Last week, with not inconsiderable trepidation, I picked up a copy of Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men. The book is by Dr. Leonard Sax, who wrote the very troubling and numbingly essentialist Why Gender Matters a couple of years ago. I read WGM last year and was disturbed by Sax’s claims, most of which seemed to be largely in service of his pet issue: advancing the spread of single-sex education, which he argues is vitally important for boys.
But a couple of people who disliked WGM told me that they’d read “Boys Adrift” and thought that it was significantly better, if still flawed. It’s a quick and easy read, and I made my way through it during “chinchilla out time” last Saturday.
I’m going to review this book in two parts. The criticism comes today, the praise later this week.
First off, there’s much here that is troubling. Though this may be an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, Sax is still prone to the whopping and unsupportable generalization. In discussing the importance of competition, he opines:
Most girls value friendship above team affiliation…Boys are more likely to understand that friends don’t have to be teammates, and teammates don’t have to be friends. And boys are more likely to be invested in the success of their team regardless of whether any of their friends are on the team.
Dr. Sax, please, come and watch some of the girls I mentor and teach play soccer and softball. If “Megan” is playing catcher, and her best childhood friend “Melissa” is a runner for the other team trying to steal second base, I guarantee you that “Megan” isn’t going to hesitate for an instant in trying to throw out her closest confidante! I’ve worked enough with both male and female athletes to know that team solidarity and competitiveness flourishes just as effectively among girls as among boys. I suspect Dr. Sax spends very little time with young female athletes.
Of course, sometimes the good doctor focuses on the science he is far more qualified to discuss. But like most of those who defiantly cling to the “nature” side of the argument, the evidence doesn’t necessarily support his conclusions. For example, Sax has an interesting section about why boys don’t like reading any more. It’s not, according to him, because video games are inherently more interesting (though he is, I’m relieved to say, no fan of them). It’s because the kind of questions teachers ask about reading assignments don’t address boys’ concerns.
Sax comes up with the following scenario: a junior high-school English teacher has assigned the kids “Lord of the Flies.” An essay question is given for homework:
“Write a short essay in the first person, in Piggy’s voice, describing how you feel about the other boys picking on you. Remember to include lots of detail.”
Sax writes:
This homework assignment boils down to: How would you feel if you were Piggy? When I spoke with the teacher who assigned this homework, she explained that she wanted to teach the children about empathy… I submit that this assignment didn’t teach anything about empathy. Instead, the message reinforced for (boys) is that doing homework is for girls, not for real boys. No self-respecting boy, in this boy’s frame of mind, would do such a homework assignment.
The answer (you knew this was coming) is that boys and girls have different brains:
It’s easy for most middle school and high school girls to answer a question like “How would you feel if you were X?” because the area of the brain where the feeling is happening is closely linked to the area of brain where talking happens. For boys, that’s not the case… it’s not easy (for them) to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…?” He may attempt to produce the answer he thinks the teacher wants to hear, but it’s a chore. A better question for most boys would be “What would you do if…” That question may sound similar, but it’s actually a different question, and much more boy-friendly — for most boys.
I’m willing to concede that biological differences may explain why some boys have a hard time articulating feeling. I’m not qualified to disprove that possibility. But for heaven’s sake, one of the most vital tasks the schools have is to help young people overcome natural obstacles. If there are differences in the brain that make it more difficult for boys to empathize with fictional characters (or make it more difficult for girls to understand calculus), that’s hardly a case against teaching empathy or higher math! Rather, it’s a signal to teachers and parents that we have to work even harder with certain students (who may be clustered in one sex or another) to help them develop into full and complete human beings.
Dr. Sax complains that for a boy, it might not “be easy to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…” Fine, I concede his point. But boys do hard things all the time. Getting to level 346 on the latest video game is hard. Getting in shape for football is hard. Building muscle, building reflexes — these aren’t “natural”. Sometimes, getting in shape to be a soldier or a quarterback feels like a chore, but no one suggests that because it’s difficult for the young to do, they ought to be excused from doing it!
I suspect (and hope) that Dr. Sax is genuinely concerned with the well-being of young American men. I share his concern and his commitment. But he draws dangerous conclusions from his own considerable research. His diagnosis may be accurate, but his remedy is wrong. Though for the sake of discussion, I am willing to concede that his findings about brain differences are real, I think he sells boys woefully short by suggesting that these differences are so significant that they serve as obstacles to the development of empathy, tenderness, and an articulate vocabulary for one’s own inner emotional terrain.
