June 29, 2002

11:04 AM

Schools conspire against boys: educator I really don't know what to make of this. Nobody complained that schools were "anti-boy" before girls started to do better and outpace male enrollment in college. Boys were always the ones getting in trouble when I was a student too.
posted by Salmonberry (47 comments total)

There seems to be an awful lot of this going around lately.... boy's getting stiffed on required reading in schools, boys getting eaten by angry robots, etc..
I think it's high time someone recognized that men need equal rights too. When will we get equal pay? When will we be able to vote? I demand some answers!!
posted by bradth27 at 11:38 AM on June 29, 2002

In my years of schooling, I've never known of any girls who were singled out in any way even close to the way we "trouble makers" (boys) were.

And, believe me, girls start as much shit as boys do. They just go about it differently, and usually the boys get involved anyway -- and the girls' role is ignored.

Always trying to keep "the man" down.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:40 AM on June 29, 2002

Is this the thread I get to spout off about DODGEBALL?
posted by bradth27 at 11:41 AM on June 29, 2002

Well, from my years of schooling, I can tell you that elementary school boys who kept messy desks and had bad handwriting were given B-minuses in these areas, along with ruefully admiring chuckles about their future lives as absentminded geniuses. Girls were given C's and told to shape up, or they'd never make it through high school. I don't know how it is now - I think handwriting grades have been eliminated at my old school - but if this system benefits girls more at all, it's only because more of them have been socialized to prize neatness and conformity more than boys.
posted by transona5 at 11:47 AM on June 29, 2002

Men. So comfortable in their superiority that they don't even wish to realize the pendulum's swinging the other way, which is not a good thing at all, not if true equality is desired.

Not that this comment has to do anything with the article linked, that piece was just silly.

I'd like to vent about tetherball now, please.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:48 AM on June 29, 2002

*cries a river*

The only blatant favoritism I ever saw one way or the other was from Sister Maureen in fourth grade. She liked boys better, and wasn't shy about telling us so.

Item number one thousand four hundred sixty-eight from my list of Reasons Why Catholic School Was Booty.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:57 AM on June 29, 2002

I DO see it swinging the other way. I just mentioned it to my wife last night after watching another one of those "men-are-so-stupid-how-do-they-survive-without-a-woman-around" commercials which seem to be in vogue at the moment. Movies, television, and music are the same way as of late. It pisses me off, and the wife thinks it's totally ridiculous.
What would happen if we made the same commercial, only switching genders?
All Hell would break lose.
I'm pissed off right now, just thinking about it.
posted by bradth27 at 11:59 AM on June 29, 2002

What complete poppycock. As if boys are the only ones who'd rather attend an assembly or engage in a debate or go on a field trip instead of sitting endlessly at an uncomfortable desk and listening to a teacher drone on incessantly. The thing that annoys most is the way Peter West seems to see girls as nice, well-mannered little automatons that just sit still and absorb knowledge, as if we're not high-spirited or energized enough to do otherwise.

Bradth27 - women have had to endure that kind of head-patting, patronizing attitude from men for a while now too, but I feel your pain. I too get insulted from those commercials. Being the mother of a son, I see them through his eyes and I don't like what I see. I am sick to death, especially, of commercials and ads aimed towards women, telling them things that they have to go out and buy for their husbands, and how they need to schedule their husbands for medical checkups and so forth. Can't men buy vitamins and whitening toothpaste and hair dye and schedule doctors appointments by themselves? Yeah I thought that they could.
posted by iconomy at 12:16 PM on June 29, 2002

Can't men buy vitamins and whitening toothpaste and hair dye and schedule doctors appointments by themselves?

as bad as this sounds, though i know the majority of men can, i know i can't...
posted by lotsofno at 12:23 PM on June 29, 2002

lotsofno: Well, perhaps if they'd only studied harder in school they'd now be able to. Sad, really.
posted by Salmonberry at 12:24 PM on June 29, 2002

Boys were always the ones getting in trouble when I was a student too.

