Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[TheWoodenSlug]

Exactly. If people want a discussion on boys education, lets have it.

I have two young boys so it is something I feel is important and would be very happy to share my observations and discuss the matter. But if the discussions are going to revolve around articles about thermostats, a poster that may or may not have appeared at an American university or something that an obscure diversity officer from a university in the UK may have said, it is clear people do not want to discuss genuine issues impacting on men's welfare.

There was an article in yesterday's Herald Sun* by Rita Panahi** which suggested that a large factor in girls out-performing boys in education is the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary schools. I think it was said that as little as 20% of primary school teachers are men. She argued, among other things, that a lot of young boys lack a male role model at home, especially given that there are so many single parent homes in Australia (the vast majority of which has the children living with the mother), and that this could be somewhat provided by a male teacher. It was also suggested that some of the reasons for the disparity between male and female primary school teachers were that teaching children is still seen as a woman's job and that men feel that they are viewed with suspicion (i.e. as a paedophile) when working with children.

A few questions that spring to mind:

• Do you agree that the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary school, may contribute to boys having less success than girls at school?
• What do you think should/can be done to rectify this? Quota system? Extra perks for male teachers? Etc.
• Do you think teacher's should be expected to provide a role model figure to children if they're unable to get it at home? Or is this outside of what should be expected from them?
  
• Is enough being done to change societies view of men that work with children i.e. to ensure that men feel comfortable to do so without feeling that they are treated with suspicion? I've read stories of this also occurring with single fathers e.g. when taking their children to the park etc.
• Should anything be done at all in that regard, or do you think the level of suspicion is warranted; or that it doesn't even really exist or is exaggerated?

* Yes, I know it was the Herald Sun!
** Yes, I know it was Rita Panahi!!

 

[romeohwho]

There are those in this forum that would rather make smartarse asides to each other and bring up silly things from other threads than address actual points. This includes the site admin who is willing to impose bans on people for having unpopular opinions. If calling that group "the cool gang" is enough to make you question whether I'm worth your time, then I reckon you're probably not worth mine.

Yep it would be good if there was a serious and earnest discussion on this thread but the likelihood of that happening is very limited. Mainly because, I might add, posters on the anti- fem side virtually never post links that have validity, never accept facts put in front of them, constantly reference nutjobs or extremists for their data. I am quite prepared to say that those on the 'pro-fem' side of the divide, not all-but many, have made a greater effort to engage in real discourse, or to post credible data, on the whole. But a discussion has to go both ways.
So now I just enjoy the craziness of the thread-its very entertaining if you can look at it like that.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I was thinking last night that the fall in boys' performance at school is probably more to do with the much lower levels of discipline that we have in schools now. Boys are generally more boisterous and harder to control in the classroom (I was a teacher for 6 years and make that claim pretty confidently). A few generations ago, most of the kids who had trouble staying focused in class would have been forced to focus under the threat of the cane. As a result, the kids at the lower end of the grades scale would achieve at a higher level than if they were allowed to muck around more.

Boys who are more naturally inclined to sit still in class and learn would still fare just as well as girls who did the same and I believe we still see boys well-represented at the highest levels of achievement. It's just that the average is dragged down by the kids who get away with doing the bare minimum right through school and aren't really punished in any meaningful way if they don't pay attention in class. These kids are more likely to be male than female.

I'm not suggesting that re-instating corporal punishment is the right thing, just that the decline in discipline is my prime suspect for why boys appear to be struggling.

Thanks, it is interesting to read the perspective of someone with classroom experience.

In my experience, as a parent actively involved in my children's education I would make the following observations about the boys who do not perform well at school:

• they are less likely than others to wear uniforms, instead wearing t-shirts with adult themed performers (eg when my eldest was in kindergarten he had classmates wearing Eminem tshirts - why anyone would let kid at the age of 5 is listening to Eminem beats me
• are more likely to have haircuts that would make them standout - rats tails etc, again from the age of 5-6
• are more likely to have lunchboxes full of packaged, highly processed foods
• are more likely to watch movies way beyond what is suitable for their age - again, I was talking to a mother of a boy who she says is a 'free spirit' about how they watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy at the age of 6. She has a daughter who was 8 and she didn't want her watching it.
• have parents who are not engaged in their education and make comments about boys being boys as an excuse for their behavior

I think so much of it comes down to parents, again, in my experience, the boys that do well at school, have actively engaged parents who do the basics yet essentials like reading to their children, ensuring they eat proper meals, and disciplining where appropriate.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

* Yes, I know it was the Herald Sun!
** Yes, I know it was Rita Panahi!!

