New Book Revives Lost Notions of Boyhood

In article . com,
wrote:
When I was young I used to go out and play in streams, ponds, and the
like. By myself.

I took my son to the river to do a bit of pond-dipping.

His mother made me take chemical disinfectant to wash his hands
afterwards!

That stuff might well be mroe dangerous than the pond. :-\
--
My son reviews _Come Back, Amelia Bedelia_:
"This book is scary, because it's about creampuffs."
spankin' new reviews and blog: http://bunnyplanet.blogspot.com/

In article ,
(Wendy E. Betts) wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:
When I was young I used to go out and play in streams, ponds, and the
like. By myself.

I took my son to the river to do a bit of pond-dipping.

His mother made me take chemical disinfectant to wash his hands
afterwards!

That stuff might well be mroe dangerous than the pond. :-\

Not if you're talking about something like Purell.

And, given the amount of giardia (sp?) in our water these days,
disinfecting after playing in a pond is not such a bad idea.

(Keep in mind that this is from someone who doesn't use anti-bacterial
ANYTHING in her home, because she believes that it generally serves to
breed stronger bacteria. I mean, other than regular soap or detergent
and water. I avoid the stuff labeled "anti bacterial". However, the
"waterless" stuff that's being sold to clean your hands when you are
where you can't get to a sink is something I DO keep around for picnics
and stuff -- and, as I said, is probably a good idea after pond dipping.)

Heck, I'm told that even the water in the Boundary Waters (where I used
to drink straight from the lakes) is contaminated and not safe to drink.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Banty wrote:

But this doesn't address why some majors are now seeing *more* women *than*
men
in college. Comparing men to men 30 years ago, then pointing to totals
numbers,
steps around the question of why there's an apparent *disproportion* now.
Surely women aren't (and shouldn't be) content to just look at how they
compared to 30 years ago, and what raw numbers of girls were, if they're
still
being disproporitonately impacted by something (family responsibilities being
disporpportionate, for example).


Unfortunately, what I've been reading now is that it isn't a gender
thing as much as a class (and possibly race) thing.

That is, if you compare middle class and wealthy white boys to middle
class and wealthy white girls, the numbers are comperable. Girls seem
to have caught up (roughly), and boys have NOT fallen behind. The
disproportion comes in when you look at poorer people, and at people of
color. (I know these two issues end up being hard to tease out.) There
is where the boys seem to fall off the map, while the girls are doing
better.

I just saw a local article about suspensions in local high schools, and
the numbers were astonishing. A disproportionate number of suspensions
were of black and latino boys -- and not just by a little bit, by a
whole lot. (The article did not address class -- only race.)

I don't know why that is -- but clearly this will effect their
education. If they aren't in high school, they can't get an education.
If they can't finish high school, they clearly can't go on to college.

I don't know why this is happening, but it certainly does need to be
looked into. The obvious knee-jerk reaction is that it is obvious
institutional racism. I suspect it is incredibly more complex than that.

Please note that I have NEVER suggested that we not look at aggregate
information by gender, race, class, or any other demographic that seems
to make sense. That is information we need to understand the effect our
policies are having.

My concern is only with language that seems to accept the stereotypes as
true for all kids, and therefore ends up harming those who do NOT fit
the stereotype -- language that seems to say "normal" boys are one way,
or "normal" girls another. My fear is that we will go back to that --
and girls like me will, once again, be left out.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

bizby40 wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...

In article
,
Not the the O.P's perspective is all that great, but, if boys are
being
disproportionately impacted by something, one must talk about the
reasons why in
terms of gender. And, no, I don't think a "high tide lifts all
boats"
lets-improve-everything-for-everybody approach is likely to happen,
or even
would work.


On the other hand, I just read an article about this. I think it was
called something like "The Lost Boy Myth" and was written by a
syndicated columnist, but I'm too lazy to go search through the
recyclables for it. The point of the article was that while it's true
that girls have made greater strides than boys in recent years, it is
*not* true that boys today are at a disadvantage as compared to boys
20 or 30 years ago. More boys are going to college now than then
too -- they just haven't made strides at the same rate as girls.


Is it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...62501047.html?

Jay Matthews writes a lot about education and he did an article
questioning the existence of the boy education crisis. He also points
to a study highlighting this.

bizby40 wrote:

On the other hand, I just read an article about this. I think it was
called something like "The Lost Boy Myth" and was written by a
syndicated columnist, but I'm too lazy to go search through the
recyclables for it. The point of the article was that while it's true
that girls have made greater strides than boys in recent years, it is
*not* true that boys today are at a disadvantage as compared to boys
20 or 30 years ago. More boys are going to college now than then
too -- they just haven't made strides at the same rate as girls.

