US The so-called "boy crisis" isn't real

[das_nut]

What's very true is that due to early genetic disposition in prehistoric times men have used certain aspects of their nature to attempt dominance over women, and have ingrained this into society ever since society came into existence.

I'd argue that some men have used aspects o ftheir nature to dominate others, men and women. FWIW.

You can see it encoded into our culture - look at the glory war is given, but who does war serve best, those fighting and dying in the battlefield, or those in power?

Of course, it's not a bipolar grouping in the world either, as different groups (based on gender, race, economic status, religion, etc) tended to form a rough sort of pecking order (more accurately, a directed cyclic graph), and different groups would use their own justification on why they were "better" than others.

Well, either way you're just looking to stir the flask up so you can see how the sediment settles. Move along. Nothing to see here. Don't bother citing Wikipedia.

Unless you believe that I'm operating sock puppets on VV, I'm not the one who created this thread.

Although now that you bring up the question of intent, it makes me wonder, what is the purpose of creating a thread like this, on this topic?

Girls at every socio economic level simply work harder at their studies, and place more importance on doing well in school, than do boys, except for those boys who are getting the message, at home and through their fathers' example, that it is important to succeed in school.

So group "A" is doing better in education than group "B", and people claim that it's because "A" studies harder, while "B" does not.

You seem to agree with this when it comes to different groups based on gender.

Would you also agree with the people who make similar claims, but use different groups?

No one (in this thread, or, to my knowledge, on this board) has claimed that "men have it awesome" or that one sex leads to "a life of pain and suffering" and the other to a life of joy and happiness."

You brought up the "woe for us unfortunately males" part. You did not limit it to education.

 

[FortyTwo]

I'd argue that some men have used aspects o ftheir nature to dominate others, men and women. FWIW.

Oops, my bad. Guess that makes it all better.

You can see it encoded into our culture - look at the glory war is given, but who does war serve best, those fighting and dying in the battlefield, or those in power?

Very interesting and true. Also, aside from the basic framework that applies to all social norms, not relevant to the subject of discussion in the slightest.

Of course, it's not a bipolar grouping in the world either, as different groups (based on gender, race, economic status, religion, etc) tended to form a rough sort of pecking order (more accurately, a directed cyclic graph), and different groups would use their own justification on why they were "better" than others.

But we're talking about men and women here. This is one of the few situations in which the so-called gender binary can be upheld, because of all the people covered under its umbrella.

Also, a directed cyclic graph? That sounds a bit pretentious. It's easy to look for a mathematical relationship between any two things. Ooh! My desk lamp is casting the approximation of a hyperbola on the wall! That must be important, right? It sounds big and complicated.

Unless you believe that I'm operating sock puppets on VV, I'm not the one who created this thread.

Although now that you bring up the question of intent, it makes me wonder, what is the purpose of creating a thread like this, on this topic?

So group "A" is doing better in education than group "B", and people claim that it's because "A" studies harder, while "B" does not.

Except this isn't true, because generalizations like that are sweeping and unreliable.

If anything, the modern education system (which I happen to be currently enrolled in and experiencing on a day-to-day basis) favors the male. Perhaps not academically (there are people of different sexes dispersed pretty evenly throughout the spectrum of scholastic success), but in the way things are socially handled. Even so, that's a reflection of society as a whole.

You brought up the "woe for us unfortunately males" part. You did not limit it to education.

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the "men's rights" social justice bloggers (typing those words made me physically cringe) and their continuing, valiant crusade to obtain social standings and privileges that they already have.

 

[Envy]

If anything, the modern education system (which I happen to be currently enrolled in and experiencing on a day-to-day basis) favors the male. Perhaps not academically (there are people of different sexes dispersed pretty evenly throughout the spectrum of scholastic success), but in the way things are socially handled. Even so, that's a reflection of society as a whole.

If females are achieving better results and are holding higher standards, can you really say that males have the upper hand overall?

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the "men's rights" social justice bloggers (typing those words made me physically cringe) and their continuing, valiant crusade to obtain social standings and privileges that they already have.

Isn't this the very kind of generalization that you condemn?

 

[Clueless Git]

The "boy crisis" in education was posited on the claim(s) that the educational system itself is geared toward females , and that is why girls earn higher grades, take more college prep classes, and earn more advanced degrees than their male counterparts.

Aha! I was wondering what this topic was actualy about.

