Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: cover yourself girl, you're turning the boys on!
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The "turning the boys on" is pure interpolation by the person misrepresenting the school's policy. Because I can guarantee you that no school has anything about turning boys on in its dress code. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The thread title is based on a lie.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
 Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I, too, agree that the policy would not say such a thing. So what's your opinion about why the school has something against girls' collarbones? What does covering girls' collarbones achieve? Does North American culture generally think collarbones are inappropriate for school?
-------------------- "Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lyda*Rose: I, too, agree that the policy would not say such a thing. So what's your opinion about why the school has something against girls' collarbones? What does covering girls' collarbones achieve? Does North American culture generally think collarbones are inappropriate for school?
I doubt very much it mentions collarbones. It probably is meant to discourage the flaunting of cleavage, which in a middle school is vulgar, just as boys showing their boxers (or butt cracks) is vulgar. Neither are allowed in my school, but the language in the dress code is strictly unisex. So to keep it unisex you have rules-of-thumb about thighs and upper arms and chests (or I should say necklines), stated as non-titillatingly as you can because we're talking 14 year olds. [ 19. September 2015, 03:35: Message edited by: mousethief ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
 Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies. Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
-------------------- "Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
 Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Brenda Clough: What's hard (as it were) is that everything makes it hard. There is nothing girls can do, up to and including full burquas, to prevent excitement in boys. We agree on this too (linoleum).
The answer does not lie with the girls. It is totally up to the boys. So what should the boys do? NOT the girls, remember. The boys.
What should the boys do to control getting erections? Nothing. That's like asking water to stop being wet.
Your question presupposes that the boys are choosing to get erections. At least in class, not so (well, in the overwhelming majority of cases).
In any case, what's your suggestion for what a boy can do when he suddenly, for no apparent reason, gets hard as a teacher asks him to stand up? Propound, if you please.
The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John [ 19. September 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lyda*Rose: The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
I stand corrected. I wonder that they couldn't have achieved the same effect without mentioning collarbones.
quote: Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies.
I suppose. I just think that in our culture it's a level of display that doesn't belong in school. As you say buttcracks are not so terribly titillating, but are still inappropriate for a school setting.
quote: Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
That's why God invented the codpiece. [ 19. September 2015, 15:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: ... The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
Actually, I don't remember erections. I do remember an adorable saxophone player with blue eyes and black hair who was a terrible distraction in Grade 10. And the two boys in math in Grade 8. And the boy who wasn't in any of my high school classes but lived two streets over. Mmmm .... Come to think of it, there were a lot of boys who were distractions in high school. John is right: cover them up.
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
 Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Why do you think gigantically baggy jeans are so popular with young men?
-------------------- I cannot expect people to believe “ Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.” Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
 Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: John Holding: In any case, what's your suggestion for what a boy can do when he suddenly, for no apparent reason, gets hard as a teacher asks him to stand up? Propound, if you please.
My solutions for this was once to place a chair in front of me in a rather, erm, strategic position.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
A kilt would do, wouldn't it?
-------------------- Er, this is what I've been up to (book). Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jane R: Brenda: quote: But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
You're kidding, right?
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
 Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lyda*Rose: The article that Pigwidgeon linked to on the girl sent home from a Kentucky high school does mention collarbone display as a dress code infraction.
Yes, flaunting cleavage is vulgar in school because it's titillating (butt cracks not so much ) ie turns people on and distracts students from paying attention to their studies. Going into classes in session merely to nab young women for collarbone offenses is also distracting.
And yet I thought the principal was pretty clear about the fact that it's not about the collarbones themselves, but about having a measure-able dress code. It's easier to enforce 'no skirts more than two inches above the knee' than it is to enforce 'no skirts that are too short.' Similarly, it's easier to enforce 'no shirts that reveal anything beneath your collarbones' than 'no shirts that reveal too much cleavage.'
That said, a few weeks ago I was wearing a sundress and sitting on the curb outside the laundrymat reading. A guy who had his pants deliberately buttoned under his nice, round ass (of the type I envy because no matter how many squats I do I will never have an ass like that) told me to stop sitting with my legs that far apart.
IME schools tend to enforce dress codes fairly equally on boys and girls.
Life, not so much.
quote: Originally posted by Brenda Clough: Appropriateness is a separate thing. We can agree that soccer togs are appropriate for soccer but not for work -- that's easy. We agree on this.
