Changing the world one boy at a time

Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

More at risk than girls of committing suicide, underperforming at
school and turning to criminal behaviour, young men are in crisis. Can
a new scheme that uses myths and mentors help to show them the way to
manhood? By Mark Honigsbaum

Rob is bent double, trying to follow a rope strung low through a
thicket of thorns. He is wearing a blindfold and carrying a balloon, so
progress is slow. Rob is 17. He has no idea where the rope leads. All
that he has been told is that his balloon is precious and he mustn't
lose it.

As he reaches the end of the rope Rob comes to a halt, sensing the
presence of people. "Come with me. I know the way," says one man. "I
can help you if you ask me," says a second. Rob hesitates, considering
these different messages. "You must choose," says a third man.

Still clutching the balloon, Rob reaches out to the second man - the
right choice - and together they head off into the dark. Rob does not
know it yet but he has just met the man who will mentor him through the
rest of the weekend and into the weeks beyond.

Rob, like many young men today, is in crisis. Perhaps bullied at school
for being overweight, or else abandoned by their fathers, they lash out
in their grief and anger in the playground and risk exclusion. Or they
may simply be confused about who they are and prefer GameCubes and
cannabis to interacting with adults and studying.

All these types attended a recent gathering organised by a group called
Band of Brothers at a wooded retreat near Salisbury. The brainchild of
the psychotherapist Michael Boyle, the weekend was entitled "Quest", a
rite-of-passage event modelled on the tale of Parzival, written by the
medieval German poet Wolfram von Eschenbach.

The Band of Brothers philosophy is that boys today (and, indeed, many
men) are, like the young hero of Eschenbach's story, wounded and out of
touch with their emotions. Borrowing from thinkers such as Robert Bly
and from processes developed by the ManKind Project which runs
emotional skills courses for men (motto: "Changing the world one man at
a time"), Boyle argues that boys need to be initiated into manhood by
mature male mentors.

In the distant past, runs his theory, this job was done by tribal
elders, while in the industrial age boys used to be apprenticed into a
trade under the guidance of older men. Today, Boyle argues, we have
lost all that.

"The reason the majority of the kids I see are in trouble," he says,
"is that they don't have any positive male role models in their lives
to do things with them. When their energy isn't acknowledged,
recognised, channelled, it goes bad."

Do boys need men?

To suggest that boys need men today is to risk being laughed nervously
out of court - such is the concern about paedophilia that any exclusive
contact between men and boys tends to arouse suspicion. In any case,
many feminists dismiss talk of a "boy crisis" as a defensive male
response to the improved academic performances of girls and to the
erosion of masculine hegemonies in the workplace and at home.

Fatherhood itself is also under attack. In a recent study that followed
60 fatherless families over ten years, Peggy Drexler, a psychologist at
Cornell University, found that women were just as good as men at
raising sons, and that fathers, or male mentors, were not needed to
engender "boyishness".

Yet there is a boy crisis. Whether you take the suicide rate (twice as
high for young males as females, and the biggest cause of death for men
under 35), or the record levels of male self-harm, or the explosion of
boys being diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and hosts of anxiety-related conditions, the signs are
everywhere.

Boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with learning
difficulties and twice as likely as girls to fail Key Stage Two
English. They are also at the centre of the modern sense of alarm over
antisocial behaviour, blamed for crimes both petty and serious, for
happy slapping and for hanging around in hoodies looking sinister.

Will Hutton wrote recently in the Observer of the "emotional turmoil"
of today's teenage boys and pointed to the number of families without a
father. He concluded that boys "need mentors" and "more contact with
adult men".

The debate has been raging for at least a decade in the United States.
The Harvard psychologist Michael Thompson's book Raising Cain is both a
bestseller and a documentary, and policy-makers have responded with
initiatives such as the Eagle Academy, a mentoring programme that pairs
African-American boys from New York schools with high-achieving
lawyers, police officers and entrepreneurs.

Recently Tony Sewell, a British educationalist frustrated by his
inability to help failing African-Caribbean pupils in inner-city
schools, set up a similar programme here. Sewell teamed the boys with
male mentors and sent them to an academy in Jamaica each summer where
they learned, among other things, how to build robots - an activity
that he says engages their attention "24/7".

