Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Democratic Party has lost its mind — and its soul

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    I have to say that Maxx actually has a fair point here, SST; although I think that both of you operate with somewhat skewed timelines.
    Well, the timeline is important to the question....


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Before the sixties, higher education was an institution for training tomorrow's administrative elites.
    Schools were authoritarian in the sense of being meritocratic, students had to prove their worth, or they would not advance.
    A classical bourgeois wheat-and-chaff separator. It's the kind of school parodied in e.g. Pink FLoyd's "The Wall".

    Then came Summerhill, 1968, student rebellion, hippies ... where the next generation strove to throw off the yoke of the Establishment, in all its guises.
    And then these people matured, and those who weren't too stoned, got jobs, amongst others as teachers, but also, and more importantly,
    in that part of the educational apparatus that runs schools, writes and approves schoolbooks, determines curricula, defines "pedagogy" and "education".

    This became a university discipline, and at least hereabouts, it is dominated by women. And these women are, if not feminists - although many are -still rather gynocentric.
    There is a huge bureaucracy that supports national educational institutions, and this is where the changes Maxx talks about are done.
    Again, fair enough, but all you've really done is demonstrate that more women got into the system.

    You are also forgetting the massive influx of the middle class into college after WWII, which drastically expanded access to college, and changed the demographics wildly. This was the event that sparked the change from the old traditional schooling methods to the modern, liberal methods of the 1960s.... which are now being tossed out just as fast as they can.


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Of course schools feel the pinch of USA around 1970 stopping investing in and upgrading, or even only maintaining, infrastructure, including schools, in order to save taxes.
    One of the consequences is the devaluation of status for teachers, which means the elimination of men from the system.
    That's what the ... well, non-left has caused. An eroding financial framework. But inside this framework, damage is done by educators themselves.
    And the elimination of men both from the schools and from the depts. of education played into their hands.
    You know, it's funny, because I am aware of this reputation, but....

    Around here, about half of teachers are still men; the superintendent of schools? A man. Most of the school principles? Men. And it's never been any different.

    Yet, Tennessee, and the "Red" states in general, have the worst education systems in the country, despite the fact that the federal government isn't allowed to require states to follow any kind of curriculum. They have complete control.

    But again, they haven't gotten worse; yes, the funding was cut and the bureaucracy was increased, but the quality DIDN'T CHANGE! Doesn't that suggest that, in fact, our educators have been busting their asses trying to take care of our children while our government does everything in its power to get in their way?


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    I don't care if you want to label gynocentrism or even feminism as conservative or liberal or progressive or whatever, beyond the label there were specific things happening, like Maxx points out,
    like grading by "behavior" instead of by exams, and all kinds of pedagogics strategies which all favoured girls' way of learning over boys' way of learning.
    So, why dio we keep having to have the conversation where I say that I don't think that feminism is wedded to either liberalism or conservatism? Why is it not self-evident that feminism is out for itself and doesn't give a crap about anything else?

    And since women currently occupy a privileged status in society, feminism is currently trying to maintain the status quo; ergo, the current incarnation of feminism is.... conservative.


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Hereabouts they are quite open about the maxim that school should not impart knowledge, but attitudes, i.e. moral training as opposed to theoretical or practical knowledge.
    And in order to not create an underclass of losers, they have decided that everyone should pass, such that all resources are spent on keeping the stragglers within the herd,
    while above average students sit around, slowly going silly with boredom.
    I can't speak to your educational system, but let me tell you about ours:

    Educators in the United States generally prefer Growth metrics; conservatives like proficiency metrics, since it tries to get students competent to do a job, but doesn't give them more information than they "need."

    The difference is that Proficiency is based on competence and a standard deviation from the mean for the expected age group to achieve it, which means that top performing students get no attention, since they are already proficient, nor do low achieving students, since they will never be proficient, while Growth would look at each individual students progress from year-to-year, encouraging teachers to work with all of the students.


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    One result of this - common all over the West - is not only that more women receive education,, but more boys are dropping out, at all levels.
    It may well be that more people are graduating, and it may well be that it is a natural result of the bell curve that women should end up being a majority,
    but it may also well be that the percentage of boys getting an education is declining. I don't have any figures for that, but if it is the case, it should be worrying.
    Again, this is no more surprising than that only men went to college when it was very rare to do so.

