"Girls 'believe they are better than boys from age four'"

Nozebleed

girls simply do what they are told. boys dont. boys have character. girls just do what others tell them to do. whether thats through fear or some emotional stuff i dont know exactly. boys are superior on all fronts. especially tennis..las time i watched a womens tennis match one of the girls broke down crying because she kept hitting the fuc*kin net. It cost me a fortune.

iptba

taconnol wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for evidence that this is a significant factor in men's decisions not to become teachers.

Firstly, I think we were specifically talking about primary teaching.

Not direct evidence but here's a quote I picked up by doing a quick search:
http://www.nzei.org.nz/site/nzeite/files/misc%20documents/Men%20in%20Primary%20Teaching%20in%20New%20Zealand.pdf

Going, Going ...?
Men in Primary Teaching
in New Zealand

Practising male teachers were just as concerned as prospective male teachers were over issues of physical contact with children, status, and salary. With regard to physical contact, the higher the level of responsibility, the higher the level of concern appeared to be. This was particularly true of principals, who were very sensitive about the effect any unfounded allegations of teacher maltreatment or sexual abuse of children would have for the reputation of their school. Male teachers working in junior classrooms were also particularly likely to express concern. For some, it meant a refusal to teach juniors. Many expressed regret that they felt unable to comfort a distressed child in the same way as a parent or female teacher could, without putting themselves at risk.

I think a lot of males wouldn't think one would have much of a choice who one would teach - if one trained, one could end up with any age group.
This might be one of the reasons why there might be more men doing secondary rather than primary teaching.

iptba

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

taconnol, it's all directed at women though, that it's women targeting men unfairly and so on.

The initial survey found girls thought they were better than/superior to boys in various ways. That might be one of the reasons ...

Galvasean

metrovelvet wrote: »

Patriarchy created this myth and needs to sustain it. Only they are getting hoisted by their own petard.

So some bigots came up with female supressing rules many years ago and now modern men are suffering for the sins of the father. Fair that.

Herbal Deity

Galvasean wrote: »

So some bigots came up with female supressing rules many years ago and now modern men are suffering for the sins of the father. Fair that.

I guess now some virgin feminist needs to give birth to a child who devotes their life to preaching against patriarchy, and then is crucified by men, so that we can be absolved of the sin of having created the patriarchal system, which we naturally inherited by virtue of our gender.

Or something.

metrovelvet

Galvasean wrote: »

So some bigots came up with female supressing rules many years ago and now modern men are suffering for the sins of the father. Fair that.

Kind of yeah. We are all paying for the sins of the fathers and the mothers. Ask anyone who feels sold up the river by feminists.

C'est la vie.

Zulu

Galvasean wrote: »

So some bigots came up with female supressing rules many years ago and now modern men are suffering for the sins of the father. Fair that.

You'd do well to observe any fairness when it come to the gender wars here. Suffice to say, egalitarianism has a lot of catching up to do in modern society.

In relation to the original point: personally I don't find it surprising at all. Todays media has a very obvious bias against men, and has been insidiously degrading "mans" character mercilessly for some time now. I don't believe it's necessarily deliberate, but more a product of strong lobby groups defending other interests, and little to no support for men.
Advertisements have a lasting impact on impressionable young children, and what are they supposed to think when society clearly condemns "negative" advertisements against one group, but not another?

I put negative in commas there because the advertisement doesn't have to be negative, at all, toward some groups, it need only be perceived as having the ability to cause offense. I also use commas, as often, young children will not directly understand the perceived offense (ie: hunky dory ads).
However, they do understand the bumbling idiot father, or the nerdy weakling images that are acceptable.

Nevyn

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

iptba

Zulu wrote: »

In relation to the original point: personally I don't find it surprising at all. Todays media has a very obvious bias against men, and has been insidiously degrading "mans" character mercilessly for some time now. I don't believe it's necessarily deliberate, but more a product of strong lobby groups defending other interests, and little to no support for men.
Advertisements have a lasting impact on impressionable young children, and what are they supposed to think when society clearly condemns "negative" advertisements against one group, but not another?