I lol'd

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

TheWoodenSlug
Lack of male teachers is a problem, I don't think it is as big a problem as poor parenting, but a problem nonetheless. At my sons school (local public) there is one male teacher, out of around 12-15 teachers, the only other male is the Principal.

I think one answer to this would be to see some positive discrimination to deal with this discrepancy.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

....

I think so much of it comes down to parents, again, in my experience, the boys that do well at school, have actively engaged parents who do the basics yet essentials like reading to their children, ensuring they eat proper meals, and disciplining where appropriate.

How would that result in a disparity between the sexes, though? If a parent doesn't read to their sons, gives them bad haircuts, feeds them shit food and doesn't discipline them, wouldn't they treat their daughters the same? Or do you think parents have vastly different parenting styles for boys than girls (the Lord of the Rings comment would suggest this, to some degree)? Or that these factors (active involvement, types of food, discipline etc) are less likely to affect girls than boys?

P.S I agree with you that good/bad parenting is one of, if not the biggest factor in how children perform at school. Just not sure how it affects boys more so than girls in how they perform.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

How would that result in a disparity between the sexes, though? If a parent doesn't read to their sons, gives them bad haircuts, feeds them shit food and doesn't discipline them, wouldn't they treat their daughters the same? Or do you think parents have vastly different parenting styles for boys than girls (the Lord of the Rings comment would suggest this, to some degree)? Or that these factors (active involvement, types of food, discipline etc) are less likely to affect girls than boys?

See, that's the really interesting thing, I have seen the parents behaving completely differently with their daughters - it has really stunned me. I went along on a school excursion recently and there were two siblings, the boy out of uniform, the girl in uniform, with completely different lunches, and, completely different behaviors, it was like the parents had decided to conduct some sort of experiment.

 

[Gough]

I suspect when it comes to education we have to reassess traditional year levels. Comparing teenaged kids is so often like comparing apples to pears, and their capabilities at the same age vary so much. I think we need to let kids learn at their own pace, even if that means some can finish high school in four year, while it may take others six or seven years.

 

[romeohwho]

There was an article in yesterday's Herald Sun* by Rita Panahi** which suggested that a large factor in girls out-performing boys in education is the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary schools. I think it was said that as little as 20% of primary school teachers are men. She argued, among other things, that a lot of young boys lack a male role model at home, especially given that there are so many single parent homes in Australia (the vast majority of which has the children living with the mother), and that this could be somewhat provided by a male teacher. It was also suggested that some of the reasons for the disparity between male and female primary school teachers were that teaching children is still seen as a woman's job and that men feel that they are viewed with suspicion (i.e. as a paedophile) when working with children.

A few questions that spring to mind:

• Do you agree that the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary school, may contribute to boys having less success than girls at school?
• What do you think should/can be done to rectify this? Quota system? Extra perks for male teachers? Etc.
• Do you think teacher's should be expected to provide a role model figure to children if they're unable to get it at home? Or is this outside of what should be expected from them?
  
• Is enough being done to change societies view of men that work with children i.e. to ensure that men feel comfortable to do so without feeling that they are treated with suspicion? I've read stories of this also occurring with single fathers e.g. when taking their children to the park etc.
• Should anything be done at all in that regard, or do you think the level of suspicion is warranted; or that it doesn't even really exist or is exaggerated?

* Yes, I know it was the Herald Sun!
** Yes, I know it was Rita Panahi!!

Did Panahi provide studies to support her view re the teacher gender having an impact?-that would be handy to have. Unless its a definite factor, the other questions you raise don't matter. I'd be interested to see studies that can confirm that and apart from that, would certainly like to see more males teaching in primary schools. Would also like to see a study confirming the view that men don't go into primary teaching because of 'suspicion' of males. Or is it just not such a cool profession for a young man to consider? I don't believe suspicion is warranted.
My understanding is some of the factors are that girls mature earlier, they read more, are more conscientious, waste less time online, that boys are less engaged by the content and maybe the methodology,( maybe a male would make a difference there) that teachers do mark boys down simply because they are boys.
That girls tend to be more attentive, persistent, independent, flexible in the earlier years.
The achievement discrepancy definitely closes up a lot by Year 12-so what does that tell us? That boys have matured by then and do better as a consequence?

