Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#31

Post by wcummings »

pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

>Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue to lag behind. I even have a perfect example of this, my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so, the question is how many meetups are there that are for boys, e.g. "Boys Learning Code" (creating these would be classified under men 's rights activism and therefore dismissed).

Get the fuck out of here, this is definitely not a problem for young men interested in technology. Those guys are going to be there no matter what.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#32

Post by emsy »

bsder wrote: post #28
woah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would there be a suspicion that this was because of sexism, if the genders were reversed?

I think you are looking for something voluntary when that is almost certainly not the case. 1) A friend of mine once astutely commented that the diagnosis for ADHD was basically "middle class with behaviors which annoy female schoolteachers." 2) Boys tend to challenge authority from teens to early 20's to try and work out their place in the world. Most male teachers just roll with it until they have to make a sarcast…

> I think you are looking for something voluntary when that is almost certainly not the case.

Your parent post never argued that it was voluntary, but contemplated if it would be perceived to be voluntary sexism if the genders were reveresed.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#33

Post by aaaaaa1121 »

oldmanjay wrote: post #27
forrestthewoods wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to accept that people simply like people that look like them. And there's nothing wrong with that. Women in tech is important. Minority representation is important. And yes positive white male role models for little suburban straight white American boys is important.

You know what happens when everything is important, right?

Less discrimination?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#34

Post by aaaaaa1121 »

wcummings wrote: post #31
pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

>Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue to lag behind. I even have a perfect example of this, my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so, the quest…

Now you're just trying to discourage them even further.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#35

Post by nv-vn »

wcummings wrote: post #31
pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

>Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue to lag behind. I even have a perfect example of this, my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so, the quest…

You're making the assumption that every single male has experienced the exact same thing and that every single female has experienced the exact same thing. While it may not make sense to create these types of programs in terms of number of people they could cater to (although these could be a great idea in low income neighbourhoods as something for both boys and girls), that doesn't make them ethically/morally wrong. I don't see what there is to be offended by here.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#36

Post by throwawayChess »

wcummings wrote: post #31
pmalynin wrote: post #13

Where to even begin, Part of this issue I feel is, as mentioned in the article, is that boys are taught from the young age to take care of their problems, which leads to more isolation. Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue…

>Another important reason I feel is the rising amount of "girls-only" opportunities that systematically make boys feel inadequate and since they are not able to participate for whatever reason (e.g. "its only for girls") they continue to lag behind. I even have a perfect example of this, my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so, the quest…

And here is standard "hacker" news feminist. It's not a problem? What about tomorrow? With men vilified in tech (sexists! Rapists! Mysoggyneests!11!!) and lack of any encouragement to go for tech? But you don't care. All you care about is girls well being.

Same with domestic violence shelters - "they don't need it as they are majority of perpetrators!!", same with any male only space - male only clubs, events, even BARBER shops are 'discriminatory', but women only are ok.

That is not equal rights, not equal treatment. Let the free market decide what is needed instead of spouting hipocritical nonsense.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#37

Post by gaius »

woah wrote: post #18
cperciva wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably quite a lot. I'm reminded of a study I read a year or two ago which looked at academic performance in high school; girls received considerably higher class marks on average. However, this effect vanished when they took standardized tests ... and it also vanished when they had male teachers. Whether it's teaching style, the teacher acting as a role model, or something else, I don't know; but gender definitely…

Would there be a suspicion that this was because of sexism, if the genders were reversed?

One of the teaching unions here in the UK was asked why they weren't doing more to get men into teaching. They replied that that was sexist as it implied that female teachers weren't doing a good enough job! You can't win.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#38

Post by Spiritus »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #10
enlightenedfool wrote: post #6

Glad that there's a discussion. It would help humanity to also give enough focus on boy child development so that we could save their future, avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails.

I've always wondered how much of the gap comes from a near total lack of male teachers in K-5.

What's K-5?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#39

Post by XorNot »

bsder wrote: post #28
woah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would there be a suspicion that this was because of sexism, if the genders were reversed?

I think you are looking for something voluntary when that is almost certainly not the case. 1) A friend of mine once astutely commented that the diagnosis for ADHD was basically "middle class with behaviors which annoy female schoolteachers." 2) Boys tend to challenge authority from teens to early 20's to try and work out their place in the world. Most male teachers just roll with it until they have to make a sarcast…

(1) doesn't apply to the actual results of the study reported, which finds the (oft-found) effect that boys from low socioeconomic groups (not the middle class) are disproportionately disadvantaged compared to their female peers.

The usual explanation tends to be that the outs in progression to university-level education are much more available to young men than women overall, as well as the worst excesses of lost potential (i.e. gang membership and fatalities are disproportionately male).

(2) demands actual evidence, since the implication that male teachers will, what? allow things to escalate to physical violence? Hardly belies any real improvement in teaching outcomes.

(4) also demands actual evidence.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#40

Post by XorNot »

htns wrote: post #24
wpietri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering the same thing. It might be gender, but it could also be a strongly gender-focused society.

It's actually a global phenomenon. Boys are performing worse in most of the Western world as well as much of the rest. When there are similar issues in the US, Japan, and Scandinavia you can rule out many cultural aspects as the cause.

This is news to me. The results I've seen have always uniformly suggested that low socioeconomic status tends to impact the outcomes of young men more then women, and smoothes out for the middle and upper classes.

Which is hardly surprising.

Post reply on HN