Skip navigation

Education: Gender Pendulum

At the science fair, girls dominate the class

From Friday's Globe and Mail

And the boys are not just getting beaten – they're not even showing up ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Justin Ma from Urbana, IL, writes: This trend has been long coming, and I see it as a good thing. The real demographic issue is the lack of females at the upper tiers of education. While women make up the majority of undergraduates, the numbers nosedive as move higher and higher through MSc and PhDs. And I say it's a problem because there's subtle, but observable discrimination as well as a lack of encouragement for women to really push their potential at these levels.
  2. Moe Unting from Yorba Linda, CA, United States writes: Im surprised the parents of boys tolerate such obvious distortion in the curriculum and teaching methods. Favouring one gender over the other is obviously wrong yet all that seems to have been accomplished in Canada is to change the identity of the victim but the child abuse just keeps on going. Whatever....its your problem.
  3. J. Michael from Canada writes: Moe Unting - you are absolutely right, but the average Canadian is clueless as to where this is headed.

    The girls are not any smarter; the boys are getting dumber by the minute. You only have to look at Canada’s productivity levels and what all this is going to mean for the future. We are a joke.

    The socialist's strategy is to make the strong weak, so that the weak appear strong!

    Please pass me the bottle of wine!
  4. J. Michael from Canada writes: One more point: It seems to me that a thinking woman would be appalled at these results. After all, what kind of woman wants to be surrounded by men that are losers?

    Canadian women; is this what you want? A tribe of men that are losers! Where do you think this leads you?
  5. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Old news.

    High School Graduates: 60% Women.
    Med schools: 65% Women.
    Law Schools: 60% Women.
    General Undergraduate body: 60% Women.

    It's been like this for the past 5 years now. I'm still surprised every few months an article like this is published, complete with people 'Starting to get concerned' about how for some reason our boys are becoming stupid at all pursuits academic related. This is NOT a new phenomenon.

    Anyway, I hope the next generation of university educated women are willing to marry non-university educated guys who make much less than them, because otherwise we're going to have some problems. Going to turn that breadwinner dynamic that has always existed in society on it's head.

    ..... and I hope even more that eventually we'll do something about it. Whatever we did in the past 20 years for girls has worked, but something went wrong with the boys. Don't know what. Maybe it's the lack of male teachers in primary education as role models. Who knows. But something's not right.
  6. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: The title is extremely annoying. The future of Canada desperately needs both boys and girls in science. When one or the other shows lack of interest, we're all in trouble. This country produces far too many graduates in physical education, history, political science and other art programs. I'm not putting these studies down but Canada doesn't need that many historians, gym teachers, political scientists, etc. We need to get BOTH boys and girls interest in science and mathematics.
  7. Tom G from Canada writes: What's happening with men, in N. America at any rate, is an anti-intellectual movement of the greatest proportion. Men are turning away from intellectual achievement in droves. This is a tragedy to be sure because any society that loses such a large proportion of its intellectual potential is in trouble. It's not about smarts, but about ambitions and role models--and these are disappearing for men--or at least going into diametrically opposite directions. We could blame our education system, but it is a symptom of a greater malaise. It's all around us and you can see it everywhere you look...just check out what young boys and men do with their time and you'll begin to see the picture...
  8. scott french from Daegu, Korea, Dem. People's Rep. of writes: There's nothing wrong with encouraging girls to excell in science and math, but in the process you can't assume everything is perfect with the boys. This seems to be what the education system has been doing for quite a few years now. Why? Once again, the answer is political correctness. And the education system is notorious for being extremely blind when it comes to politically correct trends, multiculturalism, for example. If it continues like this, the pendulum will eventually have to swing back.
  9. Canadian Pom from London, United Kingdom writes: This has been going on for years - I graduated as the top guy in my high school in '93, and that placed me something like 9th overall. The difference between us and the girls was that the girls studied - even back then, for a boy, caring about school was for girls. I'm confident we'll continue to do nothing about this ongoing trend, because anything to increase male scholastic performance will be declared to be sexist.
  10. Levap K from Canada writes: I am not surprised at all. After all, it was matriarchy that existed long before patriarchy. In general, females are almost always tougher than males. Physical impression may sway towards males, but it is female determination to procreate and survive as a species and that dominate.
  11. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: I have two daughters, so 'go girls!'.

    But seriously, as noted above the 'pussification' of society over the last generation cannot help but have this inevitable outcome. Our schools have tried to hard to breed what they call 'aggression' out of boys, but have mostly bred ambition and drive out.

    Is it bad if the intellectual and cognitively demanding work of running the world falls to women, while boys fix the plumbing and build the infrastructure, to overgeneralize? I dunno.

    I can't say that the last few millennia of male domination have been particularly happy or peaceful for the world overall. Progress was made, but could the same or better have been accomplished without the crazy male dominated religions going around murdering people by the millions, without Hitler or Stalin or Genghis Khan?

    I don't mind giving women a crack at the helm for a few millennia and let them stress it out.
  12. Liberals not fit to govern and not fit to be a Party from Canada writes: What else would you expect from an education system and an education hierarchy that favours boys over girls. Justin's comment at the very top illustrates what I am saying The current model does not even begin to address that bias nor does it offer a type of education that will attract, retain and produce top flight boys. The current education system is taylored to meet female education requirements only. Parents also need to wake up and apply some discipline to their sons to ensure that they know the value of higher education. It's not all about making it to the NHL or some other professional sports association . Boys and their toys have to be put on hold or at least moderated
  13. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: As an added point. These statistics no doubt apply to the 'advanced' nations, but not to the overwhelming majority of the world where aggressive men and crazy religions and tribes run things.

    What's going to happen when the women who direct our societies come into clash with the rest of world? Our decreased breeding, decreased competitiveness, and decreased aggression will likely have our society overwhelmed. Hell, you can see that happening right now, as a certain aggressive male dominated religion seems to be on its way to forever changing Europe, while the Europeans' contracept themselves into demographic oblivion.

    While people like Barbara Hall make sure that we only speak goodtalk and think peacethought, our less restrained competitors will aggresively strive to make our civilization part of the historical record but not part of the human future.

    Hmmm... does evolution predict the inevitable outcome of pussified Western civilization?
  14. Josh Taylor from Dublin, Canada writes: I couldn't agree more with many of the comments. I don't think we should aim for 50/50% in science; men are naturally more inclined and if that is sexist then so be it. It is just stats. It still means 25% or more of the best engineers are women. Coming from the engineering/maths discipline, I have seen amazing female engineers, but they think differently than most women, just as most male engineers think differently than not male engineers. It is about brain chemistry - the geek syndrome. Just that the females who are true engineers are not as common an occurance in the female sex than male. It is these true engineers that innovate (bill gates, google lads, rim guys, etc.) We have balanced the scientific teaching system to favour girls. Math is reduced to regurgitating algorithms and memorisation rather than creativity. Women are certainly harder workers and more team oriented; they excel in this environment. At the end of the day, cutting edge engineers will more likely be male. Creative people will more likely be women. I am not saying one is better. Women tend to be more fair and less inclined to be selfish or criminal - something benefiting the corporate world. T he point is when you have billions of people you are not pigeoning holing anyone. if there are 400,000 female engineers in Canada and 600,000 male engineers, how is that sexist? The dangers is when we force women and men into roles and destroy the very system. Reduce the barriers and encourage sexes to break traditional roles, but force them and we are doomed. Sadly, the only time I ever saw anyone question a female colleague on a research grant was after this females in science afirmative action came along. Anyway, does anyone actually believe that we are going to close the innovation gap we have if men are not even attending science fairs?
  15. ghost of bob from to, Afghanistan writes: You wanted 'equality' right. Canadian think the rest of the world is backward because they don't have rights for women. Other cultures actually believe that children need a mother. If you look at an Asian society women will stay home all day with her kids. Cooking cleaning etc. etc. The end result is the child grows up to be a happy adult. This will never change.
    In Canada divorce is 50%, what does this teach a child when they're mommie must go to work all day? mommie does not like daddy etc. So survival for women is no longer need a man and family. It starts with a job and money. Men of course are no reliable anymore because he feminist have exposed their truth colors!
    Men are no longer respected in society because they are no longer need. Look around, most product are for women. Women spend more on things, clothing, makeup, spas etc. Look at all the new condos, you think a man wants to live in 500spft poodle cage? You think men want to sit some crowded over price patio eating some panzie lunch?
  16. Darryl Youzefowich from Edmonton, Canada writes: I have been beating the drum about some of these trends for years and no one has been listening.

    The leaders, thinkers and bureaucrats in Canada are extremely passive about everything usually. And when they do decide to do something, it is not even by half measures, but quarter measures. It has been that way for generations - even publications like the Economist have noted it. Most people just shrug and go watch the NHL playoffs: not us the excitement of the world, we're Canadian.
  17. Dan Kelley from theeast, writes: I judged a science fair a few years ago. It was great fun, and I encourage people to do this. Near the end, the organizers told us it was time for us to decide who should get the best-female award. It was a strange moment, because there were very few boys there. The females didn't need a special award to encourage them, and we wondered whether they would take the existence of the award as an insult.
  18. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: A science project for a science fair in the past was mandatory in junior high in our school and was a part of the evaluation. Today it is not mandatory and some schools in the province don't even participate at all. Science fairs were great fun and the students learned a lot about science and the scientific process. I believe science fairs turn kids on to science and a science project for a science fair should be mandatory or a least have some value in the overall evaluation scheme. If we offer a easy way out to students they will take that path. When science fairs were a important part of our school there was a buzz with exitment as students rush to put the final touches on their projects.
  19. E MacMillan from Vancouver, Canada writes: I guess this is just how the pendulum swings, maybe for a decade we'll have a majority of women in the sciences, and hopefully it will swing back and forth until we reach an equilibrium.

    A few years ago, as a girl in undergrad physics, I was approached by the department to see what actions I thought could lure more girls into physics undergrad programs because at the time the population was about 20% female. So I helped to organize an orientation day for grade 12s and first years to get to know about the physics programs and the people and research in our department. I would have offered the orientation for all students, but the funding was only available for projects that targeted girls. And as it turns out, after 3 years of offering this orientation day, we have seen no improvement, girls still only make up 20% of physics undergrads.

    So while it is unfair that there aren't such projects to target boys, I think the greater influences come from teachers, parents, and society. I had an amazing high school physics teacher and I know many students from that went on in physics and engineering because our teacher had prepared us so well. Also, in my case, my parents were much more strict and had higher expectations of me than my brother, partially because they knew that women have to work harder to make it in the 'man's world' that they had grown up in. Finally, I agree with previous posts that for many boys, during high school studying and having good grades just wasn't cool. But those boys who made it into university did care a lot and worked just as hard as the rest of us to make it through. So I think there is a social pressure in the public school years that we need to focus on, and perhaps encouraging more men to become teachers would help, since boys identify better with male teachers than female teachers. Maybe having so many female teachers makes school feel like a 'girls world' that leads so many boys to feel disengaged.
  20. Hee Hoo Sai from Canada writes: This is why immigration is important, to get enough taxpaupers to subsidize research, a population base must be maintained and developed. Perhaps the girls could clone a few workers to assure sustainable tax harvests as research grants are required.
  21. Misodzi Sithole from Canada writes: I have always said that many programs are askewed in favour of girls. I am a teacher and parent with both sons and daughters and have seen how affirmation action for girls, necessary at a point in history, is now leaving boys falling through the cracks. Something really has to be done to even the incentives and supports. More also has to be done to let all children know that being smart is cool.
  22. Levap K from Canada writes: ghost of bob from to, Afghanistan writes:You wanted 'equality' right. Canadian think the rest of the world is backward because they don't have rights for women. Other cultures actually believe that children need a mother. If you look at an Asian society women will stay home all day with her kids. Cooking cleaning etc. etc. The end result is the child grows up to be a happy adult. This will never change.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    You are living under false assumption, that society never change. The way it is here now it was a century ago. It is as false view as the other one, that Asian society will never change. It is slow, but it is coming. You only may wish to live long enough to notice such a change.
  23. B Shackleton from Hamilton, Canada writes: And are the majority of teachers now male or female? My understanding is that there is a real lack of male role models to show leadership to the boys. It's a real problem that stems from the root of education that is now very unequal in representing gender. In the end, society is not better off.
  24. Darryl Youzefowich from Edmonton, Canada writes: Look, boys have been given some serious messages.

    1) When we were growing up they chained us to our desks, because the teachers needed for us to do sit- down work. Yes, that is extremely important, but maybe the system has overdone it. Don't teachers talk about student- centred education? What if the boys need a more active environment, respond to that better than only sit-down stuff? Maybe the school could do exciting tasks for boys (and girls), such as firing a rocket and doing the physics behind the telemetry to predict where it will land? Classes should be task-based, not busy work and be chained to their desks! It would help the boys and it is scholastically sound.

    2) Sports activities are the only fun things in school to most boys, all competition and drive for achievement has been reduced in other subjects.

    3) No men in the schools (something must be done about the fear of law suits against male teachers, even if you have to monitor the guy).

    4) Intellectual achievement has been seriously downplayed for boys by parents.

    5) Universities are not active in the community like they once were, professors retreat to their research studies instead of getting students involved in university life early! I am not sure of this, but I feel that it is true. What do you think?

    Men bashing and giving help for boys has to stop/not be seen as unnecessary, a luxury.

    We must have an attitude that we must stop this trend in it's tracks come 'hell or high water'. Otherwise the costs .....you fill it in...
  25. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: So, when girls fall behind it's due to discrimination, but when boys fall behind it's their own fault?
    Right, got it.
    Repeat after me: D'uh...
  26. On Edge from Canada writes: Oh well, a lot of these gals will take gobs of time off their jobs later when they have kids, many will stop working when they have kids, and later, when they get divorced, they will get child support and alimony from their husbands.
  27. Valkyrie 23 from Guelph, Canada writes:

    Ghost of Bob writes: 'Other cultures actually believe that children need a mother. If you look at an Asian society women will stay home all day with her kids. Cooking cleaning etc. etc. The end result is the child grows up to be a happy adult. '

    Heh. Sure. My parents divorced and I'm happy. My mom went back to the workforce when I was 8 (my sisters were 4, and 3), and we're all happy, successful, university-educated, well-adjusted adults now. Your assumption that parents need a mother that will stay home is both archaic and naive. Kids need to be taught self-sufficiency, not reliance. Divorce is hard, but in the long run, kids get through it fine; my parents divorce was extrememly acrimonious, complete with Parental alienation. They haven't talked in 7 years, they've been divorced for 15, and my siblings and I are fine.

    Jimmy K writes: 'Anyway, I hope the next generation of university educated women are willing to marry non-university educated guys'

    Already happening. I'm 23, and my husband is an electrician. He makes more money than me now, but in the long run I'll top him in cash - and it's fair that way. A lot of my girlfriends are doing the same thing - we have each other to have 'intellectual' conversations with, and the boys fix our houses. hahaha! (that was a joke, no one take offense, ok?)

  28. Robin H From Toronto from Canada writes: Have a look at the employment figures across scientific fields. As girls succeed at the academic level, those successes are not being rewarded or recognized once women enter the workforce. The best jobs and pay still are reserved for male grads. Lets hope this terrific surge in young female scientists sees their gender receive appropriate compensation for their work and skills.
  29. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: This is not a surprise. There is also an unbalance in male teachers to provide a good role model.

    As a 38 year old Engineer, who has worked hard all his life during the rise of feminism, I can definitely say that hard work has very little reward and men are unappreciated and denigrated by society in general.
  30. A Leading Edge Boomer from Canada writes: Lots of comments here about the feminization of schools.

    Here is another aspect, Studies by psychologists have indicated that boys are hard wired to compete with other boys. They do not like to compete with girls; not hard wired to do so.

    Some boys refuse to compete with girls, and when required to do so, drop and out, and do not show up, as the author of this article says at the top of the story. It is our biological make-up at work.

    It must be a conundrum for women who are mother's of boys. I do not know one such mother who does not want her boys doing really well in life. Yet, they see their boys dropping out of the school system due to feminization of the system.
  31. Grammar Check from Toronto, Canada writes: As a male who graduated in engineering less than 5 years ago, who is working professionally full and time and is back in school part-time: I can't agree more.

    In my experience, scholarships for female students are much easier to come by (i.e. women in science). Not to mention all the “women in business, engineering&8221; etc. meetings and organizations sponsored by business organizations. Anything male-oriented is considered sexists and part of the &8220;old boys club&8221;. Awards, outside of sports, are more and more being geared towards females. For high-achievement oriented males, this drives them away from academics and towards other pursuits. It looks like the feminist have finally won.
  32. lyn winans from Canada writes: I suppose we will spend a lot of time and money trying to figure this one out. As an educator it is my observation that the boys are just not willing to put in the time and effort that the girls will. Too many boys are defended and catered to by their moms ! Work is a four letter word in too many instances.
  33. Lise Cyrenne from Switzerland writes: Dear, dear. For hundreds of years women and girls were not even allowed into the hallowed halls of formal education. Now that girls are more or less taking their proportionate place in most fields, at least in schools (52% of the population is female), suddenly we see an outcry that the boys are at risk. This proves two things: a) girls are capable of achieving in all fields, and hence not genetically determined to be less capable; and b) that boys succeeded largely in a formerly highly sheltered work environment.

    I am sure that boys and men having had 100% of the public and private space, exclusive access to education and professions for the past centuries, makes only 50% of that space now seem like a real problem. However, it is not a problem - it is fact that males are only 50% of the population. Why the panic so long that they are within comfortable reach of their 50% of spaces at places like science fairs???
  34. Jason S from Windsor, Canada writes: Indeed, the illuminati are working overtime to destroy the family by reversing gender roles. As EconoChristian.com shows, the illuminati are responsible for funding many feminist organizations throughout the decades to fund the feminist movement; illuminati being those who have setup the central banking system. This sounds strange off hand, but when you do your research you discover things.
  35. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Why bother working hard when there is very little reward and males are denigraded and unappreciated by society.

    Males are second class citizens in Canada.
  36. The Loan Arranger from Canada writes: I think this has more to do with the ever increasing numbers of divorce. Children almost always end up with the mother. The daughter still has her mother role model and likely becomes determined to avoid the same situation in which her mother finds herself. The son on the other hand has lost his father role model and discipline during the teen aged years is diminished because mom is too busy trying to keep them all above water. This trend has been a long time in the making. High schools have also been dropping trades courses over the years....probably because of parents desire to send all the kids to university. The education system has been complicit.
  37. sleazy Silvester from Canada writes: far too much concern over a small issue. Good for the girls, the percentages went from 45% TO 55%. This doesn't correspond to dumber boys as some of the more foolish comments suggest. The girls in this like to work hard (look how many hours that girl looked at bee's for) and they should be rewarded for it. Many of the boys could do the same amount of work and get awarded but they choose not to. There is a growing movement for women to show their worth and if they are willing to work harder with the intelligence they have then the deserve to go farther. To suggest that Boys are less intelligent than women because women are using their skills more is ludicrous, statistics show boys and girls are equally capable of achieving but some girls see this as an opportunity to prove they are equal and that is a drive that boys don't have. It is my belief that girls drive to achieve is pushing them forward; this can only be good for competition between the sexes.

