Getting a tiny bit feminist on the teacher's ass!

[SolidGoldBrass]

I didn't raise my voice. I didn't unshave my legs or anything.
It just so happened that DS and I bumped into his class teacher at the playground this afternoon and we had a pleasant chat; the teacher turns out to have DC of her own, of a similar age to DS. She mentioned something about girls being very different to boys. I very very gently said that this was in fact rubbish and suggested she read Delusions of Gender, and added that I thought every teacher should read it as a lot of the stuff about gender difference you hear these days was not only wrong but dangerous...

I'm going to be 'one of THOSE mothers' forever, aren't I?

Sigmund- did you see my question- as men are far more likely to be both the victims and the perpetrators of violence, why are you so opposed to examining the construct of masculinity which means men hit each other?

Handbag,

"Sigmund, it is only recently that females have overtaken males in the world of education, prior to this males outperformed females. If this was still the case, what would you think? If we put things back how they were and boys still outperformed girls at school and university, would that be ok?"

No it wouldn't. So why is it OK for girls to outperform boys? And don't give me sexist tripe about working harder. When boys outperformed girls, big efforts were made to change the system and they clearly worked. Many, however, are clearly contented to educate their sons in a system where they are disadvantaged.

Sigmund,

I do think, however, that girls are somehow put off hard sciences in mixed schools. That should also be addressed. The statistics for girls taking physics A levels in mixed schools are terrible.

SGB,

"ONe of the reasons girls now outperform boys in education (in terms of exam results) is that they have stopped marking girls' work down."

So your working hypothesis is that girls are intellectually superior to boys?!

sigmund how do we make it 50/50 completely equal then? And how do we ensure that it translates to equality of opportunity for all boys and girls, whatever they want to do? Because it feels like at the moment, the girls might outperform at school and university but once they're in the world of work it swaps around again. Is this fair? Girls are better at school and boys are better at work? Would this work as a genders are different, deal with it, response?

angel I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't, in fact I said I would support a men's refuge. What I was trying to articulate is that we as women cannot set up a refuge for male victims of dv without input from men, male survivors of dv etc. as they would be the best judge of what would meet their needs. I feel that is an empathic response to this particular group. As for the female victim of female dv, I suppose it would be up to her if she felt safe in a women's refuge full of women, or whether something else might suit her better. She wouldn't make the other women in the refuge feel unsafe though so it wouldn't be an issue in that respect.

Angel, there is a long way to go (I feel) before female on male DV is considered anything like as important as the other way round. The government pours (or poured, not quite so much now due to the recession) millions into women's shelters. Men get virtually nothing, so essentially they are starting from scratch and asking for financial support from a public that has no understanding of how prevalent female on male DV is, and still consider it a joke.

I watched a kids show the other day and a teen girl slapped a teen boy hard across the face. Perfectly acceptable to put this on TV it seems. I don't need to point out how unacceptable this would be if it was the other way round. My 5 year old was watching this (until I switched it off), what was it telling him? It's OK if a girl hits you, she can do it with impunity, it's a joke.

This attitude has been part of society for a very long time, and plays no small part in why funding for men's shelters is woeful.

I also know men who have experienced DV, but would never dream of reporting it. I also know women who have experienced it. One dropped charges, the other saw him in court and locked up.

'Sigmund- did you see my question- as men are far more likely to be both the victims and the perpetrators of violence, why are you so opposed to examining the construct of masculinity which means men hit each other?'

I'm not opposed to it seeker. I do feel that, largely, it is a class issue, as was reported in the latest Home Office statistics.

I certainly know why dd is outperforming ds by a good few miles

it's because his group of (male) peers don't think it is cool to make an effort, whereas her group of (female) peers rather does

also because a boy who plays up in class will get laughs and admiration whereas a girl who plays up will be seen as a sad case

rather in the same way as a boy who sleeps with a lot of girls will be thought attractive and successful, whereas a girl who sleeps with a lot of boys will be labelled a slag

social expectations, m'dears

SF - that is anecdotal evidence that means nothing. I know plenty of women who've been beaten up who have never reported it.

My ex's mum has been beaten to the point of hospitalisation for decades.

Women are far more likely to be badly beaten than men. Half of this is just by sheer dint of being less physically strong and not having been brought up knowing how to swing a punch - if I decided to beat up my partner, I wouldn't get very far.

'I do think, however, that girls are somehow put off hard sciences in mixed schools. That should also be addressed. The statistics for girls taking physics A levels in mixed schools are terrible.'

I don't know a great deal about this to be honest larry. If this is the case then yes, of course this should be addressed. During childhood, a level playing field is important for both, I do believe that.

larry I never said it was ok for girls to outperform boys so kindly take your inflammatory and unnecessary language (sexist tripe indeed!) down a notch.

'SF - that is anecdotal evidence that means nothing. I know plenty of women who've been beaten up who have never reported it.'

Do you think that men or women are more likely to not report?

rollmopses Wed 20-Feb-13 12:34:25
"I DON"T want my boys brought up playing with dolls, dressed in pink etc. I want my boys to be boys.
I absolutely refuse, in the name of some idiotic cider socialists' agenda, to manipulate my children to be 'like everybody else, Uber-equal and diverse'. Bugger off.
My children are fabulous individuals and very much boys. Hallelujah.
I can't stand feminine men nor can I abide severely butch women."

So what if you happened to have given birth to a feminine boy or butch girl? Would you manipulate or would you not? Would you accept who you are or declare you just couldn't stand people like that?

If you want your DS to do better at school maybe you could do worse than dress him pink and clamp down on any non-ladylike behaviour from a very early age.

Horrible as I find the idea that girls suffer this sort of restriction of what behaviour is acceptable more than boys, it must be a factor in what enables them to out perform boys in the class room.

