Ugh, that book, "Why Gender Matters".
Jun. 3rd, 2009 09:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
I'm going to have to go out and read it, even though I don't want to, just to be able to talk about it more effectively.
I have no idea what the book says, although I've seen some debunkings of *specific* claims found in the book - flawed or misunderstood or misrepresented studies, studies where the conclusion drawn in the book isn't the obvious one, studies where the conclusion drawn isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the author claims. Assuming that what I've seen is accurate, I already don't want to go near it. What's the point? If this study and that study and the other study have been shown to be false, what are the odds that the rest of the book was written with any form of accuracy or even integrity? But I don't know.
What I do know is that some people who have read the book are really annoying me. They talk about not liking the school system because of its "one size fits all" approach which "hurts boys". (Funny, boys grow up to run the world, they can't be hurting all that much.) Which may be true - except they then advocate a two size fits all approach and, worse, attempt to discover "size" on the basis of genitals.
Now, it may be that most boys are better in this environment, and most girls are better in that environment - fine. And it may be that there are no children whatsoever that learn better in a third or a fourth or a fifth environment - okay. But even if 99% of boys and 99% of girls are just like everybody else of their gender (which I'm not so sure of), the remaining 1% of children is a significant portion of the population that's going to be doubly shortchanged - first by being put in a classroom that's designed (according to this concept) to be totally opposite from how they learn best, and second by being told by implication that they're "wrong" to not learn like the other little girls/boys! This approach wouldn't even work for clothes, why does anybody expect it to work for brains?
Dividing classrooms by learning style? Putting each child with the teacher and method that suits them best? Great, I'm all for that! It makes a lot of sense to me!
But why not do it in the logical, straightforward way - test children, observe them, evaluate them - and then decide where they go based on what each individual child shows you is the best method for them, rather than by where the bulk (theoretically) of their gender is gonna end up? That's the right way to do this.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
I have no idea what the book says, although I've seen some debunkings of *specific* claims found in the book - flawed or misunderstood or misrepresented studies, studies where the conclusion drawn in the book isn't the obvious one, studies where the conclusion drawn isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the author claims. Assuming that what I've seen is accurate, I already don't want to go near it. What's the point? If this study and that study and the other study have been shown to be false, what are the odds that the rest of the book was written with any form of accuracy or even integrity? But I don't know.
What I do know is that some people who have read the book are really annoying me. They talk about not liking the school system because of its "one size fits all" approach which "hurts boys". (Funny, boys grow up to run the world, they can't be hurting all that much.) Which may be true - except they then advocate a two size fits all approach and, worse, attempt to discover "size" on the basis of genitals.
Now, it may be that most boys are better in this environment, and most girls are better in that environment - fine. And it may be that there are no children whatsoever that learn better in a third or a fourth or a fifth environment - okay. But even if 99% of boys and 99% of girls are just like everybody else of their gender (which I'm not so sure of), the remaining 1% of children is a significant portion of the population that's going to be doubly shortchanged - first by being put in a classroom that's designed (according to this concept) to be totally opposite from how they learn best, and second by being told by implication that they're "wrong" to not learn like the other little girls/boys! This approach wouldn't even work for clothes, why does anybody expect it to work for brains?
Dividing classrooms by learning style? Putting each child with the teacher and method that suits them best? Great, I'm all for that! It makes a lot of sense to me!
But why not do it in the logical, straightforward way - test children, observe them, evaluate them - and then decide where they go based on what each individual child shows you is the best method for them, rather than by where the bulk (theoretically) of their gender is gonna end up? That's the right way to do this.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-07 04:28 am (UTC)Schools
Date: 2009-06-03 03:11 pm (UTC)Dividing classrooms by learning style? Putting each child with the teacher and method that suits them best? Great, I'm all for that! It makes a lot of sense to me!
Exactly. Maybe more physical and practical and outdoor lessons are needed in some areas, but do it according to learning styles and needs, not assumptions.