    Men have a flatter IQ curve than women; fewer men in the middle, fewer women at either end. When only the very tail of the bell curve got to go to college, it was almost entirely men; as women were allowed to go to college (and it became generally more common), you got back into the middle part of the curve, where women might only be slightly above men... but that part of the curve is bigger! I don't have any problem at all believing that a 60/40 split in favor of women is the natural result of that situation.

    The solution, of course, is to provide scholarships for vocational schools; we have a dire shortage of plumbers in this country.


    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    I'm not well enough versed in US affairs to be able to tell whether your personal experiences really say something general, but I'm usually skeptic wrt. arguments that are bolstered
    by anecdotes, not because they are not true, but because they contribute such a minuscule sample of empirical data that caution is advised in drawing too far-reaching conclusions from it.
    I assume the scientist in you agrees, at least when it comes to the principle.

    M
    Sure; that's why I back things up with statistics when I can, although the scientist in me is also leery of how statistics can be manipulated.

    That's all we've got, though: Anecdotes and statistics.

    My overriding point is that, in the USA, schools are under local control. For all of the nonsense about "Common Core," 8 states chose not to accept it; they have that option.

    So how in the thousand hells of every religion on Earth did feminists manage to infiltrate the Texas State Board of Education, the notoriously conservative large-state group buyer of textbooks that dictates to publishing houses what to put in the books, which sways education all over the country?

    There is a specific group with a specific political bias with a known track record and the influence and power to make things happen. No one has been able to produce any such thing to show the influence of feminism on education. The connection has not been made.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
      OK; let's just skip over that entire argument and proceed to the next step:

      So what?

      The constitution doesn't prevent public schools from professing "ideology," just religion.
      So what if public schools are pushing an ideology provided it's YOURS, right?

      You are a cartoon character.

      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post

      The way you call everything you don't like "liberal?"

      At least I can come up with a coherent definition that covers everything that I label "conservative."
      The trouble my friend is that the things you label as 'conservative' are things already labeled as 'progressive' by everyone else on the planet (INCLUDING THE PEOPLE DOING THEM).



      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
      No, I admitted that feminists began projects to show that girls were discriminated against in schools. I never admitted that they had any kind of influence, at all.
      PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THIS ISSUE.

      Forget about your ill-will towards me personally or anyone else and PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF on this matter.

      For your sake and order for you to be a more useful and effective advocate for men's and boy's rights in whatever capacity.

      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
      I argue that conservatives are to blame for many of the changes that have negatively affected boys in education, such as increased use of the criminal justice system to address behavior problems and the psychiatric field pushing pharmaceutical cures to nonexistent problems.
      How the fuck is the medication of boys for non-existent problems being spearheaded by 'conservatives'.

      The people who push all of this crap and therapy culture generally are SECULAR-PROGRESSIVE-LIBERALS. They use these labels to describe themselves. Others use these labels to describe them. It's what they are.

      No one thinks these people are 'conservatives'....ACCEPT YOU.


      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
      My faculty advisor was married to the head of the women's studies department; I once had an hour long discussion with her about female genital mutilation versus circumcision, and once she realized that I felt strongly about it, she changed her mind and agreed that it should be illegal in both cases.
      She was a very reasonable person.
      So you persuaded someone who already supports big government overreach into religious traditions and practices of private citizens to add something else to the government ledger?

      What's that supposed to prove exactly?

      For the record I don't agree that circumcision is remotely comparable to FGM, I think so called MRAs that make that argument harm the cause of men and boys rights by drawing an absurd and erroneous comparison that gives our opponents ammunition with which to dismiss all the other far more relevant reasonable and logical and valid mens and boys rights concerns with the same brush.

      But yeah. Apart from that, great point well made.
      Last edited by Maxx; 02-16-2017, 05:03 PM.
      "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
        Around here, about half of teachers are still men; the superintendent of schools? A man. Most of the school principles? Men. And it's never been any different
        That has literally NOTHING to do with anything. The education systems of the western world are SYSTEMICALLY FEMINIST and SYSTEMICALLY PROGRESSIVE.