I put negative in commas there because the advertisement doesn't have to be negative, at all, toward some groups, it need only be perceived as having the ability to cause offense. I also use commas, as often, young children will not directly understand the perceived offense (ie: hunky dory ads).
However, they do understand the bumbling idiot father, or the nerdy weakling images that are acceptable.

(With regard to the first paragraph in particular) I happened to read somebody a few days ago (in the US I think) say that in their office, some very good men were let go and some "ordinary" women were held on. This person said that they believed (knew??) the companies calculated it was more risky to fire women because of possible law suits. (That's not to say women are never fired of course).

This is one of the reasons why I came to the conclusion that there needs to be men's groups at this time i.e. without them, men can be treated worse, portrayed in a worse fashion, there can be less interest in needs of males, etc.

Logical Fallacy

Surely early adapted superiority complexes are a bad thing, or am i missing the point here?

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

Then they grow and realise being a good girl wont get you very far.

Sleepy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Surely early adapted superiority complexes are a bad thing, or am i missing the point here?

I'd agree with this.

The type of misandrist who regards every man as a rapist are second only to rapists themslves in terms of the limits to the amount of sympathy I'd have for them were they subjected to the ordeal themselves tbh.

As with many other areas of the 'gender wars' we hear about constantly in the media, I think feminism is part of the problem rather than part of any solution. An egalitarian movement would be far more use imho.

randylonghorn

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

Thaed, sometimes you talk uncommonly good sense (just sometimes, mind you! ).

I think you've hit the nail bang on the head here.

There is such a tendency in modern society to wrap everything up in -isms and -ologies and soundbites that it seldom strikes us that when interpreting the attitudes and actions of children, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and attempt to see the world through their eyes.

Judging other cultures purely by the standards and norms of one's own is termed ethnocentrism, and would generally be regarded as a weakness in any individual displaying such attitudes.

I wonder if there's a term for those who insist on viewing the culture and attitudes of children though the eyes and prejudices of adults?

Balmed Out wrote: »

I dont consider girls to be as clever as boys in most regards, they do however try an awful lot harder. A boy may stumble his way with little to no effort to say 400 points in his leaving. A girl with the same amount of points will have spent evening after evening & weekend after weekend studying. She will be attentive in class with clearly indexed and cross referencing notes while the boy will spend the class staring at her legs or dozing. Going into college she will have forgotten all the theorems and quotations that she memorised and still will be under the impression that Argentina is an area in the south of Italy and Tanzania is a brand of self tan lotion.
This general knowledge particularly of geography and history is quite disturbing. I suppose it comes from the fact that girls conversations tend to revolve around hair straighteners and lip gloss.
However girls are far more organised then boys to be fair. This in conjunction that so many study housewife education sorry home economics explains their superior point tallys.

Nozebleed wrote: »

girls simply do what they are told. boys dont. boys have character. girls just do what others tell them to do. whether thats through fear or some emotional stuff i dont know exactly. boys are superior on all fronts. especially tennis..las time i watched a womens tennis match one of the girls broke down crying because she kept hitting the fuc*kin net. It cost me a fortune.

Please tell me that you two had your tongues firmly in your cheek when writing those posts?

If not, any chance of a favour? ... if I give you my copy of The Pickwick Papers would you ever ask Charlie Dickens to autograph it when you return to your own century? I *really* would love to have a signed copy, he's one of my favourite authors. There's a bowl of wassail or a jug of whisky-toddy in it for you, whichever most tickles your fancy.

iptba

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

It wasn't just the girls who believed it. The boys started believing it also.

iptba

randylonghorn wrote: »

There is such a tendency in modern society to wrap everything up in -isms and -ologies and soundbites that it seldom strikes us that when interpreting the attitudes and actions of children, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and attempt to see the world through their eyes.

Judging other cultures purely by the standards and norms of one's own is termed ethnocentrism, and would generally be regarded as a weakness in any individual displaying such attitudes.

I wonder if there's a term for those who insist on viewing the culture and attitudes of children though the eyes and prejudices of adults?

I wonder is there a term for people who make posts like this/term for posts like this?

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

A feminist friend of mine is always questioning this saying she has sons brothers and a Dad she cares about. Same here, I have a partner, daughter and a Mum I care about so we get along fairly well.When I am making "daughter" decisions I will talk the stuff over with my female friends to make an informed decision because I dont know what its like to be a teenage girl.