Such mentoring projects are controversial, as the debate about getting
the balance right in school is highly charged. Even though there is
little doubt that fathers can have a positive influence on their sons,
feminists are surely right to argue that it's better to live with no
father at all than to have one who beats the mother.

We cannot afford to neglect the differences between boys and girls,
differences that make boys four times more likely than girls to suffer
from developmental disorders such as reading delay, hyperactivity,
autism, stammering and Tourette's syndrome. Although some feminists may
desire it, you cannot simply wish away patriarchy and a certain type of
masculinity.

Knights and grails

As Conn and Hal Iggulden, authors of The Dangerous Book for Boys, put
it: "In this age of video games and mobile phones, there must still be
a place for knots, tree houses and stories of incredible courage . . .
Men and boys today are the same as they always were, and interested in
the same things."

Like the Igguldens' "how to" manual, the Quest weekend is based on the
premise that things really are different for boys. But whereas the
Igguldens hark back to a halcyon age of boyhood, Band of Brothers, for
all its talk of Parzival and knights and grails, has its eye on the
pres-ent. It was working in prisons, with those excluded from school,
and with drug abusers and the violent, that drove Boyle to come up with
Quest.

For reasons of confidentiality, I am constrained from revealing too
much about the participants or the processes they went through. As one
of the men who stood in the dark and uttered the words "I can help if
you ask me", I have undertaken, like the other male mentors, to be
bound by the "Knights' Code" and my word is my bond. Like the ManKind
Project, the basic idea is to present the boys with a series of
challenges. "Who are you really?" the brochure asks each of the boys.
"Are you ready to start making your own choices or are you still trying
to prove something? Trying to please your mother? Your dad? The
teachers? Them? Do you think you will be happy when you've got enough
stuff and can be like the man in the ads? Or do you suspect there may
be something missing, something else?"

Most of the boys and young men had been referred by fathers or elder
brothers who had taken part in ManKind Project events and so had some
idea of what to expect. None the less, it was clear from their
expressions as they arrived that most would have preferred to have been
elsewhere.

One 17-year-old arrived clutching a sports bag and bedroll, his face a
picture of fear. I later learned that he had been arrested for violent
behaviour and was facing the threat of a renewed court order if he
didn't take steps to curb his outbursts. Anger management classes had
not worked.

He was the only one of the five to make the wrong choice on the rope
walk - he opted for the first man, the one who supposedly "knew the
way", as opposed to the one who offered help if asked. Almost
immediately, he realised his mistake. He had chosen the first man
because, as he put it, he was "scared" and it seemed the "safest"
option. The revelation seemed to transform him: the tense and wary
adolescent was soon showing an open and unthreatening side, and an
infectious grin.

The Parzival connection

As the other four warmed to the story of Parzival, it was clear that a
similar alchemy was at work with them, too. This tale of a young man
whose warrior father died before the hero was born has inspired, among
other works, Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain and George Lucas's Star
Wars, and it has been adapted in modern prose by the British novelist
Lindsay Clarke.

In Clarke's retelling, Parzival is an innocent raised alone in the
forest by his deranged mother. One day he has a vision of three knights
and, convinced he has seen his destiny, he abandons his mother and
ventures into the world in search of honour, glory and service.

It isn't long before Parzival, following the advice of his father's
former squire (the bad mentor of the story) finds himself in trouble.
Only after he has lost all faith in the chivalric code he once
idealised and, letting his horse lead him, finds his way to a second
mentor - a wise old knight - is he ready to begin the journey into
manhood.

The key to the story is Parzival's two visits to the Grail castle of
the Fisher King. The first is a failure because he lacks understanding
and confidence, and the second, which follows his meeting with the wise
mentor, a success. He now understands what is required of him and shows
his compassion; he has acquired emotional intelligence.

Loosely, the weekend in the Salisbury forest presented the boys and
young men with tasks that mirrored Parzival's quest, and, judging by my
experience as a mentor, it worked. The young man I was paired with told
me he had come in search of "clarity". Torn between a passion for
drumming and continuing a college course he found dull, he admitted
that he had become aimless and indecisive, and this was infecting his
friendships and his relationships with women.

By the end of the weekend, however, he appeared to have found what he
was searching for: he would pursue a drumming career. Invigorated by
this decision, he agreed, like the others, to embark on three further
"knightly" challenges - an act of forgiveness, an act of gratitude and
a secret act of generosity - or what in modern parlance we would call
cognitive behavioural therapy.

