Time To Mind The Boys

[Annie]

Another trend that's got me worried is the all-day-every-day kindergarten. I was lucky, bc my boys were born in Aug & Sep. They are (will be) some of the oldest kids in their classes. Even so, my 6 yo comes home exhausted after a full day of school. I'm glad he has the day off in between to relax, run around, etc. But, my MIL (who is on the school board) told me that by the time my 4 yo is ready for school, it will be mandatory all-day-every-day. This is, of course lauded by parents who work; they will spend less on day care. My older son's teacher often mentions that she wishes she could have the kids every day. The slower learners DO go every day. I am seriously considering homeschooling for kindergarten if they go to every day. In his book Bringing Up Boys, Dr. Dobson mentions studies which show that kids from a homeschool setting tend to catch up very quickly when put into school, and even become leaders in the class.

I know some people advocate putting kids to school at younger and younger ages, even mandatory preschool, but I say they need the time at home, where they can move around. I give my kids "lessons" in the summer to keep them going with schoolwork, and to cover subjects that are not covered in class. These lessons generally take about 10 minutes, 2 or 3 times a day. This is the format I used to preschool my kids, and they have all been at the tops of their classes from the time they entered school. Kids can learn a lot by giving them information, then letting them free to play for awhile. It's like that free time allows them to digest the info, whereas, if you keep them immobile, all they do is squirm and think about when they will be set free. Especially at younger ages.

Mom4, this is coming from an 'older' mom that has had experience of both. My children, now 25-20 attended full time preschool-5 days a week-9-12, 2 in Montessori, 1 in a faith based preschool. They all then followed up with 1/2 day kindergarten, 2 in public school, 1 in parochial.

At the school I've been teaching at, the past 7 years, the kindergarten is full day, 9-2:40. Obviously my own kids fall out of the parameters, but I will say, I would think long and hard before putting my kids in an all day kindergarten class, coming from someone that put their 2 year olds in a full morning program from the age of 2, that says a lot.

If I was such a young mom today, I'd be happy to put my child in a full day program that took into account their needs to play, take breaks, learn basics of reading and math, take breaks, play, have snack, learn colors, etc. Problem I see is that some programs are geared toward breaks, others towards academics. In either extreme the kids lose.

 

[Kagom]

You prove my point! Even 'guy gays' can't relate to the 'chick books.' (btw, that wasn't a put down, if any 'guy' would be expected to relate it would be a professed gay.)

Haha! No offense taken or anything. I've come across chick flicks that I could get into, but books are different, for some reason. I guess because they're more sappy or something, na sure.

 

[Abbey Normal]

My daughter went to Kindergarten at the same highly-rated place she went to day care before that. They had "school' approx. 1/2 the day, then played the rest of the afternoon. She really liked it, but the clincher was when her public school 1st grade teacher asked us where she went to Kindergarten, because she was so far ahead of the other kids. She said it was obviously a great program.

So, my thinking is that, in the long run, more important than whether it is 1/2 day, or all day, is the quality of the teachers and the curriculum. I don't think I would have gotten those results in public school. However, I do think that 6-7 hours a day is a bit much for such young kids.

 

[liberalogic]

As a boy, I have some stuff to add to this.

1. Boys are fundamentally different - Feminists have spent so long saying that there was really no difference between girls and boys (except that boys are all rapists) and getting things accomadated to fit girls that boys have been left in the dust. I mean, look at high school reading lists and you'll see. There's a lot of great literature out there that gets quashed by the faculty in favor of girls' books like "Jane Eyre." (I hate that f-ing book. I made a 97 in English, but a C on that unit) Boys like different stuff than girls. Boys want to read about violence and war and comraderie. However, violence is the ultimate evil in schools (unless it's one way only i.e. bullies), so instead, we get to read books about preppy girls backstabbing each other so they can see land the rich guy as a husband. Yeah, that's so much better than books about brave men who risk their lives for their country.

2. Boys are violent, and that's not a bad thing - God (or evolution, if you prefer) designed boys for violence. Boys are built to fight in wars and do manual labor. Girls are designed to raise the kids and watch the house while the boys are gone to war or in the field. That being said, they resolve their differences differently. Boys push, shove, and wrestle, proving who is the better fighter. At the end of this row, boys usually shake hands and, when they get older, buy each other a beer. They've gotten the testosterone appeased, so now they're friends again. However, this is the ultimate evil in so much of our society, especially the hippy run schools. That being the case, boys are forced to resolve their differences with petty taunts, and without appeasing the testosterone, this leads many to bullying. On the other hand, the fact that girls are known to solve their differences by spreading such vile rumors about their enemies that the target is forced to switch schools goes unnoticed. "After all," say the administrators, "words never hurt anybody." Say that to the slander and libel statutes.

