The war against boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men 0684849569, 0684849577

Citation preview

"Provocative and controversial . . . Sominers's voice is impassioned and articulate.' —Marilyn (Jarclner. 77*) youths. When schools in Dade County, Florida, we^^'^V lishing two all-male classetorunderachieving b, ^ | ment of Education's Office of Civil Rights blocked ),V ^, In 1994, Senator John Danforth tried to addresA^- ^ fered an amendment to an edncanon bill proposing A*' tricts be permitted to expemnent with same-sex c| (.'j of lawsuit. The amendment passed the Senate but w \ ence with the House of Refttsentatives. Says D a n f \ at the organized oppositiofi to the amendment. Opj^V*"^ mently that the provision would result in i n j u s t i c \ spite the amendment's reqiioMit that same-sex ( both boys and girls."*' 'jV' The vehemence is snppWby girl-partisan gj \ which argues that "segregam" by sex is as perni^''(, ^ Anne Conners, president the Nw York City c[^\K stated the organization's offioaiposition: "Public ly^Y^ used to fund institutions segregated on the basis Of'vV NOW is consistent: itappblkeprindple that''se^l^l, classes are bad" to both il-nale and all-female joined the ACLU in chaDengiiig the legality of t(|''\ Young Women's Leadership School in East Harleni"* \ school started in 1996. Other women's groups, such as the National V/ %^ suggest that same-sex programs may be justifiable boys. Deborah BrakcasoimcDanselat NWLC,no(\ erable network" of federal,state.local, and private grams for girls and women my be legitimate becau^ ' , | \ "In light of the history of iscrinunation against y ^ h and the barriers that female students continue to fac,'\ fe. der, there [may be] a lepnmate place for such Shapiro, president of Barnard College, is less tentativ \ piece in the Baltimore Siirc "In a soaety that{avoijN\ men's institutions operate to preserve privilege, w ^

1

W H Y J O H N N Y CAN'T, LIKE, READ A N D WRITE

T H E W A R A G A I N S T BOYS

of progressivism but shared by many parents: "To me, competition is what America is all about. The more they compete, the better they become."*' Competition that provides incentives to excel is as natural to a successful classroom as it is to a successful sports team. Competition in matters of intellect is not harmful but essential to progress. The Talmudic sage who said, "The envy that scholars bear to one another increases the world's wisdom" had it right. Competitive learners have always been a driving force in the advancement of knowledge. Of course grades are competitive, but they "increase the world's wisdom." E. D. Hirsch, the educator and reformer from the University of Virginia, advises, "[I]nstead of trying fruitlessly to abolish competition as an element of human nature, we should try to guide it into educationally productive channels."** A lot of what is now considered bad practice—an emphasis on skills and drills, a reHance on competitive motivations, a teacher-centered pedagogy—is unavailable in many of today's schools. Yet these practices may be especially effective in getting boys to learn and progress. American educators need to ask whether, in moving away from skills and drills, phonics, teacher-led discussions, competition, and same-sex classes, they have not inadvertently been moving away from what works for boys.

T H E WAR AGAINST FOR

SINGLE-SEX

EDUCATION

BOYS

As SOON AS they identified the gender education gap, British educators began seriously experimenting with same-sex classes in coed public schools as a way of helping to narrow it. This courted progressivist rancor. As the London Times pointed out in 1994, "The schools' proposal [for same-sex classes] challenges the progressive orthodoxy of the past 30 years that holds that single-sex is 'unnatural.' " *' Marian Cox, headmistress at the Cotswold School, admitted that single-sex schools were an unorthodox measure, but, she said, "We have a national crisis with boys' under-achievement in English. Either we tackle it, or we put our heads in the sand and ignore it. We felt the time had come to bite the bullet."*'

When American schools t r y to develop special programs for boys, they find groups such as the National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union poised to oppose them. In 1989, threats of lawsuits from both organizations prevented the Detroit public schools from proceeding with plans for all-male academies for at-risk urban youths. When schools in Dade County Florida, were considering establishing two all-male classes for underachieving boys, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights blocked them. In 1994, Senator John Danforth tried to address this impasse. He offered an amendment to an education bill proposing that ten school districts be permitted to experiment with same-sex classes without threat of lawsuit. The amendment passed the Senate but was rejected in conference with the House of Representatives. Says Danforth, " I was stunned at the organized opposition to the amendment. Opponents argued vehemently that the provision would result in injustice to young girls, despite the amendment's requirement that same-sex classes be offered to both boys and girls."*' The vehemence is supplied by girl-partisan groups such as NOW, which argues that "segregation" by sex is as pernicious as that by race. Anne Conners, president of the New York City chapter of NOW, has stated the organization's official position: "Public money should not be used to fund institutions segregated on the basis of sex."*" But at least N O W is consistent: it applies the principle that "segregated schools and classes are bad" to both all-male and all-female programs. N O W has joined the ACLU in challenging the legality of the highly successful Young Women's Leadership School in East Harlem, a girls-only public school started in 1996. Other women's groups, such as the National Women's Law Center, suggest that same-sex programs may be justifiable for girls, but not for boys. Deborah Brake, a senior counsel at NWLC, notes that the "considerable network" of federal, state, local, and private scholarships and programs for girls and women may be legitimate because of past inequities: "In light of the history of discrimination against women in education and the barriers that female students continue to face based on their gender, there [may be] a legitimate place for such programs."*' Judith Shapiro, president of Barnard College, is less tentative. In a 1994 opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun: " I n a society that favors men over women, men's institutions operate to preserve privilege, women's institutions

T H E W A R A G A I N S T BOYS

challenge privilege and attempt to expand access to the good things of life.'"" In fact, our society does not favor boys. It certainly does not favor the growing number of boys who are disengaged, barely literate, and without the prospects of going to college. These young men have very little access to "the good things of life." Unfortunately, elite educational leaders such as Shapiro and Brake, who oppose single-sex pedagogy for boys, have little interest i n finding out whether all-male classes are useful for the many thousands of at-risk boys.

A SCHOOL

IN

BALTIMORE

H A R F O R D H E I G H T S E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L , the largest elementary school in Maryland, is in a poor section of Baltimore. No one at the school has read the report of the British headmasters; but Harford teachers and administrators, determined to find ways to help young males succeed academically, have found their own way to many of the practices recommended in Can Boys Do Better? Since the mid-nineties the school has experimented with same-sex classes for both boys and girls. These classes are optional. Parents and teachers jointly decide who will most benefit. In selecting students for the all-male classes, school officials give boys with behavior problems and boys from fatherless homes priority. (These two groups often overlap.)

As in Great Britain, the all-boy classes are taught by male teachers, and the boys' natural competitiveness and high-spiritedness are not discouraged but channeled to good ends. As the former principal who initiated the program said, "The boys become competitive rather than combative."'' Walter Sallee, who has taught an all-boys class at Harford Heights for three years, uses many of the old-fashioned methods favored by the British headmasters. His classes are highly structured. He teaches phonics, grammar, and diction. He carefully monitors student progress. He uses a lot of boy-friendly materials; for example, he has developed math lessons based on Jackie Robinson's baseball statistics. His students, like boys everywhere, are fascinated by sports and sports stars, so these les-

W H Y J O H N N Y CAN'T, LIKE, READ A N D WRITE

sons are a great success. In gym class, his focus is character education through sportsmanship. Sallee works hard to exploit the boys' natural competitiveness to promoting academic achievement. He breaks his class (twenty-seven ten-year-old boys in 1998-99) down into "teams." He turns classroom activities into contests. There is an elaborate point system. There are prizes. School uniforms are optional at Harford, but most of the boys in Sallee's class choose to wear them. Teams get extra points when all members don the uniform. The boys in his all-male classes are mostly poor and AfricanAmerican. Sallee is concerned about their self-esteem and confidence; but he does not rely on gimmicks or therapeutic methods. The boys gain confidence by mastering skills, becoming good sports, being team players and young gentlemen. One of Sallee's primary aims is to help his students develop their social skills. They learn to express themselves with confidence, and they learn manners. Several times a year the all-boy and all-girl classes take part in shared events. One favorite occasion is a Thanksgiving banquet. The boys escort the girls to the table, help them into their chairs, and engage in polite conversation. The children love it—especially the girls. Sallee's students are at risk for every kind of academic and behavioral problem. But in this all-male environment, such problems nearly vanish. Should a boy neglect to do his work or misbehave, he hurts his team and disappoints his teacher. School disengagement is a problem for many boys, but it is especially severe among young black males. The boys in Sallee's class are the very opposite of disengaged. They are enthralled. As Sallee told me, "They love the positive attention they get in the class. They look forward to it and hate to miss a single day"" Harford Heights offers same-sex classes in grades three, four, and five. The classes are a great success with parents, who are asking for more of them. It is easy to see why. Millions of parents, rich and poor, from all ethnic backgrounds, would welcome an opportunity for their sons to attend a class like Mr. Sallee's. Boys everywhere need structure, phonics, diction, grammar, and a competitive environment. M r Sallee's deliberate efforts to teach ethics through sportsmanship and good manners could be the making of many boys. But the likelihood of many parents having

174

W H Y J O H N N Y C A N T, L I K E , R E A D A N D W R I T E

THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

such an opportunity is remote. The forces arrayed against pubhc, samesex education for boys are formidable indeed.

SOME

PRIVATE

BOYS'

SCHOOLS

T H E H E I G H T S S C H O O L is in the center of Potomac, Maryland, one of the wealthiest suburbs of Washington, D.C. In many ways, it could not be more unhke Harford. The students at Harford are mostly poor and black: at the Heights they are predominantly white and middle or upper middle class. Harford is in a run-down section of Baltimore. Heights sits on twenty wooded acres. Harford is a public elementary school. Heights is an independent all-male Catholic elementary and high school. But there are some striking similarities in the way the two schools educate boys. The much-loved Heights headmaster (recently retired), Joseph McPherson, can sound very much like Sallee when talking about how boys learn. "Boys need games, and they thrive on competition," he explains. "Who can skip the rock the most number of times?" A l l twentyseven teachers at the Heights are male. "Boys are much more docile to men," says McPherson. Yet the school is hardly macho. The younger boys (aged eight to ten) attend class in log cabins filled with collections of insects, plants, and flowers. They memorize poetry and take weekly classes in painting and drawing. The day I visited, I observed a class of well-behaved fifth-graders sitting in rows, wearing blue blazers, and taking turns performing scales on their recorders. Competition is part of the everyday life of the school—there are lots of awards and prizes—but, as in Sallee's class, it is constrained by ethics. One favorite all-school game is "Capture the Flag": it's a war game, played with a great deal of team spirit and with an established tradition of the older boys protecting the younger ones. For McPherson, the goal of educating children is not only to impart information and teach skills but to "provide them with a noble vision of life—to convey to them that they have to do something great with their lives." He believes that adult males are uniquely suited to impart this philosophy to boys. McPherson explains that male teachers can introduce boys to the world of ideas, of nature, art, poetry, and music, and generally "expand their range of interests without the boys feehng they are risking their masculinity."

Landon, another distinguished boys' school, is a few miles away from the Heights. The headmaster, Damon Bradley, explained to me that at all-male academies boys do things "they would never agree to do if girls were around." A t Landon, 75 percent of the boys are involved in music and art. "Competition is something boys respond to," says the headmaster. But in a boys' school, competition takes place in unusual pursuits. One highly coveted honor at Landon is to be selected for the bell choir. Oddly enough, football players and other school athletes love the choir and vie for a place i n it. It is hard to get into the choir, which is run like a team sport. Headmaster Bradley seems touched by all the burly choir members with their thick necks wearing white gloves. In his writings on boys' schools, Bradley dwells on the ancient view that manliness and virtue are intimately related:

Our Latin teacher has explained to me that the Latin word for "man" (vir) can easily be recognized in the word virtute, as its root derivation, suggesting that "virtue" and "manliness" were integrally linked in the Roman mind. . . . [I]n the classical world—and arguably in boys' schools—manliness is defined more by virtue and less by might. . . . [T]he primary challenge of our schools is to help boys fuse "gentleness" with manliness."

WHY ARE

SINGLE-SEX GENERALLY

CLASSES UNAVAILABLE

U.S. S U P R E M E C O U R T ruled in 1 9 9 6 that the Virginia Military Institute was violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by excluding women, it dealt an almost fatal blow to same-sex education for boys. In the majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court retained full protection for any female-only programs that could be said to compensate for the disabilities women suffer: "Sex classifications may be used to compensate women 'for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,' to 'promote equal employment opportunity' to advance the full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they WHEN

THE

W H Y J O H N N Y CAN'T, LIKE, READ A N D WRITE T H E W A R A G A I N S T BOYS

once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social and economic inferiority of women."'" In light of this ruHng, all-girls programs could still be seen as compensatory; all-boys programs, on the other hand, are regarded as discriminatory. The ruling puts a chill on all special initiatives for boys. However, while it discourages them, it does not strictly prohibit them. Programs that separate the sexes while offering each the same resources and opportunities remain permissible. A t least, that is how the U.S. Office of Civil Rights seems to be interpreting the law. Programs in Maryland, Virginia, and California have so far survived legal challenges from the Office of Civil Rights because they cover both boys and girls and are voluntary." In practice, however, single-sex education is an allowable option for girls, but rarely for boys. In 1996, the California state legislature allocated $5 million toward the development of all-male and all-female "academies." These may be either separate schools or special programs within existing coed schools.'' Sean Walsh, a spokesman for then-Governor Pete Wilson, who initiated the program, justified it as a corrective against the laissez-faire progressivism that has seen literacy plunge in the primary grades: "The [same-sex] academies will allow a more structured, more disciplined environment where kids could get a core curriculum, a sense of right and wrong, a sense of personal responsibility, a sense of duty."" The program is in its early stages, but it is already quite popular with parents and students. There is anecdotal evidence that it is succeeding, but a formal analysis of the program will be submitted to the state legislature in 2000. Women's groups remain uneasy, however In 1998, the American Association of University Women released Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls. The report, a compilation of essays by several scholars, turned out to be inconclusive. Most of the contributors agreed that more careful and systematic long-term research was needed. But the A A U W press release was categorically negative. "What the report shows is that separating by sex is not the solution to gender inequity in education," wrote Maggie Ford, president of the A A U W Educational Foundation. Critics soon pointed out the disparity between the full report and the press summary"* One of the contributing scholars, Cornelius Riordan, was stunned by the negative spin in the press release. He told the Los Angeles Times that the releases were "slanted" and "off the deep end." "

The episode should stand as a warning. In their laudable efforts to evaluate the efficacy of same-sex programs objectively, California legislators would do well to take precautions not to be pulled into the acrimonious misandrist maelstrom that this issue currently generates in this country. Otherwise, they'll find themselves in the position of Professor Riordan and Senator Danforth before him. I spoke to California Governor Pete Wilson in June 1999 about the evaluation. He was pessimistic about the prospects of a fair review. He believed the entire process was being compromised by politics and special agendas. Meanwhile, the British experiment with all-male pedagogy is proceeding, with promising initial results. On July 14,1997, The Times of London carried a story under the headline "Boys Do Better in Single-Sex Schools": "Boys gain more from single-sex education than girls, according to research that will ignite the debate over the advantages of segre•ating sexes at school. Boys in single-sex schools did about 20 percent :tter than those in mixed sex [classes].'" This Times story reported the findings of a small study carried out y a research group commissioned by all-male British schools; its conclusions may not be relevant to American boys. A t this time we simply don't know whether single-sex classes are the key to a better pedagogy for boys. Nor are we likely to find out in the near future so long as girlpartisan organizations effectively discourage research and debate on the same-sex solution to the problem of lagging boys." Coeducation is a strong tradition in the United States, and it is doubtful that we will ever adopt a single-sex system on a large scale. On the other hand, those who oppose it on ideological grounds should not be indulged. Single-sex classes do not cost substantially more than mixed 'classes. They seem to be working for privileged boys who attend private schools like Heights and Landon as well as for the disadvantaged boys in ! M r Sallee's class. The British headmasters believe in them. We need a national discussion of the merits of all-male classes. And we need to take care that groups such as NOW, the AAUW, and the National Women's jLaw Center do not control and shape that discussion. i

and government officials are right suggesting that boys would generally be much better off in a tradional learning environment. What are the chances that American "hools will provide it? A t present, the prospects for change do not look

SUPPOSE T H E B R I T I S H H E A D M A S T E R S

177

THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

bright. To begin with, the academic pHght of boys has not yet even been identified as a serious problem by either the government or the educational establishment. Boys are still not on the agenda. The media's interest in boys is focused not on their academic deficits but on their potential for violence. Then, too, the child-centered, therapeutic style of education under which boys do not do well appears deeply entrenched in many of our "best" school systems. A l l the same, I am optimistic that change for the better will be coming rather quickly on the heels of a widespread public awareness that the future of our children, and especially of our sons, is in jeopardy. The onset of a galvanizing awareness (which the British already have) cannot be delayed here much longer. I have been arguing that our educational system needs to address the problem of male underachievement. In the next chapter I shall turn to what our schools have been doing and failing to do for boys' moral development. The consequences of failure in this area have not escaped the notice of the pubhc.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE

IVIORAL LIRE

OR

BOYS

morally neglected have unpleasant ways of getting themselves noticed. A l l children need clear, unequivocal rules. They need structure. They thrive on firm guidance and disciphne from the adults in their lives. But it appears that boys need these things even more than girls do. BOYS W H O ARE

The Josephson Institute of Ethics conducts surveys on the moral attitudes of young people. These surveys show that girls routinely outperform boys in matters of honesty. For the 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, Josephson researchers polled a sample of ten thousand high school students. They found that significantly more boys "agree" or "strongly agree" that " I would be willing to cheat on a test if t would help me get into college" (44 percent of males, 27 percent of females). Thirty-three percent of high school boys said that in the past ear they had shoplifted "two or more times"; for girls, the figure was 21 ercent.' The American Psychiatric Association defines a "conduct disorder" "a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic ghts of others, or other major age-appropriate societal norms or rules, re violated."' According to the APA, the prevalence of conduct disorder

180

THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

has increased since the 1960s. Far more males than females have the disorder: "Rates vary depending on the nature of populations sampled and the methods of ascertainment: for males under age 18 years, rates range from 6 percent to 16 percent; for females, rates range from 2 percent to 9 percent."' For conduct disorders severe enough to get the attention of the police, boys are even more predominant. According to the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Center, 73 percent of children aged ten to seventeen arrested for property crimes in 1993 were boys; of those arrested for violent crimes, 86 percent were boys.* That the male's propensity for antisocial behavior is significantly greater than the female's holds true cross-culturally. A 1997 University of Vermont study compared parents' reports of children's behavior in twelve countries. The countries studied (which included the United States, Thailand, Greece, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Sweden) differed greatly i n how they defined gender roles. Yet in every case boys were more likely than girls to fight, swear, steal, throw tantrums, and threaten others.' Every new generation enters society unformed and uncouth. Princeton University demographer Norman B. Ryder speaks of "a perennial invasion of barbarians who must somehow be civilized . . . for societal survival."' Ryder views the problem from the vantage point of society. But when socialization is inadequate, the children also suffer. A society that fails i n its mission to humanize and civilize its children fails its male children in uniquely harmful ways. The rise in conduct disorder is one indication that the socialization of males is increasingly ineffective. Janet Daley, the education reporter at The Daily Telegraph in London, has written at length about how the lack of directive moral education harms boys more than girls: There is one indisputable fact with which anyone who is serious about helping young men must come to terms: boys need far more discipline, structure and authority in their lives than do girls. . . . Boys must be actively constrained by a whole phalanx of adults who come into contact with them—parents, teachers, neighbors, policemen, passers-by i n the streets—be-

T H E M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

fore they can be expected to control their asocial, egoistic i m pulses.' Many contemporary American children never encounter this "phalanx of adults." In fact, as I shall t r y to show, there are now a large number of adults who have defected altogether from the central task of civilizing the children in their care, leaving them to fend for themselves.

