[eavesdropper]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It is not popular, but separate classes for girls and boys is one suggestion. I also think the food we eat contributes to children’s dispositions. The crap sugar and hormone over loaded, fat choked fast food diet is not healthy. Boys are totally over diagnosed as ADD and medicated. Women dominate elementary teaching and they prefer tractable kids (girls) or boys who act like girls. Lastly, teachers are not allowed to discipline kids, so medication is recommended where teachers of old would actually lay hands on bratty boys. The whole idea that the sexes are the same is idiotic. They are not. Their brains are different and so are they. It is a DNA thing. That does not make one better than the other, but ask anyone who has one or two of each if they are the same. The same idea that brought equal pay for equal work (a good thing), brought the idea that equal means the sexes are the same and learn the same way (not a good thing). Teaching needs to change or it will go the same way as the print media and children will be taught by distance learning and maybe not by teachers. Many of the schools are failing to deliver despite massive amounts of tax dollars invested in them and the instituions of higher learning are almost unaffordable for many segments of society. Something has to change.[/quote]

Zeitgeist, I agree with the separate class suggestion. Anything that will help get our kids better educated has my vote, and I think this might help. There’s no question that the “food” we give our kids is a problem, and it’s compounded by our kids engaging in stationary activities using computers and other electronic play devices, with no time given over to anything resembling physical exercise. And ADD is, as you say, “totally overdiagnosed”, by unqualified and untrained health practitioners and education administrators. However, except for classroom segregation, these are all things that parents can, and should be changing. Today’s parents treat their pets better than they care for their kids. They’re afraid of their children, so they give them anything they want to eat, exert no discipline, and load them up with electronic devices so that they won’t have to interact with them. They misinterpret normal childhood exuberance and play as hyperactivity, and backed up with endorsements from their friends with similarly-afflicted children, they go to the doctor and demand an ADD diagnosis. Then they use that as an excuse to do nothing when their child misbehaves, and makes life for the rest of the civilized world a living hell.

Some day, when you are feeling particularly masochistic, watch an episode of Supernanny or Nanny 911, and observe how you feel and the level of your blood pressure after the show is over. Multiply the one or two Satan’s spawn you saw on the show by 8 or 9 (maybe more), and imagine being stuck in a closed room for 5 or 6 hours a day with them. Welcome to the lives of most of America’s elementary school teachers. And they’re the ones who have it easy: what do you think these monsters are like by the time they get to junior high or high school?

The schools have their problems, but the vast majority of them are being caused by irresponsible parents who palm their uncontrollable brats off on their local school systems, and refuse to take ownership of them and their problems. And I’m not sure when the last time was that you spent any time in a classroom during school hours, but the girls are far from easy to handle. They are foul-mouthed, insubordinate bullies who learn how to work the system in their tender years.

I’m tired of paying high taxes, and having nothing to show for it. When all those little monsters misbehave (and their parents threaten the school for attempting to discipline them in any way), they’re violating my child’s right to an education. Like I said, the schools have their issues, but nothing’s going to make a difference until their teachers and administrators have some recourse in handling these problem students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It is not popular, but separate classes for girls and boys is one suggestion. I also think the food we eat contributes to children’s dispositions. The crap sugar and hormone over loaded, fat choked fast food diet is not healthy. Boys are totally over diagnosed as ADD and medicated. Women dominate elementary teaching and they prefer tractable kids (girls) or boys who act like girls. Lastly, teachers are not allowed to discipline kids, so medication is recommended where teachers of old would actually lay hands on bratty boys. The whole idea that the sexes are the same is idiotic. They are not. Their brains are different and so are they. It is a DNA thing. That does not make one better than the other, but ask anyone who has one or two of each if they are the same. The same idea that brought equal pay for equal work (a good thing), brought the idea that equal means the sexes are the same and learn the same way (not a good thing). Teaching needs to change or it will go the same way as the print media and children will be taught by distance learning and maybe not by teachers. Many of the schools are failing to deliver despite massive amounts of tax dollars invested in them and the instituions of higher learning are almost unaffordable for many segments of society. Something has to change.[/quote]

Zeitgeist, I agree with the separate class suggestion. Anything that will help get our kids better educated has my vote, and I think this might help. There’s no question that the “food” we give our kids is a problem, and it’s compounded by our kids engaging in stationary activities using computers and other electronic play devices, with no time given over to anything resembling physical exercise. And ADD is, as you say, “totally overdiagnosed”, by unqualified and untrained health practitioners and education administrators. However, except for classroom segregation, these are all things that parents can, and should be changing. Today’s parents treat their pets better than they care for their kids. They’re afraid of their children, so they give them anything they want to eat, exert no discipline, and load them up with electronic devices so that they won’t have to interact with them. They misinterpret normal childhood exuberance and play as hyperactivity, and backed up with endorsements from their friends with similarly-afflicted children, they go to the doctor and demand an ADD diagnosis. Then they use that as an excuse to do nothing when their child misbehaves, and makes life for the rest of the civilized world a living hell.

