I think catching a ball is a learned skill, and that some bit of you is calculating trajectories. Which is why some of us can't catch, no matter how much we try.
It's a learned instinct. It's not a trajectory computation, it's a pattern match. And you're right - some people just can't do it.
I strongly suggest we discard this notion of parsing out "instincts" and "feelings" separately. It seems to imply that feelings are of less value, which is a mistake.
No it doesn't. It just means that they aren't the same. It makes no statement about value.
I sometimes find myself in I think the position of Firenze's redundant bloke - being asked how I feel about something I don't have an emotional response to.
I have plenty of emotional responses, but this doesn't mean I have an emotional response to everything. For example, suppose Mrs C was to ask me how I felt about picking kid A up from an activity she wants to do that's an hour or so's drive away. (This may in fact resemble reality.)
I have some mild feelings about that - I have feelings of happiness that kid A is trying to make arrangements for things she wants to do, rather than passively drifting along. I have mild feelings of irritation that nothing she wants to do is close by. These are very mild feelings - not really worth mentioning, any more that I'd mention the feeling of irritation I get when I find the caddy has run out of tea, and I have to go and get a new packet.
I have an instinctive response, which depending on the time that she needs picking up is either "that's probably fine" or "that sounds difficult". And then I have the logical thought process that says "on that day? Well, I could move this meeting, and leave early. It could be done."
How I feel about it just isn't relevant to the decision. It's clear that unless it's completely impossible, I'm going to do it, because this is something we have previously agreed kid A should do, and Mrs C has to be somewhere else with the other kids. I can feel happy about it, or I can feel unreasonably furious about having to drive an extra hour out of my way, and it makes no difference, except to my mental state, and that isn't improved by getting angry about things that I can't change.
And equally, how I feel about it isn't useful. I might feel perfectly fine about doing it, but if my boss requires my presence in some important meeting on that day, I would be unable to do it.
So asking about my feelings is just the wrong question.
There is, to be fair, a trope in science fiction called 'competence porn'. 'The Martian' was essentially competence porn from start to finish, and a real-life example would be the CO2 filter built by the Apollo 13 astronauts out of socks and a flight manual.
I have been known to dabble in it myself, because I honestly find it it an incredibly attractive trait and I'm drawn to it.
I think what you are saying here is that you are Patty and Selma Bouvier, and simply go gaga for Macgyver. Does the remake do it for you?
I have to admit my husband can build or fix almost anything and I find that terribly attractive. A major, major competence thing for me, and almost always on display due to our mission circumstances. (Here, plant a church with no staff, no money, no English, no meetingplace, no pre-existing believers, no printed materials beyond a badly translated Bible. Oh, and care for a population of 10,000 refugees while you're at it, with no other bilingual folk, no professionals of any stripe who speak the language, and only extremely basic assistance from the badly overstretched refugee resettlement center. And do this while attending grad school fulltime... James Bond just isn't in it. 😊
The sociopathic heroes such as Bond and the Man with no Name are attractive, because they don't have social ties, or family ties, so they seem "free". The western hero can be quite complex, as they often help a community rid itself of the Bad Man, but then usually ride away at the end, think Shane. Hence, the western is quite misogynist, and women are peripheral, with exceptions.
I'm not sure about the buddy film, which may be less sociopathic. But these are fantasies, aren't they? I'm mulling over the decline of the western, but I don't know if this shows a reduction in the toxicity and misogyny in masculinity. Maybe it shows up in other places, e.g., alt right.
The sociopathic heroes such as Bond and the Man with no Name are attractive, because they don't have social ties, or family ties, so they seem "free". The western hero can be quite complex, as they often help a community rid itself of the Bad Man, but then usually ride away at the end, think Shane. Hence, the western is quite misogynist, and women are peripheral, with exceptions.
Btw, Richard Ayoade’s book The Grip of Film explores this stuff, and is hilarious with it.
“If a fleet of jet-black CHOPPERS ain't cresting over a back-lit hill by the end of Act II, you've got to start asking yourself whether this is a movie or a fucking art installation.”
I was remembering a classic scene in Lonesome Dove, where the Robert Duvall character visits his girl-friend, Anjelica Huston, and she asks him to stop roaming and settle down with her. In a classic western speech, Gus says he just needs to travel up north for a while, before the lawyers and bankers grab it all. So here is a summary of various western themes, pastoral, anti-domestic, misogynist, anti-capitalist. But Gus also treks with the dead body of his friend, to bury him, so there is another theme, male love, or the male couple, as it's called. But this survives in cop films, and others, you can't keep a good homoerotic theme down. It's complex!