Yeah, but we only did that to impress the girls.
posted by jonmc at 12:31 PM on June 29, 2002

[/blather]Well, men don't buy vitamins and schedule checkups for themselves, they never have and they probably never will.

In fact, men that are particular about their health, eat properly, and visit the doctor often are considered to be pantywastes.

Marketing has taught men to be reckless with our health, smoke and drink as often as we can, and to buy in copious amounts, products that are hazardous and often deadly.

That's what a man is on Madison Ave.

So, realizing this, knowing their former tactics are backfiring, they resort to try to appeal to the fear, guilt, and perceived misplaced sense of responsibility in women to buy and do those things for them.

I doubt it will remain effective as the boomers age. Their "every wo(man) for themselves" mentality will prevail.[/blather]

Anyway, as for the article... I'm not seeing this trend in the mid-west. Trends come slowly here. We're just now getting out of our Jordache's and pulling the plastic combs with swirling patterns out of our back pockets.

Boys in schools here are taught in the same manner as girls. However, even today, boys are still held to a higher standard of behavior than girls are. They aren't allowed to treat girls as anything other than equals yet, the consequences for boys acting in a violent manner towards girls is still handled much more harshly than the reverse. Girls are taught "hitting anyone is terrible." Boys are taught "Hitting anyone is terrible, particularly girls." I've had to fight this one out more than once for my kids. We're talking 7-11 year olds here (I've got 3 in elementary school), not teenagers. Mix sexuality into it and things tend to revert to a more normal state, from my experience (with 2 teenagers in school).

Still the sharp rise in anti-male propaganda is more than apparent to me but, we're not supposed to talk about it anymore. I've had my ass handed to me before for pointing out yet another "passe" trend in our culture. I won't risk it here again. So, for the record... all men suck and women rule, forever.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 12:40 PM on June 29, 2002

Well, perhaps if they'd only studied harder in school they'd now be able to. Sad, really.

ouch... or perhaps some just like to be lazy sometimes... or does laziness = not studying hard enough?
posted by lotsofno at 12:46 PM on June 29, 2002

Ok, so schools are now anti-boy, and popular culture is now "anti-male".

Once I see female singers who are allowed to be overweight and sell millions of records, and videos that don't require vast numbers of women in string bikinis gyrating around, and women as action movie stars, you might convince me that it exists.

But I digress. I just don't see why girls doing better than boys has to be turned into some sort of crisis. Can't we just be happy for the girls in schools, who now see that there are options to working until you get married, and are planning accordingly?
posted by Salmonberry at 1:24 PM on June 29, 2002

I don't think there's a Vast Gender Conspiracy, and I'm not prepared to make the leap from "schools aren't doing the best possible job with boys" to "men are the victims in today's society."

But that being said ...

I think the most common sin against the average boy is discipline him for normal boy behavior - treating it as a moral deficit rather than trying to help the boy figure out how to act differently in different situations. I think the most common sin against the average girl is to ignore her - to teach her that her views are not sought after and that she'll be allowed to fade into the woodwork.

These are vast overgeneralizations - note that I used the word "average," and I've had in my classroom plenty of overactive squirmy girls, and boys who did their best to be ignored.

What I do think is important is that people are starting to realize that the fact that there are serious obstacles for girls in our schools does not by definition mean that everything is absolutely perfect for boys.

There's an enormous danger in getting as stereotypical as the linked article got - a tendency to look at a kid and see a gender rather than an individual human being. But I do think that "are boys being well-served by our schools?" is a valid question - particularly in an elementary school environment where nearly all of the authority figures are women, in a society where sizeable percentages of boys have inconsistent father figures.
posted by Chanther at 1:25 PM on June 29, 2002

Once I see female singers who are allowed to be overweight and sell millions of records, and videos that don't require vast numbers of women in string bikinis gyrating around, and women as action movie stars, you might convince me that it exists.

