School hostility to boys

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/19/school-has-become-too-hostile-to-boys/?iid=tsmodule

As school begins in the coming weeks, parents of boys should ask themselves a question: Is my son really welcome? A flurry of incidents last spring suggests that the answer is no. In May, Christopher Marshall, age 7, was suspended from his Virginia school for picking up a pencil and using it to “shoot” a “bad guy” — his friend, who was also suspended. A few months earlier, Josh Welch, also 7, was sent home from his Maryland school for nibbling off the corners of a strawberry Pop-Tart to shape it into a gun. At about the same time, Colorado’s Alex Evans, age 7, was suspended for throwing an imaginary hand grenade at “bad guys” in order to “save the world.”

In all these cases, school officials found the children to be in violation of the school’s zero-tolerance policies for firearms, which is clearly a ludicrous application of the rule. But common sense isn’t the only thing at stake here. In the name of zero tolerance, our schools are becoming hostile environments for young boys.

Girls occasionally run afoul of these draconian policies; but it is mostly boys who are ensnared. Boys are nearly five times more likely to be expelled from preschool than girls. In grades K-12, boys account for nearly 70% of suspensions, often for minor acts of insubordination and defiance. In the cases of Christopher, Josh and Alex, there was no insubordination or defiance whatsoever. They were guilty of nothing more than being typical 7-year-old boys. But in today’s school environment, that can be a punishable offense.

Zero tolerance was originally conceived as a way of ridding schools of violent predators, especially in the wake of horrific shootings in places like Littleton, Colo. But juvenile violence, including violence at schools, is at a historic low. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2011, approximately 1% of students ages 12 to 18 reported a violent victimization at school. For serious violence, the figure is one-tenth of 1%. It does no disrespect to the victims of Columbine or Sandy Hook to note that while violence may be built into the core of a small coterie of sociopathic boys, most boys are not sociopathic.

On the other hand, millions of boys are struggling academically. A large and growing male cohort is falling behind in grades and disengaged from school. College has never been more important to a young person’s life prospects, and today boys are far less likely than girls to pursue education beyond high school. As our schools become more risk averse, the gender gap favoring girls is threatening to become a chasm.

Across the country, schools are policing and punishing the distinctive, assertive sociability of boys. Many much-loved games have vanished from school playgrounds. At some schools, tug of war has been replaced with “tug of peace.” Since the 1990s, elimination games like dodgeball, red rover and tag have been under a cloud — too damaging to self-esteem and too violent, say certain experts. Young boys, with few exceptions, love action narratives. These usually involve heroes, bad guys, rescues and shoot-ups. As boys’ play proceeds, plots become more elaborate and the boys more transfixed. When researchers ask boys why they do it, the standard reply is, “Because it’s fun.”

According to at least one study, such play rarely escalates into real aggression — only about 1% of the time. But when two researchers, Mary Ellin Logue and Hattie Harvey, surveyed classroom practices of 98 teachers of 4-year-olds, they found that this style of play was the least tolerated. Nearly half of teachers stopped or redirected boys’ dramatic play daily or several times a week — whereas less than a third reported stopping or redirecting girls’ dramatic play weekly.

Play is a critical basis for learning. And boys’ heroic play is no exception. Logue and Harvey found that “bad guy” play improved children’s conversation and imaginative writing. Such play, say the authors, also builds moral imagination, social competence and imparts critical lessons about personal limits and self-restraint. Logue and Harvey worry that the growing intolerance for boys’ action-narrative-play choices may be undermining their early language development and weakening their attachment to school. Imagine the harm done to boys like Christopher, Josh and Alex who are not merely discouraged from their choice of play, but are punished, publicly shamed and ostracized.

Schools must enforce codes of discipline and maintain clear rules against incivility and malicious behavior. But that hardly requires abolishing tag, imposing games of tug of peace or banning superhero play. Efforts to re-engineer the young-male imagination are doomed to fail, but they will succeed spectacularly in at least one way. They will send a clear and unmistakable message to millions of schoolboys: You are not welcome in school.

This nonsense about suspending kids for playing with make-believe guns is insane.

I'd be interested in knowing if there's a significant difference between how private and public schools treat boys.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Yes, let have zero tolerance for firearms for kids when the same people is getting their 25 tacnukes killstreaks while spouting ******s and fags in their favorite current flavor of Call of Duty.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Just pretend it's a real grenade or a real gun (even if it shoots delicious pop tart filled goo) and you'll travel inside the mind of these enlightened school officials.

Nothing as dangerous as the imagination these days because it's the last bastion of control the rulers seek.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
1984? What's that? Some kind of computer or something?

The real reason for banning games like tag and red rover is very simple. Boys build self esteem through competition. Becoming excellent at something, even if you lose from time to time, makes boys too confident. This is dangerous because confident men with high self esteem are more likely to challenge authority and do crazy things like lead a rebellion against British dictators or ask why the government is allowed to ban plants. Destroying their self esteem at a young age mentally prepares them to be serfs.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I can't think of many instances where blanket zero-tolerance rules that aren't open to judgement, interpretation, or common sense are actually a good thing.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
1984? What's that? Some kind of computer or something?

The real reason for banning games like tag and red rover is very simple. Boys build self esteem through competition. Becoming excellent at something, even if you lose from time to time, makes boys too confident. This is dangerous because confident men with high self esteem are more likely to challenge authority and do crazy things like lead a rebellion against British dictators or ask why the government is allowed to ban plants. Destroying their self esteem at a young age mentally prepares them to be serfs.