Feminists are often accused of suggesting that “there are no differences between boys and girls, between men and women.” We’re accused of ignoring nature and over-emphasizing nurture when it comes to psychological development. Though some feminists may have denied difference, most feminists today accept that brains and hormones may operate differently between the sexes. But we also point out that once you start characterizing boys and girls as fundamentally different, you immediately encounter so many exceptions (sensitive boys, aggressive girls) that the usefulness of the whole damn dichotomy becomes moot.
More importantly, some feminists (I include myself in this bloc) argue that the whole purpose of social institutions (be they churches, schools, or extended families) is to help each individual achieve full human potential despite whatever limitations are imposed by biology. Access to birth control helps address the biological reality that women get pregnant and men don’t. Toilet training socializes children to overcome their own physical impulses. “Nature” might have us all peeing our pants; “nature” might have every woman the mother of ten. Though real biological differences do exist, they ought never be used as an excuse for failing to develop our children into complete, effective, kind, tolerant, well-rounded human beings.
I’m willing to accept the premise that for biological reasons, it may be harder for some boys to articulate empathy — and for some girls to do advanced mathematics. But all that tells me as a teacher and a mentor is that we may need to redouble our efforts to help our sons and daughters reach their full potential. Rather than doing as Dr. Sax suggests, and re-phrasing the questions in order to make things “easier” for boys, we need more commitment from teachers and parents to help our sons “do hard things.” And while “hard things” might include making the football team or playing a fantasy game at a very high level, it also includes learning to identify emotionally with the vulnerable.
In the end, feminists don’t deny nature. But we refuse to be in thrall to it. And we sure as heck refuse to buy the tired excuse that “nature” means that our sons cannot all be kind, gentle, articulate and ambitious.
Part Two soon.
Yeah, that’s totally a situation biased against boys, what with LotF being written by a woman author about a group of girls and all.
So Sax is basically saying that boys are incapable of empathy or of discussing another boy’s point of view, and any boy who is, is a no-account sissy.
Like Gurian, Sax is far less interested in describing “what is” than in creating a culture that fits his Mars-and-Venus fantasies.
Btw, Hugo, I’m surprised you don’t call Sax out on his (and others’) racism. The real story of the achievement gap is in minority boys falling behind both their sisters and behind white males and females. But it’s so much easier to throw rocks at the stinky, overachieving, empathizing girls than to talk about boring old racism! Why, that would require an expression of empathy!
Hugo, although anecdotal, I do have to agree with Sax that one reason for boys no longer wanting to read is due to the related assignments. I always loved reading, but I found myself not enjoying it as much when it was assigned reading simply because I had to answer questions regarding the language use, tone, etc, of the work rather than read to understand and apply what was read.
So for those males whose only exposure to reading is from school assignments, I can see why they would not like to read. This does not mean that the school is incorrect (we all must perform duties that we do not like), but rather a push that parents, guardians, and mentors should encourage reading outside of just school work.
Mac, why do you think that only boys feel this way about related assignments?
I think he sells boys woefully short by suggesting that these differences are so significant that they serve as obstacles to the development of empathy, tenderness, and an articulate vocabulary for one’s own inner emotional terrain.
Hugo, Sax sends me over the edge. It is as if there is a desperation among the “biology as destiny” crowd to enshrine into the public worldview the conviction that men and women and girls and boys are so profoundly different that general public policy must operate on gender specific lines.
Can’t be done. Not without trashing the best in people, and Sax just can’t get past his own eagerness to use science to advance what he wishes were the case, to see the profound and undeniable similarities among people.
I’ve seen this mindset time and again. As an example, our family been involved in rural animal rescue (a whole different scene from urban rescue) since creation, and the precise same behaviors, responses and initiative are viewed very differently, depending on who is doing them. Women/girls who take deliberately take on the the risk of fearbite from a terrified, starving mutt are “sacrificial…men/boys are “courageous.” Women/girls who coax that same terrified mutt into the combo livetrap/carrier are “intuitive.” Men/boys inspire “trust.” Women/girls who physically broke up dogfights were “desperate.” Men/boys were “cool and confident.”Women/girls who direct rescue operations are “experienced.” Men/boys take “control.” Women/girls who escape injury in dangerous situations are “lucky.” Men/boys are “smart and maybe a bit lucky.” Women/girls who use a firearm to resolve a critical animal situation are “afraid.” Men/boys take “fearless decisive action.”
