Not exactly. I guess I’d qualify as an advocate of “meritocracy,” and I have no problem recognizing and addressing biases per se; it’s a matter of “how.”
I generally (there are exceptions) oppose “Hard” Affirmative Action: guaranteeing a certain outcome via quotas, and rigged “point systems.” OTOH, I have no problem with “outreach” programs and the like.
I’m pretty much unequivocally opposed to race-based admissions; OTOH when my (90+% white) college started making a push to get more African-American applicants (going to college fairs in black High Schools, etc.), I thought it was a great idea.
In this instance, I don’t see any problem with calling conferences to examine why boys are failing, with seeking new educational approaches, finding out what their problems are, seeking to hire more male elementary school teachers, etc. OTOH, if they started mandating that colleges admit 50% boys, I’d oppose it.
Part of why I usually oppose “Hard” AA is that often it masks the problems it seeks to address. If a group is failing to meet a certain standard, the solution is to help the group improve their performance, not to change the standard. Provided that none of these efforts involve changing standards for boys* vis a vis * girls, I don’t see a conflict.
I never said they were bad because they were Republican. I said they were drunken whores, which pans true when you look at their past behavior. Their further status as Republicans is just pure venom against them, though. Leave 'em alone, they have enough to worry about.
Forgive me, but I’m skipping over a whole bunch o’ posts to reply to this one. While I agree that the feminism is theoretically inclusive, that is not so in every day practice. It is still incumbent upon males to be the breadwinner in a “traditional” family - I’ve used this example before, in a thread about cross-dressing of all things, but I’ll trot it out here again: I’m female and married, and I get to be a stay-at-home mom, and while hardcore feminists may wish that I had a career, there are none who will come right out and say that I’ve betrayed my sex in making my choice to stay home and raise my kid. Whereas - my brother, who is unmarried, would very much like to be a stay-at-home dad with his three daughters. He’d like to marry a woman who will be a “breadwinner” and support him in his goal to be a hands-on, full-time parent. He has been called lazy, unambitious, a “gigilo” and has been questioned quite insultingly as to why a MALE would want to stay at home with his DAUGHTERS (up to and including the outright supposition that he must be a child-molester.)
In this day and age of equality, boys still don’t cry - unless they’re sissies. A non-sports oriented boy in high school is still a “fag.” We have allowed girls to reach out and grab the golden ring, and we have told them they can grow up to be anything they want to be. No one looks twice at a little girl with a truck, but a little boy who takes care of a doll is still looked at askance. We do not, as a culture, nurture boys. I think we fall into two distinct camps: we exhort boys to grow up and be responsible manly men, or we overindulge them into being childish, selfish beings. A powerful woman is still a woman - and a woman who doesn’t pursue power is, too. A man who doesn’t pursue a traditional “manly-man” role is looked down upon by a huge segment of society.
The Hoff Sommers data is interesting, and I wish it were broken down by race or class. I suspect that the failure rate is even more staggering for poor/lower-class boys, and that the sons of wealthier white families maintain their dominance in academics, school politics, and the other areas mentioned.
No, I’m talking about same group, at least in part. The kids I have contact with come from across the economic spectrum, but at least half of them are yuppie’s kids. But they don’t want to partake of the yuppie parents’ dreams. I know that sort of thing wouldn’t have done anything for me. [Braces are good, though; I wouldn’t want to still have buck teeth]
I haven’t read the book, but I’d hate to see this as a prescription for how to raise boys. Boys are no more amenable to this sort of regimentation than girls (who are, of course, also sent to these sorts of schools), and it backfires as often as it succeeds. You can’t tell until you’ve done it. I did it. Didn’t work.
An interesting exchange between posters (post #51) in this thread about underachieving black Americans reminded me of this discussion.
Poster 1:I think one major problem with Black culture, and many other cultures of poverty is that they can have an attitude toward education and success that is very counterproductive.
Poster 2:This attitude is spreading into the general population, though; right now a male student of any race who does well academically will be hazed by his peers in most school settings. This isn’t universal (yet), but it’s spreading at an alarming rate even into the middle classes. [My emphasis.]
Is this true? We’ve heard about some minority students denigrating academic efforts as “acting white”. Is there now the same sort of anti-academic trend among boys in general? Is getting good grades now similarly seen as “a girl thing” by many boys?
Boys in general have pretty much always tended to put more effort into “masculine” activities like sports than academics. Hence the social sub-classification of nerds (of which I think everyone who posts on this board is a card carrying member). I think that has changed a lot with this generation… at least with computers. I’ve seen a whole new class of people who would normally shun academics (or be ill-equipped at it) dinking around with computers (who give me my paycheck to fix it)… so…
Demorian:Boys in general have pretty much always tended to put more effort into “masculine” activities like sports than academics. Hence the social sub-classification of nerds (of which I think everyone who posts on this board is a card carrying member).
Yeah, but traditionally, brainy/academic girls have also been disdained in comparison with more “feminine” ones who pay more attention to their appearance and social skills, don’t want to appear “too smart”, etc. The counterpart of the despised “nerdy” boy was the despised “drippy” girl or “bluestocking” or “wallflower”.
The above dialogue (entirely anecdotal, of course) seemed to suggest that what we’ve got now is a new wave of male anti-intellectualism without a significant female counterpart.
My sister is kinda like that. She’s real sharp. Well, not real sharp in something like debating or carrying on a complex conversation, and she doesn’t do things like read… but when she starts at something, she does it perfectly. I’m pretty much the exact opposite. I spend all my time studying stuff, and when I start to do something, I struggle. Which is why I always liked essay questions on exams in college, and she preferred multiple choice.
Anyway, I guess I’m kinda blind to that, because (as I believe many here would agree) one of my primary, if not THE primary, attribute I look for in a relationship is intelligence of some kind. So I always viewed them in the highest esteem. Of course, I’m a nerd, so that makes sense.
It is still arguable which gender the digital revolution affects more - men or women. On one hand, men are more likely to really be into computers, picking up programming, playing games, etc than women. In any given IRC, Usenet, message board, etc, you are more likely to find men than women. On the other hand, surveys point to a tremendous female presence on the Internet (I’ve seen surveys saying that web users are 54% female, but from my vast personal experience with computers and the net, I dunno where they all are. AOL? Well, of course, we have a plethora of bright ladies here at SDMB, but they are still outweighed by the men)