“Without women... who else would we mentally undress? Who else would we rescue? Who else would we lovingly but firmly tell to stay put while we get on with the dangerous ass-kicking business of Act III? But that’s not to say women are just passengers. Sometimes dames can help - e.g. by smashing something light/breakable over someone’s head, thus giving the leading man a little extra time to deal with the other assailants.”
“Without women... who else would we mentally undress? Who else would we rescue? Who else would we lovingly but firmly tell to stay put while we get on with the dangerous ass-kicking business of Act III? But that’s not to say women are just passengers. Sometimes dames can help - e.g. by smashing something light/breakable over someone’s head, thus giving the leading man a little extra time to deal with the other assailants.”
I sometimes find myself in I think the position of Firenze's redundant bloke - being asked how I feel about something I don't have an emotional response to.
I have plenty of emotional responses, but this doesn't mean I have an emotional response to everything. For example, suppose Mrs C was to ask me how I felt about picking kid A up from an activity she wants to do that's an hour or so's drive away. (This may in fact resemble reality.)
I have some mild feelings about that - I have feelings of happiness that kid A is trying to make arrangements for things she wants to do, rather than passively drifting along. I have mild feelings of irritation that nothing she wants to do is close by. These are very mild feelings - not really worth mentioning, any more that I'd mention the feeling of irritation I get when I find the caddy has run out of tea, and I have to go and get a new packet.
I have an instinctive response, which depending on the time that she needs picking up is either "that's probably fine" or "that sounds difficult". And then I have the logical thought process that says "on that day? Well, I could move this meeting, and leave early. It could be done."
How I feel about it just isn't relevant to the decision. It's clear that unless it's completely impossible, I'm going to do it, because this is something we have previously agreed kid A should do, and Mrs C has to be somewhere else with the other kids. I can feel happy about it, or I can feel unreasonably furious about having to drive an extra hour out of my way, and it makes no difference, except to my mental state, and that isn't improved by getting angry about things that I can't change.
And equally, how I feel about it isn't useful. I might feel perfectly fine about doing it, but if my boss requires my presence in some important meeting on that day, I would be unable to do it.
So asking about my feelings is just the wrong question.
I've quoted all of this, because it sums up what I have to do with my emotions all the time in a family context (which is, all the time) - and this is on a good day. If I feed my emotions, then as someone upthread hinted, my house is going to go all ITALY in a great hurry - and this is not something I want, because although I am sure my handbrake is OK at rest, I am not confident in the brake linings once we're moving and they're a bit warm. This is going to go down like a turd sandwich somewhere as right-on as this, but this seems to be the lot of most husbands I know - take shit, don't respond, then take shit for being unemotional. You get used to it, but it probably slowly calcifies you.
I had a verrry long walk by myself on Sunday afternoon. I am far from unemotional but I've decided I won't have my chain deliberately yanked for a response.
There’s definitely a cultural element to this though. In our house, husband en rouge (a native of the South of France) is the emotional one, and I, stiff upper lipped Brit that I am, annoy him with my tendencies towards the Vulcan.
There’s definitely a cultural element to this though. In our house, husband en rouge (a native of the South of France) is the emotional one, and I, stiff upper lipped Brit that I am, annoy him with my tendencies towards the Vulcan.
Yes, I am very emotional, wife not. I think it works, as when I panic, she stays calm. Distribution of labour, I suppose. Not sure how cultural it is, most of the men in my family are cry-babies.
Yes, sorry, I was making reference to an earlier post on this thread about Italian men being emotionally demonstrative. Generally this is not understood to proceed in a 'let's find a safe space while I tell you quietly how that made me feel' kind of way.
IMHO it depends on whether it works for your family, and especially your spouse. If he/she's fine with lots of immediate emotion, good; if the opposite, that's fine too. You just want a match.
Me, I'd prefer NOT to have someone squirting their every emotion all over me at the drop of a hat. Give me the big ones, but the small things like "Crap, the kid forgot his shoes again"? Just deal with it on your own, and I'll deal with mine ditto.
You can argue actually that the presence of cut-off men in cinema and elsewhere is not a reflection of how men are, but how they want to be. In other words, it's a compensatory fantasy. Thus in the western, you have a world without women and without domesticity. So is this a revolt against 1950s family life? Of course, later westerns became revisionist, and had very different themes. And there are always horses, plus latent homoeroticism.
