Boys suffer in a culture without challenges

[Drkshadow03]

There is so much I agree with in what St. Luke said, yet I think caution needs to be advised too. As a devil's advocate approach to St. Luke's:

What about the kid with a learning disability but still gets strong marks in all disciplines with extra help from the resource center and also happens to be in the school's Gifted program. Then in High school basically gets mediocre grades in all disciplines, except History. Then in college suddenly rises to a consistent 3.7 magna cum laude student and goes on to grad school.

It would've been very easy to label such a student because they had a learning disability and had a lot of difficulty with certain activities related to reading and writing. Since this student happens to be me . . .

One of the best things to happen to me was that I was never labeled as a resource student kid. Everyone knows those were the "dumb" kids who were in the slow classes in high school. What about the fact that I was weak at reading and writing when I was younger, but ended up with an English masters? What about the fact that I was an amazing math student when I was younger and in honors, getting high marks until about 9th grade, and then math became a foreign language and I was struggling just to pass the subject? How do we explain how my weakest discipline became my strongest and my strongest became my weakest? What happens with these variable if someone labels me?

In theory, your system could work as the classes I would take would adapt to my abilities, even as they change. Of course, what about motivation? I could've handled AP History intellectually, but maturity-wise and motivation I never would've been able to handle it or wanted to when I was in high school.

I think there are too many other factors. Motivation and intelligence are not the same things. Not to mention there are also the video game/technology factors beyond poverty and ability. One could have plenty of ability and just prefer to play their Xbox than read Shakespeare because he doesn't come in eye-burning graphics.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well this is what I meant when I talked about the inconsistencies of trying to judge a student too early - mostly you find that you can make excellent estimations based on data and observation, but there will always be a grey area of students who can go either way, this was one of the drawbacks to the old system. However what we have now, instead of a two school fits all system, we have a one school fits all system - though neither of them are ideal, you could make a case for the former to be the best of the two models. Either way there are no easy answers to what is a complex set of problems, and besides the future of education lies in the privatised all inclusive school, so there is sense of discussing the merits of two tier system because it just won’t happen.

I would strongly suggest that the best form of learning comes from personal motivation and a want or passion for a particular subject or subjects, though what do you do when you have to teach students with no interest at all? How productive is forced, authoritarian teaching and learning, either from the student or teachers point of view? Of course, the argument is that students at such an age are not always mature enough to know what is in their long-term best interests and that the will be grateful of the enforced learning in the future, but push too hard and you risk creating a total aversion to learning which only feeds the cycle of poverty you are trying to break in the first place!

Motivation and intelligence certainly aren't the same things. There are plenty of academically bright individuals (or those with such potential) within the bottom band schools or groups. The potential is not in question often, but the motivation or the positive role models are just not there - they quite often just do not care and no amount of strategies are going to work with such students who have gone that far.

Certainly the fascination with instant forms of entertainment does not make the teacher’s job any easier. Students often demand such instant gratification in the classroom, without wanting to put in any commitment from their side, they want entertaining all the time and are often “bored” and distracted every 5 minutes. The vast majority of them laugh at the thought of reading anything for pleasure let alone Shakespeare, it is just an uphill struggle with no real solution. I don’t want to sound totally negative or anything, there are some good moments and occasional breakthroughs, and some great students who battle on regardless of those around them - but essentially I’m just seeing the situation as it is.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I am going to relate something about high school education in a certain part of the U.S. which you may find unbelievable, but it happened.

I substituted taught in high school in east Tennessee for a couple of years.

I once substituted for a math teacher for one day in a high school. In the classroom there was a TV that was mounted on the wall. The TV was turned on when I entered the classroom and it was tuned to a music station that was playing rap and hard rock music rather loudly. I proceeded to turn the TV off.

About five minutes later, the high school principal came into the classroom, walked to the TV and turned it back onto the same music channel. He came to me and all he said was this: "That is an educational channel that we leave on." And he walked out of the classroom.

