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

Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#61

Post by thriftwy »

gm-conspiracy wrote: post #58
thriftwy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many more of "them" than you. > they will come pillage your property Going by your reasoning, there are many more people without property than ones with, why bother protecting property rights at all? That's "most people" fallacy you are showing all over the thread.

I didn't say they didn't have any property, they just want yours, too. Also, if there were a large group with nothing to lose, you would not need any protection of your property? By that reasoning, society would have protections in place to prevent against theft and robbery.

So if we change school, "most people" would have nothing to lose and pillage my property?

You're actually making so little sense with your smart cynicist mask so that I'm giving up on you.

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#62

Post by forgottenpass »

Jtsummers wrote: post #55
thesmallestcat wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear hear, and I'd prefer people stop overusing "toxic." Not everything that's bad, or that you disagree with, is "toxic." The person who screws with your team dynamic is not "toxic."

"toxic" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly appropriate word to describe many things, including "toxic employees". Toxic means poisonous. It is quite possible for a person to be poisonous to a community (family, relationships, friendships, workplaces). They bring the group down, they disrupt the relationships between people ("poisoning" them). Often by their words: pointing out issues and exaggerating their significa…

"Toxic" is vague and imprecise in a way that raises the likelihood that multiple participants in a conversation will have different interpretations without noticing they don't all agree on what it means.

This lack of clarity is unavoidable in all communication. We can't transplant thoughts directly from one brain to another. But I find that words like "toxic" convey an assessment, rather than description, in contexts where that level of abbreviation is not helpful.

If the more-precise descriptor of behavior was used in the first place, the toxicity of that behavior will likely be self-apparent. But if "toxic" alone is used, we either have to circle the conversation back to pick up the better descriptor, or just assume that the speaker is right.

Toxic is a bad word because it's become a go-to choice for poor articulation. Using it conveys an impression that an assessment of "toxicity" has been made off-screen, but is broad and amorphous enough that I can't trust it implies anything more specific than a snap judgment.

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#63

Post by [deleted] »

croon wrote: post #48
tyingq wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can it not be that this instead proves that systems can be and are biased, in both directions? I believe that's the point GP was making. Where does it imply otherwise?

That's how I read this: > When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias. It's phrased (in company with the other lines) in a way that suggests such a conclusion is somehow ridiculous. If that is not what he/she meant I apologize.

[deleted]

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#64

Post by dominotw »

VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #21
Overtonwindow wrote: post #18

I think this sentence is quite telling: "The separation of students, teachers, and administrators into single-sex public schools may serve cultural and religious purposes, but it seems to create an unintentional ghetto for boys...." I think single-sex education is the answer here because for girls, it allows them to flourish and grow without the male-dominated Middle Eastern oppression. Girls can grow and learn in an…

Single Sex education was introduced in India by various Church run schools and from my own personal experience over couple of generations the model is totally frowned upon by most people. Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future. However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different.

>Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future.

assuming this is your personal opinion?

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#65

Post by vorotato »

tomp wrote: post #26
pjc50 wrote: post #9

The answer seems to be "toxic masculinity". (Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.) > For one thing, boys’ schools are more violent places, concluded the study > Boys also reported worse relationships with their male teachers > male teachers were three times as…

> (Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.) I'd suggest that the term itself is toxic (and/or sexist). If you think otherwise, can you suggest examples of (stereotypically) masculine behaviours that aren't considered toxic, but positive by the mainstream public/m…

You haven't thought about this much have you...

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#66

Post by vorotato »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #40
tomp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.) I'd suggest that the term itself is toxic (and/or sexist). If you think otherwise, can you suggest examples of (stereotypically) masculine behaviours that aren't considered toxic, but positive by the mainstream public/m…

Hear hear, and I'd prefer people stop overusing "toxic." Not everything that's bad, or that you disagree with, is "toxic." The person who screws with your team dynamic is not "toxic."

Telling people what words to use in a dialogue is toxic. :V

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#67

Post by analog31 »

adamnemecek wrote: post #38
analog31 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, how I learned things depended on the subject. I needed the classroom environment in order to learn math and physics: The motivation to keep plugging away at it for 15+ years, and the interaction that teaches how to communicate ideas in those areas. Mathematicians and physicists seldom make things. We have to communicate and collaborate to get things done, when we're thrown into a typical commercial…

> Other than being easy, programming may simply lend itself to self learning for some reason. If programming is easy, you definitely aren't challenging yourself. > Perhaps figuring out what makes programming easy to self-learn, would help us figure out how to teach other subjects better. It's the fact that you are having a conversation with computer and you can explore things and get somewhat immediate feedback. Thes…

I think in terms of the training, it was easy. I learned to program in 1981. My mom was teaching CS, so I had a view of what programmers were learning, and I endeavored to learn the same things. Today, I'm aware of what an entry level programmer brings to the table. I'd say that the subject matter required for reaching that level is easy -- at least no harder than math, physics, or electronics.

On the other hand, you're right about challenging oneself. Reaching a higher level of expertise is definitely harder, but that's true of any subject. Meanwhile, my career moved in a different direction, and I only use programming as a tool rather than for developing commercial software.

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#68

Post by candiodari »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #18

I think this sentence is quite telling: "The separation of students, teachers, and administrators into single-sex public schools may serve cultural and religious purposes, but it seems to create an unintentional ghetto for boys...." I think single-sex education is the answer here because for girls, it allows them to flourish and grow without the male-dominated Middle Eastern oppression. Girls can grow and learn in an…

The middle east is extremely (extremely) personal status focused. For boys status is essentially family bound, and has little to do with academic achievement. For girls, an important component of their status, the job they'll later have (if any), is determined by their grades.

That this results in large amounts of effort should not surprise anyone.

The article does point this out but it does not give it the central attention it deserves.

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#69

Post by vorotato »

forgottenpass wrote: post #62
Jtsummers wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"toxic" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly appropriate word to describe many things, including "toxic employees". Toxic means poisonous. It is quite possible for a person to be poisonous to a community (family, relationships, friendships, workplaces). They bring the group down, they disrupt the relationships between people ("poisoning" them). Often by their words: pointing out issues and exaggerating their significa…

"Toxic" is vague and imprecise in a way that raises the likelihood that multiple participants in a conversation will have different interpretations without noticing they don't all agree on what it means. This lack of clarity is unavoidable in all communication. We can't transplant thoughts directly from one brain to another. But I find that words like "toxic" convey an assessment, rather than description, in contexts…

Toxic strictly means any behavior in a conflict or disagreement which erodes the relationship or discussion. Hope this helps. So for example, toxic behavior within a team is behavior which erodes the team, it's toxic because it damages that relationship. If you don't care about that relationship, you might not care if its toxic, because you don't mind if it dies. That does not mean it's not toxic though.

Re: Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?

#70

Post by VeronicaJJ123 »

llamaz wrote: post #41
VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single Sex education was introduced in India by various Church run schools and from my own personal experience over couple of generations the model is totally frowned upon by most people. Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future. However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different.

> However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different. Women work in Pakistan too, FYI. India and Pakistan have been separated for roughly 60 years, their cultures are very similar.

Sure except nowhere close to the way they do in India. I remember how surprised a Pakistani journalist was to see Indian women riding two wheelers. I am not refering to mere get a job but also to step out of the house and compete in the open market for all sort of work.
Post reply on HN