@mark_in_manchester wrote: This is going to go down like a turd sandwich somewhere as right-on as this, but this seems to be the lot of most husbands I know - take shit, don't respond, then take shit for being unemotional. You get used to it, but it probably slowly calcifies you.
This echoes something I have been reflecting on recently in a number of blue collar men in their late fifties I have been alongside.
Providers through work. But work hurts - bodies starting to fail: hips, knees, shoulders. Wife earns a bit, but much less (time out with kids). Facing another 20 years. Kids still at home in their 30s - still wanting money. Feel trapped. Keep up the front of blokey bants - no friends to be vulnerable with. No point talking about it cos nothing is going to change.
Yes, it matters. And it's not - at least this time it's not - a question of removed privilege feeling like discrimination.
FWIW - I worked in a primary school for 8 years while my kids were passing through it. I was a teaching assistant (more academically qualified than anyone else on the staff, but didn't have a PGCE) in KS2 (roughly 8-11), and mainly in Y6 (10-11s, the top end of primary). I was one of three men in the school. All the other staff, apart from Dave the Caretaker, was a woman.
There's been a lot of talk about whether having more men in primary education would level up the boys, but in my experience (and the results I think bear this out) boys were just as able to get a Level 4 at the end of KS2 as the girls. But also that boys overwhelmingly represented the outliers - a few pupils in each year were very academic, and a few had minds like cold porridge, and almost all of them were boys.
Girls could behave terribly. Boys were potentially more likely to solve their problems with their fists and feet, but the girls were absolutely vicious with the social manipulation - and it was a problem that was far more difficult to resolve. But all in all, things were pretty even - it depended on the year.
Something happens to boys when they go to big school. I never taught there, and I've gladly obliterated most of my memories of secondary school.
It's the message that being smart isn't cool, and in particular, isn't manly, that is wreaking havoc on male achievement, in my opinion. The nerds (disproportionately autistic) don't care if they're manly. But there aren't enough nerds to fill the ranks of the academic achievers, so the numbers are slipping.
Thanks @mousethief I'd comment tha t with other presentations of equality people often look for structural issues.
I had a quick look at undergrad gender balance, and that too is skewed. Of course there are a few subjectts that remain male dominated, and these are subject to equality drives, but the overall picture is clear.
@Doc Tor Something happens to boys when they go to big school
Is there any reason I shouldn't suggest institutional prejudice?
If it happened to POC or women that would be the first place to look. Different for white boys?
Why, necessarily? I get that the structures of power will be different, but we are still talking about an institution with power dynamics between teachers and pupils, and between those setting the curriculum, those "delivering" it (I hate that word in this context, but it seems to have become irreplaceable) and those on the receiving end. They are young, and on the low end of the knowledge gradient.
On the other hand, they live, for the most part, in a culture that is hostile to knowledge and to visible interest in the pursuit of knowledge. That is not of the educational institution's creation, but they seem oddly powerless to contest it.
There's evidence both ways, but I am very suspicious of identity markers automatically cancelling out institutional power structures.
Miss Tor is spending a year in a very bog-standard comprehensive as a TA before teacher training in September.
I think I can safely say that the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
Over my years in a primary school, there wasa change in the performance of boys. It was enjoyable teaching boys who had a positive attitude to learning at first, but by and by, that attitude disappeared. The disappearance coincided with the loss of the local pharmaceutical research lab, and the engineering firm, and other employers of parents who could have themselves a positive attitude to learning.
I agree about the negative female stuff. Low level bullying from boys, yes, and the very occasional major male bully - met a couple or so over my career (and they usually made use of otherwise female techniques). Female stuff became more or less annual over my career - don't remember it being too much of a problem at the beginning.
Does this mean that single sex education should make a comeback? I've heard it argued that it was better for girls (it produced more female scientists etc) but maybe it's better for boys too.
At the primary level I am aware that a great deal of thought and work has gone into boys’ progress and achievement in order to narrow the gap. (Typically it has been more of an issue with literacy.)
I don’t know what happens in the secondary sector, but obviously a child may be working with six or eight different subject teachers, and each teacher may be working with a hundred or more children who they only see for a matter of hours each week. There’s an obvious need for this in terms of subject content, but it isn’t possible for a teacher to know a child and his/her needs and aptitudes in the same way as a primary teacher who sees the same 30 or so children virtually all day and virtually every day.
One of the biggest factors is parental commitment and support, but parents who struggled with education themselves or who have lost hope for opportunities in their area may not easily be able to endorse the value of school.
