More to the article than she meant, I think.

[jackofallgeeks]

There's a lot in Here that peaks my interest: that schools may be geared in such a way that favors one gender over the other; that 'learning disability' may often just mean the child isn't fitting the educational mold we expect them to; considering how culturally-influenced gender roles are, and whether they might not be hard-wired in some way. that's a lot to think about. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to think about it here at work and as I'm going to The Beach for the weekend this afternoon, probably won't be able to look at it until Monday or so...

Comments

Oh, please

[xenu.livejournal.com]

I am SO OVER this whole "girls are doing well in school at the expense of boys" argument. Why should the ladies be blamed for the failures of the boys? How about trying, "Wow, boys are doing badly. Why don't we figure out how to make them excel instead of focusing on the bad girls who should be letting the boys do well and dropping out of school to have babies?"

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-laughs- That's precicely *not* one of the things that interested me and, actually, not how I read the article, either. To me, it seemed to be saying, "most money is going to special-ed, most special-ed is boys, so girls are getting gypted." Then, "oh, wait, girls graduate more often and with higher scored than boys. So that's good, right?" And finally, "but wait, we still make less money!" I only got through 1/2 to 3/4 of the article, but she'd need to take a sharp turn pretty close to the end for me to hear "girls need to do worse in school, for the sake of the boys."