WHEN

THE "BARBARIANS

" DON'T

GET

CIVILIZED

and early nineties, newspapers carried shocking stories about adolescent boys exploiting, assaulting, and terrorizing girls. In the South Bronx, a group of boys known as the "whirlpoolers" surrounded girls in public swimming pools and sexually assaulted them. In Glen Ridge, New Jersey, popular high school athletes viciously raped a retarded girl. In Lakewood, California, a gang of high school boys known as the Spur Posse turned the sexual exploitation of girls into a sport. IN

THE

LATE EIGHTIES

Women's groups seized on these incidents as symptomatic of a violent misogyny pervading American culture. They blamed the stereotypical male socialization. Referring to the Glen Ridge case, Betty Friedan noted somberly that "machismo is a fertile breeding-ground for the seeds of evil."" Columnist Judy Mann wrote that the California Spur Posse case "contains all the ingredients of patriarchal culture gone haywire."' For Susan Faludi, the Spurs were "ground zero of the American masculinity crisis."'" Joan Didion wrote a lengthy piece on the Spur Posse for The New Yorker, and Columbia University journalism professor Bernard Lefkowitz spent six years researching the Glen Ridge case. In 1997, he published ] Our Guys: The Glen Ridge Rape and the Secret Life of the Perfect Sub- j urb. Didion and Lefkowitz offer a detailed view of the Hves of the young ' male predators. We can see for ourselves some of the forces that turned seemingly normal boys into criminals. Were they desensitized by being separated from their mothers at too early an age, as Pollack and Gilligan suggest? Are they products of conventional male socialization? Are they the offspring of what Judy Mann calls the "machocracy" ?"

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS THE WAR AGAINST

"OUR

BOYS

GUYS"

rape was reported on May 25, 1989. Several popular high school athletes had lured a retarded girl into a basement, removed her clothes, and penetrated her with a broomstick and a baseball bat. Lefkowitz was intrigued by the question of how seemingly normal American boys had come to commit such acts: "This wasn't about just a couple of oddballs with a sadistic streak. . . . Thirteen males were present in the basement where the alleged rape occurred. There also were reports that a number of other boys had tried to entice the young woman into the basement a second time to repeat the experience.... I wanted to know more about how this privileged American community raised its children, especially its sons."'' According to Lefkowitz, these boys were "pure gold, every mother's dream, every father's pride. They were not only Glen Ridge's finest, but in their perfection they belonged to all of us. They were Our Guys."" What had gone wrong? To find out, he undertook "an examination of the character of their community and of the young people who grew up in i t . " ' *

THE

GLEN

RIDGE

Lefkowitz shares with Friedan and Mann the view that machismo created much of the evil: The Jocks didn't invent the idea of mistreating young women.. The ruling clique of teenagers adhered to a code of behavior that mimicked, distorted, and exaggerated the values of the adult world around them. . , . But these misguided and ultimately dehumanizing values were not exclusive to this one small town. As the continuing revelations of sexual harassment and abuse in the military, in colleges, in the workplace . . . suggest, these values have deep roots in American life." Lefkowitz presents the Glen Ridge story as a modern morality tale about misogyny and the oppression of women. But the facts he powerfully reports sustain a very different interpretation of what happened. The real story is about how a group of adults—parents, teachers, coaches, community leaders—failed massively and tragically to carry out their

responsibility to civilize the children in their care. The problem with these young male predators was not conventional male socialization but its absence. A l l through elementary school and junior high, twins Kevin and Lyle Scherzer and Chris Archer, the three boys who would later be convicted of rape, had bullied other students and mistreated teachers. The "jocks," as their group was called, routinely disrupted class with outbursts and obscenities. They smashed up the science laboratory, trashed the Glen Ridge Country Club, stole from other students, and vandalized homes. A l l these actions apparently went unpunished. No charges were filed. No arrests were made. No athletic privileges were rescinded. No apologies were demanded or received. According to Lefkowitz, the jocks had such a bad reputation that twenty families withdrew their children from the school system during their reign."' The history of abuse of the retarded girl, Leslie, goes back to Kevin and Lyle's early childhood. The girl's mother reports that when the twins were in kindergarten, they tricked her daughter into eating dog feces. Later, they fed her mud, pinched her arm until it was covered with welts, and routinely referred to her in public as "Brain-Les," "Head-Les," and "retard." Again, it seems that the boys were never reprimanded or punished. Leslie's parents chose not to tell Kevin and Lyle's parents about the feces, the mud, and the welts. No one seemed to see the behavior in moral terms. Leslie's parents did consult a child psychologist, who blamed the incidents on the girl's immaturity—something she would grow out of. The active malice and cruelty of these boys were never regarded as serious problems to be stopped. From the time they were small children, the boys who would later take part in the rape were opportunistically abusive and cruel to nearly anyone who crossed their paths. This pattern persisted through adolescence. It affected their peers regardless of sex. Later on, it affected their teachers and schoolmates. The glaring absence of any firm discipline, the failure of the adults in their lives to punish them for their actions, turned them into monsters. By the time the Glen Ridge boys assaulted Leslie in the basement, *hey had had years of experience perpetrating mayhem and abuse— without suffering any consequences. Where were their parents? The school officials ? The police? According to David Maltman, principal of

184

T H EW A R AGAINST BOYS

the Glen Ridge Middle School, "These kids would act up in class, disrupt the learning situation, set other kids up, get in fights with them, go after them back and forth to school. By the fifth grade, they already had had a bad name for a long time."'' Officials did attempt to intervene. Just before the unruly cohort entered high school, Maltman and the teachers developed a plan to introduce more discipline and order into the school. It had several features that are standard in many schools: 1. Students with learning and behavior disorders would be identified and put in special classes, and, where necessary, would be given professional treatment. (Kevin Scherzer, for example, had been classified as "neurologically impaired" in second grade. A child study team had given him the same classification as the retarded girl, Leslie. But his parents had always insisted that he be mainstreamed and treated as normal.) 2. The school would hire a crisis intervention counselor. 3. The school would institute an alcohol awareness program. 4. The school would draw up a new code of discipline, which it would strictly enforce. Many Glen Ridge parents were incensed by these plans. They argued that hiring crisis intervention counselors and establishing an alcohol awareness program would give Glen Ridge a bad reputation. The very idea of having their children "classified" under some category of disorder made these parents angry. When Maltman presented the (mild) code of discipline at a parents meeting, "all hell broke loose." According to the principal, "The parents thought these were Gestapo methods." " Lefkowitz's book describes boys raised so permissively, with so little moral guidance, that they ended up sociopaths. It is a tale of young barbarians who were never civilized, a suburban Lord of the Flies. The difference is that the feral English boys in William Golding's novel committed their atrocities when they were away from adults, stranded on an island after a shipwreck. What is so chilling about Glen Ridge is all the doting adults who had for years presided over their children's moral disintegration. The story behind the Lakewood, California, Spur Posse is very similar.

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

"WHAT'S

NOT TO LIKE ABOUT

ME?"

a popular high school clique that took its name from the San Antonio Spurs basketball team, consisted of twenty to thirty middleclass boys who competed with one another in "scoring" with girls. They especially targeted underage girls, and in March 1993 nine members were arrested and charged with a variety of crimes, ranging from sexual assault to rape. One of the alleged victims was a ten-year-old girl. T H E SPUR POSSE,

Eventually, most of the charges were dropped, but these swaggering, ignorant, predatory boys from "Rapewood" enjoyed a temporary celebrity. "We didn't do nothing wrong 'cause it's not illegal to hook up," an indignant nineteen-year-old Billy Shehan told The New York Times.'' ("Hooking up" is a colloquial term for sexual intercourse; Billy was in the lead with sixty-seven "hookups.") The boys appeared on Dateline and the Maury Povich, Jane Whitney, and Jenny Jones shows, telling fascinated audiences about their sexual adventures. Orthodox feminist wrriters such as Betty Friedan, Judy Mann, and Susan Faludi saw in the Spur Posse an embodiment of macho-patriarchal ideals. Less encumbered by a feminist framework, novelist and social critic Joan Didion saw them more conventionally as a group of sociopathic boys. When Didion visited Lakewood in 1993 to do a story on them for The New Yorker, she noted that contempt for women was not all that the members of the Lakewood Spur Posse had in common. Like the Glen Ridge jocks, these boys had been permitted to terrorize a town with impunity for years. A member of the school board told Didion stories of Spurs approaching nine- and ten-year-old children in playgrounds, stealing their baseball bats, and saying, " I f you tell anyone, I'll beat your head in." The group had a long history of antisocial behavior, including burglary, credit card fraud, assault, arson, and even an attempted bombing. Like the jocks, the Spur Posse had little sense of the harm and suffering they were causing and no feelings of remorse or shame. One thing they did seem to have was high self-esteem. Writing about them in her New Yorker piece, Joan Didion says: "The boys seemed to have heard about self-esteem, most recently at the 'ethics' assemblies . . . the school had hastily organized after the arrests, but hey, no problem. ' I ' m defi-

THE WAR AGAINST

BOYS

nitely comfortable with myself and my self-esteem,' one said on Dateline."^" When another interviewer asked a member of the group i f he liked himself, the surprised boy replied, "Yeah, why wouldn't I? I mean, what is not to like about me?" The then mayor of Lakewood, Marc Titel, rightly saw i n this group of boys a deplorable failure of moral education: "We need to look at what kind of values we are communicating to our kids." " Although boys are not morally inferior to girls, they are certainly more physically aggressive, more prone to violence, and less risk averse. It is precisely because boys are by nature more physically assertive that they so badly need a strict and explicit character education that places strong behavioral constraints on them, constraints that many progressive educators feel we have no right to "impose" on any child. We gain little illumination by exotically talking about Glen Ridge and Lakewood i n terms of "patriarchal culture gone haywire" or "ground zero of the American masculinity crisis." It is more to the point and less esoteric to regard them as examples of morally undeveloped boys and evidence of what can happen when adults withhold elementary moral instruction from the young males in their charge. The more one faults masculinity i n itself, the farther one strays from acknowledging the failures of moral education i n the last decades of the twentieth century. Talking about moral failure is less stylish than talking about the inimical workings of patriarchy. But i t is far more to the point.

A

SocRATic

DIALOGUE

UNFORTUNATELY, even some moral philosophers are reluctant to talk in plain terms about right and wrong and to pronounce moral judgment i n what look to be clear cases of moral callowness and immaturity. In the fall of 1996, I took part i n a televised ethics program billed as a "Socratic dialogue." For an hour, I joined another ethics professor, a history teacher, and seven high school students in a discussion of moral dilemmas. The program, "Ethical Choices: Individual Voices," was shown on public television and is now circulated to high schools for use i n classroom discussions of right and wrong." Its message still troubles me. In one typical exchange, the moderator, Stanford law professor Kim

T H E M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

Taylor-Thompson (now at New York University), posed this dilemma to the students: Your teacher has unexpectedly assigned you a five-page paper You have only a few days to do it, and you are already overwhelmed with work. Would it be wrong to hand in someone else's paper? Two of the girls found the suggestion unthinkable and spoke about responsibility, honor, and principle. " I wouldn't do it. It is a matter of i n tegrity," said Elizabeth. "It's dishonest," said Erin. But two of the boys saw nothing wrong with cheating. Eleventh-grader Joseph flatly said, " I f you have the opportunity, you should use it." Eric concurred: " I would use the paper and offer it to my friends." I have taught moral philosophy to college freshmen for more than fifteen years, so I was not surprised to find students on the PBS program defending cheating. There are some in every class, who play devil's advocate with an open admiration for the Devil's position. But at least that evening, in our PBS "Socratic dialogue," I expected to have a professional ally i n the person of the other philosophy teacher. Professor William Puka of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Surely he would join me in making the case for honesty. Instead, the professor defected. He told the students that in this situation, it was the teacher who was immoral for having given the students such a burdensome assignment. He was disappointed in us for not seeing it his way. "What disturbs me," he said, "is how accepting you all seem to be of this assignment. To me it's outrageous from the point of view of learning to force you to write a paper in this short a time." Through most of the session the professor focused on the hypocrisy of parents, teachers, and corporations but had little to say about the moral obligations of the students. When we discussed the immorality of shoplifting, he implied that stores were in the wrong for their pricing polices and talked about "corporations deciding on a twelve percent profit margin . . . and perhaps sweatshops." The professor was friendly and to all appearances well meaning. Perhaps his goal was to "empower" students to question authority and rules. That, however, is something contemporary adolescents already know how to do. Too often, we are teaching students to question principles before they understand them. And in this case the professor was advising high school students to question moral teachings and rules of behavior that are crucial to their well-being. Professor Puka's "hands-off" style has been fashionable in the pub-

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

lie schools for thirty years. It has gone under various names: values clarification, situation ethics, self-esteem guidance. These so-called value-free approaches to ethics have flourished at a time when many parents are failing to give children basic guidance in right and wrong. Meanwhile, the courts have made matters worse. Since 1969, in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines School District and Goss v. Lopez (discussed below), the U.S. Supreme Court has greatly expanded the civil rights of children and diminished the power of teachers to enforce order and discipline." Educators such as the professor in that Socratic dialogue, as well as some Supreme Court justices, have turned many of our schools into value-free zones. As usual, their intentions were benign: to protect the liberty, autonomy, and self-expression of young people from adult authoritarian pressure. Unfortunately, these theorists and jurists are conceptually confused. And it is boys, more than anyone else, who suffer from their confusion. The story of why so many children are being deprived of elementary moral training spans three or four decades of misguided reforms by educators, by parents, and by judges. Reduced to its philosophical essentials, it is the story of the triumph of Jean-Jacques Rousseau over Aristotle.

ARISTOTLE

VERSUS

ROUSSEAU

2,400 Y E A R S A G O , Aristotle articulated what children need: clear guidance on how to be moral human beings. What Aristotle advocated became the default model for moral education over the centuries. He showed parents and teachers how to civilize the invading hordes of child barbarians. Only recently have many educators begun to denigrate his teachings. Aristotle regarded children as wayward, uncivilized, and very much in need of discipline. The early Christian philosopher Saint Augustine went further, regarding children's refractory nature as a manifestation of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve when they rebelled against the dictates of God. Each philosopher, in his way, regarded perversity as a universal feature of human nature. Aristotle compared moral education to physical training. Just as we become strong and skillful by doing things that require strength and skill, so, he said, do we become good by practicing goodness. Ethical eduSOME

cation, as he understood it, was training i n emotional control and disciplined behavior Habituation to right behavior comes before an appreciation or understanding of why we should be good. First, children must be socialized by inculcating into them habits of decency and using suitable punishments and rewards to discipline them to behave well. Eventually they will understand the reasons for and advantages of being moral human beings. Far from giving priority to the free expression of emotion, Aristotle' (and Plato too) taught that moral development is achieved by educating children to modulate their emotions. For Aristotle, self-awareness meant being aware of and avoiding behaviors that emotion dictates but reason proscribes: "We must notice the errors into which we ourselves are liable to fall (because we all have different tendencies)... and we must drag ourselves in the contrary direction."'* Children with good moral habits will gain control over the intemperate side of their nature and grow into free and flourishing human beings. As Aristotle put it, "The moral virtues. . . are engendered i n us neither by nor contrary to nature; we are constituted by nature to receive them, but their full development is due to habit. . . . So it is a matter of no little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age—it makes a vast difference, or rather all the difference in the world." " Aristotle's general principles for raising moral children were unquestioned through most of Western history; even today his teachings represent commonsense opinion about child rearing. But in the eighteenth century, the wisdom of Aristotle was directly challenged by the theories of the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau denied that children are born wayward (originally sinful), insisting instead that they are, by nature, noble, virtuous beings who are corrupted by an intrusive socialization. The untutored child is spontaneously good and graceful: "When I picture to myself a boy of ten or twelve, healthy, strong and well built for his age, only pleasant thoughts arise. . . . I see him bright, eager, vigorous, care-free, completely absorbed i n the present, rejoicing i n abounding vitality."" According to Rousseau, "the first education should be purely negative. . . . It consists not in teaching virtue or truth, but in preserving the heart from vice and the mind from error" " He rejects the traditional nolion that moral education in the early stages must habituate the child to virtuous behavior: "The only habit a child should be allowed to acquire is

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

to contract none. . . . Prepare in good time for the reign of freedom and the exercise of his powers, by allowing his body its natural habits and accustoming him always to be his own master and follow the dictates of his will as soon as he has a will of his own." " Contrary to the received view, Rousseau believed the child's nature to be originally good and free of sin. As he saw it, a proper education provides the soil for the flourishing of the child's inherently good nature, ; bringing i t forth unspoiled and fully effective. In his view, the goal of ' moral education is defeated when an external code is imposed on children. Rousseau was modern in his distrust of socially ordained morals as well as his belief that the best education elicits the child's own authentic (benevolent) nature. Rousseau emphatically rejected the Christian doctrine that human beings are innately rebellious and naturally sinful: "Let us lay it down as an incontestable principle that the first impulses of nature are always right. There is no original perversity in the human heart." " Although Rousseau was against instilling moral "habits" into a free and noble being, he did allow that a child's development requires guidance and encouragement to elicit its own good nature. He urged parents and tutors to put the child's "kindly feelings into action."'" Other Christian and pagan thinkers were convinced that far more was needed. They insisted that virtue cannot be attained without a directed moral training that habituates the child to virtuous behavior. Saint Augustine and the orthodox Christian thinkers were especially pessimistic about the efficacy of putting kindly feelings into action. According to Augustine, not even the most disciplined moral education could guarantee a virtuous child; education without divine help ("grace") is insufficient. By contrast, not only do Rousseau's followers deny the Augustinian doctrine that our natures are originally sinful and rebellious, they go further by regarding "directive" moral education as an assault on a child's right to develop freely. There is much to admire in Rousseau. He argued for humane child rearing at a time when rigidity and cruelty were common. Though his criticisms of the educational practices of his day were valid, his own recommendations have not proved workable. It is, perhaps, worth noting that he d i d not apply his fine theories to his own life; he was altogether irresponsible in dealing with his own children." His theories, too, were marred b y inconsistencies. On the one hand, he was firmly against instilling habits in a child; on the other, he dispensed a lot of sound Aris-

totelian advice to parents for habituating their children to the classical virtues: "Keep your pupil occupied with all the good deeds." Despite his celebration of freedom, even Rousseau would have been appalled by the permissiveness we see so much of today. "The surest way to make your child unhappy," he wrote, "is to accustom him to get everything he wants." " A l l the same, he parted company with the traditionalists on the crucial question of human nature. For better or for worse, Rousseau's followers ignored his Aristotelian side and developed the "progressive" elements of his educational philosophy. Though we would like to believe him, Rousseau's rosy picture of the child fails to convince. In "fimile," Rousseau states that although children may do bad deeds, a child can never be said to be bad, "because wrong action depends on harmful intention and that he will never have."" This flies in the face of common experience. Most parents and teachers will tell you that children often have harmful intentions. In perhaps the most famous description of children's "harmful intentions," Saint Augustine, in his Confessions, describes his boyhood pleasure in doing wrong—simply for the joy of flouting prohibitions: In a garden near our vineyard there was a pear tree, loaded with fruit that was desirable neither in appearance nor in taste. Late one n i g h t . . . a group of very bad youngsters set out to shake down and rob this tree. We took great loads of fruit from it, not for our own eating, but rather to throw it to the pigs; even if we did eat a little of it, we did this to do what pleased us for the reason that it was forbidden.^* deed, some parents and teachers might find Augustine's description of ildren's unruly nature understated. Some may find Golding's Lord of e Flies a more telling description of what children are naturally like ~n Rousseau's romantic ideal. Who is right, Aristotle or Rousseau ? Aristotle wins the argument in e court of common sense and historical experience. He certainly wins th most parents. Throughout the world, mothers and fathers never cease to work at habituating children to the exercise of self-control, temperance, honesty, courage. But it is Rousseau who powerfully dominates the thinking of the eorists whose influence pervades modern schools of education. The ed-

THE WARAGAINST

BOYS

ucational philosophy of Rousseau inspired the progressive movement in education, which turned away from rote teaching and sought methods that would free the creativity of the child. Rousseau's ideas are also deployed to discredit the traditional directive style of moral education associated with Aristotelian ethical theory and Judeo-Christian religion and practice. The directive style of education, denigrated as indoctrination, was cast aside in the second half of the twentieth century and discontinued as the progressive style became dominant. By the 1970s, character education had been effectively discredited and virtually abandoned in practice. What happens when educators celebrate children's creativity and innate goodness and abandon the ancestral responsibility to discipline, train, and civiHze them? Unfortunately we know the answer: we are just emerging from a thirty-year experiment with moral deregulation. The ascendancy of Rousseau as the philosopher of education and the eclipse of Aristotle have been bad for all children, but they have been especially bad for boys.

