21st Century Boys

By far the most successful reform in education I can think of, was the shift in attitudes that unleashed the academic talents of female students. As recently as the 1970s, when my older sister was in school, studying the sciences in the hope of training to become a vet, she had to put up with being told ‘well, really, girls just can’t do physics’. This not from an interfering relative, or opinionated bystander, but from the physics teacher. And, if challenged, he perhaps might have pointed out that he had the data on his side. Very few young women were doing well in physics, just as very few were going on to get degrees in science, or commerce, or law. Academic opportunities for women were limited, because we were somehow just sure that was the natural order. Boys and girls were different, they liked different things, they had different aptitudes, and serious study, well that fell on the boys’ side of the ledger. And, as long as we believed that particular construction of gender difference, the results would dutifully follow, so deepening the prejudice.

Try telling a bunch of teenagers in a co-ed school today that things were ever organised like this, and they will struggle to believe you. It runs contrary to their everyday experience, where girls don’t just match their male counterparts academically, but on average dominate them. In the classroom girls are confident, vocal, assertive and ready to learn. In New Zealand, there is now more female success at every level of the national qualifications systems, and females outnumber males at university. The change, when it came, was staggeringly quick. It turned out, surprise surprise, that girls are really smart, and schools, in failing to recognise this, had been really stupid.

Now, of course, we hear concern about the relative underachievement of boys. It’s not that boys have necessarily fallen behind, it’s just that, for centuries, they didn’t have anybody to compete with. Now they have, it turns out that being the smarter sex is pretty hard. There are, predictably, all sorts of groups focussing on this problem. From educational researchers through to self-help gurus, everybody, it seems, has an opinion on what we need to do to rescue the poor male, who is struggling to keep up. There are any number of important aspects to this debate, but let me just focus on one thing that has me puzzled. Why is it that the movement for boys’ education has so completely failed to learn the lessons from feminism’s success?

The women’s movement, at least with regard to children’s education, had little trouble identifying the problem. Rather than emphasising all the things that make girls different from boys, they reminded us of the things that made them the same. They didn’t deny difference, but nor did they highlight it.  The buzz-phrase became, Girls Can Do Anything. It wasn’t, ‘please sir, you are operating a masculine institution and we need to change your practices before we can participate meaningfully in this game.’ It was, ‘move aside, I want to get to the Bunsen burner.’ Not, ‘female values are undervalued, we need university degrees in cross-stitch’, but ‘your stereotype of female interest and ability massively underestimates the contribution we could be making.’ It was smart and it was effective, and piggy backing on the wider social movement, it transformed untold lives. Reform at its very best.

What then would a male equivalent of this movement look like? Wouldn’t it’s kicking off point be that the existing stereotypes of males are tragically limiting? Wouldn’t the Boys Can Do Anything campaign highlight the fraud of imposing boring masculine caricatures on our young boys? Wouldn’t it remind parents, teachers and children alike that boys can sit quietly and attend to the information being delivered, that boys can be gentle and co-operative, that they can fall in love with words, with movement, with costume and ritual? Wouldn’t it be about doing for boys in our classrooms what feminism did for girls, freeing them from the shackles of expectation and unleashing their talents on the world?

And yet, instead, we have a focus that is almost entirely negative. Boys, we are told, are struggling because schooling has become feminised. Boys need to move about, they need rough and tumble, competition, they don’t like reading, they prefer the flitty flash of the computer to the slower contemplation of books. They don’t like working co-operatively. They are, in short, The Flintstones. The suggestions currently being put to raise male achievement are the intellectual equivalent of the women’s movement demanding more sewing and baking classes in schools, so that the poor delicate little girls could feel more at home. Only, women weren’t stupid enough to go down that path. We men, I submit, really ought to see if we can’t learn a little from that.

I’ve spent most of my time over the last three years at home helping to raise my twin boys. People told me, no matter what you do, boys just turn out to be boyish, it’s in the genes. Quite apart from this being an approach to genetics that is a good twenty years out of date, I find the more I consider this, the less it fits with my own experience as a parent. Little boys love to dance, and dress up, and bake and listen to endless stories. If you give my boys a stick, they will turn it into a guitar. Their idea of a male role model is David Bowie circa 1972, splendid in eye shadow and jump suit. Boys aren’t stupid by nature: they are creative, empathetic, careful souls, just like girls are. Our job as men, then, is to help them raise their gaze to more distant horizons. This was feminism’s gift to us, a working model for self-improvement. So why not use it? I refuse to believe it’s because we’re too stupid.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “21st Century Boys

  1. Until we begin looking at differential treatment from an early age and show just how our individual environments create different mental/emotional/social conditioning; how average stress is made up of layers of mental frictions that take up real mental energy, and how differential treatment creates real advantages for girls today, we will continue to be at a loss to explain the growing Male Crisis. Pleas do not buy into the genetic models, for they will only make it much worse for Male students.
    The problem is more complex than school curriculum or boy chemistry. The problem involves two entirely different treatment of Males and Females beginning as early as one year of age and increases in differential treatment through adulthood. This is creating the growing Male Crisis in the information age. The belief Males should be strong allows more aggressive treatment of Males beginning as early and possibly earlier than one year. This is coupled with much “less” kind, stable, verbal interaction and less mental/emotional/social support, knowledge, and skills for fear of coddling. This increases over time and continued by society from peers and teachers to others in society. This creates more social/emotional distance from parents and other authority figures who have knowledge; higher average stress that hurts learning and motivation to learn; more activity due to need for stress relief; more defensiveness and wariness of others further hindering emotional and social growth; and higher muscle tension (creating more pressure on pencil and tighter grip) that hurts writing and motivation to write. It creates much lag in development creating a learned sense of helplessness in school. This differential treatment continues on through adulthood, almost fixing many Males onto roads of failure and more escape into more short-term areas of enjoyment. Also the giving of love based on achievement that many Males thus falling behind academics then turns their attention toward video games and sports, risk taking to receive small measures of love/honor not received in the classroom.

    Since girls by differential treatment are given more positive, continual, and close mental/emotional/social/ support verbal interaction and care from an early age onward this creates quite the opposite outcome for girls compared with boys. The lower the socioeconomic bracket and time in that bracket the more amplified the differential treatment from a young age and increased in more differentiated over time.

    http://learningtheory.homestead.com/Theory.html

    • Hi Ann

      Thanks for taking the time to comment. What you offer strikes me as a wise and important perspective.

      I absolutely agree, differential treatment is as subtle as it is ubiquitous. I’m certain I do it all the time without realising. One example I have noticed is with a group I take my boys to each week, where there’s an open space with loads of climbing and jumping activity on the periphery, while in the centre instructors run through routines involving movement, dance and singing. Everybody is invited to join in, but it isn’t compulsory. What is immediately clear is that the parents of girl are much more likely to encourage their children into this activity, whereas if a boy shows a little reluctance, there’s less emphasis put on perseverance, and they get to rush back to the ladders and crash pads. This doesn’t appear to be an innate preference, having mastered the words and movements, my boys are now quite keen to sing and dance, but I had to consciously force myself not to let them slip away ‘because they’re boys’.

      Bernard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: