Elsewhere (215)
Joy Pullmann on when feminist feelings collide with science:
Throughout her dissertation, [doctoral candidate, Laura] Parson asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. “Notions of absolute truth and a single reality” are “masculine,” she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory… Rather than rejecting this insulting view of women and minorities’ intellectual capacities, Parson uses it as a pretext to advocate that science classes abandon the scientific method itself… and all other “male” forms of oppression, such as “weed-out courses, courses that grade on a curve, a competitive environment, reliance on lecture as a teaching method, an individualistic culture, and comprehensive exams.”
Feminism is of course famed for its intellectual rigour.
And in other, utterly unrelated news:
Many elite universities relegate Women’s Studies degree programmes to second-class status.
Nick Gillespie interviews Instapundit himself, Professor Glenn Reynolds:
It’s a small number of companies that really control almost all social media, and they all kind of lean left. Facebook has been accused, and I think credibly, of a lot of political bias, and there are experiments that suggest they could swing an election by manipulating their flow of news and views. At some level, you say that’s just private enterprise and they can do what they want, but at another level, it’s a little more troubling that they are kind of a monopoly and they’re politically in the tank with an administration that is doing them a lot of favours… I’m not so sure we aren’t approaching the point where people might want to think about anti-trust. And I know we’re past the point where, if these were companies that operated with a slant towards Republicans, everyone would be calling for anti-trust regulation right away.
And at Claremont College, your “extremely toxic” masculinity is being discussed:
Miles Robinson, who attended the event, told the Claremont Independent that among attendees there was “a common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to those who express it and those affected by it.” Robinson added that all of the organisers, as well most of the attendees, are female.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
And at Claremont College, your “extremely toxic” masculinity is being discussed:
I’m bringing this and this to everyones attention purely for informational purposes, not at all because I think there might be a connection.
Vince,
My favorite Randian observation was her definition of evil; convincing someone to do that which is against their own best interest.
Mass immigration immediately springs to mind, among a dozen other things.
I’m bringing this and this to everyones attention…
I sometimes think that Mao wasn’t entirely wrong when he sent the professors and academics to the rice paddies.
The Huffington Post’s “queer voices deputy editor” is astonished to discover that some gay people think differently to him. Needless to say, he finds the whole thing terribly problematic.
As with Professor Surber, there often seemed to be a resentment of their imagined social displacement – as if they were obviously the ones who should be acclaimed, wealthy and statusful – and, presumably, in charge – given their own estimated brilliance and moral superiority.
They probably did well in school and were told they were “gifted,” as opposed to, say, “early bloomers.” Children praised for ability rather than effort immediately shut down trying because that is not what gifted people do; it might lead to failure, which would mean they’re not gifted, not special.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids1/
How do you encourage narcissism? Baby steps first, baby steps.
Now, how many of the “truth is relative”, “my truth may be different to yours” crowd have criticised Trump for saying things that they consider to be untrue?
And did they manage to process this as contradictory to their whole stated philosophy?
Enquiring minds need to know…
The Huffington Post’s “queer voices deputy editor” is astonished to discover that some gay people think differently to him.
That is quite a revealing article, though not terribly surprising. The idea that any gay person might be a patriotic American and not welcome the flooding of their country with third-world peasants, many of whom would gladly throw them off a tall building in a heartbeat seems utterly incomprehensible, and just wrong, to him.
No doubt, if asked, he would describe himself as tolerant, empathetic and open-minded.
No doubt, if asked, he would describe himself as tolerant, empathetic and open-minded.
The “queer voices deputy editor” doesn’t seem to comprehend how his own condescension, proudly aired – and his assumptions that gay people should be some homogeneous leftwing vote farm – are part of why some people are opting for Trump.
Aah, nice how diverse minorities are expected to integrate themselves fully in the approved Gleichschaltung.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91ak3axhUpM
As a teacher (and mom) I’d like to butt in (hello, by the way):
In praising children as “intelligent/smart” it creates its own issue with anxiety — the kid wants approval, the kid gets approval by being parent/teachers’ “smart kid”…of course they don’t want any challenges! What if they fail? Will they no longer be approved of? (and this does happen, even in small ways). I’ve seen it; I’ve seen it with “star athletes/musicians/whatever”.
And these are not just the brats that have also been given a heaping helping of sense of entitlement (which also takes place: raising little ubermensch who feel they really do have the right to lord it over others, so a double helping of let’s screw them up) — these are often some of the very best of attitude kids, real people pleasers.
And this starts at a very early age — we’re not talking ten year olds here.
The result: a bunch of kids who are neurotic messes. I have seen the same neurosis in rich ladies’ lap dogs — they don’t know their place, they don’t even know what is right/wrong behavior, thus they are never sure if they are belonging properly, and yet the one thing they are sure of is that getting tidbits from Mummsy feels good and can happen on a regular basis if one acts charming enough (in which case they are ok to do all manner of poo-ing on the floor and even biting the houseguests).
Does this sound a lot like your liberal educators?!
I do see that praising kids for hard work can help. Although what exactly is “hard work”? Some of the most successful kids I’ve had looked rather lazy on the front of things, but they actually had some of the best work/study habits (they didn’t put anything down on paper until they thought things through — this can be mistaken by some as a lack of hard work, but they were more productive than the ones taking frantic and unproductive notes, often so they get the bennies from being “the good little worker”…because Mumsy pats on the head for that, if you catch my drift).