The exact same behaviors are demonstrated by individuals, but many in this world cannot see beyond the sex of the actor, and Leonard Sax is the worst of the worst when it comes to this type of thinking.
If the issue is truly an inability to “articulate” how one feels when asked…please explain to me the behavior of Husband and Sons during University of Michigan sports anything, or the whispered words as they are practicing the eulogy for a beloved Uncle, or preparing for that last ride to the vet, or the joy and pride in any successful endeavor?
From my perspective, Sax is essentially claiming that men/boys should get a pass on self examination…unless there is some direct interest, and that men/boys shouldn’t have to do anything they really don’t want to do…because the things men/boys choose to do are ever so much more important!
Mac, why do you think that only boys feel this way about related assignments?
Now Myth…remember that girls are inherently passive little suckups.
Apologies for two in a row, but Sax twists my knickers!
Myth, that’s reading something into what I wrote. Perhaps I should have expanded my sample set to state that one reason why people may not like reading is the related assignments. That wouldn’t negate assignments as a reason for boys not reading. I will not venture to assume that girls feel that way. I was only attesting that there is at least one member of the set of “boys who don’t like reading because of the assignments.”
For the record, I don’t agree with Sax’ solution. I still stand by my encouraging reading other than for school.
Btw, Hugo, I’m surprised you don’t call Sax out on his (and others’) racism. The real story of the achievement gap is in minority boys falling behind both their sisters and behind white males and females. But it’s so much easier to throw rocks at the stinky, overachieving, empathizing girls than to talk about boring old racism! Why, that would require an expression of empathy!
“…minority boys falling behind both ‘their sisters’ and behind white males and females.” Minority girls are the “sisters” of minority boys, but white girls are not? Hmm…what was that you were saying about racism?
My intent is not to offend. I don’t think you have racism in you. However, somtimes our use of various terms can be a pointer to some more widespread and very subtle racism that persists in our culture.
Minority girls are the “sisters” of minority boys, but white girls are not?
Perhaps where you come from, African-American men refer to white women as “sisters”, but that has not been my experience. Hence the quotes. Was it that unclear?
And Mac, I agree with you entirely about reading. But what Sax, Gurian and the rest of the girls-are-beating-the-boys scare industry are claiming is that boys, uniquely, don’t respond to standard teaching techniques–never mind that these techniques were widely used long before the much-heralded “falling behind”.
Ahunt did a good job of explaining Why I Moved Out Of The Midwest, but it goes beyond people’s perceptions of the same actions: Sax and Gurian aren’t simply seeing gender differences, they have a particular vision of what those gender differences should be, and children who do not fit that mold must be corrected. Girls are nurturing, sweet and destined to be mommies; boys are loud, aggressive, borderline ADD and should eventually settle down enough to run the world. It’s flat-out creepy.
they have a particular vision of what those gender differences should be
…and I have yet to see either Gurian or Sax address this crucial criticism. Makes me nuts, because once again, both of these men would deny the best qualities of individuals in favor of strictly enforced gender definitions.
In Sax’s world, “deviations” from proscribed scripts of gender behaviors are to be dealt with harshly, but I’m at a loss to understand why Sax thinks that such “deviations” are so terrible as to warrant public censure.
What exactly…is the problem when good people act like good people?
Because if I don’t act like Sax’s idea of what boys should act like, then other boys will see me acting like myself instead of Sax’s idea of what boys should act like and they’ll get the idea that it’s ok to ignore what society recommends that boys do and to instead do your own thing and then the idea will spread and before you know it, boys are refusing to go die for wars sixty-year-old men started and treating women decently and some of them will kiss other men and it’ll just be chaos.
*smoulder* Sax makes me want to throw things.
From a report written by the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men (Nov 1, 2005)
http://www.nh.gov/csm/downloads/nh_status_of_men_2005.pdf
The status of boys and young men in education has been attracting increased attention by education experts in recent years. This surprises many people, who may have heard that schools “shortchange” girls and assumed that boys were doing just fine. In fact, while many people became aware of the fact that girls were behind boys in math and science education, an even wider gender gap remained hidden; that of reading and writing skills, where boys are the ones at a stark disadvantage.
