Women and the School System

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

…What particular value other than historical do you see in Huck Finn versus The Hunger Games? With no appeal to tradition or the canon why is the historical journey of a boys coming of age superior to a perhaps predictive dystopian coming of age story of a young girl. I mean if I were a young girl a female protagonist could very well appeal to me more…

[/quote]

Huh?[/quote]
Sadly, he only takes a superficial glance at Huck Finn and summarizes it as being nothing more than its plot. Yeah, and Moby-Dick was about a guy trying to hunt down a whale and The Old Man and the Sea was about catching a fish. [/quote]

Lol

More likely I am not being so dismissive of modern works. An appeal to tradition is a poor argument no matter the topic. What is the most recent work you’d consider a classic? Is anything written after that time allowed to enter into the conversation or is there some sort of time limit that allows something to become a classic instead of a trite modern work?

You are overly dismissive of modern works particularly if the only thing you can claim to be more valuable is that one book has past the test of time.

You continue with the strawman’s as well. At what point did I claim that Moby Dick was a book solely about a man catching a fish? Man versus Nature is certainly timeless but its expressed in modern works as well.

The position you are taking toward the canon versus modern works as a whole is much the same is that taken by many in the sciences toward the humanities as a group.

To dismiss modern fiction as simply all style with no substance is the same mistake as simply considering older works more valuable with no analysis.

And Ellison is still better than Shakespeare. I’ll stand by that. If you want to discuss it we can go text to text on some hell we can even do screenplays versus plays where Shakespeare is likely strongest and Ellison is weaker.

Since you’ve shot a couple personal attacks I’ll send one back…your posts read much like an undergrad who’s discovered a few authors and in a bit of literary hipsterness dismisses anything current or popular as lesser by necessity with no other analysis. You only mention the works most taught in the first few introductory courses so I wonder how deep your reading of the canon really is.[/quote]

I have nothing against modern, or rather contemporary, authors as I’m writing my thesis on Eco.

You miss the point. You can believe Ellison is better than Shakespeare but that doesn’t change the fact that Shakespeare is greater. If you honestly believe that Ellison’s contribution to and impact on Western thought, let alone literature, is comparable to Shakespeare’s then only God or drugs can help you. And since you are an English major I doubt you even know that Dante is greater than Ellison for the same reasons.

62

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The plural of “strawman” is “strawmen”, not “strawman’s”.

Carry on. [/quote]
Meh its really two words and I think you would have to use it like full of straw man arguments or some such since I really couldn’t find it in a style manual as a plural. Though I guess its considered colloquially ok to write it strawman. I’ll make sure I hit the manual before each post however.[/quote]

Lol ninja edit and part of it certainly was it has man versus nature and man versus himself as part of it. That being said I still never claimed it was solely about a man catching a fish.

We should have a book discussion thread in PWI to break up the God threads. We can do something like best dystopian book 1984? Hunger Games? A Clockwork Orange? Everyone can pick their favorite and go all in.[/quote]
Naming a favorite and picking the best are not the same thing.

63

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
So the original premise of Therajraj’s thread is that women are turning normal boy behavior such as roughhousing into a psychiatric disorder and thus should not be teaching boys. I gave some personal examples where my son was allowed to integrate his active behavior into the classroom and now Zecarlo posits that my son has behavior issues and is being done a disservice by female teachers because they just let boys do their own thing because they want everyone to be happy.

Which is it? Are female teachers too domineering or too permissive with boys? Or perhaps we can’t paint with such broad strokes.[/quote]
It’s that they don’t know how to deal with “boy” issues. Your kid’s teachers have said he has behavior issues.

[/quote]
Actually, I am not sure that they do. When one current male teacher said that my son’ s talking was distracting, I suggested booting him outta class until he could stop being a distraction. The teacher looked a little shocked by my suggestion.

I am not suggesting that male teachers are inept; I am merely saying that my experience has shown that many female teachers do quite well with boys.