    Moe Unting from Yorba Linda, CA, United States writes: Im surprised the parents ...
    I'm surprised you can read when you so clearly don't understand the article, there isn't discrimination, there is children achieving and if a boy is willing and capable to put in the time it takes to grab a top prize then they'll be able to get one.
  38. Beaver Paladin from Canada writes: The demonization of anything masculine has gone too far.

    The funny thing with the feminization of the workplace is that women seem prefer more overtly masculine traits in their parnters, just not as colleagues (where they tend to cry about the Old Boys Club, Alpha Males, etc).

    I hope these women have sons.
  39. The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: Who cares? Boys are stupid. I would know.

    But really, I'd rather that all the special programs and social engineering just stop, and then let the chips fall where they may. If girls are still better, so be it.
  40. Paul Murphy from Canada writes: Who's afraid of change? Girls are better socialized, they're more conscientious, they want the details, they express themselves better and more neatly and are better organized. Surprise, surprise!! They do better Science. Why not before? Because they were socialized that they could not do Science or Math and in some places still are. I predict that we will enter a Golden Age of Science when these women take their full place in the scientific community and that's to the benefit of us all so let's encourage this while we can. We can still deter it however by decreasing support for pregnancy and child care and thus making a career in science harder to maintain. (Hey, boys can you change a nappy? Learn.) Will the gender balance swing back? Probably, but not until I don't hear hockey sticks scratching the pavement of my street all night.
  41. sleazy Silvester from Canada writes: Tom G from Canada writes:Do you think the boys growing up today have any conception of what the world was like 10, 20, or 100 years ago?

    I guess they didn't teach history where you went to school. Just look at what it infers, all great achievements are made by men minus radiation. Please, maybe there isn't a copy of good house keeping from 1950 in the schools but a child's mind is extremely impressionable and they pick up on the status quo. No one is negating the achievement men did for centuries what they are showing is that in those time there was no chance for women at all. Those who did achieve had to push through barriers their whole life, if you don't believe me just read about women in sciences in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. You'll notice a few women with a stronger character then most of the people in the world driving themselves through stereotype and social discrimination, and for what? they wanted to learn and help in society. Ever heard of the father and son in a car crash but the doctor couldn't perform the surgery on the son
  42. A Leading Edge Boomer from Canada writes: What we need are affirmative action programs. Reserve 50% of spaces at Teacher's College for men and give them preference in hiring into the profession. Reserve 50% of spaces in university for men, including Law and Medicine. Scholarships and bursaries earmarked for men only.

    Hey! Affirmative action worked for women in a relatively short time. Time to do a rebalancing.
  43. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I don't agree that social science has alot to contribute here, because its already contributed. Most of the critical research was done to address the previous 'gender imbalance'. Critical findings included that the curriculum had to be changed to be more female friendly, methods had to reflect the ways in which girls learned, and since girls learned better from women more secondary and university teachers had to be female. Comprehensive feminisation occured. Issue is that we probably went too far. Problem is also that some, but not all, imbalances were corrected. Primary school teachers were always predominantly female. Secondary and University teachers were male. If you do not introduce a male friendly equity policy at primary level, but push a female focused equity policy at secondary and tertiary levels you produce a situation in which boys are predominantly instructed by women . . . by methods appropriate to girls, in subjects redirected to reflect female interests. They take to their dirt bikes.

    It might be, finally, that there will always be imbalance. Male and female bell curves are different. Every psychologist knows it. The female curve is steeper -- fewer duds, fewer truly high achievers. In a perfect 'equitable' system, girls might always win the majority of HS prizes, in all subjects. 60% of the undergrad population might well be female. However, the G&M recently ran a story on a a MAN who won an international NASA science competition. The majorty of the professoriate is male, and would be more markedly so but for equity policies. Check out the CVs of professors to see who gets the best student ratings, and who publishes the most, even still. Check out who wins major prizes, and publishes award winning books. In a sense, Justin Ma above might be half correct, but also half very wrong. It may be a good thing that women are better represented in science fairs. You may never see a day, however, when that translates into very high attainment.
  44. zippo man from Canada writes: Take a longer range view. Just a small blip in the pendulum swing and so much frothing here from those convinced that boys are being dumbed down, edited out and cast aside. I don't agree and am the parent of boys and girls. Some of my kids will do well in school and go onto advanced education. Some of my kids will need more help getting through school because desk learning does not suit them and they would be far happier working on a farm or anywhere where they learned by doing not sitting and listening. We will help them get as practical an education as can be mustered in the education system and more importantly, outside of school. School is cheap daycare in our opinion that does a reasonable job in teaching kids the basics. We fill in the extras. As parents we have the greater influence, not the school. The girls who spend hours working on a science project? I bet they have parents that encourage that and limit their time doing other things. Kids will always rise to the challenge if they are helped to see that they are capable and are given the opportunity to try without criticism. If I let my kids sit at the computer or socialize as much as they wanted then they would be school failures. We are considered old fashioned by our kids, we expect them to be home on weeknights after school, they all are in extra curricular activities to limit the time they have free to hang out at the mall or elsewhere. They have chores and we meet all their friends and expect to meet the parents of the other kids. When my daughter shows me facebook pictures of kids in her Grade 10 class sitting around on a school night drunk and surrounded by Jack Daniel's bottles and beer in some basement, my first thought is, 'where the he** are the parents?'.
  45. Bill Wall from BC, Canada writes: Despite the fact that my 13 year old daughter is in the Fair in Wpg right now, I do believe that we need to drop sexism policies in the education stream. We need to stimulate an interest for education in kids, not in girls, or in boys either. Far too many social engineering experiments have resulted in undesirable outcomes. It should all be about the kids, not the girls or the boys.....that will sort itself out.......we need to finally accept equality in our society.
  46. Tom G from Canada writes: Sleazy Silvestor writes: Those who did achieve had to push through barriers their whole life, if you don't believe me just read about women in sciences in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

    Do you think great achievements in science came easy? Do you honestly think barriers didn't have to be broken to make a lot of snobbish men absolutely full of themselves see the light? Listen, don't stick all men in one bread basket. It's not that simple. Men as a group are an incredibly varied bunch with needs and feelings just as real, just as authentic as the rest of the human race. LOL, this actually needs to be said...

    And are you implying, and I'm speaking specifically of scientific achievement here, that the history of science be censored or discouraged in consequence of the gender that dominated throughout the centuries? It's not about knowing history, it's about acknowledging history. There is this fatuous belief that great achievements were easy to come by for men, that they just strolled into the room and received the respect and equality that they deserved merely by being men. Yes, it is a shame that women had less of a public space, but let's not hold a grudge and take it out on males of whatever age living today. That shows an astonishing lack of insight and understanding of humans in general--and a lot of crazy, crazy indoctrination.
  47. Did you Know Canada?!? from Canada writes: Boyz are too busy posing as Wangstas! (Wannabe Gangster)

    All public schools MUST have uniforms.
  48. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: In a pre-school, elementary school and highschool system where female teachers have come to out number male teachers more than 5 to 1, why is anyone surprised by this?

    I suspect you can chart this shift not just to lopsided special programs and targeted teaching methods aimed at personality types dominated by girls, but also to the male/female teacher ratio which has steadily shifted over the past 50 years.

    And when you really boil it down, what you have is boys from non-affluent families suffering the worst, which is a recipe for a future boost in crime.
  49. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: Winston Churchill from London, Canada: I think the point is somewhat exaggerated though Winston. While I agree with you concerning the typical bell curve representing learning acheivement, targeting the proper education methods to the correct personality learning type can account for that and even out the curves.

    I'm sure you agree, but I don't want anyone getting the impression that this is something that simply is the way it is.

    They used to generalize about the poor performance of girls in science too.
  50. Katherine R from Canada writes: Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: It might be, finally, that there will always be imbalance. Male and female bell curves are different. Every psychologist knows it. The female curve is steeper -- fewer duds, fewer truly high achievers. In a perfect 'equitable' system, girls might always win the majority of HS prizes, in all subjects. 60% of the undergrad population might well be female. However, the G&M recently ran a story on a a MAN who won an international NASA science competition. The majorty of the professoriate is male, and would be more markedly so but for equity policies. Check out the CVs of professors to see who gets the best student ratings, and who publishes the most, even still. Check out who wins major prizes, and publishes award winning books. In a sense, Justin Ma above might be half correct, but also half very wrong. It may be a good thing that women are better represented in science fairs. You may never see a day, however, when that translates into very high attainment. ........................................................................................................ Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have a Ph.D. and work at MIT. There is nothing at all that makes me intellectually inferior to the most brilliant man. In fact, I publish a higher than average number of papers, my CV is stellar, and I have won competitive funding in every institute I have ever worked in. The bell curve does not exist. What miniscule innate differences that may exist between men and women is barely measurable. Scholarly accomplishments are a result of opportunities provided and risks taken. If I had lived 50 years ago, there is no way I would be where I am career-wise. Now that we live in a more fair time, I as a woman can compete with the best of them.
  51. B F from United Kingdom writes: This is ridiculous! Girls were discriminated against in schools for years (hundreds of years) and it was claimed that they were too stupid to handle the maths and sciences, now when those patterns of oppression are changing, and schooling is made accessible to women, it's seen as sexist. It's not sexist, it's fair! So many of you contradict yourselves in your comments, have you even thought about what you're saying? Josh Taylor writes both that bringing women into the maths and sicences creates a 'system of memorization' and thus less innovation in science. But in the same post accuses them of being too creative to excel in the sciences. The two contradict each other. If women are creative then they are createive if they are not then they are not. Further to say that men do not excell in the language arts becuase of hard wiring is similarly foolish. Most famous/noted authors, poets and playwrights are male! Christ Britain got its first female poet laureate two weeks ago in over 400 years of the position. Girls have been discouraged from going into sciences for a long time, even when I was a highschool student (not 10 years ago), girls were conditioned to think sciences were for boys. Now that it's changing, this is not a crisis. If it got to 80-20 in favour of girls, that's a problem. 40-60 to 60-40, not a problem.
  52. DisgustedBytheLotofThem inKingston from Kingston, Canada writes: As a post secondary teacher, my observation is that boys have been allowed to lose focus and to expect instant gratification from things like video games and computers (I teach engineering so this is not an anti-technology rant). Boys really have been shafted by society's taking its eye off the ball: parents have been content to have boys occupied by their electronic toys and perhaps because we've all been so busy trying to cope with life and work, we have not spent the time we need to teach perseverance and the pleasures of working something through...if I have any rant to make here it is that we need to ditch the elecronic toys in favour of blocks, books and arts and crafts: I used to run a summer camp and boys did very well with crafts like birdhouse building.
    So many boys do not have the patience that is needed for research. It isn't their fault, but as adults we need to start very early by connecting the things boys like with the high level skills they will need later. Electronic toys and television fragment attention and this is the problem. Encourage thinking. Please take away the Playstation and get together and read about how to build something...then do it.
  53. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Tom G from Canada writes: 'Do you think the boys growing up today have any conception of what the world was like 10, 20, or 100 years ago? Are you condemning them because of their forefathers? That they are culpable simply by being male?'

    Correct. All males are deemed beneficiaries of 'systemic' gender bias - all are treated as potential rapists and abusers.

    A female Professor described her role in University to me as a 'Gatekeeper' to weed out 'undesirables' (read: boys) not an educator, not a mentor, not a professor of any sort - a gatekeeper!
    Oddly enough, SOME men will not be dissuaded from entering female dominated professions no matter what - guess who?
    Reap the whirlwind.
  54. Vote for your country from Canada writes: Ah Philosopher King, I could be mistaken but frankly for many, many years the elementary system was run primarily by female teachers. It was considered very much to be a 'women's' profession, except for the school boards and executive positions of course. No women there. I don't think it's accurate to discuss the lack of male teachers as a factor in all of this. I would argue is that the progress in equality of opportunity that women fought to ensure we have has begun to bear fruit in the younger generation of females, which has evened the playing field so to speak. These girls are doing it regardless of gender and that's the point of it all. I can't help but think that underneath it all, there are still some men who cannot accept that traditional gender roles are quite simply, disappearing for good.
  55. David Erbach from Bowling Green, United States writes: If you examine the position announcements for Canadian and American universities, you will find a clause which translates to 'We prefer not hire a white male if we have any alternative.' Over 20 years, the several mid-size Computer Science departments of which I've been a part, in Canada and the US alike, have not hired a single white male Assistant Professor. Now we scarcely have any such applications. Almost an entire generation has been lost.

    Anyone who thinks this is unusual should have a look at the Asst. Prof. faculty listings in their local university's mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. departments. Why, in those circumstances, would bright young men undertake scientific careers? It's no fun knowing there are special incentives for everyone but you.
  56. Vesper Lynd from Canada writes: Bill Wall - Right on. Let's stop making this an 'us vs. them' argument. All children, male and female, need to be given every opportunity to succeed in life. The education system should support all children and incorporate teaching methodologies that best suit the minds of both males and females. There should be equal opportunity to achieve, for any career choice. If the numbers don't fall into 50/50 equilibrium in the workforce, that's ok, as there will be other factors contributing to that.

    IMHO, the education system has been dominated since the 80's by the same types of agendas that have dominated the parole boards and the legal system. Lack of accountability, political correctness, whole language learning, excessive group work and home work to mask lack of teaching. Of course, there are amazing teachers out there, but I would guess they are the exception. I don't think these current educational policies ultimately serve any child well.

    Salaries for teachers should be increased to attract a higher calibre of teacher, male and female. Of course, with the higher salaries should come accountability and higher standards.
  57. Tony Mareschealle from GTA, Canada writes: Part of the issue is Co-ed schooling.

    We should be going back to basics and separate the genders - back to boys and girls schools.
  58. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Lack of postive male role models. One has to wonder how this trend has contributed to growing gang violence and where we are headed yet.
  59. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: I think Katherine R of MIT demonstrates why men are being turned off. Women's pride is a big turn off for men.
  60. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: Vote for your country from Canada writes: '... Ah Philosopher King, I could be mistaken but frankly for many, many years the elementary system was run primarily by female teachers...'

    There were always more females and than males in elementary school, I'm not debating that, but the ratio has shifted considerably since the 1950s.

    Going from 4:1 to 5:1 may seem a small shift, but the numbers of teachers this represents is profound.

    Moreover, it represents a cultural shift in attitude that inevitably is expressed in an environment where such shifts are taking place.

    I had one male teacher in elementary school, and he is the reason I learned to love school. Anecdotal perhaps, but despite liking all my female teachers, he gave me a role model I could relate to directly.

    At such formative ages I think this greatly influences one's impression of the learning environment.

    Ideally, every school would have a healthy mix of gender, personality, race and ethnicity that represents the general population of that area.
  61. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: When girls were behind boys in school, the lack of positive female role models was blamed.

    Female teachers also dominate in education. This imbalance and the lack of Male teachers as role models is also a serious problem.
  62. Chris S from Canada writes: This is a complex problem that involves a lack of role models in primary and secondary education for boys, the parents' of those boys embracing sporting culture over academics (which is more than reinforced by popular media--sports broadcasts especially) rather than the balanced approach espoused for successful girls, and the growth of external funding for women at post-secondary institutions.

    As a scholarship holder of the highest value at a Canadian University, I am constantly amazed at how many scholarships women get, while all the scholarships open to men are open to women as well. I do understand that there is a corrective action being taken, but clearly the imbalance has been more than corrected in the past 20 years.
  63. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: '... I think Katherine R of MIT demonstrates why men are being turned off. Women's pride is a big turn off for men...'

    Well I don't know about that. My wife makes more money than I do and is very proud of her career. Confidence is sexy.

    What I read in Katherine's comment was projection of a schema developed in an environment where she was no doubt an outsider.
  64. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Philosopher King from Ivory Tower,
    Well I don't know about that. My wife makes more money than I do

    I could see how you could overlook that.
  65. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Bottom line for higher learning is : white males need not apply. Makes no difference if we are talking about sciences or social sciences or traditional female dominated professions, like teaching, nursing, social work.

    Young men know this, all too well.
    So, why bother?
    Like I said, choose:
    a) unemployment (crime)
    b) the military
  66. Ken Woodwords from Ottawa, Canada writes: Men, be afraid ! Time has come for females to eat you alive after mating like the black widow spider. That's nature. Don't fight against it. You are doomed.

    On a more serious note I think it is an undeniable fact that boys are more interested to follow their hormonal instincts than females in their teenage years. There are a lot of materials around to distract them from more serious activities like education. I
  67. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: The proplem in our Canadian culture runs much deeper than education. Our over reaction with 'Political Correctness' has destorted some fundamental principles and practices of our culture. Males and females, right or wrong, have well definded principles and values which they express in pride and self-esteem on a daily basis. We have destroyed the fundamental building blocks of our culture. The family unit has lost it appeal to both males and females. Males are rapidly becuming excess baggage, sperm donors, or so they say. Single family homes have increased at alarming rates and are mostly female operated, without a significan't male presence on a daily basis. We don't really appreciate the damage this is doing to our culture, because the new 'Politically Correct Religion' says quality not quantity is more important. Men and women are wired differently mentally, physically and emotionally. There is a fundamental reason for this! Males are more vunerable in the emotional department and have more fragile ego's than women. Our society communicates to men in many ways, that they are not really needed. 'It's my body, I will do what I want with it' 'If I want to abort my baby (not our) it's my decision' 'Woman get custody of the kids, men pay alomony' 'That's just the way it is'! Males turn off from a society like this, they mentally, emotionally and morally shut down. 'Who cares!' 'So what!' If it wasn't for the strong sex drive nature gave us, we would have a total collapse of our culture. Maybe we can invent a pill for this? We do live in interesting times. .
  68. Michael Thompson from Fredericton, Canada writes: I have two daughters in high school and they both have fantastic marks...and are also very active outside of school. The reason they do so well is that they work hard and are supported & encouraged at home. Gender has nothing to do with it.
  69. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems this thread is starting to look like a defense of patriarchy for everyones own good.
  70. Michael Thompson from Fredericton, Canada writes: All this crap about the poor white male (I'm one of them) is pathetic. I work in the engineering & software field....it's still very much a male dominated area (we only have one female developer in my company & a few co-ops). We need more engineers & scientists, period.
  71. Tom Barak from Canada writes: Many men have been pushed out of jobs due to affirmative action and so most policies are now female-centric which of course leaves boys out. Basically men - white males in particular - have been fed a constant stream of, 'you're not wanted' messaging for the past ten years or so. Small wonder why most males are tuning out. Sadly most of these sentiments have been fueled by governments that don't really care who they walk over or alienate, just as long as they get votes. Now the reality is starting to manifest itself.
  72. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: @Josh Taylor from Dublin: Agreed and good post. Anyways, nobody seems to care, but it is a fact Men and women are different, and they should be treated differently, if not then there will bad results for on the two, but our nice thinking political correct people still boys and girls should be treated the same... which is stupid!
  73. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: @Michael Thompson from Fredericton: If you had boys you would say otherwise.
  74. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: '... Well I don't know about that. My wife makes more money than I do... I could see how you could overlook that...'

