Its all about educating girls and boys pay the price

I totally agree. I have three boys, all have poor to mediocre handwriting, even the non-hyper one. I had really bad handwriting as a kid, too. I think it is a developmental thing.

I was just reading yesterday about an effort in Canada to create single-gender elementary schools. I’d love to see someone try that out in the US. I would bet that there would be fewer diagnoses of LD and ADHD if the schools were more oriented toward meeting the needs of boys.

–- Steve

I think gender differences are at work here. I’d guess that boys treat handwriting as a task to be done (one which my son particularly hates). I think girls see handwriting as a form of self-expression and an extension of themselves, and they are willing to put more effort into it.

Personally, I think if you can read their handwriting it is functional. I don’t see any value in trying to get it to conform to some pretty format. Just me on my soapbox — my son is dysgraphic. If someone told me he had to go to a class after school to make his handwriting better, I think I might shorten their life span.

This is my husband’s take on it. He would rather they learn the concepts of Math etc, then wasting time on improving the handwriting as long as they are legible. When they grow up they will be using the computer to type anyway, so what does it matter if they have neat handwriting.

I have to agree.

I was only using the handwriting as an example, there are many many more things very unfair toward boys in the public schools. Like how often do you see girls being sent to the principals office? The handwriting in itself in an issue. I want my son to enjoy writing, most boys don’t and its largley because it is difficult for them and they are made to feel bad about it. If he can write better and no one is on his back nitpicking over dotting i’s and crossing t’s he has a better chance of liking the task. It is one big travesty that handwriting is held with such importance. It has nothing to do with how smart a child is, how much he is learning or how hard he studies. Its BULL**** that it counts for anything at all. It a friggin fine motor skill. Thats it period. What is it really in the scheme of things? If I can read it and he can read it, I know damn well the teacher can. It will develope on its own, or it won’t. I’m not going to beat him up over it, but the school surely will.

Steve
You might get what you want here in the states. Bush is pushing for single gender class options in public schools;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/09/politics/main508465.shtml

well, all I can say is I wish I had clued in earlier about my child’s pencil grip-like about K or 1st grade. My very girly girl has an atrocious one and has horrible handwriting. She has no stamina in writing and it is a chore to get her to do her best. I think she will invent her own system of shorthand in weird abbreviations. I did try Handwriting without tears without much luck.
We are now getting to the stage where she can print with cool and funky letters (no hearts over the i yet).

In the fifth grade at our school the best handwriting is a boy and the hands-down worst was a dysgraphic boy. Life is not fair, is it? I think you have a prize of a classroom teacher if she is willing to work toward a fix. Most just ignore it and it is a problem if the kid doesn’t gain some confidence and fluency.

I have always lamented that traits valued by schools such as, being a good listener, handwriting, placid demeanor, and following directions or in other words just plain being a follower are the exact opposite of the traits that are highly valued by our soceity for adults. These are the traits of the good little worker bees not the movers and shakers of our society.

I think it is an injustice to girls and boys that such traits are overly valued. Not that such traits don’t have their place but they are over emphasized to the extreme.

I want to tell some friends whose children sit just so well at dinner that they should’t get so high on their horse because by my estimation their son will be working FOR my son one day.

Good one, Linda! Let’s not squash our little entrepreneurs!

We always stress whether or not our children tried their best or not. My seven year daughter old received a lower grade in spelling than she deserved last quarter (and she worked so hard!!) We could have challenged it and easily won based on her test and quiz scores. I chose to stress that we know and she knows that her spelling was excellent this last quarter and we don’t need a report card grade to make us feel good about ourselves. We also now know that some teachers don’t have time to do the math at the end of the year and you need to make a good impression the first quarter. If the grade had any effect on her going to the next grade or something I would have protested it. Certainly if my daughter wanted to fight it I would have helped her. My only point is that self-respect is more important than seeking the approval of others. The trick is to be able to be able to evaluate yourself accurately.

I would explain to a son the way things really are and make sure that he knows that you are proud if he is trying his best.

By-the-way, the gym teacher gives my daughter excellent grades even though she is very tiny and thin. She can’t do things as well as the bigger, stronger, faster students. She does try her best however. It would be nice if teachers would give boys a little slack in the writing because it is a developmental difference between boys and girls. I wouldn’t go for same-sex schools because I think it is important, at least at some ages, for boys and girls to learn to get along before dating and marriage. When my daughter starts day-dreaming about boys in class someday I might end up liking single gender schools, at least for that time in her life!!!