Purely my personal opinion but I don't think the education system is geared towards females at all. More like females are better geared (than males are) for education.

I don't know whether you don't realize how dismissive of women most of your posts appear, or whether you just don't give a ****.

Only the weakest arguments need to be defended that way.

 

[Clueless Git]

Nobody's saying "men have it awesome."

You may have to make allowances for Das being all too far familiar with the agenda of certain people on this kind of topic FortyTwo.

 

[Clueless Git]

If females are achieving better results and are holding higher standards, can you really say that males have the upper hand overall?

Definitely.

Material success is not about who has the results/standards/skills/talents/resources/whatever. It is about who has the skills to best control and exploit them.

 

[das_nut]

Oops, my bad. Guess that makes it all better.

No, it doesn't make it all better, but I find it more useful to accurately define the problem first.

Very interesting and true. Also, aside from the basic framework that applies to all social norms, not relevant to the subject of discussion in the slightest.

Well, you brought up the idea of genders suppressing each other. I was pointing out that it was not as simple as that.

But we're talking about men and women here. This is one of the few situations in which the so-called gender binary can be upheld, because of all the people covered under its umbrella.

Sure most of the people (but not all) fall under biological definitions of "male" or "female". But just because we can easily divide (most) people into two groups does not make conclusions based on such a distinction necessarily meaningful.

Also, a directed cyclic graph? That sounds a bit pretentious. It's easy to look for a mathematical relationship between any two things. Ooh! My desk lamp is casting the approximation of a hyperbola on the wall! That must be important, right? It sounds big and complicated.

Whoopsie, I should have said "directed acyclic graph". The "a" is important.

Directed cyclic graph makes very little sense.

And I'm just using DAG as shorthand for: "When mapping the relationship between groups of society, where that mapping is based on real or perceived advantages, there's a lack of a strict global hierarchy, at least when viewed from the perspective of each group we're mapping relationships from. Or to put it another way (and oversimplifying it): Group A may believe they are better off than Group B, while Group B may think they are better off than Group C, and group C may think they are better off than Group A (which is actually a directed cyclic graph )."

Except this isn't true, because generalizations like that are sweeping and unreliable.

If anything, the modern education system (which I happen to be currently enrolled in and experiencing on a day-to-day basis) favors the male. Perhaps not academically (there are people of different sexes dispersed pretty evenly throughout the spectrum of scholastic success), but in the way things are socially handled. Even so, that's a reflection of society as a whole.

Academically, males seem to be behind. Which would be odd, considering that, according to you, socially men are favored in the modern education system.

Seems like a flaw in the system.

Of course, it's not the only flaw in the educational system. We have underperforming groups, and from a social perspective, it doesn't benefit us as a society.

I'm pretty sure this is a reference to the "men's rights" social justice bloggers (typing those words made me physically cringe) and their continuing, valiant crusade to obtain social standings and privileges that they already have.

I'm not sure if this is the case. MLP became a tad upset with me because I interpreted her comment as not applying strictly to men's gains in education.

 

[mlp]

Das-nut, in response to your query as to why I started this thread:

I happened across the article as I was perusing my regular news sites. I had always taken your harping on the "boy crisis" in education at face value, without looking at any source material, because I had always thought that you had a degree of intellectual integrity, whether or not I agreed with you on an issue. So I guess I posted the article because I found it interesting. I also wondered about the extent of my own gullibility, and I now have more information with respect to that.

 

[Freesia]

I just dont bother anymore.

 

[ledboots]

I just dont bother anymore.

Before mlp just posted, it was all men for the last page.

 

[mlp]

Before mlp just posted, it was all men for the last page.

I suspect that that's going to happening more and more.

 

[Envy]

With a title like that, it ain't surprising.

Havin' men talking about an issue that largely involves that gender can't really be a huge thing?

 

[mlp]

With a title like that, it ain't surprising.

Havin' men talking about an issue that largely involves that gender can't really be a huge thing?

And yet, strangely enough, there are men who are all over threads regarding women's issues. I think the common factor is the men in question, not the thread titles or subjects.

 

[das_nut]

Das-nut, in response to your query as to why I started this thread:

I happened across the article as I was perusing my regular news sites. I had always taken your harping on the "boy crisis" in education at face value, without looking at any source material, because I had always thought that you had a degree of intellectual integrity, whether or not I agreed with you on an issue. So I guess I posted the article because I found it interesting. I also wondered about the extent of my own gullibility, and I now have more information with respect to that.