        That means the majority of MALES and FEMALES that come out of them are FEMINIST and PROGRESSIVE.

        Because that's what you HAVE to be to GRADUATE and to QUALIFY.

        And that means they continue to support and uphold the FEMINIST and PROGRESSIVE and UNIONIZED (etcetc) SYSTEMS and IDEOLOGICAL REMITS and STRUCTURES presently in place.

        MAINTAINING/SUPPORTING A PROGRESSIVE STATUS QUO IS PROGRESSIVE IT'S NOT CONSERVATIVE.

        Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
        Men have a flatter IQ curve than women; fewer men in the middle, fewer women at either end. When only the very tail of the bell curve got to go to college, it was almost entirely men; as women were allowed to go to college (and it became generally more common), you got back into the middle part of the curve, where women might only be slightly above men... but that part of the curve is bigger! I don't have any problem at all believing that a 60/40 split in favor of women is the natural result of that situation.
        IQ is bullshit.
        Last edited by Maxx; 02-16-2017, 05:00 PM.
        "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
          I've been asking you for 2 pages now to show me any such thing, and you can't do it.
          What exactly I am supposed to do here? Give you evidence of progressives doing progressive shit in the name of a coherent established and universally understood progressive central ideology....so you can just keep ranting on and on about how it's all secretly 'conservative' just because you say it is?
          Last edited by Maxx; 02-17-2017, 01:00 AM.
          "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Maxx View Post
            That has literally NOTHING to do with anything. The education systems of the western world are SYSTEMICALLY FEMINIST and SYSTEMICALLY PROGRESSIVE.

            That means the majority of MALES and FEMALES that come out of them are FEMINIST and PROGRESSIVE.

            Because that's what you HAVE to be to GRADUATE and to QUALIFY.

            And that means they continue to support and uphold the FEMINIST and PROGRESSIVE and UNIONIZED (etcetc) SYSTEMS and IDEOLOGICAL REMITS and STRUCTURES presently in place.

            MAINTAINING/SUPPORTING A PROGRESSIVE STATUS QUO IS PROGRESSIVE IT'S NOT CONSERVATIVE.



            IQ is bullshit.
            and apparently, women now are the largest demographic holder of Student Debt.

            Damn Patriarchy again!
            "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

            And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

            "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
            "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

            "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Maxx View Post
              IQ is bullshit.

              IQ isnt bullshit.
              whats bullshit is trying to get a co-relation between IQ and schooling.

              IQ does not measure studiousness it measures intelligence quotient. or deductive reasoning... nothing to do with school whatsoever.
              Originally posted by MatrixTransform
              where were you before you put yourself last?
              Originally posted by TheNarrator
              Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheNarrator View Post
                IQ isnt bullshit.
                whats bullshit is trying to get a co-relation between IQ and schooling.

                IQ does not measure studiousness it measures intelligence quotient. or deductive reasoning... nothing to do with school whatsoever.
                That's what I meant.
                "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Maxx View Post
                  That's what I meant.
                  glad to hear it. i wondered what you meant i just knew what i'd a meant!
                  Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                  where were you before you put yourself last?
                  Originally posted by TheNarrator
                  Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                    Oh, wait, you actually bothered to link to an article defending Betsy DeVos? WTF Mr. E? Did you see her confirmation hearings?!



                    She doesn't know the first fucking thing about education! Her ONLY goal is to destroy public education in this country!

                    And since, no matter what nonsense she spews about charter schools or vouchers, most kids aren't getting them, the result will be to create a permanent underclass of uneducated serfs.

                    If there was one candidate that Trump put forward who deserved to be tossed out on her ass, Devos was it.
                    I'm a simple man, Though in the 7th grade I was tested at a university level for English and several other disciplines. Growth vs Proficiency: Shleprock has advocated growth for years and how has that worked out for him and his students? Being a military man, every task learned is based on proficiency, pass or fail. The fact is, it is the best education system in our Nation; our military's ability to train to proficiency peoples from all walks of life and their challenges.

