Slashdot Mirror
Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys
pickens writes "Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, sunscreen lotion, and moisturizing cream. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children all over the developed world. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes. 'The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservatives] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system,' says the report. The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising. 'Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not,' says Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust."
All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.
"The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising."
And how are these chemicals affecting animal population ratios?
For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!!
Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!
GIMME A BREAK.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I assume they mean the Netherlands, since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands.
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
I don't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress. Aren't all those things... cultural...?
Proportion of females is rising. This is good news.
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren. Again, fellow Slashdotters, this is good news.
One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.
To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...
We now have an explanation for the "Metrosexual" trend...
"Nature bats last..."
FTFA:
One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group. If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.
That said, it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results. I'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels, and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies.
In short, yes.
Denmark has _no_ rednecks/chavs/illiterate underclass. Quite frankly it's amazing, and is mostly a result of huge investment in education after the second world war.
More women mean they'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand. I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong. :P
It's important to note that the Danes are not genetically more gifted than the rest of us. The idiotic English chavs and the Danes were the same people a few tens of generations ago. The things that make us stupid are cultural anti-intellectualism and childhood malnutrition, not some inborn deficit that applies to whole swaths of people.
If we're heading for an idiocracy, it's not because idiots breed more. Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else, on the whole. Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
You forgot the two-faced backstabbing, the bald-faced lies, etc. Women are evil to each other in their younger years.
Not being any sort of expert on human behaviour, I can only hazard a guess that this behaviour stems from the instinct that other women are potential opponents when they seek their ideal mate.
Regardless of that I personally support a change of behaviour to predominantly "feminine".
Ezekiel 23:20
This article does not make sense.
Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc. External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.
Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.
However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births. The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. ... In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.
Would it have killed them to say what the observed rate is? Here's my analysis.
Google says:
United Kingdom — Birth Rate: 10.65 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Population, United Kingdom 61,399,118 - 2008
My calculator tells me that's 10.65 * 61,399,118 / 1000 = 653900.6067.
With 106 M:100 F ratio, we expect 106/206 * 653900 = 336473 males/year.
336473 / 653900 = 51.46% expected (106:100)
(336473 - 2000) / 653900 = 51.15% observed (about 104.7:100)
If we assume they're being honest when using the word thousands, then the observed rate in Britain is less than 104.7 boys for every 100 girls.
[Disclaimer: I'm not the same AC as the parent.]
If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).
Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.
Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50% of your citizens is ethical.
It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.
They are government employees in Danmark, too. In fact I'd imagine a higher proportion of them are, based on grandparent's point about investment on education - just who do you think did that?
But then again, that's not compatible with libertarian/conservative/far right agenda, so you ignored it and posted pointless propaganda for your pet ideology instead. Just as pretty much everyone else who has strong opinions - left or right - on these matters - or any matter, really - does. That's an unfortunate human trait, and one we really have to get rid of if we're to advance as a species.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You do have to wonder if the widening gap between rural and city male voting behavior might actually be attributable to exposure to these sorts of chemicals, in all seriousness.
This is my sig.
blah blah, and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features, and there's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female, and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days, and, and, an
Well, I would think that, when you people are ignoring that animals in nature are all becoming genders, 10 year old girls are getting pregnant, that, you might look up from your Wii and say, "hey, you know, the whole planet is fucked up, and we might well, actually try to FIX IT." Sometimes when there is a fire, you have to yell more than once.
Just a thought.
This is my sig.
I should imagine most of the feminist community ain't too happy about this; the news reporting is chock-full of gender essentialism.
First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.
The fundamental flaw of education is:
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
2) No child left behind. We're treating everyone the same, and that treatment will be the one required for the dumbest. The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
This will be interesting in how it plays out with the excess number of males in China because of the 'one child policy'. If the gender transition occurs in China because of chemical pollution, and becomes more accepted, it could stave off world war three. If it doesn't, the larger number of available females in other countries could encourage emigration or war. Hopefully the pollution gets stopped before any of these longer term effects have a chance.
These reports come out every few years (re: DDT, et al.), and while they're not strictly incorrect, they tend to look at a very incomplete picture of what is going on. To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.