    I suppose if the variance were more severe I might not hold the same opinion, but then I think that might reflect very different circumstances in which the relationship was taking place.

    In either case I think Katherine was offended because that's what got her through certain situations in her life. Not right or wrong, just is what it is.
  75. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: '... Seems this thread is starting to look like a defense of patriarchy for everyones own good...'

    You don't change longstanding social memes over night. In fact I think it's happening terribly quickly if you consider how long patriarchal society ruled.

    Our children's children will no doubt think us all quite backward.
  76. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Philosopher King

    My wife makes more than me too. I wouldn't mind if she could make even more.
  77. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Women have achieved equality and enjoy many rights and priveleges. Men only have responsibilities and are stereotyped and discriminated against.

    Why bother?
  78. Vote for your country from Canada writes: 'GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: I think Katherine R of MIT demonstrates why men are being turned off. Women's pride is a big turn off for men. '
    Really, do you think so? What does women's pride mean to you I wonder?

    I agree with a number of posters who are advocating that the time has come to eliminate scholarships based on gender. I
  79. Winston Churchill from Canada writes: Katherine M. You might work at MIT but you are not much of a scientist.

    Psychologists depend upon aggregated data, not the experience of one person (which you produce as counter evidence). Worse: the evidence you produce is particular to you. As a scientist, why don't you tell me how I could check on the accuracy of your position?

    Nobody ever said that a smart woman isn't as smart as a smart man. What they do say is that very smart women are considerably fewer in number than very smart women. Sure there was Madam Curie. But there was also Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Maxwell, Bohr, Fermi . . . The disproportion probably owed as much to do with biology as to gender bias.

    Here's an easy check anybody can perform now. Go to 'rate my professors'. Any university, any discipline, any name range. Look at a couple of hundred ratings so you have something mathematically worthwhile. Compare ratings for professors with male names, vs. those with female names. Remember that the majority of the posters will be female. Draw your own conclusions.

    The bell curve difference is disputed, but it isn't miniscule, and at the extremes even a small difference in aggregated human ability makes a considerable difference in proportion of individuals.
  80. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: 'GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Seems this thread is starting to look like a defense of patriarchy for everyones own good.'

    Patriarchy is obsolete. What we have now could best be described as a Matriarchy, a consequence of the nanny-state, that enforces 'equality' via quotas and outright discrimination/gender bias rationalized as affirmative action in an effort, however misguided, to 'correct' for those past injustices committed by our great grandfathers.

    Why bother, indeed?
    Glad I'm not a young man today.
    Well, that's not true. It's still better to be young than old.
  81. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Vote for your country from Canada writes:
    I can only relate my own thrity year experience working for men and women in alternate. Generally speaking, working for men seemed more enjoyable, but admittedly that could be my own experience. I have heard other men relate the same to me.
  82. The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: Ironically, I think it's this attitude of victimization reflected in this thread that leads to these kinds of problems in the first place.

    When men, or more specifically 'white males' are convinced that they are the victims of society and political correctness, that the mysterious 'they' out there are favouring women, pushing them down, oppressing them, etc., then those men truly are impotent and pathetic.

    Like I said, we shouldn't be seeking to fix the problems caused by social engineering with more social engineering. I'm not even sure we need to change our 'collective attitude,' if that even really exists... it's about individual attitudes.

    The fix is simple: men need to man up. Stop whining, work harder, get a life, etc. Man up.
  83. Sweeney Todd from Oilberta, Canada writes: Political correctness has gone mad in this country - and others. If no girls were showing up at science fairs, the howls of outrage from the leftards would be heard round the clock.
  84. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: EXAMPLES OF COMMON MISANDRY (would this have ever be said about a woman?)

    'then those men truly are impotent and pathetic.'

    'men need to man up. Stop whining, work harder, get a life, etc. Man up. '

    Women have rights and privileges, men only have responsibilities.

    EQUALITY NOW!
  85. BCer living in Ontario westerner from Canada writes: lyn winans from Canada writes: I suppose we will spend a lot of time and money trying to figure this one out. As an educator it is my observation that the boys are just not willing to put in the time and effort that the girls will.------------------------ Or is it as educators you are not appealing to the interest of the boys- using methods of instruction that WORK for their way of learning. My wife is a Math teacher and has taught all boys classes and all girl classes. She uses different methods for each gender- both work.
  86. The Natrix from Toronto, Canada writes: They'll be ahead.. until they have Babies!!!

    Although boys are naturally more curious, as they grow older, they just become more lazy when given all the access to technology and toys.
  87. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Once again - so, when girls fall behind it's because they are victims of systemic biases, but when boys fall behind it's their own fault. They are lazy, unmotivated, need to 'man up' (whatever that means?).
    Social science calls this the fundamental attribution error.
    My solution for young males is simple: do nothing. Let your wife work and support you. Drop out, tune out, go watch Oprah.
  88. HOmer simpsoy from Barrie, Canada writes: I am a male elementray school teacher and the whole system is a sham set up to discourage maleness. Rough play, hands on building etc. is discouraged because of lawsuit risks. They took out the shops in middle school and with it, a major hook for boys. Boys need to move, to fight and compete because it stimulates their creativity in problem solving, and they eventually outgrow the violent behaviour, long before it becomes an issue. They need to use it to learn that it doesn't have a place, and it loses its fascination/forbidden fruit status. Boys are bored because the books they are read or forced to read are all about feelings (Thank you 1970's for killing reading for boys!) and relationships. Competition doesn't exist anymore because everyone is unique and special, which means no one is. Kids have no fear of failure, and there is no stigma attached to sucking at something, and thus, no incentive to do well at it. Add in the fact that spec ed kids with behaviour problems or severe intellectual delays are in regular classrooms (thank you human rights crybabies) and as a result, you only teach as fast as your slowest student. I work in public education, but if i could afford it, i would send my son to a private school. As it is, I inted to grill into him that school is no indicator of intelligence and actually spend off time doing real learning tasks with him. Our system is a joke. We are doing far more wrong than right, all to service 'equality (gender, intellect etc.) beliefs. Its a race to the middle, except we are going so fast we will slide right past middle and hit the bottom. I have a daughter as well, and i know she'll be fine because they system automatially favours her and her learning styles. Its infuriating because we live in a society where you really can't tell it the way it is anymore because you will hurt someones feelings, or invalidate their world experience or some other PC platitude.
  89. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes:
    My solution for young males is simple: do nothing. Let your wife work and support you. Drop out, tune out, go watch Oprah.

    ..or join a gang to find your identity. They could be our future mindless stormtroopers too.
  90. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: You know Homer, I think you're right. NOTHING inspired me in school quite so much as the certain knowledge that the teacher was going to read out marks, in order, with names, top to bottom. Lots of competition to stay off the bottom. Now, everybody passes.

    One law for the lamb and the lion is tyranny . . . albeit, encouraging for girls.

    I love the commentator's post. Surely your intention was irony?
  91. Hockeydad London from Canada writes: I speak as a parent of three children between the age of 15 and 21. Two daughters one son. My wife is a public school teacher and I teach part time at the community college level. The issues here certainly are numerous and there is no quick easy answers. Part is at least socialization of males. Black mysoginistic rap music, booty videos, incompetent dads on TV compete equally with teenage strippers cum girls music artists in influencing both sexes. Clearly, for a number of years the school system has attempted to attract females to traditional male roles. Law, for example, is now being dominated by women, and while not at the top age and time will level that out. Traditional males roles are going. I doubt very much if women are or will flock to working in a steel mill. The school system is only part of the issue, but it is part. The system itself has removed many of the male outlets, such as tackle football on the yard, and the ususal push and shove. In our politically correct world male behaviour is stiffled, yet female abusive behaviour, name calling, culling from the heard etc. continues, because it is not as easily identified and actionable as a no-contact policy. At least this article raises, again, a society wide issue that, if not addressed, will come to haunt us. Success and equality for women should not mean that there is no success and opportunity for men.
  92. Raymond P from Canada writes: It was less than 100 years ago that the only requirement to get into post-secondary school was to have a penis. Application forms had only one question. Now students are judged on marks, extracurricular activities and volunteering and this is why boys fall behind.

    Look at the male/female breakdown of our government; who are the CEOs and executives of 99% of all corporations. Yes, girls have it easier in school but once graduation happens it's welcome to the old boys network and don't pull any of that feminist crap on us or you'll get nowhere.

    It's nice to see so many insecure men posting here. It's called a backbone; go get one.
  93. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Canadian Pom from London, United Kingdom writes: ' ... anything to increase male scholastic performance will be declared to be sexist.'
    ----------------

    Ain't that the truth!
  94. Helen Highwater from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: After 2000 years of humankind 'favouring one gender over another', I personally have no problem with this at all. The boys have had their chance and look at the kind of world we have ended up with.
  95. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: EXAMPLES OF MISANDRY (it's everywhere!)

    't's nice to see so many insecure men posting here. It's called a backbone; go get one. '

    Not only is Canadian Society uncaring and discriminatory toward's Males, Canadian Society hates men, so why bother?
  96. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Helen Highwater writes: 'After 2000 years of humankind 'favouring one gender over another', I personally have no problem with this at all. '

    There is ample support amongst baby boomer feminists and chauvenists for active discrimination against men!
  97. John Smith from Canada writes: Having read over the comments, it is quite the clear from the erroneous and fictional statements being made by the majority of men is that the problem for boys and their development is that their fathers are stupid.

    Seems the limited knowledge of their males teachers doesn't help. Consider HOmer simpsoy from Barrie who points to lack of shop classes at middle school level. Well Homer, since shops classes were not introduced in middle school until the late 60s and early 70s, how would you explain male school performance in 1963 for example? Speaking as a boy in school in the 1960s, I can tell you boys were required to sit quietly in rows rather than 'Boys need to move, to fight and compete'. Indeed, classrooms now allow for far more movement and interaction. And recess for my son is not at all different from when I was a kid - including tackle football.

    Must say Homer Simpsoy I am glad the teachers (including the men) at my son's school are nothing like you or I would definately get them out of your classroom.
  98. Sweeney Todd from Oilberta, Canada writes: Helen Highwater from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: After 2000 years of humankind 'favouring one gender over another', I personally have no problem with this at all. The boys have had their chance and look at the kind of world we have ended up with.

    ==========================================

    So, you feel that you have the right to discriminate, based on gender? Really?

    Interesting...
  99. The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: School was a joke for me - still is, really. I goofed off in class, handed in everything late, roused the ire of some of my teachers (male and female), etc. That being said, I still did fine.

    My personal opinion is that everyone would be better off if we had a sex-segregated school system with let's say 110% funding for girls to dampen feminist claims that boys' education is more equal than theirs.

    My preceding comments are more directed towards posters in this thread, adults, rather than boys in school. I don't see this as an issue of men vs. women, boys vs. girls, but an issue of collective vs. individual responsibility. Equalization and socialization is what caused this problem in the first place, and more of it is not the answer. Since at this point in time girls are ahead, why don't we discontinue the social engineering and see what happens? All my boredom in school will be worthwhile if we can put complaints about the patriarchy behind us.

    Equality is the battlecry of the weak. I openly disdain adults who externalize their problems, by blaming them on society and claiming that society must right their wrongs. Like I said, man up.
  100. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: We live in an anti-intellectual environment for males. If you show any signs of smarts in school and actually study hard, your automatically an outcast. You think guys want to become outcasts when their biological purpose is to breed with the women? Males tend to be more aggressive and thus like to compete. It's hard to calm down and study for hours on end when your distracted by video games, sports, girls, and other fun things. So in the end, we have the skilled trades industry to fall back on and then just coast through school not caring anymore. Women have this option too, but the trades is dominated by men and more attractive to men, so women realize if they don't work hard at school, they will end up in a low wage retail job. So obviously, women have far more motivation to work hard at school.
  101. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, FCR, Canada writes: Female and male participation proportions must necessarily add up to 100%. If one is on the rise, the other is necessarily falling. That doesn't mean anyone is getting stupider or less interested. You just can't have one without the other. No big deal.

    If more women are going into science and math, all else being equal it also means fewer are going into, say, psychology or literature. Do we need to start counteracting that too? There is no battle to be won or lost here, it's just aggregate stats.
  102. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: 'The Commentator from TO' writes: 'Equality is the battlecry of the weak. I openly disdain adults who externalize their problems, by blaming them on society and claiming that society must right their wrongs. Like I said, man up. '
    -----

    Equality is the battlecry of the oppressed and the lack of motivation of males is directly related to the rampant stereotyping and active gender discrimination in society as a whole.

    I'm speaking from a lifetime of experience as an educated professional man!

    Women have rights and privileges, men only have responsibilities!

    Why bother!
  103. Vote for your country from Canada writes: So now Canadian society hates men? Oh grow up, just grow up. The lament of the white male is just foolishness in the extreme. You want to do good, then work at it like everyone else and stop the whining.
  104. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: 'man up'

    Would such a chauvenistic statement ever be made towards a woman?

    The double standard is staggering!
  105. Theo Zivo from Canada writes: Why oh why does the venerable G&M insist on portraying issues such as these in a gender-war context?

    But to the point:

    It's no secret that there's been a war against male-ness in schools for at least a full generation, and maybe longer. But when it's examined and programs are created to help bridge the academic gap and support boys, cries of 'Misogynist!' echo though the school halls.

    It's pretty apparent that feminist 'equality' is only supported when girls/women are favoured. And that damages everyone.
  106. L Harder from Canada writes: David Erbach:

    I have seen the same thing at the government level. Very few male hirings and those that make it aren't white. I have seen the performance and attitude of the new hirings and they aren't stellar. I suspect overall performance will start to suffer more and more with time.

    I am actually promote the idea of some quotas to make sure our civil service is representative of the population. A diversity of outlooks is useful. However, this pendulum swinging is simply damaging as we neglect one segment of the population or the other. No wonder boys are tuning out.
  107. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Some 25% of boys in school today have such severe 'behavioural problems' they have to be neurochemically lobotomized with Ritalin.

    We get the message. It's obvious to all those with an IQ above plant life.
    Boys bad.
    Girls good.
    Like the article said - the girls apply for special treatment in Gr 11 science, but there is no such program for boys. Golly, I wonder why the boys don't bother showing up for science competitions? It's a mystery, I tell ya. D'uh, let's see if our mighty brains can figure this one out?
    Boys cannot 'man up' because they aren't men yet, and never will be if society continues on this path of anti-maleness.
    The stupid have truly inherited the earth.
  108. Steven Merchant from Vancouver, Canada writes: Why any sufficiently motivated young man would go into sciences, when the incentives for a career in finance in our present society -- a much less intellectually rigorous domain, which paradoxically features an exponentially greater re-numeration structure -- is a total mystery to me.

    Men will largely go where the money and power is, and you only have to read at all these 'financial bailouts' and 'government stimulus' headlines to realize that any young man under the age of 20 who can read, is going to head straight for the financial world. If I was in school now, I certainly would.

    If the headline to this article instead read 'despite no incentives, boys flock to sciences', I'd find that amazing. This is the expected outcome of our current social policy.
  109. Prairie Daisy from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I wonder how much the current attitude of trade=good money and university=bad waste of money has to do with it. Maybe this attiude is what is affecting the boys. Why should a boy take 30 to do a science project or take calculus... when the attitude is that he justs want to finish school and be a plumber or something. Now there is nothing wrong with that, trades are good careers but maybe with encouragement from parents and changes in attitude from society that plumber may have become an sewage works engineer.

    I have noticed from previous posts on articles about universities everyone seems to have the opinion that time at the U is a waste of time and money. Now even more this attitude has permiated our society. THAT has to count for some of it, I would think.
  110. The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: Denis, maybe I haven't made myself clear, but you sound kind of like a man feminist, crying victimization by society, oppression, discrimination, etc. Maybe it's true, but whining is not the solution. Whining is not the path to maleness.

    Both men and women have responsibilities, and possibly rights. Personally, I think the responsibilities are a lot more important, and I doubt that rights even exist, especially the right to equality. Individuals are fundamentally unequal.

    Steve, I agree that boys cannot man up, but I think we need to take a longer view of things. If they don't eventually become men, it's their own fault. Also, notwithstanding what we are taught, formal education is not the only road to success, and once girls completely dominate it it will lose its importance entirely.
  111. Billy Martinez from Ottawa, Canada writes: Working for many gov organizations for the last 15 years, I find that wom are the worst critics and enemies of wom as many of them spend their time speaking poorly about one another. The only feasible exp. to me is that soci. has put many pressures on wom and they must do everything well e.g. work, motherhood, wife, etc. Add to this is the fact that the media is relentless about making wom feel unattractive and less confident with the endless make up and beauty products advertised. Wom have more opportunities now and we will continue on this path but this does not mean that they are happier than they used to be. Pol. Corr. has done a job on society and therefore, no one can just be honest i.e., 'I don't agree with your point of view, opinion, etc.' Instead, wom choose to talk about others behind their backs and this only seem to be increasing, at least at my work. Most men don't need to buy to feel fulfilled or content and god forbid we oppose to the wife wanting to buy things because we are men and don't understand. Although many accomplishments have been made by providing wom with more opportunities, senseless consumerism has also been empowered to thrive, with more money now, the media can make them crave and buy things they don't need on regular basis. To recap, women are doing better, making more money, having a career the question is, are they any happier? IMHO, not at all. As far as I'm concerned, they can have the work place and make tons of money cause quite frankly, don't see much happiness going around but rather divorces, gossip, jealousy from other wom when a woman gets promoted, etc. So all I have to say is enjoy the accomplishments and fame because I want out of all of this crap. Let's congratulate Pol. Corr. for creating a society where just being content with a simple and quiet life is unacceptable and one must want to have a career and shop more because after all, this is all corporations really wanted anyway and equality has nothing to do with it!
  112. Katherine giles from Toronto, Canada writes: I’d be interested in tracking how each of these genders fares 20 years after graduation from high school. My guess? I suspect that although females currently have the advantage over their male peers, the males will begin to surpass their female counterparts within 10 years after graduation. Within 20 years, I predict that the males will dominate in terms of salary, influence, and overall career success. Admittedly, this theory is based on observation only—and is shaped, in part, by my own experience. When I graduated from high school in 1989, I’d experienced a high level of academic success—as class valedictorian, I’d achieved top marks and was offered sizable entrance scholarships from 3 top Canadian universities. I continued to flourish in university, and was awarded 3 further scholarships while there. As a female, I never observed any bias on the part of my educators, either toward males or females. I currently work in an architecture firm. Relative to my similarly-aged male peers, I have little autonomy vis-à-vis project decision-making, and earn a comparatively low salary. On the rare occasions when I am invited to participate in meetings, the strategies that I propose tend not to be seriously considered or implemented. My male peers dominate in group discussions, and are much more likely to be asked for input by the firm’s male partners. One might assume that this situation is specific to the firm that I work for, but having worked for 3 different firms over the course of the past 11 years, I can assure you that it is not. Unfortunately, the subjective nature of the situation makes it difficult to draw any concrete conclusions. As such, I’m not sure whether this sort of thing is specific to this field—architecture—or whether it occurs to this degree in other professions. Interestingly, my husband, a lawyer in the public sector, does not see this type of situation there, nor do his female peers.
  113. N Dawg from Canada writes: I have said this before in other posts: our school system does not know how to motivate boys anymore. Boys drop out at a much higher rate than girls do. Perhaps some really smart women can figure out why and come up with a workable solution.
  114. Canadian Pom from London, United Kingdom writes: One thing I would agree with that was put forward by The Commentator - I think segregated classes, and indeed segregated schools are a good idea. It seems relatively clear from speaking to the few teachers I know that the two sexes have different needs in the classroom.
  115. Philosopher King from Ivory Tower, Canada writes: The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: '... The fix is simple: men need to man up. Stop whining, work harder, get a life, etc. Man up...'