                    My point here is not what educators have been debating in their system; we know it has failed too many. My point is this hook, if you will, is of no consequence; parents and children should decide what works for them. Given choices, they can determine which is best and which curriculum leads to their thriving. Be it a Performance standard, or a growth standard. I'd argue the latter is what has led to our problems. This is why this woman was nominated. To think outside the box.

                    This whole debate from the Dems is about their constituents, which are the massive teacher's unions who support them and provide them money. Look up California and their recent statewide meetings over the last few years, it will illuminate what they are about.
                    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                    AVFM Mission Statement
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                      Again, fair enough, but all you've really done is demonstrate that more women got into the system.
                      You are also forgetting the massive influx of the middle class into college after WWII, which drastically expanded access to college, and changed the demographics wildly. This was the event that sparked the change from the old traditional schooling methods to the modern, liberal methods of the 1960s.... which are now being tossed out just as fast as they can.
                      Well, showing that more women got into the system is a non-negligible fact on which to construct the argument, innit?
                      And I'm not forgetting anything, I just did not mention it. Cartesian approach, break up into discrete problems, one at a time, and all that.
                      But now that it has been mentioned, this widening of the student body (and this is _not_ 'intellectual fat shaming') was of course an important motivator for change.
                      With uni ed being reserved for the sharp end of the IQ wedge, of course the approach to teaching and curriculum reflected students' capacity for abstract matters.
                      Another factor that pushes in the same direction.

                      You know, it's funny, because I am aware of this reputation, but....
                      Around here, about half of teachers are still men; the superintendent of schools? A man. Most of the school principles? Men. And it's never been any different.
                      Well, if you say so. I don't know that much US statistics.
                      The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case.
                      It is supposedly total in kinderfarten and the lower grades, but perhaps the female listing is less prononced the higher up the ladder one goes.
                      This is an issue that can be simply solved, if anyone out there has access to relevant numbers or statistics.

                      Doesn't that suggest that, in fact, our educators have been busting their asses trying to take care of our children while our government does everything in its power to get in their way?
                      Yes, but the issue is not really Teacher vs The State as such, but the conditions boys face in school today.
                      And I'm not certain that the quality of education for boys has not decreased in quality.
                      There is a high drop-out rate, and not only in the US - which should eliminate most aspects of the politics discussion - but all over the West, including here, this dangerous nest of red vipery.
                      A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)

                      So, why dio we keep having to have the conversation where I say that I don't think that feminism is wedded to either liberalism or conservatism?
                      It's a sidetrack, between us two. That is more a red-basher's subject.

                      And since women currently occupy a privileged status in society, feminism is currently trying to maintain the status quo; ergo, the current incarnation of feminism is.... conservative.
                      Ooowwwh .... bad, bad SST .... playing silly semantics games ....
                      Yes, "retaining the status quo" is of course the dictionary definition of the primary meaning of the word, but the minutest scruple of pragmatics suffices to see that this is not what people use the term for.
                      As a category of political science or even sociology, it is a label for the establishment of the political right,
                      To profess ignorance here is ingenious; so clever it's stupid.
                      You risk making Matrix right ...
                      Aaaaaand you know this.

                      Educators in the United States generally prefer Growth metrics; conservatives like proficiency metrics, since it tries to get students competent to do a job, but doesn't give them more information than they "need."
                      The difference is that Proficiency is based on competence and a standard deviation from the mean for the expected age group to achieve it, which means that top performing students get no attention, since they are already proficient, nor do low achieving students, since they will never be proficient, while Growth would look at each individual students progress from year-to-year, encouraging teachers to work with all of the students.
                      Terminology-wise this appears to be one these US particularities; but the skeleton is familiar:
                      Do we want to educate humans, or tiny cogwheels for the big machine? Teach them how to think, or what to think?
                      Lke must burning issues, IMO these are false oppositions, like "nature or nurture?", when in reality you can't have one without the other, they can only be separated violently, the grow together, dependent on each other, etc. etc.

                      I don't have any problem at all believing that a 60/40 split in favor of women is the natural result of that situation.
                      Yes ... that was what I was agreeing to in my previous.
                      But is "The solution, of course, is to provide scholarships for vocational schools; we have a dire shortage of plumbers in this country" the reply to my "the percentage of boys getting an education may be declining",
                      or did you just overlook that last sentence?

