<p>cangel
you might be more comfortable with shiatsu, which is performed while you are fully clothed, reiki, which is also performed while you are clothed and the practioner doesn’t even touch you, it is more "energy manipulation’ and yes it really works. To get a sense of the energy that a reiki master feels, rub the palms of your hands together briskly and then hold them a couple inches apart, when I do it, it is like try ing to hold magnets together.
You also might like acupressure which is very therapeutic performed on just your feet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had a similar reaction.</p>
<p>My two other thoughts are, first, that putting anyone on a pedestal limits both parties and I can say these are limitations that neither TheMom nor our D would accept. The second rattled around earlier today at a party for prospective Smith students. One of the current students was talking about the pros and cons of the all-women environment. Her observation–which I’ve heard stated by others in other ways before–is that without the guys there, nobody pays that much attention to make-up or dress and the women become much more aggressive and articulate in the classroom, not worrying about what some cute guy might think about their opinion. Not surprising, I guess, for a school that counts Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem among its graduates.</p>
<p>I do have the same response to the pedestal thing.
However I question the not paying attention to appearance. One, I think a certain level of attention is necessary for health, and well being, two, if the girls at the coed college where my daughter attends ARE paying more attention to appearance just because there are males there, I would really HATE to see what they would look like if they attended an womens college and paid less.
I really thought that by the time women got to college age, they didn’t temper their contribution in class by what “men” think. That seems really 50’s to me.</p>
<p>ps Don’t forget Nancy Reagan she is an alum too!</p>
<p>Emeraldkitty - I think based on my experiences in male dominated classrooms from early college on, in training and working in a male dominated profession, and my daughter’s experiences in a new generation, that the impact of gender in the classroom is subtle - both positive and negative. </p>
<p>In other words, in some ways girls are favored, in other ways boys are favored. For example, I truly believe girls start out with a big advantage over boys in education, they mature earlier; a combination of nature and nurture makes little girls more likely to sit still and listen for 15-20 minutes, necessary skills for classroom success. On the flip side, just the fact that boys are more restless, and capturing the teacher attention through acting out, gets them called on more often. My Mom and husband, with a combined 50 years teaching experience, have discussed some of the studies showing teachers pay more attention to boys in the classroom. Their answer to those studies is, of course, if the student requires a teacher’s time and energy to stay on task, they will get more time and energy.</p>
<p>I can remember thinking, more than once, I’m not going to answer, because I don’t want to appear “too smart” - this wasn’t consciously trying to appeal to boys, because I can remember thinking this in the 4-5th grade. I felt painfully different, particularly in elementary school. This behavior decreased as I went through junior high (too late by then, I was permanently pegged as “the smartest girl in school”, so impressing boys with my lack of brain was not an option), although I can still remember a few times, not answering when no one would answer, because it was embarassing to always answer, I was tired of sticking out.</p>
<p>Things are a little different for my daughter, her high school is larger than mine, with far wealthier kids coming, by and large, from a background of educated parents. I’m sure there are girls who have held back in class, particularly to prevent upstaging a special boy at a special time, but it is not widespread, particularly in the “honors group”. This group is roughly 50-50 (her class is 60% male, though), but the top of the top is 2/3rds female - those kids know each other too well to hold back, they would know when a friend was “faking” it.</p>
<p>I don’t think my daughter will “hold back” in college, either, I’m not attacking single sex colleges, I wanted her to consider them. I don’t think they change womens’ behavior as much in the classroom (outside of maybe math and hard physics), as they have a positive impact on leadership - more women get more leadership experiences.</p>
<p>I don’t know, but I think there still exists some remnant of “not wanting to look too smart”. It’s just that I don’t see it in D, but I do see it in some of her dancer and cheerleader friends (horrible over-generalization , but in this interest-that’s who they are!). The descriptive phrase for D has always been “You mean that girl who is smarter than the teachers?”. Maybe it is more of a conscious choice today for some girls? I’m asking , not telling.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, I had to wrap up my rambling before finishing, I agree that there is a remnant of not wanting to look too smart, and I think lots of girls, (boys too, after all, athletics are more highly valued in our society than smarts) have isolated episodes of dumbing down. There are a few girls my daughter has mentioned, who she suspects are a lot “smarter” than they let on. I’ve met these girls, I know their backgrounds, and I’m not so sure. The commonly accepted motive for “dumbing down”, they don’t want to look too smart in front of the guys, is NOT all the reason, the real reason is more complex.
I don’t know about Texas, but down here, expectations for everyone (boys and girls alike) are very different than what I think expectations may be in other parts of the country among people of similar socio-economic status. I’m beginning to see this, as I read here about what other school systems do, and what other parents want for their children. Expectations are lower, and this effects what grades are expected in school, how difficult the high school classes should be, where you should go to college.