Of course, you are absolutely correct. Still... I think that it is still more marketing in action. Your average man does not tell women to wear only L'Oreal products, marketers do. Your average man has not told women to be thin, look beautiful, wear little or no clothing, and cook dinner as well... Marketing companies are the only ones that have the balls to do that.

So, what you see, feel, and hear from the movies, MTV, and otherwise is constructed because of marketing data, not individual emotions and regard towards women. Most men I know have strived to learn the meaning, form, and function of equality.... most of us live it everyday. Yet we are still paying for the inequality of the actions of marketing and the media.

So, the same is also true in reverse. Most women I have spoken with feel that the portrayal of men is foolish.

Now if we can apply that concept and ignore what's being done in marketing to both genders, then things be okay. Yet, most of us have not done that, I have no faith that we ever will.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 1:43 PM on June 29, 2002

You could probably take what the author said a step further: the way many schools are run these days aren't just anti-boy, they're anti-child.

But I do think there's an element of truth in the article. Boys, in general, have a greater need for the physical, and as I read somewhere, "moving objects through space". The zero-tolerance policies that are becoming so common would seem to affect boys more than girls. And as Chanther said, there's a lot of variation here.

It'd be nice if we could come up with an education that was perfect for every child. I don't believe that's possible, but we can at least consider the more obvious differences in behavior...to the benefit of boys and girls.
posted by groundhog at 1:56 PM on June 29, 2002

Once I see female singers who are allowed to be overweight and sell millions of records, and videos that don't require vast numbers of women in string bikinis gyrating around, and women as action movie stars

Mama Cass and Carnie Wilson. REM's "Losing My Religion" video (which is the last video I can remember watching, sorry). Bridget Fonda in "Point of No Return", and Franke Potente in "Run Lola Run". There are more examples, but these sprang immediately to my mind, which, to me means you're either not seeing things by choice, or I watch more movies and listen to more popular music than you do. :-)

Just sayin'.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2002

WolfDaddy: I don't know that Carnie Wilson ever sold millions of records on her own, or Mama Cass, but your point is well taken.

I like Chanther's bit. Are school systems able to create policies that give teachers a lot of flexibility? My friends who are teachers aren't often given much chance to see kids as individuals - or so they say.
posted by Salmonberry at 2:10 PM on June 29, 2002

How about Aretha Franklin?
posted by raysmj at 2:20 PM on June 29, 2002

But I digress. I just don't see why girls doing better than boys has to be turned into some sort of crisis. Can't we just be happy for the girls in schools, who now see that there are options to working until you get married, and are planning accordingly?

No.
If this were the proper attitude to have, why not just have stopped when the boys were doing better, and the girls had no rights?

What we are looking for is equality.
posted by bradth27 at 2:30 PM on June 29, 2002

Mama Cass and Carnie Wilson

Who both were mercilessly ridiculed about their weight-- and the last time I saw Carnie Wilson, wasn't she on the cover of People talking about her stomach stapling operation?

Just a couple of things: I have a good friend who is doing a PhD in education in exactly this field--how boys learn and how the school environment affects them--and he finds this debate ridiculous, noting that boys still go on to become men who, in general, earn more than women (don't bite my head off here, the statistics are extant). Myself, I find that the school system as presently organized is indeed anti-child; I don't see it meeting anyone's needs, and the system itself certainly reflects the biases at large in society. How could it not? And, finally, I am much more worried about intolerence and homophobia in the schools, and what boys are taught about what it means to be a man, and how society constitutes masculinity, than I am about the school system in general. Anyone who has kids can probably vouch for the fact that the word "gay" is an all purpose insult for teenagers, and all the talking that I have done with my son about this just means that he uses it when I'm not listening.
posted by jokeefe at 2:33 PM on June 29, 2002