The low educational status of males is especially disturbing given how little has been done to recognize and equip them to better succeed in their schooling. Gender inequities are immediately seen from prekindergarten and continue though postsecondary education. As educational success has become increasingly critical in an information driven society, the consequences of leaving males behind continue to worsen.
Male students are a minority on college and university campuses in New Hampshire, as well as nationally. Women began outnumbering men in postsecondary education by the mid1970s, and this trend has continued to this day, where women make up approximately 60% of all undergraduate students.
The data presented in this report show that a serious educational problem exists for boys and young men in New Hampshire. The ability to read and write well is one of the most fundamental lifeskills, and one that boys are disproportionately doing poorly at. This needs to be remedied. When the fact that girls were lagging behind boys in the areas of math and science education became wellknown,
many educational programs specifically targeted at girls in these academic areas arose to help boost involvement and achievement. These programs were extremely successful. Creating additional education programs tailored to the needs of boys in the areas of reading and writing would be an obvious first step.
The reasons behind the low enrollment levels of young men in colleges and universities are not well understood. Certainly, improving the overall academic achievement of boys earlier on in education will increase the number of collegebound secondary students. Resources such as the NH PAPER survey should be expanded to cover an accurate sampling of all high school students in the state, and focus on identifying the reasons why male students are deciding to forgo higher education.
Finally, it is a recommendation of this Commission that awareness of the problems boys face in our schools become a greater focus in the education community and the public. Many educators see the problems that boys face on a daily basis, but do not have enough support from the general public to take stronger actions to help correct these inequities.
“No self-respecting boy, in this boy’s frame of mind, would do such a homework assignment.”
I think it’s hilarious that this guy advanced his biological determinism with a textbook example of social conditioning language. Is irony recognition located far from the part of the brain where typing happens?
And Fred- you are quite right. The way the female advantage in reading and writing has allowed men to dominate every single literary field is appalling.
Seriously, when are these morons going to wise up to the race issue? Or pay attention to reality in general?
Actually, my experience is that even if girls read, they don’t read much of real substance (I am a woman, I speak from personal observation). Most of them are clueless about the larger world and the things that matter..and they don’t care, b/c the adults in their lives don’t care. I’ve only had one teacher who did a decent job for me in teaching English. Not coincidentally, I believe, she was working on her Master’s degree in Medieval English Literature. She was a STRICT marker -getting an A in her class was ridiculously hard- but she managed to even get the boys who were the clowns in the class & usually didn’t do very well to pass with a decent mark.
How did she do it?
By being PASSIONATE & extremely knowledgeable about her work. By not focusing on persnickity little details like predicates and verbs & whether or not a phrase is a metaphor or simile or whatever. She made her subject come alive; we could practically see the events of a story unfold before our eyes. She also taught us how to ask the QUESTIONS THAT MATTER. Every teacher always tells us there’s no such thing as a “dumb” question…but I say there is such a thing as a useless question. Questioning is an essential skill which I often doubt many teachers really have -or perhaps they just suck at teaching that skill to students.
I’ve had so many teachers who really butcher both my mother tongue (Afrikaans) & my favorite language (English) through focusing on useless details instead of the overall picture, that if my mother did not introduce me to some good authors at a really young age, I would not be reading much either.
Another observation:
I’ve mostly had ok math teachers -but not especially brilliant math teachers, except for another woman who taught math by using concrete illustrations that made the abstract ideas understandable to my class. For example, to teach the basics in algebra, she had us balance candy on a makeshift see-saw. Language, & trigonometry & geometry I get -squiggly lines & abstract numbers…not so much.
Btw: In South Africa we learned basic algebra in elementary already. In Canada they didn’t touch this stuff (along with basic knowledge in verbs, nouns, etc -the sort of stuff I learned in elementary as well) till gr. 9. What do they teach in the USA? If people are seriously concerned about the state of mind for kids in North America, maybe an entire overhaul of the education system in Canada & the USA is needed.
Fred said: “In fact, while many people became aware of the fact that girls were behind boys in math and science education, an even wider gender gap remained hidden; that of reading and writing skills, where boys are the ones at a stark disadvantage.”