I am with Thaed that boys are more boisterous than girls and dont have to be taught to eat worms or frogspawn.

Maybe its an energy thing but there are a lot of madcap educational theories discouraging boys from being boys

Feeona

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not surprised that that data at all.

Given that most boys at that age will be more boisterous then most girls the girls will see the boys getting given out to more and being chastised more then themselves and that will effect thier opion that as they are "better" behaved that they are better over all.

very interesting thread

I'll add to the above post and say that as a newly qualified teacher, I'd normally spend several hours per day preparing work for class. When I go into the classroom, I don't want the time I spent preparing for class wasted by constantly telling children to sit down. So I have a reward system in place. Girls mostly respond much quicker than boys, and sit still so I can teach them. Boys see that the girls are getting rewards, and so start copying them. Which might explain the reason why four year old girls think they are 'better' than four year old boys. They're getting more rewards, and rewards are used in every society as a means of singling out the 'best', whether it's the best at being quiet, best at sport, best at building, best at exams, you name it. Whoever is in charge determines who the 'best' is and who the reward goes to.

For me, I just want to get my work done, and to do that, I reward those who are quiet and do their work. Being a reflective practitioner is part of my job, I know that it's not my aim to ensure boys are held back while girls surge ahead. It is unfortunate though that the brightest and best (male/female) sometimes miss out on realising their true potential due to the nature of a public school system.

iptba

Thanks for sharing that, Feeona.

I just thought I'd point out to everyone, for anyone who never followed the link, that these views were not just held by those in junior infants but by those in the first four years of school (the years studied).

CDfm

Feeona -but doesn't that mean that you are tapping into the "turning boys into girls club".

When I was in school it was very rough and tumble and was an all boys school and visiting my son's school (he's 20 now) it was a totally - I dont know -"unboyed" environment.

A few years back then you had a proposed programme called "Exploring Masculinities" as social or civics studies and it was a very "Guys are Bad" programme for secondary.

Now schools should be about schooling people for life and not for school.

Not a dig -my Mums a retired teacher and her world view was school and education and she could be a right little dictator. I just worried that schools were trying to take the "boy" out of the "child". I can't see a situation where a you would get " Miss , Tommy hit me " and "Mary sit down -you're always whingeing".

Maybe I am putting it in a clumsy way

metrovelvet

^ I think there is something to that cdfm.

I also think with the primary schools having female teachers and the ever increasing amount of kids growing up without fathers, I think this is going to be a real problem.

Feeona

CDfm wrote: »

Feeona -but doesn't that mean that you are tapping into the "turning boys into girls club".

When I was in school it was very rough and tumble and was an all boys school and visiting my son's school (he's 20 now) it was a totally - I dont know -"unboyed" environment.

A few years back then you had a proposed programme called "Exploring Masculinities" as social or civics studies and it was a very "Guys are Bad" programme for secondary.

Now schools should be about schooling people for life and not for school.

Not a dig -my Mums a retired teacher and her world view was school and education and she could be a right little dictator. I just worried that schools were trying to take the "boy" out of the "child". I can't see a situation where a you would get " Miss , Tommy hit me " and "Mary sit down -you're always whingeing".

Maybe I am putting it in a clumsy way

I've no interest in turning boys into girls, I just want to do my work which I spent hours preparing!
I was thinking more about this last night, and I went over all the essays/assignments/course notes that we covered when I was training. There were plenty of notes about socio-economic status, and learning difficulties, and psychological reports. Not one of them made any reference to one sex being better than the other (as far as I can remember). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a secret plan on the DES's part to turn boys into girls, or have boys think they're lesser than girls.
Of course you get the situation in school where two boys are fighting and the teacher has to be seen to stop them. If the teacher doesn't stop them, the principal gets hassle from parents, and the teacher gets hassle from the principal and parents. Again, it's not an insidious plan to turn boys into girls, just ordinary people trying to do their job without the hassle that ultimately ends up eating into teaching time.
I personally believe that more male teachers are needed in primary school (even though I'm not working at the moment how's that for falling on your own sword!). A child needs both a male and female view of the world. Male staff also have the added benefit of knocking the corners off what otherwise would be a stilted and formal staffroom (from the staffrooms I've been in, the best ones had a good proportion of male teachers).