Anyhow, if you take a look at the steroidgenesis diagram, you'll notice that testosterone is a precursor of oestrogen by way of aromatase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase
Now, for those people who remember their organic chemistry and stoichiometry, rates of conversion reactions are increased with catalysts, and decreased with modulators. So, while aromatase will increase the rate at which testosterone converts into estrogen, an aromatase inhibitor will decrease conversion of testosterone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase_Inhibitor
And it turns out that Aromatase Inhibitors are naturally occurring:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1093611464&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/pritzker_lab/pritzker/people/people_images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research_collections/pritzker_lab/pritzker/people/alumni_mitchell.html&usg=__Xc_RyM3WV_KmlfwEp0KCwul_DAk=&h=137&w=200&sz=9&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=jlXt6kpeBMYsJM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBrassaiopsis%2Bglomerulata%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
And there's a growing list of known aromatase inhibitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole
So, simply put... what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls? Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys? Or does it go both ways? Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?
Lastly, I'd also bring up the question whether feminization of boys is primarily caused by environmental chemicals, or if it's driven be completely different factors, such as 1) a cultural response to civil rights access for women, 2) decreased opportunities for war caused by nuclear detante, or 3) need for peaceful co-existance due to worldwide population increases a
When you publicize the harm something can do, you also need to publicize the benefits compared to the next-best option.
[The numbers below are for illustration only and don't reflect any real numbers - i.e. they are totally made up]
"Oh noze, we must ban this or that chemical because 0.1% of our boys will grow up effeminate or be born with female parts" is alarming. But a statement saying "while these chemicals have their downsides, they save an estimated 20 lives a year" provides some context, and can shift the debate from "OMG ban them immediately" to "let's fund research into a better way to save those same 20 lives."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.
It's not the fault of social scientists, really, that their error bars are huge. Unlike physics, social sciences (and medicine, and psychology) are constrained by quaint ideas like informed consent and humanitarian compassion, and these restrictions are enforced by hard-nosed institutional review boards who need to approve every experiment. Social scientists (and doctors, and psychologists) are talented people, but they're forced to make do with milquetoast studies and the exceedingly rare "natural experiment". Some of the most informative studies in the area, in fact, would be off-limits today.
It's easy to decry the social sciences as fuzzy, but could you do better under the same constraints? We should commend social scientists for at least trying.
i suspect its been this way since hormones got discovered.
ever since, there have a been something of a divide between chemists and psychologists, as each want to be the authority on the behavior of man.
thing is tho that the body is a feedback loop, with more chemicals produced depending on all sorts of input, resulting in new output that again produce inputs. The results of this loop is then stored in dna, dna that gets passed on and mixed with other dna.
the big trick is that non-chemical input can result in changes in chemical production, just as well as chemical input can have an effect on existing ones. That's why mood altering drugs, placebo and conversations may all work.
all in all it becomes different tools to do the same job...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I see that you have a strong opinion about people with strong opinions, and are posting pointless propaganda for your pet ideology.
(Oh, and :)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'd also like to add #3: Parents taking little to no interest in their child's education, and expecting the schools to assume that role in its entirety, and intervening only to tell of the teacher who took away their little angel's cell phone because they were texting during class. I dunno about you, but my parents were very proactively involved in my education. They taught me reading, writing, and 'rithmetic before I set foot in kindergarten, and they never stopped assisting and requiring accountability. They encouraged me to think critically and ask questions. If I didn't know, they encouraged me to look it up - and then asked me what I learned after I did. They bought me stuff at yard sales to take apart and I had to identify the basic components inside. If I got in trouble with a teacher and my parents found out about it (and since my parents worked in the school I went to, that was inevitable), the other half would come when I got home, and it wouldn't be pretty. I survived the wooden spoon, I survived learning to eat a balanced diet, I survived homework, and I survived not watching TV until I was 5 or 6.
I don't come here for the average Slashdotter who, I agree, is a naive pimply-faced youth. The occasional useful discussion makes Slashdot worthwhile.
As for your post: I think it's certainly true that there are heritable factors for intelligence in the individual case. And obviously in the aggregate case too: after all, human beings as a whole were once far less intelligent, and a generic change led to our current state.
