 |
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
http://www.parentsoup.com/debate/di...68788-1,00.html
Start your education there Asher it is basic but will give you the clue you need.
Yes it is.
quote:
I guess it's just coincidence that every single thread you start is something against a group of women, and not men? |
It is like talking to a dead dog.
Asher half the threads you did not read you simply acted immature, showed your ignorance and spammed. How do you know what they were about 
Again you lie, when will it end...amazing. One more time for Asher most are about injustices and misandry. I am promoting "men's" issues Asher, wake TFU. That does not mean I dislike, hate, have issues with, or any other idiotic slant you care to use, females. It simply means you have no idea Asher.
quote:
I am giving my opinion on it. |
As I said opinions are great more the merrier. Just stop acting like you know what you are talking about as if your opinion is fact.
quote:
"LIAR LIAR LIAR GROW UP LIAR" |
Well Asher take the point blank hint and attempt it and stop with the lies.
quote:
others to "read more about it", |
Well it is obvious some do not have the knowledge or are asking for more. This is wrong Asher? To provide links with facts to help people make informed decissions? With others like you you need to it painfully shows.
quote:
implying you know more than everyone else |
No stating this is an interest of mine to that end I read lots about the subject you? It may surprise you to know Alberta is leading the way in some of these studies. I bet you skimmed over the articles in your own local papers about it. No I bet you did not even know they were in your papers and or read them. My guess is like with the misandry issue you are not concerned with facts just your "opinion".
quote:
while not demonstrating that in the least. |
Only to those that have not done extensive reading on the subject. Those that have "opinions" and no facts or knowledge to back it up, I would say I bet you are right.
We should stop thread jacking someone has an informed decission to make. I would like to help, you?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
matter as evidence? |
No I said basic, start there, and it would give you a clue. Maybe they are right about boys being behind on reading skills... You ignored it, discounted it and had an opinion on it. Truely amazing.
quote:
Generalizing sexes to all think the same way for the same sex isn't any better than teaching in one way only for both sexes. |
So what you are saying is it is not "hardwired". I would like to read some on that side of it if you can provide the links? I have read many books on the subject teachers run in the family.
quote:
When did I ever say my opinion was fact? |
When did I?
Or you could read Michael Gurian, Hoff Sommers.
quote:
Scholars like Gurian, Gilligan, Hoff Sommers and Pollack also disagree about who, if anyone, is to blame for boy's poor academic performance: Were boys actually villainized in the process of empowering girls? Are gender differences hard-wired? If so, how does one explain the extraordinary progress of girls in math, science and higher education -- areas where they are supposedly destined to show weakness? |
I follow Sommers,Michael Gurian thinking and Jon Scieszka. Most all their books I have read.
quote:
Hoff Sommers tend to agree with the theory that gender differences that affect learning are hard-wired and should be considered in dealing with the learning delays of boys. She maintains, for instance, that reading preferences are gender specific, and that the current English curriculum favors the reading tastes of girls, an inequity that has led to the lower scores of boys in reading literacy.
"Our English classes are strongly feminized, even in boys schools," says Hoff Sommers. "We want literature to make boys more sensitive. But I'm not sure that we need to invest in literature as a form of therapy."
She points out that a majority of English teachers still assign fiction in the classroom, while she believes that boys prefer nonfiction. (In the PISA study, girls and boys were asked to self-report on the kind of reading materials they preferred. Boys reported reading more comic books, Web pages and newspapers, while girls read more novels.)
"Boys love adventure stories with male heroes," says Hoff Sommers. "Many would love books by Stephen Ambrose and Tom Clancy. Since they are so far behind in reading, why not give them texts they enjoy? Some teachers are promoting political correctness at the expense of the basic literacy of their male students.
"My own son had to struggle through Amy Tan's 'Joy Luck Club' when he was in the 10th grade," she adds. "It has some attractive features, but it is full of annoying psychobabble about women and their self-esteem struggles. He disliked it. If teachers are going to assign books in popular literature, they should consider the needs and interests of boys." |
One of my favorite quotes for the article rather sums up the differences.
quote:
"If I were teaching," says Mortenson, "I would get boys out of the classroom. Take them to a swamp, dig through the muck, look for pollywogs. Then maybe take them back and have them look at pond water through slides and write up a lab report. They need hands-on activities. They get bored and distracted if you ask them to sit down and reading a chapter and writing up a paragraph -- the kind of work that girls excel at." |
Or:
quote:
Michael Gurian takes the idea of single sex learning even further. In his 1998 book "A Fine Young Man," Gurian proposes that we do away with Title IX, the provision that prohibits discrimination in public education based on gender. To support his argument, he maintains that gender differences, unlike racial differences, are so great as to nearly constitute a different species altogether.
