Women and the School System

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I worked in schools and 100% agree. Women are ruining education. I didn’t read the link so I can’t say whether or not I agree with his reasons but women are screwing things up. But it’s because there are fewer men involved to balance things out. So it’s not that women are the problem. It’s the lack of men that’s the problem.

My daughter is reading The Hunger Games. I asked her where she got it from and she said her teacher gave it to her to read. I know of a teacher that assigned Twilight to her kids. WTF? What happened to Mark Twain? Homer? So what happens is at home I have to force my kid to read stuff that isn’t crap. [/quote]

I think anything that can be done to encourage a child to read is worth while (I KNOW I MUST ADD WITH IN REASON) I did not mean porn or the Communist Manifesto :slight_smile:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think anything that can be done to encourage a child to read is worth while (I KNOW I MUST ADD WITH IN REASON) I did not mean porn or the Communist Manifesto :slight_smile:
[/quote]
That’s not the issue. Reading something that one finds interesting is fine but to say that it should be taught, with the implication that it is on the same level as Shakespeare, is ridiculous. The idea that an English major would suggest that Ellison is equal to Shakespeare is disturbing though not surprising and shows how the ship that was once navigated by critical analysis is now guided by diversity.

In Italy there was a movement led by publicity whoring imbeciles to have Dante banned from schools because he was a racist, a homophobe and an Islamaphobe among other things. It would be impossible to teach Italian literature without him. It would impossible to teach Western lit without him. It would be like teaching philosophy and ignoring Aristotle or Plato. Try teaching English lit without Shakespeare; how would one do that? He is inevitably going to be present. The irony is that if Greek mythology were not considered important there would have been no Hunger Games. So all of those who criticize the value of the canon ignore the fact that its influence is alive and well and it is still contributing. They like to call those who defend it snobs and elitists but the opposite is true. Tradition is not a bad word. History is not evil and backward. Thinking there is nothing to be learned from the past and that one is superior to those who came before, that, is snobbery. Thinking that we know more about the human condition than people who lived before us is elitism. And to think that we can’t look to them to help us find the answer, which is why they wrote in the first place, is just pride and vanity. Yeah, what could someone who witnessed plagues, invasions, civil wars, famine, religious and political persecution, etc., know about the human condition? I mean, he didn’t even have an iPhone.

While i understand the premise of the thread , I think a point that is being ignored is , All boy and men must learn how to deal with women

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While i understand the premise of the thread , I think a point that is being ignored is , All boy and men must learn how to deal with women [/quote]
It’s not exactly that. People may think it’s about male vs female behaviors but that isn’t that much of an issue. With younger female teachers it can be at times but females who are a little older and have sons understand how boys are but, that’s all superficial. The real issue isn’t how boys behave but how they think. What happens is that by being in a female dominated environment, because women are in control of that environment and can make it defer to their vision of the world and expectations, boys end up with a distorted view of how the world really works. They have to modify how the naturally think to fit in that feminine world.

If a teacher wants the class to do something “girly” the boys have no choice but do the girls ever have to do something that is boyish? It’s not about boys being aggressive and wanting to fight or whatever as girls exhibit the same behaviors, sometimes to a higher degree than boys. It’s more about the natural male characteristics being stifled, subjugated and modified. Boys can be competitive in an “aggressive” manner but that isn’t nice so they have to not want to “win” rather than be taught how to win gracefully. What’s good sportsmanship? Playing by the rules and win or lose you maintain your dignity. Well, women don’t like it when someone loses which means no one can win which means no one learns how to do either. Trying is important. Doing your best is important. If winning and losing are off the table then trying becomes irrelevant but, everyone “wins.”

