No more maths classes
Dwight Johnson
"Jack the Lad" <toast...@polar.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b83cvp$5k2cj$1...@ID-13547.news.dfncis.de...
> Now that the feminazis have taken over British schools, there is a
> shortage of maths teachers. Few women have the ability to understand
> maths, much less teach it at A Level.
>
> The solution might be to hire more men and the government has tried to
> do this by offering bonuses to anyone able to teach maths, i.e. men
> who think logically.
>
> But the teachers' unions don't want lots of non-feminist men coming
> into their pretty pink world so they've come up with a solution - stop
> teaching maths.
>
> A little bit of arithmetic is ok, so that later on the gurrlz can work
> out how much extra the guy beside them earns, but no maths.
>
> The government say they won't go along with this but they've already
> made a start. Calculus used to be taught to 14-year-olds, then about
> 20 years ago it was only taught to 16-year-olds (when most kids had
> left school). Now it's to be taught only in university (mostly to
> men).
>
> Soon simple algebra will follow, as will geometry. Then logarithms.
> Then logic, then... Hang on. Logic's already gone.
... when I went to school way back in the stone-age 60's at least here
locally(Ohio, USA) it was the girls that were good in Math not the boys but
it has reversed itself over the decades - wonder why??
Maybe it was just that way locally and we boys were kinda s-l-o-w.
Bob
If true at all it may only have been you yokels from down on the farm.
In my HS in the 60s it was always the young men who were good at math
and science.
Bob
nethead8
news:spepa.39914$cO3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Don't really believe that myself. I went to school "way back in the stone-age"
too, and nothing has really "reversed itself". When I was a kid, science and math
were largely the stomping ground for boys. Never did run into very many
"geeky girls". Maybe there are more of them nowdays though.......
Jack
>
>
Dr. Flonkenstein
in an ultimate attempt to be funny
and witty at once, that summum of the evolution
You're not even capable of finding the roots of a simple polynomial,
what are you talking about!
>
>
>
>
--
Dr Flonkenstein
Alcatroll Labs Inc. Flame, troll and
(TINAL) antispaem bots
development.
mhm 27x12 MEOW MEOW ARMY TINMMA
ICQ 146303664 TNPJRL # -1
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll
Highpriest of the Romath Religion (TINRR)
Professor Kookology at BUNGMUNCH Univ. (TINBU)
Flonk leader #19
Wereldsman's hate lits #7
Political Compass :Economic Left/Right: -3.25,
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.13
================================================================
rapist k00k "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> points out that rape
is no crime, in article <3DC86E94...@hotmail.com>
"Sex is a normal, pleasurable body function. Rape is
normal pleasurable body function, even sometimes including
orgasm, with a disagreement over who is to decide."
================================================================
Lynn K. Circle explains English grammar in
Messg-Id <3e9c7ae4$0$1967$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>:
"At least he learned proper English grammar in school, as
well as being too mature attempt anything approaching
your pathetic grade-school level attempts at humor."
connor_a
> If true at all it may only have been you yokels from down on the farm.
> In my HS in the 60s it was always the young men who were good at math
> and science.
All my math teachers were female, and the good ones had spatial
brains, spoke like men, weren't estrogen poisoned with emotionality
etc
Sure, these gals were "women" [as a gender construct], but underneath
they were maculine in their predisposition.
> Bob
yermolai
<gregoriy_NOS...@hotmail.com> (Dr. Flonkenstein ) wrote:
>You're not even capable of finding the roots of a simple polynomial,
>what are you talking about!
You a linear algebra whiz, flonk?
Bob
> Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3EA57660...@hotmail.com>...
>
>>If true at all it may only have been you yokels from down on the farm.
>>In my HS in the 60s it was always the young men who were good at math
>>and science.
>
>
> All my math teachers were female, and the good ones had spatial
> brains, spoke like men, weren't estrogen poisoned with emotionality
> etc
>
> Sure, these gals were "women" [as a gender construct], but underneath
> they were maculine in their predisposition.
I don't recall that I had any female math instructors. They must have
hired more men to teach high school in those days.
Bob
Mark Borgerson
In my small-town high school in the 60's there were both boys and
girls in the top 20% of the math class. But then our math stopped
before calculus. Boy, was I in for a shock those first semesters in
college, when I struggled with calculus, physical chemistry and
dorm food all at once!
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
All but one of the math and science teachers were men, if I counted
right. The English and German teachers I remember best were also
men. Since my schedule was heavy on math and science and light
on home ec. and girl's PE, I would guess that 75% of my high school
teachers were men.
