my school is sexist!

DeletedUser

Been a while since you were in school, Hell?

School children don't generally "turn each other in". The attitude towards "snitches" in schools is second only to the attitude in the Cosa Nostra.

On the face of it, and I've no reason to doubt saucey's story, it appears sexist. If that teacher had discovered that something had been stolen and demanded to search every black kid's locker but not checked anyone else's, would we have the least compunction about calling that racism? Whether or not it was a girl that stole things, the fact that lockers were searched based only on the basis of gender is simple prejudice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Yes, it's been ages since I've been a student in school. I do not disclaim that. However, it doesn't throw me out of the loop, since I was a bilingual instructor and also taught journalism less than a decade ago. I am aware many students avoid calling out against other students, but it is not due to loyalty, it is due to fear.

So, anyway, the point being... we don't have sufficient information to determine whether prejudism occurred, therefore I am not inclined to take Saucy's presentation at face value. Simply stated, we don't know all that occurred, nor all that the instructors knew. We can jump to conclusions, as you and Trainman have done, but those conclusions are based only on a cursory examination of the incident.

Also, your example of black students simply did not occur, so please refrain from muddying the waters of investigation. My post was presented with the intent to obtain more information, not for people to bash me merely because I have the audacity to state the obvious.
 

DeletedUser

What does it matter whether it's loyalty, fear or because they've sworn an oath of silence? Whether people knew who it was and didn't turn her in or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the teacher was sexist or not. That was muddying the waters...

Just a suggestion - if you want to obtain more information, try asking for it. It's probably a more productive approach than attacking someone for their "jaded view" and for making assumptions.

The fact of the matter is that this teacher conducted a search of pupil's locker based on their sex. Do you really think it's likely that someone would have "tipped off" this teacher by saying "a boy did it" without giving a name or a better description? Sure - it's possible that there was some kind of tip off but it seems far less likely to me than that the teacher simply formed the prejudiced opinion that a boy had stolen something.

As for jumping to conclusions, I stated that "It appears sexist". It does appear sexist. I'm commenting on appearances rather than motives and I'm making no assumptions. If I'd said "That's definitely sexist" then I'd be jumping to conclusions.

What's the point of having a discussions area if you're going to attack people who post their personal experiences for not having complete information? This isn't a court of law and it's ridiculous to bring every conversation down to the level of needing to provide cast iron proof of everything. Wouldn't it be far better for our discussions if, occasionally, we'd give posters the benefit of the doubt?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Omg dude, you're the one that ran off on that tangent. I made a mere mention of it and you're licking it like a dog with a scrotum penchant. It is a valid consideration, even if you would prefer to think otherwise.

Returning to the topic at hand: sexism, like many other prejudices, is based on lack of knowledge, fear, etc. My point, which is really at the core of this issue, and the reason I brought it up, is that "appearances" can instill prejudicial responses, especially if the prejudice was previously seeded.

Saucysauce didn't indicate what his position was, only that it, "could be considered sexist." Bevoir, if you re-examine Saucy's post, you would see he presented it specifically to allow us to examine it at face value. In evidence, his closing comment was, "I don't know, your call there."

My comment was not attacking, nor accusatory towards Saucy. However, I did react negatively to Trainman's response, because he was running on appearance alone and coming to a firm opinion, which indicates to me that sexism is readily seeded in him. It was my valid opinion that we do not have sufficient information to make a determination, and running on "appearances" alone can come to erroneous conclusions, or jaded in the case of those with seeded prejudice/resentment.

What I will request from you, Bevoir, is that you refrain from attacking me specifically. I noticed you have done so already in a few other posts, on other threads. If you disagree with what I post, that's fine, respond to that --- but try not to make it personal.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
As to the guys being searched, as opposed to the girls, it may very well have been that they were tipped off it was a guy. I don't know, you don't know, and again you are assuming sexism without having all the information to make a firm determination. Add to that, how did you know it was a girl who stole it and if you (or others) knew, how come they did not turn her in?
Click to expand...

Excuse me - but I thought that post was directed at Saucy. It didn't occur to me for an instant that you might be asking Trainman how he knew it was a girl who stole it. I apologise if I misunderstood your post but if you were responding to Trainman rather than Saucy you didn't really make that clear.

Hellstromm said:
Omg dude, you're the one that ran off on that tangent. I made a mere mention of it and you're licking it like a dog with a scrotum penchant. It is a valid consideration, even if you would prefer to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not the best gambit to a post in which you're asking someone to avoid personal attacks, huh? You might have selected somewhat less inflamatory language...

