381–390 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a common rhetorical device.
Deliberately changing the intent of someone's words may be a common rhetorical device but it's not engaging with the argument at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women avoid saying such self-deprecating things because they already have a tougher time than men being listened to, taken seriously, promoted, etc. Not that there aren't exceptions, but most women are acutely aware of how they act and are perceived at work because they start off at a disadvantage. I imagine few men ever think "will my gender get in the way of my ideas, or my work relationships or my career trajector…
Don't know why the pretty obvious explanation for why this sort of thing is common is downvoted. Even if you're some weirdo who thinks there is no gender discrimination in the workplace, you can't deny that many women at least perceive there to be gender discrimination, and one of the tips passed around is to stop self-deprecating yourself in front of your colleagues.
With that part unmentioned, the GP seems to assign dubious priorities to human motivations.
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…
> 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' instructions etc. more closely and maintain very thorough notes. Mmm, that's interesting, I have the same observation. I'm not in the US, if that holds any value.
I grew in Europe and, until I was about 10 years old, I firmly believed that the girls must be much smarter than the boys, precisely because they always received much better grades at school.
Alas, eventually I was disappointed and I lost this belief, when I understood that the good grades received by the girls were determined only partially by their knowledge of the subjects on which they were graded and that a large part of the grades was caused exactly as throwaway53086 said, because the girls were "much more likely to obey rules and instructions".
Looking back to the previous years, it became obvious for me that every time when a girl and a boy proved to have identical knowledge about mathematics or biology or whatever else was tested, the disciplined girl received a high grade, while the naughty boy received a low grade.
The girls always did whatever the teacher asked, while the boys failed to do homework, did not pay attention to what the teacher taught and so on.
At that time I was reading a huge amount of books, so even when I was nine-year old there were some fields, e.g. biology, about which I knew far more than my teacher.
Obviously, pointing to errors in what the teacher taught was also a recipe for low grades, in comparison to those who did not question her wisdom.
In primary school, everybody that I knew had the same experience, with the grades that were influenced by the discipline and obedience demonstrated, which favored a lot the girls.
In high school and university, I have no longer seen such cases, the grades received by everybody were mostly correct, but the girls continued to be on average much more disciplined and obedient, which resulted in good grades across the curriculum.
On the other hand, many boys liked only some subjects at which they obtained good grades, while neglecting the others, at which they obtained low grades, resulting in a low average.
In high school and university there was also the same problem that I had first encountered in the primary school, that with the exception of the best teachers, the teachers who were not so good themselves gave good grades only to the mediocre students, while both the bad students and the very good students (who knew more than the teacher about what was taught) received low grades.
The girls were usually not affected by this, because even when they knew that the teacher was wrong, they would not confront him or her about the errors.
I find it curious when people agree that X doesn't matter, but then they go about and compare outcomes based on X in this case X=sex but it could be race, age, etc.
Damore was sacked for his memo. Well, arguably he was sacked for people (at his workplace, using company resources and time) making disingenuous and vicious attacks on him (often misrepresented what he actually said), far less accurate or polite or measured than anything Damore said, creating enough of an internal activist movement that the boss had to cancel his trip to the Maldives IIRC.
I've noticed throughout my life that negative outcomes that primarily affect females (math test scores, wage gap, etc) are Huge Problems That Demand Immediate Action, and negative outcomes that primarily affect males (language test scores, life expectancy gap) are just kind of how it is. I'm not bitching about it or pushing an agenda, but it's not subtle.
Generally speaking, the clearly oppressed and disadvantaged group is the one we focus on in terms of equity. Men are not, nor have they ever been, that group.
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?
I think the best situation would be to mostly separate boys and girls in classes. We could then do things for boys that are generally better for boys and do things for girls that are generally better for girls. There probably should be co-ed schools so boys and girls can still socialize during lunch and other breaks, just not during classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My own anecdatum indicates that the parent is right though. 20 female teachers. 1 male. No males on the senior staff.
Or... we could look at data? No? 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.ne…
Plugging these numbers into R shows that it's not exactly a surprising result:
> prop.test(1,21,p=11/100)
1-sample proportions test with continuity correction
data: 1 out of 21, null probability 11/100
X-squared = 0.31913, df = 1, p-value = 0.5721
alternative hypothesis: true p is not equal to 0.11Earlier 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.
Girls the same age are more mature than boys. They develop differently. Maybe that's a factor?
I see a lot of people in this thread speaking in generalities or correlations around gender. Is this OK, or not? I thought it wasn't OK, so I tend to avoid it, even if I think some of it may be true, but isn't stereotyping anyone based on attributes something we are trying NOT to do?