GameBanshee Forums

This article was recently in the NY Times. I thought it was really interesting, and because it is online the extra content adds something. I used to work in education, so maybe I find this more interesting that other folks, but I thought it was worth posting.

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/education/01girls.html?em&ex=1175659200&en=8bba59e9653a7b58&ei=5087%0A"]For Girls, It's Be Yourself and Be Perfect, Too[/url]

"Girls who have grown up learning they can do anything a boy can do, which is anything they want to do."

seriously, feminism seems to me like one big scham. Society is, for the most part, equal if not tilted towards women. Yet they feel all united and special by beating some odds that were never there to begin with.

edit: article on april 1st, could be fake anyway.

I guess it would probably be just my age showing, but this seems nothing new to me. The majority of my intellectual competition in school was made up of by girls. A number of those played musical instruments and sports as well. My mother was the pretty, brilliant girl in her school as well, but then, she graduated just after the 70's had ended. She did all of that stuff too. Perhaps this would seem significant to someone of my grandparents generation?

I graduated in 1984, and while our class valedictorian was a girl, things in MY school were not "equal if not tilted to females". I clearly remember being told girls shouldn't play sports when I was in 8th grade and when I was little, it was a big huge deal if a girl played on the local Little League baseball team.

While things may seem hunky dory for women now, one doesn't have to look too terribly far back in time to see when things were not so equal. Of course I am saying this from a slightly older person's perspective, young people see things from their perspective. Another thing to keep in mind is women and girls in developing nations face discrimination that is almost unbelievable.


(and I hardly think the New York Times is going to indulge in an April Fool's day prank.... )

I'm not sure about the article in general, really; it does bring up some interesting points, but really just seemed like another un-scientific media fluff piece. "Are Kids Doing Too Much Homework?" "Are Kids Not Doing Enough Homework?" "Our Teenage Girls Are out of Control" "Our Teenage Girls Are Just Super!"... all that crap they recycle every few months, that's not really news or informative but hey, something has to take up space between advertisements.
What do people on these boards think constitutes discrimination? Some people define it as just being treated differently, personally I think treating everyone as the same creates systemic discrimination. You could put me in a race for my life against an olympic runner, and then say it was fair since neither of us had a head start, but I think that would be a cop-out. Treating me the same still leads to a situation where I would have no chance. Recognizing difference is fundamental to creating equality.
To be honest, my first reaction to how well girls were doing in school was 'Of course they do well, their teachers want to poke them.' Sexist reaction? Maybe, but I always got unusually high marks from gay university profs, so that kind of sexuality-based bias does exist and shouldn't be discounted.
The article was essentially about about the pressure being put on girls these days (which leads me back to my original comment about how all this stuff constantly gets recycled, Girls have too much Pressure on Them, or they don't have enough, they're doing too well, they're not doing well enough, blah blah), and for that, I honestly can't pretend to have that much sympathy. They say they're expected to be this and they're expected to be that... SFW? I was expected to do lots of stuff too (high school sports, the prom, cut my hair, don't wear rock t-shirts), I didn't, because I thought the expectations were a load of BS, and looking back, yeah, they were. So when I hear people complaining about expectations put on them, all I can think is 'Get a freakin' backbone!' You don't develop it now, get ready for an emotional breakdown by the time you're 25. I've known girls and guys who let expectations run their life, and pretty much all of them end up extremely unhappy.

kyle wrote: What do people on these boards think constitutes discrimination? Some people define it as just being treated differently, personally I think treating everyone as the same creates systemic discrimination.

My personal definition of discrimination is when somebody is prevented in pursuing something, or somehow downgraded, on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs etc.

So, in my view it is discrimination that a wage gap still exists between women and men for the same positions. It is discrimination that women often face a glass ceiling when attempting to advance their careers. It is discrimination when somebody is forced to sit at the back of the bus because they do not belong to the controlling hegemony.

However, this definition works in many ways....
I also feel it is discrimination if a woman is hired over a better qualified man because that company is trying to correct its gender imbalance. To me, that is tokenism, and just as discriminatory and insulting as the above examples.

As a different example...
In 1989 in the city of Montreal a gunman, screaming "I hate feminists," killed 14 women at École Polytechnique... ([url="http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/montreal_massacre/"]link[/url]). Every year since then memorial services are held. In many of them, men are not allowed.... This, in my view, is also discrimination. It was actually one of those issues that made me angry enough to write to our local paper at the time.


I will comment on the article itself a bit later.

@DW: I agree with you completely on this issue. Tokenism is the greatest flaw inherent in the quota system used by the US government in determining the equality of a workplace, particularly within its own agencies and entities. That method is also employed in competetive contractual bidding by affording a "minority" bidder favored status in the bidding process. Having been involved in the hiring process for a governmental agency in the past, I have witnessed the role that ethnic background and gender play in producing applicants to interview for available positions. In some cases, a more qualified individual missed out because a certain balancing element had to be reached. IMO this is terribly wrong, and a disservice to the governed of a country.

