At a certain public high school: The student body president, treasurer, secretary and senators are all female, there are more female teachers than male teachers, more female students go on to college (if the trend continues the last man will graduate college in 2068), females get better grades, and nobody sees any problem. I think there is unfair gender discrimination against male students. Is the reason this is happening, males are stupid, oafs, more suited to toting heavy bales than thinking or does the society we have created recently treat male students unfairly?

Where I live athletics is emphasized to an extreme (a local state university made a banner 100 years of ATHLETIC excellence) and especially so for males. I'm a realistic person and I don't see a huge economic future for myself in the lifting or driving business. My future is being put at risk for gender stereotypes and I don't like it. What should we do?

If you have evidence that males are being deliberately discriminated against at this school, they should be taken to court.

If this is more a matter of creating an informal culture at the school which unofficially discriminates against males, about all you can do is defy it. Speak out against this sexism; insist that you be treated fairly; excell at everything you do.

If this is really a general trend throughout the nation (and I have my doubts) then it is most likely a result of feminist struggles against academic discrimination. It is possible that the pendulum has swung too far and that it needs adjustment. (Again, I have my doubts.) I consider myself a very strong supporter of feminism, which I believe will liberate men as well as women.

A better indicator of discrimination would be how many men APPLIED for post-graduate studies. Trade-skill and wage jobs are often much more plentiful for men than women and as such many women see university as the only way to escape the fate of the housewife. At least that was part of my sister's reasoning.

Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence on which we may debate this, RancidUncle?

some Article
Another Article
some article



The cause of this must be either boys are more violent and stupid naturally than girls or our culture doesn't encourage boys to be smart or successful. I don't blame feminism. I think the cause is our culture wants boys to become basketball players and rappers.

I agree with what you're saying there; but that is a far cry from discrimination IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.

The fact is, rather it be cultural or biological (I suspect a bit of both) young males tend to be less mature than young females. Working today for future rewards is a sign of maturity. Once discrimination against females was seriously reduced it became inevitable that women. on average, would obtain a higher education than males.

A lot of this might be the result of the shift from analytical based science in the classroom to social science. Women tend to do better in the less analytic fields, and men tend to perform better analytically. When academic learning consisted primarily of reading, writing, and arithmetic, men performed as well or better. Now, mathematics and science makeup only about 20 percent of the student curriculum.



That was also my reasoning when I went to college. But, with a ratio of about 30 males to every female in the engineering school, I obtained an MRS (and subsequent housewife status) as my main degree, (along with a couple of secondary ones).

Doesn't surprise me. Girls always worked harder than boys, at least in my school. Boys were more concerned with sports/beer/por/getting laid. In fact, women always seem to work harder than men. Inferiority complex, maybe ?




That's because, for reasons I won't get into now, men are more likely to get some genetic diseases that can cause them to become learning-disabled.




That's because student government and debate club are boring.




That's a good thing. The more women there are in college, the better chance you get of having a hot girlfriend.

Rattlesnake could you please add something constructive to this debate?

Ranciduncle,

The post was in jest, correct? Heres a little violin for ya.

Boys and especially white boys have rested on their laurels too long and now women and minorities are taking over the field, they better run to catch up. Gender discrimination? Oh Im crying.

You see in the past it was attitudes like this:


that kept women in their place, but that has all changed. It was 'society' that discouraged girls lack of performance in analytical skills and also competative sports, no longer. There is no scientific reason for the above conclusion and now with women being economically independant and teaching their girls to be competative and smarter, boys will actually have to get with the program or be left behind with noone to blame but themselves.

Although I am quite sure, or at least hope for poor victims sake that you were being sarcastic, it is a good point. Girls are breaking all stereotypes and advancing in leaps and bounds on a scale both educationally and physically.

Blaming the educational system for discrimination is a 'whine'. Any evidence of this? Beyond that women are excelling?

You aren't going to make me find a link proving that one, are you? Any standardized acheivement test proves it. It IS a generalization (my analytical performance is much stronger than my verbal, but I know, from life experience, that's unusual) but a verifiable one. There are many things women do better. I would argue that they are bettter managers, better at multitasking, better at prioritizing. They aren't, generally, as gifted analytically. There ARE some innate gender differences, Artemise.

