"Don't teach boys to be like girls" - really interesting article

[zog]

here

I agree with every word. Sue Palmer talks so much sense - can't she be Minister for Education??

Actually in the fifities subjects like science were popular with boys precisely because they could do experiments and make things go bang etc.I was talking to the (female)head of chemistry at my sons school the other day who was saying that children and in particular boys ,in general of course there are exceptions ,find it very turgid now despite the teachers best efforts as science is now heavily into note taking etc with very little meaningful practical things .The channel 4 programme on the fifties demonstrated this the boys (and girls for that matter )were really stimulated by the practical stuff.

Also the school day in the fifties was longer with state senior schools often finishing at 3.45 with longer play times and routinely a lot more PE plus practical subjects like metal work and woodwork

Sounds awful to me. Note taking is just such a complete switch off. Isn't the point of science that you discover how things work? I do think it worrying that secondary schools are being built without playgrounds, but active breaks are needed by everyone, and to single it down to boys is just wrong IMO.

Health and safety makes it very difficult to do anysort of experiements plus the curriculum doesn't emphasise thta sort of thing apparently,perhaps one of the science teachers on here could add more

None of this would happen if women hadn't been given the vote, you know. Political correctness gone mad, voting.

Al this stuff about how male and female behaviour is 'instinctive' or 'hardwired' is rank bullshit, you know. If that were really the case (as opposed to general group norms) then every woman who wasn't pretty, passive and vacant (or whatever traits are supposed to be inherently female), and any man who wasn't strong, aggressive and noisy (or whatever), would be sterile.
There is a definite tendency at the moment to try to divide the world rigidly on gender lines again, which is toxic for both men and women. By all means acknowledge majority differences if you are sure of them, but be aware that the bulk of them are down to sexist socialisation.

IMO, the Times article is pop. pychology total tosh.

www.illinoisloop.org/gender.html

www.illinoisloop.org/brain.html

BTW, is this the same Sue Palmer that wrote Toxic Childhood? She got fairly roundly criticised for her comments in that, as well.

Not read all the thread but wanted to say that I think madamez post is excellent.

The article was interesting and points to the fact that researchers in education are getting more funding to find out why boys are falling behind girls at every stage of public test/examination. In the 1950's girls were behind in boys in a few subjects so the 1960's and 1970's saw lots of research around raising attainment in girls. Nowadays the emphasis is on trying to help boys because statistics point to the fact that boys with lower educational outcomes are more likely to become involved in crime etc. The fact that the curriculum has allegedly become 'feminised' was an unintended consequence of curriculum reviews in the 1980's. What's much more interesting (for me, at least) is the research being done on educating the sexes separately for various subjects in a co-ed school.

My dcs attend a farm nursery and spend a lot of time outside having adventures, being encouraged to take responsibilty for themselves and to try new things - ds chose to feed a sheep last week and was thrilled. And totally unPC these days they get tonnes of cuddles. Yes, I sign a few accident forms for their tumbles and scrapes, have a mountain of washing at the end of the week but they are totally happy and worn out by the end of the day.

I'm already a bit concerned by the list of rules from ds' primary school that he starts in Sept as it's all about being contained and quiet. No play-fighting, no rolling around on the floor, children must be truthful at all times....Even I couldn't keep to the rules! Ds spends most of his time climbing, rolling on the floor investigating some make-believe world at nursery or at home. Imo it's already set up to produce placid quiet children...so they dutifully sit through all the SATs prep without a fuss I suspect!

I am sure I read somewhere that up until about the late 70s girls' exams were routinely marked down because it was thought to be wrong for them to do better than boys. Does anyone else know anything about this?

My mother said the same thing madamez - she reckoned that the pass mark for the 11+ was higher for girls than for boys when she sat it (in the 50s).

It was true when I sat my 11+ in the early 80s madamez - 5 grammar schools for boys, 2 for girls.

Don't most nursery schools provide tons of cuddles? My experience of infant school teachers and assistants is that they give lots of cuddles too. Maybe dd is just an expert in finding the "cuddlers" out

No cuddles at ds' future primary, or at the attached preschool - could be 'misconstrued' apparently.

ok harpsi but my point was competitiveness is not a male trait. I'm very competitive about what I think I'm good at but hate competitive sports because I'm rubbish at them.

I sobbed one day at school when someone else got the prize for spelling [geek] but would actively try to avoid sports day.

I really hate the whole argument expressed in the argument that boys/men are more driven/competitive and that's why there are more male geniuses. In fact, the more I think about it, the more that sentence about geniuses is making me angry. I'm going to write an article pointing out that there aren't as many black nobel prize winners as white winners and that's because black people aren't as competitive and see what sort of reaction that gets.

great article, makes so much sense