This. And the other main problem is that that oppositional model of gender norm is developed most strongly in pre-teen years and early puberty, and there's no one talking about it in schools. There's no talk of gender roles and how-to-be-a-rad-person stuff coming from teachers at that stage. So some people grow out of it, at least partially, but most carry that outlook into adulthood. And then post in here.
It's sometimes talked about in US schools (or was in my public school), but the focus almost entirely on eliminating gender barriers for girls, which largely makes sense given the progress of the feminist movements of the late 60's/70's. The assumption generally (if I remember how it was taught right) is that men have been capable of doing absolutely anything for most of history, and only until now have women been able to catch up. The problem is that there are still a number of traits that are considered socially unacceptable for men, namely stereotypically "feminine" ones such as sentastivity, pateince, etc, but these have largely been ignored because recent the feminist movements that started gender discussion have been about moving away from those qualities.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why (some) modern feminism has ignored and often been downright hostile to transgendered issues, since transgender men are embracing the exact same norms that feminism has been trying to separate itself from.
Yup. Feminism has a pretty fair crack at promoting the notion that patriarchy screws over men too, but it tends to get lost in all the other stuff.
And I'm seeing more and more activity on feminist blogs trying to combat that last part, thankfully.
This. And the other main problem is that that oppositional model of gender norm is developed most strongly in pre-teen years and early puberty, and there's no one talking about it in schools. There's no talk of gender roles and how-to-be-a-rad-person stuff coming from teachers at that stage. So some people grow out of it, at least partially, but most carry that outlook into adulthood. And then post in here.
It's sometimes talked about in US schools (or was in my public school), but the focus almost entirely on eliminating gender barriers for girls, which largely makes sense given the progress of the feminist movements of the late 60's/70's. The assumption generally (if I remember how it was taught right) is that men have been capable of doing absolutely anything for most of history, and only until now have women been able to catch up. The problem is that there are still a number of traits that are considered socially unacceptable for men, namely stereotypically "feminine" ones such as sentastivity, pateince, etc, but these have largely been ignored because recent the feminist movements that started gender discussion have been about moving away from those qualities.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why (some) modern feminism has ignored and often been downright hostile to transgendered issues, since transgender men are embracing the exact same norms that feminism has been trying to separate itself from.
Yup. Feminism has a pretty fair crack at promoting the notion that patriarchy screws over men too, but it tends to get lost in all the other stuff.
And I'm seeing more and more activity on feminist blogs trying to combat that last part, thankfully.
The transgender-related postings on Feministe are usually pretty enlightening. :^:
Experimental data from the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration were used to examine (a) if moving from high- to low-poverty neighborhoods (via randomization) was associated with low-income minority children's achievement, grade retention, and suspensions/expulsions; (b) if moving minimized gender differences in these outcomes; and (c) potential mediators of observed program effects. Data on school-age children (mean age = 11.79 years, SD = 3.26) were obtained from standardized assessments and parent and adolescent interviews during the New York City site's 3-year follow-up evaluation (N = 588). Moving to low-poverty neighborhoods had positive effects on 11-18-year-old boys' achievement scores compared with those of their peers in high-poverty neighborhoods.These male adolescents' scores were comparable to females' scores, whereas male adolescents in high-poverty neighborhoods scored 10 points lower than female peers. Homework time and school safety partially accounted for program effects. From a policy perspective, the program benefited disadvantaged male adolescents at high risk for dropping out of school. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
It's less specific, but the conclusions are the same: low socioeconomic status has a disproportionate effect on males compared to females, and there are various cultural influences we can see apply for this. As you move up the social ladder, the effect disappears.
Look, the fact of the matter tbloxham is that you've displayed a marked disinterest in looking at causative effects for the discrepancy that don't fit with your overarching "boys are different!" viewpoint. Again, you find only a 10% difference in male:female university attendance for a population - so 44% or so of the population is still male. That is a massive minority which doesn't justify any of the sweeping ideas you keep talking about (which suffer from, as I have repeatedly pointed out - a complete lack of specificity because the target population is so variable).