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

See, that's the really interesting thing, I have seen the parents behaving completely differently with their daughters - it has really stunned me. I went along on a school excursion recently and there were two siblings, the boy out of uniform, the girl in uniform, with completely different lunches, and, completely different behaviors, it was like the parents had decided to conduct some sort of experiment.

I find that really strange. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that parents give their children more choices these days than they used to - maybe boys are more likely to choose junk food, non-uniform clothes etc than girls? Just a stab in the dark because, as I said, I find that strange (though I'm speaking as someone who hasn't had kids).

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I suspect when it comes to education we have to reassess traditional year levels. Comparing teenaged kids is so often like comparing apples to pears, and their capabilities at the same age vary so much. I think we need to let kids learn at their own pace, even if that means some can finish high school in four year, while it may take others six or seven years.

Yeah, one of my brothers sends his kids to a Montessori school in Sydney which is quite good for this. They are all in mixed aged classes and are allowed much more freedom/independence than I was when I went to school and are able to learn at their own pace. Seems to be a pretty good approach, from what I've heard (though bloody expensive, at least at their school!).

 

[BORK]

The high school curriculum is much more engaging on average for female students over male students of the same age.

There are other little things that are not as obvious without further inspection. A Physical Education class(often heavy majority male at year 12 level) may involve sports like badminton and volleyball which bring athletic students closer to the pack compared to other sports possibly preventing them from rising to heights in that subject they may have otherwise reached. Compare this with a dance subject (female dominated) which allows the most skilled students to thrive.

Females on average are stronger in the areas of literacy than males. Males strengths on average have been in the areas of numeracy and spatial perception. A Maths exam today has questions containing paragraphs of writing when the same question would have been communicated with much greater brevity 40 years ago.

There are plenty of examples like this throughout the SA curriculum.

Look at the subject lists offered by schools and consider how many subjects would be appealing to the average 16-17 year old girl compared to boys of the same age.

Also consider possible cultural situations boys face. A 16-17 year old boy with a low skilled job who has a car and can afford to take a girl on a date may be more sexually attractive to some girls of high school age than a boy working for high grades but with no income. This may seem stupid but consider the hormones of teenage boys.

Anyway bump and possibly move the posts to a relevant thread. This topic deserves discussion outside of this divisive thread.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Did Panahi provide studies to support her view re the teacher gender having an impact?-that would be handy to have. Unless its a definite factor, the other questions you raise don't matter. I'd be interested to see studies that can confirm that and apart from that, would certainly like to see more males teaching in primary schools. Would also like to see a study confirming the view that men don't go into primary teaching because of 'suspicion' of males. Or is it just not such a cool profession for a young man to consider? I don't believe suspicion is warranted.
My understanding is some of the factors are that girls mature earlier, they read more, are more conscientious, waste less time online, that boys are less engaged by the content and maybe the methodology,( maybe a male would make a difference there) that teachers do mark boys down simply because they are boys.
That girls tend to be more attentive, persistent, independent, flexible in the earlier years.
The achievement discrepancy definitely closes up a lot by Year 12-so what does that tell us? That boys have matured by then and do better as a consequence?

Nah, it was an opinion piece in the Herald Sun - so not exactly a peer reviewed thesis on the matter! I don't have sources for any of her assertions, I was merely putting it out there as food for thought.

Good post though. The development rates would certainly be a factor, particularly early on. Now, my turn to ask for sources . Do you have anything I can read regarding your statement that "The achievement discrepancy definitely closes up a lot by Year 12-so what does that tell us?" i.e. any studies that show the gap early on (primary school/early high school) and then later in year 12? I'm under the impression that girls easily outnumber boys in universities, so I would have thought there would still be a noticeable gap at year 12 based on university admissions (though that is probably pretty flimsy logic!).

