Schools 'too feminine for boys'

[nitrox]

This sounds like an evolutionary traight in the sense of gender based competition. The ones who fight are usually the ones who get what they want and need. It's just the primal side of humans (which you can't erase) showing its self and yeh it does look very nasty when you see it from a non primal perspective (you have money, food, and other things) and can see the barbarianism. This to me is normal; yet what really bothers me is that women can do so much like switch from relationship to relationship and recover quicker.

Everything so far sounds like a weighted average on one gender. Girls are better at social things because their brain works a little nicer on that part. We do better what is better for us as people. Girls have an easier time with socialising and less on spacial and logic, so they socialise! Boys are usually the opposite.

We see animals in the wild ripping meat apart and think man, that's barbaric (some do) and then we think we're so far above that, and we're really not. We rip meat apart with tools since we don't have huge K9 fangs. A bit smarter with the tools but the same intincts.

Behaviour wise, we have different ways of dealing with things, generally males are advantageous to females in tasks as we're not into backstabbing in such female ways but we can do it, we just finish the task before. I've seen some girls though that pick up on small intrepersonal comments and really either see them as they are, or amplify them. Whereas a bloke will see them, make a face back at the person and continue. We fight in similar but on a micro scale; very different ways. None being better or more superiour than the other.

Yet about the the relationship part where females can switch faster. There's loads we don't know about why, but we do know that men can do it just as quick. Thnk about the times when you had a bad relationship and all you could think of is how quick you were over that person and onto the next. I could go into another few pages on why I think this is so, but you get the idea.

[Since1982]

Well, the sword might look OK, but William Wallace wearin' a Kilt? - I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I get the wrong name? Wasn't the character Mel Gibson played in "Braveheart" named William Wallace? I didn't see him wear anything BUT a kilt in that movie. Maybe I have the wrong name...I'm really confused now.

[Kilted_John]

Skip,

I think it's because Braveheart wasn't 100% accurate, in that kilts didn't really come into being until the 1400's or so, and Wallace lived in the 1200's. That'd be why Merlin said what he said.

-J

[Departed Member]

Did I get the wrong name? Wasn't the character Mel Gibson played in "Braveheart" named William Wallace? I didn't see him wear anything BUT a kilt in that movie. Maybe I have the wrong name...I'm really confused now.

William Wallace was a true sassenach, a Scottish lowlander, born & bred. It is reasonably certain that he never once visited the Highlands (where Kilts were to become almost de rigeur, some 200 or so years later), as his (northbound) journeys away from his native Ayrshire took him no further than a line roughly Stirling/Perth/Dundee, this reasonably marking the perceived line of demarcation between the "Highlands" and the rest of Scotland. Is "Braveheart" the worst film purporting to represent "Scottish history" ever? Almost certainly! (Although I did enjoy the beatiful Irish scenery!).

[Since1982]

That's interesting, there's a statue in Scotland of William Wallace wearing a kilt. I wonder how the Scots got that wrong too...amazing..

[AMM]

sorry guys, there is a big difference [between boys and girls] and it's as well to be aware of it!

The question is: what portion of these differences is innate (or unchangable) and how much is training? As other posters have pointed out, there is enormous social pressure -- brainwashing, really -- for boys(girls) to act as boys (girls) are supposed to act and to be who they are supposed to be, such that by the time they are, say 12, most people can't really imagine who they are apart from these culturally imposed norms.

I think this distinction is important and relevant.

I remember when I was in high school (1970), I was sitting in math class listening to a girl who was obviously pretty smart asking dumb questions. It was obvious to me at the time that she believed that it was not OK for a girl to be smart, especially in "masculine" subjects, and so was (consciously or unconsciously) dumbing herself down.

Now, if you believe that girls are innately less adept at understanding math and science, as is a widespread belief even now (cf. a recent president of Harvard), you will either steer them to life paths that don't require math and science, or, at best, arrange your math and science classes to help them with their handicap.

But, on the other hand, if you believe that they do worse because they believe they are supposed to do worse, or because they believe they are not capable (when they really are, on the average), you will focus on improving their confidence and helping them believe that they can still be acceptable even if they do well in these subjects.

To treat the second case as if it were the first will probably just reinforce the "I can't do math because I'm a girl" belief.

... the other thing which you see easily is that girls are socially far more vicious than boys.
....
I worked in an office with two women once and I never saw such an underhanded rivalry
....

There's a simple explanation for that, that doesn't require supposing any innate difference between boys and girls: those who are in a position to wield power directly do so, those who are otherwise powerless have to use more "underhanded" means. This applies not only to women, but to other powerless groups, such as African-Americans (in the USA)

Also, boys are trained to "fight fair", and to put up with losing, even if it means they always lose. Girls are trained to be powerless, or at least act powerless. (Fortunately, there are getting to be more situations where girls are encouraged to excel, compete, and feel powerful. But the attitudes that get communicated to children will change a lot more slowly.)

I'm not saying that there aren't innate differences, but social training can account for a lot.


Obligatory skirt content:

How much of our (MISers') choice of clothing is dominated by the attitudes of what "boys are like" that were steam-rolled into us at ages 6--12? Would the "masculinity" of our skirts/kilts be a topic, if we hadn't been brainwashed to believe girl=wears frilly frocks and boy=wears patched dungarees, and God help you if you cross the line?


-- AMM