I just don't see any evidence for aggregate differences in heritable intelligence among the rich and poor in a given society, and think that social and nutritional factors play a far larger role in shaping the observed and obvious differences between the two groups in adult intelligence. Why? I don't see any evidence for a heritable difference. The two groups aren't far enough removed from each other genetically for there to have been much drift, and there's a fair amount of gene flow between them. And after social upheavels, the ones in power end up doing better regardless of whether they are the grandchildren of kings or of peasants. Furthermore, when a child of a rich person is raised poorly, or vice versa, the outcome is appropriate for the social group of the child's rearing.
Given the same opportunities, I strongly suspect we'd see identical outcomes from the children of most people, on average.
Anyhow, it's ironical that you make this argument here, where the archetypal slashdotter is a virgin geek that hacks computers in his mom's basement while the football players get all the girls...
It's worth noting that while we joke about this I suspect it's far from true. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but I'm a geek who hacks computers, but not in my basement (it's a 120 year old house and the basement is unfinished), lost track of how many girls he's slept with around 5 years ago, has a son and a bisexual girlfriend who tells me she wants to move somewhere that polygamy is legal so I can take on a few wives and spread my intelligent genes around.
I think geeks in general tend to have more liberal views towards sexuality and by associating with like minded individuals we tend to find more opportunities to have gratifying sexual experiences.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
When I was a child of seven, my public librarian talked to me a bit, and gave me an adult card with a note to personnel that I was authorised to use the adult reading room, the music stacks, microfiche and all other facilities.
In high school, my swim team had to meet at the civic center pool about 1 PM to fit its schedule. Local people made the decision to move all of us to an 11 AM lunch, a decision that didn't need to be ratified by the superintendent of schools - in fact, it took only the team coach asking an assistant principal to set it up with the cafeteria staff, and they served 12 people an hour early to make it happen.
High school fencing was a club, (even though our club beat several college teams). We picked a schedule when the gym was empty, and had a couple of keys to it, which were carried at one point or another by just about everyone on the team, with no problems.
This was all 35 years or more ago. It seems totally absurd now to say practically every responsible adult I knew as a child bent 'the rules', knew which way to bend them, and it all worked pretty damned well, but that was the way of things.
Who is John Cabal?
It's easy and convenient to blame the parents. And who knows? You might be right.
But it's irrelevant. We can't compel parents to be better parents. Schools must take up the slack, for better or for worse. How do you intend to remedy the situation? As the old saying goes, you're cursing the dark without lighting a candle.
That was back when exercising discretion wasn't a one-way ticket to being sued.
I specifically made it reason number three on the list, because I do comepletely agree with the GP's first two points. As I said before, both of my parents are teachers, so I hear exactly what they're going through to try to convince parents that they need to take a part in their child's education as well.
I'ma flip the question on you a bit and ask you to clarify your statement, which says that "we can't compel parents to be better parents", but then implies that it's possible to compel schools to do a better job.
I'll be honest and say that I really don't know what the solution is, because I don't want to be a parent before I am in a place to become one. When I finally do become a parent, I want to be an active part of that child's life. I don't think it's a good idea to start legislating good parenting, nor do I think that some kind of "parenting license" is the answer. Maybe I am cursing the dark instead of lighting a candle here, but perhaps that's because I simply can't relate to a parent who has a child and then lets Nickelodeon and Disney Channel raise him/her. I can't relate to a childhood where I was told, "No, that behavior isn't acceptable". And I certainly can't relate to a childhood where abuse is present.
You've caught me, sir/madam. I don't know the answer. But do you truly believe that having a school say "$BEHAVIOR isn't acceptable" is going to work when at home, "Do whatever you want" is the standard to follow?
"You forgot the two-faced backstabbing, the bald-faced lies, etc."
Even worse, they nag. It even wears down my tinfoil helmet.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Sure they do. Just the same as clever ones. The trouble is that stupid behavior doesn't necessarily imply stupid genes.
If a computer system behaves in a stupid manner, you don't immediately think "that must be a hardware error". The first place to look is the software. Similarly, if a person behaves in stupid manner, that doesn't imply the fault is in the brain. If otherwise bright kids get trained to act in a stupid way, then their avenues for expressing that intelligence are going to be somewhat limited.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Depends on which neck of the woods you live in.