I’m not entirely certain that having lower expectations are wrong, or illogical. Take expecting that your child should go out of state to college - well, out of state here may be a very long way away, and there aren’t as many private schools - why go to LSU if you are in-state for Alabama unless a parent is an alum? If you live in Georgia and you own a couple of tire dealerships, or a dry cleaner string, or you are a contractor or doctor, why should you pay out of state tuition when your kid gets a Hope scholarship and they are just going to college for a few years before coming home to join the family business. I see limitations of possiblities hampering many kids here - not just the girls.</p>
<p>I lost my internet connection after typing a 4 paragraph response to Cangel. I am so depressed. LOL. </p>
<p>I’ll be succinct this time. Students (male and female) are good at what they value. That is universal. Most students, parents, counselors, and teachers are provincial in their attitudes toward educational opportunities.That is also universal. Many of us are on this board to fight against that near-sighted view of college opportunities. I rarely see a post that says “I’m looking for the cheapest ______degree I can get in a 100 mile radius of home”, but we know that most college decisions are based on exactly those criteria. This is not a “southern thing”. It is endemic to all regions, and crosses gender lines equally. In this instance (and I suspect others), we are not a representative sample of our state or nation, and neither are our children, and for that we should all be eternally thankful.</p>
<p>EmeraldK, I don’t have rigorous data but the anecdotal input I’ve had suggests that the 50’s sensibility is alive and well in some people. Two years ago one young lady talked about the difference of attending classes at Amherst versus Smith and that’s when I saw a cartoon lightbulb go off over the head of my D, who in high school had people ask “Can’t you at least try to fit in?”, “fit in” meaning not rock the boat, not participate in class, not show up the guys, etc. I think there is something of a double standard, where it’s “okay” for a guy who is smart to flaunt it but that girls are supposed to hide their lights under a bushel even if, as has been noted in numerous places, girls dominate the overall list of high performers.</p>
<p>Cangel and Curmudgeon, there’s no limitation on low expectations, provincialism, and parochialism. There are enough people in the greater Los Angeles area for whom the notion of their kids going any place further away than San Diego or Santa Barbara is an outlandish and adventurous notion. Certainly, in Missouri and California respectively, both TheMom and I made similar choices based on geographic proximity and cost.</p>
<p>If you had told me five years ago that our D would be attending a single-sex LAC in the Northeast, I would have blinked at you in disbelief. In two if not three dimensions this was completely outside our expectations. And yet as the process worked and we became educated in the options just as our D did, both TheMom and I have come to the conclusion that not only did this result in an acceptable option but that the result is a better educational opportunity than we ourselves experienced.</p>
<p>As far as growth & development goes, I’ve really come to believe in the Chelsea Clinton theory: if you grow up on one coast, go to school on the other. This theory is silent, however, on what to do if you grow up in the Midwest or the South, which seem to have a higher adherence to a “stay at home” ethos in the first place.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, about the dancer generalizations, my eye would scan the barres at my D’s studio and I came up with a ratio of about 50/50 between “smart” and “stereotyped” as far as type goes.</p>
<p>Cangel, about boys taking longer to mature, I was once caught in a cross-fire between two women, the first of whom said that men finally catch up at age 40, to which the second replied, “At which point they immediately enter their second childhood.” Ouch…I was bleeding.</p>
<p>TheDad, I’m still chuckling and this MAY be culturally significant. I had no intention of lumping classically trained dancers with our half-time dancers (think “Laker Girls”, just a little more bawdy). LOL. “Dancer” can mean different things, can’t it?</p>
<p>Curmudgeon: oh dear. Separated by a common language, I see.</p>
<p>Anent the rolling skirmish in the Frat/Sorority thread, I do wonder if there are regional differences in expectations about the college experience in terms of the importance of Greek life and the like. I’m not intimately familiar with the Greek life at UCLA or USC but am not oblivious to it, either, and the notion of a girl having four whooped-up formal outfits for rush doesn’t ring any bells. I shall make inquiries.</p>
<p>Lost a post - THeDad, I would never put you in the 2nd childhood group, although DH is pushing it since he got a couple of seasons of “Northern Exposure” on DVD for Christmas. ;). And as for the dancers - think dancers with boots, TheDad, not quite the same as your daughter’s friends at the barre.</p>
<p>Realizing that one needs an ear to distinguish “friends at the barre” from “friends at the bar.”</p>
<p>I can’t make this stupid word processor do that “accent thingy”. And which “bar” - the legal bar, the drinking bar or the poetic word for beach? LOL - we are so off topic!</p>
<p>I don’t think you need the accent thing for “barre,” so you’re good. At least I don’t see it in ballet technique books. I always read the nautical “bar” as a sandy shoal, not a beach, but I may be wrong. Tennyson and all that. As much as I resemble Johnny Depp, most people don’t want to see me handling a sailing craft.</p>
<p>Yes, I think a sandy shoal probably is more accurate- we would say “Swim out to the first sandbar to see the dolphins”.</p>
<p>We may need to discuss this resemblance to Johnny Depp further!!</p>
<p>Well, Depp as in “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Except that neither TheMom, D, nor any of D’s friends acknowledge the resemblance.</p>
<p>LOL! Of course he cleans up to J. Depp in “Chocolat”! And isn’t this thread about beauty in the eye of the beholder - well there you go! ;).
I like to think of DH as sort of an amalgam of J. Depp, S. Connery(post James Bond), and George Clooney, but he’s actually a Tom Hanks kind of guy! What can I say, I love him!</p>
<p>If you haven’t seen it, I’ll give a plug for Depp in the current “Finding Neverland.”</p>
<p>A bit of a tearjerker.</p>
<p>umm I think Johnny Depp must have a portrait in the attic. He looks too good for some who chainsmokes Gauloise cigarettes.
Well better Depp in Pirates, than Depp in Edward Scissorhands</p>
<p>That was a tearjerker, especially when you hear what happened to the Llewelyn Davies boys. But you want a tragedy, I just saw “Hotel Rwanda” with my 14 yr old. HIghly recommended.</p>
<p>I can’t wait to see Depp in Charlie & The Chocolate Factory… Should be interesting to say the least :)</p>