I don't know how the principal knew that I had turned the TV off. But the fact that he came into the classroom and turned the TV back on to a rap and rock music station during a math class simply astounded me.

Does this say anything about the state of education in high school in the U.S.? I don't know. All I know is that I quit substitute teaching not long afterwards.

[Paulclem]

Yes. It was the same here. I was "tracked". By "tracking" I mean that students were placed in classrooms according to academic abilities and their progress was closely monitored ("tracked"). A student whose efforts slacked off might find himself/herself moved out of the classes with higher expectations or a student in one of the "slower" groups might work his or her way into the "higher" performing classes.

It was called the 11 plus exam, whereby students either went to a grammar school if they passed or a secondary modern if they failed. The grammar schools were more academic based and the secondary modern more hands-on and practical.

Hi Neely and St Lukes. The Grammar school system largely gave way to the comprehensive system in the 1960s in the UK. This really was a two tier system of academic kids and factory fodder which labelled and and rejected kids with the 11 plus. The comprehensive system was based upon a good education for all, but this has not been the success it was supposed to be.

The tracking you mention relates more closely to streaming whereby classes consisted of kids of similar ability. You had the top, middle and "spoonies" - (spoon fed) as one teacher in my comprehensive referred to them. The "spoonies" were in effect supervised through school.

It worked ok for me - though it wasn't a good school by any means and my education should have been better. My son has just been through secondary, which is often mixed ability until the classes are set for their GCSE exams. The classes were often disrupted with all the behaviour problems associated with it.

Different models have been tried, but no one system works well. There are rose coloured attitudes to the grammar school system, but that solution served a divided society where the expectation was that you either studied or got a job.

The system is changing again with more emphasis on vocational studies - engineering etc - for those students who are not academically inclined.

The problem is that education is not valued by the 20%- 30%. it is seen as an expectation that will provide without the input. (You only have to compare the attitudes of immigrant children/ parents who come from countries where there is no free education to see some of the problem). Those attitudes come from parents and those strong role models that permeate our cultures and profoundly affect the kids. Education is not seen as cool. Being tough or whatever is. It's difficult.

[The Comedian]

Education is not seen as cool.

Man, so much of the problem boils down to this simple ideas -- for boys especially. And, you know the funny thing: I know how to make it cool. Tell kids they can't have education. Make it only for adults. Make it something that adults practice in secret, like drugs or drinking. The more we make it as good for you as broccoli, the more we make it taste like broccoli.

One problem, that I've seen, anyway, is that boys have a more difficult time fulfilling a variety of roles than girls do. Girls are better at seeming themselves as studious, silly, fun, rebellious, and athletic. Whereas boys, modern boys, tend to really focus on only one aspect of their characters devote a false and damaging loyalty to it.

And today, I think being able to see your character as comprised of multiple roles is more important than ever.

I also think that most have not solved the great problem of Google: that information does not need to be given by teachers (it's there for many already) and the research (superficial, sure) is recreational for most. So the idea of teachers as information-givers is not in good standing with the modern world.

If anything, teachers need to be emotional leaders. . . . sources of wisdom, even (as hokey as that sounds). And, education needs to embrace more (but not exclusively) an activity-based curriculum.

EDIT: And girls are generally more brave than boys (I'm not sure why this is). Whenever I assign a speech in one of my classes, I have the students volunteer the order of their speeches. And, without fail (and only a few exceptions) a line of scared females take the initiative to go, and most of the boys skulk and wait until the women have gone posing a pathetic apathy that they try to pass off as devil-may-care courage, which is really just fear having got the best of them.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Paulclem
Education is not seen as cool.

That's why competition can frame the experience as cool.

[LitNetIsGreat]

That's why competition can frame the experience as cool.

I'm afraid that competition is not the magic wand you seem to think it is. In my school competition is widely used, competition in sports days, activity days, cross curriculum, business enterprise, presentation competitions - all with prizes to boot. At most it seems to work in engaging those who are already engaged. The problem lies in trying to engage those who do not care, those who are too far gone to give a damn about education. The problem lies with the whole rigid structure of the system, the lack of positive role models, all the cartload of issues which arise from poverty from abuse, to poor diet and beyond, and a thousand other things. Introducing more competition is fine, but by itself it is going to do very little.