I take great offense to this comment. Reading writing and arithmetic, what the hell else is left? Babymaking? Im sorry, I dont believe one gender excells all that above another and I disagree, the clarification is, performed 'as well' or better, so Ill relax on that.
Then of course you say that you , yourself 'perform' better analytically, but 'not most women' and continue to make the generalization! sheesh. Imagine that, youre in a catagory of your own, a 'special woman', MUCH more talented than the rest.
Possibly at some time when women were denied education. Toot toot, I suppose you think youre the only one of a kind.

An observation from the UK: girl pupils and students seem to have been doing far better in schools (up to age 18) than the boys since the emphasis has switched away from examinations to coursework. Girls appear better at applying themselves consistently throughout the course, whereas boys did better when everything was geared towards an all-or-nothing, one-chance exam. Mainly, I think, because girls got more nervous and stressed by exams, wheras boys tended to get some kind of adrenaline buzz (plus, they were clearly more competitive, which appeals to that side of male nature).

I don't know how testing is organised in the USA, but if there has been a similar shift away from one-off exams towards coursework, that might be part of the change.

There is also some evidence to show that both boys and girls do worse in a "co-ed" environment than they do in single sex schools, especially in their teens (for obvious hormonal reasons).

There are differences between men and women but that doesn't mean education should force women into writing or men into math.

I'm not part of a huge collective male unconscious that thinks women are inferior. I also don't think the problem is only with white men. Boys are being hurt because of a shortage of good parenting especially from their fathers regardless of race. I think this is cultural not physical or intuitional.

In 1994, SAT verbal scores for women were 35 points lower than men’s. Here is an excerpt from the book ‘How Schools Cheat Girls (pg 55)’ . I tried to find the most biased argument in FAVOR of women’s ability I could find, and here it is…


This indicates that women generally have an aptitude for computational (book) mathematics, and men have more of an aptitude for applied mathematics and conceptualizing. There has been a change in the SAT test recently to compensate for that supposed bias. This is wrong (IMO) because book math without application is useless. If a person is unable to apply analytical reasoning to a word problem or can’t conceptualize, they cannot truly perform mathematics, regardless of their penchant for solving a number problem written on a piece of paper.



You can be offended (sorry), but it’s a fact that student curriculum has changed significantly since the 60s. Every problem in society receives a suggested change. The ‘education solution’ has become a cliché it’s so common. What’s left after reading, writing and arithmetic? Social studies (or Humanities),Health, Art, Music, Languages, History, Civics, Physical Education, all the Vocational education curriculums (drivers ed, cooking, typing, computers, ect).
Are all of those subjects important? Absolutely. We haven’t abandoned the analytical for the social, but there is a definite shift. This is also true of higher education. There were no degrees in Women’s studies in the past, along with many other fields. More electives are required today because it is a demonstrable fact that a well-rounded background promotes success in the real, non-analytical world.
This shift to the social (IMO) is a clear case of cause and effect. Women do well in the social sciences and less well analytically (as in reasoning ability, not book mathematics). Curriculum has changed through the years towards the social sciences. Therefore, it is reasonable that women’s grades are beginning to surpass men’s.



Hold on, there. Yes, I do perform better analytically. My SAT score in mathematics was 700, which probably placed me in the top one percent of females in analytical ability. The story doesn’t end there, though.
I found at the University level exactly what the ‘How Schools Cheat Girls’ book indicated. I had enormous trouble actually applying my knowledge. Specifically, when it came the time to place my former knowledge into practical application and produce a product.
I was capable of diagramming and correctly explaining, for instance, the Carnot heat engine cycle and solve problems mathematically. I had difficulty actually creating something to demonstrate my knowledge of the material. I was able to do well in higher order mathematics, but applying that to actual hard, physical science was difficult. I’m not alone, BTW, I don’t know of a single female who breezed through the first engineering physics course (even those that graduated with high honors in engineering). I know a lot of men who did, even if their calculus grades were inferior.

Y'all are looking in the wrong place. You're looking at how the college experience and curriculum has changed. Aside from the proliferation of Women's Studies programs (which are, along with Black Studies, Hispanic Studies, Asian Studies, and, in all likelihood, the newly emerging "men's studies" and "white studies", academic junk) and the wholesale gutting of men's athletics, the changes in sex distribution at college admissions are little affected by changes at the colleges themselves.

No, go look at what's happening in GRADE SCHOOLS.

How many male teachers are there teaching K-6?

How many boys in grade schools have no father at home?

