Tag Archive | Hong Kong

What Happened to the Refugees Who Helped Snowden Escape Hong Kong (And It’s Not Good)*

What Happened to the Refugees Who Helped Snowden Escape Hong Kong (And It’s Not Good)*

By Alexa Erickson

In May 2013, Edward Snowden left Hawaii for Hong Kong to leak thousands of classified documents about the U.S.’s National Security Agency spy program. The former contractor for the CIA, who was the U.S.’s most wanted fugitive at the time, took shelter in the homes of Hong Kong’s impoverished refugees for twelve days before landing in Russia.

The former contractor for the CIA was hiding in a hotel room in the Kowloon district when he revealed the U.S.’s mass cyber surveillance of its allies to two Guardian journalists, and documentary-maker Laura Poitras. Where he went after that remained unknown for quite some time, but it was eventually revealed that he was taken in by at least three refugee families residing among thousands of refugees living in the wealthy city, who were, and are, unable to leave, work, or send their children to school.

Snowden’s lead lawyer during this time, Robert Tibbo, said he put Snowden in the hands of the refugees to avoid arrest.

“Nobody would dream that a man of such high profile would be placed among the most reviled people in Hong Kong,” he said. “We put him in a place where no one would look.”

For two weeks, Snowden’s whereabouts were known only by his lawyer and the refugees Ajith, Vanessa, Supun, Nadeeka, and their three kids. It is their help that allowed Snowden to get through that time in June.

And while those two weeks came and went, the livelihood of the refugees has largely gone unacknowledged. So where are they now?

For years now, the men, women, and children who housed Snowden have increasingly suffered at the hands of the authorities.

Care for the refugees is now in the hands of International Social Services, a Geneva-based organization, with the local branch called International Social Services Hong Kong Branch (ISSHK). But the organization and its officials have allegedly failed to provide the refugees with proper care or economic opportunities.

As of January, the family who helped Snowden has been away from their home, due to pressure from Sri Lankan investigators trying to track down the two migrants.

The refugees revealed just how dire their situation continues to be in a new interview with Motherboard.

Supun revealed:

“I do not feel safe. We need to see from day to day how to get by. My girlfriend Nadeeka is very scared. We were threatened and our attorney told us that we need to leave our home immediately. Now we move from place to place. My daughter asks when we can finally get home, and she is afraid. Also she does not understand why she is not allowed to go to school. She sees other children in school uniform on the street and would like to join them.

The authorities have no respect for the people from the slum. It was only after the [Snowden] film release that they understood that the world is watching, and so they had to look after us too. Of course I am scared that we will be framed and that our asylum application will be dismissed. But I am a human and I have rights—that’s what I learned from Snowden and my lawyer. I do not fight with my hands, but with my rights and my words.”

Supun urged that all refugees should be getting the help they need, not just the ones capable of being heard because they speak English or Cantonese.

“I want that we stay in solidarity and that no hostility arises between us. We fight for the rights of refugees worldwide. I want a good future for all of them, not just us.”

Hong Kong has a bad track record when it comes to accepting refugees: 0.56% in 2016. Refugees typically wait several years to decades to hear a decision on their acceptance.

“The system is incredibly unjust,” Tibbo explained. During this waiting time, refugees fight for survival daily, while also being portrayed as ‘the problem’ in the media.

Though ISSHK claims to hold the protection of refugees in Hong Kong to high standards, there are far too many reports from refugees that suggest otherwise. Their electricity has been turned off; their financial support has been cut off; they have nothing to eat.

“The ISSHK is obliged to cover the basic needs of the asylum seekers. But the authorities have shown that it is okay for them if refugees starve to death,” concludes Tibbo.

