Isnt this exactly what antimisandry was talking about earlier today?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtMufi_2UaL90Kk2HspP.b79xQt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071117192107AAL6ww5

He said that education was, thanks to feminism, ridiculously biased towards women, because it promoted verbal skills, which women excel at, rather than logical, mathematical or spatial skills, which really matter the most in biology.
Its obvious that this guy is asking this question for a homework, so pleas save your comments regarding this.

It is feminism's fault. Here, in Argentina, second wave feminism doesn't exist, and boys in shool are just as good or even better than girls (but its balanced most of the time). We dont have to make analogies, we can do with the way it works.
Want evidence? boys are in average 4 points higher in IQ than girls, there are a lot of studies to prove it.
Oh, and feminists, in areas where boys thankfully still excel at, claim that they must be sexist. Hypocrisy at its best.

Answer 1

Well, Biology is very tricky verbally, as well. There are a slew of Latin terms to remember, genus and species names, etc.
Actually, the point of education is to create a well-rounded individual, one who excels at math, language, etc. You can't expect to get a job ANYWHERE doing ANYTHING, without adequate verbal skills. That's a fact. What's with this "verbal skills BAD!" attitude that I'm seeing recently? They are just as important as math, and math and language are the two main focuses in most schools today. So, if stereotypes are be believed, boys can catch a break in math class, and girls can catch up in Language. Language has ALWAYS been important in schools.

But, again, as I stated before, you are wrong in assuming that verbal skills get more emphasis than math skills, both are of equal importance in our schools, and BOTH are important for almost any job you could get after school. It would be a tremendous mistake, and a disservice to students of BOTH sexes, to put less emphasis on verbal skills.

EDIT-Analogies require logic skills, as well.

Answer 2

There is much to say, but I'll have to keep it confined to Britain.

At A-Level, maths and the sciences are undoubtedly harder than arts and social science subjects. I took History, Politics and Law and got three A's (highest grade) without revising much - not because I am brilliant but because it's just so easy. Fewer students are taking sciences each year as a consequence. Further, science departments at universities have shrunk considerably as "soft" subjects have become more popular.

The structure of a curriculum DOES make a difference to which gender performs better. At A-Level, boys traditionally performed better than girls, but then Curriculum 2000 was introduced (in ... 2000). Previously, students were simply examined at the end of two years. Curriculum 2000 however, introduced the "AS-Level" which meant that students would be examined BOTH years, as well as January in the second year. Under the old structure, you could piss about and just revise at the end of the second year. However, one must now perform consistently. The sudden-death style suited boys, but the new system rewards diligence more and performance under pressure less. Girls work harder - that's a fact - and so they outperformed males for the first time (and have done since). I'm not saying what system is better, just that the set-up makes a difference. To buttress this point, there is also a way in which the structure discriminates against girls (in terms of overall results). More boys do not continue onto sixth-form at age 16 (I'm reasonably certain of this) - because they are going into the trades (or prison). This means that more academically "inferior" boys are leaving the pool than "inferior" girls, pulling down the mean average for girl's overall results.

There has also emerged an academic culture sensitive to political correctness, where "fact" has declined in value. I know people think of this as a tired right-wing argument, but I am not right-wing and the argument holds true to any objective(-ish) person who is academically familiar. Are feminists to blame for these problems? They have certainly contributed to this culture, but criticising the precious feminist movement is practically illegal around here (irony?) so I'll move on quickly... Alright, so I would say that these two facts are important - that students are voting with their feet (not blaming them - I did this), and that science has become devalued and distrusted over the last thirty-five years or so.

Of course, these factors only matter if we recognise gender differences. It doesn't matter if these differences are purely "socialised" (a ridiculous notion, but whatevs), they are still there. Boys demonstrate superiority in the maths and sciences, as we know. If such subjects are harder (and they are) then this clearly impacts overall results. If girls work more conscientiously across the board (they do) then this also impacts results, especially if curricula is structured to discriminate in favour of this.

As I see it, a couple of things must change. The arts and social sciences need to become more academically rigorous, and boys need to work harder. Girls aren't doing anything wrong.

Object of Its Ire: I agree with that too. Increased discipline is probably the very way to get boys to work harder. That and stop feeding them crap and getting them physically active.

Do you agree then that feminism has CONTRIBUTED to this "political correctness"?

Answer 3

A simple note of a quality of Jesus I thought of today. In the talk the brother brought out that after Jesus had been baptized and went to the wilderness for 40 days Satan tempted him. The scripture cited said he was hungry. And you can imagine just how hungry when Satan suggested for him to turn a stone into a loaf of bread...he might have thought for an instant how ravenous he was but responded...man must not live on bread alone....but by every expression of Jehovah's mouth. That right there proves that even in starvation circumstances Jesus was unselfish. He thought more of his promise to God than his own gratification. He will truly be an unselfish leader with only pure motives when dealing with mere humans.

Answer 4

I'm getting rather tired of hearing men and boys' blaming their own educational failures on feminism. It's utterly ridiculous. Where's the proof of this? Show me the evidence! Show me something- IQ scores, test scores- something- anything- that proves this is true. This is drivel, and it's a sorry excuse. I'd be embarassed to even say it aloud if I were a guy. C'mon now....boys have traditionally always done slightly better than women in math and spatial skills, and women have traditionally always done slightly better at verbal/communication skills. It has to do with differences in the usage of the white and grey matter of our brains. The differences are so slight, however, that there is barely a need for recognition. Do you hear women crying: " the patriarchy is responsible for my lack of spatial skill mastery?" Give me a break!!!!