@Doc Tor Something happens to boys when they go to big school
Is there any reason I shouldn't suggest institutional prejudice?
If it happened to POC or women that would be the first place to look. Different for white boys?
I'd like to add something to that. At the moment I work in an engineering department in a university in the lower reaches of the UK system. The intake (I have no influence on admissions, or I might have said our intake) is about 90% male, and about 90% non-white - of those, about half are of Pakistani origin from local mill towns (and poor-ish), and about half are of Arab origin from the gulf states - and rich. Most of the students in both groups are not very bright, to be kind, and many are resistant to learning, by which I mean their attendance is poor and their attitude not great.
The fact they are there at all seems to be that their cultures expect them to attend - in both cases they have ended up at this particular institution, because it is prepared to 'farm' less suitable applicants in the guise of widening participation. The lack of similar cultural expectations amongst UK white and black cohorts, seems to mean they are under-represented. Perhaps this chimes with other comments made up-thread.
One new area where that is much less true, is in so-called 'degree apprenticeships' where students study alongside a job. I have been very sceptical of this innovation - but the first cohort, whilst not the brightest, appear to be diligent and likely to succeed. It's nice to teach them. They are very white, in contrast to the rest of the department, and I have not worked out yet why that should be - perhaps 'job+study' is more acceptable than 'study=debt' in this group?
One new area where that is much less true, is in so-called 'degree apprenticeships' where students study alongside a job. I have been very sceptical of this innovation - but the first cohort, whilst not the brightest, appear to be diligent and likely to succeed. It's nice to teach them. They are very white, in contrast to the rest of the department, and I have not worked out yet why that should be - perhaps 'job+study' is more acceptable than 'study=debt' in this group?
I think I've mentioned before that some time ago I taught some of the foundation year course - basically a pre-degree year for people with bad or missing A-levels - at a middle-rank UK university. The course attracted two kinds of students - those that had got bad A-levels because they didn't do any work, and seemed keep to continue this practice, and those who had left school at 16, worked for a few years, and decided to get more education.
The latter group was very much like you describe your "degree apprentices" here - not always very bright, but keen and diligent, and therefore an absolute joy to teach. I'd suspect it was for very similar reasons - studying alongside a job does not look like an easy option. People who choose it tend to be motivated.
The other lot? With rare exceptions, they handed in a small fraction of the required work, and were first in line when the bar opened. They weren't at university for an education - at least, not an academic one.
As far as the gender divide went, the mature students were almost entirely men; the party people had a male/female split typical of the subject as a whole.
Some of it is the way performance is measured. Men are usually better at performing on the high stake one off exam and women on the long term assessment. The switch from one exam to quite a high portion of course work has therefore favoured women. If you add to this that the knowledge abilities that young people require today are distinctly different from those young people of my generation needed. When I was doing A' Levels I had to learn quite a bit by rote simply to be able to perform as getting hold of information was difficult. Today the skill is to know enough to be able to distinguish good sources from bad sources and how to tell them apart.
Then you come across Ken's argument that women mature earlier and this makes it easier for women to take advantage of education in the classroom. Also socialisation of girls often makes them compliant in the classroom which does not happen with boys to the same extent.
In other words it probably is structural but the educational environment that produces it is a product of wider society.
Some of it is the way performance is measured. Men are usually better at performing on the high stake one off exam and women on the long term assessment. The switch from one exam to quite a high portion of course work has therefore favoured women.
This shift did not happen in the US, so something else will have to be brought in to explain the same trend.
Yes, it matters. And it's not - at least this time it's not - a question of removed privilege feeling like discrimination.
FWIW - I worked in a primary school for 8 years while my kids were passing through it. I was a teaching assistant (more academically qualified than anyone else on the staff, but didn't have a PGCE) in KS2 (roughly 8-11), and mainly in Y6 (10-11s, the top end of primary). I was one of three men in the school. All the other staff, apart from Dave the Caretaker, was a woman.
There's been a lot of talk about whether having more men in primary education would level up the boys, but in my experience (and the results I think bear this out) boys were just as able to get a Level 4 at the end of KS2 as the girls. But also that boys overwhelmingly represented the outliers - a few pupils in each year were very academic, and a few had minds like cold porridge, and almost all of them were boys.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I have researched female education in Victorian Scotland, and the "lack of male role models in schools" was a hotly debated topic in the 1880s.