With so many words to be said about Snowden, there are many, many more to say about the livelihoods of the refugees that helped him in those two weeks in 2013.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Phone Case to Protect You from Prying Eyes, Designed By Edward Snowden*

Europe Drops Charges Against Edward Snowden, Offers Asylum And Protection*

Mass Sexual Assault by Refugees in Germany was Fake News*

Refugee Children from Calais Camp Forced to Work on Farms in France*

Men tired of Gang Stereotypes Launch and cook for refugees Campaign*

Refugees Donate Time and Money to Help Italian Earthquake Victims*

Some Refugees Are Being Sold For Organs*

US Role in Egypt, Ukraine, and Now Hong Kong Mass Protests*

US Role in Egypt, Ukraine, and Now Hong Kong Mass Protests*

Note, another BRIC country being destabilized/usurped…

By Tony Cartalucci

This article documents a US role in helping to build and direct the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong. The US has become increasingly sophisticated in helping to build “democracy” movements in countries where the US is in conflict. Through groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute the US funnels money help create social movements that serve US interests. The protests in Hong Kong had many of the hallmarks of the types of protests the US helps to create and manage in other countries. No doubt there are many in Hong Kong who want democracy, but the US involvement confuses who Occupy Central represents. The exposure of the US role comes at a critical time in the Hong Kong revolt as the chief executive has made a Mubarak-like speech refusing to resign, the protesters have amassed outside government buildings and the police have threatened action if the protests escalate. No doubt, if these documents become widely known it will undermine the movement as people do not like the US meddling in their internal affairs. 

Documents Show US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos It Created

 

There is more to the September 2014 demonstrations in Hong Kong than western media reports of “popular protests for democracy”.

The “Occupy Central” protests in Hong Kong continue on – destabilizing the small southern Chinese island famous as an international hub for corporate-financier interests, and before that, the colonial ambitions of the British Empire. Those interests have been conspiring for years to peel the island away from Beijing after it was begrudgingly returned to China in the late 1990’s, and use it as a springboard to further destabilize mainland China.

Behind the so-called “Occupy Central” protests, which masquerades as a “pro-democracy” movement seeking “universal suffrage” and “full democracy,” is a deep and insidious network of foreign financial, political, and media support. Prominent among them is the US State Department and its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as NED’s subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Now, the US has taken a much more overt stance in supporting the chaos their own manipulative networks have prepared and are now orchestrating. The White House has now officially backed “Occupy Central.” Reuters in its article, “White House Shows Support For Aspirations Of Hong Kong People,” would claim:

The White House is watching democracy protests in Hong Kong closely and supports the “aspirations of the Hong Kong people, “White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.”

The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and we support the aspirations of the Hong Kong people,” said Earnest, who also urged restraint on both sides

US State Department Has Built Up and Directs “Occupy Central”

Earnest’s comments are verbatim the demands of “Occupy Central” protest leaders, but more importantly, verbatim the long-laid designs the US State Department’s NDI articulates on its own webpage dedicated to its ongoing meddling in Hong Kong. The term “universal suffrage”and reference to “Basic Law” and its “interpretation” to mean “genuine democracy” is stated clearly on NDI’s website which claims:

The Basic Law put in place a framework of governance, whereby special interest groups, or “functional constituencies,” maintain half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo). At present, Hong Kong’s chief executive is also chosen by an undemocratically selected committee. According to the language of the Basic Law, however, “universal suffrage” is the “ultimate aim.” While “universal suffrage” remains undefined in the law, Hong Kong citizens have interpreted it to mean genuine democracy.

To push this agenda – which essentially is to prevent Beijing from vetting candidates running for office in Hong Kong, thus opening the door to politicians openly backed, funded, and directed by the US State Department – NDI lists an array of ongoing meddling it is carrying out on the island. It states:

Since 1997, NDI has conducted a series of missions to Hong Kong to consider the development of Hong Kong’s “post-reversion” election framework, the status of autonomy, rule of law and civil liberties under Chinese sovereignty, and the prospects for, and challenges to democratization.

It also claims:

In 2005, NDI initiated a six-month young political leaders program focused on training a group of rising party and political group members in political communications skills.