    Well I certainly hope you've been 'fixed'.

    Such idiocy aimed at little boys is not the least bit helpful.

    Ironically I think Homer Simpsoy is on more on the right track than most.

    We've changed the system rather than expanded it to be inclusive.
  116. Little Bear from Canada writes: Part of the problem is that Fathers make little effort to teach and inform their boys about being men and sucking it up and taking your lumps.

    I have a young fellow working for me 50 with two divorces and currently separated with a boy and this fellow goes through jobs about every 18 months. Has lots of formal education and degrees but no idea about being a man.

    I am a lot older, married for 40 years retired and called successful and have been on his butt trying to teach him stuff about a variety of things.

    He says to me yesterday why didn't anybody ever tell me these things?

    I am told that there are many thousands of these out there and they are learning nothing in school about the real world. When oh when are they going to start to get these boys ready for what will meet them in life.

    Separation of boys and girls in school is probably the only answer and have real men teach the boys in a male fashion.
  117. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes:
    The Commentator from TO, Canada writes: 'Whining is not the path to maleness.'
    ' I doubt that rights even exist, especially the right to equality.'

    The Canadian Charter of Rights says that we are entitled to equality! Unfortunately, in practice, this only applies to women and visible minorities.

    How dare you have the arrogance to define what is maleness and what isn't maleness! Apparently, complaining about discrimination and stereotyping is only acceptable for women and visible minorities.
  118. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Moe Unting from Yorba Linda, CA, United States writes: 'I say take boys out of the highschool system and into mandatory military training with a connection to apprenticeship'
    ------

    That is a very accurate portrayal of how society views males.

    1. Good for war and violence.
    2. Not suited for higher education.
    3. Not worth the concern and attention.
  119. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: 'L Harder from Canada writes:
    I have seen the same thing at the government level. Very few male hirings and those that make it aren't white. I have seen the performance and attitude of the new hirings and they aren't stellar.'

    You just described every single government/social service agency in the country. In fact, the 'new hires' suck like a black hole. They are lazy, slothful with an attitude of entitlement and privilege, they can't be fired or disciplined in any way without risking a lawsuit for discrimination or at the very least, the human 'rights' commission coming down on your head. You can say it, go ahead, we already know anyway.
    I encourage young men to pursue higher ed for its own intrinsic value and rewards, but they might as well forget about jobs. Those are all held in reserve for the retard classes under the guise of equality.
    Sure, it's kinda funny.
    But there you have it. Call it whatever you wish.
  120. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Little Bear from Canada writes: 'the only answer and have real men teach the boys in a male fashion. '

    While I agree with your suggestion about separating boys and girls in classrooms, I shudder at the thought of old chauvenists like yourself teaching boys anything about being male!
  121. Moe Unting from Yorba Linda, CA, United States writes: Very curious! SO girls are less distracted and able to focus in the intermediate and seniors grades while boys need some level of male interaction to inspire focus. I say take boys out of the highschool system and into mandatory military training with a connection to apprenticeship: plumber, diesel mechanic etc for those who have aptitude. Once they have served, let them apply for colleges/university. One would have relatively older, disciplined men mixing with younger women who may not be so driven to studies as to marriage. Boys need a time out to focus those hormones and women need time for the hormones to kick in....
  122. little bowpeep from Bye Bye Canukistan, Canada writes: Canada is definitely a country where smart educated male should leave.
  123. Hunkered down in the land of never ending promises from Canada writes: Vote for your country: Check out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 subsection 1. This is the equality statute. Section A says that every person in Canada is equal. Then go to subsection 2 where it poses that everyone is more equal than males (specifically white males but this is not spelled out as such) unless those males belong to a visible minority. As stated in the document Section 1 'Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Sounds great doesn't it. Then there's Section 2 which excludes only one group from its protections. Here it is verbatim. '(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national origin or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Since women were/are considered disadvantaged by nature of their gender Affirmative Action has been around as a government policy since the Charter of Rights was struck in 1982. Similarly other visible minorities notably new immigrants are also accorded preferred status. Additionally if your mother tongue is french then you too are in a disadvantaged group by Canadian standards as set out by the Charter. So the only group that is left out of this 'equal' protection are white, english speaking, heterosexual males. Check the job postings for government jobs in the last 25 years, especially the federal government. Many will state explicitly that preference (as in preference in hiring) will be given to aboriginals, women, people of colour, etc. Translated this means that white males in Canada are not welcome in these areas. Yeah, now that's equality Canada style.
  124. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: There are a great many girl/women programs, and loads of extra incentives for females, including special awards, special help, not to mention the message everywhere in our culture that girls are great and men are deadbeats. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    This began in the early 1980's in earnest. I worked in Research. The VP of R&D held department wide meetings announcing the company's commitment to 'equal opportunity,' which included the fact that women would be preferentially hired and promoted from then on.

    The male researchers were stunned in disbelief. But this policy was pursued with vigor. Young professionals, like myself, couldn't buy a management job.

    Eventhough male engineering graduate applicants outnumbered female 10 to 1, we hired minimum 50% female.

    This message was never lost on the men, and many were highly unmotivated to work hard.

    What is going ought to be called the crime that it truly is.
    .
  125. David P from Canada writes: While it is good to see both genders participating - I've found that the school system my son is in routinely trumpets the accomplishments of the girls and the boys are relegated to a non-existent phase...so to what I've seen this 'pendulum' has swung so far the other way and instead of trying to keep it in the middle so that both boys and girls have programs and opportunities available, the boys keep getting pushed farther off to the side.

    Thankfully my son at least has a teacher that teaches and believes that all children have potential, and he is excelling in both his sports and his acedemics (top of the class again). However, the classes he struggles in are the ones where that subject specific teacher openly admits that she finds boys to be inferior...talk about a self fulfilling prophecy!

    I hope that someday before my grandkids are born and in school, we have acheived some form of equality so that we don't need special programs to entice one gender or another to strive to be the best they can be...but that's a social philosophy that would need to be culture wide...good luck in Canada...
  126. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: 'This message was never lost on the men, and many were highly unmotivated to work hard.'

    This describes my life experience as an educated professional male!
  127. Two Centsworth from Canada writes: Underachieving boys is definitely a problem and has been for more than a decade. No one benefits from big gender skews in any field. My thoughts:

    First, lack of male teachers is a big factor. Why would a caring man want to work where student discontent (and the new over-anxious parent phenomenon) could lead to charges or innuendo of being a pedophile? Society cannot ask men to be more nurturing while holding them all under suspicion of being abusers...

    Second, the big money in society is still in business - you don't need a science degree (or any degree) to be successful in business. N. Am. society glorifies the self-made success therefore more boys will go there instead. Poor men cannot get dates the same way poor women can. Money isn't everything but it's a factor.

    Third, education is increasingly bureaucratized. Girls are culturally penalized for standing out and for making mistakes so they frequently gravitate to forums where there are many rules (and fewer hidden rules that tend to weigh against them). Note: that doesn't explain science fair attendance but I think it is a factor in degree obtainment.

    Fourth, missing daily dads who buy toys for their boys instead of hanging out with them. Also, 'doing' is very much a boy-culture thing. If parents have less time, there is time to 'do things together' and boys can go adrift.

    Fifth, parents who fear their children's disapproval and let them play video games instead of forcing them to go into the broader world and experiment, engage etc.

    Sixth, men and boys tend to leave pursuits where there are more than 30% women. When typewriters were introduced, they were considered too complex for women.... More investigation of why this happens is needed.
  128. Wally Wally from Canada writes: 'When she reaches Grade 11, she plans to apply for a provincial internship program that promotes women in science and engineering — but there isn't a similar program for her male classmates.'

    No similar program for the boys? This can't be. I mean aren't we all equal now? Surely the playing field is level. Oh well back to the street hockey...
  129. Hunkered down in the land of never ending promises from Canada writes: Cut The Crap from Canada: This gentleman spelled out with specific examples of what the Equality section of the Charter is really all about. This was Trudeau's design to garner votes from women and visible minorities since these groups were less likely to question what the government of the day was up to. If you were getting a dedicated special program just for you that always gave up a 'leg up' on competitors, specifically men because of course the common 'wisdom' that this is a male-dominated world, country, culture, etc, then you would buy into this propaganda which is exactly what a majority of Canadian females have done. Many young adult women have never known there not to be an Affirmative Action program or the organization Status of Women. They simply accept this as a normal part of life in this country and don't appreciate or even comprehend that essentially these programs stay in place because it is perceived that women naturally aren't as good as men in these disciplines and therefore require 'special consideration', so women especially professional women should be demanding that these programs are not necessary or are an insult to their gender. Only problem is that not one of them will. So, girls, with these programs in place the government is saying that still you are not equal with males as you need these 'considerations' forever. Now we know why there are so many more women in these areas than men. It's not due to talent but to a perception that they are always disadvantaged and therefore always need preference. Now of course there will be those who will say that this is whining by males but it isn't. It's a protest against government imposed and fostered discrimination against males. And CTC from Canada is right; it is a crime
  130. GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: little bowpeep from Bye Bye Canukistan, Canada writes: Canada is definitely a country where smart educated male should leave.

    We like to think of ourselves as a country of common sense, yet it's hard to escape the pervasiveness of what could only be uncommon nonsense.
  131. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm a woman and I believe the BEST people should be the ones chosen for any particular job/field. It is silly to push people towards goals and achievements for which they are not inclined.

    Having said that, I really don't think statistics show the whole picture. I only completed my bachelors degree 7 years ago and I was 1 of 3 females in my entire 50 person Advanced Programming class. The rest of the girls tend to aggragate towards Software Engineering and Human Factors while the boys (and the few females like me) tend towards the more math based courses. Even when females join the male-dominated computer science domain, we go towards the areas of study that the males dislike ... So eventually, people will move towards their natural inclinations. Nobody wants to sit there all day doing something they hate for the rest of their lives.
  132. Man of La Mancha from Canada writes: ' Boys are not just getting beaten by girls — they're not even showing up. '

    Usual sexist drivel from the G&M - but it's okay, as long as men are being trashed.... The entire article is full of negative comments towards males, but people don't notice it anymore - we're used to it.
  133. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: John Smith - 'Consider HOmer simpsoy from Barrie who points to lack of shop classes at middle school level. Well Homer, since shops classes were not introduced in middle school until the late 60s and early 70s, how would you explain male school performance in 1963 for example? Speaking as a boy in school in the 1960s, I can tell you boys were required to sit quietly in rows rather than 'Boys need to move, to fight and compete'. Indeed, classrooms now allow for far more movement and interaction.'

    Thank you for pointing out the obvious. It's interesting how people are complaining that the problem is:
    1. Lack of male teachers
    2. Requiring boys to sit still, etc.

    First of all, teaching has always been a stereotypically female profession. I don't think we have a sudden influx of female teachers.

    Secondly, has anybody noticed that BOTH asian males AND females do well in school regardless of HOW they are taught? It's called DISCIPLINE AT HOME. Ever think that boys are more likely to sit at home and play XBOX or PS2 all night??? What about that??? But no, less place the blame AND responsibility on the education system.
  134. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Finally, as a Computer Science graduate, many of my friends are male - and the one thing that is common to all of them is that they are attracted to (and now married or attached to) other high achieving and educated women. None of these male friends have complained about the education system being biased towards females because they have succeeded in this system as well.

    The bitter men on this board end up sounding like they are poor losers - a 'birthright' of being male and being on top is no longer guaranteed. You have to compete for it like everybody else.
  135. max from edmonton from Canada writes: Helen Highwater from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: After 2000 years of humankind 'favouring one gender over another', I personally have no problem with this at all. The boys have had their chance and look at the kind of world we have ended up with.
    *********************************************************
    so 2 wrongs do equal one right?

    Dang, mom was wrong all along
  136. Tom Barak from Canada writes: If we live in such an equal society, why do almost all job ads I see have this statement:

    'Employment Equity is a factor in selection. Applicants are requested to indicate in their covering letter or resume if they are from any of the following groups: women, Aboriginal people, visible minorities and persons with disabilities.'

    See any group that's missing?

    The point is, we should live in a society that offers equal opportunity, but we don't. The above phrase is from an ad for a government job. You'll see it on almost all ads run nowadays. I had no choice as to what gender or colour I was born with so it seems a tad unfair.

    I earned two degrees and work my butt off, yet I'm discriminated against. So like so many other people who said it on this board, why bother? And as soon as we simply ask for fairness, we're beaten down. Guess women and minorities were the whipping class before, now its the males' turn - with government's approval. Nice world we live in folks. Maybe it's time to do gender assignment when you young parents decide to have kids.
  137. Two Centsworth from Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes - good points. Like many, I forgot how rigid the old classrooms were and the boys did fine; likewise the sitting in front of video games. Also, as you reminded us, the cross-cultural studies show all kinds of variations. Interesting. Clearly this phenomenon is more complex than a short Globe article can get at.
  138. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: The bitter men on this board end up sounding like they are poor losers - a 'birthright' of being male and being on top is no longer guaranteed. You have to compete for it like everybody else.
    ---------------

    The elitist Women on this board end up sounding like privileged princesses with their birth right of privileges and advantages that are not available to Men.

    You have to compete for it like everyone else, without gender discrimination and special treatment....because you're a woman!
  139. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - 'The elitist Women on this board end up sounding like privileged princesses with their birth right of privileges and advantages that are not available to Men.

    You have to compete for it like everyone else, without gender discrimination and special treatment....because you're a woman!'

    Actually, I did compete for everything fairly, thank you very much. My scholarships were based entirely on my marks in university. And guess what? When I'm marked, only my NUMERIC STUDENT ID goes onto my essays/exams/programs. Unless you are proposing that my TAs or Professors were psychic and knew that I was female?

    Also, when I applied to my current company, we were required to take a test... I was also informed by my manager that they didn't even bother looking at any person with a C or below on their transcripts. Other interviews have required of me to program something on the spot, etc.

    But it is interesting how SOME men like to discredit actual accomplishments to offset their own disappointments.
  140. C K from Vancouver, Canada writes: Don't worry, folks, we still need little boys to grow into soldiers: we always need meat for the grinder. Just teach your son to be a good shot, send him to a military academy so he fits seamlessly into his tour in A-stan.
  141. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: 'But it is interesting how SOME men like to discredit actual accomplishments to offset their own disappointments. '

    There is nothing wrong with accomplishments, just don't forget that in many cases Women receive special attention in education, special scholarships and preferential hiring, because of their gender.

    There is no such official privileges for Men.
  142. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I hate gender wars. I'm also the product of grandmothers, a mother, and the husband of a wife who are feminists. Do you know what they want and wanted: equality of opportunity, without a system erected to distort the thing one way or the other.

    Do you know why? Because gender might be a biological fact, but we aren't earthworms. Most of us marry. All of us are the products of sexual union between members of both genders. Many of us will go on to father/mother children of the opposite gender. What damages the 'other' gender, therefore, damages us, intimately.

    So what? My mother was a school teacher of forty years seniority when she retired. My sister is a teacher now. They have long and involved discussions in which my sister solicits advise on teaching boys. My mother shares, and has long shared her concerns. Do you know why they're worried ladies? Here it comes . . . because they both had fathers, brothers, and sons. Why should you care? So do you, are will do, very probably. Wonder what tune you'll sing when its your husband, or son who's put out of the running for a job by equity policies? The woman who gets it might be a woman, but he'll be your spouse (or son).

    One more thing. I HATE the notion that thousands of years of supposed injustice can be made up by revenge against random member of a particular gender now living. That sort of female triumphalism is ignorant, and just plain unjust. I suspects that its also a gross betrayal of the principles upon which feminism was suppose to be established.

    Oh, and another thing. If my mom and foremothers were harmed in the past, how is that YOUR pain? Isn't it more likely that I (albeit a man) bear any scars? If your father did well out of 'patriarchy' then don't you still enjoy the swag (albeit a woman)?
  143. Reality Seeker from Harrow, Ontario, Canada writes: The role models for boys in the media are limited - sports stars and hip/hop performers. Even in TV shows there is an anti-intellectualism; women tend to be smart and competent while the men are goofs.
  144. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - 'There is nothing wrong with accomplishments, just don't forget that in many cases Women receive special attention in education, special scholarships and preferential hiring, because of their gender.' Well, this is surprising to me since I had never heard of (or taken advantage of) women only scholarships. As per hiring, the times I have participated in interviewing and selection of employees, we chose the best candidate. I have absolutely no interest in working with somebody just because she's female. And this is the way that it should be. As per 'special attention in education', this seems like a weak excuse to me. My friends are equally female/male and between the 10 of us, we hold 5 engineering, 5 computer science, 2 law, 2 Masters, and 2 PhD degrees - again, split evenly between the sexes. They are all extremely accomplished because they are among the brightest - and no 'special privileges' ever helped them along. Interestingly, these people never complained about 'special privileges' accorded to other people - because they don't need to. They win in this system. The best should and will always bubble up to the top. If there are more successful males, than so be it. If there are more successful females, than so be it. Again, this is why I say only males who 'lose' what used to be a 'birthright' seem to be the ones complaining.
  145. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - Finally, let me clarify my position. I'm not pro-feminism so much as I am pro-best for the job.

