Interestingly, boys have been doing better then girls on the SAT verbal and math scores for nearly 40 years

I read an article in Time a while back that tackled this. I have no idea how valid it is, but the study showed that boys are better at learning math at a young age and girls are better at reading at that same age - BUT, over time it levels out, so that as children age, they eventually catch up to each other. The trick is that by the age of 12ish, if you’ve convinced yourself that you suck at something, you’re creating a powerful mental block that makes it really difficult to actually catch up. Not because girls can’t do math, but because so many girls convinced themselves that they can’t before the age where their brains caught up with boys’ (and vice versa when it comes to boys with reading).

Feel free to take that with as many grains of salt as you please, but I thought it was an interesting idea. The proponents of same-sex classrooms championed this study - they said that we need to teach boys and girls differently in order to help all genders learn equally. This, of course, would effectively cut out all individualism that acknowledges that it’s not as easy as dividing people down gender lines - you’d end up with some girls going, “Look, I get the math, I’m not being challenged” and boys saying the same thing in their reading classes.

I thought that those same-sex classroom proponents were being lazy, really. The answer SHOULD be that teachers would identify which students were lagging in an area and A) provide moral support and encouragment to prevent the child from deciding “I can’t do this” and B) tailoring assignments to each child’s strengths and weaknesses. From what I’ve heard about school systems today, this would never fly, but when I was in elementary school two decades ago, we were switching out of our regular classrooms for special math classes based on our abilities, and within each normal classroom, we were divided up into different reading groups and provided with different books appropriate for our reading levels. I wish I could tell you if there was an abundance of one gender in the “high level” groups, but it’s been too long.

I think it likely, for example, that boys as a group have better math skills than girls as a group, for whatever reason. But that opinion of mine was irrelevant when I was home-schooling my two children, and had a daughter who was strong in math and weak in language arts and a son who was weak in analytical thinking but strong on creative tasks. It was my job to build them up where they were weak and encourage their self-development where they were strong; it was not my job to try and make them “equal” or to try and teach them in the same fashion.

Collectivism is failure.

I doubt it. There would still be academic underperformance, like there is still athletic underperformance with all that public cheering going on. Look at how many more children are out of shape now compared to the past. Just like it takes a lot of dedication, hard work, and natural aptitude to be the “star athlete” that makes that pass interception to win the high school football game; it takes a lot of work to become a National Merit Scholar. My youngest brother was a National Merit Scholar and he put a lot of work and time into becoming one. He ended up getting a full scholarship to UF, where both our father and I had graduated. Our father died shortly after I enlisted in the Army, leaving our Mom to look after my two brothers, who were 6 and 12 at the time.

Using the GI Bill, my Dad was the first to go to college on both sides of the family. Our Mom did not know how to help my brothers with most of the coursework like my Dad did with me. My middle brother, Mike, dropped out of school at 15 and went to work; while my youngest brother, Jimmy, would pester me, when I was on leave, to teach him math and science several years ahead of what they were teaching him at school. When Jimmy would have trouble with concepts in the books that I told him to work through, he would call me for help to explain it to him. I would also encourage him to read the classics, which I had read in English. Our high school did not offer Latin, so Jimmy went to the trouble to teach himself Latin, so he could also read a lot of the classics in the original language. Jimmy put in as much effort in his studies as any of the top athletes did in their athletic endeavors.

I also believe in second chances. My brother, Mike, is a good example of that. About four years after dropping out of school, he enlisted in the Army. He got his GED while in and started taking some community college classes. After getting out, he got his finance degrees at UF and is now a professional working for the state.

The idea that it is necessary to sit behind a desk from age six to age twenty-two in order to be succesful and respectable is brand new. Probably since WW II. My father, who graduated in 1943–great year to graduate–always said a degree shows prospective employers you’re trainable. Period. My education has been far more important to me as a citizen than in my vocation. Ditto my father. Our tech guy has a degree in history from a top-tier university. Claims he hasn’t cracked a history book since he graduated about fifteen years ago. Ruined him, it appears they did.

When you think about how kids have been raised and taught for the last million years, the success, such as it is, of the current education model is astonishing. I don’t see it’s going to get better.

You may also want to consider the feminization of poverty and as suggested earlier the hightly classist history of Britian. I don’t mean to suggest that U.S. does not have such a history, but that perhaps classism in Britain has been magnifed give history and culture. The film This is England which examines the topics of race class and masulinity in the U.K. may shed some more light on this issue.

Also another issues that seems important to consider is the burden that the construct of masulity presents to men in our society. Spesifically I mean that to be faced with the task of maintaining controll over the phallus, or keeping a stoic dispostion is oppressive. I don’t mean to suggest that men suffer oppression because of the expectaions of their socal role, while women have it easy because they aren’t expected to always be in control or are allowed to show most of their emotions, but that we must always remember that we are all oppressors and that we are all oppressed.

Lastly, while I agree, Hugo, that many young may lack positive non-gender conformist role modles, it seems that more opportunites need to be provided for men to examine their own gender constrution. I know that most of my gender studies classes are filled with women and is seems that the men who do come rarely feel confortable sharing in class. Perhaps more masculity workshops just for men could help this situation.

