Women and the School System

[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.]

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.[/quote]

Classic stuff. Obviously raj’s teachers failed him.

[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]

So did Adam Lanza

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Ted Kaczynski had two parents.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Sweet. Which makes your absurd point still wrong. FWIW, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold I believe both were raised in two parents homes.

You can’t make your point as it’s already been refuted totally by multiple people.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Ted Kaczynski had two parents.[/quote]

Nice.

See how pointing out specific examples is pointless?

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Sweet. Which makes your absurd point still wrong. FWIW, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold I believe both were raised in two parents homes.

You can’t make your point as it’s already been refuted totally by multiple people. [/quote]

Nothing absurd about what I wrote.

smh_23 is bringing nothing to this thread other than attempting to win technical points.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Ted Kaczynski had two parents.[/quote]

Nice.

See how pointing out specific examples is pointless?
[/quote]

For your argument, yes I do.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Sweet. Which makes your absurd point still wrong. FWIW, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold I believe both were raised in two parents homes.

You can’t make your point as it’s already been refuted totally by multiple people. [/quote]

Nothing absurd about what I wrote.

smh_23 is bringing nothing to this thread other than attempting to win technical points.
[/quote]

I have no dog in this fight. I read what you wrote then what he wrote. I 100% agree with him.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[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]

So did Adam Lanza[/quote]

Sweet. Which makes your absurd point still wrong. FWIW, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold I believe both were raised in two parents homes.

You can’t make your point as it’s already been refuted totally by multiple people. [/quote]

Nothing absurd about what I wrote.

smh_23 is bringing nothing to this thread other than attempting to win technical points.
[/quote]

I have no dog in this fight. I read what you wrote then what he wrote. I 100% agree with him. [/quote]

That’s wonderful.

Even if my original phrasing was incorrect, he fully understand what I was trying to say, and instead of focusing on my argument his posts were around wording.

Maybe you and him can start a grammar nazi thread and stop polluting this one?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
That’s wonderful.

Even if my original phrasing was incorrect, he fully understand what I was trying to say, and instead of focusing on my argument his posts were around wording.
[/quote]
Your original phrasing? You clearly wrote children raised by single mothers are criminals or, how did you word it, castrated men. What exactly did you mean then?

[quote]
Maybe you and him can start a grammar nazi thread and stop polluting this one?[/quote]
Has nothing to do with grammar it was the message of your post.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So it’s not that women are the problem. It’s the lack of men that’s the problem. [/quote]

I’d say it’s both. Women are great at handling their own sex, but terrible at handling males.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
My daughter is reading The Hunger Games. I asked her where she got it from and she said her teacher gave it to her to read. I know of a teacher that assigned Twilight to her kids. WTF? What happened to Mark Twain? Homer? So what happens is at home I have to force my kid to read stuff that isn’t crap. [/quote]

That’s pretty crazy. The books I was assigned in high school English classes were Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, the Hobbit, Black Robe (Canadian book).
[/quote]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who was an English major and who has read the Hunger Games because his daughter insisted it was good…its really not that bad. Its certainly written as well as the Hobbit and I’d argue the Lord of the Flies. She’s in AP English and its more rigorous than what you claim in that at her tested level she has to read “serious” works of fiction or nonfiction to get any reading credit. She reads less and sticks to the nonfiction as she finds many of the “Great Books” tedious and while I find value in works like Ulysses many great books are often a chore and reading needn’t be a chore. Sometimes its about telling a story and doing it well and there’s really not that many plots. If Suzanne Collins can get millions of kids reading anything there’s nothing wrong with that.

And often really great modern writers tend to get ignored to some idea that older fiction is better. And dangerous fiction often can’t be taught because it gets someone’s panties in bunch.
[/quote]
That’s the problem: things need to be fun and interesting at the moment. That isn’t life. Some things you need to know. Some tasks need to get done no matter how tedious you find them. Sometimes the payoff comes later. Homer is essential to understanding Western Lit. It’s just the way it is. No one can claim a fundamental understanding of Western Lit if he hasn’t read Homer just as no one can claim an understanding of American Lit without Melville and Twain. There is also a difference between contemporary writers and modern writers. It could easily be argued that Cervantes and Shakespeare were modern writers. It could even be argued that modern writing started with pre-Renaissance humanism.