CDfm

feeoona - thanks for popping back.

I wasnt talking about covert operations and conspiracies to turn boys into girls but that the teaching system and curricullum is based on a women/girls view of the world and thats what seems to have happened. It does favour the teaching needs/.methods that are sucessful for girls. That is how you have been trained to teach.

Primary teaching is fast becoming a female only profession as you point out.

Good luck on the job hunt.

metrovelvet

I think it is unreasonable to expect boys to sit still for five hours.

Pedagogy needs an overhaul in how they teach. Some kids are better learners with more experiential hands on learning, not sitting there quietly, silent and immobile.

It says something about education that most people hated it. If most people hated school there has to be something wrong with it.

Raze_them_all

Feeona wrote: »

I've no interest in turning boys into girls, I just want to do my work which I spent hours preparing!
I was thinking more about this last night, and I went over all the essays/assignments/course notes that we covered when I was training. There were plenty of notes about socio-economic status, and learning difficulties, and psychological reports. Not one of them made any reference to one sex being better than the other (as far as I can remember). I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a secret plan on the DES's part to turn boys into girls, or have boys think they're lesser than girls.
Of course you get the situation in school where two boys are fighting and the teacher has to be seen to stop them. If the teacher doesn't stop them, the principal gets hassle from parents, and the teacher gets hassle from the principal and parents. Again, it's not an insidious plan to turn boys into girls, just ordinary people trying to do their job without the hassle that ultimately ends up eating into teaching time.
I personally believe that more male teachers are needed in primary school (even though I'm not working at the moment how's that for falling on your own sword!). A child needs both a male and female view of the world. Male staff also have the added benefit of knocking the corners off what otherwise would be a stilted and formal staffroom (from the staffrooms I've been in, the best ones had a good proportion of male teachers).

On the fighting part, the teaching system is a joke in regards to this, I remember back in secondary school both me and my sister got into a fight on the same day, The school rang my parents saying my sister had committed a serious assauls on a girl,called a liason officer the whole lot before gathering facts that the other girl had attacked my sister from behind and my sister had defended herself, in regards me I was brought into the office and told i was getting a letter home. That was it.

Later that day I was playing rugby with yer man all forgotten about, to this day my sister and your one still have enimosity towards each other, nearly 8 or 9 years on.

Girls carry around grudges more than lads.


And as far as teaching goes, There was a lad in my metal work class, the chap by educational standards was a complete and utter failure, yet I do not once recall him getting anything less than an A in metal work, the teacher even said he actually had to look for tiny mistakes just to mark him down.

Oh and as for the school system it is unfair to lads, I've never been much good with my hands and decided I'd do home ec instead of metal or woodwork which I had no interest in. I was practically laughed at by my teachers and was forced to do metalwork. Where as a girl wanted to do metalwork and wasn even given a certain look.


I went on a rant there. I hated school. It was stupid and I have to say, those quotes from King Lear, not a day goes by that I don't find a very impotant use for them :rolleyes:

Feeona

CDfm wrote: »

feeoona - thanks for popping back.

I wasnt talking about covert operations and conspiracies to turn boys into girls but that the teaching system and curricullum is based on a women/girls view of the world and thats what seems to have happened. It does favour the teaching needs/.methods that are sucessful for girls. That is how you have been trained to teach.

Primary teaching is fast becoming a female only profession as you point out.

Good luck on the job hunt.

thanks for the wishes. It's a full time job looking for one, and it costs a fortune!

ah I understand what you were saying now. Education does seem to becoming very touchy feely alright. I used to watch tv programmes set in American schools when I was small, and all the things I saw then are what's happening in primary school in Ireland today. I definitely think there's an American influence to our way of teaching. Much of our education system would be based on psychological research carried out to ascertain the best approach to teaching. I don't know if that research would've been driven by a female-centred approach though.
At the moment, we look back on the way we were taught in primary school and we think that it's really behind the times (ie basic English, Irish, Maths, hardly any PE/Art/Drama/Science etc; no learning support; special needs children non existent etc). Of course, teachers and department did their best with the funds and research available to them. Who knows, maybe in ten twenty years time, we'll look back on today's education and say that it's the main reason for effeminate men?