And:

NDI has also worked to bring political parties, government leaders and civil society actors together in public forums to discuss political party development, the role of parties in Hong Kong and political reform. In 2012, for example, a conference by Hong Kong think tank SynergyNet supported by NDI featured panelists from parties across the ideological spectrum and explored how adopting a system of coalition government might lead to a more responsive legislative process.

NDI also admits it has created, funded, and backed other organizations operating in Hong Kong toward achieving the US State Department’s goals of subverting Beijing’s control over the island:

In 2007, the Institute launched a women’s political participation program that worked with the Women’s Political Participation Network (WPPN) and the Hong Kong Federation of Women’s Centres (HKFWC) to enhance women’s participation in policy-making, encourage increased participation in politics and ensure that women’s issues are taken into account in the policy-making process.

And on a separate page, NDI describes programs it is conducting with the University of Hong Kong to achieve its agenda:

The Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) at the University of Hong Kong, with support from NDI, is working to amplify citizens’ voices in that consultation process by creating Design Democracy Hong Kong (www.designdemocracy.hk), a unique and neutral website that gives citizens a place to discuss the future of Hong Kong’s electoral system.

It should be no surprise to readers then, to find out each and every “Occupy Central” leader is either directly linked to the US State Department, NED, and NDI, or involved in one of NDI’s many schemes.

“Occupy Central’s” leader, has spent years associated with and benefiting from US State Department cash and support

 

“Occupy Central’s” self-proclaimed leader, Benny Tai, is a law professor at the aforementioned University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the NDI-funded CCPL. In 2006-2007 he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL’s 2011-2013 annual report, NDI is listed as having provided funding to the organization to:

“design and implement an online Models of Universal Suffrage portal where the general public can discuss and provide feedback and ideas on which method of universal suffrage is most suitable for Hong Kong.”

Curiously, in CCPL’s most recent annual report for 2013-2014, Tai is not listed as a board member. However, he is listed as participating in at least 3 conferences organized by CCPL, and as heading at least one of CCPL’s projects. At least one conference has him speaking side-by-side another prominent “Occupy Central” figure, Audrey Eu. The 2013-2014 annual report also lists NDI as funding CCPL’s “Design Democracy Hong Kong” website.

Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, in addition to speaking at CCPL-NDI functions side-by-side with Benny Tai, is entwined with the US State Department and its NDI elsewhere. She regularly attends forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by “SynergyNet,” also funded by NDI.  In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women’s Centre “International Women’s Day” event,  hosted by the Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) which is also annually funded by the NDI.

There is also Martin Lee, founding chairman of Hong Kong’s Democrat Party and another prominent figure who has come out in support of “Occupy Central.” Just this year, Lee was in Washington meeting directly with US Vice President Joseph Biden, US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and even took part in an NED talk hosted specifically for him and his agenda of “democracy” in Hong Kong. Lee even has a NED page dedicated to him after he was awarded in 1997 NED’s “Democracy Award.”  With him in Washington was Anson Chan, another prominent figure currently supporting the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong’s streets.

“Occupy Central’s” Very Unpopular Agenda

If democracy is characterized by self-rule, than an “Occupy Central” movement in which every prominent figure is the benefactor of and beholden to foreign cash, support, and a foreign-driven agenda, has nothing at all to do with democracy. It does have, however, everything to do with abusing democracy to undermine Beijing’s control over Hong Kong, and open the door to candidates that clearly serve foreign interests, not those of China, or even the people of Hong Kong.

What is more telling is the illegal referendum “Occupy Central” conducted earlier this year in an attempt to justify impending, planned chaos in Hong Kong’s streets. The referendum focused on the US State Department’s goal of implementing “universal suffrage” – however, only a fifth of Hong Kong’s electorate participated in the referendum, and of those that did participate, no alternative was given beyond US-backed organizations and their respective proposals to undermine Beijing.

The BBC would report in its article, “Hong Kong democracy ‘referendum’ draws nearly 800,000,” that:

A total of 792,808 voters took part in an unofficial referendum on universal suffrage in Hong Kong, organisers said.