3. Boys have energy - As stated above, boys are designed for war and manual labor, and a body like that doesn't benefit from sitting still for long periods of time. Girls are designed for housework and raising kids, and can sit still for an hour and read at age 8. Boys, on the other hand, need something more hands-on. And recess is a vital necessity for boys. Many teachers don't really want to work, so they have their kids sit still and do busy work for hours at a time. The girls, when they get bored, can get by with subtle note-passing. The boys, on the other hand, build up so much energy that they explode...and get sent to the office.

All told, the education system now is set up for boys to fail. Everything favors girls and their mentality. This is the product of feminaziism. My solution is one that would be jumped on by those closet lesbians in a heartbeat. Seperate children by gender. That's right, make EVERY school either an all boys or all girls school. That way, the curriculum can be made to fit the needs of the gender, plus the added distraction of "coodies" and later sexual tension during class is gone.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but I think we need to burn every single copy of Jane Eyre that exists on the planet!

 

[Nienna]

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but I think we need to burn every single copy of Jane Eyre that exists on the planet!

Jane Eyre is the best book EVER! I love that book! Although I can see where a guy wouldn't. But there are many other things in there besides the romance.

 

[Trigg]

Kathianne, I have to agree. Boys are put down in every area of our culture, from the prime time boobs on TV who are oh-so adolescent compared to their smart, sassy wives--- to the push to put women in corporate management just so a company can prove how "open-minded" it is.


The new trends in schools don't help, either, like taking away recess to get in more class time. Good Heavens! How is a little guy supposed to sit still that long? The girls probably have trouble, too, but I think it would be even worse for boys.

My husband and I talk all the time about how dim the husbands on TV are compaired to the wives. There for awhile every other commercial showed just a mom and the kids no fathers to be seen, at least that has changed somewhat since I'm noticing more fathers and mothers in commercials.

As for recess, I completely agree with what your saying. Boys especially, need that time to run around and it doesn't help when schools start banning tag because someone might have to be "it".

 

[Trigg]

IMO, the Feminist movement is much like the Unions. Both were started to gain power for a group that had little or none, and then got carried away.

:clap1: Agreed when the Feminist movement started it was very much needed. Women had a hard time getting a job that was considered a "mans job". That needed to stop. There for a while in the 80's women wanted to be highprofile career women and have a family. Many have now realized what they had to sacrifice to do that.

Feminists now look at a woman who stays at home or works parttime as lazy with no ambition which is a shame.

Quote out of Readers Digest: No one on their death bed ever said "I wish I'd spent more time at work".

 

[KarlMarx]

Jane Eyre is the best book EVER! I love that book! Although I can see where a guy wouldn't. But there are many other things in there besides the romance.

You may want to rent or buy the 1944 movie with Orson Welles and Jane Fontaine (also starring in an uncredited role, a very young and beautiful Elizabeth Taylor as one of Jane Eyre's school chums)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036969/

 

[Nienna]

You may want to rent or buy the 1944 movie with Orson Welles and Jane Fontaine (also starring in an uncredited role, a very young and beautiful Elizabeth Taylor as one of Jane Eyre's school chums)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036969/

Seen it! Thanks. I have never seen a film version that does justice to the piece. It would probably have to be a min-series. And, in the entertainment industry, it would hard to find writers who would emphasize the book's overtly Christian themes.

 

[Hobbit]

Jane Eyre is the best book EVER! I love that book! Although I can see where a guy wouldn't. But there are many other things in there besides the romance.

Other things, huh? You mean like paragraph long descriptions of a scream and page and a half descriptions of each shingle and blade of grass? I could shorten that book to half its original length and it would still be overdescriptive. The best part of the whole thing is the fire.

 

[Nienna]

Other things, huh? You mean like paragraph long descriptions of a scream and page and a half descriptions of each shingle and blade of grass? I could shorten that book to half its original length and it would still be overdescriptive. The best part of the whole thing is the fire.

But Hobbit, think about the beautiful themes of forgiveness, purity, and full trust in the Maker.

 

[Annie]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/06/the_lost_boys/

The lost boys

By Cathy Young | February 6, 2006

IN THE EARLY 1990s, talk about girls as an endangered species was everywhere. There were studies purporting to show that patriarchy-damaged girls suffered a disastrous drop in self-esteem in adolescence. The American Association of University Women published a report titled ''How Schools Shortchange Girls," which landed on the front pages of many newspapers. Educators and legislators alike rushed to tackle the problem of gender bias that was allegedly keeping girls from reaching their full potential -- despite the fact that, by then, girls were already graduating from America's colleges in higher numbers than boys.

