A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls • Hacker News Board

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#51

Post by cthalupa » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 7:59 AM UTC

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…

>my city has a "Girls Learning Code" meetup / lecture series that while advertises being gender neutral is clearly not so

The majority of women drop out of the running for STEM jobs before they even go to college - something is persuading them at the primary school level to avoid tech related fields. It's the biggest reason that the idea of sexism in the workplace pushing women out of IT is absurd - because they never got there in the first place. They never even got to the college classes in the first place. Even high school vocational programs focusing on tech have girls wildly unrepresented.

And it's the exact same reason that organizations like Girls Who Code is extremely important. It's the same reason that an organization like Boys Who Teach/Nurse/Other female dominated profession would be a godsend for evening out the gender balance in those fields.

Should there be code/stem programs for boys? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with programs that exists primarily for outreach to a gender that is underrepresented in that field? Absolutely not.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#52

Post by asgard1024 » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 8:09 AM UTC

nv-vn wrote: post #23

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…

>My point is (or rather society's) is that if you're male and have a good start then you're automatically golden, but for those that do not have the same starting opportunities there are simply no other options that are, on the other hand, available to girls from all backgrounds. This is definitely due to the mentality of "all boys are the same" and "all girls are the same" collectivist mentality that's so popular to…

> think that the root of this issue is that there are basically two ways to fix inequalities: flattening out the entire system or raising those below up to the same level as everyone else. The technique that has proven most successful was really the type of communist philosophy that was used by lots of these Eastern European states, and that essentially comes out to be leveling the playing system by putting everyone below where they could possibly be. Of course raising everyone up is a possibility, but as a whole it's proven extremely difficult to do.

I disagree there is a binary choice. Educational system in Finland was intended to address the inequality, but in the effect it actually helped the performance.

On the other hand, the U.S. with No Child Left Behind policy failed, mostly because it didn't address the inequality.

I think there are two things conflated here: power and choice. We should strive for equality in power, but still give people the choice. If you have the choice, then no one puts you below. I think the fallacy here is that people actually don't need huge resources to become successful, only modest ones. So you can distribute resources equally and yet the best people won't be topped out.

Contrary to popular opinion, lack of possibility to be rich wasn't the biggest obstacle in Eastern European countries. The biggest obstacle was existing bureaucracy (which actually had more power than normal people, it just wasn't expressed in money). Good innovators don't need financial incentives; they need (at least modest) access to resources and freedom. For example, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wichterle

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#53

Post by politicallines » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 8:11 AM UTC

What a sexist comment. In this world where equality for men means "avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails", does equality for women means that they will start take a job and not just spend the money of men?

Is the discussion so infected that we can't simply share a goal that every person should be equal in worth, be able to pursue their passion in life, and to have liberty. If we can't agree to such simple goals, then how can we ever have progress beyond political lines than just shout at each other, forever arguing and never fixing anything for the better.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#54

Post by grovulent » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 8:15 AM UTC

politicallines wrote: post #53

What a sexist comment. In this world where equality for men means "avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails", does equality for women means that they will start take a job and not just spend the money of men? Is the discussion so infected that we can't simply share a goal that every person should be equal in worth, be able to pursue their passion in life, and to have liberty. If we can't agree to s…

You're punching air mate.

I think the point was just that if we don't help these boys - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of crime and violence - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#55

Post by politicallines » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 8:23 AM UTC

grovulent wrote: post #54

politicallines wrote: post #53

What a sexist comment. In this world where equality for men means "avoid the crimes they commit and their languishing in jails", does equality for women means that they will start take a job and not just spend the money of men? Is the discussion so infected that we can't simply share a goal that every person should be equal in worth, be able to pursue their passion in life, and to have liberty. If we can't agree to s…

You're punching air mate. I think the point was just that if we don't help these boys - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of crime and violence - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?

"If we don't help these girls - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of parasitic behavior - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?"

You don't see a problem with phrasing equality in that way?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#56

Post by bsder » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 9:00 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #39

bsder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

Evidence? Mostly personal experience of my own teaching along with my parents who both taught.

> (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.

There are two pieces to this. One is physical and one is social.

As for physical: if I'm managing a classroom, I have a lot of authority by virtue of being 6"+, 100bs+ bigger than most of the students. My voice alone is far more powerful than that of a woman. In addition, I can embarrass or insult a troublemaker without much fear of physical repercussion. This is really huge as it gives me a lot of graded options that a woman would have to think twice about. And, at bottom, the students have to wonder exactly how much damage I could do to them if they really push me into a corner.

As for social: my personal experience is that a lot of female teachers want compliance (personal control dynamic) while male teachers can function as long as there is no interference (group outcome dynamic). A good example of this was an exchange between my parents:

"I want them to quit chewing tobacco in my class" (Note: personal control dynamic).

"Well, you're not going to get that without throwing somebody out of class every day. Are you willing to disrupt your class for that?"

"Not really."

"Okay, so presumably you could ignore it if they don't spit in the back of the class (group outcome dynamic)?"

"I guess, but ..."

"Fine. That's achievable by telling them: "If you're man enough to chew, you're man enough to swallow it (Note: peer embarrassment). If I see any on the floor, all the people I see chewing are cleaning it." Now they'll police each other, and you'll only occasionally have to send one to the office."

> there are a LOT of female teachers that actively try to gain their student's approval.

Go teach at a school. There are always quite a few women who want to be "buds" with the students. I don't really see this among the men except in the genuinely dangerous cases.

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#57

Post by anon4 » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 9:36 AM UTC

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?

You give equal time share to everything?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#58

Post by durzagott » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 9:46 AM UTC

politicallines wrote: post #55

grovulent wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're punching air mate. I think the point was just that if we don't help these boys - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of crime and violence - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?

"If we don't help these girls - then they are more likely to fall into patterns of parasitic behavior - which is a cost everyone in society would like to avoid. What is there to disagree with here?" You don't see a problem with phrasing equality in that way?

Are you suggesting there are zero behavioural differences between boys and girls?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#59

Post by jacalata » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 9:49 AM UTC

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?

People aim for a diverse group that roughly reflects society instead of partitioning industries/jobs by randomly chosen personal characteristics?

Re: A Disadvantaged Start Hurts Boys More Than Girls

#60

Post by jacalata » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 10:06 AM UTC

nv-vn wrote: post #23

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…

>My point is (or rather society's) is that if you're male and have a good start then you're automatically golden, but for those that do not have the same starting opportunities there are simply no other options that are, on the other hand, available to girls from all backgrounds. This is definitely due to the mentality of "all boys are the same" and "all girls are the same" collectivist mentality that's so popular to…

> 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)

Do you know this because somebody tried to do it, or are you assuming this? The use of 'would be' sounds like the latter. If so, why don't you try?