Living in ultraliberal Massachusetts, a lot of time and energy goes into figuring out how to get the most education out a buck. Recently my local school system implemented "flexible tracking", in which kids are frequently tested and reassigned to different tracks on a subject by subject basis throughout the course of the day. If you tested ahead on a specific math skill you might be grouped with students needing drill on that subject in one period, then grouped with other students doing a challenge project in reading in the next. After the next test, you might be ahead of the average in the next math skill to be covered.
We were doing education reform years before most of the rest of the country. The promotion of education was written into our constitution by John Adams. As a result, our state rankings in things like literacy, math and science are consistently either first in the country or for practical purposes statistically tied with first. We have a relatively high per capita spending on students, but not anywhere near the highest. We have a relatively low student to teacher ratio, but not anywhere near the lowest. We also have a lot of poor urban school districts with all the problems they bring.
What we have is a lot of people who *care* about education, who think it's worth doing something about. It's easy to lose track of that, but when I travel to other parts of the country with lousy rankings, what I find is that people would like to bellyache about how bad the schools are, how incompetent the teachers are or how useless the administration is, but don't actually plan to *do* anything about these things. Politicians rail against the schools, and promise to institute "tough" standards (as if "tough" were a substitute for "intelligent"), but they don't have a plan to do anything with the data they get from the testing other than to close as many public schools as they can. Now I'm not against private education or charter schools, but the theme seems consistent. People don't can't be bothered to pay attention to the details. They don't want to be burdened thinking about it.
If you want an explanation for the "failures of our school system", I'll give it to you: times have changed, and the schools haven't kept up. We aren't competing with a war ravaged Europe and a world full of ignorant, impoverished countries. We're competing with modern Europe; with an India that has a middle class as large as our entire population; with China whose government has consciously played our relationship in a mercantilist zero-sum game, using favorable exchange rates and low wages to achieve economic power over us. Now tell me what we need to do to education to bring back the glory days of the 1950s, and you'll have redefined education reform for this century.
As for the "hollowing out" of our culture, I don't see it, although when I took my kids to the opera the other night, nobody was dressed in white tie. What we've had is not a "hollowing out" of our culture, but twin processes of democratizing high culture and the growth of commercial, popular culture. People spend a lot more time being entertained then they did in the 1930s or even the 1960s.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!
It's pretty much the same all over the US, and it has been true for at least 40 years. The child who is permitted to skip a grade, or gets into a "gifted" program is a rare creature indeed. I spent most of twelve years bored out of my skull, and two of my three sons did the same. (we won't discuss the third - he's a special case) I didn't know my wife when we were in school, but she and her sisters say the same.
I've seen no public schools in America that actually push kids to perform, then rewards them for doing so.
There are MILLIONS of students in this country who can read a textbook, discuss it for a week or two, then take the "semester finals". I was one.
The public education system in America is broken, because the entire system is geared to serve people with high-average to low-average intelligence and learning skills. This is just great for the "average" - but it hinders both the genius AND the idiot. Neither is going to learn in the manner dictated by all those averages.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I taught high school for five years, and that was what I saw. Because all kids were tracked according to age rather than ability, you had a wide range of ability in every class. As a teacher, you've got a few choices:
1) Teach to the middle. Too hard for the dumb kids, to easy for the smart kids, but most kids get something out of it.
2) Teach too easy or two hard.
3) Try to teach to each kid's needs.
#3 is the one everyone would like to do. But it's ridiculously hard to do. I had kids in a class who were taking geometry and had algebra under their belt, and kids who couldn't multiply even with a calculator. Kids who didn't really understand what decimal places were all about. If I stop to give them instruction in the basic things that they need to learn the material I'm actually supposed to be teaching, I get questioned as to why I'm not teaching it. If your lessons are different for every kid, suddenly you need to prove that they're fair and appropriate for every kid. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit when you fail Johnny but pass Timmy, and they were learning different material.
My most successful classes were ones filled with homogeneous populations of kids. When they were all at about the same level, I could teach a lot of material very quickly. Treating all kids the same is a terrible failing in the US today. It's not the only one, but it's one of the leading causes of our issues.