64

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s that they don’t know how to deal with “boy” issues. Your kid’s teachers have said he has behavior issues.

[/quote]
Well is it a behavior issue that he has a hard time sitting at a desk all day but prefers to move instead? Or is that just being a boy as was originally posited?

You do realize that you’re arguing the opposite of the original post.

65

[quote]groo wrote:
I am a pioneer in incorrect style. My maverick ways will one day become normal.

[/quote]

Your maverick ways are not your problem but your need to be a maverick is. The first sign is raging against tradition. BTW, James Joyce was a pioneer. You are no James Joyce.

66

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s that they don’t know how to deal with “boy” issues. Your kid’s teachers have said he has behavior issues.

[/quote]
Well is it a behavior issue that he has a hard time sitting at a desk all day but prefers to move instead? Or is that just being a boy as was originally posited?

You do realize that you’re arguing the opposite of the original post.[/quote]

If that’s a behavioral issue I pray to God I don’t have a boy.

67

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

…What particular value other than historical do you see in Huck Finn versus The Hunger Games? With no appeal to tradition or the canon why is the historical journey of a boys coming of age superior to a perhaps predictive dystopian coming of age story of a young girl. I mean if I were a young girl a female protagonist could very well appeal to me more…

[/quote]

Huh?[/quote]
Sadly, he only takes a superficial glance at Huck Finn and summarizes it as being nothing more than its plot. Yeah, and Moby-Dick was about a guy trying to hunt down a whale and The Old Man and the Sea was about catching a fish. [/quote]

Lol

More likely I am not being so dismissive of modern works. An appeal to tradition is a poor argument no matter the topic. What is the most recent work you’d consider a classic? Is anything written after that time allowed to enter into the conversation or is there some sort of time limit that allows something to become a classic instead of a trite modern work?

You are overly dismissive of modern works particularly if the only thing you can claim to be more valuable is that one book has past the test of time.

You continue with the strawman’s as well. At what point did I claim that Moby Dick was a book solely about a man catching a fish? Man versus Nature is certainly timeless but its expressed in modern works as well.

The position you are taking toward the canon versus modern works as a whole is much the same is that taken by many in the sciences toward the humanities as a group.

To dismiss modern fiction as simply all style with no substance is the same mistake as simply considering older works more valuable with no analysis.

And Ellison is still better than Shakespeare. I’ll stand by that. If you want to discuss it we can go text to text on some hell we can even do screenplays versus plays where Shakespeare is likely strongest and Ellison is weaker.

Since you’ve shot a couple personal attacks I’ll send one back…your posts read much like an undergrad who’s discovered a few authors and in a bit of literary hipsterness dismisses anything current or popular as lesser by necessity with no other analysis. You only mention the works most taught in the first few introductory courses so I wonder how deep your reading of the canon really is.[/quote]

I have nothing against modern, or rather contemporary, authors as I’m writing my thesis on Eco.

You miss the point. You can believe Ellison is better than Shakespeare but that doesn’t change the fact that Shakespeare is greater. If you honestly believe that Ellison’s contribution to and impact on Western thought, let alone literature, is comparable to Shakespeare’s then only God or drugs can help you. And since you are an English major I doubt you even know that Dante is greater than Ellison for the same reasons. [/quote]
I think that literature is often more a reflection of society than an influence. Your opinion is that Shakespeare is greater and its an opinion that is largely shared by people that are interested in the literary canon but you are solely appealing to tradition to make this claim.

What are your criteria for something being great literature?

68

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

It’s that they don’t know how to deal with “boy” issues. Your kid’s teachers have said he has behavior issues.

[/quote]
Well is it a behavior issue that he has a hard time sitting at a desk all day but prefers to move instead? Or is that just being a boy as was originally posited?

You do realize that you’re arguing the opposite of the original post.[/quote]
Do all boys do that to the point they need to leave a classroom? Maybe the male teachers actually want him to stay and learn. My argument has not changed: women handle boys differently than men. In your son’s case the women chose to avoid the issue by letting him do whatever he wanted. That isn’t letting a boy be a boy. A man, maybe, would have confronted the problem by recognizing that part of being a boy is learning how to be a man.