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I find that really strange. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that parents give their children more choices these days than they used to - maybe boys are more likely to choose junk food, non-uniform clothes etc than girls? Just a stab in the dark because, as I said, I find that strange (though I'm speaking as someone who hasn't had kids).

It is something I really don't understand and I find it very strange.

 

[fleabitten]

I suspect when it comes to education we have to reassess traditional year levels. Comparing teenaged kids is so often like comparing apples to pears, and their capabilities at the same age vary so much. I think we need to let kids learn at their own pace, even if that means some can finish high school in four year, while it may take others six or seven years.

This is something I've suggested to people before. Advancement through grades should be according to how prepared the student is to step up, not purely based on their age. It negatively impacts the whole class to have such a wide range of ability levels all trying to learn at the same pace. The only real arguments I can see against it are that the kids progressing more slowly than their friends would feel bad and that people would have far less interaction with people of different academic ability throughout their developmental years (which might create another kind of "class" system). But I think a system like that would fare much better when it comes to preparing kids for their future. Those with high academic abilities would progress faster and achieve more, those who don't do so well at school would be equipped with the basic literacy and numeracy they need to get by in life and then steered toward other areas where they might have a talent.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Anyway bump and possibly move the posts to a relevant thread. This topic deserves discussion outside of this divisive thread.

Agree.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

This is something I've suggested to people before. Advancement through grades should be according to how prepared the student is to step up, not purely based on their age.

Agree, it worked for Doogie Howser

 

[romeohwho]

Nah, it was an opinion piece in the Herald Sun - so not exactly a peer reviewed thesis on the matter! I don't have sources for any of her assertions, I was merely putting it out there as food for thought.

Good post though. The development rates would certainly be a factor, particularly early on. Now, my turn to ask for sources . Do you have anything I can read regarding your statement that "The achievement discrepancy definitely closes up a lot by Year 12-so what does that tell us?" i.e. any studies that show the gap early on (primary school/early high school) and then later in year 12? I'm under the impression that girls easily outnumber boys in universities, so I would have thought there would still be a noticeable gap at year 12 based on university admissions (though that is probably pretty flimsy logic!).

Ok will see what I can find
here is an article saying girls still outperform,
but the gap seems not too much to me.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vce-and-atar-results-day-victoria-2014-20141214-1274pk.html
Quote from the article 'The long-term trend of girls out-performing boys continued with girls getting an average ATAR of 64.4 compared to 62.2 for boys. However, 22 boys received 99.95 while 11 girls achieved this score, VTAC confirmed'
Kevin Donnelly article ( who not everyone agrees with) seems to show a wider gap earlier. Will keep looking- Pisa and Naplan probably worth chasing up when have more time. It worthwhile to keep searching for these numbers as interesting.
Uni numbers?
http://www.universityrankings.com.au/gender-balance-ratio.html

 

[Maggie5]

TheWoodenSlug
Lack of male teachers is a problem, I don't think it is as big a problem as poor parenting, but a problem nonetheless. At my sons school (local public) there is one male teacher, out of around 12-15 teachers, the only other male is the Principal.

I think one answer to this would be to see some positive discrimination to deal with this discrepancy.

Interesting, my granddaughter goes to a girls school (primary) and out of the six teachers she has had, 2 have been male and she progressed better in both their classes, they are great with the girls. Out of the four other female teachers she had, only two, one mature and one fairly new.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I suspect when it comes to education we have to reassess traditional year levels. Comparing teenaged kids is so often like comparing apples to pears, and their capabilities at the same age vary so much. I think we need to let kids learn at their own pace, even if that means some can finish high school in four year, while it may take others six or seven years.

The idea of putting kids together based on age is stupid and the whole periods and bell thing was designed to prepare the lumpen proletariat for life in the factories when the Free Education Act came about in the 1890s in England. Instead of endlessly ****ing around with curriculum to fight a bullshit culture war they should be worrying about pedagogy - people are not getting what they need out of the Primary and Secondary education system.

 

[kfc1]

Yep it would be good if there was a serious and earnest discussion on this thread but the likelihood of that happening is very limited. Mainly because, I might add, posters on the anti- fem side virtually never post links that have validity, never accept facts put in front of them, constantly reference nutjobs or extremists for their data. I am quite prepared to say that those on the 'pro-fem' side of the divide, not all-but many, have made a greater effort to engage in real discourse, or to post credible data, on the whole. But a discussion has to go both ways.
So now I just enjoy the craziness of the thread-its very entertaining if you can look at it like that.