The funny thing is that all of this old and outdated and boring hard to read literature is still used as source material for contemporary writers and film makers. Troy came out not that long ago. There was an Odyssey miniseries in the 90s. A horrible retelling of Beowulf. Shakespeare’s plays are adapted to modern settings or performed as is. The Coen brothers based a film on The Odyssey. This stuff isn’t going anywhere so kids better learn to appreciate, or at least tolerate it, because some things are just the way it is and it’s always been like that. But we are talking about a generation that has been brought up to believe they are special and unique individuals whose every thought, desire and word needs to be expressed and then validated and for whom parents, and by logical extension all adults, are supposed to be their best friends and peers. We are the generation that blinked. [/quote]

Late to this thread and only on the first page but I wanted to say that this is bang on. I am firmly in agreement with you on this thread zecarlo, my vehement disagreements with you on other matters notwithstanding :wink:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.

EDIT–Vocabulary size has been linked directly with reading comprehension, and thus indirectly with critical thought capabilities particularly and education level as a whole. In fact there have been a number of studies (indeed whole books) on this matter. This is a primary reason that ‘old tedious hard to read literature’ is necessarily better than ‘easy to read fun modern literature’ for the purposes of education.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
That’s wonderful.

Even if my original phrasing was incorrect, he fully understand what I was trying to say, and instead of focusing on my argument his posts were around wording.

Maybe you and him can start a grammar nazi thread and stop polluting this one?[/quote]

“Single mothers raise criminals” is not a grammatical or semantic error, and pointing out how dumb of a thing it is for one to have said is not the winning of “technical points.”

It’s generalization like that that has been turning otherwise smart people into drooling, and often violent, idiots for a very, very long time.

But carry on, there is no need for me to belabor the point.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

Very well said.

We think in words, and the fewer words and phrases we have, the fewer thoughts we will have. Learn to read complex, even anachronistic prose, and you’ll be thinking with more complexity.

If we could only think in Hunger-Games and Twilight talk, we would end up thinking like tween girls.

Did we just have a thread where the entire conservative base just rallied behind Zecarlo??

While it is true that female teachers are treating boys like this, if there is a societal shift, men will have to allow it to happen. Which they are. Men getting married then allowing their wife’s to make the decisions with regards to their sons with no input because they cannot be bothered. Men not assuming their place as the heads of their households because God forbid they take on a little responsibility. The phrase “You’re Dad will handle this” is seldom uttered anymore and when it is it doesn’t carry near the effect that it should. Men need to step up and be men. We are the natural born leaders, yet many men are content to sit by and let everything pass us by as we wallow in our on self interest.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The phrase “You’re Dad will handle this” [/quote]

This phrase brings the “Fear of God” in my boys. The oldest boy has learned the easy way, and the younger seems to be learning the hard way.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The phrase “You’re Dad will handle this” [/quote]

This phrase brings the “Fear of God” in my boys. The oldest boy has learned the easy way, and the younger seems to be learning the hard way.

[/quote]

Used to me as well. I had a few male teachers who put the “Fear of God” in me as well. I was always a hyper kid (except the threat of not getting to go outside and play or to PE for my hour was enough to keep me in line decently), didn’t listen, till I got to Jr. High and Mr. Allen straightened me out with a paddle and a long speech about how “self discipline was the yoke of a free man”. Also organized sports hit so that gave me an outlet for all that energy.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

If we could only think in Hunger-Games and Twilight talk, we would end up thinking like tween girls.[/quote]

Possibly one of the most frightening mental images I have had.

Then again, a large subset of our population already does just that.

Savage.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

It’s sort of like learning another dialect of your own language, so I can see how that would be useful. Also, the exercise of having to look up words you don’t know would help as well.
Basically, if you’re unfamiliar, then those books would be outside of your usual comfort zone, and would result in adaptation.