Mark Borgerson
Bob
That sounds about right. I even had some men in grade school in the
1950s. Well, at least the 5th grade teacher was a man. I've heard that
men are down to a small percentage these days, maybe single digits.
It's "affirmative action" to hire only women.
Bob
Bob
We had a year of calc in high school. It wasn't as in depth as college
but it was good preparation for the next year. Very few girls.
However, my HS girlfriend ended up a math major in college.
Bob
Hyerdahl
>From: Bob boby...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/22/2003 10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3EA57660...@hotmail.com>
>
>Dwight Johnson wrote:
>> "Jack the Lad" <toast...@polar.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:b83cvp$5k2cj$1...@ID-13547.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>>>Now that the feminazis have taken over British schools, there is a shortage
of maths teachers. Few women have the ability to understand maths, much less
teach it at A Level.
Hehehehe. Looks like you're blaming feminism for the loss of "male" math
teachers. I find that amusing, especially since it is men who are complaining
that there aren't enough men in teaching.
>>>
>>>The solution might be to hire more men and the government has tried to do
this by offering bonuses to anyone able to teach maths, i.e. men who think
logically.
>>>
But you just said there was a shortage of math teachers. Are there no "men who
think logically"? Now we understand. :-)
>>>But the teachers' unions don't want lots of non-feminist men coming into
their pretty pink world so they've come up with a solution - stop teaching
maths.
>>>
Are you suggesting that only women make up the teachers unions? Where can I
find some newsworthy support for this phenom?
>>>A little bit of arithmetic is ok, so that later on the gurrlz can work out
how much extra the guy beside them earns, but no maths.
>>>
Looks to me like you're suggesting that learning math may well be in a woman's
best interests. After all, if we didn't teach math to women they wouldn't know
how much less they made compared to men. So, then...why would women support
the idea of learning less math? :-)
>>>The government say they won't go along with this but they've already made a
start. Calculus used to be taught to 14-year-olds, then about 20 years ago it
was only taught to 16-year-olds (when most kids had
>>>left school). Now it's to be taught only in university (mostly to>men).
>>>
Well, you must consider that learning calculus has a limited usage to most
folks. Learning business math or general math has a universal usage. A 14
year old boy who may end up asking, "do you want fries with that" doesn't need
abstract math concepts in order to count the bags of fries to take out of the
freezer. :-)
>>>Soon simple algebra will follow, as will geometry. Then logarithms.>>>Then
logic, then... Hang on. Logic's already gone.
Well, logic is taught in other forums as well as mathmatical. However, I think
most students would benefit by such a class in high school.
Algebra and geometry are also important.
>>
>> ... when I went to school way back in the stone-age 60's at least here>>
locally(Ohio, USA) it was the girls that were good in Math not the boys but it
has reversed itself over the decades - wonder why??
I don't see that it has reversed. When my mother was in school, there was a
huge focus on handwriting; with the proliferation of computer use, handwriting
is no longer deemed a very important skill, and spelling is now less important.
Computers also handle sophisticated math skills and so, some people may find
them less important. Obviously, all students need basic math skills anyway.
>> Maybe it was just that way locally and we boys were kinda s-l-o-w.
Oh pish! Boys aren't "slow"; neither are girls.
>If true at all it may only have been you yokels from down on the farm. >In my
HS in the 60s it was always the young men who were good at math and science.
>
Actually, in my HS in the 60s it was certianly the picture that men wanted to
paint, that young men were better than young women at math and science. Girls
were even actively discouraged from pursuing career paths that included math
and science. The counselors would shuttle the girls into secondary kinds of
jobs, or home economics.
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark Borgerson
That my be true in your local schools, but here in Oregon things are
not quite that bad. As I posted in an earlier thread:
"http://www.ous.edu/aca/TEpdf/1yrAfter.pdf
Shows that for recent graduates obtaining teaching jobs, only
7% of early elementary and elementary teachers were men.
The percentage rises to 35% for high school teachers.
So your guess about single digits may be true overall.
Since then, I've done a rough tally of our local elementary
schools and found that about 16% of the K-8 teachers
are men. I suspect that the margin of error due to ambiguous
names is about 2-3%. So it looks like the situation is
not improving here."
Mark Borgerson
Bob
So why don't they have Affirmative Action to correct long standing
sexist unbalance in the schools? Isn't "diversity" important where men
are the large minority? There must be more than 7% men in the community.