So it isn’t about learning how to deal with women but being forced to think like women. If your son sees women all day. If those women are in charge. If they shape the environment he is in to meet their expectations and needs then how do you think your son will end up relating to the world? He won’t just act like a woman but he’ll think like one too. It wasn’t an issue years ago because it was OK to say out loud that men and women are different. Female teachers accepted the idea that boys and girls were different. The new crop of teachers has been educated in a system that puts diversity ahead of everything. That’s why you have someone making the ridiculously, uneducated claim that Ellison is the equal of Shakespeare. It’s PC thinking gone crazy. But see, if you say that Shakespeare is superior then it’s just being mean (and even racist) to Ellison because it’s like saying that Shakespeare “wins.” It has its roots in feminism. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Western lit was written by white men. Therefore the majority of great lit will have been written by white men. If women have their way, and they are having their way, the required reading lists will have to be balanced and reflect the world as they want it to be vs how it was or is. For every male author you will need a female one. For every white you will need a black. For every Christian, a non-Christian. For every heterosexual, a gay. It’s already happening and it means that great literature is being replaced by inferior literature.

This appears to be the method by which masculine republics are transformed, from the inside out, into feminine democracies.

And Zecarlo’s countryman Aristotle warned us what the end result would be.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Well, women don’t like it when someone loses
[/quote]
Really? Interesting claim.

So would you argue that it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised by a stay-at-home mom as well?

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Well, women don’t like it when someone loses
[/quote]
Really? Interesting claim.

So would you argue that it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised by a stay-at-home mom as well?[/quote]

I think it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised without any positive male role models, just as I think it would be detrimental for a girl to be raised without any positive female role models. Which, in our society, would you say is the more likely situation?

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Well, women don’t like it when someone loses
[/quote]
Really? Interesting claim.

So would you argue that it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised by a stay-at-home mom as well?[/quote]

If you mean a single stay-at-home definitely.

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Well, women don’t like it when someone loses
[/quote]
Really? Interesting claim.

So would you argue that it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised by a stay-at-home mom as well?[/quote]
I’m speaking in the context of a school setting. A mother would have no problem with her kid winning. On the other hand, a mother might just have a problem with her kid losing so you can see where the idea of everybody wins so nobody loses probably took root from.

The father isn’t taking part? Stay at home mom, to me at least, means she is married and the husband works. It’s awfully presumptuous to assume that in that scenario the father isn’t also raising the child. Also, once the child is in school, how much time is the stay at home mom spending raising him?

There is the world as women want it to be (and wished it were in the past) and the world the way it was and is. I’m speaking about things like literature and history. If equal time is given to women and male authors and historical figures it not only paints a distorted view of the past but a distorted view of the present.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Well, women don’t like it when someone loses
[/quote]
Really? Interesting claim.

So would you argue that it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised by a stay-at-home mom as well?[/quote]

I think it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised without any positive male role models, just as I think it would be detrimental for a girl to be raised without any positive female role models. Which, in our society, would you say is the more likely situation?[/quote]

I would agree but you must admit that it would be detrimental to the boy if he never learned how to get along with females :slight_smile: That could be a slippery slope

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think it would be detrimental for a boy to be raised without any positive male role models, just as I think it would be detrimental for a girl to be raised without any positive female role models[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

100%? Or is this a very small number?

I have a son who is probably more active than the average boy. I have found his teachers (mostly female in elementary school) were incredibly accommodating of his need to move constantly. His second grade teacher purchased a piece of foam to attach to the top of his desk so that he could drum continually without disturbing everyone else. His third grade teacher would let him go outside and take a lap around the school when he got too wiggly. And his fourth/fifth grade teacher had a one-legged stool that he could choose to use during class. He had to constantly engage his quads to keep balanced, which helped him focus (for some reason). Not one teacher suggested that we medicate him. Interestingly, as a freshman, he has five male teachers this year, two of whom mentioned to me during conferences how distracting his talking and seeming lack of focus are.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

That’s quite the claim.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

That’s quite the claim.[/quote]

It’s a dumb one. Ideally kids would be raised by a loving mom and a loving dad. We can cite countless examples of people who have been successful raised by a single mom or raised by dad. Doesn’t make it ideal, but plenty of boys raised by single moms go on to be successful. Same thing with Dads. Nuclear families don’t guarantee success and our prisons have people who were raised in loving homes by two parents and still managed to fuck up.

Now the best possible chance for success is surely two loving parents as opposed to one, but acting as if 100% of the time single mom’s will have fucked up kids is completely baseless hyperbole.