The 10-day poll was held by protest group Occupy Central.

Campaigners want the public to be able to elect Hong Kong’s leader, the chief executive. The Hong Kong government says the vote has no legal standing.

About 42% of voters backed a proposal allowing the public, a nominating committee, and political parties to name candidates for the top job.

For a protest movement that claims it stands for “democracy,” implied to mean the will of the people, it has an unpopular agenda clearly rejected by the vast majority of Hong Kong’s population – and is now disrupting vital parts of the island, holding the population and stability hostage to push its agenda. All of this is being orchestrated and supported by the United States, its State Department, and its network of global sedition operating under NED and its subsidiary NDI.

While the Western media shows mobs of “thousands” implying that “the people” support ongoing chaos in Hong Kong’s streets, “Occupy Central’s” own staged, illegal referendum proves it does not have the backing of the people and that its agenda is rejected both by mainland China and the people of Hong Kong.

Exposing the insidious, disingenuous, foreign-driven nature of “Occupy Central” is important. It is also important to objectively examine each and every protest that springs up around the world. Superficiality cannot “link” one movement to another, one group to hidden special interests. Rather, one must adhere to due diligence in identifying and profiling the leaders, following the money, identifying their true motivations, and documenting their links to special interests within or beyond the borders of the nation the protests are taking place in.

By doing this, movements like “Occupy Central” can be exposed, blunted, and rolled over before the destruction and chaos other US-backed destabilization efforts have exacted elsewhere – namely the Middle East and Ukraine – can unfold in Hong Kong.

Source*

Related Topics:

From Tahrir – Ukraine’s Orchestrated Unrest*

The Black Block!

Thailand’s “Men-in-Black” are Police*

The Grand Scam: El-Baradei and his Liberal Elites*

Members of Egypt’s Elite Admit to Planning and Financing the Coup as they Conspired to Bring Down Sisi*

The Revolution Business‏

CIA Admits Staging Iran Coup in 1953‏

The Missing Link in the Education of Our Boys

The Missing Link in the Education of Our Boys

By Hwaa Irfan

It has become generally accepted that the education of boys and girls in a mixed environment is far superior to single-sex education. With the 1994 European Community resolution ending single sex schools on the basis of sex discrimination, further moves by the European Union towards standardizing the curriculum of schools throughout Europe have been taking more entrenched steps to make this the norm through sex education despite long term research projects in the U.K. providing strong evidence towards a negative impact on boys academically. The reasons for this general acceptance may have more to do with the focus on gender equity when it comes to girls academically speaking, negating the socio-psychological implications on both genders, and that boys have needs to.

The U.S., has seen a renaissance in single sex education. Since 2004, 445 single-sex classes, and 95 single sex public schools have sprung up across the U.S in response to a change in federal law. One of those schools, the Public School in New York, returned to single sex education in 2009, in response to falling grades and increasing behavioral problems. Attending that school, Samuel Little’s son, Gavin is in his second year of single sex education at Public School. Little told New York Times:

    “Before it was all about showing the girls who was toughest, and roughing and being cool”
    “Now I never hear a word from teachers about behavioral problems, and when he talks about school, he actually talking about work”.

One satisfied parent and son who have done what they have considered best for them despite coeducation being the main mode of education in the U.S. today. Coeducationalists continue to argue against single sex schools, often falling on the belief that single sex schools reinforces stereotypes. Certain things can be taken for granted, as long as the key element desired is in place. Advocates against single-sex education usually measure success of coeducation in the measureable terms of grades, losing oversight of the overall repercussions in the long term.