I'd be a bit skeptical of this article. There's
a backlash effect going on now. They seem to have a few
main arguments:

- Boys are doing better than before.
- It's really class/race/something else, not gender.
- We shouldn't overhaul the system to teach boys and girls
differently.

I think argument 1 is a complete red herring. Who cares?
If there are problems now, there are problems now.

Argument 2 holds some water. Children who are poor or
from various other disadvantaged groups don't do as well
as wealthy children, and boys from disadvantaged groups
lag girls in the same groups more severely than boys
in other groups. However, the fact that being a boy
on top of other issues creates even more of a disadvantage
*does* argue that there is a gender effect. It doesn't
have to be the *only* effect to be worth addressing.
Furthermore, the evidence is mixed that advantaged boys
have no deficit compared to similarly advantaged girls.
Many measures *do* find a deficit in those cases, which
also argues that there's something that ought to be
addressed. I also think that the differences between
boys and girls in advantaged groups may well be
expanding as schools are having to make changes
to respond to testing results.

Argument 3 is also something I have some sympathy for.
Because there clearly *are* quite a few students who
don't fit the "boys do this" and "girls do that" mold,
simple solutions like segregated classrooms and such
aren't (in my opinion) likely to be ideal solutions.
However, I do think that what we know about how students
differ in terms of learning ought to much better inform
how we educate children.

This would tend to disprove the argument that we have so changed the
classroom and learning environment to favor girls that we have harmed
boys in the process.

I don't buy that for a minute. Many of the past/present
comparisons are apples and oranges, many of these analyses
leave out the timing (you have to look at the whole curve,
not just the endpoints), and again, if there's a problem
now, there's a problem. It's hard to make an argument
for why it's okay that boys are so underperforming girls,
unless you buy the argument that they're just not as
smart or capable.

It appears that the focus should not be to
return things to the way they were (which would hurt both boys and
girls) but to focus on how to help boys achieve more.

I would agree it's not about returning things
to how they were before (whatever that was). It's
about understanding what the stumbling blocks to boys'
success are and mitigating them, just as that was the
issue in improving girls' performance. However, it's
not necessarily the case that what improved girls'
performance would do the same for boys' performance.
The stumbling blocks may be different.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Jeanne" wrote in message
. ..
Is it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...62501047.html?

Jay Matthews writes a lot about education and he did an article
questioning the existence of the boy education crisis. He also
points to a study highlighting this.

No, but I think it was about the same study. I know the line about
not being bad news for boys, but good news for girls was also in the
one I read.

Bizby

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , bizby40
says...
On the other hand, I just read an article about this. I think it
was
called something like "The Lost Boy Myth" and was written by a
syndicated columnist, but I'm too lazy to go search through the
recyclables for it. The point of the article was that while it's
true
that girls have made greater strides than boys in recent years, it
is
*not* true that boys today are at a disadvantage as compared to boys
20 or 30 years ago. More boys are going to college now than then
too -- they just haven't made strides at the same rate as girls.

But this doesn't address why some majors are now seeing *more* women
*than* men
in college.

Of course it does. If the numbers of boys have remained relatively
flat while the numbers of girls have risen, then sooner or later, this
would happen.

Comparing men to men 30 years ago, then pointing to totals numbers,
steps around the question of why there's an apparent *disproportion*
now.
Surely women aren't (and shouldn't be) content to just look at how
they
compared to 30 years ago, and what raw numbers of girls were, if
they're still
being disproporitonately impacted by something (family
responsibilities being
disporpportionate, for example).

Neither the article nor I said that we should be content with the
status quo. What the article pointed out, and that I agree with, is
that the study shows we're doing a good job with girls, and now we
need to try to do a better job with boys as well. What the study
argues *against* is the notion that the changes that have been made to
help girls have ended up hurting boys. That doesn't seem to be the
case.

It makes sense to have special "girl programs" to encourage girls in
careers that are not typical. It makes sense to do the same for
boys.
A cousin of mine is a teacher, and he got his start, in part, by
attending a program specifically for men in teaching.

OK - what about the rest of the concern. And, BTW, such measures
can't even be
talked about if we're to hobble ourselves in language that only
ackownledges
*individual* differences.

Well, I've never advocated that. It seems to me that there are two
separate issues. The first is teaching to different learning styles.
If we acknowledge that there are different ways of learning, different
energy levels, attention spans or whatever, and we try to find
effective ways to teach all those types, then it doesn't really matter
whether we are teaching boys or girls.