On another point, I think part of the reason so few men became teachers in recent years was because there was so much more money to be made elsewhere, far more job opportunities etc. A male teacher I worked with a few years back told me he was laughed out of it by his mates when he told them he was going back to college to become a teacher. Their reason-so many better jobs with much more money.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Any more details on the data this based on?

all i can imagine is ali g saying "oo is beta? man o woeman?"

So much whataboutery on this thread. painful to read

iptba

Raze_them_all wrote: »

On the fighting part, the teaching system is a joke in regards to this, I remember back in secondary school both me and my sister got into a fight on the same day, The school rang my parents saying my sister had committed a serious assauls on a girl,called a liason officer the whole lot before gathering facts that the other girl had attacked my sister from behind and my sister had defended herself, in regards me I was brought into the office and told i was getting a letter home. That was it.

Later that day I was playing rugby with yer man all forgotten about, to this day my sister and your one still have enimosity towards each other, nearly 8 or 9 years on.

Girls carry around grudges more than lads.

A teacher friend told me he was locked in a cupboard or room by a student who was in sixth year. She told him it was for some way she treated her at one time in first year!

A female secondary school teacher friend once told me she liked teaching in the all boys school she had moved to. Everything was so relaxed. She could give out to somebody or give them detention and they'd have forgotten about it the next day/still be friendly with you the next day. She said you had to be much more careful with the girls - do something wrong and if you didn't sort it out the next day, you'd have an enemy for the rest of the school days (I'm not this is not true for every case of course). I told this to another female teacher friend who agreed.

Raze_them_all wrote: »

I hated school. It was stupid and I have to say, those quotes from King Lear, not a day goes by that I don't find a very impotant use for them :rolleyes:

I hated the learning off in English also, not just plays but also whole poems. Why couldn't they simply print the poems? For GCSE English literature, you were allowed bring in the set texts so there was no need to learn stuff off (although knowing it might help a bit and certainly have an idea where it was said definitely helped - but no need to spend endless hours learning off useless quotes - it wasn't as if everyone in the country did the exact same play as it changed from year to year - it wasn't required knowledge).
If somebody learned off sections from tv programs they liked, we'd call them a nerd or something.

If it wasn't for being (very) good at maths, I might have turned off school also as a lot of it was boring.
From what I've heard, some female friends and other women I've come across actually enjoy learning languages e.g. as adults - they imagine themselves in the country or whatever and they find it stimulating. Perhaps it is like my young niece who likes to have imaginary tea parties with people/teddies/whatever while my nephew wouldn't find it of interest. I find learning languages from scratch a bit like being forced to read "Mary and Pat" books all over again (and I'm not just saying this because I am no good at learning languages - I got an A in L. Cert French - although there are definitely people who pick languages up more quickly than me). I find lots of sports stimulating while they might not - it's not that male brains are better but different things can stimulate males and females it seems to me.

iptba

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Any more details on the data this based on?

Afraid I can't see anything from a quick search of the conference website:

http://www.beraconference.co.uk/

This is the piece presumably

Poster 15
0346 INVESTIGATING CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT OF
STEREOTYPICAL GENDER-RELATED EXPECTATIONS
ABOUT ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND CONSEQUENCES
FOR PERFORMANCE
Hartley, Bonny University of Kent; Sutton, Robbie
University of Kent

CDfm

Feeona wrote: »

thanks for the wishes. It's a full time job looking for one, and it costs a fortune!

ah I understand what you were saying now. Education does seem to becoming very touchy feely alright. I used to watch tv programmes set in American schools when I was small, and all the things I saw then are what's happening in primary school in Ireland today. I definitely think there's an American influence to our way of teaching. Much of our education system would be based on psychological research carried out to ascertain the best approach to teaching. I don't know if that research would've been driven by a female-centred approach though.

I am not saying it is deliberate but some of the changes in "pupil" management and playground activities does not target what boys like.

Like you can have department policymakers setting curricullums that might have different aghenda's other than the 3R's and hammer and nails.