The problem is that education is not valued by the 20%- 30%. It is seen as an expectation that will provide without the input. (You only have to compare the attitudes of immigrant children/ parents who come from countries where there is no free education to see some of the problem). Those attitudes come from parents and those strong role models that permeate our cultures and profoundly affect the kids. Education is not seen as cool. Being tough or whatever is. It's difficult.

Yes this is another massive barrier to have to try and breakthrough - though I would say that by the time you have reached secondary age, maybe Y8 at most, it is already too late for the vast majority - the negative attitude is well and truly cemented and minds are already closed.

If anything, teachers need to be emotional leaders. . . . sources of wisdom, even (as hokey as that sounds). And, education needs to embrace more (but not exclusively) an activity-based curriculum.

Yes, this is the route which some schools are going down. I think some aspects of this approach are good, but it is perhaps difficult to maintain in the long-term - for teachers who are new to such methods at least! Students expect to be constantly entertained and this sort of model works well to feed that desire, but there are some things that have to be learnt in the traditional way I think. Also why is it that whenever I have seen examples of activities of this kind it always seems to involve building towers out of used toilet rolls?? I'm not really sure how such things are supposed to improve basic literacy and numeracy and things like that, but it seems that the kids enjoy it.

[Petrarch's Love]

I happen to agree with the general thrust of the article. The feminization of our culture (am I going to get smacked for that? ) has really marginalized boys from achieving.

As long as I'm here, I thought I'd respond to this part of the intial post. Let's talk about big boys and girls for a minute, Virg. Yes, the college graduation rates show that girls are getting more higher education degrees than boys. But when you look at what happens when these girls become working women, the picture changes significantly. You like numbers. Check out the US Census report on the earnings of men and women for 2006-2008: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet..._2008_3YR_G00_ It shows that men are still coming out very much on top with a median earning of $35, 124 for men and $23, 928 for women. The census quick facts page, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html also shows that, while women make up 50% of the population, only 28% of firms are female owned. The top positions in business, government and most other sectors are still male dominated. For example, I just recently came across a "positive" article saying that there are a record number of women in congress right now. That means that 17 out of the 100 senators are women, and 74 of the 435 representatives are women. Not exactly equal numbers.

These are not things I would normally bring up because I think women have made tremendous progress in the past several decades and I think that the gap shows every sign of continuing to close in the future. Certainly having a female speaker of the House, for example, may do much to help change public perception of the face of our government and to help break the current record for number of women elected in congress. I generally have a very optimistic view about the future progress of my generation of women. I don't, however, want to hear about the "feminization of our culture" until I start to see numbers reflecting a real equality or (perish the thought!) women earning more than their male counterparts.

From a woman's persepective, I also can't help but think that the sort of continuing inequality in status and pay that I'm pointing out may have much more to do with the number of women graduates we're seeing than a lack of attention to boys in education. As a young woman looking at the kind of numbers I cited above, and living in a society where I get the impression that it's still fairly hard for a woman to make it to the top, I have to say that it makes me think I'd better work twice as hard and be twice as sharp as my male counterparts if I even want a chance to get the same paycheck they're getting (the census numbers show that the average income for a woman like myself with a graduate degree is about $27,000 less than a man with the same level of education) . It may be that other girls and young women feel the same thing and that they are applying themselves more competitively because of it. This may suggest, not that boys don't have enough competition, but that they're suddenly getting plenty of competition from girls that wasn't a factor in earlier generations and that they haven't figured out yet that they need to up their game in response.

In terms of the suggestion that competition could be helpful in the classroom, I am inclined to agree with St. Luke's that learning how to handle competition in life can be a very useful skill to introduce to children because competition will be a part of their future life. This would, however, seem like it would be equally applicable to boys or to girls.

