I read the Christain Science Monotor article on boys referenced in the
posting. It was very disturbing to me for two reasons: Gurian asserts
that boys are naturally inclined to be more competetive, aggressive risk
takers. That does enormous disservice to the boys who are not that
way at all. Part of the pressure on boys, I think, is placed on them by
psychologists who lump them all together this way. If you are male, not
a risk taker, competetive and/or aggressive, are you "masculine?"
Further, some ethnic groups do not see masculinity that way at all. The
view mirrored by Gurian is clearly European American, Anglo-centric.
Enough of this stereotyping of both females and males. That's what is
getting us in trouble. The bullying that happens against males who do not
"conform" with expected stereotyping is horrific. The article further
quotes Kleinfield as saying that "We just went a little bit overboard with
attention to girls." Please. It not one or another, boys or girls. No one has
asserted that boys should be underserved. Once again, the "piece
of the pie" syndrome. As if good teaching somehow cannot be focused
on individual needs of individual students.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 12:33:07 EST