If I were a guy I'd be very embarassed to take part and belief in such a ridiculous statement. Feminism is not hurting boys' educations.

EDIT: If boys' IQ scores really are 4 points higher than girls', what are you compaining about?

EDIT: If more emphasis in schools is being placed on literacy, perhaps it is because there is such a high rate of illiteracy in this country. If (and I say "if" here) feminists are responsible for the emphasis on literacy, are they not actually doing this country a favor? How can Johnny or Jane be successful in a career or in life without reading and writing skills? I see no real evidence that literacy skills are "so much harder" for boys to learn. And if they are, they still need to learn...so the focus is probably benefitial instead of harmful.

Answer 5

Not as many careers these days require logical, mathematical, or spatial skills. This is an occupational hazard of living in an information-based society, as opposed to a manufacturing or agrarian society. But I hardly think that this question was meant as a feminist attack. Maybe this is just how the teacher reinforces knowledge of cell structure in his or her students.

Answer 6

A person needs both BUT language skills are more important than anything else. If you can't read or write very well you won't find a decent job. How does one improve their language skills? BY READING BOOKS AND WRITING PAPERS. In short, with PRACTICE; the same thing goes for playing tennis and baking puff pastries.

ps: there is no such thing as 'spatial skills'; it's a type of cognitive PROCESS which is habituated and sustained:

"Spatial processing skills are an important component in cognitive development...Cognition is a complex process that is predicated on the interaction of an individuals' sensory-motor and neurological systems. Spatial cognition is an important building block to general cognition, as it is the process by which a child perceives, stores, recalls, creates, edits, and communicates about spatial images. The process of spatial cognition allows a child to create meaning by manipulating images of the world in which (s)he exists, and those that originate in their own mind. If a child has difficulty with spatial cognition, it is likely that (s)he will have difficulty in the academic environment and possibly in daily life as well. Therefore, it is important to understand how spatial cognition can be habilitated and sustained...

Cognition is a complex process that is predicated on the interaction of an individuals' sensory-motor and neurological systems. The process of spatial cognition allows a child to create meaning by manipulating images of the world in which (s)he exists, and those that originate in their own mind. If a child has difficulty with spatial cognition, it is likely that (s)he will have difficulty in the academic environment and possibly in daily life as well.

Ability and performance in spatial cognition is dependent upon the development of seven underlying levels of neurological support...".
See chart at http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/education/puzzle/spatial-cognition.html

READ A BOOK, du-uh. Stop, enough already.

edit; Swiftwings
Here's a FACT for ya: when I was going to school the teacher would flunk you if your performance was sufficiently lousy. This could mean having to repeat a single course, or an entire year. Teachers are no longer permitted this 'luxury' and kids are going through school without being held accountable for lousy performance. It's the old pre-feminist politically incorrect way and I think that perhaps just flunking these kids may do them a world of good. I'll bet the mere THREAT of flunking out would cause boy's test scores to rise above the stratosphere!

Also, we had no problem with ADD/ADHD. Kids who were running amok received the strap. This is the pre-feminist, politically incorrect education system where boys did better.

Answer 7

TERA: Feminists demanded reforms to the education system some decades ago because girls were behind boys, hence they believed that it was some conspiracy to keep girls out of higher education. Therefore, it was adjusted to suit females learning abilities-- involved many changes. But in the process, it disadvantaged boys.

Boys tend to respond better to structured activity, clearly defined objectives and instructions, short-term challenging tasks and visual, logical and analytical approaches to learning. They tend not to respond as well as girls to verbal, linguistic approaches [1]

In addition, boys tend to do better than girls at exams, while girls tend to do better with assignments. In the old days (pre-1980), end-of-year exams were the only assessment. Today, they've been replaced by assessments throughout the year w/ heavy emphasis on literacy skills, which favours girls, as boys are not as strong in literacy.

Quote: Dr Tim Hawkes [2]:

"one of the three assessment tasks for Year 12 students in Victoria a few years ago was a long essay in mathematics.

Only 10 per cent of the HSC paper in physics for the Year 12 students last year was actually pure physics.

The rest of it was largely literacy-based tasks."

Adding, "Many boys are not strong in literacy."

Basically, the old system favoured boys while the current system favours girls, so yes, feminist reforms are indeed disadvantaging boys.

EDIT:

TERA, if you argue that literacy skills are "not that much harder" for boys to learn, without any evidentiary support, it amounts to nothing and is utterly useless. Here's a tip: You might want to disprove the facts his argument is based on. The problem is, you can't - so you claim that "boys can benefit from literacy in the workforce", nothwithstanding the disadvantaged position it puts boys in in the context of learning, and you pass it off as a relevant counterargument. In other words, you've gone off the topic and completely dismissed the glaring evidence that is out there which supports my conclusions.

Sorry, this is not the way to an effective debate.

Answer 8

Basically he was stating that education is gearing towards teaching styles that will help females. This method will now hinder boys because boys are more logical than women and women are more verbal.

Trying to find analogies for the word nucleus will help a girl remember what it does because her innate ability will associate the two words. Boys, on the other hand, will forget what the nucleus does because associating it to another word is illogical. Boys rather have it defined.

Regards

Answer 9

what are you talking about? go to any university, the departments that receive the most funding, the ones with the highest paid professors, and the highest paid teaching assistants are engineering, physics and mathematics. but education is biased towards verbal skills?

and how does that question prove *anything*?