"There are no structural brain differences between the physiologies of the races except for the most cosmetic kind," he wrote. "Between males and females, there are at least seven structural brain differences."
Gurian proposes, among other things, that boys and girls be taught in single-sex classrooms for math, science and language arts, then spend afternoons in co-educational classes. |
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/20..._ed/index4.html
This article did a good job of suming things up. Bottom line there are differences. The public schools are not about to change things, a boys school already has.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
No I said basic, start there, and it would give you a clue. Maybe they are right about boys being behind on reading skills... You ignored it, discounted it and had an opinion on it. Truely amazing. |
I didn't bother reading it because it was an advertisement for a book with a bunch of "comments" below it. That's not what I call research, or facts, it's called smoke and mirrors and you use it all of the time to try to win your debates. Throw up a bunch of really long reads that are almost related to the topic at hand then tell everyone to read it, when you know no one will bother.
quote:
So what you are saying is it is not "hardwired". I would like to read some on that side of it if you can provide the links? I have read many books on the subject teachers run in the family. |
Um...do I really need to cite sources for that? Haven't you ever taken one of those thinking tests? Where it says if you're a CCIT thinker or something like that? Not all boys think the same way, not all girls think the same way. But a lot of them do, so they generalize to "boys learn this way", "girls learn this way". It's the same series of logic that says homosexuals use the left side of their brain more than their right, and that's why they excel at the arts. It's a crass generalization, and is just as bad as teaching all boys & girls the same way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
I didn't bother reading it because it was an advertisement for a book with a bunch of "comments" below it. |
I did not think so.
quote:
That's not what I call research, or facts, it's called smoke and mirrors and you use it all of the time to try to win your debates. |
Asher you did not read it formed an opinion, which you try to pass off as an informed one. That is how you try to win your debates. Smoke and mirrors. Who said research I said start here basic...More smoke and mirrors.
quote:
Throw up a bunch of really long reads that are almost related to the topic at hand then tell everyone to read it, when you know no one will bother. |
I put up informative links which you do not read then tell the people your opinion of something you have never read endlessly. Truely amazing...
quote:
But a lot of them do, so they generalize to "boys learn this way", "girls learn this way". |
Studies are generalizing? No Asher people with uninformed opinions generalize. Take your last 4 posts of diatribe as an example:
He post's on men's issue he must have negative issue's with females in general. Or "I did not read it but it say's this and that and is meaningless because of an ad posted on the page". Big difference right Asher...or "back that up would you" then goes on to say "Um...do I really need to cite sources for that?"
This all makes you look intellegent and informed, to you, right Asher?
quote:
Not all boys think the same way, not all girls think the same way. But a lot of them do, so they generalize to "boys learn this way", "girls learn this way". It's the same series of logic that says homosexuals use the left side of their brain more than their right, and that's why they excel at the arts. It's a crass generalization, and is just as bad as teaching all boys & girls the same way. |
Again do you have a site or links and or online reading that backs your "opinion"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
blackice, I don't know what it was like when you went to college, but these days a bunch of soccer-mom's comments on a parenting site does not constitute informative links. |
Exactly what I am talking about Asher "soccer-mom's". You did not read it yet now they are "soccer-mom's" 
Do did not read it yet it was not an informative site.
All uninformed "opinions" with no base in fact or reality, "smoke and mirrors" as you put it. Now I ask you Asher does an informed "parenting site" with links to research done by Dr. Michael Gurian, author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently, a bunch of soccer-mom's talking about this issue?
quote:
I was asking for something like a research paper, an essay or book from a developmental/child psychologist. That sort of thing. Not a soccer mom roundtable discussion. |
Oh you mean like the interviews and comments and facts presented by Dr. Michael Gurian that can be found on that as you incorrectly call it a "soccer-mom's comment page"?
Personally I will read information posted by concerned parents before I would take a boy living at home with his parents and no children "opinion" thanks. No offence meant…
quote:
So you would argue that saying "boys think this way" and "girls think this way" is NOT generalizing? |
No I would not, generalizing to me is making a comment like: Quotes from Asher; quote:
a bunch of soccer-mom's comments on a parenting site does not constitute informative links. |
or quote:
he post's men's issues and misandry so he must have issue's with females |
Now I understand what you are saying but understand this you need to be informed to have an "opinion" and an objective. Since the 70's boys issue's and research has taken the back seat. Way back. So how can one assume anything until research is talked about and applied? We do know that they are different so why would we treat them the same? This is not like pay equity it is not the same at all.