[Paulclem]

As long as I'm here, I thought I'd respond to this part of the intial post. Let's talk about big boys and girls for a minute, Virg. Yes, the college graduation rates show that girls are getting more higher education degrees than boys. But when you look at what happens when these girls become working women, the picture changes significantly. You like numbers. Check out the US Census report on the earnings of men and women for 2006-2008: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet..._2008_3YR_G00_ It shows that men are still coming out very much on top with a median earning of $35, 124 for men and $23, 928 for women. The census quick facts page, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html also shows that, while women make up 50% of the population, only 28% of firms are female owned. The top positions in business, government and most other sectors are still male dominated. For example, I just recently came across a "positive" article saying that there are a record number of women in congress right now. That means that 17 out of the 100 senators are women, and 74 of the 435 representatives are women. Not exactly equal numbers.

These are not things I would normally bring up because I think women have made tremendous progress in the past several decades and I think that the gap shows every sign of continuing to close in the future. Certainly having a female speaker of the House, for example, may do much to help change public perception of the face of our government and to help break the current record for number of women elected in congress. I generally have a very optimistic view about the future progress of my generation of women. I don't, however, want to hear about the "feminization of our culture" until I start to see numbers reflecting a real equality or (perish the thought!) women earning more than their male counterparts.

From a woman's persepective, I also can't help but think that the sort of continuing inequality in status and pay that I'm pointing out may have much more to do with the number of women graduates we're seeing than a lack of attention to boys in education. As a young woman looking at the kind of numbers I cited above, and living in a society where I get the impression that it's still fairly hard for a woman to make it to the top, I have to say that it makes me think I'd better work twice as hard and be twice as sharp as my male counterparts if I even want a chance to get the same paycheck they're getting (the census numbers show that the average income for a woman like myself with a graduate degree is about $27,000 less than a man with the same level of education) . It may be that other girls and young women feel the same thing and that they are applying themselves more competitively because of it. This may suggest, not that boys don't have enough competition, but that they're suddenly getting plenty of competition from girls that wasn't a factor in earlier generations and that they haven't figured out yet that they need to up their game in response.

In terms of the suggestion that competition could be helpful in the classroom, I am inclined to agree with St. Luke's that learning how to handle competition in life can be a very useful skill to introduce to children because competition will be a part of their future life. This would, however, seem like it would be equally applicable to boys or to girls.

Hi Petrarch
I think it was last year that it was revealed that in the UK, Grammar school results - the 11+ years exam taken by pupils up to the end of the 1960s before the advent of the comprehensive school system - were weighted in favour of Boys in order to balance the numbers. So lots of schoolgirls were denied a place that they legitimately got in favour of boys who did less well.

It has been known for a long time about the advantages Girls have which is not reflected in pay and conditions. A scandal, but, as you say, things are moving in the right direction - at least in the UK - though there is still an imbalance.

I think the views on competitiveness refer more directly to the botton 50% rather than the better achieving ones. The are hard to motivate in secondary -high school- education, but certainly it was apparent anecdotally from the Primary schools I taught in. Boys are competitive, in a way girls aren't, with each other. It's all top dog and pecking order in all younger male groups which may be one reason why The Comedians students don't want to risk their status. (In Yorkshire the correct term for the hardest kid was "**** of the school" which I'm sure the Freudians would relish).

It is such a big factor with boys that it is a shame when ways are not found to capitalise upon it. When it doesn't - the young lad's priorities diverge from school - possibly never to return.

Man, so much of the problem boils down to this simple ideas -- for boys especially. And, you know the funny thing: I know how to make it cool. Tell kids they can't have education. Make it only for adults. Make it something that adults practice in secret, like drugs or drinking. The more we make it as good for you as broccoli, the more we make it taste like broccoli.

You're right.