What's hard (as it were) is that everything makes it hard. There is nothing girls can do, up to and including full burquas, to prevent excitement in boys. We agree on this too (linoleum).
The answer does not lie with the girls. It is totally up to the boys. So what should the boys do? NOT the girls, remember. The boys.
I have to say, this sounds a little like you would like the boys to somehow transcend biology and stop actually being adolescent boys.
And while I agree that there's nothing girls can do to prevent adolescent boys from getting erections, you must have attended different schools than I did if you didn't see girls deliberately do things that they knew were likely to arouse the boys.
If you ask me, the annual conversation over dress codes is all wrong. I have an issue with the sexualization of pre-pubescent girls who are frequently imitating the dress, body language, dance moves, etc. of pop stars without really knowing what they are doing. But 17-year-old girls are sexual beings (even if there's a limit to how physically intimate they are willing to get). Pretending otherwise - pretending that their sexualization is something that is somehow being imposed by adults or the media - is just silly.
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A few years ago a school in a conservative community in Utah got into a lot of trouble with the parents and kids when they choose to photoshop a number of the girls pictures because in the high school annual because, in the school administration's opinion the tops the girls were wearing were "inappropriate" some cleavage showing and bare shoulders.
I believe these were senior class pictures.
The parents were upset because the kids had bought their outfits for the pictures and had been told previously the tops were appropriate. The kids were upset because they did not like the photoshop results.
It sometimes carries over into adult life too. I was a pastor of a rural high desert congregation in California. On the wall of the fellowship hall there were pictures of all previous pastors--they all wore Roman Collars. Not me. My picture had me wearing a tie. Some people were disappointed.
Then I usually wore simple sports shirts and slacks when I worked or made calls. I had no problem making calls, like at hospitals, because most other pastors were also informal. Then, one of the "elders" objected--going on into five years at the church. He brought it to the council. My response was that as long as I did not violate California nudity laws (exposing private parts in a public place so as to offend...), I will continue to wear what I had been wearing in the previous four years.
Petty
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: quote: Originally posted by John Holding: The best solution, I think is the burkha. For the boys. That way no girls and no teachers will be able to see the erections.
John
A kilt would do, wouldn't it?
Better ask Hamish and Dougal:
...are you familiar with the Edinburgh tattoo? -Aye, I think i saw it that windy day when your kilt blew up -No no, I mean the great national spectacle -So do I!
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Humble Servant: quote: Originally posted by Twilight: That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
THESE boys haven't hit the job market yet. The tide is still turning. It may be that when today's 8th graders graduate from college, the boys will still dominate the girls in the job sweepstakes. This is no reason to make light of what is happening to boys in our schools (when and where it's happening). That's despicable. We need to build a world where boys and girls can find meaningful work in their adult lives and be free from bias in any direction. That won't happen if we say "fuck you" to 8th grade boys because men 20 years older than them get paid more than women 20 years older than them.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another. We're all created in God's image and should be valued and affirmed for who we are.
As it happens, ref: showing collar-bones. My secondary school uniform, for the girls, included an open necked blouse. Alternatively we could wear a polo-neck jumper; but not beneath the open-necked blouse. Of course, this was back in the dark ages when girls were routinely sent home to wipe the make-up off their face, remove dangly earrings, put on longer/shorter skirts etc.
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
 Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote: In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
That is a much more sensible policy for enforcement than examples of shaming described in some of the articles.
-------------------- "Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
 Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Burkhas for boys? Sounds great, but I think the coverall was first invented by monks. The habit covers a multitude of sins, or so an aged abbot described it when we visited his monastery.
John Holding, I think you have just won the uniform contract.
-------------------- Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another.
Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
 Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lyda*Rose: Mousethief: quote: In our school nobody goes into classes. If a teacher thinks a student's attire is not up to code, s/he sends the student either to their locker to get something to cover up, or to the office. It can be done quietly and discreetly, if the student doesn't make an ass of him/herself.
That is a much more sensible policy for enforcement than examples of shaming described in some of the articles.
I have to admit I'm suspicious of many of the examples of shaming in the annual dress code violations wars. In the event of a dress code violation, most of the schools I know have had a policy of either sending the kids to their lockers for something to cover up with, or sending them to their gym lockers and office to get their gym shirts* and a pair of gym sweatpants (unless they owned their own, but that was mostly confined to athletes).