The coeducation movement began in 1890, when the call for mixed education was based on social reasons rather than academic ones. Brehony in his Coeducation: Perspectives and Debates in the Early Twentieth Century” argued that “… no record of cognitive outcome was ever presented”, and Carol Dyhouse in her “No Distinction of Sex? Women as British Universities 1870-1939 found that coeducation was for the benefit of boys not girls, out fear of homosexuality occurring in boys’ only schools. Dyhouse was referring to the resolutions of the Association of Headmistresses in 1905. That move was essentially a financial one, due to the difficulties of procuring endowments for girls/women’s education. The changes in the U.S. were at the forefront of this movement, influencing the move towards coeducation in the U.K via the Bryce Commission at a time when resources (qualified female teachers, and financial support) were limited for girls’ only schools.

The reasons for seeking coeducation at the turn of the 19th century, were simple ones, but the consequences were a little more complicated. Boys do behave differently under certain situations, and so do girls, but because of certain social movements, we are supposed to not acknowledge the truth of our lives. We consider children as products of our minds, neglecting their souls. We assume that through the narrow secular meaning of the word “education” that future generations will be less predisposed to acts of nature. To demonstrate, is the study from the University of Alabama, U.S. by Barton and Cohen “Classroom Gender Composition and Peer Relations”. There were 46 boys (5th and 6th graders) and 47 girls who had attended single sex schools in a study, along with 45 students who had attended coed. It was found that:

    • Mutual friendships had improved for boys on changing to single sex classrooms
    • Aggressive behavior (both overt aggression and relational aggression) had increased for girls on moving to single sex classrooms
    • Victimization behavior increased for girls and not for boys on moving to single sex classrooms
    In the follow-up after first year transition into single sex classes, it was found that:
    • Boys continued to show an increase in establishing mutual friendships, but also overt aggression began to increase.
    • Negative behavior in girls’ classes increased within the 5th grade, but began to tail off in the 6 grade along with victimization.

It has been found that boys tend to lean towards overt aggression, which is more demonstrative and physical, whereas girls demonstrate a relational aggression which is based on the manipulation, intimidation, victimization of relations, and rejection. It is interesting to note that girls exhibited both overt and relational aggression after separating from coed classes, but tailed off what is considered “boys” behavior, and increased on what is considered “girls” behavior within single sex schools. Whereas for boys they were more likely to have peers amongst their own gender the longer they remained in single-sex classes.

This clearly demonstrates the effect of one gender upon the other, and vice versa. Transference is a psychological term that everyone is prone to. We are bound to transfer behaviors and feelings when in the presence of others. The cost of such exercise is prolific in our schools today in the form of school violence, and teenage pregnancies.

Impact on Boys

Concerns were raised as to the benefits of coeducation on male self concept as early as the first decade of 20th century. The concerns arose out of the fact that mixed schools had a larger female population than boys. Members of the British Mosely Education Commission (1903), compared American boys with English boys because coeducation in the U.K. was still in its infancy. Member of the Commission, C.J. Hamilton felt that coeducation “… no doubt softens the manners (some would say to the point of effeminacy) of the boy”. There was also concern that:

    “The great preponderance of women teachers threatens the virility of the nations”.

The above might seem irrational, but even today one American headmaster based on his observations had the following to say in the report “Give Boys Their Space”:

    “[When we switched to single-sex classrooms] the guys really came together. They worked, their guards came down, they revealed the really caring side of themselves. Once we removed the girls from the equation, all of this “I’m this big tough guy” stuff just completely disappeared. One time we had a coed lunch, and it was a disaster. We had guys talking loud, and girls acting sassy”

This confirms what members of the Bryce and Mosely Commission at the turn of the 20th century had expressed, and confirms the result from the Barton and Cohen study whereby the boys after transferring to single-sex classes had more mutual friends.

