambunctious behavior that is ascribed to boys. Paradoxically, this is also a period where girls are supposed be given far more encouragement to succeed and boys' needs are being neglected.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I am not advocating enabling rambunctious behaviour, just that more could be done to direct that energy in a positive way. It really comes down to how the teachers can enable and enhance the learning environment for all of the students in the class.</p>
<p>Garland,</p>
<p>I do not believe that there is a societal war against boys either. I just think that they see "preferences" for many different groups and wonder why not them too.</p>
<p>Maybe if the "preference" word was not applied to what is rather the lessening of uneven-ness, they wouldn't think they were missing something. I mean, I am white, and I think I would be nuts to suppose that everyone of different races is getting some kind of "preference" that I am not. So maybe it's a framing question.</p>
<p>marite: I actually agree with you on your latest points. As a male who most would agree has always been more "mellow" than the average, I feel that the recent laxity in elementary schools shows an accomodation of the energy and rambunctiosness inherent in young boys, something I never preferred based on my individual personality.</p>
<p>My main point in my first posts from a while ago was that there exists a double standard in that men were being stereotyped and even belittled to a certain extent in early posts, and I think as the conversation shifted, that type of talk diminished, which I appreciate. </p>
<p>I would just like to highlight that in every single one of my posts, I stated that I don't feel that men face discrimination. I agree that men who complain of discrimination have little basis on which to start such an argument. However, the use of the word "whinge" throughout this thread did offend me, because it conveyed a certain lack of desire to even listen to my opinion or the opinions of others, as if we were simply complaining because we feel sorry for ourselves. I still hold that girls in high school and middle school receive more encouragement to succeed academically than their male counterparts because of deeply rooted societal issues for which the dust has yet to settle. Simply offering an afterschool program for young boys interested in the humanities (similar to programs for women interested in science and engineering) would help this. Setting a societal standard for males that goes beyond excelllence in athletics, and demonstrates that a young man can be intellectual without sacrificing his masculinity would also help to cure this, and to level the gap in entering college classes. By no means to do they face discimination, but they could use a little more encouragement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still hold that girls in high school and middle school receive more encouragement to succeed academically than their male counterparts because of deeply rooted societal issues for which the dust has yet to settle. Simply offering an afterschool program for young boys interested in the humanities (similar to programs for women interested in science and engineering) would help this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is where one can have a real difference of opinions. Many teachers may be buying into the idea of encouraging girls or boys to do certain types of activities while unconsciously engaging in practices that undermine their good intentions. In some colleges, TAs and instructors are asked to videotape themselves holding a class and then to analyze their performance and the class dynamics together with a trained staff. Many have been stunned to note how they comport themselves and how the class reacts to them and to one another. </p>
<p>My S, who "lives and breathes math and science" according to his GC, was part of a creative writing club last year. The group seemed to be evenly divided between girls and boys and was led by a male teacher who is a published author and a female teacher. Personally, looking at my S's friends, I think the big factor is the different rate of development between girls and boys. Boys don't really begin to buckle down until their junior and senior year--at which point they take standardized tests where they, as a group, outshine girls. But their GPA is calculated over the course of 4 or at least 3 years, and sometimes, their lack of application, gets in the way of their taking the more challenging courses later on. If college happened at 20 instead of 18, we probably would see a very different picture.</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone knows how much of the fact that schools are more than half female reflects the fact that most of the applicants are female. In other words, are more women being accepted because they have better grades and scores, even if the applicant pool is fairly equal in terms of the sexes - or are more women being accepted because there are simply more applying?
I also still wonder why there are so few women in math and physics. Look at the physics majors at most colleges, and you'll find mostly men. It works both ways though - there are many more women who major in education and dance, and it's not because the physics departments don't want women. I don't have an answer here. One thought is that perhaps many young women still don't have the feeling they will be supporting themselves forever, so they feel freer to go into lower paying professions for the love of it than men do.</p>
<p>Garland,</p>
<p>True enough about the term "preference" but it is the term that is used pervasively in the broader societal discussion. Turn on any of the news stations, MS-NBC, CNN, Fox and the term preferences is used. It is used in our print media also. For our children to avoid the term is quite difficult. Further, use of the term can enable discussions on why a preference may exist.</p>