361–370 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, maybe not. However: if it were the other way around, would that ever be an acceptable answer nowadays?
> would that ever be an acceptable answer nowadays? Changes in public sensibility regarding sex and gender are not a good basis to reject GP' claim. Of course, "girls develop earlier then boys" itself may have other, underlying, causes.
Throwaway because this is one of the data points you are required to ignore in polite society. Girls receive better grades until you blind the teachers. Teachers are biased in favor of girls, maybe because their behavior is better. The effect of biased grading is enormous and a huge disadvantage to our boys. > Gender-biased grading accounts for 21 percent of boys falling behind girls in math during middle school. [1]…
Serious question, why is this a data point we are required to ignore? There's been a lot of discourse about bias lately, so I feel like this is a data point people will welcome hearing. Thanks for sharing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With shrinking recess time and PE disappearing from some schools, I also wonder if a lot of this is caused by boys having more energy and needing more movement than girls. Energy has to go somewhere so it ends up manifesting itself in behaviors that are deemed "disruptive" (really, not sitting still and being unable to concentrate on tasks). Maybe it's something that female administrators and teachers fail to underst…
Future generations will consider us barbarians for dosing our young boys with drugs because we providing them with physical education/exercise was inconvenient to us. They'll also be able to datamine the internet from this time period and use our own words to hang us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the manner in which they critiqued the framing shows they didn't understand, potentially deliberately.
It's a common rhetorical device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean to imply that at all, although it does seem like the first reasonable target: all job categories, except for ones that require people to be a specific gender for some reason, should have participation roughly proportional to the proportion of that gender (or other attribute) in society. I'm not certain that's the right goal, but what I said above was working a model where 50% women participation seemed…
Would you consider kindergarten teaching to require a specific gender? Or carpentry? If not, please explain how you are going to persuade a huge number of women who wanted to be kindergarten teachers to instead become carpenters, while also persuading an equal number of men to do the reverse. That is what your target requires (across many occupations). It will never happen.
I don't really think job preferences are that strongly encoded in gender, I think far more men could be kindergarten teachers and more women carpenters, although men who try to become teachers face a huge amount of extra work because people don't trust men with kids as much.
Anyone with young boys and girls will notice that girls are much more likely to obey rules and instructions. A lot of doing well in school is about following rules and instructions, and it seems pretty natural that girls will do better. Also, most teachers are women. I haven't checked, but I'd assume most school administrators are women. It seems natural that they'd construct a system that's more suited for females t…
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means, because it's the naturalistic fallacy or the appeal to intuition
> girls are much more likely to obey rules and instructions
So is that difference a problem, then? Or not? Or neither? You can't force people to take a risk they aren't comfortable with, and if boys (for whatever reason) are a little less risk-averse, what is there to do? Punish boys for taking risks as we praise girls for doing the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with the rest of your comment (my school had a pretty even mix of male and female teachers), but anecdotally the primary difference between boys and girls was exactly what you mentioned: the former were more likely to skip classes, study things that were not in the syllabus (which helps sometimes), not maintain notes as well, etc. whereas the latter would typically follow the syllabus, teachers' instruc…
My own anecdatum indicates that the parent is right though. 20 female teachers. 1 male. No males on the senior staff.
LAUSD: ~4.5:1 in elementary school, ~1:1 in secondary, ~4:1 in special ed[1]
Across all CA public schools: ~2.5:1 [2]
Across the US: 3:1 [3]
So, more women? Yes. 20:1? Wild outlier.
So, what about the claim that it's more women, somehow building a system more friendly to girls? Turns out the data says "not so much" there, too. Principals are roughly 1:1[4]
[1] https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/doma... [2] https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp [4] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cls.asp#:~:text=I....
Any research on gender past infancy has a problem in that it's hard to untangle what is "innate" and what is a result of differentiated socialization based on gender. There's a lot of speculation in this forum about whether this is because of different distributions of IQ, effects of testosterone, etc., but how can we possibly determine if these are true differences or the result of parents, teachers, and other peopl…
Modern progressivism has apparently solved that issue already. I'll demonstrate: Whenever statistics show an imbalance that benefits men, say in earnings, prestigious jobs, or positions of leadership, then the modern worldview dictates that this must be a result of a nefarious bias on the part of society or men as a group, aka "the patriarchy". On the other hand, whenever the statistics show an imbalance that benefit…
Do we want equality in this area? Should we change schooling to make it easier for boys than girls until we get to 50/50 achievement? Or should we retain the status quo to boost the chances of women succeeding later in their lives when they do not achieve in their careers at the same level as men?