Author Topic: "(Racially) segregated classrooms improve learning" - Anita Sarkeesian  (Read 6403 times)

Actually, segregating education by gender would be the best, since boys and girls learn in different ways. The current education system very much favors girls' way of learning which is why boys are falling behind.
Yes, this is true in part.
But, as is always the case with these sorts of issues, you can not generalise an entire type of people and then act on that generalisation.

Because there will always be people who fall outside the box.
To completely split education in half, where 50% of the student population learns one way and the other 50% another, based only upon their gender at birth is horribly wrong.
You will find plenty of boys who learn better in a manner more similar to that which, for lake of a better term, is considered more 'feminine'. And likewise girls who learn better in a more 'masculine' teaching environment.


If you're going to split people up in education in order to tailor their education to them you have to look at them individually.
A perfect brown townogy, holding on the tailoring motif, is clothing production. You can have either;
- A one-size-fits all suit, made for the average build. It will maybe fit you, not particularly comfortably, and chances are a lot of people won't fit it at all, being either too big or too small in lots of areas.
OR
- A generic off-the-rack suit which is described to fit people of your average size, e.g, Small, Medium, Large, XL, XXL. It will fit you sort of decently, but the arms might not be perfect, or the collar, or the cuffs.
OR
- A custom tailored suit, which has been measured up in every area to fit you. Provided a good tailor has been measuring and tailoring for you, it should fit perfectly in every area.

A custom tailored experience will always be better for you.
If you're going to change the education system then you need to more accurately categorise people and put them in classes with similar people who can all be taught the same way that is best for them. And you need to sit down with students, even test them, to find out these personalities. Not just assume that all the boys will learn best one way and all the girls another.


You're better off leaving it as is, rather than forcibly splitting everyone up in half on a fairly arbitrary division, and alienating plenty of people.

And actually, splitting people up by gender is just the reverse of a feminist concept. Because (and I will acknowledge this as a slippery slope fallacy, since we're all playing that game) it leaves the door open for the system to be manipulated. If all the girls are being taught one way, and all the boys another, then it's all the more easier to stop teaching the girls certain things, or just start teaching the boys certain things.
In the same way that schooling used to be like anywhere from 40-100 years ago, with girls being taught things like home-ec and textiles and cooking, while boys learn maths, science and woodwork. Which definitely creates a labour divide, where boys and girls can't go into certain professions because they've never had the education for it.

maybe it's just that, and this is a crazy idea, humans are a loveually dimorphic species and the lovees have general leanings towards certain things

there have been studies that show that male newborns look at mechanical devices longer and female newborns look at faces longer
but clearly this is just the effects of social conditioning on the newborns

Why haven't we seen a significant increase in female entrepreneurs then? Why haven't we seen a massive influx of male teachers?

yeah because he'd probably be labeled a child enthusiast

well that sucks that you "feel" that way, but men and women think and learn differently

deal with it

research doesn't matter when you have your feels

Why are feminists so opposed to the idea that the lovees are different? Humans are a loveually dimorphic species, which is loving obvious and has been proven time and time again. We think differently, we act differently, we learn differently, we like different things... Is that a problem? No.
School is also where a lot of social skills are developed. love-separated schools wouldn't go well IMO. This problem could be remedied by having love-separated classrooms instead of love-separated school though.

That being said, I'm opposed to love separated classrooms as well, because even if loveual dimorphism exists, it would suck if a girl who wanted to be an engineer or a guy who wanted to be a writer or whatever was discouraged from pursuing that. I think the way we have it now is plenty fine.

that isnt what he said at all?
yes you're right, but I'm saying that he probably doesn't actually believe what he's saying, not that he said what I said

yes you're right, but I'm saying that he probably doesn't actually believe what he's saying, not that he said what I said
oh I'm sorry for not making my post so specific

oh I'm sorry for not making my post so specific
it doesn't have anything to do with specificity doofus
I was doubting that you actually feel that way

it doesn't have anything to do with specificity doofus
I was doubting that you actually feel that way
no you're nitpicking for an argument, I was only responding to an image in the OP

I can't believe anita got to be one of time's most influential people
now how much rooster did she suck to get that title

separate but equal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_and_Mamie_Clark#Doll_experiments
Quote from: Wikipedia
The child was then asked questions inquiring as to which one is the doll they would play with, which one is the nice doll, which one looks bad, which one has the nicer color, etc. The experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all children in the study. These findings exposed internalized racism in African-American children, self-hatred that was more acute among children attending segregated schools.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 10:54:49 PM by Johnimiester »

This lady is coo coo for crazypuffs. Segregation is never good. Creates serious issues in the long run. I support feminism because there still is a reason for it but i don't support feminist supremacists.