From an in-depth study “The Effects of Schooling on Gender Differences” in Hong Kong there were additional considerations to their findings. The cultural backdrop played a major role as Hong Kong is a traditional male oriented society that had been subject to the implementation of a Western education system, along with a single-sex education system that has a male (physical sciences, and Math) oriented and female (Arts and Social Sciences) oriented curriculum. Carried out over a period of years, with investigation of 45,000 secondary school students in Hong Kong, the authors Kam-cheung Wong, Raymond Lam, and Lai-ming Ho found that:

    “…while boys performed better on average in SSPA (Single Sex Placement Allocations) when entering secondary schools in Hong Kong, five years later, the situation was reverse. Girls out performed in almost all subjects [coed]. The findings coincide with the results observed from studies in United Kingdom and Australia that girls did better than boys in all areas of the high school curriculum…”

The authors suggested, which is affirmed elsewhere that girls perform better than boys in coed. It is believed that the reason for this is that girls respond better to the systemized method of schooling, school work, and seeking advice from classmates and friends, however girls still did better in single-sex schools.
Bear in mind that this is reference to schooling (factory education) in general, as there are other factors that affect the success or lack thereof including the quality of teachers, the social background of the pupils, and the resources that are made available. The academic success of coeducation cannot be denied, as the resources offered to it allowed for girls to be educated like boys. Later one will find that although there are still some subjects like math and the physical sciences which are still male dominated, and the Arts, which is female dominated, within coed, which does not follow through in single-sex education, particularly for boys.

    The State of Education for Boys Today

The American Academy for Educational Development in their 2005 “A Report in the Growing Crisis in Boys’ Education” found that:

    • Boys were more likely to be referred to a school psychologist
    • Boys represented 70% of the students with learning disabilities
    • Boys represented 80% of the students with social and emotional disabilities
    • Boys (particularly minorities) represented 70% of school suspensions
    • Boys were behind 80% of the school violence, and were the main victims

The hype some feminists and pro-coeducationalists do cry. Clearly the research has centered on U.K., Germany, Belgium, the U.S, Sweden, and Australia that may have peculiarities pertaining to their system of coeducation, and given that adolescence is a cultural paradigm that is heightened or abated by the cultural context in which one lives, the facts bear out further. Additionally, some of the concerns would not have received much attention if boys did well academically, but did not so well on a personal level.

At a conference of the International Boys’ Schools Coalition that took place in the U.K. in 2010, a report was presented to headmasters of both private and state schools. In favor of boys schools, the findings were as follows:

    • Boys in single sex schools were more likely to do cultural and artistic activities, which develops their emotional side, because they did not feel obliged to “perform” to stereotypes that called on them to “behave like a man”
    • Boys in single sex schools were more likely to express their emotions
    • That despite the stereotypes, boys are more emotional than girls
    • Boys performed badly in mixed schools because they are demoralized by their female counterparts when it comes to verbal and reading skills, because the left side of the brain develops faster in girls
    • Boys felt the need to be “cool” rather than studious in mixed schooling
    • That the British education system has become too focused on girls education
    • Boys learn best through touch, and hands-on experience, as they are more spatial, more impulsive, and more physical, so they need to walk around without being made to feel disruptive
    • “In the present sexualized atmosphere prevalent in mixed schools, boys feel coerced into acting like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means”

The 4-year project “Raising Boys Achievement” undertaken by the reputable University of Cambridge, U.K looking into the forces that undermine boys’ education took place in the U.K., from 2000 – 2004. Over 50 primary, secondary and special schools were explored for the following reasons as stated in the report:

    “Rather more boys than girls fail to achieve level 4 in English national tests at the end of key stage 2; rather more boys than girls fail to achieve the 5A*-C benchmark grades in GCSE examinations taken at 16+. These patterns of academic achievement are evident in most schools in England”

The report rested firmly on the academic issues that have led to a gender gap, and how schools can overcome them through various teaching and classroom strategies, including mentoring. However, to consciously know what one is doing to eradicate a problem one has to understand all the dynamics at play, and in this situation that is the admittance, and applicable knowledge that how boys learn, and how girls learn differ, and what girls need, and what boys need differ too without falling into preconceived stereotypes which are void of the laws of nature! This means an evaluation on not only the school ethos, curriculum etc., but also on the maturity of the type and age of the teachers employed, and whether they are employed to do admin work (which has forced so many good teachers to leave), or to whether they are employed to teach.