Good points. I once read an article that explained different teaching styles and the effect they have on what our children become. The compliance demanding and narrowmindedness of (most) public school’s standards of teaching are grooming our children to be workers, low on the todem pole. The freestyle teaching and acceptance of the “different thinker” that some pricey private schools practice are grooming children to be CEOs, head honchos and men of greatness, its basic psychology. As I see it, the parents that have the money get a better education (psychology) for their kids, don’t get me going on tutoring achild with B’s because you demand A’s and are willing to pay a fortune to get it. Their kids grow up to be in charge, public school students often do not. The world needs the lowly compliant worker, needs lots more of them than the CEO’s. So the government, in cahoots with the wealthy, perpetuates this process. Am I rambling?

Anyway, I agree that some of the qualities that make my sons ADHD are his best qualities. Is it so bad that my son doesn’t jump to attention when you call his name? That he doesn’t line up like a fine little soldier with the rest of the class? That my son finds other “correct answers” but not the one you are fishing for? I read on another board of a letter that came home from school complaining about the child’s non-compliance. That mom wrote across that note, in big black marker; “Great news! I’m not raising sheep, you know!” and sent the note back the next day.

Loved it!

That’s great! There are enough sheep in the world!

–- Steve

Velvet Underground anyone?
“Rebel, -rebel…” I always liked that song.

Yep, I’d say you’ve got a good rambling going on.

I heard a really smart folk singer say that if you focus on the disorder around you from a top-down vantage you’ll be happily miserable. Yet, if you shift your focus to bottom-up construction you’re likely to find a lot of support you seek.

Fine motor skill are as important, as important as keeping your eye on the ball (if you know what I mean.)

Best of and luck with the gender conundrum.

[quote=”rebelmom”]Having two boys, I only recently realized how the classes of younger elem. grades are completely and totally geared toward girls. At a P/T conf. teacher showed me his journal and my son’s handwriting was addressed. I asked to see the other kids journals, just to see a comparison. She opened up several journals with MUCH better handwritting. I was very impressed until dad pointed out that they were all the journal’s of girl classmates. I asked to see some boys work. There was little difference between my son and the other boys, at least not as drastic as compared to the girls.

We agreed to bring him in half an hour early every week for a small extra help class with his writing. I never pass up a chance to get him anything “extra” so we did it. I walked him in the first day of class, this was a class of 6 kids, all boys!

This has been widely known for many years. It has also been proven that boys are actually less disruptive.

Boy do catch up developmentally by 7th grade and go on to develop physically and metally into their 20s where as girls stop developing at 16 yrs.

The bias against boys is most pronounced with female teachers who are aware of the developmental differences betwwen the sexes. My theory is that because they are aware that males are considerably more inteligent than females this is their opportunity to have a power trip over males.

I further think more attractive female teachers are less resentful of males and tend treat them better.

I have been reading about the developmental differences between boys and girls and found that learning wise and fine motor skill wise, boys are way behind girls until about age 10-11.

This is apparently old news and the public school system knows it all too well. Still, the schools raise their standards because they know half the kids can easily keep up. The girl half, that is. But our boys are being made to feel bad that they don’t develope the same way at the same time. This is truly sexual descrimination, but I don’t see winning that lawsuit! My DS son’s year has one of those unexplained sex ratios. The girls out number the boys 5 to 3! It’s a bad enough year to be a boy, but add ADD to the mix, OH BOY![/quote]

Well, theres and interesting slant, that attractive female teachers treat boy students more equally or better. I must argue that it might be a bit sexist and narrowsighted to say attractive. It might be more accurate to say that; Female teachers who are comfortable with themselves and confident in how the world percieves them, on the whole are psychologically healthier and make better teachers overall. That many of them might be attractive is a logical posibility, but certainly not the defining factor. On that same note, do unattractive male teachers make poorer teachers for girls?

I have read studies that show attractive people, male or female are overwhelmingly more successful at their careers than plain janes and joes. But I think the reality is in how you feel about yourself. Not actually how many guys look your way. Certainly good looks can backfire and cause you to be vain and selfish and inconsiderate of others. I think how we are taught to feel about ourselves is important to all our relationships, no matter what your looks are. Sheeesh! Look at Bill Gates! .