I didn’t find math difficult, especially when I found professors who believed in my abilities and who were also willing to help or assist me when I asked for help. There were many who did not believe in me based solely upon my outward appearance and they let me know through offering unsolicited comments. What I found far more difficult to overcome where oppressive labels and attitudes, especially from people who had power and influence in my life. Sadly, many of these people were women. Sometimes children and adults will live up to other’s labels and negative stereotypes, i.e. “she’s too feminine,” etc.

Intelligent people can lack emotional intelligence–that is to say that one can have a high IQ and be well read, in specific subjects, but lack emotional intelligence, which I believe can greately hinder their success in life and their career, etc. If someone lacks common sense and problem-solving abilities, it is doubtful that they will obtain it through education and schooling, especially if the foundation set by their parents is missing in their formative years. I believe someone else pointed out that weak character overall is not gender-specific.

your version of my thoughts is better worded than my own. At least I seem to have managed to get my point across.

“On the first premise: I don’t see why men or women need to be specifically culturally “necessary” as men and women. … most of my identity, my sense of myself as useful, comes from other things.”

I agree that in modern society, life has a lot more to offer to find individual meaning than at any other point of the human phylogenesis. Others may disagree, I believe that. Still, abstracting from this, reproduction clearly is a major point when it comes to the dvelopment of social institutions - otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about this, would we? So if there is an imbalance because one part of humanity is more important than other in this respect I think that is a rather important issue. Men aren’t needed as hunters, men aren’t needed as providers of security (which may well be the origin of the pair-bond as the “social core”), lacking Most men aren’t necessary for reproduction - the sperm/ovary ratio is pretty obvious in this respect. Now I’m not suggesting that most women will immediately stop looking for a paired relationship male partner because the specifically male functions in society are no longer required, but…

here’s a wonderful thread at a feminist blog that I once found that deals with this particular issue - take eg. comments #26, #44, and #59 for a good elaboration of the big BUT - I’m quoting -

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2006/05/07/the-origin-of-male-dominance

“But. But (and you know there was one coming), it’s still subtly discombobulating, the sneaking suspicion that this is on the sufference of women, and that one is, to put it most charitably, a luxury good. That males are somehow, in this, fundamentally deficient and expendable, in that they require close association with a woman and her body in order to experience the full range of humanity.”

“And about the second idea. I think this is an area where queer relationship models can be really useful for straight folks. As a lesbian, I feel sexual attraction and build healthy relationships with people without the cache of different sex roles.”

Well, I don’t know, to be honest. Maybe the meaning of “homo” and “hetero” can illuminate this point a little. What are we attracted to sexually anyway? Some people have a think for shoes. Am I attracted to a particular woman because of the female way she acts or just because I like her breasts or shoulders? Are women attracted to males or to men? I think it’s a nice distinction analytically, but usually the two still go together.

So I think roles are crucial, but I can’t say I know. Speaking of gay examples, I remember a post by Hugo in which he described (hope that’s correct) butch lesbian chivalry as a way to celebrate the feminie performance of their partner. So maybe opposites do attract there as well, at least partly.

“SamSeaborn, your post sort of implies that anything a woman can do, men find beneath them, or something that they don’t want any part of.”

That’s not my intention - my intention was - as I think is best explained by the comments I mentioned above - that women have something meaningful *only* women can do, while there seems to be nothing left for men.

“but it seems to me that part of remedying what you’ve identified is to teach young men that things that women do are well-suited for men, too. This involves things like not making fun of male nurses”.

Yeah, sure, I’m all for that. But that’s not what I meant, maybe my reply to Daisy is also a reply to this.

Hugo,

Sam, the last thing we need is more “stuff that only males can do.”

I disagree.

“We know that while maleness and femaleness are biological realities, “masculine” and “feminine” are cultural constructs. The idea that identity is defined and reinforced through difference is a disastrous one. Would we say “Whites need things that only whites can do?””

Well, I’m sorry, identities usually are created through the recognition of difference. The European public was unified more than anything by its opposition to the war in Iraq. You may not like that, fair enough, but difference is a part of identity, as identity always implies knowing what one IS and that implies what one ISN’T. We all have intersectional identities, so there’s not just one dimension of identity and some parts of identity are less salient today as they were before. Saying we don’t need masculinity and feminity as identity giving devices is actually denying them the importance they are usually credited with by proponents “nurture only” theories. Saying we don’t need them implies that biological differences will be sufficient to help people create their sexual identities.

“Strong male role model” does not equal “Traditonal masculine role model.” The former, to me, are those strong enough to break down the stereotypes of what men can and can’t do. What we need are men whose self-concept isn’t tied to their sense of “not-girlness.”

Where did I say traditional masculine role model??? What we need is a role model that helps men succeed in a different world. We need to define what masculinity is in this world. We need to see if we can give human males something that makes them unique as MEN because the WOMEN do have that unique ability.