However, back to the report “Raising Boys Achievement” the authors commented on the advantages of single sex schools as perceived by the teachers:

    • “ The opportunity to use a variety of teaching strategies which were targeted to boys’ needs and interests”

    • “Provision of a context in which teachers could challenge boys’ stereotypes more effectively”

    • “The existence of an all-male environment which was more conducive to learning, with fewer distractions and less embarrassment, enabling boys to be more open and responsive in class, and able to concentrate and participate more”.

In the projects review of single sex education the researchers felt to do what many liberalists do as in the case of standardizing sex education, and that is to ask the opinion of those who wish to feel comfortable with their lower desires – in this case the students. Of course the students themselves would say that learning in a mixed environment is good for them, and so they did. However, there was a leaning towards learning in a single-sex setting.

    Boys felt:

• “My hormones are not dancing to the beat of the night!’

• “It gives you a lot more confidence to answer questions in class because there is not so much pressure and embarrassment if you are wrong as there would be with girls about”.

    Girls felt:

• “You don’t need to act as though you’re really cool, especially when you’re not
feeling as though you are!”

• “You feel braver and less embarrassed in offering answers, because there are no boys to make fun of you when you are wrong”.

As one headmaster to an American school pleaded in “Give Boys Their Space”

    “When we switched to single-sex classrooms, the guys really came together. They worked, their guards came down, they revealed the really caring and nurturing side of themselves. Once we removed the girls from the equation, all of this, “I’m this big tough guy” stuff just completely disappeared. One time we had a coed lunch, and it was a disaster. We had guys talking loud and girls being extra sassy”.

Conclusion

It has to be noted that the above is a reflection of “factory education”/schooling, and cannot be said to represent all forms of mixed education today. The problem is though, a growing percentage of the global population is being force-fed through this system of education, which we all take to be quite normal, when the above studies only represent a small percentage of the studies researched for this article, which echo the same results. These studies not only reflect on the education of boys, but on the conduct of females in the presence of males. Boys today will be the colleagues, co-workers, husbands, fathers, and heads of family, organizations, and societies of tomorrow; and if they are hindered from going through their natural stages of development, then society as a whole will suffer. How many women complain about their men, and how many young male Muslims complain about the lack of male role models?

Islam advises a certain code of conduct between men and women in our daily lives, but it is to our own downfall if we allow ourselves to believe as those who defame Islam want us to believe, that Islam is “out of date”. It is far from out of date, but is always “in date” with the actual needs of the human heart, soul and mind as long as we “update” our knowledge of Islam.

If anything is to be learned, by the societies in which we live, it is and has been to ensure fair treatment and allocation of resources to both girls and boys, both men, and women, and both child and adult regardless of status, and ethnicity with generations in mind. We can no longer afford to neglect the needs of any member of society, and we must reflect on our role in that neglect.

Sources:

Albisetti, J. “Un-Learned Lessons from the New World? English Views of American Coeducation and Women Colleges c. 1865 – 1910” History of Education, 2000. Vol. 29: 5 p473 – 489. History Department, University of Kentucky.

Barton, B.K. & Cohen. R. “Classroom Gender Composition and Children’s Peer Relations.” Child Study Journal. Vol. 34: 1. 2004. Department of Psychology. University of Alabama.

Froschl, M & Sprung, B “Raising and Educating Healthy Boys: A Report on the Growing Crisis in Boy’s Education” Academy for Educational Development.

Medina, J. “Boys and Girls Together, Taught Separately in School” New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11education/11gender.html.

Smith, I. D. “Gender Differentiation: Gender Differences in Academic Achievement and Self Concept in Coeducational and Single-Sexed Schools”. Australian Research Council. Institutional Grants Scheme.
Williams, R. Single-Sex Schools Help Boys to Enjoy Arts, Study Says. Guardian.co.uk.

Wong, K. et al “The Effects of Schooling on Gender Differences” University of Hong Kong. 1997.
Younger, W. et al. Raising Boys Achievement. Department for Education and Science.