ffs

[DogStinkhorn]

Daily Fail, natch

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

I'm with PrideofChanour on this one. I would also point out that the abolition of rote learning and one off exams -what I believe is a description of O-levels, although rote learning went out of fashion in the 60s- has coincided with a sea change in cultural thinking and expectations as to what girls can and can't do at school. I think that girls are actually allowed to such much of their true potential in ways that in the 60s and 70s they were not permitted to do.
Just an example (which I know is anecdotal and not proper proof) is the comparison between my mother (born 1948) and me ( born 1975). She excelled at school and passed the 11+ with flying colours. My grandad refused to let her go to grammar school until one of her teachers went to see him to plead on my mother's behalf (she was devastated). She sailed through high school and was directed by her teachers to apply to universities. This time my grandad put his foot down and refused. My mother's pleadings led to her being allowed to go to teacher training college near our town and she became a primary school teacher. Mum never received any support nor encouragement to study, while I on the other hand benefited from all the support she could give me. I went to university, did a PhD etc. It was all very easy for me.
I am waffling but I do think that girls are only now showing what they are truly capable of. Boys on the other hand seem to be suffering and while I agree it needs to be looked at, I think that more research need to be done. There is certainly what looks like a coincidence between the change in teaching practices and boys decline, but a coincidence alone is sufficent evidence on which to come to any conclusions.

Corrections
boys' decline
But a coincidence alone is NOT sufficent evidence

Sorry

But a coincidence alone is NOT sufficient evidence UPON which

I wish I'd never mentioned the PhD now.....

"The prevailing dogma in early education now demands that both lessons and sport are devoutly non-competitive. It requires children to sit still around tables in which they work together as groups, rather than alone at desks. It is, in other words, perfectly suited to sociable little girls and anathema to boisterous, competitive little boys."
What does this fucking idiot know? About ANYTHING?

The whole article is a disgrace! Couldn't read to the end - particularly as I reached the laughably staged picture of the "disaffected" young boys drinking Bacardi Breezers on the street corners...

Total Crap.

As someone with nearly 2 decades' experience I would just like to give my considered professional opinion.

It's all bollocks.

We just don't actually know enough about how the human brain works to have 'an answer' about the best way to teach anyone. All we do is try our best & keep going.

personally, I have a dd who is quite significantly 'male brained' and adhd. She is excelling at school. Is that cos she's a girl, or cos she's bright, or cos of her teachers, parents?

Who knows.

And let's face it, even exam results, degrees etc are only indicative of future success, not a direct cause.

So basically, too much exposure to the wimminz, saps away a blokes manliness and turns him in to a stupid, useless waste of space. AmIright?

^^ Fake ETA - in summing up the daily mail article

Not sure how "the desire to provide for and protect their families" and "the ability not to be too emotional" relate that much to learning maths or French when you are 7.

That tired old cliche about boys needing to run around constantly confuses me too. My dad went to school in the 50s, and spent much of the school day sitting at a desk in silence while the teacher spoke. Boys still apparently did well - there was no mythical time when boys took their lessons whilst running laps of the classroom and hitting each other.

So what if it is true... so we're allowed to have a little extra money in our 20s so that we won't mind so much when we hit the glass ceiling at 30.

Oh I wish I had never clicked on this as I'm now all wound up and cross and I need to go to sleep.

How could any sensible person look at this one thing and think that it means males are in trouble!??

And if it is the case that the education system has been deliberately skewed so that girls can acheive more than boys who the hell is supposed to be responsible...!?? All the people in power in this country are men... so what's the motive? Utter bollocks.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence that boys achieve less well when taught by women.

Girls have always done better than boys pre A level, that's why mixed grammars had to skew the results to let "enough" boys in, back in the 11+ days; long before the so-called feminised curriculum. The so-called feminised curriculum is still predominantly exam-based, so why aren't the boys trouncing the girls?

All measure to increase the attainment of boys in secondary has also benefited the girls. So the gap remains.

I don't think that boys achieve less well when taught by women, echt. In my own experience, the boys did just as well in the years where they had women teachers at primary as they did when taught by men. But I would argue that, at primary level at least, men have a different teaching style, and it benefits both boys and girls to experience different teaching styles.

How come girls outperforming boys in education has been paraphrased as

"boys let down by female-favouring education system"

instead of

"girls' career prospects scuppered by male-favouring working practices"

?

If girls outperform boys but fail to achieve employment parity, then the second statement is as much true as the first, yet all the studies are concentrating on how boys are being let down and virtually ignore the second.

Yet another example of how our patriarchal society is more concerned about preventing any loss of male privilege before it is interested in advancing female rights.

And I say this as the mother of a son whose own education I care about passionately.

Yawn. I've read hundreds of articles like this, pretty much word for word. The same stupid assumptions e.g. boys are always better at exams/girls at coursework and inaccuracies e.g. around exams, which actually account for a higher proportion of the total mark for many subjects. The same sneers about "male virtues" e.g. reliability ... hmm??? It's a load of nonsense.