It is asking a great deal of one weekend that it should change a group
of young men for good, and it is too early to say whether the change in
the drummer is lasting. When I called him a week later his passion for
drumming was undimmed but he admitted that he had struggled with the
first task, "forgiving his mother". The 17-year-old appeared to have
taken his lessons to heart, however. "People still try to wind me up,
but I don't take it as personally as I used to," he told me. "I feel a
lot more stable."

According to Boyle, the lesson that the Parzival story can teach is one
we all need to learn or to remember: boys need to be given the space to
make mistakes, but they also require guidance. Or, as he puts it: "Boys
need men, basically."

Is the world more female, or are boys still sexist?

In 2005, 80 per cent of girls passed National Curriculum tests in
English, compared to 67 per cent of boys.

It is this underachievement in literacy that causes the most concern
about inequalities between the sexes. It was one of the findings of a
joint research team from the Universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow,
providing confirmation of "significant gender-related inequalities"
that show girls outperforming boys at all levels.

The researchers said that in treating gender equality as part of a
broader approach to social justice and social inclusion, there is "a
danger that gender becomes lost or fudged . . . Authorities should
check that specific attention is given in issues in relation to
learning and teaching. Indeed, this may be essential in the light of
forthcoming legislation on equality."

The gulf between the sexes has remained stubbornly high in the past few
years, with 10 per cent more girls than boys gaining five or more A* to
C grades at GCSE in 2003, and boys five times more likely to be
excluded from school. Related to this is another staggering
gender-biased statistic: boys outnumber girls by four to one in
achieving a school detention.

While social class and ethnicity are also issues and variables in the
debate, another point of particular significance to the educational
achievements of any child appears to be the educational achievement of
his or her mother.

In attempting to find answers to the reasons for the achievement gap
academics tend to line up behind two schools of thought. The first one
is inspired by Australian and US research which suggests that there is
a particular crisis in the masculine role, and that this is linked to a
new female dominance. Boys, they argue, suffer because the curriculum
and the teaching force has become increasingly feminised. This might be
dubbed the "world is more female" theory.

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers, active learning and less course work. On the
other hand, they are victims of a patriarchy that has come back to bite
them.

Tony Sewell is a writer and education expert

---
The boy crisis: A short history

1969: The Divorce Reform Act challenges the idea of the nuclear family

1985: The ManKind Project launches in the US to promote the idea that
manliness depends on having male mentors

1994: The number of women attending British universities overtakes men
for the first time

2000: Girls do better than boys in A-levels for the first time.

Anthony Clare publishes On Men: masculinity in crisis, prompting
academic debate in the UK

2005: The Commission for Racial Equality warns that British schools are
failing black boys. The US psychologist Peggy Drexler publishes Raising
Boys Without Men, arguing that single mothers can successfully raise
masculine sons

2006: The suicide rate for young males continues to outstrip that for
young women

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.


Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

You reap what you sow, this is the end product of the Christian Female
Superior Culture that is backed by the laws of the land and totally
unconstitutional.



Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

More at risk than girls of committing suicide, underperforming at
school and turning to criminal behaviour, young men are in crisis. Can
a new scheme that uses myths and mentors help to show them the way to
manhood? By Mark Honigsbaum

Rob is bent double, trying to follow a rope strung low through a
thicket of thorns. He is wearing a blindfold and carrying a balloon, so
progress is slow. Rob is 17. He has no idea where the rope leads. All
that he has been told is that his balloon is precious and he mustn't
lose it.

As he reaches the end of the rope Rob comes to a halt, sensing the
presence of people. "Come with me. I know the way," says one man. "I
can help you if you ask me," says a second. Rob hesitates, considering
these different messages. "You must choose," says a third man.

Still clutching the balloon, Rob reaches out to the second man - the
right choice - and together they head off into the dark. Rob does not
know it yet but he has just met the man who will mentor him through the
rest of the weekend and into the weeks beyond.

Rob, like many young men today, is in crisis. Perhaps bullied at school
for being overweight, or else abandoned by their fathers, they lash out
in their grief and anger in the playground and risk exclusion. Or they
may simply be confused about who they are and prefer GameCubes and
cannabis to interacting with adults and studying.