'ONe of the reasons girls now outperform boys in education (in terms of exam results) is that they have stopped marking girls' work down. GIrls' exam results used to be downgraded because it was WRONG for girls to do better than boys and would mean the end of the world.'

That's interesting. I recently read an article (currently searching for it) that stated that girls are now marked up and boys are marked down.

Handbag,

"If men want to meet the same standards women do at school and university then they need to work harder in the current system to do so. Y'know like the women did."

Can you explain the above comment then please? You seem to be implying no systemic changes need to be made in education and boys just have to work harder.

I think that kind of comment is plain sexist.

Larry, this:

ONe of the reasons girls now outperform boys in education (in terms of exam results) is that they have stopped marking girls' work down."

is just a fact. SGB doesn't say what the cause of girls' outperformance is but she is actually just stating a fact. I don't suppose her working hypothesis is that girls are intellectually superior to boys. Everything she's said on this thread leads me to believe she thinks it's the conditioning of boys and girls that means girls outperform at school. Don't worry though - it does them no favours in the long run.

SF - I really don't know. How can we possibly know? And I don't think the kind of speculation of "who is more likely" helps either side.

The different exam outcomes issue is complex. Back when I started university the received wisdom was that women were conscientious but dull 2.1 plodders and men either had the brilliance to get 1sts or were too busy doing other stuff (rugger, debating club etc) so got 3rds. My tutor (female prof) campaigned very hard for blind marking in my subject, and, guess what, the discrepancy in marks disappeared.

More recently there's been an argument that the new course-work oriented style of assessment favours girls, because they're conscientious whereas flaky, disorganised but intrinsically brilliant boys (seeing a common thread here, anyone?) do better with exam based systems where they can muck around for 2 1/2 terms then get down to business in the last few weeks in one concentrated push (disclaimer - this latter mode is actually my personality type too, and last time I checked, I was a woman).

Now I don't think that it's that boys are intellectually inferior to girls. I think that it may be an instance of gender stereotypes damaging men as well as women (a fact that any decent feminist I know acknowledges). Boys are socialised to mess around - boisterous behaviours dismissed as boys-will-be-boys, quiet behaviours criticised as girly. Then we wonder why they don't have the mental resources to knuckle down through several drafts of a piece of coursework, or plan their time. (Fwiw, as another example of gender stereotypes harming men, I'm doing a benefit gig this weekend for mental health provision among ex-servicemen and women - the suicide rate among soldiers who've seen front line service is enormous, because we have a macho culture that pushes the military as an exciting career option for boys, uses them as cannon fodder in ill-thought out, politically motivated wars of dubious legality, then offers them no support after leaving. I hope, by the way, that it's obvious that the target of my criticism is politicians and senior military strategists, not servicemen and women themselves, who do a difficult job requiring bravery I couldn't come close to).

And when you post stuff like that you destroy any crediblity in your argument.

Public exams are marked anonymously

As outlined in my earlier posts I believe conditioning has a big part to play in the underperformance of boys.

Ds can get laughs and kudos for being the class clown in a way that dd probably can't. Girls go "oh, isn't he cute?" and the boys think he's funny. A girl in that position would probably be pitied and a little despised.

Ds also looks round society and sees that men often land on their feet, tend to earn more than women and hold more important posts- so he feels far less urgency than she does when he looks at the future.

I'd be delighted if he worked harder, but I can't see what his teachers can do unless he has a serious change of attitude.

There is a bit of a tendency to argue that women need to change their behaviour at work to get on and to fit the mould that has been predetermined by a male workplace (hence go on assertiveness training courses). But that we should change the education system to fit boys' apparent need to run around and not sit down and listen (not that I accept these traits are boyish traits at all - my boy is perfectly capable of sitting down and listening because I taught him to, as is my girl).

Any suggestion that the workplace should shift to meet the "characteristics" of women is greeted with derision, as is any suggestion of quotas although that's effectively what the downward marking of girls' exam results in the 11 plus was.

Drjohnson,

If you are better educated, it does you HUGE favours throughout your life. Unless you are merely measuring life success in terms of average income (which is another discussion), education is one of the best things any parent can give any child.

I am not sure it is all conditioning. It may be but it also may be hormonal etc. Boys tend to like learning for exams, girls more for projects. Hugely simplistic but a proper answer would take pages. As a generalisation, I think it is true. And there are good teaching methods for boys and for girls. At the moment, they tend to suit girls.

As for SGB, if she had mentioned marking work down as an explanation for girls' underperformance, I would take your point. As she is using it an explanation for why they now outperform, the only inference is that she believes that they are intrinsically brighter.

Dreaming of summer it is a fact that when the 11+ was universal, girls' exam papers were marked down for fear of filling out grammar schools with girls.

Lurcio just said it: "Boys are socialised to mess around - boisterous behaviours dismissed as boys-will-be-boys, quiet behaviours criticised as girly."

That's ds. And it's not just about our expectations as parents, it's about his teachers, his schools and- far more important- about his peer group.

'sigmund how do we make it 50/50 completely equal then? And how do we ensure that it translates to equality of opportunity for all boys and girls, whatever they want to do? Because it feels like at the moment, the girls might outperform at school and university but once they're in the world of work it swaps around again. Is this fair? Girls are better at school and boys are better at work? Would this work as a genders are different, deal with it, response?'

You can't make it 50/50, but it would be good for it to be close. Boys and girls do have equality of opportunity. Again, it's down to personal choice.

Most women seem to do extremely well in their given careers. If you're talking about the pay gap, if a man and a woman do the same job, start at the same time, and don't take a break, they will earn the same.

Actually, women out earn men initially, it's when they drop out to have children that the pay gap appears, unless they get back to work quickly (or work for a large employer than can afford to carry you).