* a standard outfit you were required to buy from the county for use during gym
A lot of the shaming stories seem to be about girls (or their mothers) who refuse to accept the dress code and also refuse to accept any consequences for violating it and know exactly how to make their story go viral.
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
I find it hard to make this all about sex/gender.
For all the lofty rhetoric about 'think of the children' as a society we seem intent on destroying them.
But why worry about a student being arrested for bringing a home-made clock to school when we can get upset over a student sent home for the day for refusing to obey the dress code?
-------------------- "It's been a long day without you, my friend I'll tell you all about it when I see you again" "'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rossweisse
 High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
What's the birthrate there?
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Rossweisse: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
What's the birthrate there?
Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Jane R: Brenda: quote: But we're fools if we believe that clothing controls lust in any way.
You're kidding, right?
I am bitterly disappointed that this article does not mention the Pacific Northwest, where socks with sandals are not just tolerated but celebrated.
Socks with sandals are the reason the Roman Empire crumbled.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: ]Socks with sandals are the reason the Roman Empire crumbled.
Quite right, absolutely nothing to do with Barbarian hordes. No matter how much gladiator blood they slipped into their wives cornflakes it was useless in the face of the SWS turn-off.
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: Yes, Mousethief, some tides turn very slowly! And better not to compensate for one form of injustice and oppressive behaviour with another.
Which appears to be what is happening with the way boys are treated in primary and secondary schools these days. We are compensating for unequal pay by destroying a generation of boys.
To be sure, I'm not much in touch in recent years with, at least, British schools policy, so I'm not aware that primary and secondary school boys are, as a matter of course, institutionalized by government educational policy to think of themselves as inferior to girls.I shall try to observe the boys and young men of my own family acquaintance a little more closely!
It's certainly very sad and, in these times of supposed equality, at least strange to think that a whole generation of boys are being trained and educated by their mentors and teachers to think of themselves as less than they are. Certainly something to be fought against.
It took girls and women the best part of 6,000 years to begin to recover from that sort of bullshit (and in some regions and countries the recovery hasn't even begun) so hopefully our young men will be more fortunate in fighting that kind of institutionalised and social oppression.
However, perhaps we can be optimistic? Having attained and maintained the ascendancy in 'the battle of the sexes' for many millenia, there is at least something of a precedent for boys and men to think sufficiently well of themselves. So perhaps the damage being done by comedy/clueless-dad style advertizing, as referred to by Twighlight, and other lazy stereotyping will be more easily resisted? It would be good to aim for a situation where we can affirm the worth, value and equality of the opposite sex without it being at the expense of the other.
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
What I observed while teaching was a peergroup instigated denigration of the "boff" among boys. It was certainly not there when I started to teaching. It was certainly not something I encouraged - I liked the way boys used to engage with learning. I did encourage girls to do the same.
I don't know where it comes from. It isn't as if school has to have either boys doing well or girls, but not both. But if people want girls to shut up to enable the boys to succeed, which is what some seem to want out in the wide world, that is what they are implying, and it's daft.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
 High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
No, just the unattractiveness quotient. Socks-with-sandals is right down there with bulging guts insufficiently covered by gross-logo-bearing T-shits, cigar smoking, and nose-picking, at least in my estimation. That's why I wondered.
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Rossweisse: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: Everything's about sex with you people, isn't it?
No, just the unattractiveness quotient. Socks-with-sandals is right down there with bulging guts insufficiently covered by gross-logo-bearing T-shits, cigar smoking, and nose-picking, at least in my estimation. That's why I wondered.
Clearly people in the PNW don't have your sense of ugly. So to speak.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
 Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: It would be good to aim for a situation where we can affirm the worth, value and equality of the opposite sex without it being at the expense of the other.
I would never say otherwise. But there appears to be an imbalance in some places, as a result of which boys are getting the short end of the stick. I don't know all the details and I don't know how to fix it. But pretending it doesn't happen, or that the patriarchy will take care of them, doesn't seem to be the way forward. For one thing we should be dismantling the patriarchy, not hoping for it to catch boys falling through the cracks.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
 Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There's been a lot about boys underachieving in the UK press for a number of years. This article suggests that it is more nuanced than just boys versus girls. White working class boys in the UK in particular are identified as underachieving. According to one of the students I've been working with - he's mixed race, black Caribbean father, white mother - if it was up to his mother he would get away without attending school, which suggests there are cultural issues in play, plus the too cool for school, refusal to work vibe.