How many boys in grade school still get to play cops and robbers during recess? Zero tolerance. Wrestle and fight during recess? Zero tolerance. Show off their neat new pocket knife? Zero tolerance, go to juvi. Gleefully chase one another across the pavement with the intention of utterly annihilating their opponent with the dodgeball? Too dangerous, might damage somebody's self-esteem. Play "smear the queer"? Can't its a "Hate game." Rolling in the mud? Too dirty.

Anne of Green Gables, Matilda, Laura Ingalls, and all the other great "girl students" of the past will find a schoolyard society that is, excepting the technology, little different than the ones they knew. Oh, they might notice the lack of physical teasing, no more pony tails pulled by the boys, but that's about it. Its still mostly about cliques, about who's in and who's out, about yak, yak, yak.

Tom Sawyer, the Lit'l Rascals, the boys of October Sky? What will they find? Today's schoolyard will be utterly foreign to them, a place where they can't "be boys" any longer.

Gut the industrial arts programs in high schools, obliterate them in junior highs. Chemistry? Of course you don't get to blow any thing up, that would be too dangerous. (Even CO2 probably couldn't get past the lawyers nowadays.) What about dissecting a frog? Boys (as a generalization) LOVE to do that sort of thing. Nope, not after PETA finished with the district three years ago. Auto shop? Gone, liability killed it, but hey, we have this neat computer lab....

So, what is school now? Boys don't get to build things, they don't get to blow things up, they don't get to fight or even pretend to fight. The only "guy" things left are sports, but every team only has so many spots.... Oh, and when they get to high school, if not sooner? They're going to constantly be reminded about how they can't "harass" the girls. Unfortunately for the boys, the girls have a myriad of methods for harrassing them that don't run afoul of PC codes.

Gee, I wonder why boys are falling behind in school now. And lets not even get into the subject of drugging the little delinquents...

I went to school in the 60's. My kids went to school in the 80's.
I see no difference in the actual education part of it. We have 2 kids, one of each gender. The only thing they did different is in their extra-curricular activities. But their education, in actual core classes, was the same. I didn't see any teachers or counselors trying to steer either of them, or their friends, into any direction based on gender.
School is what the individual makes of it.

CLOSED. PENDING COMMITTEE REVIEW.

We are reopening this thread. With permission of the member(s) involved, a portion of the thread has been removed.

Bikerdad, regarding this comment:

Those comments are unjustified. Do you have any support or reference material to back up such statements?
-----------------------------------------------------
Once again, our debate question:
Let's keep it civil and constructive, please.

Was teaching grade school a typical male occupation in the past?

Too many

Never knew so much intellectual development was the product of 'smear the queer', pocket knives, wrestling, dodgeball, blowing things up, and general fighting. That is interesting news.

The point is, on the default, boys will engage in this behavior naturally, unless compelled otherwise by severe social training or heavy medication.

Personally, I prefer the medication sometimes, because I have rather strong urges to get out, up, and DO SOMETHING, as opposed to sitting there falling half asleep from my university courses. Thank god we're allowed drinks in university, I'd never make it out of here if not for caffine and some more choice stimulants.

What everyone must realize is that stereotypes are based in fact.

Offering fried chicken and watermellon to a black guy is stereotypical? Anyone notice that in several of the nicest black oriented restraunts in Hollywood, fried chicken and watermellon are on the menu?

Is it stereotypical to protray a woman as a housewife? Anyone care to guess at the amount of housewives vs. househusbands? Anyone at all. I'll give you a clue... which is in the dictionary?

Do you feel it is stereotypical to presume a secretary is a woman and a NASA engineer a male? Well... when's the last time you saw a male secretary (outside of NYPD Blue)?

Men, on the whole, enjoy and have a physical and metal NEED to engage in physical activities. Women, I am told, have the same need for emotional activities.

Anyone notice where most of the day is spent in todays schools? Sitting quietly in a chair, reading or listening to a teacher lecture or discussing todays topic. In alabama, PE is only done one semester of one year out of four high school years.

-Robert

I had previously posted a reply to this topic, a reply that is now gone.

MrsP, regarding the teachers, one of the links I posted was from a recent Canadian gov't study that identified a shortage of male K-6 teachers that has worsened over the years, so the answer to your question would be 'yes, there once were more than now.' I am, unfortunately, unable to find the report at the moment.