At the moment, we look back on the way we were taught in primary school and we think that it's really behind the times (ie basic English, Irish, Maths, hardly any PE/Art/Drama/Science etc; no learning support; special needs children non existent etc). Of course, teachers and department did their best with the funds and research available to them. Who knows, maybe in ten twenty years time, we'll look back on today's education and say that it's the main reason for effeminate men

How much discretion does an individual school and teacher have at this.

How much resourcing do these need.

We did drama and p/e in the hall without equipment. Art -what do you need ?

On another point, I think part of the reason so few men became teachers in recent years was because there was so much more money to be made elsewhere, far more job opportunities etc. A male teacher I worked with a few years back told me he was laughed out of it by his mates when he told them he was going back to college to become a teacher. Their reason-so many better jobs with much more money.

I don't know. have you considered that the teaching organisations have become highly politicised in feminist politics.

So maybe that kind of scares men off.

Feeona

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying it is deliberate but some of the changes in "pupil" management and playground activities does not target what boys like.

Like you can have department policymakers setting curricullums that might have different aghenda's other than the 3R's and hammer and nails.




How much discretion does an individual school and teacher have at this.

How much resourcing do these need.

We did drama and p/e in the hall without equipment. Art -what do you need ?



I don't know. have you considered that the teaching organisations have become highly politicised in feminist politics.

So maybe that kind of scares men off.

I don't think department policies are plucked out of thin air. It is often research based. I say this because my training involved reading a lot of research papers on education. The research papers we were guided to read didn't talk about how once sex was better than the other. In fact, the sexes weren't mentioned.

When I was in primary school, there were some classes where PE/Art/Drama/Science were non-existent. Usually in the classes where an 'old school' teacher was running the proceedings. Nowadays, every teacher teaches all eleven of the subjects (+ Religion) on the curriculum, which was updated in 1999.

I said that part of the reason that men didn't want to teach was down to pay, and that's from talking to a male teacher who had experience of it. Maybe the other part is due to feminisation of the system, but the male teachers I've met in staffrooms don't seem too scared by the system of education, and will often have a different (and often more effective) way of dealing with two boys fighting because they have an innate understanding of what is actually at play.

CDfm

Feeona wrote: »

I don't think department policies are plucked out of thin air. It is often research based. I say this because my training involved reading a lot of research papers on education. The research papers we were guided to read didn't talk about how once sex was better than the other. In fact, the sexes weren't mentioned.

I imagine that if a professor approaches things in a gender biased way then by definition thats the way its done.

There was a thread on here about UL/Mary I where the OP said the lecturer was openly anti man in the content of her teaching.


Its not to far to stretch this out and say that the methods used work for girls and are less effective with boys.

When I was in primary school, there were some classes where PE/Art/Drama/Science were non-existent. Usually in the classes where an 'old school' teacher was running the proceedings. Nowadays, every teacher teaches all eleven of the subjects (+ Religion) on the curriculum, which was updated in 1999.

That was really down to the teacher then - no discretion -is that good or bad?

I said that part of the reason that men didn't want to teach was down to pay, and that's from talking to a male teacher who had experience of it. Maybe the other part is due to feminisation of the system, but the male teachers I've met in staffrooms don't seem too scared by the system of education, and will often have a different (and often more effective) way of dealing with two boys fighting because they have an innate understanding of what is actually at play

I have never considered teachers or gardai to be low paid - maybe the entry qualification system has a bearing on it..

I am only going from what my mother says from meeting former teaching colleagues.

Cant you get what I am saying though when you say men can deal with fighting boys better that it takes different skills than are being taught and that these skills are either not harnessed or recruited or that they are not incorporated into your training as teachers.

Galvasean

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Oh and as for the school system it is unfair to lads, I've never been much good with my hands and decided I'd do home ec instead of metal or woodwork which I had no interest in. I was practically laughed at by my teachers and was forced to do metalwork. Where as a girl wanted to do metalwork and wasn even given a certain look.

I actually chose home ec. over metalwok for my junior cert. Why? The metal work room absolutely STANK (probably something to do with having hundreds of teenage boys working there every day with virtually no ventilation. I just couldnt hack spending more than 5 minutes in the place.
The Home ec. room, on the other hand, smelled like delicious cake.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

The Home ec. room, on the other hand, smelled like delicious cake.

