<p>In sixth/seventh grade my son liked short stories. I remember he was interested in reading about Charlie Chan, and some mythology. He was also fascinated with legends. He really liked reading about magic tricks and math tricks.</p>
<p>I think it is far too simplistic to say that learning can be split easily by gender, with boys needing one thing, and girls another, and the proof of this is clear - all the women who went through education systems designed to create men from boys, and who still managed to succeed. I didn't read a female author in English until college, and it never even occured to me that that was a problem. I don't think my story is unique.</p>
<p>I do think though that an awful lot of behavior in boys is excused because they are boys, and that their learning issues stem from it. Why shouldn't boys read Memoirs of a Geisha? Why would that even be questioned? Because it is about a woman? Why should we assume that makes it uninteresting to boys, while at the same time assuming that makes it interesting to girls.</p>
<p>weenie, your school sounds like heaven. </p>
<p>I'm impressed with all the current books being assigned, even if they are gender specific. Our school hasn't assigned much that wasn't also assigned to me, my mother, and probably my grandmother. </p>
<p>Sadly, neither of our boys enjoys reading despite our best efforts. Crighton's Timeline was one of the few real hits. Fluke was considered acceptable. Charlotte Simmons will be the recommendation for the next vacation, but heaven forbid they would pick up a book except under direct orders.</p>
<p>Dead parents (particularly mothers) are a frequent theme in full-length animated stories. Bambi, Tarzan, the Hunchback, Finding Nemo, and the Lion King are a few that come to mind. </p>
<p>I figure it's because if the child is going to embark on a heroic journey as the central character, the parents have to be gotten out of the way somehow.</p>
<p>Don't forget "Babar" in the dead parents category.</p>
<p>Funny that I should come across this thread now, my friends and I were just talking about a situation similar to this the other day. Boys are just far below girls and way behind in terms of extra curriculars and academics at my school. Out of 10 people in my AP English class, only 2 are boys.. and that ratio of boys to girls pretty much holds true in the rest of my classes. Also, in my honors and ap classes the girls are the ones who take charge in class, speak up, participate, lead small group activities and really get involved the guys just tend to sit back, listen to their ipods whenever possible and follow directions that we through at them. It's kinda sad, but on the other hand I'm glad to see women being leaders </p>
<p>Outside of school I'm involved in a youth leadership/volunteer organization. Out of 25 members, only 3 are male!!!! what's going on!? lol, we even often joke about just kicking those 3 out and become a sorority. </p>
<p>But the large discrepency between boys and girls in advanced classes and the differences between their levels of participation and leadership aren't a new phenoma either. It's been like this for as long as I could remember. as far back as elementery school boys were always reserved, shut out, and overall, wosre academically than the female students. Like one of the posters said, activites were always planned around what girls would like to read, do or talk about. Little boys interests were discouraged and never taken into account.</p>
<p>weenie, my S2 attends a similar school, an anglican school run by lay teachers with their hearts in the right place. It is the right place for him (think 'Live Wire!'). After 150 years of educating hundreds and hundreds of boys per year, they know what works for boys.</p>
<p>However, I will say that my boys attended the most magical primary school (k-6) on earth, a school founded by feminists and currently run by feminists (though all are practising Episcopalians).</p>
<p>cheers:
Ha! The Jesuits and the feminists with something in common. Good things. :)</p>
<p>Yes, it's the educational system that poisons our boys.</p>
<p>My son was a wonderful, intellectually curious, outgoing, vibrant being until he began school. Little by little we saw him beaten down by the system, becoming more and more of an intravert, more and more unsure of himself and his abilities and skills.</p>
<p>And, all along we have been very supportive of his becoming a lifelong learner. We turned from public school (K-4) to private school (5-6). Finally, we became a homeschool family (7-12), but a lot of the damage had been done. His self-esteem had been badly battered, and will take a long time to rebuild.</p>
<p>Within the family, we can tell him and demonstrate to him all the wonderful things that he is and can be, but it is the public view of him that is so destructive and that is the wonderful "gift" that the educational system bestows. And, no doubt, that explains the off-balance girl-boy percentages found in colleges today. By the time these young men reach college age, many of them have just given up.</p>
<p>We have failed them.</p>
<p>Dead parents:</p>
<p>Little orphan Annie.