> Since then, I've done a rough tally of our local elementary
> schools and found that about 16% of the K-8 teachers
> are men. I suspect that the margin of error due to ambiguous
> names is about 2-3%. So it looks like the situation is
> not improving here."
> Mark Borgerson
Affirmative Action is badly needed.
Bob
Mark Borgerson
Good question. AFAIK, there are programs to attract more men to
teaching here in Oregon, but they stop short of the quotas and
preferences typical of affirmative action programs. But the same
is true of the attempts to get more women into the engineering
schools.
With the political climate these days---particularly the lawsuits
in the Supreme Court now, I doubt that you'll see too many new
affirmative action programs of any kind for a while.
>
> > Since then, I've done a rough tally of our local elementary
> > schools and found that about 16% of the K-8 teachers
> > are men. I suspect that the margin of error due to ambiguous
> > names is about 2-3%. So it looks like the situation is
> > not improving here."
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> Affirmative Action is badly needed.
Don't think it would work. What would you propose? Quotas for men?
How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough applicants? And
you'll certainly have a problem attracting more men to teaching in an
economy where school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
(One of the side effects of the decline in men in teaching might be that
a greater portion of those laid off are women, as men have higher
average seniority.)
Mark Borgerson
Bob
The University of California where I used to work hadn't hired a man in
an entry level position in almost 20 years. When men are down to 7% of
a class of employees, equal treatment would be to stop hiring women for
entry level positions until the balance is resorted. You don't have to
have a quota if you just stop hiring women, as they have done to men in
many other situations.
> How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough applicants?
Filled or not you don't keep hiring the favored class where there is bad
unbalance. Can they prove that there are NO men available as a
reasonable price? Perhaps they need to do extensive recruiting that
fails and then write a long justification of that fact before they are
allowed to hire women. That is the uphill battle that men have faced in
several employment areas. Where women dominate it would be equally
appropriate.
> And
> you'll certainly have a problem attracting more men to teaching in an
> economy where school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
> considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
Easy to say, but without an active recruitment and preference program it
is just smoke in the wind. Sounds like the same old excuse for
discrimination to me.
> (One of the side effects of the decline in men in teaching might be that
> a greater portion of those laid off are women, as men have higher
> average seniority.)
> Mark Borgerson
That happens when they stop hiring men as they have done. The only men
left at UC where I used to work were all over 50 and getting ready to
retire. Their "diversity" program still actively recruited only women
despite being illegal in CA and banned by the UC regents.
Fair and equal treatment ought to result in AA programs to recruit men
when women are dominant in a field such as education.
Bob
Mark Borgerson
to all UC new hires or only to a subset in a particular job area
where you used to work? (In which case perhaps they thought
they had all the men they could handle after hiring you! ;-) )
>
> > How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough applicants?
>
> Filled or not you don't keep hiring the favored class where there is bad
> unbalance. Can they prove that there are NO men available as a
> reasonable price?
Depends on what you call a 'reasonable price'. If you advertise a
position at a salary that attracts 100 women applicants and no
men, how far do you raise the salary?
> Perhaps they need to do extensive recruiting that
> fails and then write a long justification of that fact before they are
> allowed to hire women. That is the uphill battle that men have faced in
> several employment areas. Where women dominate it would be equally
> appropriate.
>
>
> > And
> > you'll certainly have a problem attracting more men to teaching in an
> > economy where school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
> > considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
>
> Easy to say, but without an active recruitment and preference program it
> is just smoke in the wind. Sounds like the same old excuse for
> discrimination to me.
>
>
> > (One of the side effects of the decline in men in teaching might be that
> > a greater portion of those laid off are women, as men have higher
> > average seniority.)
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> That happens when they stop hiring men as they have done. The only men
> left at UC where I used to work were all over 50 and getting ready to
> retire. Their "diversity" program still actively recruited only women
> despite being illegal in CA and banned by the UC regents.
Here at Oregon State, the university has hired quite a few men
for entry level positions as educators in philosophy, education,
English, ethnic studies, sociology, etc. I counted about 10 men
new hires in those areas in the last 5 years (in a scan of about 20% of
the faculty list) There were dozens more men hired as instructors,
research assistants and assistant professors in science and technology.
I guess we're just a few decades behind California in our hiring
practices! I wouldn't be surprised if things are different at the U.
of Oregon in Eugene. They're much closer to California than you might
expect from being just 40 miles further South!