Nothing I've written has been a personal attack on you, Hell. I'm sorry that you feel that way but I'm just disagreeing with what you've written.

Anyway - back to the topic at hand, appearances are all we have to go by here. It appears sexist to search only boy's lockers. There may have been extenuating circumstances behind that decision but it seems unlikely.

From my recollections of school, on occasions where someone was misbehaving in any way, more often than not, that someone was a boy. That's not to say that girls didn't misbehave, obviously, but the majority were boys. Obviously,if you teach long enough, you're going to notice that kind of pattern and perhaps it's human nature to start making assumptions that, when an unknown person has misbehaved, then that unknown person must be a boy. Human nature, maybe, but certainly not right.
 

DeletedUser

A good point Bevoir, and one that brings to light the possibility of profiling based on behavior, and not necessarily race, color, gender. That doesn't really fall into the category of sexism, although it can be misconstrued as such.

Would be nice to have more information Saucy, if you can provide it. Filling in the blanks with speculation eventually runs our interests dry.
 

DeletedUser

I think profiling based on behaviour is understandable and acceptable to a certain degree. That's if it's based on the behaviour of individuals. Although even then you have to allow for the possibility of someone changing their ways and painting someone as the black sheep forever based on the distant past is simply unfair. But right - it's not sexism.

I'm sure you'd agree though that tarring (and feathering) all boys with the same brush because some boys have caused problems is sexism, right? I'm sure that if all boy's lockers were searched then that means that the lockers of some model students who've never caused any trouble were searched - purely because of their gender rather than their behaviour.
 

Deleted User - 819397

It's interesting that I found this topic...My driver's ed teacher said that all boys have metal feet and all girls have road rage...I haven't gone over 5 miles above the speed limit, and I only go that far when I'm not paying full attention...
 

DeletedUser

Schools arn't sexist, The first post in this thread about the yelling from moveing, it's intended to teach male students discipline, as Males are spose to, I guess you would say, trained, to be ok with that, however though, when an adult teacher yells at a female, it tends to hurt the girls feellings, they simply expect males to be helped by that.


when I was in middle school, the closest thing to sexist prolly had to be the fact that our school had a Zero tolerance pollicy on showing signs of affection during school and in school, though when a freind of mine kissed his girlfreind because he didn't think there was a teacher watching him, he got ASD for two days, wich stood for After school detention,and tooken out of any classes he had with her at the momment, however, when a girl in the school kissed her boyfreind, you know, makeing the first move, she simplly was tooken from her free time, a thing we did each friday,just to get out of class some for a half hour, just saying, males are spose to be more disciplined then females through school.
 

DeletedUser

Here in Australia well in victoria at least it is very rare for a school to be sexist and most students don't pysicaly touch a person of the oppisite sex unless of course their making out or well you get the picture the only time people actully get pysicaly is one someone is pissed but meh who cares besides the teacher and i have never experinced a fight between a girl even know the girl i have a crush on knows and her possible boyfriend knows. but in your case its either favourism for the students, his being sexist or he's in a good mood or his too tired to scream or anything
 

DeletedUser

Breth said:
I don't believe that is grounds for sexism

For one, "my school is sexist" ionfers that the institution is sexist, while in your example, only a single member is presented (and the principle is also mentioned). Anyways a variety of factors could be played ... perhaps the coach hadn't had a good morning when eh yelled at the boy. Also boys and girls should not be treated exactly the same ... because they aren't exactly the same. Perhaps the coach felt that yelling at the girls would do more damage than yelling at the guy.

Schools aren't fair. If you learn anything in school, learn that. I view them as little fuedal kingdoms run by the principal and a few key people (ie athletics department, resource officer)

EDIT: The "Bus Room" thing sounds illy. Why does your school do that?
Click to expand...

All schools, it seems, do that. They don't allow us to talk, barely move, or really do much of anything in there.

My mother is a teacher, so I just loiter in her classroom before school begins.
 

DeletedUser

Why can't you just get to school when school starts?
I'm gonna go sit on the toilet now, just in case i need to relieve myself in 20 minutes or so...

Btw, the last post in this thread was three months ago, to this day...
 

DeletedUser

We can. But many of the students, due to where they live, have more convenience taking a bus (and the buses arrive 30 minutes early).

Where I live there is one main town, and then small communities spread about.
I live down the street from my community. However, most of the children who go to my school actually live far away, because this county is so rural that most people live out in the countryside, along backroads.
 

DeletedUser

There are plenty of boys only schools now and many girls only schools too...
 

DeletedUser

Or maybe thats just what some parents want for their child...
Not sexist, your parents just suck if they send you to a boy or girl only school. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top