Best
118 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    Is an 82 year old Scottish Study really still relevant?

    Considering how we argue that science evolves based on new information, one would think there would be a more recent study that would show current trends more effectively.
  • #16
    !
    @Zazziness - Possibly...but we make the contention that science evolves as well as societal norms change.

    In 1932, whether we consider IQ a result of nature or nurture, we had a very different set of dynamics. Most homes were dual parent homes, children were given corporal punishment more often to correct behaviors, children weren't raised by day-care providers, no internet and endless computer interaction, more social interactions with peers as opposed to virtual interactions.

    I simply think that there are so many things that have changed in education, child rearing and social involvement that would effect the intellectual development of all children that the study is out-dated...and therefore invalid.

    Remember that 1932 was a very important year for women in the UK.

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58664...

    Womens Rights - Equal Status With Men - Conference Delegates View
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    No kidding! "We've got a crisis and it is with boys.". Jeeze. Everything is a crisis and they seem to always pertain to characteristics simply inherent to ones existence; nothing that can be fixed or changed.
  • #18
    !
    @Slowmo It's the liberal sissy-fying of the American male.
    Next, they'll have a study showing that men are smarter when they wear thong undies and high heel shoes.
    Worst part......liberal males buy into this!
  • #21
    !
    @stepped_in_it lol..thong undies and high heels! Yes, they do buy into it and its hard to understand why! Is there "male guilt" like white guilt among liberal men?? Men are supposed to be men. That's why we're men and not women. Oh well..they can do what they want but don't expect me to suppress my masculinity because its strength makes you feel intimidated...I didnt make you a pu**y.
  • #42
    !
    @Slowmo If you think that intimidating people and calling women insulting names is what makes you masculine, you are truly pathetic and obviously one of the men on that lower end of the intelligence spectrum.
  • #50
    !
    @stepped_in_it That's a special visual! But...American males are certainly being "held" back in the sense that [girl's rule, girl power], etc. has taken root in society to the extent that boys are no longer allowed to act like boys. Many, many years ago, when the phrase, "get in touch with your feminine side" was popular, I knew we were in trouble.
  • R Load more replies

  • #33
    !
    This article is hogwash. I have five kids, 2 of which are boys. It all depends on how you raise your kids. This notion that boys are "slower" than girls is a common misconception that has more to do with discipline than intelligence. I see many parents automatically hold their boys back simply because they are boys! Paying attention and staying focused can, believe it or not, be taught. Too many children are misdiagnosed with ADHD when a lack of discipline is more likely the culprit In my experience, my boys' grades tend to be higher than the girls' because they aren't as distracted by social situations with other students.

    Our modern society paints the male species as dumb and stupid. It is the reason we have a crisis with absent fathers. Boys don't know who they are any more because they are confused as to what their role in society is. It is okay for a boy to be a strong leader. It is okay for a boy to want to be physical and energetic. We need to stop reprogramming males to completely ignore their instincts.
  • #49
    !
    Keep this in mind, when I was in grade school I attended public school initially.
    Our teacher made the boys sit in the back and the girls sat in the front. Boys could not ask questions until the girls had finished asking their questions. It's no wonder boys are "left behind".

    Upon hearing this, my parents pulled me out of public school and put me in private school.(It was either catholic school or military, I choose the former). Thanks, in part, to this decision, I now have a PhD in EE from a top 3 eng school in the US. Who knows where I would have been if I had been left in the public school system.

    My point is, the era of feminism has certainly caused a lot of boys to be left behind as the priority and focus is entirely on girls/women. It's supposed to be equal rights, which I agree with, but that's not what it is today - it's all about special rights, which I disagree with.

    What more proof? Look how many women only scholarships, black scholarships, latino scholarhips - now compare that vs the number of men only scholarships, specifically, white male only scholarships.

    Apparently, to feminists, the "no child left behind" policy only applies to girls because our public schools are doing a huge disservice to male children every day and USA's educational systems are bad to begin with anyway.
  • #98
    !
    @WMCOL
    Wow, you completely missed the entire point of my post and responded with both a racist AND sexist post. Congratulations. I guess you are another child left behind?

    It's not that any group needs or deserves special help, things need to be equal, not special. The current environment isn't equal and by promoting special benefits for one group, you are hurting another.

    and to flip your question, why do all these groups need special benefits if they are all clearly superior to white males, as you suggest.
  • #99
    !
    @Yazzito
    It was your suggestion that "specifically" white males can't cut it.

    "What more proof? Look how many women only scholarships, black scholarships, latino scholarhips - now compare that vs the number of men only scholarships, specifically, white male only scholarships."
  • #104
    !
    @WMCOL

    No, there are no "white male" scholarships . That would be considered racist/sexist.

