Nov 192017
 

I’m beginning to become more and more of the opinion that it just might be a good idea to segregate boys from girls in public school, at least up until junior high or high school. That way there’d at least be the potential of teaching kids in ways that are actually appropriate to them, and, much as it’s become popular to believe otherwise, boys and girls *are* inherently different in may important ways.

Take the source (“Prager U”) for what it’s worth, but there re some interesting points raised here:

I’ve long held the view, and expressed it on this blog, that standardized education isn’t for everyone. I don’t believe that society is best off by forcing everyone to stay in the same classes all the way through 12th grade. Some students would simply be better off if they were allowed the leave school some years earlier and be sent into some sort of trade; if nothing else, the *other* students wouldn’t need to be subjected to their bullying, criminality and stupidery. But as the video points out, there are good cases to be made for separating male from female lesson plans. Years ago I wrote about how some of the books I was forced to read in school damn near turned me off reading forever, because they’re just the wrong damned kind of books for me. But I do recall that at the same time I was struggling to give the very slightest of damns about “Sense and Sensibility” and “Little Women” and “I remember Mama” and “Wuthering Heights,” a lot of the girls in the class seemingly couldn’t get enough of it. But did we read Heinlein? Wells? Verne? Sun Tzu? Rand? Lovecraft? Oh, hell no.

Some might argue that it’s important to cram the “classics” into kids in order to “expose them to a wide range of literature blah, blah, blah.” But if the stuff you expose them to is stuff that they’ll *hate,* stuff that they’ll get little to nothing out of, what good are you doing? Chances are good you’re doing *negative* work. Not only are those students getting nothing out of the assignment and thus wasting their time and the teachers, they are also probably so bored that they’re kicking up a fuss that’s ruining the experience for those students who *can* get something out of it. So if there is a simple way to at least get a *crude* semblance of optimization out of the process – like, say, segregating boys from girls and letting boys be aggressive energetic little shits while the girls are, well girls – then huzzah, everybody is better off.

One common refrain is that at some point in the edumacation process, boys become aggressive in class. Not in the beating the tar out of people sense, but in the “Oooh, oooh, call on me, teacher, I know the answer” sense that modern progressives liken to “mansplaining” and “manterrupting,” while girls are less aggressive in that way. Well… fine. Then wouldn’t it be better to separate them? Teach them in the ways that’s best for ’em?

 Posted by at 8:55 pm
  • Michel Van

    i’m Afraid that this bullshit goes on like that
    This will be result:
    World War Six propaganda movie
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNcptAZFw_Q

  • Herp McDerp

    “The classics” usually turn out to be “books that people who want to be English majors think they ought to like, because that’s what the previous generation of English teachers liked.”

    The one that I remember hating in high school was Ethan Frome. At about the same time, I also read Lovecraft’s story “Pickman’s Model,” and I honestly believe that the Edith Wharton novel was more horrifying and depressing … but not in a good way.

    The one that did it for my wife was Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. She still glares at me if I even mention it.

    Have you looked at “Young Adult” fiction lately? Heinlein is out (always was), but “I-was-a-teenage lesbian/gay/oppressed-person-of-color” stuff is in. (I think it’s because PoMo and Grievance Studies majors are only employable as slushpile readers or baristas.) The only SF that was allowed into high school English textbooks was completely innocuous stuff. I recall that Vonnegut’s “Report on the Barnhouse Effect” was allowed into one textbook; Cat’s Cradle or “Harrison Bergeron would have been anathema.

    • Scottlowther

      > The one that I remember hating in high school was Ethan Frome.

      Never read that. So, I read the plot summary on the Wikipedia link, and…nope. No thanks.

      > Have you looked at “Young Adult” fiction lately?

      Chock-full-o-fantasy from what I can tell. The nearest Barnes &Noble had an entire dedicated “Teen Supernatural Romance” section for a while, during the height of the Sparkly Vampire Bullshit Era. Go ahead and try to find “Kids/Teen/Young Adult Sci-Fi.” Maybe one or two books, buried under a septic tidal wave of magical thinking.

      > “Harrison Bergeron would have been anathema.

      Actually read HB as a class assignment *waaaay* back when. Little did I know it would turn out to be a how-to manual.

      • FelixA9

        Walden Pond. Ugh.

        • Herp McDerp

          Heh. One in-class junior high book report assignment was to describe the main character and the events of the book from his or her viewpoint. The book I had read was Hal Clement’s Needle, in which an alien cop is trying to find an alien criminal who had hidden on Earth. Both were virus-descended organisms who lived as symbionts inside other creatures — humans, in this case — and who resembled two pounds of custard. The required format caught me by surprise, but I did my best. The result caught my teacher by surprise …

          • Michael

            In 7th grade I had a similar assignment but it required writing about the character teaching me something new. I chose “Run Silent, Run Deep,” but the teacher said no war books — but she did say science fiction was acceptable. So I chose “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea,” and explained how to tap a submarine cable.

  • publiusr
  • Thucydides_of_Athens

    How things are taught makes a huge difference.

    When I was in high school, teaching Shakespeare was mandatory and indeed the entire English class revolved around it. As a bonus, since I lived close to Stratford, Ontario at the time, we actually saw a performance of the play each year as well.

    Unfortunately, teaching Shakespeare was done by wrestling sentences to the ground and parsing them with our bare hands. Besides being splattered in the ink of the unfortunately butchered literary works, we really had no other context to understand what we were doing. I ended up hating Shakespeare for years, until years later, an economics professor mentioned that Shakespeare needed to write hit plays to avoid becoming bankrupt (as going to debtor’s prison in Elizabethan England was no joke). Looking further, I learned more of the history of the era, discovered Shakespeare was an effective Tudor propagandist and even how his works were related to the Renaissance in England (see “The Science of Shakespeare”, by Dan Falk: https://www.amazon.com/Science-Shakespeare-Look-Playwrights-Universe/dp/1250008778).

    With that sort of context, Shakespeare comes alive. I did the same sort of thing for myself to “Wuthering Hights”, and the book is far different now.

    I fully agree that we need to expand the universe of books and ideas we expose children to (although this is quite the opposite of modern “progressive” education, which seems designed to rigorously close off all avenues of independent inquiry).