In the 1880s, after education became compulsory and was paid for by the rates, local authorities wanted to keep costs down, which meant employing more, lower paid, female teachers. But they didn't want boys to be educated in a female only environment, and so male teachers used to teach the seniors and were fast tracked into headmasterships and other senior posts. One headmaster could be a role model for 500 boys in the school, while a classroom teacher was a role model for only 30. So a well paid male headmaster gave them more bang for their buck than a male classroom teacher.
Scotland has always had a more "one size fits all" approach to schools and went into the C20th with the policy model of having elementary schools staffed mostly by women, with a male head.
By the time that women were achieving pay parity with men, it had been forgotten that the whole point of the male head / female staff was because women were cheaper, and it had become a truism that primary classroom teaching was gendered female.
I guess it won't surprise that this gender gap continues to A level. I found this really interesting animation that shows performance by gender, subject over time. Link
@mousethief really interesting that this hasn't happened in the US. This perhaps adds weight to the idea that there is something that has happened in UK education that has specifically disadvantaged boys.
@Doc Tor wrote : the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
You know, having worked in education for a good portion of my life I kinda share this view. But in terms of how the 'disadvantage' game is played, isn't this view blaming the victim - in that the challenge is to make education meet the needs and interests of the disadvantaged groups?
I guess it won't surprise that this gender gap continues to A level. I found this really interesting animation that shows performance by gender, subject over time. Link
@mousethief really interesting that this hasn't happened in the US. This perhaps adds weight to the idea that there is something that has happened in UK education that has specifically disadvantaged boys.
@Doc Tor wrote : the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
You know, having worked in education for a good portion of my life I kinda share this view. But in terms of how the 'disadvantage' game is played, isn't this view blaming the victim - in that the challenge is to make education meet the needs and interests of the disadvantaged groups?
Cheers
ASher
Mousethief said that the shift to coursework hadn't happened in the US, not the gap between girls' and boys' academic achievements.
I guess it won't surprise that this gender gap continues to A level. I found this really interesting animation that shows performance by gender, subject over time. Link
@mousethief really interesting that this hasn't happened in the US. This perhaps adds weight to the idea that there is something that has happened in UK education that has specifically disadvantaged boys.
@Doc Tor wrote : the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
You know, having worked in education for a good portion of my life I kinda share this view. But in terms of how the 'disadvantage' game is played, isn't this view blaming the victim - in that the challenge is to make education meet the needs and interests of the disadvantaged groups?
Cheers
ASher
Mousethief said that the shift to coursework hadn't happened in the US, not the gap between girls' and boys' academic achievements.
You know, having worked in education for a good portion of my life I kinda share this view. But in terms of how the 'disadvantage' game is played, isn't this view blaming the victim - in that the challenge is to make education meet the needs and interests of the disadvantaged groups?
My own experience gives me no idea how that might be done, when we are letting people choose their course, and then finding they don't want to be there (UK HE again). Maybe financial incentives for those who can apply after 3 years NI contributions, to encourage later study and a more mature attitude (and perhaps, course selection)? This doesn't contribute to the discussion of what is going on in schools, of course.
The best job I had as a supply teacher was working in an FE College. The youngsters there had failed GCSE English (my subject) and Maths, which they needed to go on with their chosen courses in Engineering, Farm Management or whatever. None of them were going to be the next Leavis, but they all - including the lads - recognised that I was their best help in getting a qualification they needed, but did not want. The change in attitude from normal secondary education, where I was the enemy, was refreshing.
@Doc Tor Something happens to boys when they go to big school
Is there any reason I shouldn't suggest institutional prejudice?
If it happened to POC or women that would be the first place to look. Different for white boys?
They are the same structures that worked for white boys for centuries. What has changed is that the pool of competitors at the big school expanded to include non-white non-boys. White boys didn't mind being ranked below other white boys because merit principle. A more broadly applied merit principle now means they are now ranked below some non-white non-boys as well. They're not falling behind, they're moving towards their true level.
As the social mix changes, so does the reaction of those who are part of it. My observation is that that there is an element in "white" male culture (there are many white cultures, of course, it being neither more nor less complex than the culture of any other ethnic group) which becomes more obdurate and less supple and receptive in the presence of difference. This is strictly an observation, not an excuse. I don't believe that the solution is to return to monocultural education, but it is an issue which, to my mind, needs addressing within those cultural groups if their educational attainment is to improve.
Gender and ethnicity are certainly variables - possibly sexuality as well, and class (and therefore wealth, though they are not entirely coterminous). Any others?
sorry for the double posting. Just rereadd my post, and I think part of it is poorly worded. My phrase "those cultural groups" means the "white" male culture I referred to earlier, not the other groups being introduced into previously near-exclusively white milieux.