Regarding the "yak, yak, yak" portrayal that Jaime apparently found objectionable:



http://fact.on.ca/news/news0106/oc010619.htm

Interesting article. I think it poses a legitimate point. Particularly troubling is the “Ritalin assault” reference. Ritalin retards physical development, as well as having a host of emotional side effects.

http://www.drz.org/asp/conditions/ADD_ADHD_LD.asp


I think I can guess from the article who gets the most Ritalin.

I'm afraid this posting has to be just opinion, because I do not remember where I read that educational studies found that teachers were more apt to call on boys than on girls in grade school.

As far as the social issues go, there are a lot of rules in school to curb aggression by boys against other boys or girls. Basketball, baseball, kick ball, football, soccer and hockey are all acceptable ways to channel natural aggressive traits. After graduation, there's the military...

At the time of birth, roughly 51% of newborns are male. The male mortality rate is higher at one year of age. Girls outnumber boys by the time they get into school. Could a higher ratio of girls to boys be part of the reason that more girls end up (these days) in positions of recognition and leadership during their school years?

And if girls get more recognition in schools to the detriment of boys, how is it that the overwhelming majority of leaders in our country is male, up to and including the President and his cabinet?

Some people have this strange impression that schooling ends. I worked for thirty years for an employer who was constantly scheduling classes to keep us abreast of changes in our fields, in the law, or in company policy. My wife as an RN, and myself as an electrician were both required to take continuing courses to keep our licenses current.

K - 6 in the fifties, I saw only one man in the building, and he was the janitor.

7 -12 in the late fifties, and early 60's. My American history, chemistry, and Physics teachers were male. The rest, as I recall were all female. The principal was an excellent example of how to lose friends while having little permanent influence. At that school, I was repeatedly told "Our job is to babysit you until you're 16. If you're still here after that, we'll try to teach you something."

College was a shock. My English prof was a woman, but all of the others in 1964 were male.

What opportunities do our education system offer for males vs. females? As a father of three females, I never taught them that they were limited. I have had a series of female doctors. I have worked for female engineers. Sally Ride went into space. I was chatting with a car hop girl over dinner last night. She'd prefer working on cars, and I encouraged her to go to school and get licensed. She didn't feel people would trust a female mechanic. I told her the service manager at the garage I routinely use is a woman; and had I thought of it, I would have mentioned that I rarely actually deal with the mechanic who is working on my car. I mentioned to my daughter today that I have only known a couple of female long distance truck drivers. She rattled off several reasons why she wouldn't like that kind of work. I remember hearing an apprentice pipe fitter complaining one day because he had to do all the set up work, while the female fitter on the job did all the welding. "Practice at home;" his boss told him. "and when you can weld as well as she can, I'll give you a chance."

Greenring7 asked:
I was a male secretary until my union went on strike in 1974. My job was negotiated away because my temporary replacement was prettier. I couldn't claim sexual discrimination in those days. If you're a young man, or you have a son. The schools and the job market have traditionally favored you, and will probably continue to do so. However, the job market is a market. If you enter into it with an attitude that you're entitled to be the fireman, truck driver, or astronaut simply because you're male; be prepared for a shock. The last time I called the fire dept., the first one at the scene was a firewoman.


Why would I presume that I've worked with a lot of competent female engineers, and a lot of incompetent male engineers. I would expect NASA to be able to offer their job openings to the best available candidates.

That claim comes from a paper by Myra and David Sadker which actually has this to say.

The study has often been criticized for various methodological errors, and particularly for not sufficiently distinguishing between pedagogical and disciplinary attention. Many feel that it does nothing whatsoever to indicate bias in favor of boys, and some think it shows the exact opposite. I'll let others reach their own conclusions.

Perhaps its because the overwhelming majority of leaders in our country went to school 20, 30, 40, even 50 years ago? As I understand it, the original question is asking about now. What will the impact of the current educational environment be in another 3 or 4 decades?

One other factor, which has already been mentioned, is that males are generally more competitive. The implications with regards to who's going to make it to the top should be obvious...

Another tremendous factor in the 'majority of leaders' question isn't simply competitiveness, but feasibility. Who generally rears the kids? I personally feel it's more important to stay at home with them than place them in a childcare environment, where someone else usurps my responsibility for a nominal fee. That's a lot of years out of the workforce for me. I believe they're better spent this way, and I don't think I'm alone.
True, sometimes the fathers take over this role, which is becoming more popular. Either way, someone makes a compromise, and one that will ultimately effect their career.