Fact is, there aren't that many men OR women out there who are overweight, selling lots of albums. Sure you can think of a few, but by and large, the entertainment industry consists of beautiful people. Period. That goes ofr men or women. If you make it in the business, and people look at you and say, "God, that is one ugly person,", you know you have overcome.
We, as a society, ridicule EVERY person not "Godlike" in the spotlight, no matter what gender they are.
As for the statistics on men being payed more than women, I don't see how it relates to the discussion at hand. So men get paid more than women. Is that an excuse for men to be ridiculed and left behind?
As for homophobia and intollerance, I feel that this type of attitude leans toward religious aspects of our culture. Christians generally look down upon homosexuality, and what they preach supports that notion. To be able to break through a barrier like that, well.... it's going to take a lot more than just a good teacher in school.
It's going to take a bloody miracle.
posted by bradth27 at 2:42 PM on June 29, 2002

Who both were mercilessly ridiculed about their weight-- and the last time I saw Carnie Wilson, wasn't she on the cover of People talking about her stomach stapling operation?

ALL celebrities are mercilessly ridiculed, whether it be due to their weight, their lifestyle, or merely the level of their success. To suggest that Cass or Wilson did the things they did for any other reason other than their own motivation cheapens their accomplishments as artists and as women.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:47 PM on June 29, 2002

Ok, firstly, I call horsepuckies on this story. What the hell does an Australian know about New York schools? Now, if he were talking about schools in his own country...fine. But you can't make a drop-in visit at one or two schools and pronounce the entire system flawed.

Bad researcher! No biscuit!

Next, did any of y'all go look at this guys other research? Here's his home page. Here's an excerpt from his paper: A WAY FORWARD FOR MEN (MS Word Format)

"All that is a world we have lost. What we now have is a world of shining pecs, tight abs and shaved armpits, and males who think that Leonardo is some kid in Hollywood. Or as my doctor recently said, a world in which men want to shave their back, their sack and their crack. Our fathers would be horrified."

Um...yeah.

Frankly, he strikes me as someone who getting a little older, and getting a tad reactionary to the concepts of "Feminism" as he perceives it, which is to say, the way that Betty Friedman elucidated it in the late 60's. It sucks to hit middle age, it sucks to realize that young hot chicks like young hot guys, and because coeds aren't offering blowjobs for grades anymore, it must be the fault of the entire system. Oh, poor, picked on, discriminated against, men. Cue the freaking violins.

Puh-leeze.
posted by dejah420 at 2:47 PM on June 29, 2002

Or as my doctor recently said, a world in which men want to shave their back, their sack and their crack. Our fathers would be horrified."


well, that DOES strike a bit of horror in my heart, just thinking about it.
posted by bradth27 at 3:06 PM on June 29, 2002

WARNING: explicit ranting ahead.

<rant> Is it just me, or can Eminem's "Say Goodbye to Hollywood" chorus be interpreted as
"Sing About a Hollywood".

Because of the way he sings it, you can tell yourself what you want to hear, either "Say Goodbye to Hollywood" or "Sing About a Hollywood."

It's like those visual brain teasers where there's a picture of an old lady and a really young lady, and you see the one that you want to see, except that here it's auditory.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

G-Dub motherfucker!
</rant>
posted by ( .)(. ) at 3:11 PM on June 29, 2002

I read an Atlantic Monthly article a couple of years ago that made similar points: The War Against Boys, by Christina Hoff Summers.

I feel the same way about the issue now as I did then - it's not that "boys are victims" or "girls are victims" so much as that the trend toward gender equality in society has sheered off in the past, oh, decade or so.

