@blueorange22. Turns out the two pay equity acts are slightly different from each other, but enough that it makes a difference for the article

..

@Men Are Human With regard to revision 4 of the education article, "boys don't come close" is not evidenced by the telegraph article at all. Rather the telegraph article points out that that the gender gap is (well, in reality it seems more like *was*) widening and had the potential to quickly overtake **economic status** as the largest demographic determiner of school performance. Now, as I point out in revision 3 and also 4, there seems to be some evidence that the gender gap stopped widening in the 2015 data.

I interpreted the telegraph article as taking issue with boy's ability to perform in school. As in "school isn't doing enough to help boys". But if that is the point, then doing handwringing about boys being energetic and being fundamentally worse in an acedemic setting is off-topic. It is one thing to mention that, but that is something that should be mentioned with **empathy towards the school system** and not that sort of handwrining because that is a difficulty the school system itself faces unless you want to say that boys shouldn't actually have the same learning requirements as girls. In at least one massive respect, the school system not being designed for boys only because the school system has a fundamental responsibility to teach things like math and literacy that are acedemic in nature. As such, I feel pretty strongly that a recognition of that should avoid any hint of an injured tone or ideas of injustice.

Other than that, you've brought up two new issues with boys' schooling. School discipline and ADHD medicating. School discipline is a bit of a cesspool that I don't have good data on atm, and is really tough to dig into because boys do seriously need more official school discipline than girls. Is that something that needs to be pursued in the article? If so it is going to be 2 paragraphs at least. ADHD overmedication is something I'd like to just hint and and move on "or at least, being dianosed with them" is a decent addition because that is something that is much more commonly known and isn't one of those "taboo" things the telegraph article is mentioning that feminists are hiding. That said, I'd welcome paragraphs on those things but if you're going to really emote about those in the article, especially in the introduction, they need at least a paragraph each

Combined with what I said earlier, that's all the comments I have on the revision 4 changes. Unfortunately, those comments affect most of the changes 😦

I think trying to write angry about these issues is really hard, because the discrimination is a bunch of small things that often have plausible deniability, which isn't normal for an MRM issue.

Possibility after a bit of back and forth, I ask that you try another revision. And remember, you're the head honcho here, everything in that article is for you to do what you want with!

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I think I really should leave the education article to you as you seem to really understand it.

Well I understand it, that doesn't mean I'm really that good at...humanizing it

At very least, even if you do leave it to me you should go over it and do a more minor edit, looking for strange gramar or stilted tone

Is there something you want from the article that isn't there?

Unfortunately I can't really do a style "a little less acedemic" on my own.

Tell you what - if you can correct the facts on what I gave you, I'll deal with the flow. How does that sound? This time I won't add anything - I'll just edit it up a little. Sound good?

Hrm. I think I have to disagree with that. Because of my earlier feedback, I disagree with the structure of your additions and not just the facts. I don't think it remains coherent after corrected. Sorry.

I think what I have to ask of you is that if you're going to make those sorts of additions, those additions have to be removed and replaced, not merely rewritten. I'm not objecting to making those sorts of additions at all, but I do think that those particular additions, both the overall argument of them and the individual facts, don't reflect truth.

Once that happens then I can totally just correct the facts of them and you can do the final touches and we can be done

But we aren't at that point now, I think.

"To succeed in school, you must appear to be incredibly passive and pliant. Sit up straight! Do your sums! Listen, take notes - and keep your mouth shut, unless the teacher asks you a question! You know the drill, and you know it well - you may even be having flashbacks to your own school days.
Parents, teachers, everyone, telling you to conform and sit still.
But most boys are incredibly energetic throughout their entire school life. Sitting down and being quiet is the opposite of what the average boy is – contrary what you may have been told. Even worse, boys mature at a slightly different rate to girls – and in a rather different way. Boys are full of energy, and highjinks, and the need to run about. Boys will literally leap out of their seats and go zooming about the class like rockets – if given half a chance."

That is kinda the meat of the intro, and as I noted in my recent objection in context it wrongly condemns schools. When removed or altered to handle that objection I feel it is substantially off-topic.

Similarly, the second addition after school bias I don't think remains part of the paper after the objectionable parts are changed/removed: "This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls " and "Feminists especially are keen to see girls not only succeed, but utterly dominate." in particular.

Personally, I think schools play a big role in this

Okay, lets remove the "This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls "

Though we could cite the rate at which boys pass their GCSEs, which is much lower than girls.

"This means that boys don’t come close to catching up with girls " and "Feminists especially are keen to see girls not only succeed, but utterly dominate." could well be cited by the Teligraph article. If they don't want to help boys, their motive seems clear to me

"Though we could cite the rate at which boys pass their GCSEs" This is indeed great to mention, that's almost 10 percentage points.

Hrm, I think feminists not wanting to help boys has more to do with the bloody patriarchy narrative than a desire for girls to kick the crap out of boys at school.

And as I said, this is borne out by the fact that feminists seem more likely to go towards inaction rather than active discrimination. In fact, in that very article we have somewhat feminist organizations permit quite a bit of movement on boys' education issues

By the way, what *is* the difference between a GCSE and A-level over on that side of the pond?

Two years of study at college or sixth form

Sixth form?

Or the insistance that boys and girls are exactly the same - so boys need the same things girls find helpful.. as almost all teachers up till kids are 11 are female then its hard for them to appreciate its different

Sixth form is like college but it's at high school. Usually in a separate building

There are five years of high school normally, so its called sixth form

Okay, So A-level is college-track high school, and GSCE is college...quasigraduation?

Kids do multiple exams- sats are mostly meaningless but change expectations of those around the kids (age 7, 10, age 13 approx).. then gcses at age 16.. they allow you to go to 'college' to do A levels till age 18/19 then uni for 3 years if wished etc

At age 16 the students typically take exams for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) or other Level 1/2qualifications. While education is compulsory until 18, schooling is compulsory to 16, thus post-16 education can take a number of forms, and may be academic or vocational. This can involve continued schooling, known as "sixth form" or "college", leading (typically after two years of further study) to A-levelqualifications (similar to a high school diploma in some other countries), or a number of alternative Level 3 qualifications such asBusiness and Technology Education Council(BTEC), the International Baccalaureate (IB),Cambridge Pre-U, WJEC or Eduqas. It can also include work-based apprenticeships or traineeships, or volunteering.[12][13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England

Okay, so GCSEs are the exam more representative of elementary school results

Ummm, no

Aaah haha

Unless you finish elementary school at 16

Then yes