                      That's all we've got, though: Anecdotes and statistics.
                      I'd be willing to do without the anecdotes, even, and just stick with the facts.

                      So how in the thousand hells of every religion on Earth did feminists manage to infiltrate the Texas State Board of Education, the notoriously conservative large-state group buyer of textbooks that dictates to publishing houses what to put in the books, which sways education all over the country? There is a specific group with a specific political bias with a known track record and the influence and power to make things happen. No one has been able to produce any such thing to show the influence of feminism on education. The connection has not been made.
                      Isn't that at the core of the mystery we here at AVfM are trying to unravel?
                      Women hold little formal power, yet manage to turn e.g. extremely conservative - in the dictionary definition - institutions like the courts to their advantage, and similarly on many other social sectors.
                      There's no need for them to elect a Female Feminist Imperatrix to dictate development, it seems to seep in like rainwater into a sleeping bag.
                      My guess is gynocentrism, in some guise; but that is so vague as to be useless, until we can identify the actual processes at work.

                      But, really .... I know you like a good polemic, but I'd hate to see you defend a particular corner just because that's where you entered the ring. How about once more, from the top:
                      In your view, the education sector has no gender problems, merely funding problems, is that a more or less correct summary?
                      I know it's rather brief, but in general, with the relevant reservations, is that your view?

                      The aim of the question os to focus on gender problems, if any. I'll grant you all the rest.
                      If you see any, let's focus on that.

                      It is, of course, moot if you do not see any kind og gender bias in education.
                      That is a POV which few here share. Are we wrong? Where did we go wrong?

                      M

                      M

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        I'm a simple man, Though in the 7th grade I was tested at a university level for English and several other disciplines. Growth vs Proficiency: Shleprock has advocated growth for years and how has that worked out for him and his students?
                        Yea, he's ADVOCATED for it, but it hasn't happened. The majority conservative members of congress consistently override him.



                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        Being a military man, every task learned is based on proficiency, pass or fail. The fact is, it is the best education system in our Nation; our military's ability to train to proficiency peoples from all walks of life and their challenges.
                        Sure, because their need is direct and simple, and they don't care about the ones they kick out; you need people who can follow orders and take apart a rifle, and not much else. That's good for soldiers and factory workers.

                        You can't train artists that way; you can't train writers that way; you can't train scientists or entrepreneurs or any other field that requires creativity or critical thinking.

                        And what about the ones who fall through the cracks? The high and low performers who get ignored by proficiency metrics? You are abandoning both the most useful (high performers) and most in need (low performers) students.


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        My point here is not what educators have been debating in their system; we know it has failed too many.
                        Um, how do we know that? Again, test scores haven't dropped, and graduation rates have gone up. What's the problem?


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        My point is this hook, if you will, is of no consequence; parents and children should decide what works for them.
                        Yes, because parents and children are natural experts in the field of education...?!


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        Given choices, they can determine which is best and which curriculum leads to their thriving.
                        O-K, so why is the entire conservative education platform based around removing choices? These kids have one choice, and you're trying to take it away!


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        Be it a Performance standard, or a growth standard. I'd argue the latter is what has led to our problems.
                        What problems?!


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        This is why this woman was nominated. To think outside the box.
                        This woman was elected because she contributed millions of dollars to the GOP and her corporation represents the ideal conservative plan for public education: To get rid of it.

                        Charter schools are, across the board, the worst schools in the country. Only about 15% of student performance can even be linked to the school they attend, but charter schools get to cherry-pick the very best students, and then only manage to achieve mediocre results. They are taking the best and the brightest and turning them into the average.


                        Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                        This whole debate from the Dems is about their constituents, which are the massive teacher's unions who support them and provide them money. Look up California and their recent statewide meetings over the last few years, it will illuminate what they are about.
                        California? The state which has chronically underfunded schools because of their 2/3 majority rule in the state house, which allows the 40% conservative bloc to kill anything that might help their education system? That California?