When society isn't working toward gender equality, both boys and girls get screwed. "Boys are being punished for being boys! Girls are being punished for being girls!" Meh. The commonality on both sides of the argument is SCHOOL and SOCIETY. Maybe we should look at that, instead of looking for "who's the victim here".
posted by Melinika at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2002

Once I see female singers who are allowed to be overweight and sell millions of records

Hardly a singer, but... Missy Elliott?
posted by dagny at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2002

Once I see female singers who are allowed to be overweight and sell millions of records

I'm certain a gun was held to their heads to lose weight or gyrate around in bikinis. You're only mixing different issues here and seemingly purposely ignoring that fact that many women enter these 'non-equal' or shall I say 'non-moral' activities out of their own freewill and *gasp* some really like it. Perhaps we should arrest porn stars, make women wear burqas, and outlaw bikinis in the name of equality.

If you respect equality like you claim you do, you should also repect free choice and people living as they want to. I know many 'family' groups that need moralistic people to tell others what to do or else goto hell or perhaps be damned to live in an unequal world.
posted by skallas at 4:34 PM on June 29, 2002

I'm certain a gun was held to their heads to lose weight

Yes, skallas, something like that. From an article about Margaret Cho:

It all started when the producer of her TV comedy series - whom Cho thought of as "a friend" at the time - called and told her the network felt her face was "too full" for the small screen.

"She said that if I wanted to do the show that I would have to lose weight very quickly. It was just an awful thing to hear that from a friend," says Cho, who was struck by the cruel irony that she was being ordered to lose weight so that she could play herself on television.

"Everybody seemed to be panicking about my weight. And I wasn't even overweight."

It's an all-too-familiar story in Hollywood.

"I have a number of clients who have become bulimic and drug-addicted in an effort to meet the Hollywood standard," says Nancy R. Sobel, a Beverly Hills-based psychologist who counsels various celebs and industry personnel. "They become so consumed by the business that they eat, drink and sleep it. And their product is their body. So to survive, they have to find a way to keep really low weight."

I'm just saying.
posted by vacapinta at 5:03 PM on June 29, 2002

vacapinta, it is an unfair situation but there is no gunman telling Cho that she must be on TV. Speaking of society in general, there aren't that many jobs that have image requirements. Generally, Jane the accountant doesn't get memos from the corporate image consultant on looking too plain or too fat.

The world of the celebrity isn't the world of the everday person. Image is important on the big/little screens but decrying any sex appeal in the media or arts as being a case of gender inequality is still a bit over the top.

Conversely, there are few male actors who don't have a pretty decent body, especially the ones entering the industry. I wonder if this is a case of gender inequality also or just an affirmation of the 'sex sells' formula of selling product.
posted by skallas at 5:26 PM on June 29, 2002

Usual cospiracy theory, removing attention from the real facts : woman and man are NOT equal, but they have common points and that applies to boys and girls too, obviously age isn't the issue.

Illogical discrimination will not end if popular ideas like "girls are weak" or "boys are more stupid" keep spreading around like wildfire, because they're ideal
for people that want a quick solution like "girl is weak, so girl can't be in the army" , "boys are becoming more stupid, so why send the boy to university".

FACTS, irrefutable facts are needed. One fact about woman is that they can't lift as much weight as a man, but that doesn't mean they're less strong because if you compare they muscular mass of man and woman, you'll see woman has less muscolar mass in the arms.

So you can't say a woman is weak if she can't lift 10 while a man can, she'd be weak if she couldn't lift , for example, 7 which could be a possible max for her muscles.

Observations like that, scrupolous and made following the scientific method are already there. They could be inaccurate or wrong, but are surely better then "My daughter is so brilliant, she does anything a man can do, including shaving beard and sweating" or " my boy is so strong all the girls faint when he's around, because of his natural gas"
posted by elpapacito at 5:27 PM on June 29, 2002

As for the statistics on men being payed more than women, I don't see how it relates to the discussion at hand.

