Interesting. I would have thought calling a child “naughty” was on the same level or worse than calling a child “bad.”
2 Likes
Young children don’t really know the meaning of the word "naughty’ but they know the connotation of the word “BAD”. We used the word “naughty” but the kids thought I was saying “Not-E”, so they thought that there was some kid in the world named “E”. “Not E!”. We used the word “naughty” when we read the book ,"No, David’. He wasn’t a BAD child, but just a weee bit naughty at times. David didn’t know how to “channel his energy”, but his Momma still loves him and he is never described as a BAD child.
The children realized and knew that they were not, nor ever BAD, because an adult teacher had explained it in a way that made sense to them; which was my point-they are just too young to really have a bad bone in their bodies. Kids are not BAD, their behaviors can be “trial and error”, but they were not EVER being close to BAD.
When children know that they are not viewed as BAD children, their behaviors show significant improvement. It’s just what I experienced in my 40 years of working with clients and patients.
7 Likes
So close this thread! I was surprised to see it has not been closed yet.
1 Like
I’m not a moderator anymore. 
1 Like
8 posts were split to a new thread: ADHD, more common in boys?
Mod Hat:
Please use the new thread linked above to discuss ADHD. Thanks!
2 Likes
Dito, “reverse discrimination”.
I admit being guilty of enjoying my share of chuckles over everyone daring to “say” what I was only thinking.
But I do realize that there is a substantial & ever-growing share of the population for which trying to promote equity (regardless if gender, race, resources, or otherwise) falls under “Wokeness” and “Political Correctness”, which has become a societal lightening rod.
So, despite all the laughs, it’s dangerous to dismiss the OPs sentiment (whether satirical or real), else we might find ourselves dealing with the pendulum swinging the other way for a decade – at a time when we can ill-afford it.
2 Likes
Oops…error. Deleted.
(To Greatpyrrmom)
Awe….I will 
1 Like
The UK is also dealing with this same problem of the poorest white working class boys being left out of needed services and support and therefore missing from the higher education system.
3 Likes
If men aren’t seeking out the resources available at colleges, such as tutoring centers, professor office hours, and the like, I’m not sure that’s letting men slip through the cracks. Perhaps some men need to be more conscientious and develop a better work ethic?
Replace this with other groups and this starts to become less strong an argument. We wouldn’t use this as justification for the poor performance of other groups so why are men not given the same sympathy?
Furthermore, it did annoy me that there was no dedicated support staff for men only at my university when women had their own dedicated support despite women were the majority of students. Women were also the majority of staff other than academic and senior leadership.
In spite of women being the majority of students and staff, they somehow needed extra support and mentorship that men didn’t?
It never made sense to me.
3 Likes
So the Deans are men. The president, provost, general counsel are men. Department chairs are men. The heads of prestigious labs, think tanks, interdisciplinary centers are men.
And you are worried that men are falling through the cracks? Women are the majority of staff- because they are administrative assistants, dieticians, food service workers, librarians-- i.e. the “more numerous but lower compensation” jobs, right? That’s why they are in the majority. The college might need 30 food service workers- but only one president. 15 librarians but only one provost. So yeah- women are in the majority of employees, rah rah rah.
Does it make sense now?
7 Likes
This is much less true now than 20 years ago. Most colleges have had women leaders-deans, presidents, dept heads- for a while now
Yet this the argument that is made repeatedly with other groups, both explicitly and implicitly. All that is missing is the inevitable mentions of nature/nurture to explain the underperformance. Funny how the tune changes when it is males we are discussing.
And most of the full professors are men. And most the tenure track professors.
1 Like
More interesting stats courtesy of the Society of Women Engineers…
Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty Levels - Society of Women Engineers.
1 Like
Yes. That doesn’t address the problem that young men in America are abandoning college at alarming rates
See responses #1, 2 & 3.
Yet this the argument that is made repeatedly with other groups, both explicitly and implicitly. All that is missing is the inevitable mentions of nature/nurture to explain the underperformance.
I’m just playing devils’ advocate in all honesty.
Personally, I do think men have some responsibility in this but I was just pointing out that we give leeway in some instances and not others.
I think there’s probably something going wrong as well policy wise if men aren’t attending university at the same rates.
And the question about professors, that takes a long time to show itself in the population.
Women only became the majority of doctoral students in 2005-2006 and only started pulling away from men in 2010 onwards.
The median age of a tenure-track professor is 50 i.e. they would have been doctoral students in the 1990s when men were 60% of doctoral students.
Having said that, there probably are barriers to women becoming professors which is why the gender diversification of professors will take a long time (but it will eventually happen).
2 Likes
Yes, and most of the non-tenure-track instructors are women. There are some serious pipeline issues in academia which reflect systemic gender inequality at all levels, even in a professonal sector that congratulates itself for being enlightened.
5 Likes