Maybe start praising kids for good character? (although that’s opening up another can of worms — everybody knows about the sneaky rat “good kid”).
And let’s be honest, a lot of what’s left of the conservative voice in education can fall into this trap of thinking.
Or maybe, people need to realize that kids are not saints or little angels, nor complete devils, and even their genius cannot make up for a poor character, which upbringing can influence — treat them like human beings, who are always a little of both and everything. “Ask for much, expect a little, reward often”; “make the good easy and the bad difficult”; “freely forward and straight”… famous quotes from animal trainers; I tend to find those guys’ advice on teaching much more profitable than the intellectuals from either side of the ideological spectrum.
I’ll also add:
I detest the obsession with standardized tests. Yes, they have their place (would that they were actually given their proper place and taken seriously in that context!) — but only to mark 1)if a student is meeting some average level of performance (or not); 2) where any strengths or weaknesses might be — aka. what needs to be worked on, what is there and can be refined — in short, a mark of student potential. They are hardly a good indicator of overall student success; they are more of an indicator of what the teachers and staff are doing than anything else. If the standardized tests were regarded in light of what they are truly good at, then we’d all be a lot better off. They are merely snapshots of what appears to be going on at that time with that particular student.
I find that day to day work in class is a far better portrayal of overall achievement for the student, but granted it is difficult to use it as a measurement. However, the teacher that hangs their hat upon test scores is being, well, a lazy teacher at best and a highly unethical and lazy one at worst (and again, I grant that the modern classroom and pedagogy encourages this).
Jenny R.,
Excellent observations. Thanks for those.
I really wish I’d been pushed harder when I was a child. I was one of those who could “skate by” and still be at the top of the class. It led to lazy work habits that have created impediments to success my entire adult life.
Thank you. I find that to be a problem as well as the horrible situation of learning disabled children being thrown into taking the same standardized tests as the non-disabled.
Way to completely destroy them there education system! (yes, I have seen that happen twice — there is nothing worse than having to face a tear soaked functional autistic/LD kid asking you why they have to take the achievement test when surely “they know I’m not smart enough to take this; I’ll just bring the class average down” and no amount of “they will give you extra time” platitudes is going to assuage that — and these were two very sweet kids who always did their work to the best of their ability, what a rotten thing to do to them)…all because some ivory tower intellectual idiot did some study someplace, which got them a grant and invites to symposium social shindigs where they could hang out and possibly hook up, about the benefits of diversity in the classroom through mainstreaming/getting rid of “gifted privilege” and some admin bureaucrat found it an excellent way to save money…and not have to take a salary cut of his/her own.
For the “smart” kids, this skewed view of the tests is deleterious because they are not being encouraged (pushed) to perform to the level they can achieve on top of creating the “smart” kid anxiety/entitlement dilemma. For the “not smart” kids it is making sure that they will never try to attempt anything because they’re “not smart”, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (that is not to say that many of them will do well on the tests, but they should at least be set up to achieve the highest standard that they can, and to know that there is more to life than being a good test taker…not much call for the ability to fill in little boxes in real life…except perhaps a bureaucratic job).
I’ve never understood the point of “mainstreaming” autistic or “learning disabled” kids. It seems obvious to me that it only sets them up for failure (besides making them objects of mirth for the other students).
…are part of why some people are opting for Trump.
Kurt Schlichter has a piece about this at Townhall.
But then, those concerns apparently aren’t worthy of attention. The news covers, day in and day out, some overeating foreigner and drug lord baby mama who Donald Trump was mean to a couple decades ago, but no reporter ever asks our guy about his problems. And they don’t merely ignore him. They come after him, jamming things down his throat like gender neutral bathrooms and murderous Muslim refugees and Wall Street scams that mean he gets about .001% interest on that money he saved just like the experts told him to. And he’s expected to just take it.
This will not end well.
Sorry about sequential posts David, but this is so good, I just had to pass it on. Bret Easton Ellis engages in some straight talking on the subject of ‘victim culture’. Via Breitbart.com.
It is something you need to resolve before you re-enter society,” he stated. “What you are doing to yourself is harming yourself, and seriously annoying others around you. The fact that you can’t listen to a joke, view imagery, and that you categorize everything as either sexist, or racist, or homophobic, whether it is or not, and therefore harmful to you and you just can’t take it, is a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis that we have been coddling, encouraging people to think that life should be a smooth utopia built only for them and their fragile sensibility. In essence, staying a child forever. Living in a fairy-tale.
Don’t confuse the issues of teaching autistic and learning disabled Norman. Autistic kids are often cleverer than average, so need no separating. They do prefer explicit instructions though, so like “old-fashioned” teaching. I’ve never had teaching issues with the autistic kids in my mainstream classes.
They can be difficult to handle socially, especially if you have the sort of pathetic bully who needs a soft target. But this is true of socially inept kids in general and we still mainstream them.
The ones I’ve struggled with are some of the Aspergers kids. They aren’t rule based like the autistic kids, so are much worse behaved, and once they fetish on something it is the Devil’s own job to get them back on track.
A) Let’s eat, Grandma!
B) Let’s eat Grandma!
A) Don’t confuse the issues of teaching autistic and learning disabled, Norman.
B) Don’t confuse the issues of teaching autistic and learning disabled Norman.
. . . . I’ll bite: what are the issues of the Norman?