ffs

[DogStinkhorn]

Daily Fail, natch

wrong on so many levels, how dare young women get above their station and do better than men.

I have not even clicked on the link and I know what this is about!

I have flicked through the article, and have read other, similar ones. I absolutely agree that it is wrong to suggest that girls/women should not be 'allowed' to get above their station, but as the mother of three sons, I also think that both girls and boys should get the same chances and particularly the same standard of education.

If it is true that boys are significantly underperforming, compared to girls, then this is a problem, surely? And surely it is also right and fair that education should do its best to suit the learning styles of all pupils, and if boys have different learning styles to girls, then somehow this does need to be accomodated so that every pupil, regardless of gender, achieves the best they can at school so they can go out into the world with the maximum chances available to them.

Girls do not have to do less well, in order for boys to do better. And conversely, boys do not have to do badly in order for girls to do well. Either of those would be wrong, imo.

My dses had several male teachers during their primary years, and it is my firm opinion, based on my experience, their experience and the experience of other parents and children (both boys and girls), that the different style of teaching offered by men benefits both boys and girls. Plus, there are far more men in secondary teaching, and I would suggest that it is a good thing for both boys and girls to have experience of teachers of both genders before that stage, so they can get used to different teaching styles.

I skimmed over some of the MRAtastic arguments and then got bored.

Patriarchy hurts men too. Whodathunkit?

It would be interesting to see how many of these boys 'thrown to the scrapheap' have decent male role models in their lives such as fathers who nurture them.

The idea that boys are unable to sit round tables in groups and function normally, is really really sexist isn't it?

I used to teach English to youngish kids - the boys were a handful and difficult to work with, the girls not so much. But then of course the girls are taught from birth to be submissive, not take up too much space and respect and listen to the people who dominate them. Boys are taught the opposite - and then people are surprised that they don't do well in school (with female teachers when they are constantly being bombarded by messages that male = better than female).

I feel for those boys who are being damaged by patriarchy, but it sure isn't the girls' fault.

I find it insulting as well that the implication is that girls have only done well because the system is tailored to them.

One gender will always outperform the other, statistically.

The only thing we can examine is the size of the gap.

Aah this is making me nostalgic about my old physics teacher who used to group the girls together in class so that we could 'talk about shopping as there is not much point in them learning about physics'. He then ignored us and taught the boys.

Beachcomber's got it, I think.

I'm also not sure how being thought by men is different? Can someone enlighten me?

"Thus the Left-leaning education establishment gradually ensured that secondary school lessons became less concerned with facts, rote-learning, traditional subjects and one-off exams, and more interested in course-work, empathy and new, softer subjects.

In other words, the things that boys excelled at were taken away, and the whole system was skewed to favour the diligent, steady, more emotionally articulate qualities of girls."

Worraloadabollocks.

I am not saying that the system has been skewed to favour girls, nor do I agree with that opinion from any article. But I do think it is a problem if any group underperforms significantly in education, and that if this occurring, it should be examined, the reasons found, and the problem tackled.

I think it is a problem too. I think it is a much much wider problem than the education system though.

Agreed, SDTG- but examining performance by gender is just one of many ways to

I was halfway through typing something coherent there, then I just felt my baby move for the first time! Gah, sorry, I am going to add NOTHING to this conversation now

But if we are to turn the stats around and have girls performing and leaving with the same level of education/qualifcations as boys are then there would be an outrage. Surely the educational system needs to function in such away that the vast majority of boys and girls can thrive within it?

And surely a gender bias in any profession or environment may have negative impacts?

Ooooh tethers - first baby move - that's way more exciting than education debates.

Christ, of all the topics to be posting on when I start squeeeing (I don't usually squee)

Gomez - as I said earlier, in an ideal world, each child should get an education that enables them to fulfill their potential, and achieve the best they are capable of, regardless of gender, race, anything. I am certainly not suggesting that, in order for things to be 'fair', any group outperforming any other group should be dragged down to the lower standard. And if the article suggests that, then the author is a numpty.

I think we are in agreement SDTG....

I belive there is real issue for boys in the current school system and that this needs to be addressed. And for society as whole it is not good for either gender to dominate a profession - be that doctors, teachers or high court judges!

I think the headline is bollox! In my experience women earn less than men. My DH is 6 years younger than me, has had less formal education and has not been in the workplace as long as me yet he earns more than I do.

The author doesn't need to worry because the young women will all get screwed over if they want to have a family anyway.

I think decisions need to be made at the highest level about which underperforming cohort should be focused on. This will vary by area, of course.

It's a lot easier for a newspaper to focus on the educational performance of a large group, such as 'boys', than to analyse the cohorts in terms of race, gender, economic factors etc.

Ah, yes, how terribly unfair that these girls should out-perform boys, then go on to be paid less for the same jobs later on.

Wait, was that not the point?

I happen to think that it IS unfair if any one group underperforms, LRD. Or is it OK if it is evil hateful boys who are underperforming?

Of course anyone who is under performing - boy or girl - should have the reasons looked into to see if the system is undermining them.

However, there's a lot of bollox talked about conscientious course-work orientated girls and active, competitive boys.

For example, I am probably older than most posters on this board. I took the 11+ in the 1950s and was brought up under the system that (allegedly) favoured boys i.e. competitive sport, minimal course work, a higher proportion of male teachers, sudden death exams etc. Yet still the girls were out performing the boys to the degree that as a girl you had to achieve higher marks to pass the 11+ than boys because the education authorities insisted the intake to grammar schools was balanced so that it was about 50/50 male/female. Had the pass mark being the same there would have been a higher proportion of girls admitted than boys.

Googling will probably confirm what I say is accurate but am on the run at the mo and don't have time......

I am not reading the article.

But seeing as there is no reason to believe that one gender is better suited to doing exams than the other, we should look into why there is a large gap and try to ensure that everyone gets the education they deserve.

If it's true that boys tend to learn differently to girls (which I am not convinced of) then there will also be a lot of girls who learn in the "boyish" way (overlapping groups, not discrete), so the answer would be not to educate separately but to tailor education to each individual's preferred learning style.

"facts, rote-learning, traditional subjects and one-off exams,"
So why is this what boys like? This is me,and why I did ok at school - I was good at facts,rote learning and one off exams,in the 60's and 70's when that was what my (girls') school was like.Definitely a girl though...
I think it is dangerous to take this sort of gender stereotype and use it as a basis for planning an education system.

The division of abilities and mental characteristics into male and female is problematic,I think.The author lists these as underrated male virtues -"reliability, stamina, physical strength, the desire to provide for and protect their families, and sometimes, as unfashionable as it might be, the ability not to be too emotional". Those things should be valued in women as well as men surely? In the same way that all children should be encouraged to be emotionally mature,sensitive, better communicators, better team-workers,
those are important skills to have.

I would guess that if more boys sat down, shut up and listened, they might do better at school, but worse as an adult, given that being domineering and cloth-eared seem to be rewarded in adult males. It's no surprise that the reverse is true - some girls listen and apply themselves and do well, but then don't get rewarded for that in the adult world.