Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Tigerman

Why Johnny Can't Read: Schools Favor Girls

By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 18 July 2006
09:21 am ET

Studies have long shown that boys in the United States and around the world do not read or write as well as girls. There are several reasons, according to the common wisdom:

Girls mature more quickly.
Boys are more likely to suffer dyslexia and other reading disorders.
Race and poverty play a role.
But a new study finds that the problem cuts across socioeconomic lines and pins part of the blame squarely on schools, whose techniques cater to the strengths of girls and leave boys utterly disinterested.

Can't read a newspaper

The research, by psychology professor Judith Kleinfeld at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, finds that nearly one-quarter of high school seniors across the United States who are sons of white, college-educated parents have woeful reading skills, ranking "below basic" on a national standardized test.

"These boys cannot read a newspaper and get the main point," Kleinfeld told LiveScience. "These boys cannot read directions for how to use equipment and follow them."

And the problem is getting worse.

The federal government's 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that 26.3 percent of high school seniors scored below basic in reading skills. In a finer analysis of that data, Kleinfeld found that 23 percent of white sons of college-educated parents scored below basic, up from 13 percent in 1992. (Among girls with white, college-educated parents, only about 6 percent fall into the below-basic category.)

Kleinfeld presented her results last month at the White House Conference on Helping America's Youth in Indianapolis. She has not yet submitted the findings to a journal for peer review.

Lack of motivation

The problem is partly developmental, Kleinfeld said.

"Girls mature more quickly than boys," she said. "They enter school with bigger vocabularies and better fine motor skills, so it's easier for them to learn to write."

And as boys enter junior high and high school, their motivation wanes.

"Many boys are disengaging from school," Kleinfeld says.  "The U.S. Department of Education's surveys of student commitment show that boys are far less likely than girls to do homework or to come to school with the supplies they need."

In an interview, one boy summed up the problem for Kleinfeld. He said: "Why would anyone want to read novels? They aren't even true!"

What schools should learn

In separate research that Kleinfeld is also preparing for publication, she has possibly gotten to the root of the problem.

"Here's a fascinating fact," she said. "There is no literacy gap in home-schooled boys and girls."

"Why? In school, teachers emphasize reading literature and talking about character and feelings," she said. "This way of teaching reading does not turn boys on.  Boys prefer reading nonfiction, such as history and adventure books. When they are taught at home, parents are more likely to let them follow their interests."

Well as we can see from that activist release from NOW it is practically useless trying to use reasoned arguments to deal with the evils and hatred that feminism brings about. Lies that have been debunked thoroughly and over and over again are still being used by feminists with barely a challenge from media outlets who are savvy enough to know better IF THEY CARED!!!
F4J is good because they are using direct action but inaction can be persuasive too esp. if we are to believe that the greek play 'lysistrata' (have I spelt that right?) was based on historic events [ the play is about the womenfolk ganging up together to deny their men sex until they promised not to go to war again leaving their familes behind - in the play the 'strike' worked. ]
Anyway to get to the germ of my idea - I am positing the production of a list or a set of lists that men could officially sign up to or pledge whereby the list would detail a number of ways (obviously a major one would be commitment to NOT get married!) where the signee would refuse to participate until a set of minimum demands were met. Basically what I am proposing is just formalising what a lot of men have already decided anyway - but this way to make it OFFICIAL so that our enemies will KNOW that we are committed to holding THEM (feminists) accountable specifically and therefore attempts by feminists to blame the new phenomenum of 'marriage strike' on a range of divers causes (except of course themselves!) will be that more difficult.
Anyone think there is any mileage in this idea?
Full book title and author =
"Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is
Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports (Hardcover)"
by Kate O'Beirne

This book is no 39 in the bestsellers list yet HUNDREDS of 'reviewers' have
flocked to the US Amazon site to give the book the lowest possible rating!
Most of the 'reviews' are very short (1 or 2 sentences) and most are also
FIRST TIME REVIEWERS, also notable is that again most of these highly
negative reviews have appeared only in the last couple of days. :evil:
It is clear that a clarion call has gone out for the 'sistahood' to slate
this book - what better reason could there be to BUY this book (which btw
*I* have just done!).