@Doc Tor Something happens to boys when they go to big school
Is there any reason I shouldn't suggest institutional prejudice?
If it happened to POC or women that would be the first place to look. Different for white boys?
They are the same structures that worked for white boys for centuries. What has changed is that the pool of competitors at the big school expanded to include non-white non-boys. White boys didn't mind being ranked below other white boys because merit principle. A more broadly applied merit principle now means they are now ranked below some non-white non-boys as well. They're not falling behind, they're moving towards their true level.
My post that Mousethief responded to was about ALL boys, not just white boys. The UK data and reports I have linked to have been about just gender.
My suggestion about institutional prejudice was based purely on the trends in the data - for 30 years girls have outperformed boys at GCSE (16 yrs old), and over the last 30 years boys performance at A level (18 yrs old) has declined and is significantly below that of girls.
I was (and am) wondering about structural gender prejudice. Answers from other posters that boys can be immature and have a poor work ethic might have legs, but should be spurs to positive action (that is not seen beyond primary school).
The only positive gender based action I know of in secondary schools and 6th forms is around Women in Engineering.
You are US based? I had a quick 5 minute google and couldn't find comparable data to the UK gender trends - the research seemed to be all about race.
I have no comment to make on race and educational performance - I'll stick to gender here.
My son observed that there was no gender difference between the clever boys and girls at his school (state comprehensive), the difference was between the less academically able. Girls would still come to school to socialise with their friends and would generally pick up some qualifications; the boys would truant and leave with nothing.
Allied to this, it seems to me that poor academic results are not disastrous for girls, who can progress onto a college course in childcare or beauty therapy with remarkably little in the way of formal qualifications, and from thence into work; there is no shortage of jobs in childcare.
Comments
It's a learned instinct. It's not a trajectory computation, it's a pattern match. And you're right - some people just can't do it.
No it doesn't. It just means that they aren't the same. It makes no statement about value.
I sometimes find myself in I think the position of Firenze's redundant bloke - being asked how I feel about something I don't have an emotional response to.
I have plenty of emotional responses, but this doesn't mean I have an emotional response to everything. For example, suppose Mrs C was to ask me how I felt about picking kid A up from an activity she wants to do that's an hour or so's drive away. (This may in fact resemble reality.)
I have some mild feelings about that - I have feelings of happiness that kid A is trying to make arrangements for things she wants to do, rather than passively drifting along. I have mild feelings of irritation that nothing she wants to do is close by. These are very mild feelings - not really worth mentioning, any more that I'd mention the feeling of irritation I get when I find the caddy has run out of tea, and I have to go and get a new packet.
I have an instinctive response, which depending on the time that she needs picking up is either "that's probably fine" or "that sounds difficult". And then I have the logical thought process that says "on that day? Well, I could move this meeting, and leave early. It could be done."
How I feel about it just isn't relevant to the decision. It's clear that unless it's completely impossible, I'm going to do it, because this is something we have previously agreed kid A should do, and Mrs C has to be somewhere else with the other kids. I can feel happy about it, or I can feel unreasonably furious about having to drive an extra hour out of my way, and it makes no difference, except to my mental state, and that isn't improved by getting angry about things that I can't change.
And equally, how I feel about it isn't useful. I might feel perfectly fine about doing it, but if my boss requires my presence in some important meeting on that day, I would be unable to do it.
So asking about my feelings is just the wrong question.
I think what you are saying here is that you are Patty and Selma Bouvier, and simply go gaga for Macgyver. Does the remake do it for you?
I'm not sure about the buddy film, which may be less sociopathic. But these are fantasies, aren't they? I'm mulling over the decline of the western, but I don't know if this shows a reduction in the toxicity and misogyny in masculinity. Maybe it shows up in other places, e.g., alt right.
Btw, Richard Ayoade’s book The Grip of Film explores this stuff, and is hilarious with it.
“Without women... who else would we mentally undress? Who else would we rescue? Who else would we lovingly but firmly tell to stay put while we get on with the dangerous ass-kicking business of Act III? But that’s not to say women are just passengers. Sometimes dames can help - e.g. by smashing something light/breakable over someone’s head, thus giving the leading man a little extra time to deal with the other assailants.”
Origin?