>
> Fair and equal treatment ought to result in AA programs to recruit men
> when women are dominant in a field such as education.
My idea of fair and equal runs more toward having no AA programs at all.
About the only kind I find at all palatable are programs based on
individual attributes----such as military veteran status.
Mark Borgerson
Bob
I only know about the part that I worked in. Of course they still hired
men for truck drivers, hazardous material handlers, etc., where there
was actual hard, dirty, or dangerous work. They also hired men to be
scientists because there weren't very many women scientists available.
All of the nonscientific jobs, personnel, finance, purchasing,
administration, etc., UC only hired and promoted women. The few
exceptions was where they actually needed as senior level person to
actually do some critical work, then they hired qualified help outside
because they had few or no qualified people coming up inside.
>>>How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough applicants?
>>
>>Filled or not you don't keep hiring the favored class where there is bad
>>unbalance. Can they prove that there are NO men available as a
>>reasonable price?
>
> Depends on what you call a 'reasonable price'. If you advertise a
> position at a salary that attracts 100 women applicants and no
> men, how far do you raise the salary?
A reasonable price is that price at which the demand is met and the
market is cleared. Basic economics.
Is 20% a reasonable percentage? I think not. It appears to demonstrate
blatant and pervasive discrimination against men.
> There were dozens more men hired as instructors,
> research assistants and assistant professors in science and technology.
Hmmmm? If the give preference to women in those departments perhaps
they ought to be be giving preference to men in English, philosophy,
etc. It wasn't too long ago that men dominated those fields.
> I guess we're just a few decades behind California in our hiring
> practices! I wouldn't be surprised if things are different at the U.
> of Oregon in Eugene. They're much closer to California than you might
> expect from being just 40 miles further South!
CA is by itself in many ways. Not in discrimination though.
>>Fair and equal treatment ought to result in AA programs to recruit men
>>when women are dominant in a field such as education.
>
> My idea of fair and equal runs more toward having no AA programs at all.
> About the only kind I find at all palatable are programs based on
> individual attributes----such as military veteran status.
> Mark Borgerson
I'm not sure that military vetran status ought to be counted either.
Many men are denied military service for physical or other reasons.
Should a man who had a loose knee join and flunked the army physical be
thereby forever denied equal employment opportunity? Somehow that
doesn't seem fair to me.
I liked Heinlein Starship Trooper approach where you volunteered for
government service and if you flunked out of the infantry you did your
two years in a desk job somewhere. Without that other option it's
pretty discriminatory to discriminate against those who didn't meet the
physical requirements for the army.
Bob
Hyerdahl
>Message-id: <3EA69338...@hotmail.com>
>>
>
>That sounds about right. I even had some men in grade school in the 1950s.
Well, at least the 5th grade teacher was a man. I've heard that men are down
to a small percentage these days, maybe single digits.
>It's "affirmative action" to hire only women.
>
:-)
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark Borgerson
Yes, but you haven't said what the demand may be and whether it
is elastic or inelastic. Seems rather elastic at the moment,
because nobody has said they can't live without hiring men
for these positions.
Wrong interpretation of my statement. I said I sampled 20% of the
faculty list. I did NOT say that 20% of the new hires were men. Only
that I found about 10 men who were new hires. That says nothing about
the percentage of new hires that were men. I was only showing that
OSU was different from UC in that, unlike your example, OSU WAS
hiring men for entry level positions.
>
> > There were dozens more men hired as instructors,
> > research assistants and assistant professors in science and technology.
>
> Hmmmm? If the give preference to women in those departments perhaps
> they ought to be be giving preference to men in English, philosophy,
> etc. It wasn't too long ago that men dominated those fields.
Big IF. AFAIK, they give no preference to women in hiring in those
departments.
>
>
> > I guess we're just a few decades behind California in our hiring
> > practices! I wouldn't be surprised if things are different at the U.
> > of Oregon in Eugene. They're much closer to California than you might
> > expect from being just 40 miles further South!
>
> CA is by itself in many ways. Not in discrimination though.
>
> >>Fair and equal treatment ought to result in AA programs to recruit men
> >>when women are dominant in a field such as education.
> >
> > My idea of fair and equal runs more toward having no AA programs at all.
> > About the only kind I find at all palatable are programs based on
> > individual attributes----such as military veteran status.
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> I'm not sure that military vetran status ought to be counted either.
> Many men are denied military service for physical or other reasons.