Cinderella
Snow White.
the Baudelaire children (Lemony Snicket)
etc...
In premodern stories, including fairy tales, mothers die more often than fathers, reflecting the high rate of death in childbirth. </p>
<p>Then there's a whole genre of stories featuring men as cads:
Agammemnon (when he tries to sacrifice Iphigenia so he can go to Troy and wage war)
Aeneas (who abandoned Dido)
Ulysses (not too much in a hurry to come home to Penelope)
Theseus (who took advantage of both Ariadne and Medea)...</p>
<p>OrangeBlossom:
That's sad. :(</p>
<p>hey but the lysistrata has some strong women characters :)</p>
<p>TheOtherSide -- how sad that you didn't discover Louisa May Alcott, either of the Bronte sisters, Jane Austin etc. My childhood would have been much poorer without these authors -- they got me through many boring classes, when I read while hiding the books under my desk!</p>
<p>The important point, I think, is that neither gender is disposable. Who will these wonderful, educated, interesting young women partner with in life if we don't address the problems facing the young men in this country? Who will be the loving fathers, who show both boys and girls what it means to be a responsible man? This article hightlights the fact that more than half of African-American boys who start high school don't finish -- what does that do to families? I think that in our efforts to promote opportunities for young girls, we've abandoned the boys. That can't be good for any of us.</p>
<p>I'd question the ready assumption that these sex differences in educational outcomes are attributable to the schools. While this may be true in part, my recollection is the predominant majority of school teachers have been women for a very long time. Is there real evidence that "these women" have begun in recent years to beat down on rambunctious boys, to impose feminist behavior on them?</p>
<p>Further, I think we're overlooking all of the evidence that school performance is affected especially by families -- and by social and economic context. It's not school teachers who mainly nurture evolving views of sex roles and self images. Just look at the mass media. And of course look at the difference between the roles that men and women now play in "the economy" compared with 30-40 years ago.</p>
<p>I'd also welcome some data on whether the generalizations in this article fit all ethnic and racial subcultures. The better performance of girls/women than men in school has long been true in the African American population. On the other hand, I'd like some evidence whether the generalization is equally accurate in describing high achievement oriented subpopulations such as many of the Asian-American populations (which also may tend to have fairly strong favoritism toward sons/boys). </p>
<p>So let's not jump too quickly to blaming the school teachers and school curricula. It's a broader social problem and probably reflective of broader social experience.</p>
<p>Weenie:</p>
<p>But that's okay...because out of sad experiences come great human beings with heightened sensitivity toward others. That's why my dear boy wishes to enter a public service profession and to fight for the underprivileged...because there was no one there (in the classroom?) to fight for him. Out of social injustice, comes great leaders with great heart.</p>
<p>I appreciate your thoughts.</p>
<p>OK. So my best friend kept telling me over the last couple of years that boys were "falling through the cracks." I told her she was silly, as of course at the time I only had a girl in high school. Now I have a boy in HS. But I am still curious. What does everyone think has changed? Why are boys now "falling through the cracks" when they didn't used to? That is, of course, if they actually are falling through the cracks.</p>
<p>In our house, S is surely less enthusiastic about school than D was, but I just figured it was the influence of boy movies. You know, the ones where the boys are losers and are really funny? Starting with Animal House and moving on to Adam Sandler:)?</p>
<p>I mean seriously, what is supposed to be the cause of this? And are we sure it isn't just that girls no longer feel they have to keep a lid on their abilities to get the cute guy?</p>
<p>I should explain. I don't take Newsweek as that good of data. Whatever happened to Saving Ophelia...That was all the rage 10 years ago.</p>
<p>I've got one of each, so I don't need to fall on the side of either gender.....I'm really wondering why you all have these strong feelings, what have been the experiences, and what is the dataset on what has changed.</p>
<p>I should explain. I don't see Newsweek as a terribly good source of data. The popular press always needs the crisis of the day. Remember Saving Ophelia? All the rage 10 years ago.</p>
<p>
I don't think it's because girls have suddenly decided to use their natural gifts. Personally, I think we have a generation of boys/men who have been denigrated in the media as predators/bullies/violent offenders. I do think feminism, as a movement, made men the enemy, and by default, our boys. Things male always seem to be labeled 'bad.' Natural 'girl behavior' -- sitting quietly, doing pencil work or playing school -- is rewarded while 'boy behavior' -- building, jumping, running, taking things apart -- is usually punished. As a woman, I can say that until I had boys, I probably perpetuated that attitude.</p>