VALUE-FREE

KIDS

1970, T H E O D O R E S I Z E R , then dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, coedited with his wife, Nancy, a collection of ethics lectures entitled Moral Education.^'' The preface set the tone by condemning the morality of the "Christian gentleman," the American "prairie," The McGuffey Readers, and the hypocrisy of teachers who tolerate a grading system that is often the "terror of the young."'' The Sizers were especially critical of the "crude and philosophically simpleminded sermonizing tradition" of the nineteenth century. They referred to directive ethics education in all its guises as "the old morality" According to the Sizers, leading moralists agree that that kind of morality "can and should be scrapped."" The Sizers favored a "new morality" that gives primacy to students' autonomy and independence. Teachers should never preach or attempt to inculcate virtue; rather, through their actions, they should demonstrate a "fierce commitment" to social justice. In part, that means democratizing the classroom: "Teacher and children can learn about moraUty from each other"'**

IN

THE M O R A L LIFE OF BOYS

The Sizers preached a doctrine that was already being practiced in many schools throughout the country. Schools were scrapping the "old morality" in favor of alternatives that gave primacy to the children's moral autonomy. "Values clarification" was popular in the seventies. Proponents of values clarification consider it inappropriate for a teacher to encourage students, however subtly or indirectly, to adopt the values of the teacher or the community. The cardinal sin is to "impose" values on the student. Instead, the teacher's job is to help the students discover "their own values." In Readings in Values Clarification (1973), two of the leaders of the movement, Sidney Simon and Howard Kirschenbaum, explain what is wrong with traditional ethics education: "We call this approach 'moralizing,' although it has also been known as inculcation, i m position, indoctrination, and in its most extreme form, brainwashing."" Lawrence Kohlberg, a Harvard moral psychologist, developed cognitive moral development, a second favored approach. Kohlberg shared the Sizers' low opinion of traditional morality, referring disdainfully to the "old bags of virtues" that earlier educators had sought to inculcate.*" Kohlbergian teachers were more traditional than the proponents of values clarification. They sought to promote a Kantian awareness of duty and responsibility in students. They were also traditional in their opposition to the "moral relativism" that many progressive educators found congenial. A l l the same, they shared with other progressives a scorn for any form of top-down inculcation of moral principles. They too beheved in "student-centered teaching," in which the teacher acts less as a guide than as a "facihtator" of the student's development. Kohlberg himself would later change his mind and concede that his rejection of "indoctrinative" moral education had been a mistake.*' But his admirable recantation had little effect. In the final decades of the twentieth century, the traditional indoctrinative (directive) approach to moral education had fallen into desuetude in most pubhc schools and the negative views prevailed. Ironically, the next fashion in progressive pedagogy, studentcentered learning, was soon to leave the Kohlbergians and the values clarifiers far behind. The new buzzword was "self-esteem." By the late eighties, self-esteem education had become all the rage. Ethics was superseded by attention to the child's personal sense of well-being: the school's primary aim was to teach children to prize their rights and selfworth. In the old days, teachers would ask seventh-graders to write about

THE WAR AGAINST BOYS

"The Person I Admire Most." But in today's "child-centered curriculum," they ask children to write essays celebrating themselves. In one popular middle school English text, an assignment called "The Nobel Prize for Being You" informs students that they are "wonderful" and "amazing" and instructs them to "create two documents in connection with your Nobel Prize. Let the first document be a nomination letter written by the person who knows you best. Let the second be the script for your acceptance speech, which you will give at the annual award ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden."*' For extra credit, students can award themselves a trophy "that is especially designed for you and no one else." Throughout most of human history, children learned about virtue and honor by hearing or reading the inspiring stories of great men and women. By the 1990s, this practice, which many educators regarded as too directive, was giving way to practices that suggested to students that they were their own best guides in Ufe. This turn to the autonomous subject as the ultimate moral authority is a notable consequence of the triumph of the progressive style over traditional directive methods of education. It's hard to see how the flarvard theorists who urged teachers to jettison the "crude and philosophically simpleminded sermonizing tradition" of the nineteenth century can defend the crude egoism that has replaced it. Apart from the philosophical niceties, there are concrete behavioral consequences. The moral deregulation that the New England educators called for took hold in the very decades that saw a rise in conduct disorders among boys in the nation's schools. No doubt much, perhaps most, of this trend can be ascribed to the large social changes that weakened family and community. But some of the blame can be laid at the doors of the well-intentioned professors who helped undermine the schools' traditional mission of morally edifying their pupils. Few thinkers have written about individual autonomy with greater passion and good sense than the nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart M i l l . But M i l l makes it clear that he is talking about adults. "We are not speaking of children," he says in On Liberty. "Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience."*' M i l l could not foresee the advent of thinkers such as the Sizers and the values clarificationists, who would glibly recommend "scrapping" the old morality.

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

ROUSSEAU

IN THE

COURTS

I N R E C E N T D E C A D E S , the courts have done their share to erode teachers' and school officials' power to enforce traditional moral standards and discipline. In 1969, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Iowa school authorities had violated students' rights by denying them permission to wear protest armbands to school. Justice Abe Fortas, in the majority opinion, found the action of the school authorities unconstitutional: "It can hardly be argued that students shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." **

Justice Hugo Black dissented. Though a great champion of First Amendment rights, he pointed out that schoolchildren "need to learn, not teach." He wrote, presciently, "It is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the Judiciary.. . . Turned loose with lawsuits for damages and injunctions against their teachers . . . it is nothing but wishful thinking to imagine that young, immature students will not soon believe it is their right to control the schools."*' Abigail Thernstrom, a political scientist at the Manhattan Institute, cites Tinker as the beginning of the end of effective school discipline. She also sees it as an unfortunate example of Rousseauian romanticism in the courts. According to Thernstrom, "[Fortas's majority] opinion was a romantic celebration of conflict and permissiveness, even within the schoolhouse walls—as if the future of democratic government and American culture could be placed in jeopardy had the students been told to stage their demonstration elsewhere."*' In 1975, a second case that would further diminish the authority of school officials to correct student behavior reached the high court. In Goss V. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for schools to suspend students without due process. Justice Byron White, who wrote the majority opinion, strongly favored extending students' rights. Justice Lewis Powell opposed the ruling, fearing that it would ultimately be harmful to students. Thernstrom has aptly characterized the two opinions: "White had raised the specter of schools as institutions with potentially 'untrammeled power' Suspension—even for just one day—was a 'serious event' that deprived students of their right to an education. Jus-

196

T H EWAR AGAINST BOYS

T H E M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

tice Powell believed precisely the opposite; he assumed that suspension created the conditions under which children could learn." *' Justice White prevailed, and the judiciary thus joined the progressive educationists and many parents in holding that "students' rights" trump the traditional prerogative of teachers to require compHance with school discipline. The Goss ruling helped bring on the era of permissiveness that Justice Black had warned about. From the loftiest of progressive motives, the educational system was robbed of the ability to enforce its codes and rules. By the mid-1970s, we were on our way to becoming the first society in history to use high principle to weaken the moral authority of teachers. Soon, local officials throughout the county, such as Principal Maltman at Glen Ridge High and Mayor Titel of Lakewood, would be powerless in the face of delinquent students and litigious parents.

WHERE

THE REFORMERS

GO

WRONG

THE PURPOSE of moral education is not to preserve our children's autonomy but to develop the character they will rely on as adults. And as Aristotle clearly showed, children who have been helped to develop good moral habits will find it easier to become autonomous adults. Conversely, children who have been left to their own devices will founder. Those who oppose directive moral education often call it a form of brainwashing or indoctrination. That is sheer confusion. When you brainwash people, you undermine their autonomy, their rational selfmastery; you diminish their freedom. But when you educate children, teaching them to be competent, self-controlled, and morally responsible in their actions, you increase their freedom and enlarge their humanity. The Greeks and Romans understood this very well; so did the great Scholastic and Enlightenment thinkers. Indeed, this is a first principle of every great religion and high civilization. To know what is right and act on it is the highest expression of freedom and personal autonomy. What Victorians had in mind when they extolled the qualities of a "gentleman" are the virtues we need to inculcate in all our children: honesty, integrity, courage, decency, politeness. These are as important to the well-being of a young male today as they were in nineteenth-century

England. Even today, despite several decades of moral deregulation, most young men understand the term "gentleman" and approve of the ideals it connotes. To suggest that we place more emphasis on instilling a sense of responsibility and civility into children than on alerting them to their civil and personal rights under law may sound quaint, quixotic, or even reactionary. It is, however, practical and achievable. The fact is that despite appearances to the contrary, most children respond to and respect civility and good manners. If their own manners are wanting, it is because so Httle is expected (much less demanded) of them. Far from being oppressive, controlling, or constricting, the manners, instincts, and virtues we recognize in decent, considerate human beings—in the case of males, the manners, instincts, and virtues we associate with being a "gentleman"—are liberating. To educate, humanize, and civilize a boy is to allow him to make the most of himself. As for the community, manners and good morals benefit it far more than even the best of laws. When parents and teachers fail to instill the gentle qualities in a boy, they fall short in their duty both to him and to society. Some historians and philosophers have skeptically dismissed bourgeois manners and virtues as a means by which an aristocratic elite oppresses the middle and working classes. But that, as political scientist James Q. Wilson points out, is perversely wrong: "Bertrand Russell would . . . sneer that 'the concept of the gentleman was invented by the aristocracy to keep the middle classes in order,' but in truth the concept of the gentleman enabled the middle classes to supplant the aristocracy."*" The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb took up this theme in a remarkable book-length historical essay. The De-Moralization of Society; From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. "If, as some historians maintain, Victorians succeeded in 'bourgeoisifying' their ethos," writes H i m melfarb, to that extent they also democratized it. In attributing to everyone the same virtues—potentially at least, i f not in actuality—they assumed a common human nature and thus a moral. . . equality. Even the "gentlemanly" virtues—honesty, integrity, courage, politeness—were not above the capacity of

197

198

T H E M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

T H EWAR AGAINST BOYS

the ordinary person.... In an aristocratic age, only the exceptional, privileged individual had been seen as a free moral agent, the master of his fate.*'' i The great eighteenth-century conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke argued that in human affairs, a sense of the proprieties is even more important than fidelity to laws: "Manners are of more impor- i tance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there and now and then. Manners are what vex and soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us by a constant, steady uniform insensible operation. Like that of the air we breathe in."'° Common sense, convention, tradition, and even modern social science research" all converge in support of what I have been calling the Aristotelian tradition of directive character education. Children need standards, they need clear guidelines, they need adults in their lives who are understanding but firmly insistent on responsible behavior. But a resolute adherence to standards has been out of fashion i n education circles for more than thirty years. A n Aristotelian education is still a child's best bet. Unfortunately, our era is characterized by the ascendancy of Rousseau and a decided antipathy toward the directive inculcation of the virtues. It is no coincidence that the romantic turn in education has been accompanied by a marked decline i n the fortunes and prospects of boys i n our country.

Two

BADLY

SOCIALIZED

BOYS

1999, the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, shocked an uncomprehending nation by its cold brutality. It was the seventh school shooting in less than two years. This time, more than ever, the public's need to make sense of such tragedies was palpable. How could it happen? The usual explanations made little sense. Poverty? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not poor. Easy access to weapons ? True, but young men, especially in the West, have always had access to guns. Divorce? Both boys' families were intact. A nation of emotionally repressed boys? Boys were much the same back i n the 1950s and 1960s, when nobody shot up their schoolmates. And why American boys? IN

APRIL

Asking " W h y now?" and " W h y here?" puts us onto the track of what is missing in the American way of socializing children that was present in the recent past. To find the answers, we need to attend to the views of the progressive-education theorists who advocated abandoning the traditional mission of indoctrinating children in the "old morality." They succeeded in persuading the American educational establishment to adopt instead the romantic moral pedagogy of Rousseau. Teachers and parents who embraced this view badly underestimated the potential barbarism of children who are not given a directive moral education. That the romantic approach to moral education is harmful is becoming increasingly obvious to the public, but it will take some time for the educational establishment to change. One week after j the Colorado shootings. Secretary of Education Richard Riley talked to a group of students at a high school in Annapolis, Maryland. After the secretary rounded up the usual causes and reasons for the atrocity, a student asked him about one he had not mentioned: " W h y haven't students been offered ethics classes?" Secretary Riley seemed taken aback by the question. It is not likely that a single ethics course would have been enough to stop boys such as Harris and Klebold from murdering classmates. On the other hand, a K-12 curriculum infused with moral content would have created a climate that might have made a massacre unthinkable. For such a depraved and immoral act was indeed unthinkable in the "simpleminded" days before the schools cast aside their mission of moral edification. A n insistence on character development might also have diminished the derisive mistreatment suffered by the perpetrators at the hands of more popular students that apparently was one of the incitements for their gruesome actions. Teachers, too, would have acted differently. Had K-12 teachers in the Littleton schools seen it as their routine duty to civilize the students in their care, they would never have overlooked the bizarre, antisocial behavior of Klebold and Harris. When the boys appeared in school with T-shirts with the words "Serial Killer" emblazoned on them, their teachers would have sent them home. Nor would the boys have been allowed to wear swastikas or produce grotesquely violent videos. By tolerating these modes of "self-expression," the adults at Columbine High School implicitly sent the message to the students that there's not much wrong with the serial or mass murder of innocent people.

200

THE M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

T H E WAR AGAINST BOYS

One English teacher at Columbine, Cheryl Lucas, told Education Week that both boys had written short stories about death and killing "that were horribly, graphically, violent" and that she had notified school officials. According to Lucas, the officials had taken no action because nothing the boys wrote had violated school policy. Speaking with painful irony the frustrated teacher explained, " I n a free society, you can't take action until they've committed some horrific crime because they are guaranteed freedom of speech."" In many high schools, students are confident that their right to free expression will be protected. Counselors and administrators, fearful of challenges by litigious parents who would be backed by the ACLU and other zealous guardians of students' rights, rarely take action. The love affair of American education with Rousseau's romantic idealization of the child has made it all but inevitable that our public schools fail to do their part in civilizing young "barbarians." Most schools no longer see themselves having a primary role in moral edification. It has become the style not to interfere with the child's self-expression and autonomy. And that is where we find ourselves today. Many schools have entirely given up the task of character education, setting great numbers of American children adrift without direction. Under the current laissez-faire policy, our schools are harboring a great many inadequately socialized children. But leaving children to discover their own values is a Httle like putting them in a chemistry lab full of volatile substances and saying, "Discover your own compounds, kids." We should not be surprised when some blow themselves up and destroy those around them. Add to this the facts that guns are easily available and that violent electronic fantasies are on every TV screen and computer monitor, and the probability of violence becomes extraordinarily high. The harm wrought by psychopathology, media exposure to scenes of violence that glorify the perpetrators and desensitize the viewers to what the victims suffer, and easy access to guns is many times magnified in the morally permissive, laissez-faire environment that most schools today provide. Of course, parents bear responsibility for their children's moral education. But the schools set the tone and the standard; most parents take their cues from the schools, and those who t r y for higher standards are

undercut when the schools are indifferent. Moral edification has always been a primary mission of the nation's schools. The period since 1970 has been the historical exception. The schools' almost deHberate abandonment of their moral mission in the last thirty years has done incalculable harm. Today, educators no longer use the commonsense language of morality but speak instead of boys who have "conduct disorders." And we pay insufficient attention to the fact that the increase in conduct disorders (to which the American Psychiatric Association calls attention) has occurred in the decades since the schools abdicated their duty to morally edify the children in their care." That reckless disavowal is still the norm in America's public schools. But it can be reversed.

A WIND

OF

CHANGE

E V E N B E F O R E the spate of school shootings had made it evident that most of today's schools are morally ineffectual, there were voices calling for reform. In the early nineties, a hitherto silent majority of parents, teachers, and community activists began to agitate in favor of old-fashioned moral education. In July 1992, a group called the Character Counts Coalition (organized by the Josephson Institute of Ethics and made up of teachers, youth leaders, politicians, and ethicists) gathered in Aspen, Colorado, for a three-and-a-half-day conference on character education. A t the end of the conference, the group put forward the Aspen Declaration on Character Education. Among its principles:

• "The present and future well-being of our society requires an involved, caring citizenry with good moral character." • "Effective character education is based on core ethical values which form the foundation of democratic society—in particular, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, justice, fairness, civic virtue and citizenship." • "Character education is, first and foremost, an obligation of families: it is also an important obligation of faith communities, schools, youth and other human service organizations."'*

THE WARAGAINST

T H E M O R A L LIFE O F BOYS

BOYS

The Character Counts Coahtion has attracted a wide and pohtically diverse following. Its board of advisers includes liberals such as Marian Wright Edelman and conservatives such as William Bennett. Ten U.S. senators from both political parties have joined, along with a number of governors, mayors, and state representatives. The new character education movement is gaining impetus. Undoubtedly, the events in Littleton will bring further support. For some time now, schools throughout the country have been starting to find their way back to contemporary versions of directive moral education. Teachers, administrators, and parents are once again getting into the business of making it clear to students that they must behave honorably, courteously, and kindly, that they must work hard and strive for excellence. In some schools the whole curriculum is shaped by these imperatives. Individual schools are showing the way back. Fallon Park Elementary School i n Roanoke, Virginia, for example has seen a dramatic change in its students since the principal adopted the Character Counts program in 1998.'' Every morning the students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is followed by a pledge written by the students and teachers: "Each day in our words and actions we w i l l persevere to exhibit respect, caring, fairness, trustworthiness, responsibility and citizenship. These qualities will help us to be successful students who work and play well together." According to the principal, suspensions have decHned 60 percent, attendance and grades have improved, and—mirabile dictu—misbehavior on school buses has all but disappeared. The school's gym instructor, who has been there for twenty years, has noticed improvement. The kids are practicing good sportsmanship, and even school troublemakers seem to be changing for the better. She recently noticed one such boy encouraging a shy girl to join a game: " I t almost brought tears to my eyes . . . this is the best year ever i n this school." " Vera White, principal of Jefferson Junior High in Washington, D.C, 1 was stunned some years ago when she realized that children from her school had been part of an angry mob that had attacked police and firefighters with rocks and bottles: "Those are my children. I f they didn't care enough to respect the mayor and the fire marshal and everyone else, what good does an education do?" She decided to make character education central to the mission of her school. Students now attend assemblies that focus on positive traits such as respect and responsibility. Ms. White

initiated the program in 1992: since then theft and fighting have been rare. Unlike other schools in the area, Jefferson has no bars on its windows and no metal detectors." R Washington Jarvis, headmaster at the Roxbury Latin School in Boston and an Episcopal priest, has always emphasized character and discipline. But others are now joining him. Jarvis holds a harsh, nonRousseauian view of human nature: left untrained, he feels, we are "brutish, selfish, and capable of great cruelty." We must do our utmost to be decent and responsible, and we must demand this of our children and our students. Whenever they behave badly, says the headmaster, "We have to hold up a mirror to the students and say, 'This is who you are. Stop it.' "'« Contrast these schools with a typical school such as Littleton's Columbine High. We know that the Littleton killers had attended anger management seminars, had had weekly meetings with a "diversion" officer, had attended a Mothers Against Drunk Driving panel discussion, and had performed compulsory community service. But it seems they; had never encountered a Reverend Jarvis or a Principal White. After Littleton, many a barn door is being shut and padlocked. But a spokesperson for the Littleton School District had asked the right question, "Do you make a high school into an armed prison camp where there are metal detectors that make kids feel imprisoned, or do you count on people's basic goodness and put good rules in place?""

PROGRESSIVE

HOSTILITY

to reinstate directive moral education and "put good rules in place" is gathering momentum, it is being fiercely resisted in some quarters. Benjamin DeMott, Amherst professor emeritus, wrote a scathing piece for Harper's Magazine in 1994 jeering at the revived character education movement. Like Professor Puka, DeMott asks how we can hope to teach ethics in a society where CEOs award themselves large salaries "in the midst of the age of downsizing." Alfie Kohn, a popular education speaker and writer, wrote a long critical piece in the education magazine Phi Delta Kappan accusing character education programs of indoctrinating children, making them obedient workers in an unjust society where "the nation's wealth is concentrated i n ALTHOUGH

THE

MOVEMENT

204

T H EW A R AGAINST

BOYS

fewer and fewer hands."" He claims that reactionary values are already a powerful force in our nation's schools: "Children i n American schools are even expected to begin each day by reciting a loyalty oath to the Fatherland, although we call it by a different name."'' Kohn's comparison—Hkening the Pledge of Allegiance to a loyalty oath to Hitler's Reich—is a fair example of the mind-set one still finds among some progressives. Thomas Lasley, dean of the University of Dayton School of Education, another foe of the "old morality," denounces the "values juggernaut" for its hypocrisy: Teachers tell students to cooperate, but then they systematically rank students i n terms of their class performance. . . . Teachers tell students that respect is essential for social responsibility, but then they call on boys a majority of the time. . . . And finally students are informed that they should be critical thinkers, but then they are evaluated on where they think the same way their teachers do.''