> Should a man who had a loose knee join and flunked the army physical be
> thereby forever denied equal employment opportunity? Somehow that
> doesn't seem fair to me.
Call it repayment for services rendered if you chose. Perhaps the same
preference should be given to people who work in the Job Corps or
a similar agency for 2 years.
>
> I liked Heinlein Starship Trooper approach where you volunteered for
> government service and if you flunked out of the infantry you did your
> two years in a desk job somewhere. Without that other option it's
> pretty discriminatory to discriminate against those who didn't meet the
> physical requirements for the army.
Yeah, I think that idea had a lot of merit.
Mark Borgerson
Society
news:MPG.19107bf0a...@netnews.attbi.com...
>
> Bob considered that what's good for the goose
> is good for the gander and wrote...
> > [...]
> > Affirmative Action [to bring the number of men
> > in elementary and secondary school teaching
> > up to equal that of women] is badly needed.
>
> Don't think it would work. What would you propose?
> Quotas for men?
Ha ha. To be consistent, that's what a feminist
must call for: "quotas for men". Of course, Bob
already understands that consistency is not
a virtue among feminists.
> How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough
> applicants?
Well, taking the approach embodied in Title IX of
the US Federal Education Code, schools without
enough men would have to offer cash.
> And you'll certainly have a problem attracting
> more men to teaching in an economy where
> school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
> considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
<laugh>
One of my colleagues who teaches a psychology
class required of the Early Childhood Education
students at a local junior college lamented that
there were so few men working in day care and
teaching in elementary schools. He asked what
could be done to attract men to those jobs.
In front of a gaggle of his women students, I told
him straight out: "Find women to marry those men."
Neither he nor any of his girl crew 'got it'.
It does take a bit of ability to grasp the 'big picture'
to figure out why so many women crowd into those
jobs (thus raising the labor supply for such work
which lowers the market-clearing wage, basic
first semester microeconomics).
Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women.
The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
New York: Berkley Books, 1996
page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
> (One of the side effects of the decline in men
> in teaching might be that a greater portion
> of those laid off are women, as men have higher
> average seniority.)
An interesting speculation, Mark. About now,
those men with "higher average seniority" are
reaching retirement age so one can expect
a sudden fall-off in the already tiny proportion
of men in the schooling trade. Clearly, if the
sexes were reversed, a crisis would be declared
to be underway in the schools and a mad
scramble would begin to throw buckets of
tax payer's (read: "men's") moolah at the
'problem'. The current silence is deafening,
isn't it?
--
An early event in my life... occurred November 22nd, 1963
when I was in seventh grade. My teacher, upon learning
that President Kennedy had died of the injuries we were
praying for him to recover from, stood up behind her desk
and with fire and -- dare I call it hatred? -- in her eyes,
leaned forward and said, "Do you see what you boys
grow up to be? Murderers" ... [I] wonder how many other
corpuscles of guilt and self-hatred did my early teachers
implant successfully, for whatever reason, whether they
meant to or not, through subtleties I was unable to detect.
Jack Kammer, "The Lives of Men (radio show)#1: Introduction"
http://users.erols.com/jkammer/TLOM.html
(August 7, 2002)
Society
news:2Igpa.34795$e73.26083@fed1read04...
>
> Dwight Johnson wrote...
> >
> > ... when I went to school way back in the
> > it was the girls that were good in Math not the
> > boys but it has reversed itself over the decades -
> > wonder why?? Maybe it was just that way locally
> > and we boys were kinda s-l-o-w.
>
> Don't really believe that myself. I went to school
> "way back in the stone-age" too, and nothing has
> really "reversed itself".
I'm Bronze Age, myself. IME, girls were almost a
2/3rds majority in the algebra classes. Their numbers
then fell off as one advanced until in the pre-calculus
class they were but a third of the class.
> When I was a kid, science and math were largely
> the stomping ground for boys. Never did run into
> very many "geeky girls".
Well, there may never be "very many 'geeky girls' "
because they know that when they grow up to be
women, they don't have to master a high-income
job to bag a man. And they expect their man to
make more than they do -- even tho' today's girls
and women expect (by entitlement, I suppose)
to be paid the same as a man.
"Math class is tough."
Talking Barbie
(the original, before she was lobotomized
for speaking un-PC thoughts)
> Maybe there are more of them nowdays though.......
A few more. Most of 'em, tho', want to go into
the biological sciences -- I hear that about 1/2
of bachelor of science degrees awarded in
biology in the US are women, the highest
percentage of any of the sciences here by far.