Well, the general point of the argument is that if boys do not achieve high grades, then they will not get into college, and therefore will be doomed to being "unsucessful". This logic is flawed; boys make up the difference in average grade scores as they get older, and tend to gravitate towards fields (computing, sciences, business) that are well paid. Check out the male/female ratios in the your local comp science department... whereas the classes I teach (English Lit) are at least 80% female, especially at the higher levels.
As for the "nobody forces women to worry about their weight" argument, how about thinking instead of what happens to women as they age--this is just one example, but Harrison Ford and Sean Connery continue to be considered dreamboats, whereas Judy Dench, admired though she may be, is not going to be cast next to Leonardo Di Caprio anytime soon as his hot love interest. What is at issue here are the limitations placed on the images we see, and the stories we tell about ourselves. The pressure to be young and thin is not imaginary, and I know that sometimes it bewilders men on a personal level ("Why is she so obsessed about her butt?" kind of thing) but believe me, it has a real effect.
posted by jokeefe at 5:28 PM on June 29, 2002

vacapinta, hmmm. So you suggest that Cho, who was already an established celebrity, fell from grace because she didn't lose weight?

Gee, here I was thinking that she didn't have the guts to tell her producers to fuck off, and thus we all lost a unique televion show in All-American Girl.

Rather than giving in to the suits, Cho should have realized how groundbreaking her show was, used that against the suits, and stuck to her guns. After all, the actress who portrayed her grandmother, one Amy Hill, is also overweight, and has had a long career despite that. Why? She's fucking funny. As is Cho.

She certainly hasn't fallen off the celebrity radar as a result of the experience either. Are you really suggesting that she's being held down by the man? 8 out of 10 for effort, but in Cho's case I just don't buy it.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:37 PM on June 29, 2002

Not to mention you can't even get on television without signing a contract that includes a right for the producers to fire you if you don't keep up your image to their satisfaction. Its not like Cho was being discriminated against as much as she was working her ass off to fulfill a contract she signed without someone putting a gun to her head. There's real discrimination out there and then there's contract obligations for celebs. I have little sympathy for the latter crowd.
posted by skallas at 5:43 PM on June 29, 2002

Fair enough, skallas and Wolfdaddy. I was trying to point out that the 'pressure' does exist and Cho felt it regardless of how she chose to respond. In her case, she was already a celebrity but the fact that this would even come up for a *comedian* is ridiculous and probably reveals much about the default assumptions in hollywood today. In any case, sorry to de-rail the original thread.
posted by vacapinta at 5:59 PM on June 29, 2002

As for the "nobody forces women to worry about their weight" argument, how about thinking instead of what happens to women as they age--this is just one example, but Harrison Ford and Sean Connery continue to be considered dreamboats, whereas Judy Dench, admired though she may be, is not going to be cast next to Leonardo Di Caprio anytime soon as his hot love interest

well, I can guarantee you this.
It's not the men who think Sean and Harrison are still hot. If those two were not pulling in the money for the studios, they wouldn't be up there on the screen. As for Dench, hell, she was never really good-looking to begin with. As long as women keep saying that those aging men are still pleasing to the eye, they will continue to be seen with younger woman on the screen. Because that's what pulls in the bucks.
As for Judy....hell, she never pulled box-office scores like those two.
There are plenty of older women out there who, as they age, continue to make money in Hollywood with their looks. Goldie and Streep, to name a couple off of my head. And face it, there are not THAT many men in Hollywood pulling this off either. It's mainly a select few who were devestatingly handsome in their prime, and continue to pull in the crowds.
As for Cho? She whines too much. Sure there is pressure. But that's Hollywood. If you make it there, you are the best of the best. Looking the part is essential. She's not getting paid huge amounts of money to look however she wants to. I am sure that , when filming Raging Bull, they said to DeNiro, "Okay, this guy gets really fat, but, we think you can just fake fat, right?"
Right.
You have to look the part, period. And Cho? I think she looks fine. However, she does NOT look good in those leather pants.
posted by bradth27 at 7:52 PM on June 29, 2002

Bias is not an either/or proposition.
posted by rushmc at 8:14 PM on June 29, 2002