SIGNS

OF

RENEWAL

W O O D L A N D PARK M I D D L E SCHOOL is a public junior high in a poor area

outside of San Diego. It offers a moral education program of a kind romantic critics such as DeMott, Kohn, and Lasley find unacceptably retrograde. Each morning children can attend a fifteen-minute class on "How to Be Successful." It's a course on what Aristotle called the practical virtues. The kids learn the "Eleven Bs," which include: Be responsible. Be on time. Be friendly. Be polite. Be a listener. Be a tough worker. Be a goal setter. And so on. Children are taught all about the work ethic and how to integrate i t into their lives. The program was developed by a California-based group called the Jefferson Center for Character Education. A n independent study by California Survey Research measured the impact of the program on twentyfive schools. In the schools that had implemented the program, the number of students who were tardy or sent to the office for minor disciplinary problems had declined by 39 percent. Serious disciplinary prob-

T H E M O R A L LIFE O FBOYS

lems (fighting, coming to school with weapons) had decreased by 25 percent.'* One math teacher, Jerry Harrington, who has been teaching "How to Be Successful" for many years, ran into one of his students a few years ago. Writer Tim Stafford described the encounter i n Christianity Today.''^ The student, Philip (by then in high school), was bagging groceries, and M n Harrington asked him how he had gotten his job. Philip said he had gotten i t by applying what he had learned i n the class. First, he had set a goal: " I knew I needed to earn $600 in the summer because my mother could not afford to buy my school clothes and school supplies." Adhering closely to the method taught in the course, Philip had then broken his goal down into small parts. Next he had taken what are called "action steps." Step one: He had listed twenty businesses that were within walking or biking distance of his house. Step two: He had gone to each one to apply for a job. A t the seventeenth one, the grocery store, he had been hired. Two years later, Mr. Harrington met Philip's older brother, who told him that Philip was still working. And the older brother told him, "You saved my life too." He explained that their mother was an alcoholic who had had a series of boyfriends. Their home life was chaotic. Philip had told his brother about what he had learned in his " How to Be Successful" class. Now both brothers were putting their lives together There are millions of American boys who could greatly benefit from courses like Harrington's, and not just poor and neglected boys either Of course, girls need directive moral education as well. But when we consider that boys are so much more likely to fail at school, to become disengaged, to get into trouble, and generally to lose their way, it is reasonable to conclude that boys need it more. Jerry Harrington has been teaching for almost thirty years. I spoke with him in the fall of 1999. He told me that, on average, middle school boys are less mature than the girls: "The boys have difficulties at the level of basic organization: being responsible for their backpacks, their homework." Most of the girls understand the idea of personal responsibility and are ready to move on to the idea of being responsible for others. At Harrington's school, it is girls who are active in school events and who hold the leadership positions in student government. The male students are preoccupied with skateboarding, surfing, and in-line skating—

205

206

T H EWAR AGAINST BOYS

activities with few rules, little structure, no responsibilities. When he asks boys about their long-term goals, a high number of them confidently assert that they plan to become sports stars. But when he inquires about what steps they are taking to realize even that unrealistic goal, he finds that they have a very poor understanding of the relationship of means to ends. Harrington has two daughters and assures me that "girls are very dear to my heart." But, he says, no one seems to be focused on boys: "Every time I turn around, i f there is an event or program where someone is going to be lifted up and encouraged, it's for girls." Harrington is unusual in recognizing and talking about boys and their insufficiencies. He is doing what he can to help them, but in too many schools the moral needs of boys are disregarded and unmet.'*' What real-world help do the DeMotts, Kohns, Lasleys, and Pukas have to offer boys such as Philip and his brother? What do they propose that the schools do about boys with serious character disorders, such as Lyle and Kevin Scherzer and Chris Archer, the Glen Ridge ringleaders, the Lakewood boys, or the Littleton killers? How would Philip and his brother have fared under the latter-day romantic permissive philosophy of these progressive educators? Lacking guidance and discipline, and ignorant of their moral heritage, many American public school children are ill prepared for real life, confused about how to manage their personal lives, and ethically challenged. Some, indeed, are lethally dangerous. It is by now apparent that such fashionable replacements for directive moral guidance as values clarification, self-esteem programs, anger management, workshops on gender justice, and therapylike exercises designed to put students in touch with their inner nurturers have been shortchanging our schoolchildren all along. Indeed, with the growing realization that the old directive/indoctrinative approach works best in coping with the "perennial invasions of barbarians," schools that openly embrace the mission of moral education are beginning to proliferate. For the time being, however, the character education movement is no more than incipient. Rousseau still reigns i n our schools of education and in philosophies of many parents, teachers, and judges. And as long as a Rousseauian philosophy of ethical romanticism is allowed to shape American education, the nation's children, and especially its boys, will continue to be deprived. In the war against moral standards, it is boys who sustain most of the casualties.

CHAPTER

NINE

WAR

AIMD PEAOE

THERE HAVE ALWAYS been societies that favored boys over girls. Ours may be the first to deliberately throw the gender switch. If we continue on our present course, boys will, indeed, be tomorrow's second sex. The new preeminence of girls is gratifying to those who believe that, even now, many girls are silenced and diminished. A t long last, it is boys who are learning what i t is like to be "the other sex." Recall Peggy Orenstein's approval of a women-centered classroom, whose walls were filled with pictures and celebrations of women, with men conspicuously absent: "Perhaps for the first time, the boys are the ones looking in through the window."' But reversing the positions of the sexes in an unfair system should no one's idea of justice. A lopsided educational system i n which boys (finally!) are on the outside looking i n is inherently unjust and socially divisive. The public has given no one a mandate to pursue a policy of privileging girls. Nor is anyone (outside exotic feminist circles) demanding that boys be taught in a feminizing manner Few parents share Gloria Steinem's belief that boys should be raised like girls. If organizations and institutions such as the American Association of University Women, the Wellesley Center for Research on Women, the

208

T H EW A R AGAINST BOYS

Harvard Project on Women's Psychology, the McLean Center for Men, the Boys' Project at Tufts University, and the U.S. Department of Education's WEEA Equity Resource Center continue to shape "gender policy" for our schools, the gap that now severely disadvantages boys will become a chasm. And the efforts to "reconstruct" boys—to interest them in dolls, in quilts, in noncompetitive games "where no one is out"—will continue apace.

THE

GREAT

RELEARNING

R E C E N T L Y , for reasons that have little to do with the educational gender gap, Americans have begun to take a hard look at boys. This is actually auspicious, for the public has a lot to learn about how our educational system has been routinely failing boys, both academically and morally. Indeed, with respect to boys, we may now be entering a period that might be called "The Great Relearning." I borrow the phrase from the novelist Tom Wolfe, who first applied it to lessons learned i n the late 1960s by a group of hippies living i n the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. What happened to Wolfe's iconoclastic hippies is instructive. The Haight-Ashbury hippies had collectively decided that hygiene was a middle-class hang-up. So they determined to Hve without it. For example, baths and showers, while not actually banned, were frowned upon as retrograde. Wolfe was intrigued by these hippies who, he said, "sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start out at zero."' After a while their principled aversion to modern hygiene had consequences that were as unpleasant as they were unforeseen. Wolfe describes them thus: "At the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic there were doctors who were treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot."' The itching and the manginess eventually began to vex the hippies, leading them i n dividually to seek help from the local free clinics. Step by step, they had to rediscover for themselves the rudiments of modern hygiene. That rueful process of rediscovery is Wolfe's Great Relearning. A Great Relearning is what has to happen whenever reformers go too far—

WAR

A N D PEACE

whenever, in order to start over "from zero," they jettison basic values, well-proven social practices, and plain common sense. Wolfe's story is both true and amusing. We are, however, familiar with more consequential, less amusing twentieth century experiments with rebuilding humankind from zero: Marxism-Leninism, fascism. Maoism. Each had its share of zealots and social engineers who believed in the plasticity of human nature and their own recipes for improving it. Among the unforeseen consequences of these experiments were mass suffering and genocide on an unprecedented scale. Today, eastern Europeans are in the midst of their own Great Relearning. They have been painfully finding out the extent of the damage wrought by the zealots and of the rebuilding that needs to be done. America too has had its share of revolutionary developments—not so much political as moral. We have jettisoned a lot of the mores and morals of past generations in the hope that, starting from zero, we would arrive at a society that is more just and free. The new amorality is most dramatically seen in our children. By recklessly denying the importance of giving the young directive moral guidance, parents and educators have cast great numbers of them morally adrift. In defecting from the crucial duties of moral education, we have placed ourselves and our children in jeopardy. In some ways, we are as down and out as those poor hippies who finally found themselves knocking at the door of the free clinic. Now we too face the need for a Great Relearning. As part of this social and moral deregulation and i n the name of an egalitarian ideal, we have denied the plain facts about males and females, laying down the principle that boys and girls are the same and that such differences as we find are the result of social conditioning i m posed by a patriarchal male culture intent on subjugating women. We must now relearn what previous generations never doubted: that boys and girls are different in ways that go far beyond the obvious biological differences. A recent book. Between Mothers and Sons, offers a poignant glimpse of several mothers rediscovering the nature of boys.* Most of the contributors to this collection of mother-son reflections are selfdescribed feminists, and one might expect the book to be full of advice to , mothers on how to cope with their sons' perverse maleness. Instead, it is a compilation of wistful insights into the "soul of boys" as the mothers

209

210

THEWAR AGAINST

BOYS

WAR A N D PEACE

call into question cherished prejudices they had held about boys that turned out not to square with their own experience as mothers. Some of the mothers confess to having tried to educate their sons in conformity with feminist precepts, stopping only when it became evident that they were coercing their sons to act against their natures. In these accounts. Mother Nature, not Social Construction, gets the last word. These are stories about how a fashionable ideology is swept away by the powerful love that mothers—including committed feminist mothers—bear for their sons.

be aware of my own contradictions in his presence: a feminist often charmed by his machismo."' Galyan and Burroway discarded some common anti-male prejudices when they discovered that boys have their own distinctive graces and virtues. The love and respect they shared with their sons left them chastened, wiser, and free of the fashionable resentments that many women harbor toward males. A l l the same, such stories are sobering. They remind us of the strong disapproval with which many women initially approach boys.

Deborah Galyan, a short-story writer and essayist, describes what happened when she sent her son Dylan to a Montessori preschool "run by a goddess-worshiping, multiracial women's collective on Cape Cod":'

Mary Gordon, perhaps the most orthodox feminist in this instructive anthology, is another mother with a disarming son. On one occasion, her David defends his older sister from a bully. " I thought it was really nice of him to stand up for me," said the sister. For a moment, the mother is also moved by David's gallantry "But after a minute, I didn't want to buy the idea that a woman needs a man to stand up for her" Gordon says that this incident "expressed for me the complexities of being a feminist mother of a son."

[S]omething about it did not honor his boy soul. I think it was the absence of physical competition. Boys who clashed or tussled with each other were separated and counseled by the peacemaker. Sticks were confiscated and turned into tomato stakes in the school garden. . . . It finally came to me . . . I had sent him there to protect him from the very circuitry and compulsions and desires that make him what he is. I had sent him there to protect him from himself.' Galyan then posed painful questions to which she found a liberating answer: "How could I be a good feminist, a good pacifist, and a good mother to a stick-wielding, weapon-generating boy?" And "What exactly is a five-year-old boy?" "A five-year-old boy, I learned from reading summaries of various neurological studies . . . is a beautiful, fierce, testosterone-drenched, cerebrally asymmetrical humanoid carefully engineered to move objects through space, or at very least, to watch others do so."' Janet Burroway, a poet, noveHst, and self-described pacifist-liberal, has a son, Tim, who grew up to become a career soldier. She is not sure how exactly he came to move in a direction opposite to her own. She recalls his abiding fascination with plastic planes, toy soldiers, and military history, noting that "his direction was early set."" Tim takes her aback in many ways, but she is clearly proud of him: throughout his childhood she was struck by his "chivalric character": "He would, literally, lay down his life for a cause or a friend." And she confesses, " I am forced to

Gordon realizes that she cannot be fair to her son unless she overcomes her prejudices: "Would I take my generalized anger against male privilege out on this little child who was dependent upon me for his survival, physical to be sure, but mental as well?" Nevertheless, Gordon remains torn between her principled animosity against "the male" and her maternal love: "We can't afford wholesale male-bashing, nor can we afford to see the male as the permanently unreconstructable gender Nor can we pretend that things are right as they are We must love them as they are, often without knowing what it is that's made them that way"" Gordon still firmly beHeves that males need to be "reconstructed." In saying "We can't afford wholesale male-bashing," she implies that a certain amount of bashing is all right. It does not seem to occur to her that her "generalized anger" is something she should be trying to get rid of "wholesale." A n unacknowledged animus against boys is loose in our society. The women who design events such as Son's Day, who write antiharassment guides, who gather in workshops to determine how to change boys' "gender schema" barely disguise their anger and disapproval. Others, who bear no malice to boys, nevertheless do not credit them with sanity and health, for they regard the average boy as alienated, lonely.

212

T H EWAR AGAINST

BOYS

emotionally repressed, isolated, at odds with his mascuhnity, and prone to violence. These "save-the-male" critics of boys start out by giving boys a failing grade. They join the girl partisans in calling for radical change i n the way American males are socialized: only by raising boys to be more like girls can we help them become "real boys." In our schools, therapeutic practices have effectively supplanted the moral education of yesteryear. Ironically, those who pressed for discarding the old directive moral education did so i n the name of freedom, for they sincerely believed that moral education "indoctrinated" children and "imposed" a teacher's values on them, something they thought the schools had no right to do. In fact, the "therapism" that took the place of the old morality is far more invasive of the child's privacy and far more insidious in its effects on the child's autonomy than the directive moral education that was once the norm i n every school. It is also unfortunate that so many popular writers and education reformers think i l l of American boys. The worst-case sociopathic males—gang rapists, mass murderers—become instant metaphors for everyone's sons. The vast numbers of decent and honorable young men, on the other hand, never inspire disquisitions on the inner nature of the boy next door The false and corrosive doctrine that equates masculinity with violence has found its way into the mainstream. We are at the tail end of an extraordinary period of moral deregulation that is leaving many tens of thousands of our boys academically deficient and without adequate guidance. Too many American boys are foundering, unprepared for the demands of family and work. Many have only a vague sense of right and wrong. Many are still being taught by Rousseauian romantics, which is to say that they are badly taught and left to "find their own values." We have created serious problems for ourselves by abandoning our duty to pass on to our children the moral truths to which they are entitled and failing to give them the guidance they so badly need. We have further allowed socially divisive activists, many of whom take a dim view of men and boys, to wield unwarranted influence in our schools. And because we have allowed ourselves to forget the central purpose of education, we have become overloaded with well-intentioned teachers who undervalue knowledge and learning and overvalue their role as healers, social reformers, and confidence builders. As part of our Great Relearning, we must again recognize and re-

WAR

AND

PEACE

spect the reality that boys and girls are different, that each sex has its distinctive strengths and graces. We must put an end to all the crisis mongering that pathologizes children: we must be less credulous when sensationalistic "experts" talk of girls as drowning Ophelias or of boys as anxious, isolated Hamlets. Neither sex needs to be "revived" or "rescued"; neither needs to be "regendered." Instead of doing things that do not need doing and should not be done, we must dedicate ourselves to the hard tasks that are both necessary and possible: improving the moral climate in our schools and providing our children with first-rate schooling that equips them for the good life in the new century. We have created a lot of problems, both for ourselves and for our children. Now we must resolutely set about solving them. I am confident we can do that. American boys, whose very masculinity turns out to be politically incorrect, badly need our support. If you are an optimist, as I am, you beheve that good sense and fair play will prevail. I f you are a mother of sons, as I am, you know that one of the more agreeable facts of life is that boys will be boys.

N O T E S

PREFACE 1. S a r a h Glazer, " B o y s ' E m o t i o n a l Needs: Is G r o w i n g U p T o u g h e r for B o y s T h a n for G i r l s ? , " Congressional

Quarterly

Researcher,

June 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 521.

2. Ibid., p. 523. See also M i c h a e l K i m m e l , professor of sociology at the State U n i v e r s i t y of N e w York, S t o n y Brook, w h o explains that the L i t t l e t o n shooters were "not deviants at a l l " but "over-conformists . . . to traditional notions of m a s c u l i n i t y " gressional

Quarterly

Researcher,

3. A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , The AAUW Shortchange

Girls

(Con-

June 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 ) . Report: How

Schools

{ W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n ,

1992). 4. M s . F o u n d a t i o n for W o m e n , " S y n o p s i s of R e s e a r c h o n G i r l s " ( N e w York: M s . F o u n d a t i o n , 1995), p. 2. 5. F o r data on b o y s ' reading deficit a n d lesser c o m m i t m e n t to school, see U . S . D e 'partment of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

of Education

(Washington, D . C : U.S. Department

of E d u c a t i o n , 1995), pp. 1 3 - 1 4 . See also M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , The American

Teacher 1997: Examining

Gender Issues in Public Schools ( N e w Y o r k : M e t r o -

politan Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , 1997); a n d S e a r c h Institute, Starting opmental Assets

Out Right:

Devel-

( M i n n e a p o l i s : S e a r c h Institute, 1997). For data o n college e n r o l l m e n t s ,

see D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, "Fall E n r o l l m e n t s -in Colleges a n d U n i v e r s i t i e s , " A u g u s t 1998. See also T a m a r L e w i n , " U . S . Colleges B e g i n to A s k : ' W h e r e H a v e the M e n G o n e ? , ' " New York Times, D e c e m b e r 6 , 1 9 9 8 , p. A l ; a n d B e n G o s e , " L i b e r a l - A r t s Colleges A s k : W h e r e H a v e the M e n G o n e ? , " Chronicle Higher Education,

of

June 6 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 23.

6. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t : A P u z .zle. S o m e Evidence, a n d a T h e o r y , " i n Development

and Vulnerability

in Close

Relation-

Aips, ed. G i l N o a m a n d K u r t F i s c h e r ( M a h w a h , N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1996), p. 2 5 1 . 7. D e b r a V i a d e r o , " B e h i n d the M a s k of M a s c u l i n i t y , " Education 1998, p. 37.

Week, M a y 13,

216

NOTES

NOTES

8. Q u o t a t i o n is f r o m a n a n n o u n c e m e n t sent o u t b y t h e B o y s ' Project at Tufts, Fall 1999. 9. See, for example, D a v i d H u g h e s , " B o y s C a t c h i n g U p w i t h G i r l s T h a n k s to L i t e r acy H o u r , " Daily Mail ( L o n d o n ) , O c t o b e r 6 , 1 9 9 9 . See also L i z Lightfoot, " B o y s A r e L e f t ' B e h i n d b y M o d e r n T e a c h i n g , " Daily Telegraph,

J a n u a r y 9, 1998; a n d C h a r l o t t e Eagar,

"Teaching B o y s Better," Daily Telegraph, M a y 2 4 , 1 9 9 7 . 10. Estelle M o r r i s , M P , " B o y s W i l l Be B o y s ? : C l o s i n g the G e n d e r G a p " ( L o n d o n : L a b o u r Party, N o v e m b e r 1996), p. 10.

1. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , "Prologue," i n Making Girls

at Emma

Willard

School,

Women

( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n & Schuster, 1994; Touchstone, 1995), pp.

17. A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , 1992), p. 84. 18. M i l l i c e n t L a w t o n , " A A U W B u i l d s o n H i s t o r y , " Education 1994, p. 17.

Week, S e p t e m b e r 28,

19. S u s a n C h i r a , "Bias A g a i n s t G i r l s Is F o u n d Rife in Schools, w i t h L a s t i n g D a m ages," New York Times, F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 1 9 9 2 , p. 1. 20. T a m a r L e w i n , " H o w B o y s L o s t O u t to G i r l Power," New York Times,

O N E : Where the Boys Are Adolescent

Have Betrayed 136-50.