Re: Schools
Date: 2009-06-07 04:29 am (UTC)That's the real worry about this sort of segregation. Theoretically the students have the same curriculum, just taught in "appropriate" ways. But what happens in a decade? Two decades? How long does it take to move back to the old (or to brand new) ideas about what's appropriate for girls or boys to learn at all?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 02:16 pm (UTC)But that requires work and doesn't reinforce our preexisting stereotypes! :`-(
(More seriously, it's hard for me to feel anything but depressed at the way conservatives react to this kind of work all the time, which is something along the lines of: "See, boys and girls are naturally different... in exactly the way that has been encouraged through massive social pressure for the last N decades / centuries / millennia."
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:24 pm (UTC)Well, no shit when girls, as newborns are spoken to more, with more intonation and more vocabulary than newborn boys! No shit when even conscientous parents who buy trucks for their little girls still are more likely to buy blocks for boys and books for girls.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 02:34 pm (UTC)I am the oldest of three and also the only girl. Without realising it, through my childhood I got to observe how girls and boys gender identify.
Take playing games, for example! I know I had 'girl toys'; Barbies, dolls, Polly Pocket. I would sometimes force my brothers to play with me, which they did grudgingly, other times they would ask to play with me, for that my parents did buy them the boy version, Ken dolls, Mighty Max sets (boy Polly Pocket). But most times we fought over the girl sets.
Otherwise, desperate for someone to play with I'd actively join in on games of Cars, or Ninja Turtles and my favorite after school show was Power Rangers. On top of that, when we played Power Rangers I insisted on being the Blue Ranger because he was COOL!!!
Also being the oldest I got girl coloured stuff for the most part. As I grew out of it my brothers got, and used without complaining, my pink and purple bike, my purple sweats, and other items that wouldn't fall into a traditionally 'boy' category.
Now I work in a store that sells clothes and shoes and I almost feel like shaking parents who refuse to buy their kids shoes because "Oh my GOD! It has a pink accent! But my kid is a BOY!!!" or "..Don't you have hockey skates in like... GIRL colours?" Seriously guys, it's a colour! My brothers both turned out to be normal people even though *gasp* They rode a pink bicycle at age 5/6!!
just my $.02
Date: 2009-06-03 02:35 pm (UTC)The one time in five years I managed the have a classroom that was all girls it was amazing. They contributed, supported each other and learned so much faster. It was wonderful to see girls who rarely spoke putting themselves in leadership positions.
That said, 6 months into the class, a single boy joined. Suddenly the girls were more worried about their make up and putting each other down in order to compete for him. It was just stunning how much the class changed.
I've had a classroom of only boys that nearly made me crazy with their energy level, yet also functioned so much more effectively, when they weren't showing off for every girl in the room. I wouldn't be surprised to see positive results for boy only classes as well.
And as someone who has attempted to test students strengths and "learning styles", it is very difficult to do. I think it would be very hard to place children in the right learning environment by short term testing - especially since there are only like 3 different learning styles most teachers use. Only people who learn a certain way will become teachers...
Re: just my $.02
Date: 2009-06-03 06:27 pm (UTC)However, I do have a few questions:
1. Do you think the same dynamics would carry over to an elementary classroom?
2. Do you think that those dynamics are innate or societal?
I'm not against single-sex classrooms per se anyway. I'm against claiming that you're dividing them because of learning styles than because adolescents are sex maniacs and the mixed-sex dynamics are insane.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 02:50 pm (UTC)That is EXACTLY how they do things up here, actually. When I was signing Seth up for school last summer, they went through three days of testing to see where each child belonged. And then when they decided to move him into first grade mid-year, he underwent nearly a week of testing to see which class he should go into. I like that method, because it worked really well for him.
Holy crap, this fall I'll have a second grader. What the hell. :(
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 09:52 pm (UTC)Seth obviously didn't stay with his K group since he moved up ahead of them, and he'll be changing schools this fall because we can't afford to drive all the way to watertown every day to his school next year when Daniel is out of the army. But usually, yes, kids stay together in their groups. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 02:56 pm (UTC)Take too long and cost too much doesn't produce enough mindless cannon fodder. School was never intended to encourage children to think, it was designed to teach them to obey (specifically, to become factory workers). Howard Zinn talks about this in People's History of the U.S.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 03:35 pm (UTC):(
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 02:00 am (UTC)