[quote=”rebelmom”]I read on another board of a letter that came home from school complaining about the child’s non-compliance. That mom wrote across that note, in big black marker; “Great news! I’m not raising sheep, you know!” and sent the note back the next day.

Loved it![/quote]

I love it too!

When David was in second grade, the teacher sent a note home saying she was worried about David, please call. When I called, all frantic, she said she and David were having a personality conflict. Would I talk to David about it? When pressed, her explaination was that David was too different, he didn’t even try to fit in. I’m thinking “good.” Turns out the class had been discussing how dinosaurs eat or some such thing. Then she gave them a writing assignment to explain how something, anything, worked. Half the class wrote about dinosaurs. Most of the rest of the class wrote about things she had discussed in prior weeks. My little one wrote about how garbage incinorators work….she felt it was just too weird.

I read the paper…thought he did a nice job of explaining it…lol

[quote=”rebelmom”]Well, theres and interesting slant, that attractive female teachers treat boy students more equally or better. I must argue that it might be a bit sexist and narrowsighted to say attractive. It might be more accurate to say that; Female teachers who are comfortable with themselves and confident in how the world percieves them, on the whole are psychologically healthier and make better teachers overall. That many of them might be attractive is a logical posibility, but certainly not the defining factor. On that same note, do unattractive male teachers make poorer teachers for girls?

I have read studies that show attractive people, male or female are overwhelmingly more successful at their careers than plain janes and joes. But I think the reality is in how you feel about yourself. Not actually how many guys look your way. Certainly good looks can backfire and cause you to be vain and selfish and inconsiderate of others. I think how we are taught to feel about ourselves is important to all our relationships, no matter what your looks are. Sheeesh! Look at Bill Gates! .[/quote]

Let’s face it most female elementary teachers would not fair well in the Miss America pagent to put it bluntly most of them are dogs and boys being the visually oriented creatures that they are will not respond to them like they would want a male to respond. Consequently the saying hell hath no fury like a woman scorned proves itself.

The unattractive male teacher will probably be more lenient with his attractive female students in hopes of getting their approval and perhaps jealous of the attractive male students particularly the athletic ones.

Unfortunately fat too many teachers are on a power trip because they see teaching as a mundane job and they take little reward in knowing they may be teaching the next doctor, lawyer, engineer, entertainer, ect… They are all to aware that many of their students inspite of their best efforts to sabatoge their learning will surpass them vocationally, intellectually and socially.

Bill Gates is an interesting example. Though he is touted as some sort of software genius but in reality he is a marketing genius and a very unscrupulous businessman. He’s probably getting even with his tormentors sticking them with software the stinks.

Look at Bill Gate you say. no thanks I just ate lunch but that reminds me I need to buy turtle food

Ogden, you are yankin our chains, arent you????

Women want 6 yr old boys to fawn over their beauty and when they dont they take it out on them????

I agree that elementary school is geared towards the strengths of girls. Since most teachers are female, that should be no surprise. Cooperation and good handwriting come naturally for most girls IMO. Boys seem to be competitive by nature and not as interested in pleasing adults.

But, having taught preschool and kindergarten, I will say boys are more disruptive. They are simply louder and more active. Two girls may talk in class but it is in whispers. When two boys talk, its loud and they move around to boot.

So, they get caught more! And an observer sitting there ONLY watching the class with no other work will report that Chloe and Candy talked and werent repimanded while Josh and Adam were. Well, yeah, but with her head down grading papers, the teacher didnt hear the girls. Shed have to be asleep not to hear or see the boys!!!

Is it fair? Not exactly, but I do think it is natural and expected. Ive also heard the thing about teachers calling on boys more. Well, they have their hands up, waving them around and going ‘me, me” and the girls have their hand up 3inches above the desk.

This isnt 100%-there are loud girls and quiet boys but, in general, I think they are sex characteristics in the elementary years that determine how a teacher reacts to them because teachers are human

The handwriting? The teachers are damned if they do and damned if they dont. If they say its typical for a boy, they’ll get dinged for being sexist and having lower expectations. If they say its poor, they get accused of not being in touch with developmental appropriateness.

It sucks! But it sucks all around if that makes it seem fairer!