It does seem that you do tend to wander off the topic.

We could discuss the topic though, and the conclusions some people are drawing.

Lets try the abstract again:

So if group A does better than group B, but a subset of group B matches the performance of group A, does this mean everything is okay?

 

[FortyTwo]

No, it doesn't make it all better, but I find it more useful to accurately define the problem first.

You didn't define the problem, you widened it. This thread is mostly about how some men tend to take offense to the idea of women wanting equality in education and as a result complaining about problems that they don't have. At least, that's how I interpreted it, and FWIW exactly what this last batch of posts proves.

Well, you brought up the idea of genders suppressing each other. I was pointing out that it was not as simple as that.

But it is! In the context we're discussing it's absolutely as simple as that.

Sure most of the people (but not all) fall under biological definitions of "male" or "female". But just because we can easily divide (most) people into two groups does not make conclusions based on such a distinction necessarily meaningful.

As I said above: it absolutely does. The majority of people do identify as part of either gender in the gender binary. That's a fact, and whether it's due to social oppression or nature or a mix of the both has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Whoopsie, I should have said "directed acyclic graph". The "a" is important.

Directed cyclic graph makes very little sense.

And I'm just using DAG as shorthand for: "When mapping the relationship between groups of society, where that mapping is based on real or perceived advantages, there's a lack of a strict global hierarchy, at least when viewed from the perspective of each group we're mapping relationships from. Or to put it another way (and oversimplifying it): Group A may believe they are better off than Group B, while Group B may think they are better off than Group C, and group C may think they are better off than Group A (which is actually a directed cyclic graph )."

Yeah, still pretentious. Perhaps you could try metaphorically comparing it to Boolean Logic next?

Academically, males seem to be behind. Which would be odd, considering that, according to you, socially men are favored in the modern education system.

Seems like a flaw in the system.

Socially, yes, men are favored. I don't think either of the binary genders are favored academically. The information is pretty much presented as is.

Of course, it's not the only flaw in the educational system. We have underperforming groups, and from a social perspective, it doesn't benefit us as a society.

Once again, you're widening the scope here to try and tackle more than the argument at hand. Being profound will get your viewpoint nowhere.

I'm not sure if this is the case. MLP became a tad upset with me because I interpreted her comment as not applying strictly to men's gains in education.

MLP has more reasons to be a tad upset with you than that!

 

[FortyTwo]

Isn't this the very kind of generalization that you condemn?

No. I'm talking about a very specific group whose antics never cease to disappoint the rational people who encounter them.

 

[Envy]

No. I'm talking about a very specific group whose antics never cease to disappoint the rational people who encounter them.

So you don't think that all MRA are of that kind?

 

[das_nut]

You didn't define the problem, you widened it. This thread is mostly about how some men tend to take offense to the idea of women wanting equality in education and as a result complaining about problems that they don't have.

Yet when the statistics in education are compared, women have equality - they actually have the advantage. It's only when the flawed comparison of a subset of men compared to all women that the groups equalize.

But obviously, compared to a whole, one gender is doing worse. But that oversimplifies the problem as well - what we need to do is "widen" it, as distasteful as that seems. When demographics are broken down, we'd see groups falling behind - certain racial groups doing worse, those who are poor doing worse, etc. I'd also advocate attacking the stereotypes that lead to certain groups undervaluing academic achievement. (This also plays in reverse as well - women sports at schools are notoriously undervalued, which is a shame.)

It's a failure of our educational system, and that has grave results for our society - when certain groups have an arbitrary advantage in education, it means that individuals are not reaching their full potential.

 

[FortyTwo]

So you don't think that all MRA are of that kind?

No, I do. I think it's a flimsy movement based on a poor imitation of actual concerns from minority groups which are not given actual equality under the law.

Sort-of a jealous reaction. Like, "why can't there be a straight pride day?" Because straight people are not discriminated against under the law for being straight. The same logic applies to MRA.

 

[ledboots]

No, I do. I think it's a flimsy movement based on a poor imitation of actual concerns from minority groups which are not given actual equality under the law.

Sort-of a jealous reaction. Like, "why can't there be a straight pride day?" Because straight people are not discriminated against under the law for being straight. The same logic applies to MRA.

And of course the old "Black people are racist too."