I've got good news and bad news for you guys
in engineering. The good news is that the number
of women studying that has tripled since the 1970s.
The bad news is that it's only up to 15% of the total
number of students. That makes five of you, guys,
to every one of her. Sigh.
Bob
> "Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19107bf0a...@netnews.attbi.com...
>
>>Bob considered that what's good for the goose
>>is good for the gander and wrote...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>Affirmative Action [to bring the number of men
>>>in elementary and secondary school teaching
>>>up to equal that of women] is badly needed.
>>
>>Don't think it would work. What would you propose?
>>Quotas for men?
>
>
> Ha ha. To be consistent, that's what a feminist
> must call for: "quotas for men". Of course, Bob
> already understands that consistency is not
> a virtue among feminists.
There is nothing inherently bad about quotas if they are administered
fairly. If training, recruiting, hiring is done equally then the ratios
of men to women ought to come out approximately the same other than
individual choices. In situations where men are badly underrepresented
and the under representation causes an inferior product, such as in
education where boys (and girls) need more men teachers, then a quota
hiring is appropriate until (and only until) balance is restored.
Affirmative Action law and Title IX actually require those already, but
of course it is not administered fairly. Blatant illegal discrimination
against men is the way the law is used and misused.
>>How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough
>>applicants?
>
> Well, taking the approach embodied in Title IX of
> the US Federal Education Code, schools without
> enough men would have to offer cash.
That would work. Offer cash bonuses to underrepresented men. Under
Title IX they would have to cut back on programs that have too many
women (more women teachers than men teachers for example) until the
numbers balanced. They could fire women teachers until they had no more
than men teachers. That's how Title IX has been used against men in
school sports. Similar applications in the classrooms following
previous examples would be most appropriate.
>>And you'll certainly have a problem attracting
>>more men to teaching in an economy where
>>school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
>>considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
>
> <laugh>
>
> One of my colleagues who teaches a psychology
> class required of the Early Childhood Education
> students at a local junior college lamented that
> there were so few men working in day care and
> teaching in elementary schools. He asked what
> could be done to attract men to those jobs.
> In front of a gaggle of his women students, I told
> him straight out: "Find women to marry those men."
They could have Affirmative Action quotas to promote "diversity" in
education by giving admission bonus points to men in those classes, or
award half the scholarship funding to men. There are lots of things
that could be done.
> Neither he nor any of his girl crew 'got it'.
> It does take a bit of ability to grasp the 'big picture'
> to figure out why so many women crowd into those
> jobs (thus raising the labor supply for such work
> which lowers the market-clearing wage, basic
> first semester microeconomics).
It doesn't take much if the desire was there.
It sure is. The crisis in education hurts every student.
Bob
Andre Lieven
> "Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19107bf0a...@netnews.attbi.com...
>>
>> Bob considered that what's good for the goose
>> is good for the gander and wrote...
>> > [...]
>> > Affirmative Action [to bring the number of men
>> > in elementary and secondary school teaching
>> > up to equal that of women] is badly needed.
>>
>> Don't think it would work. What would you propose?
>> Quotas for men?
>
> Ha ha. To be consistent, that's what a feminist
> must call for: "quotas for men". Of course, Bob
> already understands that consistency is not
> a virtue among feminists.
>
>> How do you fill the quota if there aren't enough
>> applicants?
>
> Well, taking the approach embodied in Title IX of
> the US Federal Education Code, schools without
> enough men would have to offer cash.
Indeed. Or, a mandated curtailing of women in the profession,
until a " balance " was reached...
Since in the Title IX sports area, it doesn't seem to matter
that the boys are being denied things by this method, then it
logically doesn't matter any more if kids be denied schooling
by the equal application of Title IX...
But, as you say, Society, consistancy is not a hallmark of
Feminism...
>> And you'll certainly have a problem attracting
>> more men to teaching in an economy where
>> school districts are deferring cost of living raises,
>> considering cutting benefits, and laying off teachers.
>
> <laugh>
>
> One of my colleagues who teaches a psychology
> class required of the Early Childhood Education
> students at a local junior college lamented that
> there were so few men working in day care and
> teaching in elementary schools. He asked what
> could be done to attract men to those jobs.
> In front of a gaggle of his women students, I told
> him straight out: "Find women to marry those men."
>
> Neither he nor any of his girl crew 'got it'.