                        How about Massachusetts? How about New Jersey? How about Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and Minnesota? They have the best schools in the country; they have the highest per student spending in the country; they are among the most liberal states in the country. The worst schools tend to be the least well funded (exception: Washington, D.C., but again, congress interferes with them) and are overwhelmingly conservative.

                        "Correlation does not imply causation, but it does nod its head and wink suggestively."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I have a friend who teaches middle school and she said that one of the fundamental problems with public education today isn't that the schools are without money, or losing programs, etc...it's that many parents don't seem to care about their kids' education. She will schedule parent-teacher conferences, and half the parents don't show. (She hears other teachers complaining about the same issue)

                          The parents seem very busy with their dating/sex lives to be bothered with the fact that they have kids to raise. She sees it all the time, mom has a different boyfriend every other month, and it affects the kid's performance in school. Dad is off doing the same thing. So, the government can throw money at the educational system, but if many kids are going home to parents who aren't around, or just don't care about their kids...then, the kids will continue to suffer. It's one of the biggest differences if you compare the US with say, Japan. Granted, there's a lot of pressure in Japan for kids to get good grades, so much so, some are committing suicide. But, the parents take a leading role in their kids' education. I think you see more concerned parents if the kids are in honors classes according to my teacher friend, or if they're going to private school.

                          It's not the government's job to raise people's kids and get them a good education. It's the parents' jobs, and the kids themselves have to care, too.
                          Last edited by Deidre; 02-17-2017, 03:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Well, showing that more women got into the system is a non-negligible fact on which to construct the argument, innit?
                            And I'm not forgetting anything, I just did not mention it. Cartesian approach, break up into discrete problems, one at a time, and all that.
                            But now that it has been mentioned, this widening of the student body (and this is _not_ 'intellectual fat shaming') was of course an important motivator for change.
                            With uni ed being reserved for the sharp end of the IQ wedge, of course the approach to teaching and curriculum reflected students' capacity for abstract matters.
                            Another factor that pushes in the same direction.
                            My point was that you cannot separate the influx of women and the influx of middle class men into the ranks of the college educated because it happened at roughly the same time, which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish which had what effect.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Well, if you say so. I don't know that much US statistics.
                            The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case.
                            It is supposedly total in kinderfarten and the lower grades, but perhaps the female listing is less prononced the higher up the ladder one goes.
                            This is an issue that can be simply solved, if anyone out there has access to relevant numbers or statistics.
                            Elementary school is almost entirely female. High schools have 42% male teachers. College professors are majority male. 20% of school superintendents are female, and 52% of school principals (although elementary schools tend to be smaller, so there are more of them...).

                            I don't think that there is a good argument to be made from those statistics


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Yes, but the issue is not really Teacher vs The State as such, but the conditions boys face in school today.
                            Um, it is when the state is the party responsible for those conditions.

                            Teachers weren't the ones asking for the police to come arrest students for minor behavior infractions; that was the government insisting on stationing police in our schools. Teachers weren't responsible for the "Zero Tolerance" policy, that was "tough on crime" conservative politicians ramming it through.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            And I'm not certain that the quality of education for boys has not decreased in quality.
                            Test scores haven't budged and the graduation rate has gone up.

                            Now, just the idea of only using test scores to measure education was an idiot thing to do, but that was, again, back in the 1980s, and a fundamentally conservative idea, specifically aimed at impeding the ability of educators to teach critical thinking skills.

                            But that has affected both boys and girls.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            There is a high drop-out rate, and not only in the US - which should eliminate most aspects of the politics discussion - but all over the West, including here, this dangerous nest of red vipery.
                            A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)
                            Well, our graduation rate has gone up, and most of Europe has a higher rate, so...?