I like the multiple roles idea as well Comedian, because I think we have to become that to be successful. The one dimensional, double y chromosome, alpha male hard man rock ape - whose stereotype inhabits every type of action film a lad would want to watch - is not successful in our complex societies. He'll be the one in some institution or other. Unless channelled. I channelled my rock ape aspirations into rugby, whilst studying. (I was ok at rugby - I wasn't much of a rock ape though).

[Virgil]

As long as I'm here, I thought I'd respond to this part of the intial post.

Nice to have you join us Ms. Petrarch.

Let's talk about big boys and girls for a minute, Virg. Yes, the college graduation rates show that girls are getting more higher education degrees than boys. But when you look at what happens when these girls become working women, the picture changes significantly. You like numbers. Check out the US Census report on the earnings of men and women for 2006-2008: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet..._2008_3YR_G00_ It shows that men are still coming out very much on top with a median earning of $35, 124 for men and $23, 928 for women.

First of all the impact of the boy's graduation rates has not had a cultural impact yet. But be that as it may, the feminists salary comparison argument is bogus. First of all that blurs together all salaries. Well, there are at least three significant reasons why that disparity in a global salary comparison exists. (1) Career lives for women only occured 25-ish years ago. Obviously women haven't caught up in time with men. (2) Those numbers don't account for women who take career breaks for raising families. If a women takes off from work seven to ten years to raise children, then there is no way that she can have the same salalary as anyone, man or woman, who does not. And the promotional opportunities also shrink with reduction of experience. (3) Women for whatever reasons traditionally have chosen the lower paying professions even in the same level of education - either secretary over construction worker, nurse over doctor, teacher over engineer, or even vetenartian over doctor. The real fruitful comparison is between men and women with the same experience for the same job. I have never seen any numbers that would say that women get less given the same qualifications. In my 24 years of experience I have never heard anyone purposely deny women the same pay as a man. We offer the same starting salary for both sexes. And if anything women where I work get certain EEO points on promotional interviews, since there aren't that many women in engineering. And despite the fraction of women in engineering, the Director of R&D at my place (about the equivalent of vice president) is a woman, who by the way never married or had children. I resent the underlying assumption that feminist make that there is some coordinated effort by men to restrict women's salaries. The overwhelming majority of men i know tend to be gentlemanly in their dealings with women and give them the same deference as any man.

The census quick facts page, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html also shows that, while women make up 50% of the population, only 28% of firms are female owned. The top positions in business, government and most other sectors are still male dominated. For example, I just recently came across a "positive" article saying that there are a record number of women in congress right now. That means that 17 out of the 100 senators are women, and 74 of the 435 representatives are women. Not exactly equal numbers.

I can't answer why women only own 28% of firms. But can you cite any law that would prevent them from doing so? Perhaps they don't choose to do so. Starting businesses requires risk taking and men tend to be more risk takers. As to women in elective office, are you saying there is an inherent bias in who gets elected? You do realize that women actually vote in more numbers than men. All I can tell you is, I voted for a woman to be vice-president in the last presidential election. Did you?

These are not things I would normally bring up because I think women have made tremendous progress in the past several decades and I think that the gap shows every sign of continuing to close in the future. Certainly having a female speaker of the House, for example, may do much to help change public perception of the face of our government and to help break the current record for number of women elected in congress. I generally have a very optimistic view about the future progress of my generation of women. I don't, however, want to hear about the "feminization of our culture" until I start to see numbers reflecting a real equality or (perish the thought!) women earning more than their male counterparts.

Point taken.

From a woman's persepective, I also can't help but think that the sort of continuing inequality in status and pay that I'm pointing out may have much more to do with the number of women graduates we're seeing than a lack of attention to boys in education. As a young woman looking at the kind of numbers I cited above, and living in a society where I get the impression that it's still fairly hard for a woman to make it to the top, I have to say that it makes me think I'd better work twice as hard and be twice as sharp as my male counterparts if I even want a chance to get the same paycheck they're getting (the census numbers show that the average income for a woman like myself with a graduate degree is about $27,000 less than a man with the same level of education) .