LOL

Nolanger

Girls 'believe they are bitterer than boys from age four'"

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

There was a thread on here about UL/Mary I where the OP said the lecturer was openly anti man in the content of her teaching.

Was that me or are you talking about the OP to that thread? I remember there was a lecturer in Limerick justifying women killing men because the men might at some stage kill them.

Even though I dislike organisations that don't really have much to do with gender politics in terms of their remit (e.g. teachers' unions) taking a feminist line on things, I'm not convinced in this case that it is directly because of this that most males decide not to be a primary teacher.

A suggestion I would have would be to have specialist teachers. In the UK, they have maths specialists as they found many of the primary teachers were not particularly able in maths. Maths specialists, PE specialists, etc might get more men involved in primary teaching.

iptba

Feeona wrote: »

I don't think department policies are plucked out of thin air. It is often research based. I say this because my training involved reading a lot of research papers on education. The research papers we were guided to read didn't talk about how once sex was better than the other. In fact, the sexes weren't mentioned.

Not everyone will agree with me on this but perhaps there should be more focus that male and female brains may be a bit different and so different things may stimulate boys and girls.

I don't think there should necessarily be an assumption that boys and girls are the same. Or if people want to use that some of the time, one could still work on models that make a distinction between the genders on other occasions - sort of hedge your bets.

I think there can be too much political correctness in academia e.g. just because girls might be a bit better on average in languages doesn't mean that any one boy can't be good at learning languages; similarly, just as boys might be a bit better on average in spatial ability, doesn't mean any one girl can't be good at spatial ability.

kmick

Im getting to use this link a lot.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
Excerpt-
Believing that you're better than others
Expecting constant praise and admiration
Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
Being jealous of others
Believing that others are jealous of you
Setting unrealistic goals
Being easily hurt and rejected
Having a fragile self-esteem

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Was that me or are you talking about the OP to that thread? I remember there was a lecturer in Limerick justifying women killing men because the men might at some stage kill them.

Nothing as dramatic as that.

An ex student at UL/Mary.I posted on this forum relating that they were taught literature by a lecturer with a "misandrist" slant who saw everything from an extreme feminist standpoint.It upset him and he posted years after he left.

All I am saying if you have that mindset in theorists and lecturers then subconsciously the teachers they train will use methods and practices that are more in favour of girls than boys.

Its like fishing - its not enough just to have a rod,reel and hook but the lure and bait you use also influences the catch. So too with teaching methods and boys.

iptba

kmick wrote: »

Im getting to use this link a lot.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
Excerpt-
Believing that you're better than others

Are you saying you think girls who think they are better than boys have narcissistic personality disorders? Seems a bit dramatic.

Or is this aimed at one or more posters in this thread. In which case, it could be: (i) aimed at a restriction of free speech (e.g. we are not allowed make points that are not PC e.g. suggesting that there might be average differences between boys and girls) (ii) seems to be an example of a post from somebody thinking they are superior to somebody else (i.e. part of the NPD). Such name calling could go on all day - "your post is an example of such-and-such a trait". Best to stick to the issues I reckon. If the person makes a point you disagree with, challenge the point: play the ball not the man. Not saying I'm always perfect at this myself (although sometimes I will do it to those to allow a discussion to continue rather than it being an all-out attack on a person) but I think in general it should be the aim in forums even if it is not always fully achieved. Even if somebody did have NPD, they could still be making useful points.

Maybe other people could tell what your point was, especially if they know you, and that it wasn't the second option but it wasn't clear to me.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

Nothing as dramatic as that.

An ex student at UL/Mary.I posted on this forum relating that they were taught literature by a lecturer with a "misandrist" slant who saw everything from an extreme feminist standpoint.It upset him and he posted years after he left.

All I am saying if you have that mindset in theorists and lecturers then subconsciously the teachers they train will use methods and practices that are more in favour of girls than boys.

Its like fishing - its not enough just to have a rod,reel and hook but the lure and bait you use also influences the catch. So too with teaching methods and boys.

Ok, there could be something to it. It might be part of a malaise in society that, for example, allows it to be acceptable to portray men as stupid in ads. Then you've thinks like the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirts. I wish there were more balanced gender studies faculties in universities to look at these issues in more detail.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Ok, there could be something to it. It might be part of a malaise in society that, for example, allows it to be acceptable to portray men as stupid in ads.