All these types attended a recent gathering organised by a group called
Band of Brothers at a wooded retreat near Salisbury. The brainchild of
the psychotherapist Michael Boyle, the weekend was entitled "Quest", a
rite-of-passage event modelled on the tale of Parzival, written by the
medieval German poet Wolfram von Eschenbach.

The Band of Brothers philosophy is that boys today (and, indeed, many
men) are, like the young hero of Eschenbach's story, wounded and out of
touch with their emotions. Borrowing from thinkers such as Robert Bly
and from processes developed by the ManKind Project which runs
emotional skills courses for men (motto: "Changing the world one man at
a time"), Boyle argues that boys need to be initiated into manhood by
mature male mentors.

In the distant past, runs his theory, this job was done by tribal
elders, while in the industrial age boys used to be apprenticed into a
trade under the guidance of older men. Today, Boyle argues, we have
lost all that.

"The reason the majority of the kids I see are in trouble," he says,
"is that they don't have any positive male role models in their lives
to do things with them. When their energy isn't acknowledged,
recognised, channelled, it goes bad."

Do boys need men?

To suggest that boys need men today is to risk being laughed nervously
out of court - such is the concern about paedophilia that any exclusive
contact between men and boys tends to arouse suspicion. In any case,
many feminists dismiss talk of a "boy crisis" as a defensive male
response to the improved academic performances of girls and to the
erosion of masculine hegemonies in the workplace and at home.

Fatherhood itself is also under attack. In a recent study that followed
60 fatherless families over ten years, Peggy Drexler, a psychologist at
Cornell University, found that women were just as good as men at
raising sons, and that fathers, or male mentors, were not needed to
engender "boyishness".

Yet there is a boy crisis. Whether you take the suicide rate (twice as
high for young males as females, and the biggest cause of death for men
under 35), or the record levels of male self-harm, or the explosion of
boys being diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and hosts of anxiety-related conditions, the signs are
everywhere.

Boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with learning
difficulties and twice as likely as girls to fail Key Stage Two
English. They are also at the centre of the modern sense of alarm over
antisocial behaviour, blamed for crimes both petty and serious, for
happy slapping and for hanging around in hoodies looking sinister.

Will Hutton wrote recently in the Observer of the "emotional turmoil"
of today's teenage boys and pointed to the number of families without a
father. He concluded that boys "need mentors" and "more contact with
adult men".

The debate has been raging for at least a decade in the United States.
The Harvard psychologist Michael Thompson's book Raising Cain is both a
bestseller and a documentary, and policy-makers have responded with
initiatives such as the Eagle Academy, a mentoring programme that pairs
African-American boys from New York schools with high-achieving
lawyers, police officers and entrepreneurs.

Recently Tony Sewell, a British educationalist frustrated by his
inability to help failing African-Caribbean pupils in inner-city
schools, set up a similar programme here. Sewell teamed the boys with
male mentors and sent them to an academy in Jamaica each summer where
they learned, among other things, how to build robots - an activity
that he says engages their attention "24/7".

Such mentoring projects are controversial, as the debate about getting
the balance right in school is highly charged. Even though there is
little doubt that fathers can have a positive influence on their sons,
feminists are surely right to argue that it's better to live with no
father at all than to have one who beats the mother.

We cannot afford to neglect the differences between boys and girls,
differences that make boys four times more likely than girls to suffer
from developmental disorders such as reading delay, hyperactivity,
autism, stammering and Tourette's syndrome. Although some feminists may
desire it, you cannot simply wish away patriarchy and a certain type of
masculinity.

Knights and grails

As Conn and Hal Iggulden, authors of The Dangerous Book for Boys, put
it: "In this age of video games and mobile phones, there must still be
a place for knots, tree houses and stories of incredible courage . . .
Men and boys today are the same as they always were, and interested in
the same things."

Like the Igguldens' "how to" manual, the Quest weekend is based on the
premise that things really are different for boys. But whereas the
Igguldens hark back to a halcyon age of boyhood, Band of Brothers, for
all its talk of Parzival and knights and grails, has its eye on the
pres-ent. It was working in prisons, with those excluded from school,
and with drug abusers and the violent, that drove Boyle to come up with
Quest.