I've quoted all of this, because it sums up what I have to do with my emotions all the time in a family context (which is, all the time) - and this is on a good day. If I feed my emotions, then as someone upthread hinted, my house is going to go all ITALY in a great hurry - and this is not something I want, because although I am sure my handbrake is OK at rest, I am not confident in the brake linings once we're moving and they're a bit warm. This is going to go down like a turd sandwich somewhere as right-on as this, but this seems to be the lot of most husbands I know - take shit, don't respond, then take shit for being unemotional. You get used to it, but it probably slowly calcifies you.
Italy?
Yes, I am very emotional, wife not. I think it works, as when I panic, she stays calm. Distribution of labour, I suppose. Not sure how cultural it is, most of the men in my family are cry-babies.
Me, I'd prefer NOT to have someone squirting their every emotion all over me at the drop of a hat. Give me the big ones, but the small things like "Crap, the kid forgot his shoes again"? Just deal with it on your own, and I'll deal with mine ditto.
But that's me.
Bite me, stereotype.
Well, it is a stereotype, the unemotional male. I wonder how true it is. Bite me, anecdote.
link
Does it matter? If not, why not?
This echoes something I have been reflecting on recently in a number of blue collar men in their late fifties I have been alongside.
Providers through work. But work hurts - bodies starting to fail: hips, knees, shoulders. Wife earns a bit, but much less (time out with kids). Facing another 20 years. Kids still at home in their 30s - still wanting money. Feel trapped. Keep up the front of blokey bants - no friends to be vulnerable with. No point talking about it cos nothing is going to change.
Bloody awful.
Asher
Yes, it matters. And it's not - at least this time it's not - a question of removed privilege feeling like discrimination.
FWIW - I worked in a primary school for 8 years while my kids were passing through it. I was a teaching assistant (more academically qualified than anyone else on the staff, but didn't have a PGCE) in KS2 (roughly 8-11), and mainly in Y6 (10-11s, the top end of primary). I was one of three men in the school. All the other staff, apart from Dave the Caretaker, was a woman.
There's been a lot of talk about whether having more men in primary education would level up the boys, but in my experience (and the results I think bear this out) boys were just as able to get a Level 4 at the end of KS2 as the girls. But also that boys overwhelmingly represented the outliers - a few pupils in each year were very academic, and a few had minds like cold porridge, and almost all of them were boys.
Girls could behave terribly. Boys were potentially more likely to solve their problems with their fists and feet, but the girls were absolutely vicious with the social manipulation - and it was a problem that was far more difficult to resolve. But all in all, things were pretty even - it depended on the year.
Something happens to boys when they go to big school. I never taught there, and I've gladly obliterated most of my memories of secondary school.
I had a quick look at undergrad gender balance, and that too is skewed. Of course there are a few subjectts that remain male dominated, and these are subject to equality drives, but the overall picture is clear.
Cheers Asher
..typing on phone grrrr
Is there any reason I shouldn't suggest institutional prejudice?
If it happened to POC or women that would be the first place to look. Different for white boys?
Why, necessarily? I get that the structures of power will be different, but we are still talking about an institution with power dynamics between teachers and pupils, and between those setting the curriculum, those "delivering" it (I hate that word in this context, but it seems to have become irreplaceable) and those on the receiving end. They are young, and on the low end of the knowledge gradient.
On the other hand, they live, for the most part, in a culture that is hostile to knowledge and to visible interest in the pursuit of knowledge. That is not of the educational institution's creation, but they seem oddly powerless to contest it.
There's evidence both ways, but I am very suspicious of identity markers automatically cancelling out institutional power structures.
I think I can safely say that the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
I agree about the negative female stuff. Low level bullying from boys, yes, and the very occasional major male bully - met a couple or so over my career (and they usually made use of otherwise female techniques). Female stuff became more or less annual over my career - don't remember it being too much of a problem at the beginning.
I don’t know what happens in the secondary sector, but obviously a child may be working with six or eight different subject teachers, and each teacher may be working with a hundred or more children who they only see for a matter of hours each week. There’s an obvious need for this in terms of subject content, but it isn’t possible for a teacher to know a child and his/her needs and aptitudes in the same way as a primary teacher who sees the same 30 or so children virtually all day and virtually every day.
One of the biggest factors is parental commitment and support, but parents who struggled with education themselves or who have lost hope for opportunities in their area may not easily be able to endorse the value of school.
I'd like to add something to that. At the moment I work in an engineering department in a university in the lower reaches of the UK system. The intake (I have no influence on admissions, or I might have said our intake) is about 90% male, and about 90% non-white - of those, about half are of Pakistani origin from local mill towns (and poor-ish), and about half are of Arab origin from the gulf states - and rich. Most of the students in both groups are not very bright, to be kind, and many are resistant to learning, by which I mean their attendance is poor and their attitude not great.