    As I've said before, ever notice that Asian males and females do well at school regardless of how they are taught? Also, my male friends are a good example of success in this supposedly 'female-oriented' education system.

    Given this, I doubt that this is fault of 'feminists' as many men-ranters on this board would like to lay blame. Rather, I suspect that it is more likely what white males are learning AT HOME or by popular culture that impacts their ability to succeed.
  146. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Once again, Sherlock Holmes, why do you (like Catherine M.) counter empirical evidence based on the experience of millions with personal anecdote? The fact that you haven't accessed woman-only scholarships, don't believe that you've been preferentially treated (who does?), and have ten friends equally educated and accomplished regardless of gender doesn't mean a whole lot of anything.

    Where I work (there are several thousand employees) the average man is hired five years later than the average woman, with far superior attainments. Why do I know this? It became a matter of concern a couple of years ago to those who care that the average man also progressed in rank more quickly (for reasons that should be obvious). It didn't matter that at age 40 things had more or less evened out -- there was for example no perceivable wage 'gap', and everybody had found a place consistent with measurable attainment at that age. What did matter was that there was, so it was asserted, a yawning 'mid career' imbalance -- why five years after they were hired were women still in entry positions, while men, five years on, had been promoted? Once again, the answer was obvious. What did the institution do? It initiated programs to promote women more quickly, and gave all women with a certain seniority an across the board wage hike. All of them. Regardless of attainment or personal experience. Consequence? My female subordinates are much younger than I am. I have better certification and history of performance than they do. I have much greater responsibilities. They now make as much as I do, and will probably be preferred for promotion over me. Doesn't matter that the ultimate root of the imbalance is that they were hired younger, and before they've earned their spurs.

    Have a nice day all. Not going to change anything, anytime soon. Too many people with blinkers on, and unadmitted (but vested) interests.

    Off to walk the dog.
  147. Theo Zivo from Canada writes: Sherlock, you're clearly accomplished and have reached a level of success that's laudable based on your talents and intellect. You are to be congratulated for attaining your goals without resorting 'employment equity' programs. The reality is, however, that men - especially middle-aged white men - are actively discriminated against. This is most apparent in employment decisions and the implementation of employment equity programs. (As a brief aside, I worked for a time for a financial institution. At one stage, a cluster of about 20 people were given promotions and increased responsibilities, and a company-wide intranet announcement was made. At the top of the page was, '(company name) Supports Diversity!' The photos? Twenty middle-aged white women. Not one woman of colour. Not one male. This, apparently, is 'diversity' and 'equality.') I know for a fact - not supposition, not rumour, not a 'feeling,' but verified and confirmed fact - that I personally was denied opportunities for employment specifically because I was a middle-aged white male. Now, if there was such blatant gender discrimination against women, the 'rights' industry would be up in arms. And correctly so. But since there's this inherent and systemic bias against white males, nary a peep is heard. Misandry is real, and it's growing. To deny it is to deny reality. For a chilling (but somewhat ponderous) read about misandry in modern North American culture, I urge you to find a copy of 'Legalizing Misandry' by Nathanson and Young.
  148. Theo Zivo from Canada writes: Oh damn... the paragraph breaks vanished again... apologies for the unreadable blob of text...
  149. Blade Runner from Canada writes: 'pussification' of society, male-bashing, and affirmative action have done their job very well at marginalizing the males. This has been going on for over a decade now.

    I hate reading job ads that state if your a woman, please indicate your gender...its gender discrimination but what can you do about it...go hang out and have a beer :(
  150. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Winston Churchill - 'The fact that you haven't accessed woman-only scholarships, don't believe that you've been preferentially treated'

    Well, again, seeing as scholarships I apply for are based on MARKS - which are given by TAs/Professors who mark based on NUMERIC STUDENT IDs, no, I guess my natural assumption is that they are not psychic and cannot guess my gender. Also, my female friends who became lawyers scored in the 95 and 98 percentile on their LSATs. I suppose according to you, these markers were biased (and it wasn't the case that they are simply very bright?). Perhaps it would be more productive to give credit where it is due instead of simply assuming some sort of advantage.

    Theo Zivo - 'I worked for a time for a financial institution'. I will concede that my perspective might be a bit biased because of my field. Engineering/computer science/math are empirical. You take a test, and you get it wrong or right. There's not much in between. It's probably easier to hire the best for the job.

    I have to admit that I am surprised about your job discrimination story - like I said, everytime I have been involved in the hiring process, we go by skills and ability. And I agree that what happened to you is wrong.
  151. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes,

    You may be able to defend your personal experiences as being non-discriminatory and not relying on special treatment as a woman. There are many more Women out there such as yourself that have earned the full respect of their colleagues.

    Your experience is not at all representative. Many women receive special educational programs, special scholarships and bursaries and preferential hiring, that is not available to any man!

    This is official discrimination and you should recognize it as such.
  152. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: 'I'm a woman and I believe ...'
    ---------------
    Yes, you're a woman ... but you chose to use a man's name when writing comments here. What's up with that?
  153. Pierre-Yves P from Canada writes: .
    Such studies make a good case for a complete privatization of the educational system.
  154. H Whelan from Canada writes: Reality Seeker from Harrow, Ontario, Canada writes: The role models for boys in the media are limited - sports stars and hip/hop performers. Even in TV shows there is an anti-intellectualism; women tend to be smart and competent while the men are goofs.

    I would argue that there are awful and excellent role models out there represented by both genders.
  155. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - sigh... I was never arguing that there isn't discrimination EITHER way. If we look hard enough, I'm sure I could make a case for discrimination against minorities, males, females, etc. Let me try again. The article is talking about the education system and it's bias towards girls. Many of the posters (especially men) are whining about there being female teachers and a 'female-oriented' learning system. My point is that this is bull. There have always been many female teachers as this is a stereotypically female profession. Also, as I reposted from 'John Smith', the 60's educational system (and prior) was rigid and demanded discipline from the boys. So then what has changed? 1. Girls are now given opportunities and pushed to excel. And some of us WILL be smarter than the boys - so yes, some boys who previously had it easy because of less competition will not be getting as far ahead as they once did. 2. I really think it has to do with discipline. Many other cultures have not had this problem - you really only have to look at the Asian population for that. There are scores of Chinese males at Waterloo and all the engineering departments across Canada for proof. 3. Technology - look at the XBOX, PS2, computer games. Who plays those more often? Girls or boys? I honestly can't think of a similarly time-consuming/addictive and equivalent habit for little girls. Have these variables been considered instead of assuming a straight correlation between the supposedly 'female-oriented education' and male attainment? Finally, preferential laws have not necessarily benefitted groups for whom they were created. In Malaysia, they have pro-Malay rules which make it MUCH harder for Chinese/Indians to succeed at work and school. But which race is more successful? Still the Chinese! I don't doubt that there are programs that attempt to attract women... but are these programs the be-all and end-all of the male woes? I highly doubt it.
  156. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan Shortt - Sherlock Holmes is one of my favourite characters. Simple as that. If I like Nancy Drew as much, her name would be my moniker.
  157. N Dawg from Canada writes: Moe Unting from Yorba Linda, CA, United States writes: I say take boys out of the highschool system and into mandatory military training with a connection to apprenticeship: plumber, diesel mechanic etc for those who have aptitude. Once they have served, let them apply for colleges/university...
    =========
    Wow! What a statement. You should read the book - The War Comes Home. The number of (mostly men) returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury is at a record high. These men can barely function let alone go get a Masters degree.

    And you know what's the worst part of it is? Very few people care.
  158. D N M from Canada writes: From article: 'Still, Dr. Ferri says boys are coming out of their shells in more traditionally female dominated subjects, like English and public speaking. He doesn't share others' concerns that boys are falling behind. 'Eventually it will balance out,' he said. 'We'll get to the point where everything stabilizes.'

    There you go. Much ado about nothing. Where girls were prevented from achieving academically in the past, that obstacle has been removed and they can now shine, and are doing so brilliantly. Eventually, boys will have to come to grips with competing against, and sometimes being outshone by, girls, and that healthy interhuman academic competition is nothing to be afraid of. When this happens, boys will stop cowering away from competing against girls and ratios of girls/boys in classes will stabilize.
  159. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - and yet, interestingly, you did not respond to any of my other points.

    Again, can you explain why males of other cultures are doing just fine? Can you explain why the Chinese are faring better in a country that enforces 'pro-Malay' legislation?

    Also, I have already stated that I don't doubt discrimination against males. However, there is also discrimination against females - you don't think I've felt left out at some of the 'old-boys' type meetings?

    And do you think that I want males to fail? I'd like to take off for several years when I have kids and I am depending on my husband!

    If you can't address some fundamentals of why some CAN succeed and are determined to lay blame solely on another gender, I can't do anything about that.

    But last story: I was teaching a class with two persons with disabilities. One complained the ENTIRE time about lack of accomodation, etc while the other was silent. What was interesting was that the PWD who was silent was also the most successful in class while the one who whined the most was the most behind.

    People who seek to blame everybody but themselves and fail to take initiative usually are the ones who are the worst off.
  160. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I think you're reacting to what I've written without actually reading it.

    I say again 'why do you (like Catherine M.) counter empirical evidence based on the experience of millions with personal anecdote'?

    My post refererence the aggregated data of thousands. You continually refer to you and a couple of chums, as if that proved anything. I tell you that women who are hired into my work place statistically start five years younger than their male colleagues, and with what have been established to be inferior credentials as my workplace measures attainment. Don't tell me, in refutation, that you know a man who works there (me) so I'm obviously wrong! If you do, then you're obviously from the school of Katherine M! 'The Bell Curve does not exist'. How does she know? She was hired to work at MIT (wait a minute . . . there's a strange logic there, but I don't think its one she'd like).

    You know what? Half the people I know are gay. Know what else? The other half are happily married. Amongst hundreds of friends and acquaintances, I only know two divorced persons. Facts! I conclude from this that: a) half the human population is gay; and, that b) divorce is a myth?
  161. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes:
    'People who seek to blame everybody but themselves and fail to take initiative usually are the ones who are the worst off'

    ---------

    Blame is easy to place when there is an absence of equal opportunities between genders, which would appear to be a flagrant violation of the Charter of Rights.

    The reasons for males falling behind in education are many and will never be proven with any certainty as a single root cause.

    You are avoiding the topic of discrimination and lack of equal opportunity for males in education.
  162. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: IMO, the prevalence of outdated feminists and chauvenists in Canadian Society is probably the greatest obstacle for modern men.
  163. Garth Shoemaker from Canada writes: Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes:
    It might be, finally, that there will always be imbalance. Male and female bell curves are different. Every psychologist knows it. The female curve is steeper -- fewer duds, fewer truly high achievers. [...]
    ........................................................................................................
    Katherine R from Canada writes:
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have a Ph.D. and work at MIT. There is nothing at all that makes me intellectually inferior to the most brilliant man. [...]
    ........................................................................................................
    Katherine, as an educated woman you must understand the difference between a statistic and an anecdote, right? So I'm sure you see that your rebuttal has absolutely no applicability to Winston's argument? A difference in bell curves as he suggests does not imply that no women can reach the heights of academic accomplishment, just that fewer will.
  164. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Dennis Pakkala, I have read your replies with interest. If you are still employed as an engineer with some company, this company does not have a pay for performance program. Based on your attitude alone, I would rate you as a number 5 performer on the Hay Point system (1 gets promoted, 5 gets fired). Hard work alone does not count. Your attitude would poison your coworkers. Based on this 5 rating, you would have been fired moons ago. This comes from rating 40 engineers per year over a 33 year period. For the last 14 years (92 - 07), I have been ranking 3rd and 4th year chemical engineers at the UWO. More about this later.

    My best performers at Dow were my female engineers. Why? They were the best team players, they were more focused on company objectives, they communicated better and they performed their engineering tasks as expected with excellence (60 - 93), they were not the PITA that their males peers were. They ranked superior in the Hay Point ratings system we used. Sadly, for me, none ever made supervisor because after eight years following graduation, their biological clocks were running out and they married and went off to raise kids.
  165. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: No, some feminists are on your side - read 'The War against Boys' by Christina Hoff Summers.
  166. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - 'You are avoiding the topic of discrimination and lack of equal opportunity for males in education. '

    No, I am not.

    The point being made on the board, etc is that the 'discrimination' stems from too many female teachers and a 'female-oriented' classroom without allowing boys the opportunity to run around and explore.

    Again, there have ALWAYS been many female teachers. Secondly, as John Smith pointed out, classrooms used to be much more rigid. So this 'keep your mouth shut' argument is invalid - how is this anymore 'female-oriented' than before? Also invalid since males from other cultures succeed - so are all other males from other cultures 'female-oriented' in their learning ability? Unless the white male is its own 'special' category that must be catered to.
  167. Garth Shoemaker from Canada writes: Winston Churchill wrote:

    What did the institution do? It initiated programs to promote women more quickly, and gave all women with a certain seniority an across the board wage hike. All of them. Regardless of attainment or personal experience.

    ---------------

    Winston, can you name your employer? I would like to avoid it when looking for a job.
    Thanks.
  168. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: As you can tell from my last post, I am partial to female engineers. As a lecturer in Plant Design at UWO I was curious how the females would respond to my 33 years of industrial experience. Most 4th year classes were 35% female. The 4th year plant Design program, CBE 497, is based on a team effort of a plant design project and an individual final exam.

    In 14 years, females groups won the majority of Cdn Plant Design competitions (2 gold, 2 silver and 1 bronze). 80% of the group were female. One award was the top Cdn NRC competition and my group, two females and a tag along male, won this important competition. Why? The females had all of the attributes I mentioned above.

    However, in the 14 years of individual exam ratings, males won first plave every year. In only one year, a female came second and she ran first right up to the final where she choked. So, individually, the males still held top spots and went on to win most PhD slots.
  169. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Sherlock: how do you know that males from other cultures succeed? I've never seen any statistic than discriminates by race or ethnicity. Are you in possession of evidence, or is this more anecdotal material -- I know some high attaining men who are X.
  170. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Winston Churchill - my comment stems from several articles in the news recently. One of them was with respect to British white males falling behind in education while all other 'minority males' and females were picking up the slack. And I never said that white males can't be successful did I? I'm just pointing out that all of these 'female-oriented education program' arguments are rubbish.
  171. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I expect that's true . . . in the UK, especially in the 'Black Country' were industrial jobs were shut down long ago, but the local working class culture insists that if you're not working with your hands you're not really working. British boys there are candidate steel workers . . . alas, the steel industry's been dead for twenty years.

    I've never seen any such statistic for N. America, however, and I doubt you'd find the same reality here right now. Check back in ex-auto towns in a generation.

    I would never say that white men can't succeed. I just say its relatively harder. I agree with you that adversity often brings out the best in some people, as I think it has done for me from time to time. This is why, in part, I find mid-career adjustments so very dispiriting.

    Any one can succeed if he wants to. Of course the same advise could be tendered to individuals from better favoured groups.
  172. Brian Dell from Alberta, Canada writes: My solution for young males is simple: do nothing. Let your wife work and support you. Drop out, tune out, go watch Oprah.

    This is already happening. Except they aren't watching Oprah, they are playing Grand Theft Auto.

    Males are dropping out because the need to delay gratification is not there any more. Indulgence is too easily granted to young men. At the core is Nietzsche's idea of sublimation. The male libido is not sublimated into serving a higher cultural or socially useful purpose in a socially liberal society.
  173. Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: Heh - Nietzsche would argue that war, aggression, dominance, are the things that give meaning to the lives of males. McKinnon and Dworkin would agree, and would reshape the edu system accordingly.
    Build more prisons, we're going to need them.
  174. Grampa Canuck from Belleville, ON, Canada writes: One of the major problems as far as male academic success is concerned is the cultural image of males that is portrayed. Unfortunately the guys are heading for Guyland and are no longer adult-mentored but, instead, are peer mentored. And, they look to the media for their guidance. Look at the media images: the inept husband in commercials, Seinfeld and Bevis & Butthead, and so forth. Dumbness for males used to make them social pariahs, but now males who wallow in dumbness are valued as fun members of the social group.

    As well, one of the most common forms of 14-year old male rebellion is the total dumb-out. A large number of males in this age group prove their independence from adult culture by proving how dumb they can be. Unfortunately, this behaviour becomes deeply inculcated and becomes part of their behavioural repetoire that persists into 'adulthood'. It is manifested by dislike of reading, anti-intellectualism, incessant video-gaming and so forth. There's a common adage: girls want to get into university, guys want to get to the next level in their video game.

    And, I blame parents to a large degree for feeding this and putting up with the youthful dumb-out. As well, the public school system is failing here. Guys have become very adept at getting through school without consolidating learning (moving from short term to long term memory) learning. And, too much the 'learning strategies' invoked by educators involve 'do a bunch of crap, get a grade'. My 18-year old grandson, who lives with us, says he took chemistry and physics and got good grades. I confound him by asking him 'What's co-valent bonding' or 'what does 'coefficient of friction' mean?'

    Finally, we have managed to better implement teaching strategies that encourage and enable girls. Now we need to explore how we can maker sure boys don't fall off the wagon.
  175. Pro Libertate from Canada writes: Returning to Canada after decades in the States, it's hard to describe what seems to have been going on in Canada: the feminization of the country. (Whether that's a good thing is another discussion.) The sheer load of political correctness baggage in this country is stunning, and I thought it was bad in the States.

    Boys should rise (or not) on their own merits, but so should girls. Hustling up special programs for girls in order to make up for real or imagined neglect in the past ignores the fact that today's girls aren't growing up in the past -- they're growing up in the here and now, where there are abundant programs to treat them 'more equally' than the boys ... but only in the interest of affording girls equal opportunity, of course. (Those who defend this on the basis of past discrimination are no different than those who demand reparations from government for slavery imposed on distant ancestors, and that's not 'justice,' it's garden variety feed-at-the-trough-while-the-gettin's-good self-interest.)

    Boys aren't helped by mothers who treat them like dirt, visiting upon the boys some kind of retribution for the mother's own frustrations in life -- sometimes even as mom lavishes praise and encouragement on her daughters, and sometimes even in public. No one will ever charge these mothers with abuse, or even bad parenting. The boys will just have to suck it up, whether they understand what's going on or not. The boys will be strictly accountable, however, for paying strict attention to the classroom lessons and many public-service ads admonishing them about discrimination against women.