For reasons of confidentiality, I am constrained from revealing too
much about the participants or the processes they went through. As one
of the men who stood in the dark and uttered the words "I can help if
you ask me", I have undertaken, like the other male mentors, to be
bound by the "Knights' Code" and my word is my bond. Like the ManKind
Project, the basic idea is to present the boys with a series of
challenges. "Who are you really?" the brochure asks each of the boys.
"Are you ready to start making your own choices or are you still trying
to prove something? Trying to please your mother? Your dad? The
teachers? Them? Do you think you will be happy when you've got enough
stuff and can be like the man in the ads? Or do you suspect there may
be something missing, something else?"

Most of the boys and young men had been referred by fathers or elder
brothers who had taken part in ManKind Project events and so had some
idea of what to expect. None the less, it was clear from their
expressions as they arrived that most would have preferred to have been
elsewhere.

One 17-year-old arrived clutching a sports bag and bedroll, his face a
picture of fear. I later learned that he had been arrested for violent
behaviour and was facing the threat of a renewed court order if he
didn't take steps to curb his outbursts. Anger management classes had
not worked.

He was the only one of the five to make the wrong choice on the rope
walk - he opted for the first man, the one who supposedly "knew the
way", as opposed to the one who offered help if asked. Almost
immediately, he realised his mistake. He had chosen the first man
because, as he put it, he was "scared" and it seemed the "safest"
option. The revelation seemed to transform him: the tense and wary
adolescent was soon showing an open and unthreatening side, and an
infectious grin.

The Parzival connection

As the other four warmed to the story of Parzival, it was clear that a
similar alchemy was at work with them, too. This tale of a young man
whose warrior father died before the hero was born has inspired, among
other works, Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain and George Lucas's Star
Wars, and it has been adapted in modern prose by the British novelist
Lindsay Clarke.

In Clarke's retelling, Parzival is an innocent raised alone in the
forest by his deranged mother. One day he has a vision of three knights
and, convinced he has seen his destiny, he abandons his mother and
ventures into the world in search of honour, glory and service.

It isn't long before Parzival, following the advice of his father's
former squire (the bad mentor of the story) finds himself in trouble.
Only after he has lost all faith in the chivalric code he once
idealised and, letting his horse lead him, finds his way to a second
mentor - a wise old knight - is he ready to begin the journey into
manhood.

The key to the story is Parzival's two visits to the Grail castle of
the Fisher King. The first is a failure because he lacks understanding
and confidence, and the second, which follows his meeting with the wise
mentor, a success. He now understands what is required of him and shows
his compassion; he has acquired emotional intelligence.

Loosely, the weekend in the Salisbury forest presented the boys and
young men with tasks that mirrored Parzival's quest, and, judging by my
experience as a mentor, it worked. The young man I was paired with told
me he had come in search of "clarity". Torn between a passion for
drumming and continuing a college course he found dull, he admitted
that he had become aimless and indecisive, and this was infecting his
friendships and his relationships with women.

By the end of the weekend, however, he appeared to have found what he
was searching for: he would pursue a drumming career. Invigorated by
this decision, he agreed, like the others, to embark on three further
"knightly" challenges - an act of forgiveness, an act of gratitude and
a secret act of generosity - or what in modern parlance we would call
cognitive behavioural therapy.

It is asking a great deal of one weekend that it should change a group
of young men for good, and it is too early to say whether the change in
the drummer is lasting. When I called him a week later his passion for
drumming was undimmed but he admitted that he had struggled with the
first task, "forgiving his mother". The 17-year-old appeared to have
taken his lessons to heart, however. "People still try to wind me up,
but I don't take it as personally as I used to," he told me. "I feel a
lot more stable."

According to Boyle, the lesson that the Parzival story can teach is one
we all need to learn or to remember: boys need to be given the space to
make mistakes, but they also require guidance. Or, as he puts it: "Boys
need men, basically."

Is the world more female, or are boys still sexist?

In 2005, 80 per cent of girls passed National Curriculum tests in
English, compared to 67 per cent of boys.

It is this underachievement in literacy that causes the most concern
about inequalities between the sexes. It was one of the findings of a
joint research team from the Universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow,
providing confirmation of "significant gender-related inequalities"
that show girls outperforming boys at all levels.

The researchers said that in treating gender equality as part of a
broader approach to social justice and social inclusion, there is "a
danger that gender becomes lost or fudged . . . Authorities should
check that specific attention is given in issues in relation to
learning and teaching. Indeed, this may be essential in the light of
forthcoming legislation on equality."