Show me where those numbers are in effect for the same job. Show me which companies have a different salary structure based on gender. I don't believe it. Any company today that had a salary structure based on gender will get sued out of business. You are completely incorrect. Compare the same job. You are swallowing propaganda.

It may be that other girls and young women feel the same thing and that they are applying themselves more competitively because of it. This may suggest, not that boys don't have enough competition, but that they're suddenly getting plenty of competition from girls that wasn't a factor in earlier generations and that they haven't figured out yet that they need to up their game in response.

All I'm saying is that there is probably a better approach to teaching boys. I don't think that's a radical concept. I've cited a number of articles throughout here supporting it and how competition seems to engage boys in learning. Here are a few more:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/tea...erently_11.php
and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor64.html

In terms of the suggestion that competition could be helpful in the classroom, I am inclined to agree with St. Luke's that learning how to handle competition in life can be a very useful skill to introduce to children because competition will be a part of their future life. This would, however, seem like it would be equally applicable to boys or to girls.

I am not against that. In no way do I want to imply that I want to hold back girls in any way. Their success is marvelous and certainly will be beneficial to society. I look for diversity on my project teams because i believe people process information subtly differently and more perspectives will induce more options, one of which is more optimal. I've encouraged and pushed along two women engineers who did a great job on a one of my projects seven/eight years ago and now are the same level as me, despite me having at least twelve more years experience than they do.

Oh as it turns out, I'm actually interviewing a perspective female new hire tomorrow.

One last comment: May you be blessed with all sons in your motherhood.

[kilted exile]

just as a side note because I saw the 11 plus mentioned. I happen to know a lecturer at a very respected London university that failed his 11 plus.

Everyone develops differently and 11 really is too young to start placing children into either the blue or white collar path.

[Scheherazade]

For example, I just recently came across a "positive" article saying that there are a record number of women in congress right now. That means that 17 out of the 100 senators are women, and 74 of the 435 representatives are women. Not exactly equal numbers.

'Sokay... Quality vs quantity and all that.

[Petrarch's Love]

First of all the impact of the boy's graduation rates has not had a cultural impact yet.

I'll agree with that. We don't actually know one way or the other what kind of effect it may have. As I said, I do think that things are continuing to change, and I'm willing to talk about women being dominant in society when I see much clearer signs that it's actually happening.

But be that as it may, the feminists salary comparison argument is bogus. First of all that blurs together all salaries. Well, there are at least three significant reasons why that disparity in a global salary comparison exists. (1) Career lives for women only occured 25-ish years ago. Obviously women haven't caught up in time with men.

Again, I said that I think things are still changing. We'll see what happens when my generation and the ones following have been out there working longer.

(2) Those numbers don't account for women who take career breaks for raising families. If a women takes off from work seven to ten years to raise children, then there is no way that she can have the same salalary as anyone, man or woman, who does not. And the promotional opportunities also shrink with reduction of experience. (3) Women for whatever reasons traditionally have chosen the lower paying professions even in the same level of education - either secretary over construction worker, nurse over doctor, teacher over engineer, or even vetenartian over doctor.

I am well aware of these factors and I agree that they definitely contribute to the numbers we're seeing. I suppose where we may differ on this is that I am not content to dismiss the pay gap by simply saying that women choose lower paying professions for "whatever reasons." The reasons behind this could be many. To begin with, female dominated professions have traditionally had lower salaries than male dominated professions. I think this is changing because there are fewer professions that are exclusively female any more, but there's still a little hold over there. There may also still be cultural factors that are dissuading girls from entering certain kinds of professions. It wasn't so long ago that we still heard the president of Harvard declaring that girls can't do math and science. While I certainly have nothing to complain about personally in the way my own professional career has progressed thus far, I have fairly often gotten comments from people (men and women) who are surprised that I'm becoming a professor because professors are supposed to look like men with beards. I've even gotten more than one person telling me I should just settle into high school teaching because that would be easier for a woman. With a few exceptions most of the people making such comments aren't raging misogynists, but they do have a certain image of what a professor should look like and a certain idea of how much time and energy a woman has to put into her career. I can see how a young woman who has not had the sort of strong female role models that I've had in my life and/or doesn't have an exceptionally strong innate ambition might simply accept that women just don't chose to go into certain types of careers and assume that applies to her.