    But there are black scholarships, black male scholarships, black female scholarhips, female only scholarships., latino scholarships, now there are even transgender scholarships ...

    So, why is it acceptable to have black male scholarships, but it's unacceptable to have white male scholarships? Why is it acceptable to have female only scholarships, but it's considered sexist to have male only scholarships?

    My statement wasn't that white males could not cut it, in fact this great country was built off the hard work of that group, it was the fact that there every other race/gender has scholarships specifically available to them, yet if someone were to make a white male scholarship, it would be considered racist/sexist. Yet why isn't the same argument made for female or black only scholarships?

    If you were so interested in EQUALITY, this wouldn't upset you. Instead, you don't want equality, you want special benefits. Therein lies the problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    "...females are the dominant ones. And they continue to dominate all throughout school." Dang it, I sure missed out on that one.
  • #95
    !
    Since I got in touch with my feminine side, I have accelerated beyond belief -- my next goal is to crash the glass ceiling.-- sign me; "pussy Galore." <wink>
  • #6
    !
    In the United States, with its high prevalence of single Mothers, and divorced Mothers with custody, 'boys are what their Mothers', and all the other women role models in schools, make of them'. Yes, there are occasional dysfunctional children who'll grow up to be violent, aggressive, anti-social, etc. despite all of the love, attention and positive reinforcement they get, but by and large it is WOMEN who have the biggest influence on both little girls AND little boys. I would love to see a LONG-TERM STUDY of differences, success and failure rates, etc. of children, along gender lines AND from single parent households versus 2 parent households, and how they stack against each other. It would be GREAT if home-schooling could also be thrown into the mix, but that may be one-too-many variables for such a study. THAT'S what would be a more valid study to me than this old and foreign-based study. Greater intelligence is NOT a redeeming quality if we are going to be putting out people like Ted Bundy, who was incredibly intelligent but a ruthless, sadistic psychotic murderer. High Intelligence and GOODNESS (sadly) do not always go hand in hand.
  • #8
    !
    Omission: One more worthwhile study to conduct, featuring some of the variables of the proposed study I mention above, would be the LONG TERM DIFFERENCE and OUTCOMES of children reared in homes were a religion were practiced with home in which little or no religion was manifested, e.g. secular vs. religious households and their long-term impact on child development, adjustment, etc.
  • #10
    !
    @GedankPol typo: "....reared in homes WHERE a religion was practiced in contrast to HOMES in which little or no religion was manifest...."
  • #19
    !
    @GedankPol There was ZERO religion in our home. There was NO domestic violence nor abuse. None of us turned into drunks nor addicts. We had NO children out of wedlock, never went to jail, all of us had jobs and responsibilities, we went camping every year, held fish fries, played until we dropped, my mom baked cupcakes for every single class party for all three of us kids and made handmade presents for our teachers, my dad taught us mechanics and basic woodworking. It was a fabulous life! ;0)
  • #39
    !
    I'm not saying anything other than LONG TERM STUDIES ought to be conducted on whether factors such as being raised by a single parent, coming from a religious or non religious household, being home schooled or being schooled in a public school, etc. ought to be performed to get an idea of the effect, IF ANY, that the different types of home environment have a significant impact on children, and whether the impacts are good, bad or non existent. To me it would be a lot more worthwhile than studying the sex life of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, for example. I hope you know me better than that, Jamayla. I'm encouraging LONG TERM STUDIES, not making a statement as to the superiority or inferiority of the environment of anyone's early childhood, adolescence, early adult hood, etc. whatever it might have been.
  • #46
    !
    @jamayla

    It's not always true, but the stat is certainly high in this particular category you have mentioned.

    However, I grew up in this type of family where I never wanted to be. My father got married twice and he did the same thing (abused his two wives physically and psychologically) including me and my siblings. I witnessed many of his committed crimes. He didn't just humiliated me and my siblings, but he also embarrassed us in our community. FYI, he wasn't a basta man. His mother was a good mother, so did his father.

    My siblings and I don't do any drugs or alcohol. No illegal narcotocs in our lives. I told them that we would burden ourselves once one of us was a culprit. I took care of them as early as I was 10. Thinking about this today, I don't know how I managed raising myself and my siblings. No parents were around supervising me or my siblings. We were like wild cats free to do whatever. Surprisingly, my siblings and I have been doing good without parents giving us pocket money, food, or education.

    Also, I learned three spoken dialects and an official language of my country, not included English. English is new to me.

    Perhaps, people like me are rare in your society, but I'm common person in my community. The number of parentless kids in my society is staggering and I'm worried for them for some reason.