Today, it's the ''boy crisis" that's making headlines, from The Weekly Standard to Newsweek. We are presented with alarming numbers: 58 percent of first-year college students are female. Because male students are more likely to drop out, their share will shrink to 40 percent by graduation. ''Man shortage" is the new bane of campuses. While the gender gap in academic achievement has long been a serious problem in the black community -- by the mid-1990s, two-thirds of college diplomas earned by African-Americans went to women -- it has been growing among Hispanics and whites as well.

What's going on? Some blame an antimale bias in education. A few years ago, Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, wrote a book, ''The War Against Boys," arguing that feminist zeal is causing many teachers to treat maleness as ''toxic" and to try to reshape boys in a female image. Gender differences in the ''wiring" of the human brain are an increasingly popular explanation as well. Psychologist and author Michael Gurian is a leading proponent of the view that boys and girls learn differently and that these differences must be taken into account if we want to ensure a quality education for everyone. Some believe that in many instances, single-se* classes are the answer...

* ARrrggg school filters!

 

[Nienna]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/06/the_lost_boys/


* ARrrggg school filters!

Been reading this, Kathianne (War Against Boys). It's really good.

 

[Annie]

Been reading this, Kathianne (War Against Boys). It's really good.

Yeah, if I wanted to finish the advanced degree in education, I think I might focus on boys. But I've just about decided to go the route of history.

 

[dilloduck]

Boys have energy - As stated above, boys are designed for war and manual labor[/B], and a body like that doesn't benefit from sitting still for long periods of time. Girls are designed for housework and raising kids, and can sit still for an hour and read at age 8. Boys, on the other hand, need something more hands-on. And recess is a vital necessity for boys. Many teachers don't really want to work, so they have their kids sit still and do busy work for hours at a time. The girls, when they get bored, can get by with subtle note-passing. The boys, on the other hand, build up so much energy that they explode...and get sent to the office.

And much of what males are designed for has been squelched by civilization. In short, males have had thier designed job drastically reduced, changed or legally regulated. The feminist movement has further debased the role of men in society. I think many men have reluctantly surrendered thier "manliness" to be "acceptable" to women who have bought the feminazi agenda. The guilt trip laid on manly men was successful however many women now are finding that wimpy men aren't what they realy wanted in the first place. My son (who rarely speaks on any such matters) shocked me when he told me that my generation of men had let his generation down by going along with the "sissy" agenda. He said guys want to go back to being "tough".

 

[Nienna]

And much of what males are designed for has been squelched by civilization. In short, males have had thier designed job drastically reduced, changed or legally regulated. The feminist movement has further debased the role of men in society. I think many men have reluctantly surrendered thier "manliness" to be "acceptable" to women who have bought the feminazi agenda. The guilt trip laid on manly men was successful however many women now are finding that wimpy men aren't what they realy wanted in the first place. My son (who rarely speaks on any such matters) shocked me when he told me that my generation of men had let his generation down by going along with the "sissy" agenda. He said guys want to go back to being "tough".

Good for your son!
I have known women who will fight for their right to work outside the home, then gripe at their husbands because they don't help with the kids or the housework enough, or they don't "do it right." Now, I'm all for women having equal opportunity in the work force, but it is impossible to "have it all." Not saying that all working women are like this, but I have seen a woman trample all over a man's role as "head of the family" then turn around and complain that he doesn't "take care of her, that he is "insensitive" because she has to "do it all."

We will never achieve the utopian unisex world that some find so palatable. At a very basic level, men and women are designed to complement each other. No matter how much they hide it, even from themselves, a man still wants to be respected and admired, and a woman still wants to be protected and pampered.

 

[dilloduck]

Good for your son!
I have known women who will fight for their right to work outside the home, then gripe at their husbands because they don't help with the kids or the housework enough, or they don't "do it right." Now, I'm all for women having equal opportunity in the work force, but it is impossible to "have it all." Not saying that all working women are like this, but I have seen a woman trample all over a man's role as "head of the family" then turn around and complain that he doesn't "take care of her, that he is "insensitive" because she has to "do it all."

We will never achieve the utopian unisex world that some find so palatable. At a very basic level, men and women are designed to complement each other. No matter how much they hide it, even from themselves, a man still wants to be respected and admired, and a woman still wants to be protected and pampered.

Yup---the feminist movement like every other cause tends to backfire by stomping on someone else. I guess people have to go to both extremes before they find the middle ground.