I don't like feminism, I just don't like it, some of them are just so loving biased it makes me want to punch the water off my desk.

I don't like feminism, I just don't like it, some of them are just so loving biased it makes me want to punch the water off my desk.
Ok, dont blame the entire movement for some people. Thats how problems start.

Feminism is weird because if you want as much equality for both genders as possible why would you name it after only one of the genders? You've effectively alienated half of your potential for change. Being humanist is the way forward but most feminists will never admit that because they like their girl club too much.

well it's specifically targeting women because women make up typically the less-equal love

similarly, specific civil rights movements, e.g. african american or LGBT, are specific to one group because they're focusing on one less-equal party. it's not all-inclusive because it's for a specific purpose. i'm sure that most of the people who follow those ideologies would agree with general egalitarianism.

Feminism is weird because if you want as much equality for both genders as possible why would you name it after only one of the genders? You've effectively alienated half of your potential for change. Being humanist is the way forward but most feminists will never admit that because they like their girl club too much.
This is a dumb way to think of this.
Feminism has existed for over 100 years in America. It's not like somebody "founded" feminism in 2015. Your argument doesn't hold up to when the movement was first named, so it doesn't work at all.

if it ever appeared that i was making a claim that humans are near-100% nurture and insignificantly nature oops because that's silly and obviously not, but nurture is definitely a major factor to consider.

definitely

there are a lot of things that are purely cultural. gendered objects or symbols and the sort (not claiming that gendered objects and symbols are the only factors involved in this, it's an entire process and many parts of a person's experiences contribute). boys being given trucks, girls being given dolls, this kind of thing isn't a result of natural inclination, it's just part of gender socialisation.

They are given these toys because they want them and naturally are inclined to

obv males and females are biologically different in many ways, but it's not really fair to people as people to try and cause a kind of arbitrary divide when humans are so amazingly capable of aspiring for a kind of complex self-actualisation that other animals don't get to experience or strive for

It's not arbitrary though, as I've pointed out.

i wasn't really meaning to say that. i was conceding ignorance, not superiority to ignorance

alright sorry



good lord dooble

Anyway, I agree that there are definitely exceptions to the rule. I think that if a student isn't performing well, then they can switch them over to the other learning style and see if they do better, if they do worse then they switch them back and go on from there.

Regarding the slippery slope fallacy you admittedly used, it is quite possible that the system could be abused, but that's why we have to make sure we're teaching both lovees the same things, just different ways.

School is also where a lot of social skills are developed. love-separated schools wouldn't go well IMO. This problem could be remedied by having love-separated classrooms instead of love-separated school though.

I already explained what I meant: separated while being taught, together during recess/lunch/break/whatever.

That being said, I'm opposed to love separated classrooms as well, because even if loveual dimorphism exists,

loveual dimorphism does exist; there's no "if" about it.

it would suck if a girl who wanted to be an engineer or a guy who wanted to be a writer or whatever was discouraged from pursuing that.

What? I'm saying teaching them in different ways, not different things.

I think the way we have it now is plenty fine.

No. It's not. Boys are falling behind girls in schools because it heavily favors their learning style.



well it's specifically targeting women because women make up typically the less-equal love

This isn't necessarily true. It's just that society cares more about women and their issues than men and their issues. There are plenty of countries with men's and women's rights issues. People just tend to focus on women's issues because nobody gives a forget about men's problems

I don't like feminism, I just don't like it, some of them are just so loving biased it makes me want to punch the water off my desk.

easy there, tiger