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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

*smoulder* Sax makes me want to throw things.

…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?

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.