69

Lol, one thing that I have learned on my short stay on this earth is generalizing people will make you look ignorant at some point and time. Some females I know have balls bigger than males on this site, in terms of getting shit done in a fearless fashion. It all depends on the person gender should not be an issue.

In my opinion, as the trend continues of females enrolling in post secondary education the more societal change will occur, for better or worse no one will know until it happens which it will, and then it will all depend on consensus of the time. I am pissed off with the liberal arts that I take in Uni being so ANTI white male, it really is disgusting how on a daily basis they make us look like villains. Even males themselves do this.

Like a white male is the face of ignorance but I digress. Change is here for better or worse and it all depends on the person not there dangling bits or a lack there of. One vice principal I had was insane she would purposely everyday, try to catch you doing something wrong; so I would salute her lol she didn’t like that!

70

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Anyone with an interest in this subject should read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers.

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/[/quote]

I enjoyed this article.

71

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I am a pioneer in incorrect style. My maverick ways will one day become normal.

[/quote]

Your maverick ways are not your problem but your need to be a maverick is. The first sign is raging against tradition. BTW, James Joyce was a pioneer. You are no James Joyce. [/quote]

I’m not raging against tradition. I am saying tradition cannot be the sole reason something is considered valuable. If it can’t stand on its own merits then perhaps its not as good as was once thought.

72

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
Lol, one thing that I have learned on my short stay on this earth is generalizing people will make you look ignorant at some point and time. Some females I know have balls bigger than males on this site, in terms of getting shit done in a fearless fashion. It all depends on the person gender should not be an issue.

In my opinion, as the trend continues of females enrolling in post secondary education the more societal change will occur, for better or worse no one will know until it happens which it will, and then it will all depend on consensus of the time. I am pissed off with the liberal arts that I take in Uni being so ANTI white male, it really is disgusting how on a daily basis they make us look like villains. Even males themselves do this.

Like a white male is the face of ignorance but I digress. Change is here for better or worse and it all depends on the person not there dangling bits or a lack there of. One vice principal I had was insane she would purposely everyday, try to catch you doing something wrong; so I would salute her lol she didn’t like that![/quote]

The modern anti essentialist feminist positions are largely held by well to do white feminists only but that view certainly comes through clearly in much of academia.

73

[quote]groo wrote:
I think that literature is often more a reflection of society than an influence. Your opinion is that Shakespeare is greater and its an opinion that is largely shared by people that are interested in the literary canon but you are solely appealing to tradition to make this claim.

What are your criteria for something being great literature? [/quote]

The fact that Shakespeare is unavoidable. You can get an English degree having never read Ellison but not Shakespeare. You can teach English literature without Ellison but not Shakespeare. You can teach American literature without Ellison but not Twain or Melville. You can teach the 20th century American novel without Ellison but not Fitzgerald or Hemingway. I’m not saying it should be done but his contributions just don’t stand up to many others. Shakespeare changed the world. Eliot and Joyce are more significant to the development of modern literature than Ellison.

Literature does not reflect society but rather the author. When Ulysses recites his famous speech in The Inferno that is not a reflection of society. If you don’t believe literature has a strong influence on society then you might want to research the impact Aristotle had on Christianity.

74

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Not interested in your Obfuscation .

[/quote]

That isn’t obfuscation. Your original statement was incorrect, and this is very obvious. But you may carry on believing that single women raise only criminals and psychological deviants. I have always thought that Michael Phelps would probably have won at least 16 medals in 2008, had he not been an emotionally crippled weakling from a broken home. [Yes, by the way, it takes but one single counterexample to disprove a sweeping generalization offered as a statement of fact.]