As secondary cause is that teachers are given a tough job, but not the freedom to do it as it needs to be done. If I taught all the kids in my classes how to actually do science, they would have all failed the government-mandated science test. Why? Because it doesn't test whether or not you can do science, it tests whether or not you're motivated to remember facts about science that you have been exposed to and then scribble in a bubble.
What's the motivation for kids to do that? There isn't any. My master's thesis was on that very topic. Their test scores don't get sent to their parents, don't go on transcripts, and most of the time, don't even go back to their teachers. Yet those scores determine how well a school is functioning, from a government standpoint.
There are a lot of things broken about the US educational system. The top issue is that teachers can't just teach what kids need to learn. We have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops, and prove that we're poor teachers, because that what the test requires.
A good science teacher is not one who teaches kids to be masters at filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper with the wrote memory of facts. Fix the current methods of assessing teaching, and you're getting much closer to solving the root of the problem.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
> reality. We do in fact have magnet schools, gifted and talented programs,
I'm guessing you don't actually have kids in school.
We are in one of the highest rated school districts in the country (USA) and our third grade "gifted program" consists of ONE HOUR a week of gifted instruction. We pulled our kids and are home schooling now.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Yes, there are magnet schools and gifted programs, all carefully "de-fanged" so they do as much as possible without actually changing anything. I know that when I was in school, what it meant is that for one hour a day you could do something more interesting, then back to picking the shape that doesn't belong.
As for the "ordinary kids" in the middle of the bell curve, I submit that due to "no child left behind", they too get held back and learn that school is boring because the class has to wait for the low end of the curve to catch up. The difference is that they are more apt to simply develop an anti-intellectual attitude since to them school=learning, school=boring, boring=bad, so learning=bad. 5 and 6 year olds don't go into school with that attitude. For them, the ability to know the answer to those zillions of "why?s" they ask is exciting.
Part of the problem is authoritarianism in school. Schools set themselves up as a major authority figure and they want you to learn, so when the kids reach the age of rebellion, the school and anything it wants (or purports to want) gets a big target painted on it. The smaller classes are, the less strict discipline needs to be in order to maintain effectiveness.
I certainly don't mean just let the kids run around lawlessly, but certainly not the current zero tolerance (zero thought) policies in place now. If there's no effective difference in the treatment of what amounts to minor symbolic acts of rebellion and much more serious behavior, they also become the same thing in the kids' minds.
This is not a flaw of the education but rather a direct result of politicians meddling with things they know nothing about for the purpose of personal gain. Everyone knows education is the big ticket item that is close to the hearts of a largest contingent of voters (parents). We have idiots who want to use education as their "publicity stunt." Basically, they push a poorly designed law because they have the power to do so and then use that to gloat at then next election how they've done something profound for "the nation." What they fail to do, however, is support such a law with adequate funding. It is simple folks, if you want a person do more things, eventually they'll have so much on their plate that everything they do will have to end-up being half-baked. This is not because they are poor teachers but rather because they are overstretched by the growing pile of new laws while their funding is being continually cut (thus making hiring of new staff who could help in the process of coping with this virtually impossible). So, what actually happens as a result of this kind of behavior is that there is a growing pile of poorly designed rules/regulations/laws that educators then have to deal with, that they do not have time to do anything other than stupidly designed tests, including recognizing advanced children and giving them a chance to truly shine.
So, if you think this is a problem (I certainly do), I would say go to your local congressman and/or representative and tell them to put their dollars where their mouths are and to back off from education agenda with stupid laws without consulting those who are actually supposed to enact those laws. Did you know that in US annual education budget is one twentieth of the military budget and one third of government operations, making it basically the smallest piece of the pie? (see following chart -- yes, it's that little tiny, barely visible chunk). Now ask yourself how many kids are enrolled in education every year vs. how many soldiers/personnel we have in military...
1) it treats all children the same...
Oh no, not this dead horse again...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2463
quoth above:
Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles. This turns out to be an urban legend not supported by any acceptable evidence. It could backfire because students need to correct and compensate for their shortcomings, not avoid them. The authors cite a satirical story from The Onion about nasal learners demanding an odor-based curriculum.
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
I note you said "effeminate" males. However, biologically, they're "underviriziled". One cannot feminized males, because males are virilized away from women.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Fix the current methods of assessing teaching, and you're getting much closer to solving the root of the problem.