December

1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , sec. 4, p. 1. See also Judith K l e i n f e l d , "Student Performance: M a l e s V e r s u s F e -

Connections:

The Relational

Worlds

of

ed. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , N o n a L y o n s , a n d T r u d y

H a n m e r ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990), p. 4. 2. A n n a Q u i n d l e n , " V i e w i n g Society's S i n s T h r o u g h the E y e s of a Daughter,"

males," The Public Interest.

W i n t e r 1999, pp. 3 - 2 0 .

21. A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , AAUW Shortchange Girls ( E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ) , p. 2.

Report:

How

22. A m y S a l t z m a n , "Schooled i n F a i l u r e ? , " U . S . News & World Report,

Schools

November

7 , 1 9 9 4 , p. 90. Psychologist Judith K l e i n f e l d h a d a s i m i l a r experience w h e n she attempted

Chicago Tribune, J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 1 , p. 19.

to locate the S a d k e r call-out study. K l e i n f e l d asked, " I s it possible for a s t u d y s i m p l y to

3. E l i z a b e t h G l e i c k , " S u r v i v i n g Y o u r Teens," Time, F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 7 3 . 4. C a r o l y n See, " F o r G i r l s H a r d e s t L e s s o n of A l l , " Washington

Post Book World, i

disappear into t h i n a i r ? A p p a r e n t l y it is: w h e n I telephoned D a v i d Sadker, to ask h i m for a copy of the research, he could not locate one." ( I n Judith K l e i n f e l d , "Student Perfor- ,

September 2 , 1 9 9 4 , p. D 3 . 5. M y r a a n d D a v i d Sadker, Failing

at Fairness: How America's

Schools Cheat

Girls

mance: M a l e s V e r s u s Females," p. 14.)

.

23. See, for example, P. W . H i l l , P. S m i t h - H o m e s , a n d K . J. R o w e , School and Teacher ( N e w Y o r k : Scribners, 1994), pp. 7 7 - 7 8 . 6. M a r y Pipher, Reviving

Ophelia:

Effectiveness Saving

the Selves

of Adolescent

Girls

(New

of

Mental

Y o r k : P u t n a m , 1994), p. 19. and Statistical

Manual

4 t h ed. ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1994), p. 3 4 7 .

A c c o r d i n g to DSM-IV,

the "lifetime prevalence of D y s t h y m i c D i s o r d e r is a p p r o x i m a t e l y

8. A n n e C . Petersen et al., "Depression i n Adolescence," American

Psychologist

48,

9. D a n i e l O f f e r a n d K i m b e r l y A . S c h o n e r t - R e i c h l , " D e b u n k i n g the M y t h s of A d o lescence: F i n d i n g s f r o m R e c e n t R e s e a r c h , " Journal

of the American

Academy

Responses

of Child

from

the Nation's

High

School

Seniors,

the

Future:

1989 ( A n n Arbor,

M i c h . : S u r v e y R e s e a r c h Center, U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1992), p. 3 2 . 11. Pipher, Reviving

Ophelia, p. 27.

12. National

Mortality

Injury

Statistics

C o n t r o l a n d P r e v e n t i o n , 1997). S e e also

24. S a d k e r a n d Sadker, Failing Shortchange

1979-1996

( A t l a n t a : C e n t e r s for D i s e a s e

1988. T h e most recent C D C data s h o w that i n 1997, 74 girls aged five to fourteen k i l l e d themselves; for boys, the n u m b e r w a s 233. Daughter

Revo-

to Power (Reading, Mass.: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y , 1993), p. 9.

Girls, a g r o u n d b r e a k i n g report of gender bias i n A m e r i c a ' s schools,

w i l l be addressed d u r i n g the education r e f o r m discussion." See also A n n e B r y a n t , " E d u c a tion for G i r l s S h o u l d Be Topic A i n B e i j i n g , " Houston

A u g u s t 31, 1995; a n d

26. C i n d y K r a n t z , " F e b r u a r y Is S e l f - E s t e e m M o n t h , " Cincinnati 30,1997, p . B l .

Enquirer, J a n u a r y

27. See, for example, U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

L a r r y Hedges a n d A m y N o w e l , "Sex Differences i n M e n t a l Test Scores, Variability, a n d That Schools

Shortchange

in America's

Homes

der Differences i n S e l f - E s t e e m : A M e t a - A n a l y s i s , " Psychological (1999), pp. 4 7 0 - 5 0 0 ; K i r k Johnson, " S e l f - i m a g e

Bulletin

1 2 5 , no. 4

Is S u f f e r i n g f r o m Lack of E s t e e m , "

New York Times, M a y 5 , 1 9 9 8 , p. F 7 . S e e also m y Who Stole Feminism?:

How

Women

Social Science in the Service

Youth: 1998-1999

of

Deception

(Alexandria, Va.: Horatio A l g e r Association,

1999); M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , The American Issues

in Public Schools

Teacher, 1997:

Examining

( N e w Y o r k : M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y ,

1997); a n d S e a r c h Institute, Starting

of Indulgence

Girls:

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : W o m e n ' s F r e e d o m N e t w o r k , 1999); H o r a t i o A l g e r A s s o c i a t i o n , The

S e a r c h Institute, 1997).

Culture

Education

N u m b e r s of H i g h - S c o r i n g Individuals," Science, J u l y 7 , 1 9 9 5 , pp. 4 1 ^ 5 ; Judith K l e i n f e l d ,

16. F o r other criticisms of the alleged self-esteem crisis, see W i l l i a m D a m o n , ( N e w Y o r k : Free Press, 1995), p. 74. See also K r i s t e n C . K l i n g , et al., " G e n -

of

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1998), pp. 68, 70, 90, 206, 238, 262;

15. B r u c e Bower, "Teenage T u r n i n g Point," Science News, M a r c h 2 3 , 1 9 9 1 , p. 184. the

Chronicle,

M a r i e W i l s o n , "Do W e N e e d a G l o b a l A g e n d a for W o m e n ?: O p e n i n g U p a W o r l d of P o s s i -

Gender

S t u d y Finds," New York Time, J a n u a r y 9 , 1 9 9 1 , p. B 6 .

Overcoming

( S e p t e m b e r 1, 1995). " O v e r a

b r i n g its concerns about access to education for w o m e n a n d g i r l s to the table. . . . How

State of Our Nation's

14. S u z a n n e Daley, "Little G i r l s L o s e T h e i r S e l f - E s t e e m on W a y to Adolescence,

Expectations:

Schools

h u n d r e d A A U W m e m b e r s are m e e t i n g i n B e i j i n g a n d H a u i r o u at the U N C o n f e r e n c e , [to]

The Myth

13. E l i z a b e t h Debold, M a r i e W i l s o n , a n d Idelisse M a l a v e , Mother

and Schools

Report: How

Girls to be translated into F r e n c h , S p a n i s h , a n d C h i n e s e a n d made available

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/us8179/Suic.

children aged t e n to fourteen y e a r s rose b y 5 7 percent, n o t 7 5 percent, b e t w e e n 1 9 7 9 a n d

Greater

at Fairness, p. 279.

bilities for O u r D a u g h t e r s to C o n q u e r , " Chicago Tribune, A u g u s t 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 , p. 17.

Pipher's n u m b e r s are i n fact s l i g h t l y off: the C D C reports that the suicide rate a m o n g all

lution: From Betrayal

Schools

tentiveness has a m a s s i v e effect o n student a c h i e v e m e n t " (p. 28) a n d (2) girls are m o r e

Schools Shortchange

31, no. 6 ( N o v e m b e r 1992), pp. 1 0 0 3 - 1 4 .

10. L l o y d Johnston, Jerald B a c h m a n , a n d Patrick O ' M a l l e y , Monitoring Questionnaire

Quality

attentive t h a n b o y s (pp. 18, 2 8 ) .

to U N conference delegates. A c c o r d i n g to PR Newswire

no. 2 ( F e b r u a r y 1993), p. 1 5 5 .

Psychiatry

Phase I of the Victoria

25. A F o r d F o u n d a t i o n g r a n t m a d e it possible for the AAUW

6 percent. T h e point prevalence is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 percent."

and Adolescent

in Victoria: Key Findings from

Project ( M e l b o u r n e : C e n t e r for A p p l i e d E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1993). U n i v e r s i t y of M e l bourne researchers studied 1 4 , 0 0 0 students; a m o n g their k e y findings w e r e that (1) "at-

7. A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c Association, Diagnostic Disorders,

217

Out Right: Developmental

Assets

(Minneapolis:

28. See C a r o l D w y e r a n d L i n d a Johnson, " G r a d e s , A c c o m p l i s h m e n t s , a n d C o r r e lates," i n Gender and Fair Assessment, ed. W a r r e n W i l h n g h a m a n d N a n c y C o l e ( M a h w a h , N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1997), pp. 1 2 7 - 5 6 .

218

NOTES

NOTES

29. H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute,

The

American

Freshman:

National

45. M a r v i n Kosters, Wage Levels and Inequality:

Measuring

and Interpreting

Norms for Fall 1998 { L o s A n g e l e s : H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute, U n i v e r s i t y of

Trends ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n E n t e r p r i s e Institute, 1998), p. 38.

C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s , 1998), pp. 36, 54.

46. D a v i d Sadker, " W h e r e the G i r l s A r e , " Education p. 49.

30. H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute, The American

Freshman:

Twenty-five-

Year Trends ( L o s A n g e l e s : H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , L o s Angeles, 1991), p. 51. See also H o r a t i o A l g e r A s s o c i a t i o n , State of Our Youth: 1998-1999,

Nation's

p.22.

31. H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute,

The

American

Freshman:

Natwnal

Norms for Fall 1998, pp. 39, 57.

Week, S e p t e m b e r 4, 1996,

47. O n the 1998 S A T , g i r l s ' average m a t h score w a s 496, v e r b a l score 502; boys' a v erage m a t h score w a s 531, verbal score 5 0 9 (test takers 674,415 female, 579,235 male) {http://www.collegeboard.org). 48.

College

Bound

Seniors:

1992 Profile

of SAT

and Achievement

Test

Takers

(Princeton, N . J . : E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g Service, 1992), p. i v See also " I n t r o d u c t i o n to the 1998 C o l l e g e - B o u n d Seniors, a Profile of S A T P r o g r a m Test T a k e r s " { h t t p : / / w w w . c o l -

32. N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, NAEP

1997 Arts Report Card ( W a s h -

ington, D . C : N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, 1998).

legeboard.org/sat/cbsenior/yrl998/nat/intrcb98); Gender and Fair Assessment

33. O f students s t u d y i n g abroad, 65 percent are female, 3 5 percent male; see chart " S t u d y A b r o a d b y U . S . Students, 1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 7 , " Chronicle

of Higher Education,

December

ll,1998,p.A71.

and Willingham and Nancy

http://www.peacecorps.gov.

Cole,

( M a h w a h , N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1997).

4 9 . P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n N e t w o r k , "Gender, Race, a n d S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t " (occas i o n a l paper) ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : P u b h c E d u c a t i o n N e w o r k 1997), p. 15. 50. Office of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h a n d I m p r o v e m e n t , The Condition

34. F i f t y - s e v e n percent are female, 4 3 percent male: see "Peace C o r p s : G e n e r a l Facts" W e b site:

the

of

Education

1998 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1998), pp. 6 8 - 7 4 . 51. I n 1973, s e v e n t e e n - y e a r - o l d girls w e r e 16 points b e h i n d b o y s i n science a n d 8

35. F o r s u s p e n s i o n rates, see U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

of Edu-

cation 1997 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1997), p. 158. F o r data on repeating grades, see U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

of Education

points b e h i n d i n m a t h ; b y 1996, the gap h a d n a r r o w e d to 8 points for science a n d 5 points for m a t h . I n 1971, boys w e r e 12 points b e h i n d girls i n reading. B y 1996, the gap h a d i n -

1995

creased to 15 points. I n 1984 (the first y e a r for w h i c h there are records) eleventh-grade

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1995), p. 13. F o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n

b o y s w e r e 18 points b e h i n d the girls i n w r i t i n g ; b y 1996, the w r i t i n g gap favoring girls

dropouts, U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , Digest of Education

h a d not c h a n g e d — 1 8 points. Source: N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, Report

Statistics

1995 ( W a s h i n g -

ton, D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1995), p. 4 0 9 .

Brief: NAEP

36. F o r data o n special education, see U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The of Education

Condition

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1994), p. 304. For i n f o r -

m a t i o n o n A D H D , see A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , Diagnostic ual of Mental

Disorders,

and Statistical

Man-

vol. 4 (Washington, D . C : A m e r i c a n Psychiatric Association,

1994), p. 82. A c c o r d i n g to DSM-IV, females, w i t h male-to-female

" T h e disorder is m u c h m o r e frequent i n males t h a n i n

ratio r a n g i n g f r o m 4:1 to 9:1, depending o n the setting."

37. For statistics on alcohol a n d drugs, see " N a t i o n a l S u r v e y R e s u l t s o n D r u g Use," i n N a t i o n a l Institute o n D r u g A b u s e , Monitoring Secondary

School Students

the Future Study, 1975-1995,

v o l . 1,

(Rockville, M d . : N a t i o n a l Institute o n D r u g A b u s e , 1996),

p. 20. See also U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

of Education

(Washington,

D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1997), p. 300, Table 4 7 - 3 , " S u p p l e m e n t a r y Tables." For c r i m e statistics, see U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, Female Justice

System:

Statistics

Summary

Offenders

in the

Juvenile

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Justice,

1996), p. 3.

1996 Trends in Academic

Education, 1998), pp. 2 0 - 2 1 . 52. L a r r y Hedges a n d A m y N o w e l l , "Sex Differences i n M e n t a l Test Scores, V a r i ability, a n d N u m b e r s of H i g h - S c o r i n g I n d i v i d u a l s , " Science, J u l y 7 , 1 9 9 5 , pp 4 1 ^ 5 53. Ibid., p. 4 5 . 54. V a l e r i e Lee, X i a n g l e i C h e n , a n d B e c k y S m e r d o n , The Influence mate on Gender Differences

in the Achievement

and Engagement

Vital Statistics

Reports:

Deaths:

Final Data for 1997 ( H y a t t s v i l l e , M d . : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h a n d H u m a n Services, 1999), pp. 2 8 - 2 9 . 39. A u t h o r ' s i n t e r v i e w w i t h A a r o n W a t s o n at P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n N e t w o r k C o n f e r ence, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , N o v e m b e r 9 , 1 9 9 7 .

55. Ibid., p. 32. 56. Ibid., pp. 3 2 , 4 4 . 57. Ibid., p. 34. 58. G a b r i e l l e Lange, " A A U W Responds to the M e d i a : T h e G e n d e r Bias Debate," AAUW Outlook, S p r i n g 1997, p. 14. ing Gender Issues in Public

Teacher 1997:

60. Ibid., p. 3. 61. Georgette R u c k e r s , t h e n a senior at Banneker, P u b h c E d u c a t i o n N e t w o r k C o n ference, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C , Fall 1997. 62. T h e S e a r c h Institute is a n educational foundation devoted to a d v a n c i n g the

41. S a r a h Glazer, " B o y s ' E m o t i o n a l Needs: Is G r o w i n g U p T o u g h e r for B o y s T h a n

opmental

Researcher,

Has

Failed

and

What

Parents

Need

the Classroom:

Assets

Why

School

to Do ( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n & Schuster,

1996), p. 64.

Devel-

The State of Developmental

Assets

Among

American

Youth

(Min-

neapolis: S e a r c h Institute, 1999). 63. Q u o t e d i n Peggy O r e n s t e i n , SchoolGirls: Confidence

43. T a m a r L e w i n , " U . S . C o l l e g e s B e g i n to A s k : ' W h e r e H a v e the M e n G o n e ? , ' "

Out Right:

( M i n n e a p o l i s , M i n n . : S e a r c h Institute, 1997); also S e a r c h Institute, A

Fragile Foundation:

June 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , p . 527.

42. See, for example, L a u r e n c e S t e i n b e r g , Beyond Reform

Examin-

Schools.

w e l l - b e i n g of c h i l d r e n a n d adolescents. See S e a r c h Institute, Starting

Quarterly

Cli-

Adolescents

1996), p. 1.

40. L e t t e r to the a u t h o r f r o m D r R i c h a r d G r e i g , J a n u a r y 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 . for G i r l s ? , " Congressional

of School

of Young

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n E d u c a t i o n F o u n d a t i o n ,

59. M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , The American

38. N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for H e a l t h Statistics, National

in

Progress ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of

Young Women, Self-Esteem,

and the

Gap ( N e w Y o r k : Doubleday, 1994), p. 2 7 5 .

64. C h a r l e s H y m a s a n d Julie C o h e n , " T h e T r o u b l e W i t h B o y s , " Sunday

Times

New York Times, D e c e m b e r 6 , 1 9 9 8 , p. A l ; see also B r e n d a n I . K o e r n e r , " W h e r e the B o y s

( L o n d o n ) , June 1 9 , 1 9 9 4 , p. 14.

A r e n ' t , " U.S. News & World Report,

65. B a r c l a y M c b a i n , " T h e G e n d e r G a p T h a t T h r e a t e n s to Become a C h a s m , " Herald ( G l a s g l o w ) , September 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 16.

44.

F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 4 6 .

L i o n e l Tiger, B a r b a r a E h r e n r i c h , a n d C o l i n H a r r i s o n ( i n t e r v i e w e r ) , " W h o N e e d s

M e n ? , " Harper's A r e n ' t , " p. 46.

Magazine,

June 1999, pp. 3 4 - 4 6 . S e e also Koerner, " W h e r e the B o y s

66.

" T o m o r r o w ' s Second Sex," The Economist,

S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 2 3 .

219

220

NOTES

NOTES

67. See, for example, 3999 Catalogue

WEEA

Equity

Resources

Center

(Washing-

TWO: R e e d u c a t i n g the Nation's B o y s

ton, D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n ) . T h e r e is no comparable publication for boys. 1. A 1998 R o p e r S t a r c h W o r l d w i d e Poll s h o w e d that 53 m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s said

68. To j u s t i f y a federal p r o g r a m that focuses e x c l u s i v e l y o n girls, H H S r e m i n d s the public of the findings a n n o u n c e d b y the A A U W i n 1991. "Studies show," says H H S , "that

"their c o m p a n y of their spouse's c o m p a n y participated i n the D a y . " A p p r o x i m a t e l y one-

girls tend to lose self-confidence i n e a r l y adolescence and, as a result, p e r f o r m less w e l l i n

t h i r d of A m e r i c a n companies took part i n the event; see

school" (from G i r l P o w e r ! C a m p a i g n I n f o r m a t i o n Packet [ W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e -

/press/roper 2. M e m o f r o m M a r i e W i l s o n , M s . F o u n d a t i o n for W o m e n , to groups a n d i n d i v i d u -

j a r t m e n t of H e a l t h a n d H u m a n Services, 1997, "Fact Sheet," p. 2]). B u t if H H S had ooked at D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n data, it w o u l d have learned that it is b o y s w h o per-

als w o r k i n g on Son's Day, M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 9 6 . 3. See, for example, K a t h e r i n e H a n s o n a n d A n n e M c A u l i f f e , " G e n d e r and V i o -

f o r m less w e l l in school. T o f u r t h e r reinforce the c l a i m that g i r l s (not b o y s ) are i n dire straits and i n need of " e m p o w e r m e n t , " the H H S "fact sheet" notes that n i n t h - g r a d e girls

lence: I m p h c a t i o n s for Peaceful Schools"

are "twice as l i k e l y to have attempted suicide." H e r e again H H S adheres to the c o m m o n

gbv.peace). Q u o t e d i n R u t h S h a l i t , " R o m p e r R o o m : S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t — b y Tots," The New

a l l y kill t h e m s e l v e s five or six t i m e s m o r e frequently t h a n girls do. Washington 70.

(http://www.edc.org/womensequity/article/

4. E l i z a b e t h G l e i c k , " T h e B o y s o n the B u s , " People, O c t o b e r 30, 1992, p. 125.

but m i s l e a d i n g practice of girl advocates of leaving u n m e n t i o n e d the fact that boys a c t u 69. L i s a

http://www.ms.foundation.org

Frazier, "Federal R u l i n g C a l l s Black M a l e Initiative D i s c r i m i n a t o r y , "

Repub-

lic, M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , p. 13. 5. N a n

Post, J a n u a r y 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 , p. B l .