The gulf between the sexes has remained stubbornly high in the past few
years, with 10 per cent more girls than boys gaining five or more A* to
C grades at GCSE in 2003, and boys five times more likely to be
excluded from school. Related to this is another staggering
gender-biased statistic: boys outnumber girls by four to one in
achieving a school detention.

While social class and ethnicity are also issues and variables in the
debate, another point of particular significance to the educational
achievements of any child appears to be the educational achievement of
his or her mother.

In attempting to find answers to the reasons for the achievement gap
academics tend to line up behind two schools of thought. The first one
is inspired by Australian and US research which suggests that there is
a particular crisis in the masculine role, and that this is linked to a
new female dominance. Boys, they argue, suffer because the curriculum
and the teaching force has become increasingly feminised. This might be
dubbed the "world is more female" theory.

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers, active learning and less course work. On the
other hand, they are victims of a patriarchy that has come back to bite
them.

Tony Sewell is a writer and education expert

---
The boy crisis: A short history

1969: The Divorce Reform Act challenges the idea of the nuclear family

1985: The ManKind Project launches in the US to promote the idea that
manliness depends on having male mentors

1994: The number of women attending British universities overtakes men
for the first time

2000: Girls do better than boys in A-levels for the first time.

Anthony Clare publishes On Men: masculinity in crisis, prompting
academic debate in the UK

2005: The Commission for Racial Equality warns that British schools are
failing black boys. The US psychologist Peggy Drexler publishes Raising
Boys Without Men, arguing that single mothers can successfully raise
masculine sons

2006: The suicide rate for young males continues to outstrip that for
young women

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard at
school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this for
awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history, men
taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women teachers,
so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys is due to
having women teachers.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers who
says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told him,
that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for them
getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults. THAT
can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same world and
we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better place for all
of us.

"Jude Alexander" Cajun@middle of the swamp.com wrote in message
. ..

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard at
school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this
for awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history,
men taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women
teachers, so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys
is due to having women teachers.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers
who says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told
him, that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for
them getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults.
THAT can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same
world and we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better
place for all of us.
Yeah and we can't do that with an education system that has been
systematically made specifically more 'friendly' to girls at the expense of
boys - then go around acting 'mystified' (or much worse actually BLAMING the
boys for their poor performance) as to why boys are falling behind.

AngryYoungMan

Jude Alexander wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard at
school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

I agree with you. This reminds me of Bush...saying "it's hard work"
over and over again.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this for
awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history, men
taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women teachers,
so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys is due to
having women teachers.

Well, in theory, I agree with you, but I think it would be GREAT to
have more men as teachers since some boys might be able to identify
more with men, just as there are girls who may identify more with
women. It's just nice to have a good mix.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

Women do very well teaching all students, but again, it is good to have
both sexes showing a respect for learning.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers who
says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told him,
that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

Not only that; all you have to do is teach a third grade class to
observe what goes on between the sexes there. The girls actually tend
to dislike having the boys slow them down. They resent the rule
breakers that slow down the process. The girls do much better than the
boys in single sex education WHEN there is equal funding and equal
programs. The problem back in the fifties was that the boys got
everything. :-) In my school, for example, the boys got the baseball
diamonds, the gym and track and field first, and the girls got ugly
blue snapped gymsuits and bean bag toss. :-)

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for them
getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults. THAT
can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same world and
we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better place for all
of us.

I'm for equal funding. And when boy's fathers are ready to listen to
what boys really NEED they can get positive life experiences within the
funding they have. I have a friend who said this about raising a
healthy society of children into good citizens; "we should raise each
child as if he were Jesus". :-)

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jude Alexander wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard at
school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

I agree with you. This reminds me of Bush...saying "it's hard work"
over and over again.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this for
awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history, men
taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women teachers,
so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys is due to
having women teachers.

