The first edition of this book was published in 2000. The 2013 edition has been revised and
updated. While I have not read and
cannot comment on the original edition, in this revised edition, Sommers makes several
very good points about the nature of education reform in the United States and
how is it most likely harming the majority of young men—both their current
educational attainment and their future potential to contribute to
society. You can also read a short version of her arguments in this Altantic Monthly article.
First, what I disagreed with her about. Sommers likes to bash the case that feminists
have made about Girls in Crisis. While I
am not advocate of this model of hysteria promoting (yes, I said it) claims
that girls are being shortchanged, there are several points over which she
glosses or for which she does not provide to my mind adequate explanation or
background to support her claims. The
most important of these, for me is Sommers' assertion that women are not
actually paid less than men for the same job when one factors in the time off
many women take for child bearing and young children and the fact that they
often work less hours due to family responsibilities. She also states that women tend to choose
careers that are lower paid, such as nursing and teaching, due to their “nurturing”
natures. While I would agree that men
and women are different, I believe there is a major logical fallacy at play
here. The careers she labels as lower
paying, which more women “freely” choose are traditionally female. I would argue that they are lower paid, not
necessarily because of market factors at work, but because they are
historically female occupations that were valued less and paid less. I do not, unfortunately have any facts to
support this argument, but neither did Sommers to support hers. The fact that the market currently values
these occupations at a lower compensation does not answer the question of
whether it was always so. We all know
that when women began working in factories (and children for that matter) large
companies laid off men and hired their wives and daughters because it was
cheaper. I would be curious to see a
comparison of the wages for male secretaries before women moved into those
occupations—my hunch is that they were paid more and that women were able to move
into those positions because the bosses figured out that they could pay less to
women. Once the pay is set lower, it
doesn’t matter who does the job. If the
occupation is seen as female, it is lower paid.
As to the question about deserving to be paid less because
they “work” less, I would ask Sommers to consider this—why are women the ones
who are making these choices? If men
made the same choices, would they in fact be paid less? A 2007 Newsweek article tells about more men
staying home with children (Braiker, Brian, Anna Kuchment, and Charlene Dy.
"Just Don't Call Me Mr. Mom." Newsweek 150.15 (2007): 52-55. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.).
My question is, check with these guys in a few years and let’s see if
their earnings have suffered in the same way women’s have. If yes, I may begin to buy at least that part
of Sommer’s argument, but until then, I await the proof that those “choices”
are the only factors at work.
Now on to what I heartily agreed with Sommers about—we are
hurting boys’ futures in education. And
we need to do something about it. Now. Being
a boy often means being squirmy, a little loud and perhaps not being well
suited to sitting in a desk for extended periods. This is not a pathology, and it is not bad
behavior, it is a legitimate gender difference.
Boys should not be punished in school for acting like boys. Can these behaviors be channeled—resoundingly
yes. Boys need recess. Boys need competition, boys need to work on
their own as well as collaboratively. In
fact, girls need all these things, too, but the current culture in education
which is based on high stakes testing and extravert bias (see Quiet: the Power of Introverts in a World that Can’tStop Talking), devalues behaviors that are more likely to come from boys and
punishes them by expelling and suspending boys at a much higher rate than
girls. Having been the parent to both
girls and a boy, I find it hard to believe that boys just misbehave more. Girls may find ways to misbehave more
quietly, so they are not punished in the same way. Zero tolerance rules mostly work to the
detriment of boys, and if you read Sommers’s book, you will get facts and
figures about this. Decades of feminazi
(yes, I said it) policies that pushed to give girls an edge in education have
helped girls, but at what cost? I have
long felt and Sommer articulates very well that real feminism is not a zero sum
game—you don’t have to be against boys to be for girls. And to me this is the major takeaway from the
book, which teachers need to hear. Use
different methods to reach different students (not a new idea—differentiated
instruction anyone?), but bear in mind that boys and girls are different as a
general rule, and that is OK. Like TheSmartest Kids in the World author Amanda Ripley, Sommers advocates for high standards,
which I believe will help both boys and girls to succeed in education. It is OK for there to be winners and losers
in games and contests—these can help education and teach valuable life lessons. Think spelling bees, sports, science
fairs…But it is not OK for there to be winners and losers in learning. All students can learn and all students are
valuable and important, both the boys and the girls. Society needs both and school is a microcosm
of society.
**book cover image from Amazon.com
No comments:
Post a Comment