Thats different and I am not talking about society. .

What I said was that maybe the educational methods and teaching theory taught to teachers are methods that are more successful with girls.Its a thought as some parents and a teacher said on the thread that there are differences and I wondered if these extended to learning/teaching.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

What I said was that maybe the educational methods and teaching theory taught to teachers are methods that are more successful with girls.Its a thought as some parents and a teacher said on the thread that there are differences and I wondered if these extended to learning/teaching.

I agree. I have been making similar points myself in this thread.

kmick

iptba wrote: »

Are you saying you think girls who think they are better than boys have narcissistic personality disorders? Seems a bit dramatic.

Or is this aimed at one or more posters in this thread. In which case, it could be: (i) aimed at a restriction of free speech (e.g. we are not allowed make points that are not PC e.g. suggesting that there might be average differences between boys and girls) (ii) seems to be an example of a post from somebody thinking they are superior to somebody else (i.e. part of the NPD). Such name calling could go on all day - "your post is an example of such-and-such a trait". Best to stick to the issues I reckon. If the person makes a point you disagree with, challenge the point: play the ball not the man. Not saying I'm always perfect at this myself (although sometimes I will do it to those to allow a discussion to continue rather than it being an all-out attack on a person) but I think in general it should be the aim in forums even if it is not always fully achieved. Even if somebody did have NPD, they could still be making useful points.

Maybe other people could tell what your point was, especially if they know you, and that it wasn't the second option but it wasn't clear to me.

To be honest I dont know which post/poster you were referring to so no is the answer to that although reading your posts it seems like you think I am attacking you and that I am possibly the one with NPD.

The post I made was slightly tongue in cheek to be honest. I can honestly say from primary school I always got the impression that girls felt they were better and this was encouraged by the mostly female staff. However what they forgot was the fact that the boys by and large did not really care - they were too busy knocking lumps out of each other (and the school property where they could get away with it). For most boys in primary school girls did not even figure in the equation until 11 or 12.

So in summation I'm not sure that by knowing the fact that girls believe they are better than boys from age 4 actually gets us anywhere or that anyone other than 4 year old girls really mind so much.

Zulu

kmick wrote: »

So in summation I'm not sure that by knowing the fact that girls believe they are better than boys from age 4 actually gets us anywhere or that anyone other than 4 year old girls really mind so much.

Of course it does! You can't fix a problem if you don't know it exists.

Perosnally I don't wish to live in a society that raises some of it's children to think they are better than others. We wouldn't stand for it if a study showed that "white" children believed they were better than "black" children - would we?

CDfm

Recently I heard a headmaster from educate together on Newstalk talking about stuff like discipline and hair lenght and colour.

He also mentioned uniforms etc and seemed to be a bit more in tune so I am wondering do different schools have different ethos.

iptba

kmick wrote: »

The post I made was slightly tongue in cheek to be honest. I can honestly say from primary school I always got the impression that girls felt they were better and this was encouraged by the mostly female staff. However what they forgot was the fact that the boys by and large did not really care - they were too busy knocking lumps out of each other (and the school property where they could get away with it). For most boys in primary school girls did not even figure in the equation until 11 or 12.

Thanks for the clarification. The reason I replied as I did is that in gender discussions people giving opinions often get bashed so it was far from clear (I thought) what you were saying e.g. I had used the word better in the previous message for example (girls better on average at languages, boys at spatial ability) so thought you might have been referring to me and that some people might read it like that.

I agree with your last sentence.

iptba

Zulu wrote: »

Of course it does! You can't fix a problem if you don't know it exists.

Perosnally I don't wish to live in a society that raises some of it's children to think they are better than others. We wouldn't stand for it if a study showed that "white" children believed they were better than "black" children - would we?

Also the boys started adopting the attitudes also (that girls were better than them).

iptba wrote: »

I just thought I'd point out to everyone, for anyone who never followed the link, that these views were not just held by those in junior infants but by those in the first four years of school (the years studied).

I can't edit this. I looked at the piece again and it's the first 6 years at school (i.e. Reception, Years 1-5 or ages 4-10).