Dont let the handwrting complaints get to you, rebelmom-or your son. Ive been through this with all 3 of mine. They ALL print and refuse to use cursive. By 5th grade, its a rare teacher that cares and by high school, the teachers are so glad they show up and stay awake, no one cares an iota about the writing

[quote=”marycas”]Ogden, you are yankin our chains, arent you????

Women want 6 yr old boys to fawn over their beauty and when they dont they take it out on them????

I agree that elementary school is geared towards the strengths of girls. Since most teachers are female, that should be no surprise. Cooperation and good handwriting come naturally for most girls IMO. Boys seem to be competitive by nature and not as interested in pleasing adults.

But, having taught preschool and kindergarten, I will say boys are more disruptive. They are simply louder and more active. Two girls may talk in class but it is in whispers. When two boys talk, its loud and they move around to boot.

So, they get caught more! And an observer sitting there ONLY watching the class with no other work will report that Chloe and Candy talked and werent repimanded while Josh and Adam were. Well, yeah, but with her head down grading papers, the teacher didnt hear the girls. Shed have to be asleep not to hear or see the boys!!!

Is it fair? Not exactly, but I do think it is natural and expected. Ive also heard the thing about teachers calling on boys more. Well, they have their hands up, waving them around and going ‘me, me” and the girls have their hand up 3inches above the desk.

This isnt 100%-there are loud girls and quiet boys but, in general, I think they are sex characteristics in the elementary years that determine how a teacher reacts to them because teachers are human

The handwriting? The teachers are damned if they do and damned if they dont. If they say its typical for a boy, they’ll get dinged for being sexist and having lower expectations. If they say its poor, they get accused of not being in touch with developmental appropriateness.

It sucks! But it sucks all around if that makes it seem fairer!

Dont let the handwrting complaints get to you, rebelmom-or your son. Ive been through this with all 3 of mine. They ALL print and refuse to use cursive. By 5th grade, its a rare teacher that cares and by high school, the teachers are so glad they show up and stay awake, no one cares an iota about the writing[/quote]

I think boys and girls develop crushes on teachers. I had a crush on my 2nd grade teacher. Children know pretty when they see it. Of course it is not sexual attraction but people are attracted to pleasant looking things.

The cute child will likely be treated better than the homely child. Boy get singled out and Rebel Mom is correct in pointing that out.

Girls are never repremanded as harshly for combative behavior as boys and when their are unseen incidences of combative behavior it is usually assumes that the boy is at fault. The fact remains that girls disrupt as much as boys but boys end up get sanctioned for it or labled.

This has gone on for years. Boy are not made from rats and snails and puppy dog tails and girls are not made from sugar and spice and everything nice.

Boys are also punished for the developmental lag they have when compared to girls but girls are not punished when in the higher grades boys eclipse them particularly when the spatial and abstract reasoning deficets of the female brain are revealed.

The 95% male domination in the scientific egineering field has more to do with psycho-biology than gender bias.

The only thing I can agree with is that, teachers aren’t always exceptionally good looking. Yes, I have had mostly unattractive teachers and none of them were ever mean or unfair to me. One of them was 280lbs and had her nose bit off by a dog. She was my favorite teacher. I am not an unattractive man, in fact, my wife was 1st runner up in The Miss Shenandoah County Fair Pageant. Thats as good as Miss America here in Virginia. Exactly how many of these teachers have you had Ogden, and in what ways were they so mean to you that you have such strong feelings? Are you teaching your children these beliefs and feelings? I’m not sure this is the forum to discuss your issues, but we are already listening.

Rebel mom

Marycas is right. Handwriting is not an issue after fifth grade. All three of my kids have handwriting issues. Only one is diagnosed LD. My oldest, a girl, has the strangest grip you have ever seen. She types everything and has for several years. She refused to recopy anything starting in third grade, preferring to hunt and peck on the typewriter.

Turns out that I am the only one in my side of the family who holds a pencil correctly.

I also agree that teachers teach to their strengths. I talked my son’s fourth grade teacher about all the writing she requires—copying vocabulary definitions on to cards and the like. Turns out, she learns by writing and structured the class that way. But, fortunately, she understood that others don’t always learn that way. She told me her husband, like my son, is an auditory learner. She is allowing my son to xerox his definitions and cut and paste them onto cards.