Well, in theory, I agree with you, but I think it would be GREAT to
have more men as teachers since some boys might be able to identify
more with men, just as there are girls who may identify more with
women. It's just nice to have a good mix.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

Women do very well teaching all students, but again, it is good to have
both sexes showing a respect for learning.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers who
says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told him,
that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

Not only that; all you have to do is teach a third grade class to
observe what goes on between the sexes there. The girls actually tend
to dislike having the boys slow them down. They resent the rule
breakers that slow down the process. The girls do much better than the
boys in single sex education WHEN there is equal funding and equal
programs. The problem back in the fifties was that the boys got
everything. :-) In my school, for example, the boys got the baseball
diamonds, the gym and track and field first, and the girls got ugly
blue snapped gymsuits and bean bag toss. :-)

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for them
getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults. THAT
can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same world and
we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better place for all
of us.

I'm for equal funding. And when boy's fathers are ready to listen to
what boys really NEED they can get positive life experiences within the
funding they have. I have a friend who said this about raising a
healthy society of children into good citizens; "we should raise each
child as if he were Jesus". :-)

Well that leaves you out,Parg! you being a heathen Pagan and all! :-)

"AngryYoungMan" wrote in message
...

"Jude Alexander" Cajun@middle of the swamp.com wrote in message
. ..

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard
at school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is
so incorrect, I don't know what to say.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this
for awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history,
men taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women
teachers, so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys
is due to having women teachers.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers
who says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told
him, that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for
them getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced
adults. THAT can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in
the same world and we DO need to take care of our own and make the world
a better place for all of us.
Yeah and we can't do that with an education system that has been
systematically made specifically more 'friendly' to girls at the expense
of boys - then go around acting 'mystified' (or much worse actually
BLAMING the boys for their poor performance) as to why boys are falling
behind.

AngryYoungMan

You're just plain wrong that the educational system has been specifically
geared to be more "friendly" to girls at the expense of boys. THAT is an
absolute paranoid expression.

Boys are falling behind just recently. WOMEN have been teaching boys and
girls for at least a hundred years. It isn't women's fault that girls are
attempting to achieve more and therefore, in comparison, boys look less
superior.

Also, there's the strong possibility that now boys are seeing that girls are
as good as they are academically, given that they care to be, these same
boys are seeing education as a "girly" thing. THAT is directly tied into
boy's efforts to NOT do anything seen as "girly."

This supports Hyerdahl proposition.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jude Alexander wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that
blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard
at
school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

I agree with you. This reminds me of Bush...saying "it's hard work"
over and over again.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this
for
awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history, men
taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women
teachers,
so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys is due to
having women teachers.

Well, in theory, I agree with you, but I think it would be GREAT to
have more men as teachers since some boys might be able to identify
more with men, just as there are girls who may identify more with
women. It's just nice to have a good mix.

Then we do agree. It's a good mix that I would like to see happen.
However, to just have men teach boys and women teach girls wouldn't be good
either.

However, one reason why many men hate to take instruction from women is that
it reminds them of their being under their mother's complete authority and
all the "baggage" that comes from that experience.

We're talking about being educated, but., because of what I said about the
mother's authority rejection, I think it would prosper both males and
females to have more equal input into children's unbringing.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

Women do very well teaching all students, but again, it is good to have
both sexes showing a respect for learning.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers
who
says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told him,
that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

Not only that; all you have to do is teach a third grade class to
observe what goes on between the sexes there. The girls actually tend
to dislike having the boys slow them down. They resent the rule
breakers that slow down the process. The girls do much better than the
boys in single sex education WHEN there is equal funding and equal
programs. The problem back in the fifties was that the boys got
everything. :-) In my school, for example, the boys got the baseball
diamonds, the gym and track and field first, and the girls got ugly
blue snapped gymsuits and bean bag toss. :-)

This is true.

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for
them
getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults.
THAT
can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same world
and
we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better place for
all
of us.

I'm for equal funding. And when boy's fathers are ready to listen to
what boys really NEED they can get positive life experiences within the
funding they have. I have a friend who said this about raising a
healthy society of children into good citizens; "we should raise each
child as if he were Jesus". :-)

Raise them up in the way that they should go is a quote.

Agreed. What prospers women prospers men indirectly and what prospers men
prospers women indirectly so everybody wins. The truly happier man & woman
the more they are able to contribute to a better relationship and better and
more balanced world. And, although the world will never be perfect, we can
work to perfect it a little more.