Yet - yet - even a cursory glance at the literature points clearly to the fact that educational outcomes are far more heavily influenced by socioeconomic status and that young males are disadvantaged by socioeconomic status in a statistically significant way.
This makes even the very notion of gender selective learning differences laughable - it's clearly a cultural problem in the first place, and it's clearly socioeconomic in origin. In fact, pretty clearly, if we dealt with issues like youth culture in high poverty areas, not to mention poverty itself, the research indicates that we'd see the gender gap in educational outcomes close up. Of course, the research also indicates that we'd see drops in crime, reductions in poverty as a result and all sorts of other benefits.
Why are boys more affected academically by poverty than girls considering girls in poverty face highly similar challenges?
How do you explain the differences in expectations of performance between boys and girls? Daughters are increasingly the priority when it comes to sending one child to university.
I accept that the difference shrinks when you consider the wealthiest and best. The wealthiest and best are motivated by small group teaching in private schools, supported by independent tutoring, access to modern textbooks and well equipped labs. They receive support and help from parents, who will often be well educated themselves and have a far far closer balance of male and female teachers, including far more teachers with experience and education to the doctorate level or beyond in all subjects. Their teaching is also far more personal, and tailored to each student, almost totally eliminating the problem of the national curriculum being highly focused on teaching girls.
Effectively what you are saying by quoting that the problem goes away at the highest levels of education is "Yes, tbloxham, you are exactly right. This problem exists and it can be fixed in the schools with superior teaching methods without impacting girls negatively in any way". You are also saying "Single sex schools disadvantage neither girls nor boys since wealthy students attend them far more often and achieve far superior results while there due to their more tailored curriculum and teaching staff"
Furthermore if you are correct (and I'm pretty much sure you aren't 100% accurate since the top schools in the UK are all girls schools, and girls achieve more academic success at all levels even though the gap does narrow if you consider only wealthy students) then it just shows that the problem is even more disastrous than I thought! Poor boys are trapped into a cycle of poverty, with no access to education, motivation and skills and no hope of improving their lot in life.
And as to Incenjucar with his "have the boys do what the girls do" comment I think that you will find that you have just made the statement that caused this whole problem in the first place. Someone in a meeting noticed boys weren't behaving, or that girls were easier to teach and said "I know! Lets just reward learning the way girls tend to do it, surely the boys will string along..." and now we have failed a whole generation of students and are well on our way to failing another.
How large a percentage do girls need to be ahead in higher education before you admit there is a serious problem? They already lead by 18%. Do they need to be 25% ahead? 40%? Do nothing and we will see statistics like that.
The wealthy boys perform almost as well as wealthy girls stat shows that this problem can be fixed by better schooling, not that it isn't a problem. Does the fact that people in the US don't die of Malaria very much show that Malaria isn't a problem? Of course not, it just shows you that with money spent and smart thinking the problem can be dealt with.
The teaching styles provided in the classes attended by these rich boys will check almost all the boxes I presented for "How to stop this effect with schooling" Private schools have more male teachers, they do reward achievement, they do praise academic success, the do severely punish failure and lack of effort. They do the things I think every school with boys should do. Wealthy boys see the same TV, the same movies, the same music and so forth as poorer boys. Perhaps in urban ghettos the pressure to join gangs and commit crime is a serious suppressor of male ability, but amongst the middle classes where such pressures do not exist boys are failing too. They are only not failing amongst the elite.
Why are boys more affected academically by poverty than girls considering girls in poverty face highly similar challenges?
Poor families tend to retain certain traditional values due to lack of education and exposure, which tends to reduce their income, which tends to keep them poorly educated and exposed, which tends to reduce their income.
How do you explain the differences in expectations of performance between boys and girls? Daughters are increasingly the priority when it comes to sending one child to university.
Change in society. When I was growing up boys were still assumed to be #1 top priority. I was born in the 80s. This isn't some eons-long state, this is a generation or two.