Posters on the 'pro-fem' side never post links that have validity either - still waiting on evidence of the women being paid less than men for the same work and evidence of the glass ceiling. Funnily enough two of the most common feminist myths.

So all we end up with is anecdotal experiences or some stats to show that outcomes between different people are, surprisingly, in fact different.

 

[CM86]

 

[SonOfurX]

There was an article in yesterday's Herald Sun* by Rita Panahi** which suggested that a large factor in girls out-performing boys in education is the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary schools. I think it was said that as little as 20% of primary school teachers are men. She argued, among other things, that a lot of young boys lack a male role model at home, especially given that there are so many single parent homes in Australia (the vast majority of which has the children living with the mother), and that this could be somewhat provided by a male teacher. It was also suggested that some of the reasons for the disparity between male and female primary school teachers were that teaching children is still seen as a woman's job and that men feel that they are viewed with suspicion (i.e. as a paedophile) when working with children.

A few questions that spring to mind:

• Do you agree that the lack of male teachers, particularly in primary school, may contribute to boys having less success than girls at school?
• What do you think should/can be done to rectify this? Quota system? Extra perks for male teachers? Etc.
• Do you think teacher's should be expected to provide a role model figure to children if they're unable to get it at home? Or is this outside of what should be expected from them?
  
• Is enough being done to change societies view of men that work with children i.e. to ensure that men feel comfortable to do so without feeling that they are treated with suspicion? I've read stories of this also occurring with single fathers e.g. when taking their children to the park etc.
• Should anything be done at all in that regard, or do you think the level of suspicion is warranted; or that it doesn't even really exist or is exaggerated?

* Yes, I know it was the Herald Sun!
** Yes, I know it was Rita Panahi!!

I think its interesting, Males tend to succeed more in technical fields (STEM) or drop out completely. They appear to represent the extreme - in that they go well, or don't. Women appear more consistent, yet don't succeed as much in technical fields, that isn't saying they can't - just they they don't. I think that is probably why we see more female teachers, women gravitate towards psychology and liberal arts, teaching, etc. To be honest, if I was a teacher - which I'm not (I'm just a Hird fanboy/supporter) - I would encourage boys at a young age, to get more involved in STEM. We know they succeed at it, and STEM is a subject where, in high school at least, there is more male teachers in those fields, as opposed to other subjects. And obviously, we need more women in STEM, as they seem to lack interest in STEM - and gravitate towards more social careers.

 

[CM86]

I think its interesting, Males tend to succeed more in technical fields (STEM) or drop out completely. They appear to represent the extreme - in that they go well, or don't. Women appear more consistent, yet don't succeed as much in technical fields, that isn't saying they can't - just they they don't. I think that is probably why we see more female teachers, women gravitate towards psychology and liberal arts, teaching, etc. To be honest, if I was a teacher - which I'm not (I'm just a Hird fanboy/supporter) - I would encourage boys at a young age, to get more involved in STEM. We know they succeed at it, and STEM is a subject where, in high school at least, there is more male teachers in those fields, as opposed to other subjects. And obviously, we need more women in STEM, as they seem to lack interest in STEM - and gravitate towards more social careers.

And then you state you would encourage "boys" "at a young age" to "get more involved in STEM"... because women are less likely to enter STEM streams...

 

[SonOfurX]

And then you state you would encourage "boys" "at a young age" to "get more involved in STEM"... because women are less likely to enter STEM streams...

Males are underrepresented at university, and by quite a bit. Yet, the males that actually get there, tend to do well in STEM fields. So my emphasis would be to get more males in STEM fields - instead of having them not make it to university AT ALL. How could we do that? Early education in STEM, for both men and women, not just men - and I did say that. There is going to be room in STEM for everyone. When someone points out that men are falling to the wayside by not entering university, the conversation shouldn't be turned into a war of genders. It should simply be that men are falling behind academically, and what can we do about it? That is also the same in regards to women and STEM, we need more women in STEM, what can we do about it? There does not have to be one or the other, these are both problems we need to fix - for the benefit of EVERYONE.