The biggest factor, however, is as you rightly point out, the issue of a woman's role in raising children and tending to home and family. This has obviously long been the factor in women's liberation and it's no accident that things really started changing dramatically in the 20th century with the birth control pill which allowed women to chose to have a manageable sized family and not have the physical impediment and the danger of constant pregnancy holding them back. I'll agree that the issue now of women being less successful in their careers because they have taken time off for their children is a very complex one. Certainly as things are now, women do have to chose between work and family or strike a balance between the two in a way that most men never have to, and I can see that the desire to be home with one's children is in many cases coming from the woman herself rather than any particular social pressure. At the same time, not too long ago the argument ran that women couldn't have any kind of career at all because they had to stay at home with the children and tend the family home, and things have changed a lot with, among other things, fathers becoming more involved in the home life and the raising of their children. Now we're hearing that women simply can't get into top positions because they need to be home more with the children. I don't really know if we've reached a settled point or not with this. I don't know if the care for children will become much more 50/50, if we'll start seeing some dads who prefer to stay home, or if this really is where things will settle. I think it's an open question at the moment and I'll be interested to see where things go as my generation gets older.

The real fruitful comparison is between men and women with the same experience for the same job. I have never seen any numbers that would say that women get less given the same qualifications. In my 24 years of experience I have never heard anyone purposely deny women the same pay as a man. We offer the same starting salary for both sexes. And if anything women where I work get certain EEO points on promotional interviews, since there aren't that many women in engineering.

I agree that for men and women with the same qualifications and experience in the same position these days the pay is usually about the same. I don't think it's true that there are absolutely zero incidents of preference for men over women in appointing people to top positions. I have known a couple of women who, in recent years, have been clearly passed up for promotion because there was some slight preference for having a man in the position (one was told that "Ed" needed the job more because he was the breadwinner for his family when both she and "Ed" had the same number of children and spouses who worked). I do, however, believe that such prejudice is absolutely the exception to the rule, quickly disappearing altogether, and that salaries on these terms are more or less equal.

Show me where those numbers are in effect for the same job. Show me which companies have a different salary structure based on gender. I don't believe it. Any company today that had a salary structure based on gender will get sued out of business. You are completely incorrect. Compare the same job. You are swallowing propaganda.

Again, I am not claiming that the disparity in pay is primarily because of a difference in pay for the same job. I am saying that women with my level of education are making less than men with the same level of education. I'll agree that this could largely be because they're simply not either getting or pursuing the same high paying job and that this could be for a variety of complicated factors, but it doesn't mean you can throw out the numbers as bogus for indicating that women are not getting as far as men.

And despite the fraction of women in engineering, the Director of R&D at my place (about the equivalent of vice president) is a woman, who by the way never married or had children.

Exactly. While I'm sure that this particular woman is happy with her choices and that it works for her, the implication here is that a woman who is going to make it to the top is one who will have given up marriage and/or children. We never hear that a man was able to make it to a top position because he didn't marry or have kids. Obviously most women are not going to forgo children and marriage altogether if they beleive that's the price they have to pay to make it to the top or if we all agree that it is the necessary price. Most men wouldn't either.

I resent the underlying assumption that feminist make that there is some coordinated effort by men to restrict women's salaries. The overwhelming majority of men i know tend to be gentlemanly in their dealings with women and give them the same deference as any man.