A real problem exists involving glaring discrepancies between advancement opportunities and salaries between men and women in the same roles in various industries. Western society has come a long way in regards to destroying barriers to individual freedoms over the years, and it is my hope this latest injustice is dispelled along with the things of an age long gone by.

I apologize for digressing...

One thing that struck me after reading the entire article was the focus on the academic achievments of young women in a predominately upper middle class well to do community. Money does help in providing a means to achieve one's goals.

To be honest, while I value education and view it as one of the primary ways people of either sex have to enrich themselves as human beings, I am also deeply concerned about violence against women. To say society is slanted towards women is a somewhat...misguided opinion in my eyes. I am not trying to be antagonistic to other members here at GB, but that did bother me.

This pertains to studies conducted within US borders, as such I am not trying to marginalize folks from other countries, but these were pamphlets I found readily available.

National Institute of Justice
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

Women experience significantly more
partner violence than men do: 25 percent of
surveyed women, compared with 8 percent
of surveyed men, said they were raped
and/or physically assaulted by a current or
former spouse ...Because women are
also more likely to be injured by intimate
partners, research aimed at understanding
and preventing partner violence against
women should be stressed.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf

Almost 18 million women and almost 3 million men in the United States have been raped. One of every six women has been raped at some time...Although the word “ r a p e” is gender neutral, most rape victims are female (almost 86 percent), and most rapists are male.

[QUOTE=kathycf]Almost 18 million women and almost 3 million men in the United States have been raped. One of every six women has been raped at some time...Although the word “ r a p e” is gender neutral, most rape victims are female (almost 86 percent), and most rapists are male.[/QUOTE]
Wanna know something interesting? In old, English and US common law, rape was an offense that could only be perpitrated by a man against a woman. Period. Men could not be raped (even by another man), and women could not rape (against a man or another woman).

Most states have changed that interpretation by now, but didn't do so until recently- generally the latter half of the 20th century.

@Kyle

I disagree. I don't think the article is trite or recycled. I actually think it is insightful, and I don't think many of the insights are necessarily limited to girls. But, then again, I did post it, so I'm biased. Anyway, my understanding is that being a woman isn't easy, and neither is being an adolescent. Finding what you're about is hard, but is worthwhile. Like the lady said: "Italiam non sponte sequor."

Cuchulain82 wrote:Wanna know something interesting? In old, English and US common law, rape was an offense that could only be perpitrated by a man against a woman. Period. Men could not be raped (even by another man), and women could not rape (against a man or another woman).

Most states have changed that interpretation by now, but didn't do so until recently- generally the latter half of the 20th century.

I remember reading something similiar, and it doesn't surprise me. Women were traditionally seen as the "weaker sex" so that sort of law ties in with that mind set.

I should be clear, however that while women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual crimes, this does not mean that men are also not victimized this way, nor does it excuse that happening to anybody. Sadly, more and more women seem to be commiting violent crimes, so I am not arguing that women are angels.

To get back to the point of this thread, which is the article you posted. I did think it was interesting. However, I would have gotten more from it if the author of the article had not just interviewed young people from fairly well to do families, whose parents are particularly well educated themselves.

There are many families who struggle to get their children into a college...any college, not necessarily a "name" school, but are constrained due to finances. It is a point of pride because often these folks didn't get to go to college themselves and want better for their child.

kathycf wrote:One thing that struck me after reading the entire article was the focus on the academic achievments of young women in a predominately upper middle class well to do community. Money does help in providing a means to achieve one's goals.

True as that may be. It isnt constrained by sex alone. Poor racial minorities also suffer from the same. I am one of those evil enough to say that it is a good thing. That means they work that much harder to get where I am. Incidentally, I am one of those people who had to work 10 times as hard to get where other got to putting in 10% of them self. But, now that I am here. I get to sit back and put 5% of my abilities and watch them still toil at a 110% just to keep up.

Pain and suffering ought to teach to you make yourself stronger than other. Not to make you go shoot 14 innocents.

In the worlds of Maynard Keenan: "If you choose to pull the trigger, should your drama prove sincere, Do it somewhere far away from here."

Cuchulain82 wrote:Wanna know something interesting? In old, English and US common law, rape was an offense that could only be perpitrated by a man against a woman. Period. Men could not be raped (even by another man), and women could not rape (against a man or another woman).

Most states have changed that interpretation by now, but didn't do so until recently- generally the latter half of the 20th century.

@Kyle

I disagree. I don't think the article is trite or recycled. I actually think it is insightful, and I don't think many of the insights are necessarily limited to girls. But, then again, I did post it, so I'm biased. Anyway, my understanding is that being a woman isn't easy, and neither is being an adolescent. Finding what you're about is hard, but is worthwhile. Like the lady said: "Italiam non sponte sequor."

Very true. The laws in most south east asian countries how ever are starkly different. Rape carries capital punishment in many countries there. Which is what it ought to be. Rapist and pedophiles deserve the same as murderers.