    The day the genders are equal is the day special programs are available to both, equally, if at all.
  176. Foremost Authority from Canada writes: Grampa Canuck from Belleville, ON, Pro Libertate, and A word from our sponsor:
    Good points.
  177. Nicholas Collins from Kitchener, Canada writes: What is the point of kids participating in these science fairs? Consider the fact that the article says some kids spend hundreds of hours on their projects during their evenings and weekends. Maybe that's okay in junior high, but by the time you're in the middle of high school, why would anybody do this? Maybe the prizes are worth something - but out of all the entrants, how many actually win anything? Now, suppose a high school student invested those hours in working at a part time job. He or she would actually have some money, which might help pay for a post secondary education. AND, later, when they're applying for jobs, they'll have work experience on their resume. I have never had a job interview in my life - ever - where I was asked if I participated in a science fair, or anything about academics beyond the fact that I graduated college. Employers want to know that you have experience in the real world. Working part time would be a far more wise way for these kids to be spending their time than these science fairs. One more thing - believe it or not, despite my comments above, I am male and did very well in high school science, and liked it. Yes, I got made fun of, sometimes to the point where it hurt emotionally. The kids who sent their insults my way were a mixed group. Some of the worst were girls. Go figure.
  178. b n from Canada writes: Here is my advice for the men complaining about the lack of fair opportunities for males in the world and the lack of male role models in elementary schools: become a teacher. The lack of male teachers has to do with males not signing up to enter this field rather than some bizarre female conspiracy. I'm a speech-language pathologist in elementary schools. There were NO males in my program at university in my year or the year before me and one male the year after me. Colleges of education have slightly better numbers, but not by much. I would also like to say that we do learn about gender differences in learning and we are encouraged to try to cater to all learning styles. Despite this, I think that some of the problem comes from a belief that boys cannot sit still and learn. This is as unfair to boys as the 'girls aren't analytical as boys, so they can't do science' statements from the past (and sadly some posters in todays discussion). Girls began to do better when they believed they could. Boys can learn when we set the expectation that they can, in fact, learn in the environment in today's schools. I also think males should recognize that some of women's advances have to do with women deciding that we were tired of being second rate citizens. This meant that we fought for advances and reconceptualized how we viewed ourselves. We now know that we can be cooperative, competitive, or a mixture. I think now that it is time for men to look at reconceptualizing and expanding their view of themselves. As a female, it makes me sad to so many young males who only value video games and physical movement. I think that male equivalent of the feminists' movement would be good for all of us in that it would allow society to view males as being competitive, cooperative, or a mixture of the two.
  179. BC Philosopher from Canada writes: This particular topic has degenerated into name calling and finger pointing. Those of you who say women do not have a leg up now, they do open your eyes and use your brain. Are women inferior to men, no not at all, hence the leg up is not helpful towards the goal of equality. It actually lowers the legitimacy of female authority, you see the example right here on the forums. Because there are programs boosting women up they have to fight harder to get the respect. Were men previously advantaged? yes but that has changed a lot and continues to change which is for the betterment of society. Should men today be held accountable and denied any advantages because of the past? No thats completely ridiculous and akin to hating all germans because of WW2. Some women on this board sound like they have accomplished a lot, congratulations but that does not invalidate anything that has been said by a lot of other people. Single example in a sample, Einstein was an eccentric genius, not all men are geniuses though most are probably eccentric in some way. A very small number of people/groups control most of the world order due funding family etc. The gender is not a relevant reason to hate other men if those rulers are men. Serfs toiling in a field we all are, men and women, and its pretty ridiculous to turn to the other surf toiling in the same field and say you are better of than me because we are ruled by a king and I am a woman. Stop think and abandon for just a minute your desire to be self righteous.
  180. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Richard Hawrelak wrote:
    ' Based on your attitude alone, I would rate you as a number 5 performer on the Hay Point system '
    ----

    Do I have to be a chauvenist to be a team player? Do I have to agree with feminist privilege to be a team player?

    The office is not the place for Gender politics. The Globe and Mail is!

    I have met many male and female engineers that were both good and bad team players and leaders, male and female engineers that had certain strengths or weakness. I don't discriminate or have preferences for either, I treat everybody equally.

    Are your obvious gender preferences and chauvenism in conformance with Company Policy?
  181. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: The most disturbing part of this debate are the suggestions that males are inferior to females and that males only have themselves to blame for underperforming.

    Don't bother trying to understand the plight of modern males who are constantly bombarded with media that portrays them as dumb and violent.

    How about some compassion and educational programs that are designed specifically for males? It seemed to work for females, why don't males deserve the same privilege, especially when they are underperforming?
  182. J. Michael from Canada writes: Another issue hurting young men today is open sex. It is consuming young minds. Please, no need to raise religion as an issue.

    I was only talking to some young parents today that are raising young teenagers and I was informed at how sexually aggressive some young girls are today - the boys do not stand a chance – contraceptives have corrupted the arrangement between boys and girls.

    However, the problem is not the sex, but rather the consumption of brain activity - an adolescent boy idle surrounded by young willing females, and he needs nothing else on his mind - in time that leads to the problem, since he ends up with nothing on his mind - brain dead. Basically what we are seeing.

    Advice to young parents. Don&8217;t focus on the sex; focus on keeping your young boys busy building skills &8211; do what ever you have to do &8211; move, but get them building life skills. They will have an opportune time to enjoy the fruits of sex!
  183. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes
    The point being made on the board, etc is that the 'discrimination' stems from too many female teachers and a 'female-oriented' classroom without allowing boys the opportunity to run around and explore.
    ------

    Both boys and girls do better in single sex classrooms. Whether it has to do with distractions from the opposite sex or from teaching methods or teacher gender is almost irrelevant.

    The teaching profession should be representative of the community that it serves and there should always be a preference for a proper ethnic and gender mix.

    Everywhere that females appear to need some taxpayer help to attain equality, they are provided it. Why the double standard for Males that are falling behind?
  184. Journey Man from Canada writes: Worth repeating as I couldn't have said it any better...

    DisgustedBytheLotofThem inKingston from Kingston, Canada writes: As a post secondary teacher, my observation is that boys have been allowed to lose focus and to expect instant gratification from things like video games and computers (I teach engineering so this is not an anti-technology rant). Boys really have been shafted by society's taking its eye off the ball: parents have been content to have boys occupied by their electronic toys and perhaps because we've all been so busy trying to cope with life and work, we have not spent the time we need to teach perseverance and the pleasures of working something through...if I have any rant to make here it is that we need to ditch the elecronic toys in favour of blocks, books and arts and crafts: I used to run a summer camp and boys did very well with crafts like birdhouse building.

    Right on DisgustedBytheLotofThem.
  185. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: 'As a lecturer in Plant Design at UWO'

    -----

    UWO is known for it's feminist ideology!
  186. Zoe Morrow from Canada writes: Girls might excel when they are teenagers and most students at university are women these days, however, most senior scientists are male. Why is this? A lot of women ditch it all for marriage and kids.
  187. Lori Bottrell from Canada writes: I have noticed a real 'dumbing down' of public education in the past decade, and whether this is a 'feminization' of non-traditional female subjects like science and math, women and girls should be offended. Unfortunately, if we follow historical trends of the growth of women in once dominated 'male' professions, we will see the wages and earning power of scientists, doctors, and engineers decline. Precisely why I am encouraging my son to follow his passion for the arts and music. As author Daniel Pink writes, the MFA will be the new MBA. It's crazy that we pit our boys and girls against each other. The philosophy of public education, in its efforts to improve opportunities for one sex has to do so at the expense of the other, is truly oxymoronic and undemocratic at the least!!
  188. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala - 'The most disturbing part of this debate are the suggestions that males are inferior to females and that males only have themselves to blame for underperforming.' I don't see who is saying or suggestion that males are inferior to females. I certainly don't think so. But I do disagree with the root cause of today's problems, especially after reading some of the postings from other men. In particular, I'm in agreement with Grampa Canuck's assessment of the male media images and its effect on the male's ambition and general life-planning. Also put forth by Brian Dell 'The male libido is not sublimated into serving a higher cultural or socially useful purpose in a socially liberal society.' A lack of ambition and drive (seeing no socially useful purpose in society) is more likely to contribute to a higher drop-out rate than some 'female-oriented' education system. What is probably more useful is to instill the values of 'yes, you can do anything you work hard at' and 'you need to be a responsible breadwinner one day', than have all-male classrooms. If I have a son one day, you can bet that I'll be drilling into him the values of hard work and responsibility - the exact same values that I would instill into my girls. And I think THIS is the key to success. I do not know a single successful person that isn't hard-working.
  189. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Its all about equality and equal opportunity. There is definitely a glass ceiling for males because the same educational opportunities and programs are not avalable to males!

    Males and Females should have equal access to any and all government programs based on need and merit alone.

    Female based programs should be recognized as discriminatory in nature and either abolished completely or made available to everyone and anyone based on need and merit alone!
  190. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Winston Churchill - 'but the local working class culture insists that if you're not working with your hands you're not really working. I've never seen any such statistic for N. America, however, and I doubt you'd find the same reality here right now. Check back in ex-auto towns in a generation.'

    Actually, go check out any forum related to CAW/GM/Chrylser. You'll see a lot of union/auto-workers mock people with education. In fact, these people seem to believe that building cars is more important than the engineering jobs that provide the design, and that just about anybody can complete a university degree. It's already happening.
  191. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Social engineering is a dangerous game at any level. We are just not smart enough to know what is right and good.
    The myth of the 'Pendulm Swing' doesn't hold true, it has to have been pushed, it doesn't swing.

    My father, his father and his father's father always said;
    Most important thing in life is to find a woman who wants kids;
    Second find a woman who wants to stay at home and raise the kids, that is the hardest job on the planet.
    Third study hard, work hard to support this ideal and treat her like a queen.
    .
  192. J J from Kelowna, Canada writes: I have two daughters, and certainly hope that they feel they can do anything they want. However, I do think that the comment about programs to promote women in science having no equivalent for men is telling. The message to boys for some time has been that they just don't matter. You can work just as hard as a girl, but she gets the prize because there is a special one for girls and he doesn't. So, maybe it is time to get rid of these programs.

    At the university level I am not that concerned. Students make a choice about the program they want to follow. Women and men with abilities and interest should not be discouraged from following any field they choose. However, I think it is wrong to expect equal numbers across genders for all disciplines.
  193. Pierre-Yves P from Canada writes: To Robin H From Toronto from Canada:

    `'The best jobs and pay still are reserved for male grads'

    Would be too much to ask for a shred of evidence supporting the far-reaching implications of that broad-sweeping statement I suppose. Truth is that within the limitations of human decision-making ability, 'the best jobs' go to the individuals most qualified and well-rounded to fulfill then. More and more often, these individuals happen to be women. And this trend will accelerate, unless of course some do-gooders who`d rather believe what they want to believe than get informed on what they need to know succeed in spreading the perception that somehow, those women achiever do not 'deserve' the position they are in.
  194. Ray jones from Hamilton, Canada writes: I really don't know a whole lot about it, but, I've been led to believe that ritalin is a demotivating substance. If that is true, and you may correct me if I'm wrong, I would like to know the girl/boy percentages that are designated as in need of this drug. Also, from visiting my grandchildren's school on grandparents day and attending primary school graduations, it seems boys are discouraged from being competitive particularly in physical contests. Surely that discounting of the merits of physical competition carries over to the academic world. Maybe it's time to set quotas for male teachers in the lower grades.
  195. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Cut the crap. I love your memo. Funny bit is that its for public works. Yes, all sorts of women, paraplegics and natives who want those jobs. Army will be next (wait for it).
  196. Will Farnaby from writes:
    What rot, my dear fellow.

    Any intellectually capable male youth is perfectly free to learn, work hard and test his noggin against math, science and engineering problems with any amount of aggression and tenacity he cares to apply.

    Now, for the sake of all young people, what about all the toxins in the environment?

    -------------------------------------------------
    'But seriously, as noted above the 'pussification' of society over the last generation cannot help but have this inevitable outcome. Our schools have tried to hard to breed what they call 'aggression' out of boys, but have mostly bred ambition and drive out.'
  197. Rani Das from Canada writes: Sigh. The usual mixture of fragile male egos, braggadaccio, strutting, contempt, dismissal, insecurity and anxiety. Thank God for the few real men on here who see this as a positive story for Canadian women.
  198. Subhadeep Chakrabarti from Edmonton, AB, Canada writes: As a heterosexual, university-educated and reasonably well-balanced (I hope so) male I am shocked by the number of male losers who want to go back to a 1950s style utopia of single income families and docile housewives. Sorry, guys, that isn't happening anytime soon, better get used to the new reality and ghet off your sorry behinds! We have had it too good for centuries, now we might have to share it with the other half of the population. Just be thankful that we all live in a safe prosperous great country where the kids are free to pursue their dreams, academic or otherwise.
    And a couple of specific comments:
    Someone (you know who you are) took a snipe at Islamic countries regarding their supposed manliness. Please note that in Iran, there are far more women than men in the universities and half the doctors in many middle-eastern nations tend to be women...... and no one seems to be complaining either.
    Finally the biggest issue is that it is EASIER for a man without a degree to earn a decent living than a woman. A high school grad can work as a truck driver, miner, oil worker, taxi-driver, construction worker etc etc, none is of which is particularly attractive for most women, who tend to be over-represented in the poorly-paying service jobs. This is why men can afford to take it easy while women have to work harder to get above the minimum wage. Just my C$ 0.02.
  199. Carl White from Canada writes: 'Paul Murphy from Canada writes: Who's afraid of change? Girls are better socialized, they're more conscientious, they want the details, they express themselves better and more neatly and are better organized. Surprise, surprise!! They do better Science.'

    The qualities you describe are good to have, but they are not sufficient (or even close to the top of the list of necessary qualities, frankly) to be a top scientist. What they are doing at this level is better 'Science School'.

    Critical thought, an abiding, deep interest in the subject, inspiration, persistence in the face of discouragement, being able to connect the dots and see a pattern, being able to discover something new in unexpected data... if only schools could measure these things.
  200. William Scott Lee III from Vancouver, Canada writes: There is still a disproportionate number of males in the hard sciences and computers. I don't think that will change. If there are more women in biological sciences I don't really care. I know a 16 year old teenage boy who setup up anime sites making well about US$ 20K a month. Because of the nature of the site, He never mentioned that on his application to Caltech or Stanford, but he still got accepted in both universities.

    What has changed in alot of countries is how you get accepted into university. The Canadian system has moved to become more America, meaning universities look all after school activities (like science fairs). How much of it is really motivated by interest, or a desire to pad the resume? Most boys are willing to do well in school, but not to be willing to go the extra mile to pad the resume by running for class president etc.

    In many education systems around the world there is movement toward putting alot more emphasis on grading throughout the year with quizzes, projects, mid terms as opposed to the 6 hours final exam that will be the sole focus of your schooling.. Constant monitoring is the new mantra. This move favors girls because they are more hard working and conscientious through out the year. It labour intensive for both teachers and students. I am pretty sure girls would score higher than boys with constant monitoring, whereas if the whole grade was determine by one exam it would be the same.
  201. Tango Zulu from Canada writes: It's too bad that feminism has become a zero sum game, men and boys have to lose for girls and women to gain. Take the current generation of boys and men and lay the blame for centuries of patriarchy at their feet, sounds fair to me.

    Oh, and if any men say hey, wait a minute when we are denied opportunities for our gender, we are ridiculed, told to shut up or (my favorite) 'man up' - whatever that means.
  202. D N M from Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes:

    'The bitter men on this board end up sounding like they are poor losers - a 'birthright' of being male and being on top is no longer guaranteed. You have to compete for it like everybody else.'

    This is exactly, 150% right. The boys on this board do sound like sore losers that are upset that being born white and male doesn't guarantee anything anymore. The playing field has been leveled and it's now a free for all based on skills. You want a higher education? You must work for the grades. You want a good, high paying job? You will have to compete for it, against girls and other ethnicities, and sometimes, they will be better than you. Your penis and white skin won't help you anymore. The free ride is over.
  203. D N M from Canada writes: Lori Bottrell from Canada writes: 'I have noticed a real 'dumbing down' of public education in the past decade, and whether this is a 'feminization' of non-traditional female subjects like science and math, women and girls should be offended. '

    What's offending to me is the negative sous-entendu of 'feminization'. There is nothing wrong with the Feminine or the Female. Period.

    Secondly, how exactly do you feminize 2 plus 2 equals 4? Or E equals mc squared? the answer is you can't. Men are just angry that when girls are given the opportunity to show their intelligence, they can oushine most boys. And they don't like that at all.
  204. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: remind me again how many non-white dudes there are dying in afghanistan?

    I look forward to the day we see equality in combat casualties... Visible minorities, this means you too.

    Maybe its time the white man decided to shrug the atlas?
  205. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: this is a troubling turn of events. If it were any other group, there would be some government progam in place by now....but its ok, its only Sausage McPasty in trouble. I mean afterall, he deserves what he gets right? He needs to become his own man right? Let's continue to help everyone else....of the politically correctness of it all.

    No wonder there is a brain drain in this country...
  206. Tango Zulu from Canada writes: DNM - you come across like a bitter misandrist.

    Do you actually think boys and girls compete on an equal footing at school? Curriculums were modified to be more words based in the late 80s because girls were behind in maths and science, which at the time was seen as a crisis that had to be addressed.

    Now the boys are falling behind and nobody cares enough to do anything about it, all we hear are platitudes and veiled references to them being stupider than girls by people like yourself. I hope you never have a son.
  207. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Tango Zulu - 'Curriculums were modified to be more words based in the late 80s because girls were behind in maths and science,'

    When did you graduate? I'm under 30 and was educated in this so-called 'feminine-oriented education system'. Math IS still math. You can't make factorization 'wordy'. When we learned calculus, we learned the derivations to the equations - guess what? It was all math - rows upon rows of symbols and the like!

    And sometimes, when math was wordy, that's because math HAS to be wordy - ever taken discrete mathematics??? The whole course is about writing proofs - 'prove that 4 is an equal number'. You start off by making statements such as 'Let a be an integer'.

    In fact, I wonder how many men on this boarding posting such absurd statements were educated in the late 80s - 2000?? You're not helping your case.

    I don't object to the fact that there are more scholarships in place for females, and more incentives to lure females, but cut the crap with the 'feminization of math'. This is a sad excuse to blame the opposite gender for failures in schooling boys to have some sort of drive, take responsibility, and work hard.
  208. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Sorry, meant ''prove that 4 is an equal number'' = ''prove that 4 is an even number''...serves me right for writing one sentence and changing it mid-sentence.
  209. Tom G from Canada writes: D N M writes: This is exactly, 150% right. The boys on this board do sound like sore losers that are upset that being born white and male doesn't guarantee anything anymore.