> It does take a bit of ability to grasp the 'big picture'
> to figure out why so many women crowd into those
> jobs (thus raising the labor supply for such work
> which lowers the market-clearing wage, basic
> first semester microeconomics).
Indeed. I caught a portion of a recent Dr. Phil show ( OK,
I watch it on occasion, for two reasons: One, just as with Sex
And The City and the docu The Real Sex In The City, I watch
for the same reason that the CIA used to read Pravda... and
Two, because they're all such amazing sources of women behaving
poorly and sexistly, that it is research into their common views )
on dating, and the webpoll that was done for that episode asked
the following:
When paying for dates, should:
A) The man pay.
B) The cost be *shared 50/50*.
Note what was *missing*.... " C) The woman pays... "
That Feminist equality: Either the man pays 100%, or, at most,
the equally paid women pays half.
Oh, the results of that webpoll ( Quite unscientific a sampling,
to be sure, as one, it was a self selected pool, and two, it was
not weighted for any sociological factors ) were men pay, 40%,
shared, 60%, and the studio audience *booed* when that 60% result
was announced...
Excellent post as usual, Society. In general, when I don't
comment to one of yours, its that I agree, and can't add to
the excellence of your post, and that I've likely, especially
with the articles, saved a copy to my hard drive.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Mark Borgerson
Soc...@feminism.is.invalid says...
Hmmm. My son had only two male teachers in his
day care center (of about 10 over the 5-year
period). Both were unmarried. Both left for
reasons other than marriage. Is it your
hypothesis that they would have been more likely
to stay around more than 4 years if they had
gotten married while they were working there?
OTOH, the day care center did lose two teachers over
a few years BECAUSE they were married and their
husbands didn't need them to work while the
husband finished his degree (or they moved
after he graduated).
>
> Neither he nor any of his girl crew 'got it'.
> It does take a bit of ability to grasp the 'big picture'
> to figure out why so many women crowd into those
> jobs (thus raising the labor supply for such work
> which lowers the market-clearing wage, basic
> first semester microeconomics).
>
> Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
> their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
> sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
> major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
> of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
> might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
> to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
> engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
> of the art history majors are women.
>
> The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
> vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
> when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
> would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
> with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
> per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
>
> Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
> New York: Berkley Books, 1996
> page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
>
Hmm, from some of the posts on this NG, I'd get the impression that
the lack of women in engineering was due to their inability to
cope with the mathematics? Seems a bit hard to separate cause
and effect.
> > (One of the side effects of the decline in men
> > in teaching might be that a greater portion
> > of those laid off are women, as men have higher
> > average seniority.)
>
> An interesting speculation, Mark. About now,
> those men with "higher average seniority" are
> reaching retirement age so one can expect
> a sudden fall-off in the already tiny proportion
> of men in the schooling trade. Clearly, if the
> sexes were reversed, a crisis would be declared
> to be underway in the schools and a mad
> scramble would begin to throw buckets of
> tax payer's (read: "men's") moolah at the
> 'problem'. The current silence is deafening,
> isn't it?
>
I'd guess that there are quite a few male teachers now in their
40's who will be around for another 20 years. It would
be interesting to find more data on that.
from: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-ff.09.html
" - In 1996, 44 percent of teachers in colleges and universities were
women,up from 36 percent in 1983. In contrast, 74 percent of all other
teachers were women, up from 71 percent in 1983."
Apparently the percentage of non-university male teachers decreased from
29 to 26% over a 13-year span. If no new men were coming into the
field, you would expect that about 2.5% of the men would leave
each year (based on a 40-year career). The decline doesn't seem
that steep, so some new male teachers are coming into the system
each year. I would expect that if there are no major changes,
we will end up with about 15-20% men in the non-college ranks
some time over the next ten years. But that is just a guess
and changes in society and the economy may have a significant
effect.
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Soc...@feminism.is.invalid says...
I wonder if the increasing ages at first marriage
are changing that expectation? Median age at first
marriage for women has gone from 22 to 25 in the last
20 years.
There have been a number of posts in this NG on the
coming shortage of men available for women to
'marry up'. I wonder how long it will take for reality
to collide with their expectations.
> "Math class is tough."
>
> Talking Barbie
> (the original, before she was lobotomized
> for speaking un-PC thoughts)
>
> > Maybe there are more of them nowdays though.......
>
> A few more. Most of 'em, tho', want to go into
> the biological sciences -- I hear that about 1/2
> of bachelor of science degrees awarded in
> biology in the US are women, the highest
> percentage of any of the sciences here by far.
