No Surprise Here
Some battles just shouldn't have to be fought more than once. The fight for gender equality should have been over 30 years ago, but (thanks to that portion of the public I like to call the conservatards) it looks we're in the midst of yet round of skirmishes. This time the battle ground is education, and our champions this time are being led by the American Association of University Women. From today's NY Times:
The American Association of University Women, whose 1992 report on how girls are shortchanged in the classroom caused a national debate over gender equity, has turned its attention to debunking the idea of a “boys’ crisis.”
“Girls’ gains have not come at boys’ expense,” says a new report by the group, to be released on Tuesday in Washington.
Echoing research released two years ago by the American Council on Education and other groups, the report says that while girls have for years graduated from high school and college at a higher rate than boys, the largest disparities in educational achievement are not between boys and girls, but between those of different races, ethnicities and income levels. ...
The report points out that a greater proportion of men and women than ever before are graduating from high school and earning college degrees. But, it says, “perhaps the most compelling evidence against the existence of a boys’ crisis is that men continue to outearn women in the workplace.” [Emphasis added]
I suspect the battle will get hotter as the economy heads further southward. More of those who apparently didn't pay attention during the critical thinking skills section of their high school curriculum will yammer on about how it's important for boys to get a leg up because, after all, they have families to support. Of course, the fact that in most families, both parents have to work to pay the bills and buy the groceries will not be mentioned. Nor will the fact that many families, for various reasons, are supported by single parents, usually women.
What this study does show illuminates what's really behind the conservatards' whining, what their real agenda is. The disparities are not gender based, but economically based. It's not just "boys" who need protecting, it's white boys, and not just any white boys, but economically privileged white boys.
Linda Hallman, who became executive director of the university women’s group in January, when the work was well under way, said the report was an effort to refocus attention on what she said were the real problems of education for poor and minority children, and away from a distracting debate about a so-called boys’ crisis. [Emphasis added]
So I guess there are all sorts of battles that we will be fighting again, and again, and again.
The American Association of University Women, whose 1992 report on how girls are shortchanged in the classroom caused a national debate over gender equity, has turned its attention to debunking the idea of a “boys’ crisis.”
“Girls’ gains have not come at boys’ expense,” says a new report by the group, to be released on Tuesday in Washington.
Echoing research released two years ago by the American Council on Education and other groups, the report says that while girls have for years graduated from high school and college at a higher rate than boys, the largest disparities in educational achievement are not between boys and girls, but between those of different races, ethnicities and income levels. ...
The report points out that a greater proportion of men and women than ever before are graduating from high school and earning college degrees. But, it says, “perhaps the most compelling evidence against the existence of a boys’ crisis is that men continue to outearn women in the workplace.” [Emphasis added]
I suspect the battle will get hotter as the economy heads further southward. More of those who apparently didn't pay attention during the critical thinking skills section of their high school curriculum will yammer on about how it's important for boys to get a leg up because, after all, they have families to support. Of course, the fact that in most families, both parents have to work to pay the bills and buy the groceries will not be mentioned. Nor will the fact that many families, for various reasons, are supported by single parents, usually women.
What this study does show illuminates what's really behind the conservatards' whining, what their real agenda is. The disparities are not gender based, but economically based. It's not just "boys" who need protecting, it's white boys, and not just any white boys, but economically privileged white boys.
Linda Hallman, who became executive director of the university women’s group in January, when the work was well under way, said the report was an effort to refocus attention on what she said were the real problems of education for poor and minority children, and away from a distracting debate about a so-called boys’ crisis. [Emphasis added]
So I guess there are all sorts of battles that we will be fighting again, and again, and again.
posted by Diane at 4:09 AM
1 Comments:
And 40 years ago no one could imagine that a pinch o' pot could still get one in trouble.
Post a Comment
<< Home