I accept that the difference shrinks when you consider the wealthiest and best. The wealthiest and best are motivated by small group teaching in private schools, supported by independent tutoring, access to modern textbooks and well equipped labs. They receive support and help from parents, who will often be well educated themselves and have a far far closer balance of male and female teachers, including far more teachers with experience and education to the doctorate level or beyond in all subjects. Their teaching is also far more personal, and tailored to each student, almost totally eliminating the problem of the national curriculum being highly focused on teaching girls.
You make it sound like this is the only environment where boys can compete.
Effectively what you are saying by quoting that the problem goes away at the highest levels of education is "Yes, tbloxham, you are exactly right. This problem exists and it can be fixed in the schools with superior teaching methods without impacting girls negatively in any way". You are also saying "Single sex schools disadvantage neither girls nor boys since wealthy students attend them far more often and achieve far superior results while there due to their more tailored curriculum and teaching staff"
Strict grades are not the be all and end all (see: No Child Left Behind), co-ed schooling is not the problem. Single sex schools have horrible side effects, and their positive results are due to socio-economic status and family structures associated with attendance, not some magic that happens when everyone in the room has the same gonads.
Furthermore if you are correct (and I'm pretty much sure you aren't 100% accurate since the top schools in the UK are all girls schools, and girls achieve more academic success at all levels even though the gap does narrow if you consider only wealthy students) then it just shows that the problem is even more disastrous than I thought! Poor boys are trapped into a cycle of poverty, with no access to education, motivation and skills and no hope of improving their lot in life.
Anyone trapped in a culture which does not promote their well being is going to be fucked, yes. This is not the result of gender, this is the result of STUPID CULTURES BEING STUPID.
And as to Incenjucar with his "have the boys do what the girls do" comment I think that you will find that you have just made the statement that caused this whole problem in the first place. Someone in a meeting noticed boys weren't behaving, or that girls were easier to teach and said "I know! Lets just reward learning the way girls tend to do it, surely the boys will string along..." and now we have failed a whole generation of students and are well on our way to failing another.
Expecting the boys to figure it out on their own when society damns it is stupid. Society, IE, parents, friends, teachers, have to encourage it if not force it. These are children. You sit their asses down in a study group and show respect to their teachers and the learning process.
How large a percentage do girls need to be ahead in higher education before you admit there is a serious problem? They already lead by 18%. Do they need to be 25% ahead? 40%? Do nothing and we will see statistics like that.
There is a serious problem with culture. Boys who manage to figure out what their stupid culture has not, that learning works better this way than that, do just fine.
I know my personal examples are tiring things, but every time my sister gets a hold of a boy, his grades skyrocket, because she drags their ass into the learning circles she's involved in. We're talking Cs turn into As in high level classes. Because she makes them study like she does.
The wealthy boys perform almost as well as wealthy girls stat shows that this problem can be fixed by better schooling, not that it isn't a problem.
Or it could simply be that the cultures of the wealthy are less likely to sabotage their boys.
They are only not failing amongst the elite.
To get to elite status you generally have to have a family culture that is not self-destructive.
How do you explain the differences in expectations of performance between boys and girls? Daughters are increasingly the priority when it comes to sending one child to university.
Firstly, cite?
But secondly, this has been touched upon in both the things I've linked - there is a perception of improved job opportunities for young males outside of just attending university in the lower classes. Of note in the first was the idea that young males would join the military. Consider also the preponderance of young males who work in the various of trades compared to young females. Whether this pans out into actual job opportunities is irrelevant in some respects - there are obvious career paths in male dominated fields which do not require university-level education for entrance. Whether they actually get taken is a different matter, and I would note that before the term "skills shortage" comes up that we seem to have had a perpetual skills shortage for the past decade in every field that exists.
We've also come through the dot com bubble, which was notably characterized by a couple of notable examples of young males making a lot of money without going to university and also sometimes by dropping out of high school.
I accept that the difference shrinks when you consider the wealthiest and best. The wealthiest and best are motivated by small group teaching in private schools, supported by independent tutoring, access to modern textbooks and well equipped labs. They receive support and help from parents, who will often be well educated themselves and have a far far closer balance of male and female teachers, including far more teachers with experience and education to the doctorate level or beyond in all subjects. Their teaching is also far more personal, and tailored to each student, almost totally eliminating the problem of the national curriculum being highly focused on teaching girls.