Cuchulain82 wrote:I actually think it is insightful, and I don't think many of the insights are necessarily limited to girls. But, then again, I did post it, so I'm biased. Anyway, my understanding is that being a woman isn't easy, and neither is being an adolescent. Finding what you're about is hard, but is worthwhile.

My impression of the article was that it brought up typical issues that are relevant to a lot of young people in our culture. Trying to live up to social pressure and expectations while at the same time developing your own genuine personality is a general teenage thing, it's not limited to one gender or the other. I couldn't really find anything in the article that is particular for girls. Boys and girls alike are subject to expectations to perform, peer pressure, wishes for social "popularity" while at the same time trying to learn to know themselves and find out what to do with their lives.

Was there anything in the article that you thought were especially relevant for girls and not boys?

xxslainxx wrote:True as that may be. It isnt constrained by sex alone.

I agree, but I mention young women specifically because they are the focus of the article in question.

kathycf wrote:I remember reading something similiar, and it doesn't surprise me. Women were traditionally seen as the "weaker sex" so that sort of law ties in with that mind set.

Actually, the root of the law wasn't that women were the weaker sex, it was that they were property. An unmarried woman was considered, legally, property of her father, and a married woman was property of the husband. So, for example, a husband controlled all the income a women may have created by working. This is old English common law- I believe continental law treated the issue differently.

kathycf wrote:There are many families who struggle to get their children into a college...any college, not necessarily a "name" school, but are constrained due to finances. It is a point of pride because often these folks didn't get to go to college themselves and want better for their child.

I dunno... I think that the article is looking at the successes of a particular school, relative to the students there. Would it have been more compelling to hear about a school where kids go on to college despite extreme poverty? Maybe, but not necessarily. It would just be a different article.

CE]Was there anything in the article that you thought were especially relevant for girls and not boys?[/quote wrote: I found the article inspiring because of the sense of potential. I believe that is what struck me. The interesting thing wasn't that the girls flourished when allowed, but rather the articulate manner they considered their situation.

When I was a senior in high school I wasn't reading Virgil in my spare time- I was partying and playing video games. I went to a good private school and I was an excellent student, but I wasn't at the same point of maturity that the girls in the article exhibit. They just seemed articulate and interesting, and worth posting.

(You're a head-shrinker CE- maybe girls are just more mature than boys at that age. Or maybe it was just me.)

kathycf wrote:I graduated in 1984, and while our class valedictorian was a girl, things in MY school were not "equal if not tilted to females". I clearly remember being told girls shouldn't play sports when I was in 8th grade and when I was little, it was a big huge deal if a girl played on the local Little League baseball team.

While things may seem hunky dory for women now, one doesn't have to look too terribly far back in time to see when things were not so equal. Of course I am saying this from a slightly older person's perspective, young people see things from their perspective. Another thing to keep in mind is women and girls in developing nations face discrimination that is almost unbelievable.


(and I hardly think the New York Times is going to indulge in an April Fool's day prank.... )

that's my point, everything is fine now for the most part, this story is about as relevent as one saying "hey isn't it great black people aren't slaves anymore?" While it is true that some areas such as sports there is a larger male base, even that is evening out.

DarthMarth wrote:that's my point, everything is fine now for the most part, this story is about as relevent as one saying "hey isn't it great black people aren't slaves anymore?" While it is true that some areas such as sports there is a larger male base, even that is evening out.

I think you should clarify your point, and ideally do so without referencing race-based slavery. Imho, it would help clarify your point.

Cuchulain82 wrote:I think you should clarify your point, and ideally do so without referencing race-based slavery. Imho, it would help clarify your point.

My point was that it is all a thing of the past, I had it in bold. I apologize, not used to a board so constrained of anything that may possibly offend.

Even coming from an ethinic minority myself, I believe its long overdue. It is a past people need to accept and forget in some ways. Move on. The slavery of the forefathers no longer reflects on your current state of poverty or supposed subjugation. That is quite simply because you are a buncha lazy bums who would rather live on social security than go out and get some honest jobs. And this is not constrained to just certain ethinic communities either.

*puts on his flame bait attire*

ok im ready for it

P.S. I think we are deviating from the original subject

DarthMarth wrote:My point was that it is all a thing of the past, I had it in bold. I apologize, not used to a board so constrained of anything that may possibly offend.

In the past for whom? I understand that you think sexism doesn't exist, or is some series of events that happened years ago. I disagree. I think Dragon Wench made some rather good points in her post on the previous page. While I digressed from the educational standpoint in my post regarding sexual violence, I think that also points to a view that everything is not all fine and equal.

Also to clarify, when I said things "may seem hunkydory now"...it meant yes...things literally may seem that way--as in give the appearence of. It does not reflect my view of my reality.

Do I think life for women in the United States ( I say that in reference to my own status as a US citizen) is a horrid situation of sexism and discrimination beating us "women folks" down at every turn? NO, I don't think that. But to assert that discrimination does not exist based on one' s sex is a highly inaccurate viewpoint--in my opinion.