Don't believe me or think I'm seeing a 'feminist conspiracy' where none
Well then check out the reviews for yourself here:


P.S. Well done Dr. E of SYG who wrote an excellent review which also exposed the obvious feminist networking that is being employed to give the book the lowest possible rating!

(edited to fix link, dr e)
Main / Big Brother!!!!
Aug 14, 2005, 11:16 PM
Recently I let it be known to 'colleagues' on a usenet newsgroup ( that I had been active on the UK Big Brother Forum (as I have in previous years). The only reaction I got was negative (albeit put across in friendly but teasing way!) - no one posted a positive appreciation and this has stunned me somewhat. I mean BB does reach a somewhat wide audience and the BB Forum is VERY busy indeed. I admit that I don't ladle out anti-feminist lectures with all my posts - but through interacting with other forum members in a congenial and chatty way - I have found that when for example someone starts a topic about 'sexism' (in relation to the BB show) I have a perfect opportunity to drop the odd 'cognitive cluster bomb' as Angry Harry would put it. Anyway the point I am trying to put across is that in MY view it seems perfectly reasonable to NOT disdain ANY opportunity to communicate an alternative viewpoint to the ubiquitous feminist one which has been force fed to the mass population over the last three decades or so. For myself being an MRA doesn't stop when I close my internet connection - taxi drivers,work colleagues, people met in bars,resteraunts in fact ANYONE one meets is in my view a potential 'convert' or at least someone who may accept the challenge to think a little more 'outside the box' than they usually do. I am NOT ashamed to be involved in such 'brain dead' activities as becoming a forum member of Big Brother - any more than I am ashamed of speaking out against the palovian instilled concepts of feminism which has in my view wreaked so much damage on our social fabric. There I have 'OUTED' myself - anyone else got any 'secrets' ? ;)
Aug 03, 2005, 03:11 AM
Sadly I find that far too many MRA's (myself included in ungaurded moments) are arguing whatever case they are arguing but using feminist concepts as if they were quite legitimate. One such key word is 'SEXISM'.
The rail(by feminists) against 'sexism' stems from their false conception that all sex differences (aside from obvious anatomical diffs.) are the result of 'socialisation'. This is simply not true but feminists are not concerned about the truth of the issue what they ARE concerned about is gaining the power and influence to be able to effect the social engineering processes within our society\culture. Wherever a society occurs so does social engineering in one form or another because social engineering (to greater or lesser extents) is an actual by-product of social organisation.
It is important that MRA's are quite cognisant of this simple fact because rather than decry what we perceive as 'social engineering' we should in fact be arguing vigourously for the kind of social engineering that is in ACCORD (or to use my favourite metaphor 'to go with the GRAIN') with our actual natures rather than trying to thwart nature artificially by trying to impose strictures on behaviour and hiring practices by insisting that we meet a set of standards based on an absolute FALLACY (i.e. that all sex diffs are caused by socialisation alone).
Admitting to our (natural) sexist natures doesn't mean we should be also divorced from behaving with fairness,decency and all the other virtues - it just means that we stop using fallacious concepts to criticise what is perceived by some to be unwonted behaviour or attitudes. Let us use correct language and reason ebcause feminisms capacity to hi-jack know no bounds and if left unchecked we will onloy end up creating another 'tower of Babel'.
The 'Lets Celebrate SEXISM' title is meant to intimidate feminists and those who have not thought through the implications of it's use.
We ARE sexist creatures created by a 'sexist' nature - that doesn't mean we cannot act with consideration and fairness towards the opposite sex and it is very important to understand that.
Dear All

I have decided to stop updating angryharry with general news items of interest to men and will now concentrate on other areas of activism.

Thoughts anyone?