Stein, "Secrets i n Public: S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t i n P u b h c (and P r i v a t e )

Schools," W o r k i n g Paper No. 256 (Wellesley, Mass.: W e l l e s l e y College, C e n t e r for R e -

Ibid.

71. Special p r o g r a m s for males have been successfully challenged b y w o m e n ' s

search o n W o m e n ) , rev. 1993, p. 4.

groups or b y the Office of C i v i l R i g h t s i n s u c h places as Detroit, M i l w a u k e e , a n d D a d e

6. " W E E A H i s t o r y , " h t t p : / / w w w . e d c . o r g / W o m e n s E q u i t y .

C o u n t y , Florida. For detailed

7. K a t h e r i n e H a n s o n , " W E A A E q u i t y C e n t e r Update," m e m o , F e b r u a r y 27, 1998.

h i s t o r y of the controversy, see

Rosemary

Salomone,

" S i n g l e - S e x Schooling: L a w , Policy and R e s e a r c h , " i n Brookings

Papers on

Education

Policy, ed. D i a n e R a v i t c h ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : B r o o k i n g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1999), pp. 2 3 1 - 9 7 .

8. K a t h e r i n e H a n s o n , opening statement i n 1999 Catalogue: WEEA

72. " F a i r n e s s and S i n g l e - S e x Schools," New York Times, September 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 14.

9. H a n s o n and M c A u l i f f e , " G e n d e r a n d Violence," p. 2.

73. Jacques S t e i n b e r g , " C h a n c e l l o r Stands Fast o n G i r l s ' S c h o o l , " New

10. Ibid., p. 1.

York

Times,

Center

11. K a t h e r i n e H a n s o n , " G e n d e r e d Violence: E x a m i n i n g Education's Role," W o r k -

S e p t e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 , p. A 3 2 . 74.

Equity

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1999).

" W h y the L a r g e a n d G r o w i n g G e n d e r G a p i n A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n H i g h e r E d u a -

tion?," Journal of Blacks in Higher Education,

ing Paper Series ( N e w t o n , Mass.: C e n t e r for E q u i t y a n d C u l t u r a l D i v e r s i t y , 1995), p. 1. 12.

A p r i l 3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 34.

Ibid.

75. L e w i n , " U . S . C o l l e g e s B e g i n to A s k : W h e r e H a v e the M e n G o n e ? "

13. H a n s o n a n d M c A u l i f f e , " G e n d e r a n d Violence," p. 1.

76. T a m a r L e w i n , " H o w B o y s L o s t O u t to G i r l Power," New

York Times, D e c e m b e r

14. Ibid., p. 2.

77. L a w r e n c e K n u t s e n , " S u r v e y S h o w s G i r l s S e t t i n g the Pace i n Schools," A s s o c i -

16. Ibid., p. 3.

15. Ibid., p. 4.

1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , sec. 4, p. 3. ated Press, A u g u s t 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 (carried i n The Seattle

17. For discussion of methodological problems w i t h N a n Stein's research o n school

Times).

78. K i m A s c h , " G i r l s O v e r t a k e B o y s in S c h o o l Performance," Washington

Times,

harassment, see m y Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women ( N e w York: S i m o n & Schuster, 1994; Touchstone, 1995), pp. 1 8 1 - 8 7 .

J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1 9 9 9 , p. A l .

18. See U . S . B u r e a u of Justice Statistics, Violence-Related

79. H o r a t i o A l g e r A s s o c i a t i o n , State of Our Nation's Youth 1998-1999. T h e s u r v e y pital

ples of students (a cross section of 2,250 fourteen- to eighteen-year-olds

1999). See also C e n t e r s for D i s e a s e C o n t r o l a n d P r e v e n t i o n , Injury

as w e l l as a

Emergency

Departments

Injuries

conducted b y N F O R e s e a r c h , Inc., was based on two s m a l l but carefully selected s a m -

Hos-

Hospital

Emergency

note that this s t u d y is not definitive a n d provides o n l y a "snapshot i n time."

of H e a l t h and H u m a n Services, 1998). O f course, not e v e r y battered w o m a n goes to a n

(Hyattsville, Md.: U.S. Department

e m e r g e n c y r o o m for treatment, and a m o n g those w o m e n w h o go to e m e r g e n c y

80. Ibid., p. 31.

81. Judith Kleinfeld, The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : W o m e n ' s F r e e d o m N e t w o r k , 1998). A v e r -

s i o n of this report, "Student Performance: M a l e s V e r s u s Females," appeared i n The

Pub-

Gender Roles and Self-Esteem

evidence to support H a n s o n ' s g r o s s l y inflated figure. For a sober and reliable assessment of the incidence a n d s e v e r i t y of domestic violence, see C a t h y Y o u n g , Ceasefire: Men

Must

Join Forces

to Achieve

True Equality

ported the incidence of domestic violence, Y o u n g says, " E v e n if w e a s s u m e that four out and

Aspirations:

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : G r e e n b e r g - L a k e 1990, p. 18, F i g u r e 7.

85. Barbara S p r u n g , "Addressing G e n d e r E q u i t y i n E a r l y C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n , " k e y n o t e address, 19th A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e of the N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n for Sex E q u i t y in Education, K a n s a s City, M o . , J u l y 1 2 - 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 . 86. " M e n , W o m e n and the S e x Difference," A B C N e w s Special, F e b r u a r y 1, 1995.

of five s u c h cases are missed, domestic violence w o u l d still be r a n k e d far b e h i n d falls ( 2 7 % of i n j u r i e s ) and automobile accidents ( 1 3 % ) " (p. 105). 19. Federal B u r e a u of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1991

(Washington,

C>.C.: Federal B u r e a u of Investigation, 1992), pp. 2 3 - 2 4 . A c c o r d i n g to the F B I , " A n estimated 106,593 forcible rapes w e r e reported to the law enforcement agencies across the nation d u r i n g 1991. T h e 1991 total was 4 percent h i g h e r t h a n the 1990 level" (p. 24). 20. H a n s o n and M c A u l i f f e , " G e n d e r a n d Violence," p. 3. 21. Ibid.

t

Why

( N e w York: Free Press,

1999). N o t i n g that the B u r e a u of Justice study and the C D C study m a y have u n d e r r e -

York Times, "Letters," D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 28.

83. L e w i n , " H o w B o y s L o s t O u t to G i r l Power," sec. 4, p. 3. 84. See A A U W / G r e e n b e r g - L a k e F u l l D a t a Report: Expectations

rooms

because of battery, s o m e attribute their i n j u r i e s to other causes. A l l the same, there is no

Women and

lic Interest, W i n t e r 1999, pp. 3 - 2 0 . 82. New

United States, 1992-1995

Visits to

computer-generated sample of 1,041 students; see p. 4 ) . T h e researchers are careful to

the Service of Deception

Departments,

Treated in

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . B u r e a u of Justice Statistics,

222

NOTES

NOTES

22. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Education, 1999 Catalog: WEEA

Equity

Center

(Washing-

ton, D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1999), inside c o v e r T h e W E E A C e n t e r offers a n onUne course for T i t l e I X Coordinators. 23. Research

Report: The Wellesley

Centers for Women 1, no. 1 (Fall 1998), p. 3.

24. M e r l e F r o s c h l et a l . , grant proposal to D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n for Quit

It!

Available through E d u c a t i o n a l E q u i t y Concepts, N e w Y o r k , N . Y 1997. 25. Education E q u i t y Concepts a n d W e l l e s l e y C o l l e g e C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h o n W o m e n , Quit It!: A Teacher's Guide on Teasing and Bullying

for Use with Students

in

Grades K-3 ( N e w Y o r k a n d Wellesley, Mass.: E d u c a t i o n a l E q u i t y Concepts and W e l l e s l e y College C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h o n W o m e n , 1998), p. 2.

on Women 1, no. 1 (Fall

Along:

m o r e aggressive t h a n girls because o n the w h o l e t h e y are. A n d a l t h o u g h there are m a n y

(St. Paul, M i n n . :

girls w h o are less n u r t u r i n g t h a n the average boy, it is said that girls are m o r e n u r t u r i n g

29. D e p a r t m e n t of C h i l d r e n , Families and L e a r n i n g , Girls and Boys Getting Teaching Sexual Harassment

Prevention

in the Elementary

Classroom

t h a n boys because, on average, t h e y are.

D e p a r t m e n t of C h i l d r e n , Families and L e a r n i n g , 1997). 30. Ibid., p. 5 5 . 31. "Federal G o v e r n m e n t Takes B r o a d V i e w of Peer S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t , "

School

Board News, September 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 . 32. Teacher TV, " S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t a n d Schools," Episode 28 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : 33. A n n e G e a r a n , "Sex C h a n g e s D r o p p e d A g a i n s t 9 - Y e a r - O l d i n L u n c h - L i n e

49. C a m i l l e Paglia, Sex, Art, p. 53. Dickinson

Literature,

and Family and Consumer

( N e w York: Vintage, 1992)

Personae: Art and Decadence

from

justice: An

Social Studies,

Interdis-

Psychology,

Sciences (Wellesley, M a s s . : W e l l e s -

l e y College C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h o n W o m e n , 1999). 37. I b i d . , p . v i . 39. Ibid., p. 69. 40. Ibid., p. 124. ( L o n d o n ) , A p r i l 3,

Survey

on Sexual Harassment

42. N a n Stein, " G e t t i n g i n the S c h o o l h o u s e Door: S e x u a l A s s a u l t a n d D o m e s t i c V i olence: O r g a n i z i n g in K - 1 2 Schools," k e y n o t e address. S e x u a l A s s a u l t and H a r a s s m e n t on C a m p u s Conference, Sponsored b y Safe Schools C o a l i t i o n , O r l a n d o , Florida, O c t o b e r 17,1997. Teacher 1997:

Examin-

ing Gender Issues in Public Schools ( N e w York: M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y a n d L o u i s H a r r i s & Associates, 1997. L o u i s H a r r i s & Associates asked students to respond to the statement " I feel that teachers do not listen to w h a t I have to say." T h i r t y - o n e percent of b o y s but o n l y 19 percent of girls said that the statement w a s "mostly true." See Full

Data Report

(Washington, D . C : Greenberg-Lake,

1990), p. 18. Reproduced above i n C h a p t e r 1, p. 42 (Table 4 ) . 44. T h e quoted passage is from M i n n e s o t a D e p a r t m e n t of C h i l d r e n , It's The Identification

and Prevention

of Sexual

Harassment

to

Emily

in America's

Hallways:

Not

Teenagers

( M i n n e a p o h s : M i n n e s o t a D e p a r t m e n t of C h i l d r e n , 1995), p. 18. T h e entire quote is: " I n o u r society, m e n are u s u a l l y i n control: i n control of o u r country, o u r businesses, ou r schools, a n d have been t h o u g h t to be i n control of the family. . . . Y o u m a y have noticed that o ur society treats m e n and w o m e n unequally. W o m e n earn less money, have had fewer career opportunities, have been considered the 'weaker' sex. A l l of that is begin-

The

AAUW

Schools ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n A s s o -

ciation of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , 1993), p. 7. 54. V a l e r i e L e e et al., " T h e C u l t u r e of S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t i n S e c o n d a r y Schools," American Educational Research journal 33, no. 2 ( S u m m e r 1996), p. 399. 55. Ibid., p. 3 8 3 .

57. H a r a Estroff M a r a n o , " B i g B a d B u l l y , " Psychology p. 12. 58. D a n O l w e u s , Bullying

1997, p. E 8 .

43. M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , The American

to

Culture, p. 24.

56. N i n a E a s t o n , " T h e L a w of the S c h o o l Y a r d , " Los Angeles tober 2 , 1 9 9 4 , p. 16.

38. Ibid., p. 71.

4 1 . Jack O ' S u l l i v a n , " A B a d W a y to Educate B o y s , " Independent

Nefertiti

( N e w H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990), p. 37.

53. A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , Hostile

35. A u t h o r i n t e r v i e w s w i t h parents, J a n u a r y a n d F e b r u a r y 1998. 36. N a n S t e i n and D o m i n i c Cappello, Gender Violence/Gender

Culture

of Sex Dif-

52. Paglia, Sexual Personae, p. 37.

34. S h a r o n L a m b , " S e x — W h e n It's C h i l d ' s Play," Boston Globe, A p r i l 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 .

also AAUW/Greenberg-Lake

and American

51. Paglia, Sex, Art, and American

B u m p , " Associated Press, June 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 .

Teaching Guide for Teachers of English,

48. E l e a n o r E m m o n s M a c c o b y a n d C a r o l N a g y Jacklin, The Psychology ferences, v o l . 1 (Palo A l t o , Calif.: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974), p. 3 5 2 .

50. C a m i l l e PagUa, Sexual

N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Association, 1993).

Illegal

Centers for Research

are a n y n u m b e r of gentle and s h y boys w h o s h r i n k f r o m violence, it is said that boys are

28. Ibid., p. 48.

Fun/It's

46. R e s e a r c h Report: The Wellesley 1997), p. 5.

terizations do not apply to all girls, not even all " n o r m a l " b o y s or girls. A l t h o u g h there

27. Ibid., p. 87.

Health, Peer Counseling,

4 5 . Professor Schlechter's N Y U , like most liberal arts colleges, has a real gender gap: its undergraduate e n r o l l m e n t is 60 percent female, 4 0 percent male. A s experts i n gender equity, Schlechter and the other conferees are w e l l aware that this gap is g r o w i n g from y e a r to y e a r However, taking note of it w o u l d reflect on the reasonableness of the standing complaint that A m e r i c a n schools are s h o r t c h a n g i n g girls. T h a t m i g h t take the steam out of the N C S E E conference—so it goes unnoted.

47. I n talking about sex differences, it is i m p o r t a n t to bear i n m i n d that the c h a r a c -

26. Ibid., p. V

ciplinary

n i n g to change, but because m e n have been m o r e p o w e r f u l i n society, it stands to reason that t h e y are u s u a l l y the h a r a s s e r "

Times Magazine,

Oc-

Today, September 1995,

at School ( O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l , 1993), p. 14. A c c o r d i n g to

O l w e u s , "there is a trend for b o y s to be m o r e exposed to b u l l y i n g than girls" (p. 18). See also, U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , Indicators

of School Crime and Safety

1998 ( W a s h -

ington, D . C : D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1998), p. 10. A c c o r d i n g to this report, " E i g h t percent of all students i n grades 6 t h r o u g h 12 reported t h e y have been victims of b u l l y i n g at school d u r i n g the 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 school y e a r " 59. L i s a S j o s t r o m , Bullyproof:

A Teacher's Guide on Teasing and Bullying

with Fourth and Fifth Grade Students,

for

Use

developed b y N a n S t e i n (Wellesley, M a s s . , a n d

W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : W e l l e s l e y College C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h o n W o m e n and N a t i o n a l E d u cation A s s o c i a t i o n Professional Library, 1996). Sales figure given b y N a n c y M u l l i n Rindler, a research associate at the W e l l e s l e y College C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h o n W o m e n . 60. Ibid., p. 4 3 . 61. Educational Testing Service, Order in the Classroom: Student Achievement

Violence, Discipline,

and

(Princeton, N.J.: E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g Service, 1998), p. 21.

62. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Education, Student's

Reports

of School

Crime: 1989 and

1985 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1998), p. 3. 63. N a t i o n a l

Organization

for W o m e n ,

"Issue

(nttp://www.now.org/issues/harass), A p r i l 22,1998.

Report: S e x u a l

Harassment"

NOTES

NOTES

40. L a u r a Pappano, " T h e G e n d e r Factor," Boston 1997, p. 34.

THREE: G u y s a n d D o l l s 1. Fox News in Depth, ]une

5,1997.

41.

2. P a u l Davis, "Danes D i s c o v e r Difference B e t w e e n B o y s and G i r l s : F o r Y e a r s H a s bro H a s K n o w n the Difference," Providence 3. W E E A P u b H s h i n g C e n t e r Gender

journal-Bulletin, Equity for

Parents, and

Presents,

3 , 1 9 9 6 , p. H 9 . See also M i c h a e l N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " New

43. American

Special Issue: " M e n : T h e Scientific T r u t h A b o u t T h e i r W o r k , Play, H e a l t h , a n d Passions," S u m m e r 1999, v o l . 10, no. 2, p. 26. 5.

Day

M a r i e F r a n k l i n , " T h e Toll of G e n d e r Roles," Boston Sunday

Magazine, 44.

Ibid.

Globe, N o v e m b e r York Times

N o v e m b e r 9 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 50.

M c L e a n ' s W i l l i a m Pollack is the best k n o w n of the group; other m e m b e r s i n -

clude H a r v a r d psychologist D o n K i n d l o n , Tufts U n i v e r s i t y psychologist B a r r y Brawer,

6. C H O I C E and Office of E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h a n d I m p r o v e m e n t , Creating Family

" M e n , W o m e n a n d the S e x Difference," A B C N e w s Special, F e b r u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 .

Commu-

nity ( N e w t o n , M a s s . : W E E A P u b h s h i n g C e n t e r 1995), p. 1. 4. D o r e e n K i m u r a , "Sex Differences i n the B r a i n , " Scientific

November 9

42. C a t h e r i n e E . M a t t h e w s , W e n d y B i n k l e y , A m a n d a C r i s p , and K i m b e r l y G r e g g , " C h a l l e n g i n g G e n d e r Bias i n Fifth G r a d e , " Education Leadership, D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 7 - J a n u a r y 1998, pp. 5 4 - 5 7 .

S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 9 5 , p. I E .

Educators,

Globe Magazine,

Care: A Guide for

Trainers

Sex-Fair

(Philadelphia, P e n n . , a n d W a s h i n g t o n , D . C :

C H O I C E a n d Office of E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h a n d I m p r o v e m e n t , 1 9 9 1 ) .

W e l l e s l e y College sociologist Joseph Pleck, and State U n i v e r s i t y of N e w Y o r k at S t o n y B r o o k sociologist M i c h a e l K i m m e l . 45. W i l l i a m S. Pollack and R o n a l d F L e v a n t , "Coda: A N e w P s y c h o l o g y of M e n :

7. Ibid., p. 80.

W h e r e H a v e W e B e e n ? W h e r e A r e W e G o i n g ? , " i n R o n a l d L e v a n t a n d W i l l i a m Pollack,

8.

eds., A New

Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 114.

46.

10. Ibid., p. 113.

Psychology

ogy of Oppression

11. Ibid., p. 87.

of Men

( N e w York: H a r p e r C o l l i n s , 1995), p. 387.

S a n d r a L e e Bartky, Femininity

47.

and

Domination:

Studies

in the

Phenomenol-

( N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1990), p. 50.

See, for example, B. A . S h a y w i t z et al., " S e x Differences i n the F u n c t i o n a l O r g a -

12. Ibid., p. 26.

nization of the B r a i n for Language," Nature

13. Z e h b a Z h u m k h a w a l a , "Dolls, T r u c k s a n d Identity: Educators H e l p Y o u n g C h i l -

R u b e n G u r et al., "Sex Differences i n R e g i o n a l C e r e b r a l G l u c o s e M e t a b o l i s m D u r i n g a

dren G r o w B e y o n d Gender," Children's 14. Ibid. 15.

Advocate,

N o v e m b e r - D e c e m b e r 1997.

R e s t i n g State," Science 276 (January 27, 1995), pp. 5 2 8 - 3 1 ; and S a n d r a W i t e l s e n et al., " W o m e n H a v e G r e a t e r N u m e r i c a l D e n s i t y of N e u r o n s i n Posterior T e m p o r a l Cortex,"

Ibid.

Neuroscience

16. T a m a r L e w i n , " G i r l s ' Schools G a i n , S a y i n g C o - e d Isn't C o - e q u a l , " New

York

Jonathan

Mandell,

http;//www.Family.go.com. 18.

"Rethinking

Rumpelstiltskin,"

Disney

online:

Posted circa M a y 1998.

M y r a a n d D a v i d Sadker, Failing

at Fairness:

48.

15 (1995), pp. 3 4 1 8 - 2 8 . See also M a t t Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and

of Human

Neurosciences

America's

Schools

Cheat

bers of H i g h - S c o r i n g Individuals," Science 269 (July 7 , 1 9 9 5 ) , pp. 4 1 - 4 5 . 49.

Doll ( N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r C o U i n s , 1972), p. 5.