Well that's a hard problem. How exactly do you assess teaching properly? A standardized test is not perfect, but it's better than nothing. Especially tests like the exit exam in California.......everyone should know basic math by the time they graduate from High School. So what would be the best way to assess teaching? Remember it has to be cost effective.
Qxe4
In October 1999 Steve Jackson Games published GURPS Y2K which included an article named "Plastics Ate My Baby's WHAT" about the effects of phthalates. That was 10 years ago!
How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?
Private school teachers are paid even less, but then they're not expected to deal with violent kids, and most of the children either actually want to be there, or their parents force them to want to be there.
If we started a voucher system and private schools had to accept public-school-quality students, they'd suck just as bad.
I've got a family member and a substantial number of friends just entering the teaching profession, and they all agree with this strongly. Why is this modded troll? In fact, I thought this was common knowledge, that private schools refuse to deal with the troublesome, disabled, and malnourished, and so don't face most of the problems which plague public schools.
The primary and most powerful source of feminizing chemicals in our water is the vast quantities dumped into our water supply in the urine of women on the birth control pill. Anyone who considers feminizing chemicals a real problem (instead of using it as an excuse to go after industry) would be seeking, first and foremost, to ban the birth control pill.
This is ridiculous. Go live in an IEP state. Most IEP's are legally binding by all public schools. If you live in an IEP state you can adjust the amount of hours spent on gifted education. I spent most of my education in a gifted curriculum, with the exception of history courses. You should demand an IEP review and get those hours adjusted. Also, just because your kid is home schooled now does NOT mean you should neglect his IEP. Please keep up with it, it has done a world of good for me in highschool and in college. My IEP even transferred between states.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny. Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).
You just got troll'd!
"Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals."
We certainly have some problems with education in the USA. Funding and salaries are not among them, however. Indeed, in the most of the richest states in the US, there seems to be almost an inverse relationship between per-pupil funding, and SAT scores. When you compare the states on this price/performance scale, all of the top ten states are in the deep south, or the mountain west states. And while no one is getting rich teaching public schools, the meme of the starving teacher is largely a myth, at least in most states. The American Federation of Teachers' own stats show that the average K-12 salary in the US is $47,602.
Now, I have no idea what's involved with teacher training and education in Europe. But I do know that most American teachers have degrees in education, a field that attracts the very bottom of the barrel in each college class. I'm firmly onboard the movement to eliminate the education major for junior high and high school teaching, and to require that teachers have a degree in their field. Football coaches shouldn't be teaching geography or math unless they have a degree in it. The current system produces cogs in a machine that aren't very well educated themselves, let alone well equipped to educate anyone else. There are driven, outstanding teachers, but there are more cogs just going through the system for thirty years until they draw retirement. I don't know how easy it is to fire a bad teacher in Europe, but in the US it's damn near impossible if misconduct isn't involved.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So children raised in a more natural environment with less exposure to these things (pretty easy to do) will be more fertile (as well as not getting cancer as much according to other studies) resulting in a shift in the future population towards people who care about their health, vacate the cities and lead a more natural lifestyle eating organic foods (not necessarily Certified Big 'O' Organic but real organic). Darwinism in action.
Since when are government employees highly paid?
In many European countries teachers are highly paid whether they are government employees or not. In Germany, for instance, being a high school teacher, is nearly as well remunerated as being an ordinary doctor or lawyer. Moreover the fierce competition to become a teacher restricts this career path to elite graduates. Quite to opposite from most anglophone countries.
If you are interested here is a list of IEP states for gifted education. I consider my IEP a crucial part of my gifted education, I can't imagine gifted education without it...good luck =)
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Its Denmark. I live here and I see the males completely emasculated - sorry guys but it’s the truth. It’s a feminist society.
For details read:
http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm
http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html
I don't want to be a parent before I am in a place to become one.
I was the same as you -- I wanted to wait until I could afford to be a parent, but guess what? You never can. I wound up realizing that, and was 33 before I became a dad. You think it's hard to get up at 3:00 AM to feed the baby at age 20, try it when you're over 30! I'm 57 and still not a grandparent. If there's one thing about my life I'd change, it would be waiting.
Free Martian Whores!