Anyway, women are just so emotional, you know? They all cry once a week. And old people, they are racist and they can’t drive. Not one of them. Speaking of racism, blacks don’t work, and whites don’t have to work half as hard as anybody else because everything’s just given to them. And football players are dumb, and Muslims love violence and terrorism. And have you ever met a Jew? Don’t even get me started. Also, Americans are fat. I’m American, so I must be fat. I mean, I don’t feel fat, and I don’t look fat, but I have to be, because I’m American. Also, Chinese people are such bad drivers, just like old people. Yes, even Ma Quinghua.

75

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I am a pioneer in incorrect style. My maverick ways will one day become normal.

[/quote]

Your maverick ways are not your problem but your need to be a maverick is. The first sign is raging against tradition. BTW, James Joyce was a pioneer. You are no James Joyce. [/quote]

I’m not raging against tradition. I am saying tradition cannot be the sole reason something is considered valuable. If it can’t stand on its own merits then perhaps its not as good as was once thought.

[/quote]
Shakespeare is valuable because he is part of us. The fact you even made that statement can be attributed to Shakespeare.

76

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
Lol, one thing that I have learned on my short stay on this earth is generalizing people will make you look ignorant at some point and time. Some females I know have balls bigger than males on this site, in terms of getting shit done in a fearless fashion. It all depends on the person gender should not be an issue.

In my opinion, as the trend continues of females enrolling in post secondary education the more societal change will occur, for better or worse no one will know until it happens which it will, and then it will all depend on consensus of the time. I am pissed off with the liberal arts that I take in Uni being so ANTI white male, it really is disgusting how on a daily basis they make us look like villains. Even males themselves do this.

Like a white male is the face of ignorance but I digress. Change is here for better or worse and it all depends on the person not there dangling bits or a lack there of. One vice principal I had was insane she would purposely everyday, try to catch you doing something wrong; so I would salute her lol she didn’t like that![/quote]
The problem isn’t in trying to change the future but in trying to change the past.

77

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
I think that literature is often more a reflection of society than an influence. Your opinion is that Shakespeare is greater and its an opinion that is largely shared by people that are interested in the literary canon but you are solely appealing to tradition to make this claim.

What are your criteria for something being great literature? [/quote]

The fact that Shakespeare is unavoidable. You can get an English degree having never read Ellison but not Shakespeare. You can teach English literature without Ellison but not Shakespeare. You can teach American literature without Ellison but not Twain or Melville. You can teach the 20th century American novel without Ellison but not Fitzgerald or Hemingway. I’m not saying it should be done but his contributions just don’t stand up to many others. Shakespeare changed the world. Eliot and Joyce are more significant to the development of modern literature than Ellison.

Literature does not reflect society but rather the author. When Ulysses recites his famous speech in The Inferno that is not a reflection of society. If you don’t believe literature has a strong influence on society then you might want to research the impact Aristotle had on Christianity. [/quote]

Aristotle. Pffft. Just another dead white male.

78

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aristotle. Pffft. Just another dead white male. [/quote]
Yes. The three strikes rule of modern literary criticism.

79

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Not interested in your Obfuscation .

[/quote]

That isn’t obfuscation. Your original statement was incorrect, and this is very obvious. But you may carry on believing that single women raise only criminals and psychological deviants. I have always thought that Michael Phelps would probably have won at least 16 medals in 2008, had he not been an emotionally crippled weakling from a broken home. [Yes, by the way, it takes but one single counterexample to disprove a sweeping generalization offered as a statement of fact.]
[/quote]

Pretty sure Ben Carson came from a single home too.

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Not interested in your Obfuscation .

[/quote]

That isn’t obfuscation. Your original statement was incorrect, and this is very obvious. But you may carry on believing that single women raise only criminals and psychological deviants. I have always thought that Michael Phelps would probably have won at least 16 medals in 2008, had he not been an emotionally crippled weakling from a broken home. [Yes, by the way, it takes but one single counterexample to disprove a sweeping generalization offered as a statement of fact.]
[/quote]

Pretty sure Ben Carson came from a single home too. [/quote]

Indeed. He may be a hypocrite, but he’s another example of a highly successful person who came from a single mom.