    Frankly, you shouldn't mock people until you will meet your great grand kids.
  • R Load more replies

  • #59
    !
    Another story shocking to the left, men and women are different, each with strengths and weaknesses, which is why a strong father and mother provide the best environment for children. Another thing to note, this has been true for as long and humans have existed, nothing has changed and it seems to have worked out okay for the most part.
  • #15
    !
    What really amazes me is all of these "studies" that come to the conclusion that men/women and boys/girls are different. To much taxpayer monies is being spent to "study" the obvious.
  • #5
    !
    Girls handle the regimentation of public schools better than boys do - ask any parent. It's also possible that women handle the regimentation of work in bureaucracies better than men do, but if so, that trend has peaked. White collar jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, and since blue collar jobs have traditionally been dominated by men, we may see a return to the old gender roles. Or, we'll see women with masters degrees in social work in welding and jobs.
  • #2
    !
    If this was ever to become a more caring, sensitive, mature culture...woman would be more capable of running it...not sure it will ever happen, though
  • #70
    !
    Yes, and once again it is because of how they were supposedly treated in the past. So, NOW ALL men must suffer to the point of extinction, to satisfy the Ignorant PC crowd! Today's system is designed so that Illegals, women and minorities, ALL come before anyone else. My question is ...WHO is really the minority NOW??
  • #45
    !
    Boys and girls, men and women, are different.
    We tried to tell them. But we make a mistake laughing.  I mean, all you can do sometimes is laugh at 'em, but we make a mistake laughing at them, because they're dead serious.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #30
    !
    I'm not convinced by the argument or charts, but men no longer are credited with family income, but much of the responsibly. Johnson's war on poverty created much destruction in family life. A little antidotal, but my experience in school starting from kindergarten and up
    boys averaged lower grades, only a few graded better then the best girl grades. This is not a recent memory for me. Boys tend to mature slower then girls, I think this is the reason for the gap. By the time these guys get serious, all the women have a career path. My observation!
  • #103
    !
    I've always said that boys should start kindergarten at age 6, while girls can start at age 5. At that age, boys aren't as ready for school as girls are.
  • #107
    !
    @PayThatCEO Probably correct for the reason, but should boys initially fall back? I think that
    in our highly technical and auto- mechanical society most of male labor has gone away. It's my opinion that there are more opportunities now for women. I can go to any store, clinic, office or restaurant and see few men. True men may have supervisory roles but that seems to be about even.
  • #29
    !
    A lack of positive male leadership and role models (especially in schools) is a *MAJOR* contributing factor the educational disparity seen early on.

    Somewhere along the way, we decided it would be better in general for women to teach and run schools to the near-or-complete-exclusion of men in many places.

    Do women make good teachers? Some.

    Do men make good teachers? Some.

    With perhaps one or two exceptions, I can say that all of the best teachers I've ever had have been male: and this is not a slight against the female teachers I've had - they've been smart, but they weren't as good a teacher as their male counterparts (note - this is dominantly in my college and professional experience).

    We need more men teaching in elementary schools to balance the views children get of what is important in life.
  • #40
    !
    Can you explain, in as much detail as possible, what was better about the way a man taught than the way a woman taught in your experience?
  • #47
    !
    Elementary school teachers aren't there to tell kids what is important in life; they are there to teach the kids how to learn and to present facts for them to know.
  • #69
    !
    @wizzardude That kind of made me laugh. I suddenly remember my principal in 9th grade and his pal, my Geography teacher. Mr. Sims and Mr. Rowley. You could get away with anything in their classes. They were fun. But man, if you got Mrs. Rowley in English you were there to learn, by God, and there would be no clowning around. I always remembered Mr. Sims and Mr. Rowley as my favorite teachers. They knew what it was like to be a kid and stuck in a classroom all day so they let us have fun while we learned. It wasn't that I learned more from them, but that I had more fun doing it. Maintaining order? Ha! One of my classes was in an old house on the edge of the school grounds. It sat up on concrete blocks. You could almost walk under the house. One day my lipstick rolled through a hole in the floor. All nine of us in the class were under the house looking for my lipstick when a school board member drove by. Poor Mr. Rowley. He had to answer for that... disorder in the classroom. Next class he almost pled with us to please remember his reputation when we did things. Loved that guy.

    As I recall, I often got along better with men teachers than with women teachers. But it didn't have anything to do with control.

    Oh, wait, now I'm remembering when we all slid down the fire chute from the second floor in Mr. Saucier's class. HAHAHAHAHA!

    Hey, school wasn't all work and no play after all. I had forgotten.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post