    Nonsense. There are plenty of men on this board making perfectly reasonable evaluations of the present state of affairs. Let's not get hysterical here and start calling all men on this board boys. I am male, white and I never expected anything from anyone. Male privilege? What the hell is that?
  210. t t from Barrie, Canada writes: There was a movie made on the peter pan syndrome boys have (Failure to Launch with Matthew McConaughey Sarah Jessica Parker) and there's a very good book written on this subject. It's called Boys Adrift by Leonard Sax. It explains how boys have lost their drive to excel in school and life because of video games, chemicals in plastic bottles (don't ask me to explain that one!), porn (amazingly, a lot of boys prefer that to the real thing and have no problem admitting to it) and so on. Sadly, one major factor is the lack of a male role model at home, especially when it comes to divorce since mothers overwhelmingly get custody of the children. This does not bode well for society, and the chicken will come home to roost.
  211. Naomi Y from Canada writes: t t from Barrie, Canada writes:
    It explains how boys have lost their drive to excel in school and life because of video games, chemicals in plastic bottles (don't ask me to explain that one!), porn (amazingly, a lot of boys prefer that to the real thing and have no problem admitting to it) and so on. Sadly, one major factor is the lack of a male role model at home, especially when it comes to divorce since mothers overwhelmingly get custody of the children. This does not bode well for society, and the chicken will come home to roost.
    -------------------------------
    Oh please. I went to U of Waterloo and most male student there played video, drink bottle water and watch porn. I don't see any of them lost their drive to excel in school and life.

    It's also not caused by a lack of male role model, otherwise, there should be a easily identified trend of student with divorced student not going in to field of science.

    All of this can be explained by our culture.

    What are the most popular field among male?
    Finance, business, engineering, computer science, IT............ I don't even think biology or medicine are in the top 10. If most male student all to those field, then it's just normal for more female become a MD or biologist or chemist.

    Not to mention, the fact is that even nowadays, nerds are still the social outcast while jocks are popular in high school. Boys are encouraged to be 'manly' and play more sport instead of learning or read. Until our society frown upon muscle and value brain more, this trend won't be changed.
  212. SouthAlberta 403 from Canada writes: Winston Churchill: The Bell curve you are talking about shows that there are more idiots and geniouses in males. Females are slightly less likely to fall in either extreem.
  213. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: D N M from Canada writes: “The boys on this board do sound like sore losers that are upset that being born white and male doesn't guarantee anything anymore. The playing field has been leveled and it's now a free for all based on skills. You want a higher education? You must work for the grades. You want a good, high paying job? You will have to compete for it, against girls and other ethnicities, and sometimes, they will be better than you. Your penis and white skin won't help you anymore. The free ride is over”

    ----------------------
    Misandry and hypocrisy in the same comment. The playing field has not been levelled; females still have access to many taxpayer funded programs that are not available to males. The free ride for feminist privilege needs to come to an end.
  214. Rani Das from Canada writes: Rich Grover - that's really rich. Read up on how Blacks who joined the Canadian Army were treated. Prior to WWII they weren't allowed in because whites were terrified at the thought of weapons in their hands. Then when they did get in they were relegated, for the most part, to the shittiest jobs, segregated, and promptly forgotten after combat was over. Read up on how hard Aboriginal veterans have had to fight for recognition and pensions. What an extraordinary ignorant comment you have made - and might I say entirely typical of a white. I would be willing to bet that visible minorities make up, as in the United States, a disproportionate share of the cannon fodder in this country. Plus ca change.
  215. Tango Zulu from Canada writes: Sherlock - I attended high school during the early 80s. At the school I attended, high acheivers were evenly split between the genders. Now, at this very same school, the high acheivers are 80% female.

    I refuse to believe that this latest generation of boys is entirely to blame. There were plenty of distractions for boys 25 years ago as well, including video games (those crappy ones hooked up to the TV). Then, as now, high acheiving boys were not regarded as 'cool' but that didn't keep them from working hard.

    Teaching styles have changed and boys are losing out. To say everything is as it has always been at school, only todays boys are just unmotivated is to bury your head in the sand.
  216. Rani Das from Canada writes: Denis - want to name a few? I have a grad degree and I never benefitted from a single taxpayer-funded programme for females.
  217. Mike M from Canada writes: It's not as much the school system that has destroyed boys, but rather Hollywood. How often do television and movies show a smart man as being cool in a program aimed at kids? What about commercials? Men are always shown as bumbling idiots. (Only white ones, of course. Anything else would be discrimination)
  218. Rani Das from Canada writes: Rich Grover - you're right about visible minorities being underrepresented in the Canadian Forces - around 6 percent. In the US Army, however, representation is 42%. The CF's studies show that the underrepresentation here has a lot to do with bad impressions of the military in many immigrants' home countries, not an unwillingness to serve one's country.
  219. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Rani Das - ' have a grad degree and I never benefitted from a single taxpayer-funded programme for females. '

    I hear you. I didn't know about any 'female-only' scholarships either. Mine were all marks based. But apparently, the few that do exist that were never mentioned to me are now under scrutiny by the men on the board.

    Naomi Y - 'Finance, business, engineering, computer science, IT............ I don't even think biology or medicine are in the top 10. If most male student all to those field, then it's just normal for more female become a MD or biologist or chemist.'

    Yup, I agree with this. There were only 20% of us females in Computer Science and MOST of those girls (within this male-dominated discipline) studied Human Factors and Software Engineering - again, areas not as popular among males.
  220. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Rani Das from Canada writes: 'Denis - want to name a few? I have a grad degree and I never benefitted from a single taxpayer-funded programme for females.'

    ----

    The Chair for Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE) provides youth outreach to encourage young women to enter Science and Engineering

    The CWSE is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada. (NSERC)

    This is one small example of the many opportunities and services available to females, where there are no equivalent programs for males.
  221. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Tango Zulu from Canada writes: 'Sherlock - I attended high school during the early 80s. '

    By your own accord, you studied before this supposed 'feminization' occurred. So then you speak on WHAT authority?

    I'm not burying my head in the sand so much as simply refusing to make one possible variable a direct correlation to the male's underperformance. In addition, it is odd that you talk with such certainty that teaching styles have changed when you clearly did not attend school in this 'feminized' generation.

    Unless you wnat to propose to me how to make linear algebra any less wordy than it already is.
  222. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes,

    there will never be any direct correlation to any single root cause.

    The problem is likely a combination of many societal factors rather than the fault of individual males or parents or teachers. As a women, you would not understand what it is like to grow up as a male or to be a male!

    Males are greatly undervalued and denigrated in North American society. Males are taught that they are violent and stupid by popular culture. Rather than anybody having any compassion and understanding, they are told to 'man up' and 'work harder'. If Males are underappreciated and unmotivated, why bother showing up?
  223. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: Rani,
    so which one is it? I'm ignorant or I am correct...

    perhaps this will help you decide

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html
  224. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: Rani,

    a little google search also showed that US casualties in Iraq are pretty much in line with demographics (75% white) and over 97% were male....

    so, get your facts straight. Don't lay history's injustices at my feet.
  225. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: I took offense to your little 'typical of a white' comment....may I say, however, that I am not surprised
  226. Vasili Yeremenko from Canada writes: All the arguments defending this trend are the same ones used by men in the 1950s.

    Women don't want to be doctors
    Boys just care more.
    Women make great livings as teachers and secretaries.

    Insert Oli rigs and truck drivers for the last one and you get what the femisists are saying today.
  227. Tom G from Canada writes: Sherlock Holmes writes: But apparently, the few that do exist that were never mentioned to me are now under scrutiny by the men on the board.

    As you apparently care so much about mathematics and mathematical accuracy, and by extension, probability, stop contributing to the abundance of hasty generalizations here. Your disagreement concerning the feminization of mathematics is shrill--it is so self-evidently not taking place that the writer's comments don't deserve acknowledgment. It's a cheap shot. I'm not reading a majority of men here coming to the conclusion that special privileges and programs are being offered to women. This is the opinion, and possibly valid one, of a few, and it deserves consideration. Such an academic gender reversal as this article attests to is suspect after barely 25 years have elapsed. The reasons that several women and men have attributed to the gender disparity all have some merit. Stop lumping men into one group...and stop using your personal anecdotes as scientifically valid and credible evidence to support your conclusions. It's not enough. The fictional character Sherlock Holmes basked in the powers of his deductive reasoning, fantastic and silly as his skills were at times, that doesn't mean he was a good social scientist.
  228. Shawn Petriw from Prince George, Canada writes: Can the Scouts please go back to the Boy Scouts now? Our boys need it.
  229. The Angry Left from Canada writes: While I do find this trend somewhat puzzling, I don't find it overly disturbing and I do think things will even-out eventually. I do agree that society rewards the 'jock' over the 'nerd' in the socializing process and this is probably still holding boys back, whereas we have abandoned the notion that girls are to keep quiet and be passive, which used to keep them back. The media love to come out with these fluff-pieces on the latest hip thing that's plaguing education and youth and will eventually lead to the downfall of society as we know it, but the facts are that kids today are smarter and more able in this country than in any time in history. The standardized tests to evaluate students have been revised something like 3 times in the last 25 years to accomodate this, with standards increasing each time. Despite these positive trends, this doesn't stop media types and various academics from periodically sounding the alarm that the sky is falling in education for something or another, no doubt attached to some funding proposal for more study. By all means, continue the studies and keep up the good work. Educators don't get enough credit. The real story in education should be that kids are doing better than ever before, Canada ranks near the top of the world in student performance and that has been steadily rising. Yet to believe all the media hype, you'd think that our schools were turning out droves of illiterate goons. Get a grip, people!
  230. I used to be a lefty but then I got a real job from Canada writes: Angry Left writes, 'Educators don't get enough credit.'

    Angry Left, let me guess what you're suggesting

    - cut class time so we have to hire more teachers
    - bring back pay for unused sick leave
    - eliminate performance review for teachers and school boards
    - eliminate standardised testing
    - hire more support staff for school boards and vastly increase the amount spent on fixed costs.

    And of course, quadruple the amount that teachers pay to their parasitic union in dues. And of course, this just applies to the public system, not the Catholic system. And of course, expect taxpayers to shoulder all these expenses with a smile.
  231. The Angry Left from Canada writes: I used to be a lefty but then I got a real job, let me guess what you're suggesting, since we're putting words into each other's mouths': -de-certify the union and cut wages, ensuring that only illiterate half-wits who are happy to earn $20,000/a year will be willing to teach, just like in the States (where it works out so well). -Let's ignore the positive trends in education and all the good outcomes and value for society it creates and instead opt for a punitive, zero-tolerance school system that treats kids like criminals so we're not too surprised when they grow up that way. -Lets strip school boards of any deomcratic accountability and hand the education system over to the charter-school industry to put our kids through an education system designed by people that aren't in any way accountable to the public, that develop a curriculum for other people's kids that they would never consider subjecting their own children to. -Let's totally cut our education system to the bone to save a few pennies on property taxes so that neighborhoods become more attractive to real-estate speculators who have no stake in the communities in which they live, all so some city councillors or mayors can crow-on, ad-nausium about how 'business friendly' they are, only to have their local economies crash because 40% of their economic growth was achieved through real-estate speculation. Sorry, whoever you are, I'll take what we already have in education to what you have on offer, any day of the week.
  232. The Angry Left from Canada writes: BTW, if it were up to me, I would abolish the Catholic system. I'm Catholic, I've been through it. The public is better. There is no place for a seperate 'Catholic' system in a modern, democratic country like Canada, unless you're going to offer it to every other religious minority as well, which I don't support.
  233. sleazy Silvester from Canada writes: most of the article comments reminds me of Borat, when the white college kids are in their RV telling Borat how they are not treated as well as minorities because of different programs to force companies to diversify.

    Bottom line good for the girls, the people putting these fairs on aren't idiots when they see there is no need for girls awards then they'll phase them out. Girl awards were put in place to create interest now that that is done they'll move them out.
  234. I used to be a lefty but then I got a real job from Canada writes: Angry Left,

    If you're going to champion the idiocy of the educational establishment and the useless teachers' unions, you'd have more credibility if you spelled 'seperate' properly-- it's S-E-P-A-R-A-T-E. Did a pro-union teacher teach you that? Wonder what his/her evaluation was? Oh, I forgot, evaluating teachers is bad.
  235. Tom G from Canada writes: Sleazy Silvestor writes: Bottom line good for the girls, the people putting these fairs on aren't idiots when they see there is no need for girls awards then they'll phase them out. Girl awards were put in place to create interest now that that is done they'll move them out.

    And this sounds just about right. We do live in an overhyped media age after all...
  236. Nervous Observer from Canada writes: I agree with the comment towards the top about taking a look at what young boys (and many men) do with their free time. Sports (please, let's glorify hockey some more), video games, NO reading for pleasure, more video games. They are proud of their achievements in guitar hero, but would never have the patience for the 'sit down' work involved in learning a real instrument.
    Parents need to monitor their kids' screen time, and you don't HAVE to get them the newest gaming system every x-mas and birthday. YOU make the rules, remember?
  237. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Sleazy Silvestor writes: Bottom line good for the girls, the people putting these fairs on aren't idiots when they see there is no need for girls awards then they'll phase them out.'

    ---

    Most of the female only programs in education and elsewhere are in place because of political opportunism to gain votes from women, and not based on need.

    Government funding will not be phased out when there is no need for female only programs, that would be unpopular.
  238. t t from Barrie, Canada writes: Naomi Y, do yourself a favour and get out of your world called UWaterloo and do some research (You are aware that UWaterloo is one of only THREE universities in Canada in which men outnumber women don't you?). Of course this doesn't apply to EVERY male. Plus the book was written by a DOCTOR (Dr. Leonard Sax), so my whole argument was spent quotting HIM, not coming up with a stupid theory that plastic bottles harm men. And the subject of chemicals harming men was covered in a documentary by CBC 3 months ago

    http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/
  239. Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, Canada writes: http://www.barbarakay.ca/speech_MWAA.php
    Barbara Kay on Misandry:

    “Peter Jaffe, the feminist psychologist I mentioned earlier, makes a very good living from sitting on feminist task forces, collaborating on writing feminism-driven guidelines for judges, keynoting domestic violence against women conferences and so forth because he says the things feminists (and therefore governments) want to hear.
    Jaffe sat on the 2001 task force that recommended the girls-only RUCS protocol, even though he is also an expert on the sexual abuse of boys, and better than anyone understands the injustice of the protocol.

    I interviewed him and asked him – a father of four boys, by the way - about this apparent conflict of interest.

    He admitted that he would not have sat on that task force today, as he no longer agrees with the outcome. Did he think that the feminist pendulum had swung too far, I asked. Yes, he said, and I quote, “Men find themselves today very much in the position that women used to.””
  240. The Angry Left from Canada writes: I don't blame some teachers for believing that kids are getting dumber, that standards are falling and that they're maybe failing their students. How can you not get sick of explaining the same old things, year after year? Correcting the same mistakes, again and again? I do disagree with the movement towards eliminating due-dates on assignments, except for maybe certain select programmes dealing with a very targetted type of student, but not for university-bound stream. Girls are doing better and this shows that social encouragement has a huge impact on female achievement in academics. The efforts to encourage female achievement in the sciences and other traditionally male-dominated professions is finally bearing fruit. I think a good way to achieve similar results with boys, more sport should be encouraged and promoted. I think cutbacks in sports and physical education may have a disproportionally bad impact on boys, as it has been demonstrated that lack of physical activity has a negative impact on the ability of students to concentrate. The truth is that all students (male, female, jock or nerd) benefits from increased concentration and ability to learn from increased physical activity, it's just that only those who are predisposed to participating in sports often dominate, leaving others on the sidelines who don't benefit as much. Better funding of phys-ed or better phys-ed that puts emphasis on intense cardio activity is probably the best thing that could adress many problems. Also you need a system that addresses students in their social reality, making sure their basic needs are met before they get to school, working with social-services aouthorities to acheive that. Other than that, the education that most students recieve in Canada is world-class. Canada's ranking in international comparisons on standardized testing bear this out. Canada's standards have been steadily rising.
  241. The Angry Left from Canada writes: And seriously, when have people not been complaining about how dumb, lazy, narcissistic, permiscuous, easily distracted, etc...etc...kids are today? I think I can find Plato writing about the trouble with kids in his day. Since when has it been expected that highschool is supposed to prepare every student for university? That seems to be now. In most countries, most students flunk out. The teachers don't have to teach you, you are on your own. In Europe, you're streamed into two streams, one university-bound and the other for community-college or the trades and more than half of the university-bound stream fails their final year, because a pass gets them into university. It's free and it's extremely competetive. In Japan, only a tiny minority are able to get into university, and by the time you get there they already know that you must be incredibly talented and driven, otherwise you wouldn't be there. We are uniquely blessed in Canada with teachers that teach under the social expectation that they should actually TEACH. Maybe that's a bit of an exagerration, but mostly true. I just like posting this as a counter to every retrograde half-wit that comes on these threads with their hipster, post-feminist, thinly-veild mysogynistic rants, against every teacher they didn't like and was therefore the product of 'corrupt unions', 'out-of-control-feminism', whom they pathetically blame for their mostly self-inflicted problems and take out their axe to grind against the education system.
  242. Peter North from van, Canada writes: money and affirmative action for the females in the sciences. meanwhile 97 out of 100 soldiers killed are male. time for a little affirmative action on the battlefield.
  243. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: recently there was a news story about how Carleton University is stopping its support for Cystic Fibrosis (after decades of support) after it was found to affect mostly white males....but we are all supposed to still be cool with supporting Breast Cancer Foundation?
  244. Rich Grover from Vancouver, Canada writes: (their argument for dropping their support was that it predominantly affected white males...which is not true)
  245. Sydney R from Canada writes: Gosh what's the big deal? It wasn't a problem when it was the other way around, was it!
  246. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, asks Richard Hawrelak;---- 'Do I have to be a chauvenist to be a team player?' The reply to your first question is, 'If you were a male chauvenist in a mixed group and you dragged the froup performance down, the females would (and have) put you in your place. It would show up as a negative on your JPR and you would be shuffeled to the bottom of the ladder. Do I have to agree with feminist privilege to be a team player?' The does not exist a feminist privilege at Dow. If you expressed this, again, it would reflect on your attitude and down goes your rating. The office is not the place for Gender politics. The Globe and Mail is! I treat everybody equally. So did I at both Dow and at UWO. Same goes for colour. Are your obvious gender preferences and chauvenism in conformance with Company Policy? I had a gender preference when the females started outperforming our male engineers. Our JPR system forced this preference, not my personal beliefs. And yes, I did conform to company policy when they did have a gender preference. For example, the most sought after engineer in Louisiana in the early 80s was a black, female, chemical engineer. If she was also handicapped, she would have had a 4 star rating going into her first interview. If she was also Jewish, she would have had 5 stars ... only Sammy Davis Junior came close and he was male and not a chem eng.
  247. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Denis Pakkala from St. Catharines, asks Richard Hawrelak;---- 'Do I have to be a chauvenist to be a team player?' The reply to your first question is, 'If you were a male chauvenist in a mixed group and you dragged the froup performance down, the females would (and have) put you in your place. let me add to this example. Neubar Afeyan was the Gold Medal Chemical Engineering graduate from McGill in the 80s. He hired on to Dow because I ran my department like a university and we stressed innovation and advancement of new computer technology. Neubar's religion and his superior engineering skills made him a prime candidate for male chauvenism ... with religeous overtones. In his first project he was assigned to one of my females group leaders. She was a small, quiet, personable, smart as hell in engineering computer software developement, a team player of the highest order. Neubar kept bypassing her when questions came up and I kept asking if he had checked the question out with Marylou? It was obvious to me that he could not work for a female, period. Marylou and I discussed this and I volunteered to settle the problem. She said, I'll handle it and off she went for a closed door with Neubar. About two hours later Neubar came into my office and appologized for his behavior. He commented that Marylou had torn about all his hide off his body with example after example and he could not refute a single item. He was humled and he grew to be my best engineer under ML's direction.
  248. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Another female engineering story. I interviewed a female chemical engineer from McGill. She had been a Miss Canada candidate, a georgous blonde, and was near the top of her engineering class. When she came to my office, I had about ten male engineers peeking into my office window giving me the thumbs up sign. One of my first questions was about her summer work at CIL in Montreal. When I asked her what she had accomplished, she proudly explained that she had organised the 9th floor and helped form a professional union. I glanced at the ten thumbs up in my door window and I took a deep gulp. Needless to say, we did not make her an offer and her reply was that was OK with her as she woulkd not have accepted an offer in smallsville Sarnia. However, for about 5 years, my name was mud with my engineering group. That changed when I hired Tim W., a top 6'4'defensive hockey player from UNB. Then, fate turned on me again when we also hired Debbie L., 5'4', also from UNB, and they married after two years at Dow, both in my department. After two years, Debbie was rated a No. 1 and Tim a No. 3. Deb was promoted and Tim was left behind in salary. Tough situation. Deb was transfered out West and Tim was not. They both decided to quit Dow and moved back to NB where Tim became a Plant Manager and Deb stayed home to raise three kids.
  249. Rick C from Calgary, Canada writes: What did people expect?