Beth

Beth,

That sounds great. At what age did they allow them to type some of their assignments? I really want my son to enjoy writing, he is so creative and I think it might someday be a strength, if he’s allowed to enjoy it. I just don’t see his penmanship developing without some injury to his selfesteem. Like everything he does, he approaches it from a whole different stand point. Does the cross on the T first, starts c’s and e’s from the bottom. I don’t feel the “way” he makes the letters is a big issue, but some teachers do.

I guess I don’t have to let it get to me, but I can’t stop it from getting to my son. Last year, the teacher gave up on him and let him write the letters the way he wanted, Hallelujah! She concentraited more on the neatness rather than his approach. But here we go again with a new teacher. Maybe I should fight to have it in his IEP, that the neatness should be addressed. His approach should be left alone. They aren’t going to change the way he thinks and quite frankly, thats not their job. They should be teaching him TO THINK, not HOW TO THINK. Right?

I had ‘no cursive’ written into my sons IEP in 3rd grade

I imagine you could do something similar-no points off for handwriting, perceived sloppiness, or something about homework and long term assignments being typed

I also had it written that no points could be taken off for spelling unless it was a spelling test. Spent days learning those dang continents only to have him fail the test because they were spelled incorrectly-like you said-learn the material being taught and who cares about ‘pretty’ and ‘perfect’

There is a school of thought that says the three Rs should not be taught until the end of second grade. It is believed and I think proven that children tuaght that way experience less “LD” and dyslexia symptoms.

The piciune busy work is an example of a backwards school system slanted against boys.

Much of the work and tasks presented to 1st and 2nd graders is beyond their cognitive development. The schools know this but they do it anyway. Does anyone have a theory as to why schools do this?

I have two theories: Inertia and Dominance

The inertia theory is that we continue to do whatever we did before, even when it makes no sense. Since kids in 1900 had to learn cursive handwriting, so do our kids, even though cursive handwriting was devised for quill pens so you didn’t leave blobs every time you picked up the quill. I print almost exclusively and have managed to hold down a professional job quite well nonetheless. We probably should be spending a lot more time teaching keyboarding skills, but grandma learned cursive handwriting, so our kids must need it, too.

The Dominance theory is that the school SYSTEM (as opposed to individuals in the system, many of whom would find this idea horrific) is actually more concerned with compliance than it is with education. Hence, the main thing children need to learn is to do whatever they are told to do, whether or not it is educational. So the fact that a particular task makes no sense for a particular child or for children of that developmental level is actually not as important as getting them to do the tasks assigned. In such a system, creativity and novelty are punished and conformity and submissiveness are rewarded. If there are a few accidental casualties by the wayside, that’s just the cost of doing business. And if they happen to get an education out of the deal, it’s an added plus. As long as they don’t get so smart that they start challenging the authorities. (Read John Taylor Gatto sometime if you haven’t done so.) As the earlier writer commented, this is a great way to train sheep (or perhaps factory workers), but children need a bit more.

Geez, that sounds awfully cynical, doesn’t it? Those are my personal theories. Anyone else have one?

–- Steve

[quote=”Steve”]I have two theories: Inertia and Dominance

The inertia theory is that we continue to do whatever we did before, even when it makes no sense. Since kids in 1900 had to learn cursive handwriting, so do our kids, even though cursive handwriting was devised for quill pens so you didn’t leave blobs every time you picked up the quill. I print almost exclusively and have managed to hold down a professional job quite well nonetheless. We probably should be spending a lot more time teaching keyboarding skills, but grandma learned cursive handwriting, so our kids must need it, too.

The Dominance theory is that the school SYSTEM (as opposed to individuals in the system, many of whom would find this idea horrific) is actually more concerned with compliance than it is with education. Hence, the main thing children need to learn is to do whatever they are told to do, whether or not it is educational. So the fact that a particular task makes no sense for a particular child or for children of that developmental level is actually not as important as getting them to do the tasks assigned. In such a system, creativity and novelty are punished and conformity and submissiveness are rewarded. If there are a few accidental casualties by the wayside, that’s just the cost of doing business. And if they happen to get an education out of the deal, it’s an added plus. As long as they don’t get so smart that they start challenging the authorities. (Read John Taylor Gatto sometime if you haven’t done so.) As the earlier writer commented, this is a great way to train sheep (or perhaps factory workers), but children need a bit more.