<p>I'm with you, Alumother (see my post just above yours). I think we need a lot more "data." I'm also a parent of 1 boy and 1 girl, and I'd say that it's not so straightforward even to characterize the motivations and ambitions of either one. #1 (son) was an extremely high achiever in anything he tried (and tries) to do, even though the quality of the teachers he had didn't always give him what he needed, and so he was proud to wear the Bart Simpson teeshirt, "Underachiever, and proud of it." #2 (daughter) was turned off one year by what I think was in fact a very "male" type of teaching environment during one year when we were on sabbatical, and this damaged her interest in reading for many years. But in the end, they both did well in school and in college and seem to be making successful transitions to "life."</p>
<p>Viewed from far away, I have a few comments. My kids are not in an American public or private school. My two older sons were very well suited to the co-ed school they attended- though there were moments (primarily when map coloring and other very similar important skills were apparently highly valued) that I took odds with the lack of flexibility their teachers sometimes showed in giving kids a chance to 'show what they know'. Both boys liked to read, read a range of information. This mattered the most, I think, in fact. They also, particularly in MS and HS, had lots of male teachers- many of whom are now their friends. </p>
<p>What trickles down here from the broader US environment suggests there are an array of cultural factors beyond what goes on in a given classroom, that need to be explored. We see a small smattering of TV here from the US. The comedy series we see, in particular, seem to feature hapless fathers with an array of personality difficulties or other features that make them down right unappealing. Men in general, fathers or not, are often portrayed in a relatively unfavorable light in the programming we see.... Our kids don't need to see "Fathers Know Best" to positively view men, but it can't help for a kid to see such biased content in the media presentation. What does a kid who doesn't have a male parent at home come to know about men from watching this muck?</p>
<p>In the article the issue of video stimulation was briefly touched on. Are boys more biologically vulnerable to the lure of video stimulation of all sorts, why yes they seem to be. As such, is it highly likely that boys spend more time with this sort of input as a mainstay of their existance, why yes it is. Until I see a controlled study demonstrating otherwise, I will choose to believe that access to, excessive use of and obsessive interest in video stimulation (high intensity games primarily) is a major factor in whatever genuine decline is taking place in the 'learning' of boys. One reason why boys need different sorts of learning experiences is because the 'training' of video games increases their vulnerability to needing to be 'entertained' as they are educated, to needing instant gratification in order to want to learn.</p>
<p>My boys were 14 or 15 before the TV programming here was in English, they were 13 or 15 before we got Nintendo. By that time they read, they wrote, and they played board games like Axis and Allies with their friends. AFter the TV and video games came along they still read, wrote and played Axis and Allies, in fact....</p>
<p>I have a daughter who early on showed the attributes of a 'male style learner'. Having cut her video stimulation to a bare minimum means that the competing options- reading, playing chess, drawing, playing board games, playing 'make believe', building with legos, talking, swimming, roller blading, etc....are all that much more appealing to her. Guess what, after an initial grumble, she has barely noticed....and what we (parents and teachers) see is a more settled, more patient, more focused learner. Her innate preferences are the same, but she is malleable enough (as are many kids, I believe)...that she can and has responded to this simple intervention.</p>
<p>Turn off TV, trash the Play Station and talk with me in 10 years about boys and learning. I am not absolving schools in terms of the need to consider what is best for 'all learners', but the vulnerability of boys is perhaps not unidimensional as it may have been portrayed.</p>
<p>I believe that it is too easy and convenient to say that the boy's outcome is chiefly attributable to the social and economic situation of the family. In some cases that may be the case, but in many, many others, the boy comes from a highly educated family in which education is valued, good character is nurtured, and self-esteem is protected. Once thrown into the public education system, individual differences and styles are often neglected and ridiculed and the budding sense of self is beaten down. The child asks: How can I be other than what I am? Does no one value who I am...the unique me that my mom and dad have told me is so special? I am not led and guided, I am bludgeoned.</p>