On the other hand, there are the societal issues. That is, I don't
think the increase in women in college has as much to do with a change
in teaching styles as it does with a change in expectations. So to
me, it seems to make sense to concentrate our boy specific initiatives
in changing expectations. One thing the article said was that in some
places being smart wasn't considered to be masculine. That is a
perception which needs to be changed.

Bizby

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
bizby40 wrote:

On the other hand, I just read an article about this. I think it
was called something like "The Lost Boy Myth" and was written by a
syndicated columnist, but I'm too lazy to go search through the
recyclables for it. The point of the article was that while it's
true that girls have made greater strides than boys in recent
years, it is *not* true that boys today are at a disadvantage as
compared to boys 20 or 30 years ago. More boys are going to
college now than then too -- they just haven't made strides at the
same rate as girls.

I'd be a bit skeptical of this article. There's
a backlash effect going on now. They seem to have a few
main arguments:

- Boys are doing better than before.

At least a bit.

- It's really class/race/something else, not gender.

Or gender within class/race/something else.

- We shouldn't overhaul the system to teach boys and girls
differently.

I think argument 1 is a complete red herring. Who cares?
If there are problems now, there are problems now.

They didn't say that nothing should be done. It counters the oft-made
suggestion that the reason girls are outstipping boys is that schools
have become girl havens at the expense of boys.

Argument 2 holds some water. Children who are poor or
from various other disadvantaged groups don't do as well
as wealthy children, and boys from disadvantaged groups
lag girls in the same groups more severely than boys
in other groups. However, the fact that being a boy
on top of other issues creates even more of a disadvantage
*does* argue that there is a gender effect. It doesn't
have to be the *only* effect to be worth addressing.
Furthermore, the evidence is mixed that advantaged boys
have no deficit compared to similarly advantaged girls.
Many measures *do* find a deficit in those cases, which
also argues that there's something that ought to be
addressed. I also think that the differences between
boys and girls in advantaged groups may well be
expanding as schools are having to make changes
to respond to testing results.

Argument 3 is also something I have some sympathy for.
Because there clearly *are* quite a few students who
don't fit the "boys do this" and "girls do that" mold,
simple solutions like segregated classrooms and such
aren't (in my opinion) likely to be ideal solutions.
However, I do think that what we know about how students
differ in terms of learning ought to much better inform
how we educate children.

This would tend to disprove the argument that we have so changed
the classroom and learning environment to favor girls that we have
harmed boys in the process.

I don't buy that for a minute. Many of the past/present
comparisons are apples and oranges, many of these analyses
leave out the timing (you have to look at the whole curve,
not just the endpoints), and again, if there's a problem
now, there's a problem. It's hard to make an argument
for why it's okay that boys are so underperforming girls,
unless you buy the argument that they're just not as
smart or capable.

Show me where anyone has tried to make an argument that it's okay for
boys to underperform??!!!

It appears that the focus should not be to return things to the way
they were (which would hurt both boys and girls) but to focus on
how to help boys achieve more.

I would agree it's not about returning things
to how they were before (whatever that was). It's
about understanding what the stumbling blocks to boys'
success are and mitigating them, just as that was the
issue in improving girls' performance. However, it's
not necessarily the case that what improved girls'
performance would do the same for boys' performance.
The stumbling blocks may be different.

I agree with this. But, as I said to Banty, I really think that most
of the work needs to be done outside the classroom. I think it's more
a matter of expectations than teaching styles. Boys need to believe
that they are capable of completing college, and that it's worth it to
them to do so. I remember reading a different article a while back
that talked about how there are more decent-paying jobs available to
men without a college degree than to women. Things like plumbing,
construction, electrician, heating and air conditioning and so forth
which can pay well, and which are all overwhelmingly male. Is it bad
news for boys that they have those options? I don't think so.

Bizby

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Wow. So, as long as the boys come along at *some* rate, we should
be happy?
That they're *disadvantaged* *now* with respect to girls is OK as
long as those
girls are getting their due?? Would that be acceptible if this
situation were
turned around?

Who says it's acceptable now? You're attributing all kinds of things
to people that they haven't said.

Bizby

"Chookie" wrote in message
Not quite what I meant. What I have noticed -- and my friends -- is the
*energy* of little boys (DS1 is 5; I can't speak for older children).
There
is so much running, jumping and so forth: they HAVE to have 'gross-motor
time'. I find that I must make sure DS1 has sufficient running-around
time or
we all pay for it later on. Little girls, from what I have seen (and
discussed with other parents), don't have such high needs for vigorous
physical activity.

My third daughter would break that notion, lol. She has a very high need for
gross motor activities and definitely does not fit the pattern of my other
two daughters. She is definitely more boy-like. DD3 joining the soccer
league was the best thing I have done with her so far.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)