The difference does not just go away for the wealthiest and the best, it is noted to equalize in the middle class. This is not a "the upper class don't play by the same rules' - this is a case that if you come from a family where a university education was probably undertaken by both parents, then in all likelihood you will also undertake one yourself.
Effectively what you are saying by quoting that the problem goes away at the highest levels of education...
That is not what either of the abstracts I've posted say or show. The problem goes away no where near the highest levels of education.
You're engaging in some pretty epic and unfortunately popular correlation == causation fallacy, and it's exactly why this topic concerns me so much. It's ultimately being driven by years of desire for their to be some poignant difference in the sexes that will somehow justify the way things are. But that doesn't even matter - the point is the biological sex differences in no way explains the discrepancy between the sexes when it comes to education, and the literature shows it is caused by other factors.
How do you explain the differences in expectations of performance between boys and girls? Daughters are increasingly the priority when it comes to sending one child to university.
Considering that university education in the UK is damn near free, I don't believe for one minute that parents are declaring that Jane is going to uni while William may not attend. That's complete nonsense. Girls are heading there because it's their ticket out of a lifetime working in retail. Boys have other options, and grow up in a culture of anti-intellectualism that extends far further than their parents. Its cultural. No-one's arguing that that's not a problem, but this isn't Teh Sexisms at work, or evil mojo generated by the close proximity to cooties. Its just a whole clusterfuck of other stupidities, none of which can be solved by the conservative sop of segregating the genders.
Furthermore if you are correct (and I'm pretty much sure you aren't 100% accurate since the top schools in the UK are all girls schools, and girls achieve more academic success at all levels even though the gap does narrow if you consider only wealthy students)
I see you haven't read today's Times headlines! The top UK school is a private boys' one, followed by a couple of private girls' schools. Top schools are all rich schools, of course. The relationship is purely economic, those schools are only single-gendered because they were founded that way well before women's lib and, in some cases, probably before women's suffrage.
Posts
Yup. Feminism has a pretty fair crack at promoting the notion that patriarchy screws over men too, but it tends to get lost in all the other stuff.
And I'm seeing more and more activity on feminist blogs trying to combat that last part, thankfully.
The transgender-related postings on Feministe are usually pretty enlightening. :^:
Why are boys more affected academically by poverty than girls considering girls in poverty face highly similar challenges?
How do you explain the differences in expectations of performance between boys and girls? Daughters are increasingly the priority when it comes to sending one child to university.
I accept that the difference shrinks when you consider the wealthiest and best. The wealthiest and best are motivated by small group teaching in private schools, supported by independent tutoring, access to modern textbooks and well equipped labs. They receive support and help from parents, who will often be well educated themselves and have a far far closer balance of male and female teachers, including far more teachers with experience and education to the doctorate level or beyond in all subjects. Their teaching is also far more personal, and tailored to each student, almost totally eliminating the problem of the national curriculum being highly focused on teaching girls.
Effectively what you are saying by quoting that the problem goes away at the highest levels of education is "Yes, tbloxham, you are exactly right. This problem exists and it can be fixed in the schools with superior teaching methods without impacting girls negatively in any way". You are also saying "Single sex schools disadvantage neither girls nor boys since wealthy students attend them far more often and achieve far superior results while there due to their more tailored curriculum and teaching staff"
Furthermore if you are correct (and I'm pretty much sure you aren't 100% accurate since the top schools in the UK are all girls schools, and girls achieve more academic success at all levels even though the gap does narrow if you consider only wealthy students) then it just shows that the problem is even more disastrous than I thought! Poor boys are trapped into a cycle of poverty, with no access to education, motivation and skills and no hope of improving their lot in life.
And as to Incenjucar with his "have the boys do what the girls do" comment I think that you will find that you have just made the statement that caused this whole problem in the first place. Someone in a meeting noticed boys weren't behaving, or that girls were easier to teach and said "I know! Lets just reward learning the way girls tend to do it, surely the boys will string along..." and now we have failed a whole generation of students and are well on our way to failing another.