Geez, that sounds awfully cynical, doesn’t it? Those are my personal theories. Anyone else have one?

–- Steve[/quote]

I definitely see ‘inertia’ across the board.

It hit me this summer with drivers ed. Hand over hand while turning the steering wheel???? I cant even demonstrate it with my sensitive power steering. Wasnt this designed for manual steering and no one has thought to change the curriculum.

how much drivers ed time is devoted to tire blowouts? i guess anything can happen but, these days, isnt a slow leak and resulting flat far more realistic?

Its not just that they are teaching archaic information. They COULD be covering cell phone use, what to do if you are rearended in a remote area, etc, etc There are things suitable to the times in which we now live that are being shortchanged so we can harp on hand over hand steering!!!

And yes, handwriting certainly is one example of archaic info. I have made sure my LD kiddo can read cursive and write his name in it and that’s it!!!!

DH prints exclusively and somehow managed a Phd with that defect. The little absurdities of life can drive you crazy, cant they?

I use a combination of printing and cursive. Don’t know why since I never had handwriting issues. Somewhere along the line I stopped writing in cursive. Probably ought to blame a computer!!!

My sister, who is in her late 30s, and had lousy handwriting was dismissed by her sixth grade teacher who told her she probably would grow up like her mom and type everything anyway. Our mom was a journalist at the time. Guess he decided with typing genes to not worry about her handwriting!!!

Beth

Guest I think a certain amount of conformity and regementation is needed and certainly some creativity gets squelched but unfortunately what you describe is essentually true. The schools are not just 50 years behind the times. They are 100.

Common sense, vision, and purpose left most education 30 yrs ago and there wasn’t much before that.

Educators are some of the most obtuse creatures on the planet and their vision of education is to produce mediocre carbon copies.

Schools do not educate. The teach tasks. We educate ourselves. I think children need to know that.

Liberation Journal 19/5/5001
Children naturally have a short attention span in comparison to adults, that is one of the normal characteristics that define a child. Kids are conditioned to have a short attention spans in this fast paced culture, in fact adults are so conditioned also. Many people, from teachers to journalists, to television programmers have remarked how difficult it is to hold people’s attention. That’s why news stories are shortened to snippets of emotionally charges images and opinions. Commentary on important issues has to be chopped into 30 second sound bites to get on the news. TV programmers and advertisers know that they have just a few seconds to grab the viewer’s attention. And this is in dealing with adults as well as children. This culture is catering to child-like impatience to the point of treating adults like children. But in dealing with children, who normally have short attention spans, adults who are lacking the patience and ability to reach children and hold their attention are resorting to drugging children into despondency. Should adults who are conditioned to have short attention spans be drugged to get them to sit still and watch one TV channel? After all, if adults unwilling to invest the time required to inspire children and motivate them to learn and to become interested in constructive projects, then those who have no regard for the wellbeing of children are more likely to drug kids into compliance. The prolific use or Ritalin may therefor be the result of the attention deficit of adults in relating to children. A country that forces parents to drug their healthy children in order to control behavior has reached a level of evil that now justifies any action to destroy it.
The epidemic of normal childhood behavior is now being treated with drugs. Ritalin use has increased by 700% in the last decade. According to a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, from 1991 to 1995 the use of Ritalin among U.S. preschoolers increased 150% and antidepressants like Prozac went up more than 200%. During 1995, 60% of the kids on the drugs were age 4, 30% were age 3 and 10% were 2-year-olds. Because the “symptoms” of ADD is a description of normal boyhood behaviors, Ritalin is being prescribed about 95% of the time to boys. In some communities, Ritalin use among boys is as high as one in five. As many as 3.8 million schoolchildren are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. At least 2 million take Ritalin, a stimulant, for symptoms such as inattentiveness, impulsivity and sometimes hyperactivity. Many others are treated with different drugs.
“Giggling, squirming and loud talk among happy, healthy children is now being used as an excuse to give them Ritalin, a drug designed to help kids with real attention disorders,” Janet Parshall of the Family Research Council said. “A study of two groups of English schoolchildren found little difference between the amount of giggling and squirming among normal kids and those who really had attention deficit disorders.”
“Symptoms” of ADD include being hyperactive, restless and impulsive, not wanting to sit still to read, study or even watch television. Often a child has difficulty participating in group activities. In other words they are symptoms of the condition known as childhood. Some mild forms of these “symptoms” are common in many children, leading experts to worry that ADD is diagnosed too often. While all normal children exhibit these “symptoms” and are therefor in danger of being targeted for forced drugging, only those children who seem particularity, independent, stubborn, hyperactive, rebellious and defiant of authority are forcibly drugged. The threat of forced drugging has a deterrent effect of intimidating other children into subservient compliance. However, not all children are scared of begin drugged, some kids like taking the drugs and are faking the ADD “symptoms” to get the drugs.
Dr. Peter Breggin, a veteran psychiatrist, author and founder of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, told WorldNetDaily the “disorder” of ADD is a sham. “ADHD is a false diagnosis to encourage the prescription of drugs,” he said. “It is simply a list of behaviors with no scientific basis.” Breggin says by pumping drugs into a child’s system, the “brain is growing in an environment of toxic drugs.” “Psychiatry and the drug companies have convinced the public that the problems children have are biological and genetic, and this has opened the road to medicating soon after birth,” said Breggin. “Soon they’ll be giving drugs to pregnant women if the baby’s overactive in the womb.” “We’re a quick-fix society,” Breggin explained. “Parents don’t have the time or the motivation to properly raise our children. The attention deficit is in us, not our children.”