You are putting words in my mouth based on your own assumptions about my attitudes toward feminism. I do not believe that there is a coordinated effort by men to restrict women's salaries, and I can certainly say that I have always been treated as an equal in the workplace myself. I was not bringing these numbers up because I wanted to vilify men. I was bringing them up because you were making remarks about the "feminization of our culture." I agree with you that the reasons behind the gap in pay shown by the census numbers are much more complex and debatable than simply misogynists not wanting to pay women well, and I think that it probably has as much to do with the attitudes of women as it does with the attitudes of men. Still, while the reasons behind it are up to debate, the gap itself is not, in fact, a myth. Men overall are getting more pay and more status in our society and, regardless of the reasons for it, I think that means that it is ridiculous to imply that we are living in a "feminized culture" that puts young men at a disadvantage. When the women have really taken over I will hear your complaints.

I think the views on competitiveness refer more directly to the botton 50% rather than the better achieving ones. The are hard to motivate in secondary -high school- education, but certainly it was apparent anecdotally from the Primary schools I taught in. Boys are competitive, in a way girls aren't, with each other. It's all top dog and pecking order in all younger male groups which may be one reason why The Comedians students don't want to risk their status. (In Yorkshire the correct term for the hardest kid was "**** of the school" which I'm sure the Freudians would relish).

It is such a big factor with boys that it is a shame when ways are not found to capitalise upon it. When it doesn't - the young lad's priorities diverge from school - possibly never to return.

All I'm saying is that there is probably a better approach to teaching boys. I don't think that's a radical concept. I've cited a number of articles throughout here supporting it and how competition seems to engage boys in learning. Here are a few more:

To get back to your initial suggestion, I have no problem with talking about teaching approaches that might help either boys or girls succeed. I had, in fact, noticed that young men are especially competitive (it still shows a lot in the college classroom too, where the young men are definitely the majority of those who feel the need to challenge my authority, though that sort of challenge is very easy to deal with at the university level) and I don't see why, as Paulclem says, teachers couldn't capitalize on that sometimes if it will help them to reach a certain part of the class. What I was reacting to was the implication that men are at a disadvantage in our society, when I'm not really seeing that this is true at all (at least not yet) when you look at the bottom line of where men end up in terms of their pay and career as compared with women.

The only problem I have with the suggestions Virg. is making about competition is that they seem a little vague to me and I would be more interested in hearing some specific examples of things that really work in practice with hard to reach young men. I am sure that any teacher, man or woman, dealing with the bottom 20-50% of boys and young men would grasp at anything they thought might get the kids engaged. I also don't really know that I'm seeing where competition has been washed out of schools. The high school scene is still very much focused on football, a highly competitive sport that women can't participate in at all, and I seem to remember teachers engaging us in competitive class activities when I was in school. St. Luke's may have a point about the exaggerated catering to self esteem that may sometimes be a part of the curriculum, but that again seems to be an issue that would affect either boys or girls.

One last comment: May you be blessed with all sons in your motherhood.

Good idea. That way I can be sure they're brought up right.

'Sokay... Quality vs quantity and all that.

[Paulclem]

My experience is mainly in primary school, and I think Virgil's comments are certainly pertinent in the UK in general. As I said earlier - most Primary school teachers are women. Many don't have any male staff. The large school I worked in had 3 men out of 38 staff. It was a naturally feminised environment. It's not negative, but it needs balance. As such there as a lack of sport and competition.

From my own school days, my mates were ultra competitive in everything, and this did drive us to achieve more. The problem is how to channel that creatively early enough to stimuate those boys who respond to it.

The problems with the competitive 11+ grammar school exam have been illustrated by Scher and Kilted Exile. Exams are competitive by nature, and I'm not referring to those. It's more about healthy competition which is a preparation for exams as well as life.

(In Yorkshire the correct term for the hardest kid was c-o-c-k of the school" which I'm sure the Freudians would relish).

C-o-c-k here refers to the cockerel, rather than the member, which I should have made clear. I didn't realise the forum was so sensitive.
I'm sure the members of the forum will understand.

[gbrekken]

Passing through-can't believe some of the things that pass as truth these days. My words will never pass as such. Why would they? Alchemists almost had better answers.
Why is such a(an) sexist question considered for answer? Cannot anyone (regardless of gender) overcome oneself? I'm not holding my breath or anything else for reply.