How large a percentage do girls need to be ahead in higher education before you admit there is a serious problem? They already lead by 18%. Do they need to be 25% ahead? 40%? Do nothing and we will see statistics like that.
The wealthy boys perform almost as well as wealthy girls stat shows that this problem can be fixed by better schooling, not that it isn't a problem. Does the fact that people in the US don't die of Malaria very much show that Malaria isn't a problem? Of course not, it just shows you that with money spent and smart thinking the problem can be dealt with.
The teaching styles provided in the classes attended by these rich boys will check almost all the boxes I presented for "How to stop this effect with schooling" Private schools have more male teachers, they do reward achievement, they do praise academic success, the do severely punish failure and lack of effort. They do the things I think every school with boys should do. Wealthy boys see the same TV, the same movies, the same music and so forth as poorer boys. Perhaps in urban ghettos the pressure to join gangs and commit crime is a serious suppressor of male ability, but amongst the middle classes where such pressures do not exist boys are failing too. They are only not failing amongst the elite.
Poor families tend to retain certain traditional values due to lack of education and exposure, which tends to reduce their income, which tends to keep them poorly educated and exposed, which tends to reduce their income.
Change in society. When I was growing up boys were still assumed to be #1 top priority. I was born in the 80s. This isn't some eons-long state, this is a generation or two.
You make it sound like this is the only environment where boys can compete.
Strict grades are not the be all and end all (see: No Child Left Behind), co-ed schooling is not the problem. Single sex schools have horrible side effects, and their positive results are due to socio-economic status and family structures associated with attendance, not some magic that happens when everyone in the room has the same gonads.
Anyone trapped in a culture which does not promote their well being is going to be fucked, yes. This is not the result of gender, this is the result of STUPID CULTURES BEING STUPID.
Expecting the boys to figure it out on their own when society damns it is stupid. Society, IE, parents, friends, teachers, have to encourage it if not force it. These are children. You sit their asses down in a study group and show respect to their teachers and the learning process.
There is a serious problem with culture. Boys who manage to figure out what their stupid culture has not, that learning works better this way than that, do just fine.
I know my personal examples are tiring things, but every time my sister gets a hold of a boy, his grades skyrocket, because she drags their ass into the learning circles she's involved in. We're talking Cs turn into As in high level classes. Because she makes them study like she does.
Or it could simply be that the cultures of the wealthy are less likely to sabotage their boys.
To get to elite status you generally have to have a family culture that is not self-destructive.
But secondly, this has been touched upon in both the things I've linked - there is a perception of improved job opportunities for young males outside of just attending university in the lower classes. Of note in the first was the idea that young males would join the military. Consider also the preponderance of young males who work in the various of trades compared to young females. Whether this pans out into actual job opportunities is irrelevant in some respects - there are obvious career paths in male dominated fields which do not require university-level education for entrance. Whether they actually get taken is a different matter, and I would note that before the term "skills shortage" comes up that we seem to have had a perpetual skills shortage for the past decade in every field that exists.
We've also come through the dot com bubble, which was notably characterized by a couple of notable examples of young males making a lot of money without going to university and also sometimes by dropping out of high school.
Which leads me to your second point: The difference does not just go away for the wealthiest and the best, it is noted to equalize in the middle class. This is not a "the upper class don't play by the same rules' - this is a case that if you come from a family where a university education was probably undertaken by both parents, then in all likelihood you will also undertake one yourself.
That is not what either of the abstracts I've posted say or show. The problem goes away no where near the highest levels of education.
You're engaging in some pretty epic and unfortunately popular correlation == causation fallacy, and it's exactly why this topic concerns me so much. It's ultimately being driven by years of desire for their to be some poignant difference in the sexes that will somehow justify the way things are. But that doesn't even matter - the point is the biological sex differences in no way explains the discrepancy between the sexes when it comes to education, and the literature shows it is caused by other factors.
I see you haven't read today's Times headlines! The top UK school is a private boys' one, followed by a couple of private girls' schools. Top schools are all rich schools, of course. The relationship is purely economic, those schools are only single-gendered because they were founded that way well before women's lib and, in some cases, probably before women's suffrage.