quote:
but if you really did care you can look it up for yourself. |
Another famous Asher cop-out. You demand facts, links, and information of people to back their claims and then state the above when asked yourself... "Smoke and Mirrors"
quote:
How do boys and girls fundamentally learn different? Since you're so fond of "backing it up" why don't you do your job and cite something that actually supports your claim that, on the basis of every male and female, they learn so differently that it is beneficial to segregate them to teach them. |
My job? you have been asked numerous times to back your "opinions" More "smoke and mirrors" That "soccer-mom's" site had what you asked you just are too suborn to read it because of "advertising" and the generalization that a "parenting site" only contains "soccer-mom's" "opinions"
For instance according to Dr. Michael Gurian's research and studies:
Grades 1-3
Girls: Superior at seeing in low light, and hearing
Boys: Superior at certain visual tasks in bright light
Girls: Reads better and sooner than boys
Boys: Takes longer at reading mastery
Girls: Better at tests requiring listening to questions
Boys: Better at test requiring circling of answers
Girls: Comprise 5% of all hyperactive children
Boys: Comprise 95% of all hyperactive children
Grades 4-6
Girls: Better at learning a foreign language
Boys: Better at reading maps and deciphering directions
Girls: Primarily focused on relationships and communication
Boys: Primarily focused on action, exploration, and things
Girls: Solves math problems with language help
Boys: Solves math problems without talking
Girls: Watches one TV program for longer period
Boys: Channel surfs
I guess a world respected site like www.parentsoup.com can teach you some of the basics as I said it would can it not Asher?
If you were a parent you would get some great information from this site about kids and being a parent.
It also lets parents chat about kids. So as I said rather than asking me to provide you with the answers to questions that I already did. Read them become informed on why they are different and may require "different" methods to get the same information across. From an expert and parents...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
Exactly what I am talking about Asher "soccer-mom's". You did not read it yet now they are "soccer-mom's"
Do did not read it yet it was not an informative site.
All uninformed "opinions" with no base in fact or reality, "smoke and mirrors" as you put it. Now I ask you Asher does an informed "parenting site" with links to research done by Dr. Michael Gurian, author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently, a bunch of soccer-mom's talking about this issue? |
What you linked to was a discussion about other articles, not the articles themselves.
Once I clicked through the site (next time do a direct link) I saw that it was nothing new, the same old generalizations that we've all heard before.
quote:
Oh you mean like the interviews and comments and facts presented by Dr. Michael Gurian that can be found on that as you incorrectly call it a "soccer-mom's comment page"? |
Why don't you click the link you showed. It's a soccer mom discussion.  Once you dig deeper into the site there's actual content.
quote:
No I would not, generalizing to me is making a comment like: |
Why must you keep showing examples of generalization? Of course I generalize. I never said I haven't. Everyone does to some extent.
What I'm saying is those "boy"/"girl" things are all generalizations, since no two boys and no two girls are alike.
Rather than splitting kids up depending if they have a penis or not they should do it by learning types.
quote:
Another famous Asher cop-out. You demand facts, links, and information of people to back their claims and then state the above when asked yourself... "Smoke and Mirrors" |
You are serious when you ask for links stating people learn in different ways?
I'll try one more time to summarize for you since you seem to be having trouble:
It's incorrect to generalize boys as thinking one way and girls as thinking another way. Some boys think abstractly, some boys think concretely. Some boys learn better by listening from a lecture, others by doing hands on practice and trial & error.
Splitting up children into people with penises and people without penises and teaching them accordingly is no better than teaching them all the same way. If you're going to segregate children in the classroom, do it by how they learn best, not by gender.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/edtech/gened/styles.html
That site closely resembles how they arrived at the fact the genders learn differently.
Peg ok I will read her "opinion" later but it minicks the first one.
The last one again do they know how the genders think differently. That would be the next logical step. That is what they are doing now. If one kid can benifit from the research do it. If one kid learns more because of it do it.
If it takes separating them to give them a better head start do it.
The whole idea Asher is to separate them so they can learn to think at thier individual abilities and potential.
I am sure most boys you knew in school loved to read romance novels and write essays about them. And most girls like to build and repair cars and read technical manuals on car repairs and hotrod magazines?
Sounds steriotypical it is and it appears there is a reason for those "generalizations" And of course always exceptions to the rule.
We are talking kids here Asher, the main thinking is by not separating them we are doing more harn than good. None of those links defind the differences in the sexes. That is more in depth than any of those links you provided and is the issue.
quote:
one major contributory |
Maybe, maybe not there could be many more issues that contribute to that than the school issue. Kids in mixed schools have problems later in life with the opposit sex also.
quote:
When I see threads like this I'm so glad I live in Sweden. |
How come?