Another issue is the pressure on achieving grades, if boys can't see they will achieve well they don't see the point and will concentrate on things they do think they can achieve at - like being the class clown or disruption as avoidance.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
 Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Part of the issue is that the definition of "underachieving" has changed. As the article Curiosity linked states, the 11+ exam used to have a lower pass mark for boys, because otherwise, those passing would be overwhelmingly female. The assumption was that boys matured later than girls, and the fact that girls out-performed boys at 11 simply reflected this. I.e. at 11, girls were only one year off puberty, whereas boys were still three years off puberty; it would have been unfair to treat them as equals. The assumption was that boys would have caught up by O level / A level, at which point the passmark was the same for both male and female.
But nowadays, girls and boys sit the same exams with the same pass marks for both sexes throughout their schooling, and boys are identified as "failing" at an early age.
There was a saying in Victorian education - "gold gleams duller than tinsel". The idea was that a dull boy was gold, whereas his brighter sister was mere tinsel. Nobody now boosts an academically underachieving boy by assuring him that he is "gold."
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
 Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Now that bright girls no longer have to contend with evidence of their intelligence being regarded as "tinsel" they have to cope with their clothing choices being regarded as evidence of frivolity. Revealing a collarbone? Not a serious student.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by North East Quine: Now that bright girls no longer have to contend with evidence of their intelligence being regarded as "tinsel" they have to cope with their clothing choices being regarded as evidence of frivolity. Revealing a collarbone? Not a serious student.
The majority of that sort of thing works itself out through peer-group pressure. Or at least that was the reported view of both my daughters. The pressures they came under (appearance, choice of academic subjects etc.) were mostly not from teachers, society or the boys. They were from other girls. Though who knows where they in turn got it from, but the point is that it would have been at one remove.
If that's generally true there are probably parallels with the examples of pressures on boys mentioned by Curiosity killed... a couple of posts back. The "too cool for school" thing especially. Parental disengagement and societal expectations form a perfect backdrop in which to practice that sort of nonsense.
But this is getting a bit away from the OP, though I'm certain you could probably find examples of all these pressures in the example cited. And I'm with mousethief on the naivety of taking the girl's statement at face value.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I suspect some of the argument about the 11+ pass marks were necessary to justify there being fewer grammar places for girls anyway, for historical reasons.
In Dartford, the boys' grammar still insists on being "The Grammar School", while the girls is "The Grammar School for Girls". For historical reasons. But it does rather convey the idea that girls receiving selective education is an optional extra.
The peer group pressure thing may be a side effect of the group leaders not being those who excel at school work. With boys, sport skills are the ones which mark out the one that is followed, possibly the bully. With girls, I have seldom seen queen bees who shone at anything involving work directed thinking. How to diminish your victims thinking, yes. And then all the hangers on will go along with it because if not that victim, then them. [ 21. September 2015, 10:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rossweisse
 High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: Clearly people in the PNW don't have your sense of ugly. So to speak.
I think I forgot the stem-to-stern tattoos.
Every region has its own sense of ugly, but at least we here in the (frequently less than tasteful) Nation's Heartland are spared the pure-D fugliness of socks-n-sandals. Deo gratias for that much.
-------------------- I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
In the Fifties and Sixties here, you could always tell the English migrants - they were the ones who wore socks and sandals.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
 Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re sandals and socks: isn't it true that everything disparaged as nerdy, geek, stupid, hillbilly eventually becomes "in". I noticed this first when rap music stars, and then so many young people, started wearing "ass pants" (which might be called "ass trousers" some places). The style was to have colourful gotch (underwear) while wearing falling down pants/trousers. When I was growing up, this was the uniform of the unwashed plumber who smelled of cess and sewer, and anyone who dressed like that would be the butt of jokes.
Also the ball hats, with a completely straight brim. This signified "just off the farm" and certain intellectual impairment when I was young.