I think its more like boys are naturally more competitive than girls. If you want girls to be "equal" to boys this poses a significant impediment.

What easier way to make girls "equal" than to beat down boys?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,274
28,439
136
1984? What's that? Some kind of computer or something?

The real reason for banning games like tag and red rover is very simple. Boys build self esteem through competition. Becoming excellent at something, even if you lose from time to time, makes boys too confident. This is dangerous because confident men with high self esteem are more likely to challenge authority and do crazy things like lead a rebellion against British dictators or ask why the government is allowed to ban plants. Destroying their self esteem at a young age mentally prepares them to be serfs.
Yes, it's clearly all of that and not just some tree-hugging liberal hippies that want to promote a violence-free society.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
I think its more like boys are naturally more competitive than girls. If you want girls to be "equal" to boys this poses a significant impediment.

Lets not forget aggressive.

We teach children not to be aggressive, but then expect the men to go off and defend the nation?

How is the military expected to undo decades of brainwashing in a matter of weeks?

Liberals are turning this nation into a bunch of sissies one generation at a time. Before long we will surrender before france does.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Lets not forget aggressive.

We teach children not to be aggressive, but then expect the men to go off and defend the nation?

How is the military expected to undo decades of brainwashing in a matter of weeks?

I think its more amusing that liberals throw a fit if you try and force a gay boy to be straight but then have no problems subverting natural boyish impulses. :hmm:
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
The real reason for banning games like tag and red rover is very simple

B.S. It has to do with liability issues. Enough aholes have sued because their dear little Johnny got hurt on the playground that it became an issue of money. Jesus you guys didn't realize this? Even FOX news knows this!!!


Officials at an elementary school south of Boston
external-link.png
have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe
external-link.png
, who approved the ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/18/massachusetts-school-bans-tag-amid-fears-injuries-lawsuits/
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,066
1,468
126
1984? What's that? Some kind of computer or something?

The real reason for banning games like tag and red rover is very simple. Boys build self esteem through competition. Becoming excellent at something, even if you lose from time to time, makes boys too confident. This is dangerous because confident men with high self esteem are more likely to challenge authority and do crazy things like lead a rebellion against British dictators or ask why the government is allowed to ban plants. Destroying their self esteem at a young age mentally prepares them to be serfs.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Paranoid much?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,066
1,468
126
I think its more like boys are naturally more competitive than girls. If you want girls to be "equal" to boys this poses a significant impediment.

What easier way to make girls "equal" than to beat down boys?

Ah nehalem and his continued push to eliminate equal rights for women. Must be a day that ends in "y".
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The article is spot on. The feminization of the school system is increasingly hostile to normal boys. It's a major problem, but I assure you we won't be seeing any big headlines about it because it's simply not a narrative the liberal education process wants to take on.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Officials at an elementary school south of Bostonhave banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

My son and my daughter both broke an arm at school during recess.

Zero lawsuits filed.

It is all part of growing up. Let kids be kids. Let them get bruised, let them break an arm, because they will be better off in the long run.

Sports builds character, it also lets the kids know their limits.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Ah nehalem and his continued push to eliminate equal rights for women. Must be a day that ends in "y".

So you are saying forcing men to be less competitive and subverting their natual tendancies is necessary for women to have equal rights? Go on please tell me more...

Seems like we are in agreement with the purpose of schools hostility to boys. We are just disagreeing with whether that is a good or not.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Zero tolerance was originally conceived as a way of ridding schools of violent predators, especially in the wake of horrific shootings in places like Littleton, Colo. But juvenile violence, including violence at schools, is at a historic low. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2011, approximately 1% of students ages 12 to 18 reported a violent victimization at school. For serious violence, the figure is one-tenth of 1%. It does no disrespect to the victims of Columbine or Sandy Hook to note that while violence may be built into the core of a small coterie of sociopathic boys, most boys are not sociopathic.

Sounds like it is working.

I agree that zero common sense on top of zero tolerance laws is stupid... but the article kinda glossed over this data.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Paranoid much?
Or you can look at simple facts and try to draw some logical conclusions. In the 1950s and 1960s, EVERYBODY owned a gun, but there weren't that many school shootings. As recently as the 1990s, toy guns looked like real guns. Megatron's alternate form was a hand gun. As acceptance of guns has declined and zero tolerance policies came into effect, the number of school shootings exploded. Look how many school shootings have occured since 2010: list.

So we've established that reducing exposure to both real and toy guns has done nothing to prevent school shootings, and I'm fairly certain most Americans know this. Ask anyone if school shootings happen more today or 20 years ago and most people will say today. Teachers and admins know this, so what could be the motivation to suspend anyone who expresses noble desires like protecting innocent people from monsters? Nobody is forcing a teacher to report a kid who eats a poptart in a weird way, so what is the motivation? I'll leave that for you to figure out.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
More like egalitarian pipe dream society hostility to boys. As usual, the lamestream media is about 20 years too late to the party.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Clearly, the solution is Separate but Equal schools for boys.

You may or may not be joking, but that's actually a really good idea. Maybe not separate schools, but separate classes. There have been a few studies about how kids learn things, and they all came to the conclusion that boys are not girls (shocking, I know). I can't remember the specifics, but boys did much better when there was competition and reward. Boys also did better with hands-on type learning such as manually adding numbers together. 5 marbles + 3 marbles = 8 marbles. One of the other weird things was that boys and girls tended to distract each other in some way. Boys don't want to look stupid in front of girls, so they would not participate as much, not try to answer questions.