Last edited by blackice on 07-08-2002 at 05:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
The whole idea Asher is to separate them so they can learn to think at thier individual abilities and potential. |
So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone.
I'm advocating splitting kids into four groups based on how they learn, since we're talking about school, if we split them up at all.
Now, I did some quick math and research to find the portions of the population has each learning type. It's not as simple as "boy" vs "girl".
These tests are based on the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types, and relates these personalities to one of the 4 learning styles.
Sources: http://www.dougdean.com/learningstyles/index.htm
http://soli.inav.net/~catalyst/Type/mbtitype.htm
So we get:
SP: Sensing & Perception: ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, ESFP: 5 + 5 + 13 + 13 = 36%
SJ: Sensing & Judging: ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ: 6 + 6 + 13 + 13 = 38%
NT: Intuition & Thinking: INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP: 1 + 1 + 5 + 5 = 12%
NF: Intuition & Feeling: INFJ, INFP, ENFJ, ENFP: 1 + 1 + 5 + 5 = 12%
The reason these don't add up to 100% is due to rounding errors.
quote:
None of those links defind the differences in the sexes. |
Are you still oblivious to my point?
There is no defining the differences between the sexes, all you can do is generalize in what they think is true for most cases in any given sample. I don't think it should be based upon sex AT ALL. It's a non-factor. If you're splitting them up to help them learn better, you'd do it by learning style. That simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone.
quote:
So you're advocating splitting kids into two groups based on sex and sex alone. |
No not at all who said that? Is this a new conversation?
quote:
It's not as simple as "boy" vs "girl". |
Ok now compare those types with what they know about the differences between the genders. That is what we are talking about here. It maybe it is simpler than you are attempting to make it out to be. For instance:
quote:
ESTP: "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 13% of the total population. |
What percentage of boys vs, girls fall into this. it would be important to know concidering that is what we are talking about.
ESFP: "Entertainer". Radiates attractive warmth and optimism. Smooth, witty, charming, clever. Fun to be with. Very generous. 13% of the total population.
What percentage of boys vs, girls fall into this.
That is what the researchers are doing, what you post is too general for any use in the school issue, generalizing. The are breaking down into the sexes also.
quote:
Are you still oblivious to my point? |
I have seen your point from the onset and all you do is ignore the inherent gender differences to make your points. Find some research that deals with that and we can talk about the same thing.
Your summary is a nice “opinion” but again it ignores the gender differences. All studies in the area agree on the same thing, we are different and learn differently. You seem to be of the opinion the sexes are the same?
Some people seem to be of the “opinion” all boys that go to all boys schools end up having problems with the opposite sex? Is there a link to show this obviously well documented and enormous problem? Or at least some facts to back this huge problem up?
Seems to me the masses go to mixed schools any many people, male and female have problems with the opposite sex. I have read nothing that states it is because of private school environments. Generally those problems start at home not schools.
Last edited by blackice on 07-08-2002 at 05:56
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
Sometimes if it is yes don't you, I mean murder is murder right?
In this issue which you are just learning about. those types of statements hold true for the majority. Why Asher because that is the way it is. Reality. |
I'm not just learning about it, I studied it quite a bit last year in my psychology classes (the prof's research area was child psychology).
Not everything is black and white. Some things are, like murder. Other things aren't, like how boys and girls behave... it's not reality, it's simplified reality in cases where you don't have ways of narrowing down behavior. Since we have tests to test how people learn, there's no need to simply generalize based upon gender only, we can be more specific.
quote:
Now tell us all about the figity loud class clown girls you know who were the majority in your classes. You like to ignore the obvious to make arguements or what. To say there is no difference between the sexes is to ignore reality. |
This isn't making much sense. Much of the class clowns were male, but there were also a few female class clowns in my school days...
I never once said there was no difference between the sexes.
You seem to be perfectly fine relying on stereotypes only, after all of your selfrighteous ranting about how boys don't get taught like they should due to having unisex learning. What about the boys who don't fit into that stereotype (which make up at least 24% of all boys, in reality far higher -- using my previously mentioned figures)? Do they still have to be taught according to someone else's rules because you enjoyed stereotyping?
quote:
Several books you claim to have read would back what you are saying better. I am having doubts you even read them. The reason is obvious if you did you would be using those examples instead of the generalized ones you do. |
blackice, you're so dense it's frustrating.
I understand you're talking about the stereotype, and yes, there is a difference in the boy/girl stereotype since many boys and many girls act similarly.
But why settle for classifying on gender when you can classify on learning style? Why settle for stereotypes when you can knock down the stereotypes and get to the heart of the matter -- learning style?
Last edited by Asher on 07-08-2002 at 06:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 00:41
.
|