Unless we’re calling Michael Phelps (greatest swimmer of all time, raised by single mom) a criminal because he smoked a joint :slight_smile:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Not to hijack the thread but for those of you with kids, be afraid. If people really knew what was happening in our schools and the impact it will have on the future they would pay a lot more attention to their school boards. Things like No Child Left Behind, Common Core and Teach for America all sound nice but they are insidious. Education is being modeled after corporate standards.

Whether or not a school is deemed successful is not measured by whether or not kids have learned anything but whether or not they can get a certain score on a standardized test. Teachers don’t have to teach, they have to simply do test prep like some tutor or SAT coach.

It’s a myth that America’s schools were failing. They simply factor all the schools in a state together to skew results. So a school that was doing well has to change things because it needs to deal with testing. One of the arguments for the Common Core is that schools were teaching too much stuff. Yeah, stuff that cannot be reduced to a standardized test. [/quote]

Sweet baby jeebus…the end is nigh, I am 100% agreeing with you on this. What next, fire and brimstone…dogs and cats sleeping together. :wink:

Good post.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

That’s quite the claim.[/quote]

It’s a dumb one. Ideally kids would be raised by a loving mom and a loving dad. We can cite countless examples of people who have been successful raised by a single mom or raised by dad. Doesn’t make it ideal, but plenty of boys raised by single moms go on to be successful. Same thing with Dads. Nuclear families don’t guarantee success and our prisons have people who were raised in loving homes by two parents and still managed to fuck up.

Now the best possible chance for success is surely two loving parents as opposed to one, but acting as if 100% of the time single mom’s will have fucked up kids is completely baseless hyperbole.

Unless we’re calling Michael Phelps (greatest swimmer of all time, raised by single mom) a criminal because he smoked a joint :slight_smile: [/quote]

There’s plenty of studies and statistics backing up what I wrote. Nothing dumb about it all.

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I have a son who is probably more active than the average boy. I have found his teachers (mostly female in elementary school) were incredibly accommodating of his need to move constantly. His second grade teacher purchased a piece of foam to attach to the top of his desk so that he could drum continually without disturbing everyone else. His third grade teacher would let him go outside and take a lap around the school when he got too wiggly. And his fourth/fifth grade teacher had a one-legged stool that he could choose to use during class. He had to constantly engage his quads to keep balanced, which helped him focus (for some reason). Not one teacher suggested that we medicate him. Interestingly, as a freshman, he has five male teachers this year, two of whom mentioned to me during conferences how distracting his talking and seeming lack of focus are.[/quote]
I don’t know you or your son so I can’t say that the following is necessarily applicable to your situation however, an argument could be made that the elementary school teachers by accommodating him, have set him up for failure in the future. If he goes to college is a professor going to let him take a lap around campus? How about when he takes the SATs? Is he going to be allowed to be disruptive or take breaks when he wants? Is his inability to focus going to hurt him with exams? Is his future employer going to accommodate him?

Your son has behavioral issues. He isn’t violent or nasty but they are still issues. What his teachers have done is pass the problem off to someone else until he got to high school and those issues will now have a more profound effect on his ability to learn because it is more intensive and more is expected. Maybe an effort should have been made to have him channel that energy into learning rather than having him take a lap. That isn’t addressing an issue. It isn’t even accommodating an issue. It’s ignoring an issue. If this behavior has some relationship to him being a child then why hasn’t he outgrown it? Accommodation is OK sometimes but so are correction and direction.

But you illustrated a difference between male and female teachers. The males are taking educating into consideration while the females just want everyone to be happy. I once subbed an elementary class. This one boy who all the kids warned me about started acting out. I spoke to him and looked at the work he was assigned. It was too easy. He would finish it quickly then be bored. It turns out that his teacher’s response to his behavioral issues was to give him easier work when he really needed harder work.

He needed, and wanted, to be pushed. This comes naturally to men. In general, women won’t push as hard because they are afraid of seeing a kid fail whereas a man will push a kid harder so that he learns to not fear failure. Women don’t want to see a kid fall. Men want to see a kid get back up.