Some day, when you are feeling particularly masochistic, watch an episode of Supernanny or Nanny 911, and observe how you feel and the level of your blood pressure after the show is over. Multiply the one or two Satan’s spawn you saw on the show by 8 or 9 (maybe more), and imagine being stuck in a closed room for 5 or 6 hours a day with them. Welcome to the lives of most of America’s elementary school teachers. And they’re the ones who have it easy: what do you think these monsters are like by the time they get to junior high or high school?

The schools have their problems, but the vast majority of them are being caused by irresponsible parents who palm their uncontrollable brats off on their local school systems, and refuse to take ownership of them and their problems. And I’m not sure when the last time was that you spent any time in a classroom during school hours, but the girls are far from easy to handle. They are foul-mouthed, insubordinate bullies who learn how to work the system in their tender years.

I’m tired of paying high taxes, and having nothing to show for it. When all those little monsters misbehave (and their parents threaten the school for attempting to discipline them in any way), they’re violating my child’s right to an education. Like I said, the schools have their issues, but nothing’s going to make a difference until their teachers and administrators have some recourse in handling these problem students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]

grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.

As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]

grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.

As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]

grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.

As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]

grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.

As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=eavesdropper]I’d say that sociological pressures are the more likely reason for the female domination of teaching and nursing. Up until the early 70s, discrimination based on sex was common and absolutely legal…[/quote]
True, although bear in mind that people who were entering the workforce in the early 70s are now in their 60s and rapidly approaching retirement. Obviously there were attitudes that carried down from parents, but no one under 40 today was even alive in 1969 and no one under 50 was past grade school.[/quote]

grad student, I am confused. Can you clarify your response? I’ve read it several times, and I can’t figure out what it has to do with either my post, or your earlier post to which I responded. I am up there in age, so maybe the synaptic junctions aren’t what they used to be.

As for your endorsement of gender-segregated classes, I’m all for it. I’m not up on the most recent literature on improved math scores following gender segregation of classes. But, if there measurable disparity between the learning abilities of children based on gender, I would think that it would make it much easier for the teachers to provide effective instruction if they were teaching classes of pupils with comparable abilities.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]

HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!

CE[/quote]

Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.

Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.

I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]

HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!

CE[/quote]

Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.

Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.

I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]

HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!

CE[/quote]

Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.

Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.

I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]

HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!

CE[/quote]

Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.

Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.

I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=walterwhite]These are all valid points but the fact remains that girls have cooties[/quote]

HAHA! But they law says you cannot discriminate against cooties. Even the mushy kind!

CE[/quote]

Not true, CE. It’s a little known loophole in the law. You certainly can, and should, discriminate against cooties at every opportunity.

Scaredy, it was irresponsible of you to reveal that girls have cooties, while neglecting to include correlate information on discrimination law.

I fear that Walter White has not been a favorable influence in your life.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eavesdropper: Speaking of available on the web AND a good piece of journalism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

This is Tim Dickinson’s Rolling Stone article on Obama and the Gulf spill. RS is usually center-left and generally “friendly” towards the Obama White House. In this case, not so much. Good, well-researched article and one that doesn’t play fast and loose with the facts, nor does it present as an “opinion” piece (a convenient mechanism that many newspapers and periodicals use to try and hide the slant).[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I get so hungry for writing that actually qualifies as journalism that I really don’t give a rat’s ass if it casts a politician, government official, or any other individual about whom I may have a favorable opinion, in an unfavorable light. I want my government leaders to be held up to the light in regard to their job performances. I don’t want them to have false charges lodged or questionable aspersions cast against them, nor do I want “whitewash” reporting that sounds like it came from a PR office. I just want unbiased, factual, unemotional reporting of what these people do on a daily basis.

I, too, have noticed the growing absence of reporters on the pages of newspapers and magazines, replaced by an increasing number of “opinion writers” or “commentators”. If I gave a damn about some idiot’s opinion, I’d still be paying visits to my family on holidays. Worse yet is the regular appearance of reporters from some of the newspapers on shows such as Keith Olbermann’s or Rachel Maddow’s in a faux-interview setting. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant: when they appear on shows with self-admitted political bias, day after day, and spout out “responses” that align 100% with the opinions of the host, how can I possibly trust what they write in a news story, on ANY topic?

You’re right: a major cataclysmic change is taking place in the news industry and in journalism, and I’m not sure that there will be a Fourth Estate remaining when the dust settles.

[Author]

Posts