5 ms·

No, but statistically small boys are more physically active, more distractible, have a harder time sitting still, etc. Statistically girls are more verbal at a

No, but statistically small boys are more physically active, more distractible, have a harder time sitting still, etc. Statistically girls are more verbal at a young age, and spend more time talking, reading books, etc. and less time playing sports or video games. Some differences are probably biological, and some are due to different socialization. Either way, when kids get to school, the young girls are (on average) better prepared and more likely to follow teachers’ directions. Then school systematically rewards well prepared (and “well behaved”) students while punishing under-prepared or troublesome students. For many students and their families, rather than leading struggling students to seek additional help and work harder to catch up, it just causes emotional pain and feeds apathy or resentment towards schoolwork.

belorn 4y ago
If the answer is no then the theory being presented by the article is false. Good to have that cleared up. The problem is not then that men are struggling to find motivation, but rather that school are designed at early age for the statistically small girl. An external pressure we should fix. In the case that this isn't biological but culturally, we should fix the culture, an external pressure. Either way, fixing that children at the age of 5 already get unequal outcomes based on gender seems like a problem we should address, not 10 or 15 years later when those factors can multiply and compound. For example, if science and statistics can prove that boys are more physically active at that age, then the school system should adapt and incorporate more physical activity for boys in order to create better motivation. It is just as much discrimination to not do that as if schools were to measure muscle mass and give girls a lower grade, and then be surprised that women motivation later in education would be lower.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  I don’t think school is designed for small girls per se. More like it’s designed for societal convenience / cost savings, and the chosen compromises tend to be a bit less challenging for girls than boys. There have been other big societal changes of the past 50–100 years feeding in here: kids are more often under close supervision, are more tightly scheduled, are given fewer freedoms and fewer real responsibilities, live in smaller families with fewer siblings and cousins, spend less time unscripted with their friends, etc. Children in general would benefit from more play, more autonomous peer interactions, more time outside, and more physical activity from age 5–10 than they get from many schools and homes. It’s an uphill fight though, because there are many who insist that children need to be forced to do lots of academic work (with particular focus on stuff like memorizing arithmetic facts and spelling lists) from the earliest age whether or not they are interested. If it were up to me we’d also spend a lot more time reading aloud to/with children and teaching children to solve increasingly difficult puzzles (but not under time/performance pressure), play increasingly complicated games, make things out of a wide variety of materials, and experiment with as many parts of the physical world as practical, with a general focus on supporting the children’s own goals and ideas. (All of the above both in and out of school.)
  - belorn 4y ago
    Naturally, societal convenience / cost savings / chosen compromises are part of the structural discrimination that occur, similar how those effects influence discrimination in other areas of society. As an example, profiling by the police is a fairly common cost savings tactic, but we have rule in place to prevent the police from using it. If it wasn't convenient, cultural, or saved money, then most problems of discrimination would not exist in the first place. It is a bit however about how we frame it. If cost saving efforts create discrimination, then we call the system as being designed in a discriminating way. Call it a naming convention in social science. In general I agree with all those things you say that we should provide to children. Most of that is what my own country laws says that school should provide, and to add, it should be adapted based on the individual child needs and ability. I would add to it what the article just briefly mention, which is that matching gender between teacher and student has a fairly long history of showing improved results. There is still need to do more research on the subject, but there has been studies done since the 70s that shown how gender of those around a person can influence behavior. I have even remember reading in one study that the conclusion should be uncontroversial by now.

belorn 4y ago

If the answer is no then the theory being presented by the article is false. Good to have that cleared up. The problem is not then that men are struggling to find motivation, but rather that school are designed at early age for the statistically small girl. An external pressure we should fix. In the case that this isn't biological but culturally, we should fix the culture, an external pressure. Either way, fixing that children at the age of 5 already get unequal outcomes based on gender seems like a problem we should address, not 10 or 15 years later when those factors can multiply and compound. For example, if science and statistics can prove that boys are more physically active at that age, then the school system should adapt and incorporate more physical activity for boys in order to create better motivation. It is just as much discrimination to not do that as if schools were to measure muscle mass and give girls a lower grade, and then be surprised that women motivation later in education would be lower.

jacobolus 4y ago
I don’t think school is designed for small girls per se. More like it’s designed for societal convenience / cost savings, and the chosen compromises tend to be a bit less challenging for girls than boys. There have been other big societal changes of the past 50–100 years feeding in here: kids are more often under close supervision, are more tightly scheduled, are given fewer freedoms and fewer real responsibilities, live in smaller families with fewer siblings and cousins, spend less time unscripted with their friends, etc. Children in general would benefit from more play, more autonomous peer interactions, more time outside, and more physical activity from age 5–10 than they get from many schools and homes. It’s an uphill fight though, because there are many who insist that children need to be forced to do lots of academic work (with particular focus on stuff like memorizing arithmetic facts and spelling lists) from the earliest age whether or not they are interested. If it were up to me we’d also spend a lot more time reading aloud to/with children and teaching children to solve increasingly difficult puzzles (but not under time/performance pressure), play increasingly complicated games, make things out of a wide variety of materials, and experiment with as many parts of the physical world as practical, with a general focus on supporting the children’s own goals and ideas. (All of the above both in and out of school.)
- belorn 4y ago
  Naturally, societal convenience / cost savings / chosen compromises are part of the structural discrimination that occur, similar how those effects influence discrimination in other areas of society. As an example, profiling by the police is a fairly common cost savings tactic, but we have rule in place to prevent the police from using it. If it wasn't convenient, cultural, or saved money, then most problems of discrimination would not exist in the first place. It is a bit however about how we frame it. If cost saving efforts create discrimination, then we call the system as being designed in a discriminating way. Call it a naming convention in social science. In general I agree with all those things you say that we should provide to children. Most of that is what my own country laws says that school should provide, and to add, it should be adapted based on the individual child needs and ability. I would add to it what the article just briefly mention, which is that matching gender between teacher and student has a fairly long history of showing improved results. There is still need to do more research on the subject, but there has been studies done since the 70s that shown how gender of those around a person can influence behavior. I have even remember reading in one study that the conclusion should be uncontroversial by now.