Chemical Castration
In 1996 American children where using 90% of the world’s Ritalin, in the same year, 10% to 12% of American boys were on Ritalin. About 95% of the kids on Ritalin today are boys.” The forced drugging of boys who exhibit the symptoms typical of boyhood is a weapon used by androgynists to chemically castrate boys and turn them into complaint, docile tools for indoctrination. If androgynists observe different behaviors between boys and girls, and if they, because of their own severe gender identity mental disorder, refuse to accept in their own minds the fact that boys and girls are different, then they will use any means to make that behavior fit their preconceived, deranged notions. They then diagnose normal boyish rambunctiousness as a disorder and pump the boys full of drugs until the proper behavior is produced.

by Gregory Flanagan

––––––––––––––––––––––––––—

“Drugging children into semi-comatose robo-compliancy is now slowly becoming the monstrous rule rather than the sad exception. Yet this deliberate chemical search-and-destroy dehumanizing of a generation of children is happening with relatively little outraged outcry…What is behind this intentional campaign to drug the very condition of childhood itself? What’s so dangerous about children that the usual indoctrination into the ruling paradigm isn’t sufficient any longer? Until now, national educational systems on this planet have been fairly efficient in training the majority of children into the world-view which the State, relatively benevolent or otherwise, wanted them to have. Why the sudden interest in forcing narcotics into babies and little children? What do these drugs actually do, that there is such an intense interest in force-feeding them to most innocent?”…
“But what is fairly immediately and horribly apparent is the effect of these drugs on the emotional and mental root of self-conscious awareness. These chemicals act as a kind of heavy pesticide applied directly to the beautiful flower of self-awareness at the core of every human being. They paralyze the growing tips of our individuality itself. The thousand-and-one subtle antennae with which we receive and translate incoming sensory data are lopped off. The wondrous and infinite filaments of sensation are coated, practically undetectably, with a brutal and vicious chemical film. All genuine subtle electromagnetic interactions with life are replaced by a false chemical signature, a one-dimensional sensation of crude “well-being”. And this one-dimensionality, this flatland-stupor of phony superficial OK-ness, is a state of perfect working zombification. It works so insidiously well because anyone under the influence of these drugs can walk and talk and work and appear to relate to other human beings. These drugs create a peculiar sub-rosa mini-lobotomy in which the only thing obviously missing is the inner relating factor: the soul.”…
“Even better than painstakingly training a citizenry from birth into becoming willing supporters of a totalitarian State’s program, is to directly enter their bloodstreams early on and induce a wholesale dehumanization from the start.”…
“Children, in their vulnerable unfinished condition, can have no serious resistence to whatever they are being told while in a perpetual twilight zone of drug-induced soul-paralysis. They can never effectively question any outward authority so long as the chemically-imposed condition of compliance itself is circulating freely, a bioengineered army of occupation, in their own bloodstreams.”…”the entire purpose of what was education is now to help a child find his or her comfy place within the confines of the Beast.” - The Golden Road To Unlimited Totalitarianism; Part 4: Education as Black Ops - By Diane Harvey [email protected] 6-11-00