                            http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....-of-the-world/


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Ooowwwh .... bad, bad SST .... playing silly semantics games ....
                            Yes, "retaining the status quo" is of course the dictionary definition of the primary meaning of the word, but the minutest scruple of pragmatics suffices to see that this is not what people use the term for.
                            As a category of political science or even sociology, it is a label for the establishment of the political right,
                            To profess ignorance here is ingenious; so clever it's stupid.
                            You risk making Matrix right ...
                            Aaaaaand you know this.
                            And if it were a matter of pure tradition, I might agree, but I didn't say tradition, did I? I said, "Status Quo," as in, "the people who are currently (like, just got there) at the top want to set things up so that it stays that way," and that IS the genuine heart of ALL political conservatism, and you deny it only at the cost of a very sarcastic reply


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Terminology-wise this appears to be one these US particularities; but the skeleton is familiar:
                            Do we want to educate humans, or tiny cogwheels for the big machine? Teach them how to think, or what to think?
                            Lke must burning issues, IMO these are false oppositions, like "nature or nurture?", when in reality you can't have one without the other, they can only be separated violently, the grow together, dependent on each other, etc. etc.
                            Right, but as I mentioned, just the act of connecting funding to standardized tests eliminated an entire subject area from our education system! It's not that critical thinking skills don't develop while learning other things, it's that critical thinking is a very subtle concept, and if it doesn't get clearly taught with the same repetition as other subjects, it doesn't develop nearly as well.

                            And, of course, it is the primary skill that comes to mind from a conservative viewpoint under the heading of, "dangerous for little people to know."


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Yes ... that was what I was agreeing to in my previous.
                            But is "The solution, of course, is to provide scholarships for vocational schools; we have a dire shortage of plumbers in this country" the reply to my "the percentage of boys getting an education may be declining",
                            or did you just overlook that last sentence?
                            No, I ignored it, because it is patently false. More people than ever go to college, overall, such that even the slow decline in the percentage of college students that are male is lower than the growth rate. I.e. more males are going to college than ever before.

                            To be fair, though, whether or not that constitutes them "getting an education" is subject to debate, as our colleges are being dumbed-down and ideologically-purified (and not by liberals).

                            Which is why I say we need more scholarships to trade schools; they actually teach something, and the jobs are available, decently-paying, and ideally suited to common male strengths.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            I'd be willing to do without the anecdotes, even, and just stick with the facts.
                            Then how do you determine the effects?


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            Isn't that at the core of the mystery we here at AVfM are trying to unravel?
                            Women hold little formal power, yet manage to turn e.g. extremely conservative - in the dictionary definition - institutions like the courts to their advantage, and similarly on many other social sectors.
                            There's no need for them to elect a Female Feminist Imperatrix to dictate development, it seems to seep in like rainwater into a sleeping bag.
                            My guess is gynocentrism, in some guise; but that is so vague as to be useless, until we can identify the actual processes at work.
                            ....and here's another conversation we've only had 5 times. Let me try it a different way:

                            The Poisoned Chalice.

                            Let's say you are a clever conservative politician; change is coming, it is inevitable, but in your opinion, misguided, and once it happens, you know that disaster will ensue and everyone will regret it and want things back the way they were. Why not just make that all happen faster and get it over with? Make the change happen, but intentionally take it so far that it causes problems and incites backlash.

                            And heck, if you're going to go through that much trouble, you might as well make some political capital out of it, so find someone who can profit out of the situation and dun them for campaign donations. Witness our private prison industry.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            But, really .... I know you like a good polemic, but I'd hate to see you defend a particular corner just because that's where you entered the ring.
                            Um, you do understand that this entire conversation has been a change in my view, right? The education gap was one of my concerns, I just happened to have done some research lately because of the DeVos issue.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            How about once more, from the top:
                            In your view, the education sector has no gender problems, merely funding problems, is that a more or less correct summary?
                            I know it's rather brief, but in general, with the relevant reservations, is that your view?
                            Almost; the involvement of the criminal justice system into our schools overwhelmingly affects boys, but again, that's not coming FROM the education sector, it just happens to be involved in it.


                            Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                            The aim of the question os to focus on gender problems, if any. I'll grant you all the rest.
                            If you see any, let's focus on that.

                            It is, of course, moot if you do not see any kind og gender bias in education.
                            That is a POV which few here share. Are we wrong? Where did we go wrong?

                            M

                            M
                            You went wrong the same way many feminists do: You saw a gender disparity and lept to the conclusion that there was some kind of nefarious plot behind it, when in fact it is just a natural consequence of the current state of affairs.