See K i m u r a , "Sex Differences i n the B r a i n , " and Hedges and N o w e l l , "Sex D i f -

ferences in M e n t a l Test Scores." See also D i a n e H a l p e r n , Sex

Ibid., p. 28.

Ability

21.

M y r a a n d D a v i d S a d k e r Failing at Fairness, p. 224.

logical Differences

22.

Ibid., p. 223.

23.

" T h e W a r on B o y s , " National

24.

Peggy O r e n s t e i n , SchoolGirls:Young

Women, Self-Esteem,

and the

Confidence

( N e w Y o r k : K o d a n s h a , 1997). E n d o r s e m e n t

M a r y P i p h e r on front c o v e r S u s a n Faludi's c o m m e n t s appear on the back cover of

28. O r e n s t e i n , SchoolGirls, 29.

p. 247.

SchoolGirls.

by

51.

Ibid.

Matter

More Than

58. S h a y w i t z et al., "Sex Differences i n the F u n c t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of the B r a i n for Language," pp. 6 0 7 - 8 . 59. Steve C o n n o r , " M e n and W o m e n : M i n d s A p a r t , " Sunday Times March 2,1997. 5

(London), ^ ^

35. Ibid., p. 266.

60. S h a r o n Begley, " G r a y Matters," Newsweek,

36.

Ibid., p. 267.

61. A l i c e Eagly, " T h e Science and Politics o f C o m p a r i n g M e n and W o m e n , "

37.

Ibid., p. 270.

38.

Ibid., p. 267,

39. Ibid., p. 274.

IQ

" M e n , W o m e n , and the Sex Difference," A B C N e w s Special, F e b r u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 5 . Ibid. Ibid.

Ibid., p. 263.

It Can

Ibid., p. 206. See also K i m u r a , "Sex D i f f e r e n c e s i n the B r a i n . "

Ibid.

34.

Why

54. 55. 57.

33.

Intelligence:

53.

56.

Ibid.

Bio-

and Women ( N e w Y o r k : V i k i n g , 1997).

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 248.

32.

Cognitive

52. S h e r i A . B e r e n b a u m and M e l i s s a H i n e s , " E a r l y A n d r o g e n s A r e Related to C h i l d h o o d S e x - T y p e d T o y Preferences," Psychological Science 3, no. 3 ( M a y 1992), pp. 203—6.

30. Ibid., p. 251. 31. Ibid., p. 256.

Between Men

in

on the Brain: The

( N e w Y o r k : B a n t a m , 1995), p. 131.

25. Ibid., p. 276. Stories

Differences

(Hillsdale, N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1992); and D e b o r a h B l u m , Sex

50. D a n i e l G o l e m a n , Emotional Desk, P B S , A p r i l 9 , 1 9 9 9 .

Gap ( N e w Y o r k : Doubleday, 1994).

27.

( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : M I T Press, 1995).

See, for example, D o r e e n K i m u r a , " S e x Differences i n the B r a i n " ; and L a r r y

20.

26. Judy L o g a n , Teaching

the

Nature ( N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1994); and M i c h a e l G a z z a n i g a , ed..

Hedges a n d A m y N o w e l l , "Sex Differences i n M e n t a l Test Scores, Variability, and N u m How

Girls ( N e w York: Scribners, 1994), p. 224. 19. C h a r l o t t e Zolotow, William's

Evolution

The Cognitive

Times, A p r i l 1 1 , 1 9 9 9 , M e t r o p o l i t a n s e c , p. 1. 17. See

3 7 3 ( F e b r u a r y 16, 1995), pp. 6 0 7 - 8 ; also

'can Psychologist p 36^^

M a r c h 2 7 , 1 9 9 5 , p. 48. Amer-

50, no. 3 ( M a r c h 1995), pp. 1 4 5 - 5 8 . "^^'^'^^'^ Debate Flares A n e w , " Chicago Sun-Times,

March 17,1996,

226

NOTES

NOTES

63. I m m a n u e l K a n t , " O f the D i s t i n c t i o n of the B e a u t i f u l a n d S u b l i m e i n the I n t e r relations of the T w o Sexes," reprinted i n M a r y B r i o d y M a h o w a l d , ed.. Philosophy Woman: An

Anthology

of Classic

to Current

Concepts

of

3. K e i t h F l o r i g , " C o n t a i n i n g the C o s t of the E M F P r o b l e m , " Science, J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 9 2 , pp. 4 6 8 - 6 9 , 4 9 0 , 4 9 2 .

(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983),

p. 196.

4. G i n a K o l a t a , " B i g S t u d y Sees N o E v i d e n c e Power L i n e s C a u s e L e u k e m i a , "

64. Q u o t e d i n Stephen Jay G o u l d , The Mismeasure

of Man

(New York: Norton,

" W h e n Science a n d Politics Don't M i x , " J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1 9 9 7 .

1981), pp. 1 3 6 - 3 7 .

5. E d w a r d C h a m p i o n , New

65. Ibid., p. 136. 66.

"Points to P o n d e r " Reader's

Digest, M a r c h 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 32.

67. See D a v i d Buss, The Evolution

69.

of Desire ( N e w Y o r k : Basic Books, 1994), p. 85; Freshman:

National

Norms

Celeste F r e m o n , "Are Schools F a i l i n g O u r B o y s ? "

of Medicine,

J u l y 3, 1997, pp. 4 4 - 4 6 .

1999.

Ibid.

8. S o m e references to G i l l i g a n ' s "landmark," " g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g " research: M a r i e Time, June 17, 1996, p. 54; M i c h a e l N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " New Times

For a r e v i e w of the literature, see A . D . Pellegrini a n d Peter K . S m i t h , " P h y s i c a l Develop-

Magazine,

W i m p s , " New

of Sex

Dif-

(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974), p. 352. See also Janet L e v e r

"Sex Differences i n the G a m e s C h i l d r e n Play," Social Problems

23 (1967), pp. 4 7 8 - 8 7 ;

D e b o r a h T a n n e n , You Just Don't Understand:

in Conversation

Women and Men

(New

Y o r k : Ballantine, 1990), pp. 4 3 ^ 7 .

York Times Book Review, O c t o b e r 4 , 1 9 9 2 , p. 13; Newsweek,

p. 56. See also 1997 H e i n z A w a r d A n n o u n c e m e n t

M a y 11,1998,

(http://www.awards.heinz.org/gilli-

9. T h e text is f r o m the 1997

Heinz Award Announcement

(http:www.awards.

heinz.org/gilligan). 10. See, for example, Z e l l a L u r i a , " A Methodological Women in Culture

and Society

C r i t i q u e , " Signs: journal

D a m o n , " L i s t e n i n g to a Different Voice: A R e v i e w of G i l l i g a n ' s In a Different p. 43. See also, L e s h e Brody, Gender,

Emo-

Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly

itics of Psychological C o n s t r u c t s : Stop the B a n d w a g o n , I W a n t to G e t Off," Psychologist

J a n u a r y 1988, pp. 1 4 - 1 7 .

Post, M a r c h 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 1.

York Times

Magazine,

J a n u a r y 7 , 1 9 9 0 , p. 23. 12. Ibid., p. 45.

75.

Ibid.

76.

" T h e W a r on B o y s , " N a t i o n a l D e s k P B S , A p r i l 9 , 1 9 9 9 .

13. Ibid., p. 23. 14. Ibid., p. 40.

77. D i r k Johnson, " M a n y Schools P u t t i n g a n E n d to C h i l d ' s Play," New

York Times,

A p r i l 7 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 1. 78.

R o o m s ? : W o m e n ' s P s y c h o l o g y and M o r a l T h e o r y , " i n E v a Feder K i t t a y a n d D i a n a T . 11. F r a n c i n e Prose, "Confident at 11, C o n f u s e d at 16," New

M e g a n Rosenfeld, " L i t t l e B o y s B l u e : R e e x a m i n i n g the Plight of Y o u n g Males,"

Washington

American

44, no. 8 ( A u g u s t 1989), p. 1118; and G e o r g e Sher, " O t h e r Voices, O t h e r

M e y e r s , eds., Women and Moral Theory (Totowa, N.J.: R o w a n a n d Littlefield, 1987).

73. Ibid., p. 15. 74.

Voice."

29, no. 4 (1983), pp. 4 7 3 - 8 1 ; M a r t h a T M e d n i c k , " O n the P o l -

tion and the Family ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1999), especially pp. 72. A n t h o n y Pellegrini a n d Jane Perlmutter, " R o u g h - a n d - T u m b l e P l a y on the E l e -

of

11, no. 21 (1986), pp. 3 1 6 - 2 1 ; A n n e C o l b y a n d W i l l i a m

247-51. m e n t a r y S c h o o l P l a y g r o u n d , " Young Children,

York

N o v e m b e r 9, 1997, p. 50; C a r o l y n H e i l b r u n , " H o w G i r l s B e c o m e

gan).

E l e a n o r E m m o n s M a c c o b y a n d C a r l N a g y Jacklin, The Psychology

71. T a n n e n , YoM Just Don't Understand,

New

F r a n k l i n , " T h e T o l l of G e n d e r Roles," Boston Globe, N o v e m b e r 3 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 9; " T i m e 25,"

ment 69, no. 3 (June 1998), pp. 5 7 7 - 9 8 . ferences

7.

of

(http://www.msnbc.com/

A c t i v i t y Play: T h e N a t u r e a n d F u n c t i o n of a Neglected A s p e c t of Play," Child 70.

journal

York Times, J u l y 2 4 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 1.

Fall 1998 ( L o s A n g e l e s : H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , 1998), pp. 4 8 , 6 6 . N e w s / 3 1 0 9 3 4 . a s p ) , September

England

6. W i l l i a m B r o a d , "Data T y i n g C a n c e r to E l e c t r i c Power F o u n d to B e False,"

a n d H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , The American 68.

New

York Times, J u l y 3 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 1. See also S h a n k a r V e d a n t a m , K n i g h t R i d d e r N e w s Service,

15. M s . Foundation for W o m e n a n d S o n d r a F o r s y t h , Girls

Seen and Heard

(New

Y o r k : T a r c h e r / P u t n a m , 1998), p. x i i i .

Ibid.

16. Ibid., pp. xiv, XV.

79. A . D . Pellegrini, Patti D a v i s H u b e r t y , a n d I t h e l Jones, " T h e Effects of Recess T i m i n g on C h i l d r e n ' s P l a y g r o u n d a n d C l a s s r o o m Behaviors," American

Educational

Re-

search Journal 32, no. 4 ( W i n t e r 1995), pp. 8 4 5 - 6 4 . Pellegrini et al. found that "most b a -

17. Ibid., p. x v i i . 18. M s . F o u n d a t i o n , Synopsis

sically c h i l d r e n , but especially boys, exhibited signs of inattention as length of [recess]

19. Ibid., p. 5.

deprivation increased" (p. 860).

20.

80. V i v i a n G u s s i n Paley, Boys and Girls: Superheroes

in the Doll Corner

(Chicago:

U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o Press, 1984), p. ix.

of Research

on Girls

( N e w Y o r k : M s . Foundation,

1995), p. 1. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , In a Different

Voice: Psychological

Theory and Women's

21. A m y G r o s s , passage from Vogue cited i n G i l l l i g a n , In a Different

81. Ibid., p. 65.

Devel-

opment ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982). Voice ( C a m -

bridge, M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1993).

82. Ibid., p. 67.

22. L a w r e n c e J. Walker, "Sex Differences i n the D e v e l o p m e n t of M o r a l Reasoning:

83. Ibid., p. 4 1 .

A C r i t i c a l Review," Child Development

84. Ibid., p. 90.

55 (1984), p. 681.

23. W i l l i a m F r i e d m a n , A m y R o b i n s o n , a n d B r i t t F r i e d m a n , "Sex Differences

85. Ibid., p. 116.

M o r a l Judgments?: A Test of G i l l i g a n ' s T h e o r y , " Psychology

of Women Quarterly

in 11

(1987), pp. 3 7 ^ 6 . 24. G i l l i g a n , In a Different FOUR: C a r o l G i l l i g a n and the Incredible S h r i n k i n g G i r l

Voice, p. 3.

25. L u r i a , "A Methodological C r i t i q u e . " 26. F a y J. C r o s b y , Juggling: The Unexpected

1. G a r y Taubes, "Fields of Fear," The Atlantic,

N o v e m b e r 1994, p. 107.

2. See, for example, P a u l Brodeur, " A n n a l s of R a d i a t i o n , " The New 1989.

Yorker, June 12,

Home for Women and Their Families

Advantages

of Balancing

Career

and

( N e w York: Free Press, 1991), p. 124.

27. G i l l i g a n is celebrated by some ( m o s t l y feminist) m o r a l philosophers

for her

"discovery" of two approaches to m o r a l i t y : the (female) ethic of care and the (male) ethic

227

NOTES

NOTES

of justice. T h e labeUng of these as male a n d female is h e r doing, but the distinction is

60. A A U W / G r e e n b e r g - L a k e F u l l D a t a Report, Expectations

hoary. T h e tension b e t w e e n care a n d duty, between the personal a n d the i m p e r s o n a l , be-

der Roles

and

Self-Esteem

tween abstract principle a n d contextual reality are f a m i l i a r t h e m e s i n m o r a l p h i l o s o p h y

W o m e n , 1990), p. 18.

that transcend g e n d e r A l l standard theories (John R a w l s ' s hypothetical c o n t r a c t a r i a n -

61. Ibid., p. 13.

i s m , for example) m u s t assign proper places to care a n d duty, balancing, for example, c o n -

62. M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y , The American

siderations of j u s t i c e w i t h considerations of mercy. See G e o r g e Sher, " O t h e r Voices,

and Aspirations:

Gen-

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : A m e r i c a n A s s o i c a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y

Teacher 1997:

Examin-

ing Gender Issues in Public Schools ( N e w Y o r k : M e t r o p o l i t a n L i f e I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y ,

O t h e r R o o m s ? " ; a n d M a r c i a B a r o n , " T h e A l l e g e d R e p u g n a n c e of A c t i n g f r o m D u t y , "

1997), p. 131. A s i m i l a r question w a s asked b y the 1 9 9 8 - 1 9 9 9 State of O u r Nation's

lournal

Y o u t h S u r v e y , State of Our Nation's

of Philosophy

81, no. 4 ( A p r i l 1984), pp. 1 9 7 - 2 2 0 .

28. L y n M i k e l B r o w n a n d C a r o l G i l l i g a n , Meeting Psychology

and Girls'

Development

at the Crossroads:

Worlds of Adolescent

Youth 1998-1999

(Alexandria, Va.: Horatio Alger

A s s o c i a t i o n , 1998): 71 percent of girls but o n l y 64 percent of b o y s said t h e y h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y for open discussion i n class.

( N e w York: Ballantine, 1992), p. 15.

29. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , N o n a L y o n s , and T r u d y H a n m e r , eds.. Making Relational

Women's

Connections:

The

Girls at Emma Willard School ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r -

63. D e b r a V i a d e r o , " T h e i r O w n Voices," Education

Week, M a y 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 37.

64. G i l l i g a n , " R e m e m b e r i n g L a r r y , " pp. 1 3 4 - 3 5 . 65. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t : A

v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990). 30. Ibid., p. 5.

Puzzle, S o m e Evidence, a n d a T h e o r y , " i n G i l N o a m a n d K u r t F i s c h e r eds..

31. Prose, "Confident at 11, C o n f u s e d at 16," p. 23.

and Vulnerability

32. G i l l i g a n et al.. Making 33.

Ibid.

34.

Ibid., p. 24.

Connections,

in Close Relationships

p. 14. FIVE: G i l l i g a n ' s I s l a n d 1. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t : A P u z -

35. Ibid., pp. 1 4 7 - 6 1 . 36. Ibid., p. 154.

zle, S o m e Evidence, and a T h e o r y , " i n Development

37. Ibid., p. 158.

ships, ed. G i l N o a m a n d K u r t F i s c h e r ( M a h w a h , N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1996), p. 2 5 2 .

40.

Ibid.

41.

Ibid.

in Close

Relation-

3. Ibid., p. 250.

Voice (1993 edition), p. x v i .

4. Q u o t e d i n M a r i e F r a n k l i n , " T h e T o l l of G e n d e r Roles," Boston Globe,

(1998), p. 134. 4 3 . B r o w n a n d G i l l i g a n , Meeting 44. Ibid.

of Moral

Education

27, no. 2

5. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , In a Different

Voice: Psychological

Theory

and Women's

Devel-

opment ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982), pp. 7 - 1 1 . at the Crossroads,

6. N a n c y C h o d o r o w , The Reproduction

p. 216.

of Mothering:

Psychoanalysis

and the So-

ciology of Gender ( B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a U f o r n i a Press, 1978), p. 9. 7. Ibid., p. 7.

4 5 . Ibid., p. 218. 46. C h r i s t o p h e r L a s c h , " G i l l i g a n ' s Island," The New Republic,

D e c e m b e r 7, 1992,

8. Ibid., p. 180. 9. Ibid., p. 181.

pp. 3 4 - 3 9 . 47. B r o w n a n d G i l l i g a n , Meeting

November

3 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 9.

42. C a r o l G i l l i g a n , " R e m e m b e r i n g L a r r y , " Journal

at the Crossroads,

10. Ibid., p. 214.

p. 193.

11. G i U i g a n , In a Different

4 8 . Ibid., p. 194.

12.

4 9 . Ibid., p. 190.

Voice, p. 8.

Ibid.

13. C h o d o r o w , The Reproduction

50. Ibid., p. 214.

of Mothering,

p. 2 1 9 .

14. M i c h a e l N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " New York Times

5 1 . Ibid., p. 196.

Magazine,

N o v e m b e r 9 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 50.

5 2 . Ibid., p. 203. 53.

and Vulnerability

2. Ibid., p. 238.

38. Ibid., p. 147. 39. G i l l i g a n , In a Different

Development

( M a h w a h , N.J.: E r i b a u m , 1996), p. 251.

15. G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t , " p. 251.

Ibid.

16.

54. Ibid., p. 10. 55. S u s a n H a r t e r et al., " L e v e l of Voice A m o n g F e m a l e a n d M a l e H i g h S c h o o l S t u dents: R e l a t i o n a l C o n t e x t , Support, a n d G e n d e r O r i e n t a t i o n , " Developmental

Psychol-

ogy 34, no. 5 (1998), p. 892.

Ibid.

17. N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " p. 50. 18.

Ibid.

19. G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t , " p. 258. 20. Ibid., p. 2 5 1 .

56. S u s a n Harter, Patricia Waters, a n d N a n c y W h i t e s e l l , " L a c k of Voice as a M a n i festation of False S e l f - B e h a v i o r A m o n g Adolescents: T h e S c h o o l S e t t i n g as a Stage upon W h i c h the D r a m a of A u t h e n t i c i t y Is Enacted," Educational

Psychologist

3 2 , no. 3 (1997),

pp, 1 5 3 - 7 3 .

21. N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " p. 50. 22. G i l l i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t , "

p. 238;

F r a n k l i n , " T h e T o l l of G e n d e r Roles," p. 9. 23. See C h a p t e r 3 for a discussion of h o w biological differences b e t w e e n males a n d

57. Ibid., p. 162.

females m a y account for differences i n reading abilities.

5 8 . Ibid., p. 153 (abstract).

24.

5 9 . U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, " N a -

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo.

25. D a n i e l Patrick M o y n i h a n , The Negro

Family: The Case for National

Action

tional E d u c a t i o n L o n g i t u d i n a l S t u d y of 1988," Base Y e a r a n d First F o l l o w - u p S u r v e y , ta-

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Labor, 1965). Q u o t e d i n N a t i o n a l F a t h e r h o o d I n i -

bles prepared i n 1993, Digest of Education

tiative, Father Facts ( G a i t h e r s b u r g , M d . : N a t i o n a l F a t h e r h o o d Initiative, 1998), p. 57.

Statistics

D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1993), p. 136, Table 140.

1993

(Washington, D . C : U . S .

229

230

NOTES

NOTES

26. D a v i d B l a n k e n h o r n , Fatherless America:

Confronting

Our Most Urgent

Social

Problem ( N e w Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1995), p. 31.

18. M e g a n Rosenfeld, " R e e x a m i n i n g the P l i g h t of Y o u n g M a l e s , "

Washington

Post, M a r c h 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , p. A l .