It's showing up here in graduate degrees in Oceanography---
where the number of women pursuing MSc and PhD degrees has
gone from about 15% in 1985 when I was in grad school to
over 50% today. It used to be that the research cruises
only had to reserve one or two of the dozen cabins for
women. Now they may be worrying about where to put the
odd man out!
>
> I've got good news and bad news for you guys
> in engineering. The good news is that the number
> of women studying that has tripled since the 1970s.
> The bad news is that it's only up to 15% of the total
> number of students. That makes five of you, guys,
> to every one of her. Sigh.
Yeah, but the business-major frat-president will date all
the good-looking ones so they can discuss business
startups and stock options! ;-)
Mark Borgerson
Bob
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:16:08 -0700, "Society"
> <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>(One of the side effects of the decline in men
>>>in teaching might be that a greater portion
>>>of those laid off are women, as men have higher
>>>average seniority.)
>>
>>An interesting speculation, Mark. About now,
>>those men with "higher average seniority" are
>>reaching retirement age so one can expect
>>a sudden fall-off in the already tiny proportion
>>of men in the schooling trade. Clearly, if the
>>sexes were reversed, a crisis would be declared
>>to be underway in the schools and a mad
>>scramble would begin to throw buckets of
>>tax payer's (read: "men's") moolah at the
>>'problem'. The current silence is deafening,
>>isn't it?
>
>
>
> As the last of the pre-feminist men retire from their jobs, we'll see
> a great imbalance in the employment of the sexes. We'll also see a
> great decline in the quality of the average worker.
>
> This will, I'm sure, be more observable in the medical profession
> where the majority of students (in Britain) are now female. These
> young women have declared in a Gallup poll that they intend to work
> part-time and mostly in the "easy" job of general practitioner.
That is so true. Men are consistently getting squeezed out of many
professions. Men of the younger generations are more and more getting
relegated to manual labor, trucking, mining, dangerous hard dirty jobs.
And women are less able to do the high level of quality in the professions.
> In Britain, we already have a teaching "hospital" that only has
> plastic patients and where the future "doctors" will never see a
> cadaver in case it upsets their delicate constitutions.
LOL. What do they do when they have to go out into the world and start
cutting real people?
> What price medicine when the doctors faint at the sight of blood or
> dead bodies?
Or any other profession?
Bob
>> An early event in my life... occurred November 22nd, 1963
>> when I was in seventh grade. My teacher, upon learning
>> that President Kennedy had died of the injuries we were
>> praying for him to recover from, stood up behind her desk
>> and with fire and -- dare I call it hatred? -- in her eyes,
>> leaned forward and said, "Do you see what you boys
>> grow up to be? Murderers" ... [I] wonder how many other
>> corpuscles of guilt and self-hatred did my early teachers
>> implant successfully, for whatever reason, whether they
>> meant to or not, through subtleties I was unable to detect.
>
>
> "Slugs and snails and puppy dogs' tails, that's what boys are made
> of." British refrigerator advert.
Mark Sobolewski
Hello Society!
Why? Why should men want to date engineering women
even if they are Miss Tropic?
Before I answer that question, I am reminded of a cute
Dilbert comic strip where Dilbert goes to a high school
on Career Day and explains that young girls
can have their pick of the smarter engineers.
He then explains that for young male engineers,
there's a great choice of games such a Rubics
cube to help kill the time alone. A young
girl raises her hand and asks "Can I date
someone besides engineers?" :-)
Sun microsystems seems to love to send hot female
technicians out to swap out boards when their
systems fail. All of the young geeks seemed to go
crazy while I calmly talked to her and managed
to actually earn her respect. (The benefits
of maturity :-) A guy that went ga-ga for her
later told me that he found out she was dating
a policeman.
Anyways, back to the question:
Why does a man need to marry someone who works
at his profession? How interesting is that? Have you
ever seen how two geeks live with each other?
I've seen cleaner dorm rooms! :-)
Women who work in other industries tend to go ga-ga
for computer geeks and bring something of their
own to the table. I go to the computer store and see
at least half a dozen women at any time who can't
figure out what to buy and they are surrounded
by geeks who are having hard-ons about the latest
P4 chip. Idiots. :-)
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Jon Sparling
<gregoriy_NOS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're not even capable of finding the roots of a simple polynomial,
> what are you talking about!
That's not so bad. Contrary to popular belief, math is hard.
x^7 - 7 x + 3 = 0
Cheers,
Jon