Perhaps girls are better at figuring out “what the teacher wants” -you know, giving the obvious answer like “well, if I was in Piggy’s shoes, I would feel bad”. -Yeah, sure, but what other consequences would there be? What do you mean by “I would feel ‘bad’ “?
In physics, chemistry, math & many of the trades, you can’t get away with fudging like that; you have to really apply yourself, do critical analysis & learn real problem solving with ACCURACY.
English, art, & the other “soft” courses are also essential for learning critical analysis, creative problem solving & self-expression…but only if they’re taught properly; if teachers don’t let students get away with the “what the teacher wants” answers during class discussions.
I suspect the most important reason though, is a few thousand years of socialization. Keep in mind that not too long ago, girls were taught some basic math (+ , - , a smattering of some simple multiplication & division), with a heavy emphasis on home economics & reading & writing. They were also taught that women are all about relationships & nurturing.
OF COURSE they’re going to be very good at analyzing relationships between people, at being introspective & creative -all excellent qualities in a writer.
Boys on the other hand had a much wider & more rigorous education & were taught that males are logical, NOT especially good at “feelings”; aggressive & good at figuring out how things work, but clumsy in deep relationships.
Just over 100 yrs ago (if I remember my history correctly) a weird but humorous result was shown in Canada:
A bunch of male writers decided to form a literary society together. For one of their first acts, they decided to take a census of writers in Canada. To their shock, they found out that the majority of writers in Canada were women! Many of these female writers weren’t bad either.
If any of you doubt that we socialize our kids from babyhood onward along exactly these lines, go to Wal-Mart (or heck, any store that sells kids’ toys) & walk down the boys’ isle & then the girls isle. I always thought the boys’ isle was more fun.
Somebody posted a link to this discussion on Leonard Sax’ web page to this discussion claiming that it was thoughtful analysis and criticism. First off, whoever it was completely screwed up the address. And secondly, this discussion could hardly be considered thoughtful by any standard I am aware of. The responses here seem like a bunch of knee-jerk reflexes and subjective generalizations. This community may be based on Hugo worship and I have no problem with that, but has anyone who responded even read Sax’ book under discussion? Who would claim that there is a thoughtful discussion worth looking at when it is just a bunch of comments by people who have not even read the book?
I understand that discussing the actual differences between girls and boys brains may be a hot button issue. And there are also the imaginary differences and social projections of gender differences and all of their consequences that get tangled in and make this a complicated issue. But was anybody suggesting that the way forward was vituperation, indignation and partiality?
Here is my response to Hugo’s critique. I don’t think Sax suggests that the goal is to enable the development of boys to be determined by their biological differences such that boys do not learn to read and never develop empathy. Rather, Sax argues that if- as the evidence indicates- our current education system does not affectively motivate the development of boys in critical areas in which it is successful at motivating girls, then that should be evaluated. I really don’t see what is so controversial about this idea. If we want all students, regardless of gender to develop socially and academically, is there any reason to require that the exact same didactic model be used for both genders to achieve that goal, particularly in the instance in which we have clear evidence that it does not work equally well? I think Sax’ main point which was not mentioned in your critique was that the critical problem is not with the education or the material but with the attitude of boys towards education and material. If our school system has the flaw of creating an adversarial emotional relationship between boys and the curriculum, then this needs to be addressed and fixed. I think it is true that boys are extremely sensitive to inflexibly categorizing tasks and activities in terms of their personal strengths and weaknesses. Boys are - perhaps, I am speaking generally and I admit it- judged on accomplishment and developed skills, not so much on general qualities. And boys seek status and approval based on their niche of skills, which they excel at developing. Anything perceived as a weakness can be ignored. So, if boys think they are good at video games and bad at school, a pernicious cycle ensues. We need to make school a venue for achievement and success and make academic success as rewarding as other accomplishments. I think Sax is dead on correct that if boys develop a negative attitude toward school early because of the way they respond to pressure and expectations of teachers, then this can impact the remaining 12 years of school and the rest of reading and learning over that individual’s life.
Readers of this forum seem to be far more motivated to clamor about racism and sexism and feminism than to embrace a simple thought like reevaluating the kindergarten and first grade curricula. Why solve a problem when you can stomp around and yell about it like baboons?
Avispex,
Well said!