Jude Alexander wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jude Alexander wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
Changing the world one boy at a time

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608210027

Mark Honigsbaum
Monday 21st August 2006

(EDIT)

The second school of thought is a more feminist perspective that
blames
patriarchy. It asserts that boys are still locked into a 1950s
perspective of masculinity, where they think working hard at school is
uncool and feminine. As such, they fail in the classroom because of
their own sexist beliefs, which are perpetuated by the usual attitudes
of many schools and, of course, in some cases, by the boys' own
parents.

Yup.

It's not about blame, per se. However, I NEVER heard that working hard
at school was considered FEMININE! lol Is THAT a joke or what? That is so
incorrect, I don't know what to say.

I agree with you. This reminds me of Bush...saying "it's hard work"
over and over again.

There's a missing link somewhere.

Both theories are probably right. Boys seem to be victims of an
education system that does not listen to their specific needs for more
male primary teachers,

Male teachers can't be hired if they don't apply, Fred. Not that many
men are willing to work for the lower pay made by teachers.

I've heard this blaming of women teachers being, at least, partially
responsible to the lowering output of young boys. I thought about this
for
awhile and it occured to me that until very recent in human history, men
taught only men (with rare exceptions). Boys did fine with women
teachers,
so there makes no sense that the lowering output of young boys is due to
having women teachers.

Well, in theory, I agree with you, but I think it would be GREAT to
have more men as teachers since some boys might be able to identify
more with men, just as there are girls who may identify more with
women. It's just nice to have a good mix.

Then we do agree. It's a good mix that I would like to see happen.
However, to just have men teach boys and women teach girls wouldn't be good
either.

Sure. I think we need both. Right now there are few male teachers at
the primary level, and there needs to be more.

However, one reason why many men hate to take instruction from women is that
it reminds them of their being under their mother's complete authority and
all the "baggage" that comes from that experience.

I don't see that this would have any more "baggage" than father
daughter or mother, daughter or father, son. Baggage is baggage.

We're talking about being educated, but., because of what I said about the
mother's authority rejection, I think it would prosper both males and
females to have more equal input into children's unbringing.

Sure. I agree with that.

It puzzles me why some think that women teachers (as of only recent) are
inadequate in some way to teach young boys.

Women do very well teaching all students, but again, it is good to have
both sexes showing a respect for learning.

active learning and less course work.

Before there were coed schools there was MORE coursework. And girls
benefit every bit as much as boys by what you call "active learning".
I don't think we, as a society, are ready to fund boys programs over
girls programs; do you?

I've gone round & round with this issue with one of my younger brothers
who says the same thing about why young boys are falling behind. I told him,
that I believe that it would be girls that would be more positively
influenced if boys & girls would be educated separately since it's a well
known thing that girls will "dumb down" around adolescense in order to be
appealing to boys, whether that be true for all boys, it's enough true to
enough boys as to be easily seen in action.

Not only that; all you have to do is teach a third grade class to
observe what goes on between the sexes there. The girls actually tend
to dislike having the boys slow them down. They resent the rule
breakers that slow down the process. The girls do much better than the
boys in single sex education WHEN there is equal funding and equal
programs. The problem back in the fifties was that the boys got
everything. :-) In my school, for example, the boys got the baseball
diamonds, the gym and track and field first, and the girls got ugly
blue snapped gymsuits and bean bag toss. :-)

This is true.

Yup.

Also, in some ways it benefits the boys to HAVE girls in the classroom
in the early grades.

All said and done, however, IF young boys are truly at risk for negative
life experiences more than ever, no matter what the reason, I'm all for
them getting what they need in order to become mature and balanced adults.
THAT can only prospers us all, women included. We all live in the same world
and we DO need to take care of our own and make the world a better place for
all of us.

I'm for equal funding. And when boy's fathers are ready to listen to
what boys really NEED they can get positive life experiences within the
funding they have. I have a friend who said this about raising a
healthy society of children into good citizens; "we should raise each
child as if he were Jesus". :-)

Raise them up in the way that they should go is a quote.

Well, not exactly the same thing, but close enough. I think my friend
meant that if we really CHERISHED each child that much...this would be
a good thing.

Agreed. What prospers women prospers men indirectly and what prospers men
prospers women indirectly so everybody wins. The truly happier man & woman
the more they are able to contribute to a better relationship and better and
more balanced world. And, although the world will never be perfect, we can
work to perfect it a little more.

I like your attitude.