                            Now, there is an argument to be made that any gender disparity warrants action, regardless of the reasons for it.... but that would apply to such things as the wage gap, as well.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                              I have a friend who teaches middle school and she said that one of the fundamental problems with public education today isn't that the schools are without money, or losing programs, etc...it's that many parents don't seem to care about their kids' education. She will schedule parent-teacher conferences, and half the parents don't show. (She hears other teachers complaining about the same issue)
                              That's interesting, although it makes me wonder how many of those parents are both working full time jobs?


                              Originally posted by Deidre View Post
                              The parents seem very busy with their dating/sex lives to be bothered with the fact that they have kids to raise. She sees it all the time, mom has a different boyfriend every other month, and it affects the kid's performance in school. Dad is off doing the same thing. So, the government can throw money at the educational system, but if many kids are going home to parents who aren't around, or just don't care about their kids...then, the kids will continue to suffer. It's one of the biggest differences if you compare the US with say, Japan. Granted, there's a lot of pressure in Japan for kids to get good grades, so much so, some are committing suicide. But, the parents take a leading role in their kids' education. I think you see more concerned parents if the kids are in honors classes according to my teacher friend, or if they're going to private school.

                              It's not the government's job to raise people's kids and get them a good education. It's the parents' jobs, and the kids themselves have to care, too.
                              Well, we do have twice Japan's divorce rate...

                              But how do you fix any of that? "It's not the government's job;" then whose is it?

                              I feel the same way about that comment that I do when I hear it at work: "That's not my job." That's lazy.

                              And where does it lead to? You get Brazil, where special police units patrol the streets of Rio de Janeiro killing feral children.

                              http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...1013-0044.html

                              They don't give numbers, but it looks like they kill about 2,000 children (under 12) each year in summary executions in the street.

                              But hey, thank God abortion is mostly illegal and really hard to get in Brazil, huh? >:|

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                                .
                                The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case
                                The female domination especially in early years is a major problem but it's the tip of a wider iceberg. Both male and female teachers at all levels are being taught to identify many of the natural NORMAL and TYPICAL ways in which boys and men develop and learn as a pathology to be systematically targeted.

                                Now take the male desire to 'pull things apart'.

                                That CAN result in a boy who 'breaks stuff' but it's also the seed from which experimentation and innovation and many other great traits and skills grows.

                                Women teachers are gonna be naturally less inclined to identify or understand that spark, because to put it bluntly most women don't tend to have it.

                                It's a male thing. It's TYPICAL of male. A TYPICAL in females.

                                That doesn't mean a male teacher who has come through the same system as his female counter part is going to be any more predisposed to recognize and nurture (instead of crushing) a spark of male potential like that just because he's male himself.

                                The SYSTEM is teaching teachers (male and female) that boys who challenge things need to have that tendency punished out of them, boys who pull things apart with their hands need to be conditioned to STOP IT. Boys of refuse to take what's given to them at face value and question everything need to be trained and medicated and punished until they STOP.

                                In short they are being taught to systematically crush the potential of boys and men at every turn. It's a vicious and tragic cycle. The more of a boy's natural learning tendencies are misdiagnosed as a pathology (by teachers operating on the basis of flawed feminist ideological indoctrination that forms a core part of their training) the more the boy is punished the more he's punished the more he acts out.

                                The more he acts out the more extremely and drastically the system moves against him.

                                Eventually medicating him with doses of powerful psycho active drugs that PERMANENTLY damage his developing brain.

                                At which point he becomes a CASUALTY of feminist and progressive education reform that feminists and progressives then go head and use as a statistic in support of more of same shit that fucked the poor boy up in the first place.

                                Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                                .
                                A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)
                                Exactly this. The common denominator is feminist ideology and doctrine.

                                As usual they employ staggering double standards. On one hand they argue that there ARE female-specific ways of learning and they modify education at all levels to better accommodate them...because 'equality'.

                                But on the flip side when education system where the balanced is tipped too far one way (i.e ALL of them in the WEST) start failing men and boys these same people BLAME THE BOYS THEMSELVES.

                                And sadistically start sanctioning the mass medication and punishment of them.
                                "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X