How did we go from singers to actresses in the overweight discussion? At least until the advent of MTV, women didn't necessarily have to look a certain way to make it in the music business. No one cares, after all, when most of your performances are heard, and not seen. Did Aretha, or Loretta (or even her mentor Patsy in country, now all video-fied) or Ella Fitzgerald or Etta James or Dusty Springfield or Joni Mitchell or Cher, etc., meet any then-mainstream definition of "hot?" No, although in many cases their voices certainly did. Image could be a part of the picture - a la Debbie Harry or the Supremes - but it couldn't be the whole story, I don't think. And it still seems to me that it's less of a big deal in music than in TV or movies. (Example: Macy Gray, hottie?)
posted by raysmj at 8:44 PM on June 29, 2002

Older female actresses? Oh, yeah, baby. Pam Grier. Lauren Bacall. Gloria Foster, God rest her soul. Maggie Smith. Vanessa Redgrave. Jessica Tandy. Michelle Yeoh. Best of 'em all? Fionnula Flanagan, and I know her from when.

When ladies become Dames, it's a wonderful wonderful thing. Damn sexy.

Sorry to de-rail the thread even further but damn I love them all.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:36 PM on June 29, 2002

Ok, so schools are now anti-boy, and popular culture is now "anti-male".

Once I see ....... women as action movie stars, you might convince me that it exists.

Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? ... I agree generally but I think that's a bad example.
posted by Summer at 2:48 AM on June 30, 2002

Welcome to porkfilter: where every topic (education?) eventually evolves into a discussion of portliness.
posted by groundhog at 6:24 AM on June 30, 2002

When women constituted a minority of college graduates, it was a serious problem that merited fixing. Now that men earn about 40 percent of bachelor's degrees, shouldn't that be considered a problem, or at least something to feel concerned about?

Doesn't it make sense to look at what goes on in elementary schools to find out if boys are shunted off the collegiate path that early? Or should we just not worry about it, don't give it a second thought, because men earn more money and women appear in bikinis in music videos?
posted by Holden at 1:21 PM on June 30, 2002

"...eventually evolves into a discussion of portliness."

It says much about attidudes towards women that it is even a point of discussion at all.
posted by majick at 2:58 PM on June 30, 2002

I thought this was a discussion about boys.
posted by NortonDC at 3:32 PM on June 30, 2002

Back on-topic, despite the (perhaps) imperfect research, I am sure that many males who went through their schooling during and following the shift towards females receiving a fairer cut of the resources that schools and everywhere else offers would feel that the pendulum has indeed swung the other way over the years. There is no doubt that females have been short-changed in the past when it comes to opportunities, but it seems now that there are more opportunities for females than males. For example, scholarships for females to attend university seem to be everywhere at the moment, addressed at balancing genders working in various fields (particularly technology related) without any apparent thought for whether as many females want to work in those fields as males anyway.

From my recall of school, the males certainly got into more trouble than the females and, while a lot of that was a result of trying to impress females and some was from butting heads over being the alpha male of the pack, most of it was from simple boredom with the methods and content being delivered in the classroom. My memory may be faulty in this regard, but I seem to recall that plenty of females got up to the same sort of mischief that the males did, but were more discreet about it and, therefore, didn't get caught. Perhaps females are not more studious, just sneakier?

In re-educating males that they should no longer do any of the things that their fathers (and other role models) did, “they” have forgotten to tell us how we are supposed to act. How does a “real man” act in the new century? We are told that we should treat females as equal, but we shouldn’t hit girls. If we are truly equal, why the distinction? Not that I condone the hitting of girls (or anyone), but why do girls get special treatment – what about weakling males?

[off-topic]
Can't men buy vitamins and whitening toothpaste and hair dye and schedule doctors appointments by themselves?

Yes, we can, but we won’t. Why? Because those are not important things to males, which leads on to a whole other discussion about something that was touched on here – why the big double standard between acceptable standards of appearance between male and female? [/off-topic]
posted by dg at 5:49 PM on June 30, 2002