The fact they are there at all seems to be that their cultures expect them to attend - in both cases they have ended up at this particular institution, because it is prepared to 'farm' less suitable applicants in the guise of widening participation. The lack of similar cultural expectations amongst UK white and black cohorts, seems to mean they are under-represented. Perhaps this chimes with other comments made up-thread.
One new area where that is much less true, is in so-called 'degree apprenticeships' where students study alongside a job. I have been very sceptical of this innovation - but the first cohort, whilst not the brightest, appear to be diligent and likely to succeed. It's nice to teach them. They are very white, in contrast to the rest of the department, and I have not worked out yet why that should be - perhaps 'job+study' is more acceptable than 'study=debt' in this group?
Just my 2p.
I think I've mentioned before that some time ago I taught some of the foundation year course - basically a pre-degree year for people with bad or missing A-levels - at a middle-rank UK university. The course attracted two kinds of students - those that had got bad A-levels because they didn't do any work, and seemed keep to continue this practice, and those who had left school at 16, worked for a few years, and decided to get more education.
The latter group was very much like you describe your "degree apprentices" here - not always very bright, but keen and diligent, and therefore an absolute joy to teach. I'd suspect it was for very similar reasons - studying alongside a job does not look like an easy option. People who choose it tend to be motivated.
The other lot? With rare exceptions, they handed in a small fraction of the required work, and were first in line when the bar opened. They weren't at university for an education - at least, not an academic one.
As far as the gender divide went, the mature students were almost entirely men; the party people had a male/female split typical of the subject as a whole.
Then you come across Ken's argument that women mature earlier and this makes it easier for women to take advantage of education in the classroom. Also socialisation of girls often makes them compliant in the classroom which does not happen with boys to the same extent.
In other words it probably is structural but the educational environment that produces it is a product of wider society.
This shift did not happen in the US, so something else will have to be brought in to explain the same trend.
@mousethief really interesting that this hasn't happened in the US. This perhaps adds weight to the idea that there is something that has happened in UK education that has specifically disadvantaged boys.
@Doc Tor wrote : the staff at the school would bloody love it if the white boys turned up on Monday morning, with the attitude that learning matters, that an education was the best way to improve their lives, and exams are something to be worked for.
You know, having worked in education for a good portion of my life I kinda share this view. But in terms of how the 'disadvantage' game is played, isn't this view blaming the victim - in that the challenge is to make education meet the needs and interests of the disadvantaged groups?
Cheers
ASher
Mousethief said that the shift to coursework hadn't happened in the US, not the gap between girls' and boys' academic achievements.
Thanks, my misreading
My own experience gives me no idea how that might be done, when we are letting people choose their course, and then finding they don't want to be there (UK HE again). Maybe financial incentives for those who can apply after 3 years NI contributions, to encourage later study and a more mature attitude (and perhaps, course selection)? This doesn't contribute to the discussion of what is going on in schools, of course.
They are the same structures that worked for white boys for centuries. What has changed is that the pool of competitors at the big school expanded to include non-white non-boys. White boys didn't mind being ranked below other white boys because merit principle. A more broadly applied merit principle now means they are now ranked below some non-white non-boys as well. They're not falling behind, they're moving towards their true level.
Gender and ethnicity are certainly variables - possibly sexuality as well, and class (and therefore wealth, though they are not entirely coterminous). Any others?
My post that Mousethief responded to was about ALL boys, not just white boys. The UK data and reports I have linked to have been about just gender.
My suggestion about institutional prejudice was based purely on the trends in the data - for 30 years girls have outperformed boys at GCSE (16 yrs old), and over the last 30 years boys performance at A level (18 yrs old) has declined and is significantly below that of girls.
I was (and am) wondering about structural gender prejudice. Answers from other posters that boys can be immature and have a poor work ethic might have legs, but should be spurs to positive action (that is not seen beyond primary school).
The only positive gender based action I know of in secondary schools and 6th forms is around Women in Engineering.
You are US based? I had a quick 5 minute google and couldn't find comparable data to the UK gender trends - the research seemed to be all about race.
I have no comment to make on race and educational performance - I'll stick to gender here.
Cheers
Asher
Allied to this, it seems to me that poor academic results are not disastrous for girls, who can progress onto a college course in childcare or beauty therapy with remarkably little in the way of formal qualifications, and from thence into work; there is no shortage of jobs in childcare.