    This is what happens when the emphasis of the education system is focused on making sure girls succeed and boys are virtually ignored.

    That was the response to previous results where boys continually outperformed girls in math and science.

    Take any identifiable group; create separate classes, separate programs, and focus all of your energy on them improving and succeeding and you will see results.

    Those that don't get the special treatment probably won't keep up.
  250. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: The gov't should have a Ministry of Men's Issues. Simple. Then invest in males again.
  251. Rick C from Calgary, Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes:

    'Whatever we did in the past 20 years for girls has worked, but something went wrong with the boys. Don't know what.?

    Nothing. That's the problem. There was nothing to go wrong.

    Lots of programs and initiatives to get girls involved; none for boys.

    Lots of programs in a variety of subjects specficially designed for girls, how they learn; eliminating things that prevent them from learning.

    Psychological studies on how girls learn best; you name it and it has been employed over the last few decades to advance and evolve education.

    For girls anyways. They didn't even look at it for boys. Just shrugged their shoulders and said that's not what we're focused on. It's about the girls.

    Take the same resources and attitudes and focus them on making sure boys do well. You'll get the same positive results as you did for girls.
  252. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: Walk over to the window and look out. Everything you see out there was either made or invented by men, and usually both made AND invented by men.

    The streets. The street lights. The sidewalks. The cars; trucks; and motorcycles driving by. The electric wires. The telephone wires. The cable TV wires. The water pipes under the ground. The sewage pipes under the ground. The storm sewers. Anything else you see out there that is made by humans was invented or made by men.
    The floor or carpet you walked on to get to the window was almost certainly installed by men. The window was installed by men. The wall the window is in was installed by men. The foundation of the building was installed by men.
    The electrical wires in your building were installed by men. The telephone was invented by a man. The computer and its software you are using to read this was invented by men.The climate control which keeps you comfortable was invented and developed by a man.
    If everything made or invented by men were removed, you would be looking at native plants from the entrance of your cave. And, you would be hungry and cold and wearing rabbit skins.
  253. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: The point of my above post is that our education system and our society as a whole needs to begin honouring things men have accomplished. Instill, once again, a sense of pride in your gender....shout down the radical feminists who have denigrated your existence. Expose the media that perpetuate lies about males, boys and men.
  254. Tango Zulu from Canada writes: Richard Hawrelek - your preference for hiring based on gender stereotyping is truly disturbing. There are good and bad engineers of both genders, as there are teamplayers.

    Political correctness allows you to favour the female gender in your hiring practices but if genders were reversed, you'd be before a human rights tribunal.
  255. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: Tom G - 'stop using your personal anecdotes as scientifically valid and credible evidence to support your conclusions. This is the opinion, and possibly valid one, of a few, and it deserves consideration.' SO then would you like to explain how the conjecture 'math is wordy' is scientifically valid and credible if you're so obsessed with science? Um, actually, my point is that at least I'VE LIVED through and EXPERIENCED this so-called 'feminization of math'. What I am exasperated about are conjectures by men who DID NOT EXPERIENCE and HAVE NO EXPERIENCE with this so-called problem and also lack an explanation, nothing, to back up the statement. No statistical study, no experience, just 'math is wordy'. At least my opinion is based on something concrete and while I agree that it is anecdotal, it's at least coming from SOMWHERE. It's like if I were to read about living in Dubai and then start coming up with theories when I've never lived there but be adamant about what I have to say. So while my opinion is not 'scientifically valid', it is MORE valid than a conjecture made by some guy who has absolutely no point of reference. And if some guy were to speak up (who was brought up in our 'feminized math system') and explain to me how it WAS feminized, then by all means, I would listen. Or perhaps an educator that could tell me that math has been feminized. I'm simply asking for PROOF - even if it is anecdotal. Until then, 'math has become wordy' is even more of a random conjecture (and LESS scientifically valid) than my 'how the hell do you make it wordy'. It is interesting that you'd be willing to accept a conjecture that has no basis in ANYTHING - not even personal experience but then criticize someone who has at least a point of reference. So while we're making random conjectures without basis, let me state 'Toronto's education system lags behind that of Vancouver'. I've never been educated in either Toronto or Vancouver.
  256. Sherlock Holmes from Toronto, Canada writes: The Angry Left - also, I agree that Canadian education IS very strong. There is a random sampling test conducted (I'm not sure how often) but in the most recent one, Canada scored within the top 5. Look at this:
    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/education.aspx#

    'Girls are doing better and this shows that social encouragement has a huge impact on female achievement in academics.' I agree with this as well. I think the biggest difference is not all the additional scholarships, etc that women have had access to but the encouragement and societal message that we've been sending out to girls.
  257. GK cheese from Canada writes: dick brown from missy, Canada writes:
    If everything made or invented by men were removed, you would be looking at native plants from the entrance of your cave. And, you would be hungry and cold and wearing rabbit skins.

    Well put Dick Brown, Anthropologically speaking just about every species is dominated by females. We're pretty unique in the way you have put it to lessen the harshness of nature, even if the women on this board can't appreciate it.
    But maybe we have taught them something that may help them to contribute to our world as well. Not sure if that will happen in our lifetime.
  258. Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: This all really doesn't matter in the end. If you are a male and can't make it to physical sciences, math or engineering at university because you didn't get enough special male attention, you were never going to be very good at it anyway.

    The same goes for females, if the only reason they are 'over-represented' at university is because everyone makes it easier for them, then those who got their by chance won't be great achievers anyway.

    So in the end, great male intellectuals will have a slightly harder time and great female intellectuals will have a slightly easier time.

    The real problem with this discussion is about the people who are not great or even average, but what about the lower level students both male and female at the high school level? That is what should be addressed, why is it that only 13% of applied students reached the provincial standard at my former highschool?
  259. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: You'll note, with the exception of the internet and a few other technologies (developed by men), there has not been an invention or discovery of significance in the last 30 years, just modifications of things invented by great men. Denigrate men at your peril. When the radfems win, society loses.
  260. bill wilson from Taiwan writes: Guys are only interested in sports and video games.

    The last 2 nights my son had a LAN party (8 kids playing video games almost non-stop). Smart kid, but video games are much more fun than studying. He is happy to get by. Daughter on the other hand is dedicated to doing her best. These are not just my kids, but what I see in their peers. Guys seem to have given up trying to 'get ahead' and are content to surf the web and play games.
  261. J Swanson from United States writes: Our so called 'politically correct' education system is destroying North America. I went to an elementary school where there was no education at all about political correctness. Yet racism and sexism was non-existent. The gender and ethnic groups were about equally represented in terms of academic achievement - except there were slightly more white boys at both the top and bottom of the class, and boys did do better in math and science while girls did better in some other subjects. There were hardly any students getting sent to the principal's office or getting detention. Then I moved to another school and it seemed that I stepped into another world. There was so much education about racism and sexism and who was responsible for this (men, white men or white people in general). Yet these 'politically correct' teachers and students were the most sexist and racist of all. Phrases like 'stupid white men' was practically a slogan at my new school. There were students who chanted phrases like 'all the villains in history are white men. Look at Hitler. White men destroyed the peaceful natives. White men enslaved the Africans. They're responsible for all the evil in the world. If white men were exterminated, the world would be better off ...'. At this school, fighting, vandalism was a serious problem and detentions were filled with white boys. Quite frankly if I had to sit through 'class discussions' and 'school assemblies' that were bashing my gender/ethnic group, I would probably vandalize the school and swear at the teachers as well. Very few boys were motivated to do school work. There were only 2 boys on the honor roll out of about 20 students and neither of them were white or born in North America. For people who wonder why boys are disappearing from our education system, one only needs to look at these so called 'politically correct' educators.
  262. Mac the Knife from Canada writes: It's kind of sick how this story is told with a certain amount of glee. If the numbers were reversed (and they were not so long ago, remember?) this would be a dark tale of hard-done-by womanhood, with lots of indignation and tut-tutting. Somebody better figure out someday soon that there's nothing admirable about the swing of a pendulum. Perhaps that somebody will be smart enough to stop the pendulum in the middle.
  263. Tom G from Canada writes: Mac the Knife: There is a lot of indignation. This board confirms this.

    Sherlock Holmes: You didn't read my comment carefully. It's not the reasoning that is faulty, it's the premise. I'm not trying to silence your opinion by focusing on scientific validity, I'm pointing out areas where you make comments that appear certain, that are absolutes. I'm not arguing with you that 'math is wordy' is not contemptible, I'm saying it is a non-sequitur. It's like someone telling me that English is Chinese. It just doesn't follow, apples and oranges. It's not worth the fuss.
  264. On-Line Reader from Canada writes: I've always found this whole idea of 'head counting' to determine bias(including so called 'Employment Equity' under the Bob Rae government in Ontario about 15 years ago) to be rather Orwellian. I wonder where all those people who some years ago were complaining about women being 'under-represented' are now? No, I don't see too many of them in this group of comments voicing their concerns about men being 'under-represented'. This reminds me of a joke that was current when Ontario was experiencing the joys of 'Employment Equity': You can never hire too few white males. Likewise in education: Just so long as you graduate enough females at the top of the class, whatever else happens doesn't matter.
  265. Canadian Pom from London, United Kingdom writes: Tom G - there certainly is indignation, but I'd be curious to know if anyone actually expects a change on these issues anytime soon. Canada is still very much a place where any claim that males are not being treated fairly is met with hostile derision.

    This article is rather timely, actually. I was speaking with a friend at a mate's stag do on Saturday, and he was saying a friend of his had just recently moved back from Canada. Apparently this guy's friend had lost his job, and after a certain period of time job hunting, he and his wife concluded that as far as they could tell, there was no room for a white middle class male in the current job market.

    Shame that - seems like another reason for me to stay over here.
  266. Tom G from Canada writes: Canadian Pom: Nope I'm not living in Canada anymore either so I hear ya. I went back last year for 7 months and felt totally disenchanted and disillusioned. Changes won't be happening for another generation at least. Some things are sacrosanct in our culture--and apparently a woman's prerogative has become one of the anointed untouchables in public life.
  267. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: J Swanson: Exactly, I went to high school in th 80's, and there was none of this social engineering crap, especially the denigration of males we see today. Needless to say, there was very little racism, sexism and violence compared to today. Boys were equally represented on the honour roll as well as those heading off to university. School sucks for boys nowadays. There is the possibility a boy may go from JK to grade 9 without having a single male role model/teacher, it is only getting worse statistically. Couple this with an epidemic of single motherhood, don't be suprised boys have checked out! I get to see it everyday!
  268. Lori Bottrell from Toronto, Canada writes: I have been trying to post a comment for 24 hours -- could it be that I mention giftedness and boys in the same sentence that it is being filtered out???
  269. Klaus Gieger from Moffat, Ontario, Canada writes: It's been mentioned a couple of times already by others, but I don't think that we should discount at all the role that video games are playing in distracting (destroying?) so many bright young and particularly male minds.

    I don't have an easy solution to the problem however parents and society in general are doing a huge disservice to our young males by just ignoring it. We will pay a very high price in the long run.
  270. In a Fog from Toronto, Canada writes: On Edge from Canada writes: Oh well, a lot of these gals will take gobs of time off their jobs later when they have kids, many will stop working when they have kids, and later, when they get divorced, they will get child support and alimony from their husbands.

    __________________________________________________

    This is not an accurate forecast. Many of these women will not marry or even go ot with a man without an equivalent education and won't settle for less. Unfortunately for them, mathematics can't be twisted in this case. There will be less men for them to draw on. To compound their problem, the women who did not go to university are after the same men and are not as demanding.
    Many students will tell you today that males at universities where the female population is 60-70% have a unique view of the world. The concept of pursuing a female is foreign to them.
    Nature has a way of balancing out the changes we make to it.
    BTW: I have all sons in University and do not encourage them to find a girl there.
  271. Barton Lincoln Jonesboro the Third from toronto, Canada writes: I am sure, you, just as I, only have to imagine what these chicks who hang around science fairs look like. Thus the reason their 'Saturday Night Date Hotline' NEVER rings.

    Barton Lincoln Jonesboro, the Third
  272. Labrat in science from Canada writes: In a Fog from Toronto, Canada writes:
    This is not an accurate forecast. Many of these women will not marry or even go ot with a man without an equivalent education and won't settle for less. Unfortunately for them, mathematics can't be twisted in this case. There will be less men for them to draw on. To compound their problem, the women who did not go to university are after the same men and are not as demanding.
    Many students will tell you today that males at universities where the female population is 60-70% have a unique view of the world. The concept of pursuing a female is foreign to them.

    You are quite accurate when you say that males (at least at this university) are in a mostly-female bubble where girls present themselves to potential mates on a platter. Overall the population at this university is aboug 60/40 (female/male). Well, at least in most programs (mayby not mathematics, physics etc.). Go to a campus like this one and be prepared to be amused at the sheer number of practically identical looking lulu-lemon clad, blonde, hair-straightened barbie look-alikes strutting their stuff as they make their way from class to class. Can't blame them, there IS a lot of competition. Are the non-conformers the smart, independent ones who don't care what anyone thinks OR are they future single gals? What happens to those who leave here single and try to find a partner in the 'real world'?
    Anyway...I am finishing my PhD in a lab that, in the last 7 years has hosted 4 male PhD students and two females (myself included). I like to tell myself that your sex doesn't matter as a scientist, but expectations for me are not the same as for the boys. Results are questioned more often, perfection is demanded. Probably not conciously, but it happens. I hope that the next generation of female researchers does not have to deal with this. And I hope that they won't feel they need to be a barbie in order to fit in on campus either.
  273. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: The imbalance in university F:M ratio is excellent for the successful educated alpha male....he can sit back and have women drool over him as he discards every card in the deck.

    That is unless, the educated 'successful' women marry down and hook up with line workers, coal miners and custodians. What do you say ladies?

    Nevermind, men know the answer. Unfortunately for the hot successful ladies, competition will be fierce, so some may have to 'settle'....but don't worry, the divorce/custody LAWS got your back! Oh wait, that means women might have to pay spousal support....nevermind......never settle.
  274. In a Fog from Toronto, Canada writes: Labrat in Science: It's much more competitive after the bubble of University. The independent non-conformers & uber-achievers will be at a disadvantage. Even the campus 'Barbies' will have problems.

    As for your treatment by your professor, if you dislike their attitude to you, you're going to hate your boss after you graduate. Don't assume that they are harder on you because you are female. They only care about delivery.
  275. Carl White from Canada writes: "The Angry Left from Canada writes: And seriously, when have people not been complaining about how dumb, lazy, narcissistic, permiscuous, easily distracted, etc...etc...kids are today? I think I can find Plato writing about the trouble with kids in his day. Since when has it been expected that highschool is supposed to prepare every student for university? That seems to be now. In most countries, most students flunk out. The teachers don't have to teach you, you are on your own. In Europe, you're streamed into two streams, one university-bound and the other for community-college or the trades and more than half of the university-bound stream fails their final year, because a pass gets them into university. It's free and it's extremely competetive. In Japan, only a tiny minority are able to get into university, and by the time you get there they already know that you must be incredibly talented and driven, otherwise you wouldn't be there. We are uniquely blessed in Canada with teachers that teach under the social expectation that they should actually TEACH. Maybe that's a bit of an exagerration, but mostly true. I just like posting this as a counter to every retrograde half-wit that comes on these threads with their hipster, post-feminist, thinly-veild mysogynistic rants, against every teacher they didn't like and was therefore the product of 'corrupt unions', 'out-of-control-feminism', whom they pathetically blame for their mostly self-inflicted problems and take out their axe to grind against the education system." So perhaps you could spell out what you believe to be an acceptable result for this situation. 80% female? 90%? 100%? And why is a female-dominated system acceptable when a male-dominated one is to be abhored? I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this.
  276. Carl White from Canada writes: "Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: This all really doesn't matter in the end. If you are a male and can't make it to physical sciences, math or engineering at university because you didn't get enough special male attention, you were never going to be very good at it anyway.

    The same goes for females, if the only reason they are 'over-represented' at university is because everyone makes it easier for them, then those who got their by chance won't be great achievers anyway.

    So in the end, great male intellectuals will have a slightly harder time and great female intellectuals will have a slightly easier time.

    The real problem with this discussion is about the people who are not great or even average, but what about the lower level students both male and female at the high school level? That is what should be addressed, why is it that only 13% of applied students reached the provincial standard at my former highschool?"

    But if it were 20% female and 80% male, you'd be decrying the injustice and male bias of the science fair, and demanding that special female promotion programs be put into place?
  277. Robert Allen from Arlington, VA, United States writes: There is no great mystery here. Classes now favor 'collaborative' learning ... that is group projects over individual assignments .. and boys are put on Ritalin rather than receive a spanking. The more a boy deviates from standard feminine behaviour, the more likely he will be marked as "ADD". Boys are motivated by individual recognition, risk-taking, and true, non-handicapped, competition. If they don't think they can be the best at something, they don't bother with it. Girls do not work that way, at all.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top