Thus I suspect a future trend will feature socks and sandals as trendy.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
 Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gramps49: And then there is the custom of the "Senior Salute" at certain boarding school in New England that has drawn national attention.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/boarding-school-sex-scandal-when-bro-culture-becomes-rape-culture.html
This is disgusting. The school could be sued out of existence, because they must have had some ideas that this was occurring. For the raping student in this case, the guidelines for criminal sentence for a penetration sex offence starts at ~4 years in my jurisdiction, with most sentenced to about 6, which is hardly enough. The sentence for the rape victim is lifetime. Incitement charges should be considered against everyone involved. No second chances, no leniency.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
 Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anselmina: quote: Originally posted by Humble Servant: quote: Originally posted by Twilight: That may be why boys are now doing worse than girls in every subject and graduating from college in lower numbers than girls.
But it doesn't hold them back once they make it to the workplace, despite their lower grades.
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!!
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
I think you are determined to make today's little Western boys pay a price for all the mistreatment of women around the world past and present. You give a rote "of course it's not right to tell them they are inferior," but then roll you eyes at the reports that it's already happening, because, I guess in your mind, the chance of a higher paycheck some day should offset a total lack of self-esteem and an ever present sense of guilt laid on them by people who can't quit telling them about how horrible men are while holding them responsible for themistreatment of women in other countries or anytime in the past.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
 Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That's not right Twilight, it's not even wrong.
Following is a meta-analysis of studies, Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement from Psychological Bulletin, 2014. quote: results showed that the magnitude of the female advantage was not affected by year of publication, thereby contradicting claims of a recent “boy crisis” in school achievement.
The article tells us that this "female advantage" has been in place for years, with study inclusion beginning in 1941. quote: To put the present findings in perspective, an effect size of 0.225 would reflect approximately a 16% nonoverlap between distributions of males and females (Cohen, 1988). Thus, a crude way to interpret this finding is to say that, in a class of 50 female and 50 male students, there could be eight males who are forming the lower tail of the class marks distribution.
We have to ask ourselves, if there is a small but consistent effect which shows that in s sample of 100, 8 boys are potentially left behind, how is it that women are under-represented in many professions? At the local university only 11-17% of engineering students are women year to year. On the other hand, 40-60% of physicians in training are women year to year. We have thought that favouring professions emphasizing interpersonal skills is an issue.
The article discusses a series of moderator variables, including attribution of performance to ability in boys and to effort/motivation in girls. The conventional wisdom I hear from high school guidance counsellors is that girls' self esteem is lower than boys, notwithstanding that girls have better social skills and are at least as smart. there are tremendous socialization effects at play that wash-out the mild but consistent results of better achievement for girls.
This link: A New Look at Adolescent Girls, if you scroll down to "gender and self esteem" and open the item, confirms this: quote: Both girls' and boys' self-esteem decreases during the high school years; but girls' self-esteem tends to drop more over time.
There is additional research since this was proposed to study, which confirms the issues.
So the crisis, Twilight, is not boys' self esteem as a group, but with girls' self esteem as a group. With individual boys and individual girls needing to be considered individually in regard to their personal situation, such that some boys certainly do have low self esteem, lower than most girls. But something is going on that girls' higher achievement in schools is not reflected in their success as measured by employment nor paycheque.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
 Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Well good then. Let the misandry roll on. I suppose it can't just be that businesses are slow to change and paying what they can get away with. [ 22. September 2015, 11:38: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
 Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No Twilight. Not misandry. Unequal. Which points at structural social flaws.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
 Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression. It's like saying that educated white women like Anselmina shouldn't get those high salaries, since they're still making more money than the average black person, who has been oppressed for the same 6000 years.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Twilight wrote quote: The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression.
I'm really struggling to see how you read that into what Anselmina said, Twilight. No doubt she'll be along shortly to refute or confirm, but I don't see it.
-------------------- Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
 Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi: Twilight wrote quote: The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression.
I'm really struggling to see how you read that into what Anselmina said, Twilight. No doubt she'll be along shortly to refute or confirm, but I don't see it.
You don't see any sarcasm or "now they're getting what they deserve" in this?
Anselmina: quote: And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
Of course, it is not right to tell, teach or infer that any child is inferior to another child, based on gender. If any sex knows the truth of this it's the female sex, who have been told this for millenia. I think, Twighlight, you're confusing a little bit of Western cultural ambiguity over sex and gender roles, with the still-present reality of misogyny being experienced to greater and lesser degrees across the globe.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|