27. E l a i n e C i u U a K a m a r c k a n d W i l l i a m G a l s t o n , Putting

Children

First: A

Progres-

sive Family Pohcy for the 1990s ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : Progressive PoUcy Institute, 1990), p. 14.

19. B a r b a r a K a n t r o w i t z a n d C l a u d i a K a l b , " B o y s W i l l Be B o y s , " Newsweek,

May

1 1 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 57. See also h t t p : / / w w w . n y t i m e s . c o m / l i b r a r y / n a t i o n a l / s c i e n c e . 20. " T h e Difference B e t w e e n B o y s and G i r l s : W h y B o y s H i d e T h e i r E m o t i o n s , "

28. C y n t h i a H a r p e r a n d S a r a M c L a n a h a n , "Father A b s e n c e a n d Y o u t h I n c a r c e r a -

A B C , June 5 , 1 9 9 8 .

tion," presented at a n n u a l m e e t i n g of the A m e r i c a n Sociological A s s o c i a t i o n , S a n F r a n -

21. T o m Duffy, " B e h i n d the Silence," People, September 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 175.

cisco, A u g u s t 1998.

22. Saturday

29. B l a n k e n h o r n , Fatherless

America.

Today M a r c h 2 8 , 1 9 9 8 .

23. F B I U n i f o r m C r i m e R e p o r t ( h t t p : / / w w w . f b i . g o v / u c r / C i u s _ 9 7 / 9 7 c r i m e ) . See

30. D e b r a V i a d e r o , " T h e i r O w n Voice," Education

Week, M a y 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , p. 38.

also U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, Juvenile

31. I n f o r m a t i o n sheet f r o m H a r v a r d G r a d u a t e S c h o o l of E d u c a t i o n , " W o m e n ' s Psychology, B o y s ' D e v e l o p m e n t and the C u l t u r e of M a n h o o d , " S e p t e m b e r 1995.

Offenders

and

Victims:

A National

Report

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, 1995). 24. S o m e passages i n Real Boys s h o w that Pollack has a genuine u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

32. I n f o r m a t i o n sheet f r o m the P r o g r a m for E d u c a t i o n a l C h a n g e A g e n t s , Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, 1998-99.

the needs of boys. T h e r e is, for example, a n excellent discussion of the w a y s our schools neglect b o y s and favor girls. H e notes that o u r "coeducational schools . . . have evolved

33. V i a d e r o , " T h e i r O w n Voice," p. 37.

into institutions that are better at s a t i s f y i n g the needs of girls than those of b o y s . . . not

34. N o r m a n , " F r o m C a r o l G i l l i g a n ' s C h a i r , " p. 50.

p r o v i d i n g the k i n d of c l a s s r o o m activities that w i l l help most b o y s to thrive." U n f o r t u -

35. G i U i g a n , " T h e C e n t r a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t , " p. 251.

nately, s u c h passages are rare. M o s t of h i s book is about a male c u l t u r e that is h a r m i n g

36. S t e p h e n A m b r o s e , Citizen Soldiers ( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n & Schuster, 1997), p. 473.

boys, as it h a r m s girls. T h e d e m o r a l i z a t i o n of girls is the p a r a d i g m . E v e n as he is p o i n t i n g

37.

out that our schools are u n f a i r l y neglecting boys, Pollack treats girls as the default v i c -

Ibid.

tims of o u r culture, adding o n l y that "adolescent boys, just like adolescent girls, are suf-

38. Ibid., pp. 4 7 1 - 7 2 . 39. T h e most popular book calling for the rescue of boys f r o m the constraints of a h a r m f u l m a s c u l i n i t y is W i l l i a m Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing of Boyhood

Our Sons from the

Myths

( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1998).

fering f r o m a crisis in self-esteem" (emphasis i n original) (p. 239). 25. P o l l a c k Real Boys, p. 6. 26. See, for example, A n n e C . Petersen et a l . , " D e p r e s s i o n i n Adolescence," can Psychologist

S c h o n e r t - R e i c h l , " D e b u n k i n g the M y t h s of Adolescence: F i n d i n g s f r o m Recent R e -

six: S a v e the M a l e s

search," Journal

1. M c L e a n H o s p i t a l press release ( h t t p : / / w w w . m c l e a n h o s p i t a l . o r g / P u b l i c A f f a i r s / 2. Ibid. (In the study, as in the M c L e a n press release, the w o r d "healthy," w h e n applied to boys, is i n v a r i a b l y encased i n i r o n i c scare quotes.)

Adolescent

Psychiatry

31, no. 6 ( N o v e m b e r 1992), pp. and

Statistical

3. W i l l i a m Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing

27. S u s a n Faludi, Stiffed: The Betrayal

of the American

Male ( N e w York: M o r r o w ,

1999).

Our Sons from the Myths

of

Boyhood

( N e w Y o r k : R a n d o m H o u s e , 1998).

28. Ibid., p. 358. 29. Ibid., p. 9.

4. h t t p : / / w w w . w i l l i a m p o l l a c k . c o m / t a l k s , July 1 2 , 1 9 9 9 .

30. Ibid., p. .39.

5. W i l l i a m Pollack, " L i s t e n i n g to B o y s ' Voices," M a y 22, 1998, p. 28. (Available t h r o u g h M c L e a n H o s p i t a l Public A f f a i r s Office, B e l m o n t , M a s s a c h u s e t t s . )

31. D a v i d M y e r s a n d E d Diener, " W h o Is H a p p y ? , " Psychological (January

Science 6, no. 1

1995), p. 14. For data f r o m the N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h Center, see

http://www.icpsrumich.edu/gss99.

6. M c L e a n H o s p i t a l press release, p. 2. 7. Pollack, " L i s t e n i n g to B o y s ' Voices," p. 24.

32. Faludi, Stiffed, p. 27.

8. Ibid., p. 10.

33. Ibid., p. 6. Regier is one of the researchers cited i n Faludi's supporting footnote

Ibid.

(p. 612, footnote 5).

10. Ibid., p. 9.

34. DSM-IV,

11. Ibid., p. 17.

the official desk reference of the A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o i c a t i o n , r e -

ports that the prevalence of clinical depression a m o n g m e n is 2 to 3 percent.

12. Ibid., p. 18.

35. J i m W i n d o l f , " A N a t i o n of Nuts," Wall Street Journal,

13. A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , Diagnostic tal Disorders,

of American

1 0 0 3 - 1 4 . See also e n t r y on "Separation A n x i e t y D i s o r d e r " i n Diagnostic

Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., p. 112.

b o y s l 9 9 8 ) , June 4 , 1 9 9 8 .

9.

Ameri-

48, no. 2 ( F e b r u a r y 1993), p. 155; and D a n i e l O f f e r and K i m b e r l y A .

and Statistical

Manual

of

Men-

4th ed. ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1994), pp.

October 22,1997.

36. Pat S e b r a n e k a n d D a v e K e m p e r , Write Source 2000 Teacher's Guide

(Burling-

ton, W i s . : T h e W r i t e S o u r c e / D . C H e a l t h , 1995), p. 70. I n a 1999 interview, one of the

1 1 1 - 1 2 . For a n excellent critique of Pollack's w o r k on boys, see G w e n Broude, " B o y s W i l l

writers, D a v e K e m p e r told m e that in future editions m o s t of the "feeling" questions a n d

Be B o y s , " Public

self-esteem exercises w i l l be e l i m i n a t e d .

Interest

136 ( S u m m e r 1999), pp. 3 - 1 7 . It was Broude's article that

b r o u g h t the D S M - / V d a t a o n separation a n x i e t y to m y attention. 14. M c L e a n H o s p i t a l press release, p. 2. 15. Pollack, " L i s t e n i n g to B o y s ' Voices," p. 11.

38. D i a n e M c G u i n n e s s a n d John S y m o n d s , "Sex Differences in C h o i c e B e h a v i o r :

16. R u s s e l l D . C l a r k and E l a i n e Hatfield, " G e n d e r Differences i n R e c e p t i v i t y to S e x ual Offers," Journal

of Psychology

and Human

37. Jack L e v i n and A r n o l d A r l u k e , " A n E x p l o r a t o r y A n a l y s i s of Sex Differences i n Gossip," Sex Roles 12 (1985), pp. 2 8 1 - 8 5 .

Sexuality

2 (1989), pp. 3 9 - 5 5 .

17. " H a r v a r d and Yale R e s t r i c t U s e of T h e i r N a m e s , " A s s o c i a t e d Press, O c t o b e r 13, 1998. See also h t t p : / / w w w . n y t i m e s . c o m / l i b r a r y / n a t i o n a l / s c i e n c e .

T h e O b j e c t - P e r s o n D i m e n s i o n , " Perception

6, no. 6 (1977), pp. 6 9 1 - 9 4 .

39. See, for example, L e s l i e B r o d y and Judith H a U , " G e n d e r and E m o t i o n , " i n Handbook

of Emotions,

1993), p. 452.

ed. M i c h a e l L e w i s a n d Jeannette H a v i l a n d ( N e w Y o r k : G u i l f o r d ,

232

NOTES

NOTES

40. Jane Bybee, "Repress Yourself," Psychology

Today, S e p t e m b e r - O c t o b e r

p. 12. See also Jane Bybee, "Is R e p r e s s i o n A d a p t i v e ? : R e l a t i o n s h i p s to A d j u s t m e n t , A c a d e m i c Performance, a n d Self-image," American

Journal

of

4. E . D . H i r s c h , J r , The Schools

1997,

Socioemotional

5. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , Pursuing

Orthopsy-

Grade Mathematics

chiatry 6, no. 1 ( J a n u a r y 1997), pp. 5 9 - 6 9 . 4 1 . E m i l y N u s s b a u m , " G o o d G r i e f : T h e C a s e for R e p r e s s i o n , " Lingua

Franca, O c -

42. G e o r g e B o n a n n o , " W h e n A v o i d i n g U n p l e a s a n t E m o t i o n s M i g h t N o t B e S u c h a

see

of Personality

and Social Psychology

and Intervention,

of Bereavement:

Theory,

Research

ed. M a r g a r e t S. Stroebe, W . Stroebe, a n d R . H a n s o n ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m -

and

Science Achievement

Excellence:

A Study

in International

of U.S.

Context

Janu-

sultation

paper

"Boys W i l l

Be B o y s ? : C l o s i n g the

Gender Gap." Morris: "Boys'

u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t not o n l y represents a m a s s i v e waste of talent a n d ability. It is also p e r s o n a l l y disastrous a n d socially destructive. I f w e do not act q u i c k l y w e w i l l reap a h a r v e s t 7. L e s t e r T h u r o w , "Players a n d Spectators," Washington

Post Book World,

April

1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 5.

46. F a y W e l d o n , " W h e r e W o m e n A r e W o m e n a n d So A r e M e n , " Harper's

8. L a r r y Hedges and A m y N o w e l l , "Sex Differences i n M e n t a l Test Scores, V a r i -

Maga-

ability, a n d N u m b e r s of H i g h - S c o r i n g Individuals," Science 269 (July 7 , 1 9 9 5 ) , p. 45.

zine, M a y 1998, p. 66. 47. A t the v e r y e n d of one of his last books, Civilization

and Its Discontents,

9. R o b e r t B r a y et al.. Can Boys Do Better? ( B r i s t o l : S e c o n d a r y H e a d s A s s o c i a t i o n ,

Freud

s t e r n l y cautioned his followers to resist the temptation to talk of w h o l e groups as suffer-

1997). 10. Ibid., p. 17.

i n g n e u r o s i s b r o u g h t about b y "the culture." W h a t e v e r its drawbacks as a diagnostic and

11. B a r c l a y M c b a i n , " T h e G e n d e r G a p T h a t T h r e a t e n s to B e c o m e a C h a s m , " Herald

therapeutic technique, F r e u d i a n p s y c h o l o g y s h o u l d not be faulted for the w a y Pipher, G i l l i g a n , a n d Pollack seek to pathologize our c h i l d r e n . F r e u d acknowledged that i n i m p o r -

( G l a s g o w ) , September 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 16.

tant respects the d e v e l o p m e n t of civilization s h o w s s i m i l a r i t i e s to the development of i n -

12. "Top M a r k s to the Lads," Daily Telegraph, J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 .

dividua s. A n d he noted the temptation to say "that u n d e r the influence of c u l t u r a l urges,

13.

Ibid.

s o m e civilizations, or s o m e epochs of c i v i l i z a t i o n — p o s s i b l y the w h o l e of mankind-—have

14.

Ibid.

become ' n e u r o t i c ' " B u t he w a r n e d that "it is dangerous, not o n l y w i t h m e n but w i t h

15. B r a y et al.. Can Boys Do Better?, p. 1.

concepts [such as n e u r o s i s ] , to tear t h e m f r o m the sphere i n w h i c h t h e y originate and

16. A n n e t t e M a c D o n a l d , L e s l e y Saunders, a n d P a u h n e Benefield, Boys'

have been evolved." F r e u d even predicted that "one day s o m e o n e w i l l v e n t u r e to e m b a r k

ment, Progress,

u p o n a pathology of c u l t u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s " u s i n g p s y c h o a n a l y t i c concepts. T h o u g h he

F o u n d a t i o n for E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1999), p. 18.

h a d i n v e n t e d p s y c h o a n a l y s i s , he deplored the day it w o u l d be used i n that way.

Participation

Achieve-

(Slough, Berkshire, England: National

Review 103, no. 1 (1996), pp. 5 - 3 3 ; a n d K i r k J o h n s o n ,

"Self-image Is S u f f e r i n g f r o m L a c k of E s t e e m , " New of Self-Esteem:

19. John O ' L e a r y , " B o y s C l o s e L i t e r a r y G e n d e r G a p , " Times ( L o n d o n ) , O c t o b e r 7, 1999. 20. D a v i d H u g h e s , " B o y s C a t c h i n g U p w i t h G i r l s T h a n k s to L i t e r a r y H o u r , " Daily Mail, O c t o b e r 6 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 20.

York Times, M a y 5 , 1 9 9 8 .

Finding Happiness

Tele-

graph, A p r i l 2 4 , 1 9 9 9 .

July 13, 1998, p. 69. See also R o y F. Baumeister, L a u r a S m a r t , a n d Joseph

Boden, " R e l a t i o n of T h r e a t e n e d E g o t i s m to V i o l e n c e a n d A g g r e s s i o n : T h e D a r k Side of

50. John P. H e w i t t , The Myth

and

18. L i z Lightfoot, " B o y s N e e d a R i p p i n g Y a r n to K e e p U p Interest," Daily

49. Q u o t e d i n S h a r o n Begley, " Y o u ' r e O . K . , I ' m Terrific: ' S e l f - E s t e e m ' Backfires,"

H i g h S e l f - E s t e e m , " Psychological

Motivation

17. Ibid., p. 13.

48. N u s s b a u m , " G o o d G r i e f , " p. 4 9 .

lems in America

TIMSS

( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : T h o m a s B. F o r d h a m Foundation, 1998) (for full data report,

6. L i z Lightfoot, " B o y s Left B e h i n d b y M o d e r n T e a c h i n g , " Daily Telegraph,

Ibid.

45. Pollack, Real Boys, p. 50

Newsweek,

Twelfth-

(Washington,

of y o u n g m e n w h o are u n e m p l o y a b l e a n d face decades of social division."

bridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1993), p. 345. 44.

(New

a r y 5 , 1 9 9 8 . Estelle M o r r i s , M P , expressed s i m i l a r s e n t i m e n t s i n a 1996 L a b o u r P a r t y c o n -

69, no. 5 (1995), pp. 9 7 5 - 8 9 .

43. H a n n a K a m i n e r a n d Peretz Lavie, "Sleep and D r e a m s i n W e l l - A d j u s t e d a n d Less A d j u s t e d H o l o c a u s t S u r v i v o r s , " i n Handbook

We Don't Have Them

http://www.csteep.bc.edu/timss).

Bad Thing: Verbal-Autonomic Response Dissociation and Midlife Conjugal Bereavement," Journal

Why

D . C : U . S . G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office, 1998). See also H a r o l d S t e v e n s o n , A Primer

tober 1997, p. 49.

We Need: And

Y o r k : Doubleday, 1996), p. 9.

and Solving

Prob-

21.

Ibid.

22. John C l a r e , " P r i m a r y Schools F a i l i n g to T e a c h R e a d i n g Properly," Daily

( N e w Y o r k : St. M a r t i n ' s Press, 1998), p. 51.

Tele-

graph, J u l y 6 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 12.

51. Ibid., p. 85.

23. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , The Condition

of Education

(Washington, D . C :

U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1995), p. 13. s e v e n : Why

Johnny Can't, Like, Read and W r i t e

24. N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for E d u c a t i o n Statistics, NAEP

1. S t o r y told b y D r C a r l B o y d , president and C E O of the A r t of Positive T e a c h i n g , an educational foundation i n K a n s a s C i t y (keynote address. N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n for S e x E q u i t y Experts, J u l y 1998). For a n i n t e r e s t i n g (albeit controversial) discussion of the effects of teachers' expectations o n students, see R o b e r t R o s e n t h a l a n d L e n o r e Jackson, Pygmalion

in the

Classroom:

Teacher Expectations

and

Pupils'

Intellectual

Develop-

ment ( N e w Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n , 1992) ( o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d 1968). 2. S t e v e n Z e m e l m a n , H a r v e y Daniels, a n d A r t h u r H y d e , Best Practice: New dards for Teaching

and

Learning

in America's

Schools

3. A l f i e K o h n , What to Look for in a Classroom

1998 Reading

Report

[National

Assessment

of

Edu-

Card for the Nation and the States ( W a s h i n g -

ton, D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1999), p. 42. 25. U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the

Nation

and the States ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , 1996), p. 138. 26. H i g h e r

E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute,

The

American

Freshman:

National

Norms for Fall 1998 ( L o s A n g e l e s : H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h Institute, 1998), pp. 3 9 , 5 7 . Stan-

(Portsmouth, N . H . : Heineman,

27. F r i e d r i c h Froebel, The

Student's

Froebel,

ed. W . H . H e r f o r d (Boston: H e a t h ,

1904), pp. 5 - 6 . ( T h e quotation is cited i n H i r s c h , The Schools

We Need. See especially

H i r s c h ' s C h a p t e r 4, " C r i t i q u e of T h o u g h t W o r l d , " for a t h o r o u g h and astute a n a l y s i s of

1998), p. 51. p. 51.

cational ProgressJ

( S a n Francisco: J o s s e y - B a s s , 1998),

the influence of r o m a n t i c i s m on A m e r i c a n education, pp. 6 9 - 1 2 6 . ) 28. Z e m e l m a n et al.. Best Practice, p. 9.

234

NOTES

NOTES

29. Ibid., book s u m m a r y o n back c o v e r See H i r s c h ' s C h a p t e r 5, "Reality's R e venge," The Schools We Need, for h i s critique of Best Practice (pp. 1 2 7 - 7 6 ) . 30. Ibid., p. 4. 31. Ibid., p, 5, School ( Y o n k e r s - o n -

59. N i c k A n d e r s o n , " O n e - S e x Schoools D o n ' t Escape Bias, S t u d y S a y s , " Los Angeles Times, M a r c h 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , m e t r o A l .

Education 194S-1980 ( N e w

60. John O ' L e a r y , " A - L e v e l A n a l y s i s F i n d s B o y s D o Better i n S i n g l e - S e x Schools," Times ( L o n d o n ) , J u l y 1 4 , 1 9 9 7 .

32. H , O . R u g g a n d A n n S h u m a k e r , The Child-Centered H u d s o n , N . Y . : W o r l d B o o k 1928). 33. D i a n e R a v i t c h , The Troubled Crusade: American

58. See, for example, R o s e m a r y S a l o m o n e , " S i n g l e - S e x Schooling: L a w , Policy, and R e s e a r c h , " i n Brookings Papers on Education Policy, ed. D i a n e R a v i t c h ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : B r o o k i n g s I n s t i t u t i o n , 1999), p. 264; a n d "Schools for G i r l s , " Wall Street Journal March 13,1998, p.A16.

Y o r k : Basic Books, 1983), p. 50.

61. See, for example, A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , Separated

by

34. L y n n O l s o n , " L e s s o n s of a C e n t u r y , " Education Week, A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 .

Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n A s -

35. M a r y Field B e l e n k y et al.. Women's W a y s o / K « o u ) i > i g ( N e w Y o r k : Basic Books,

sociation of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n , 1998), p. 70.

1986). Q u o t a t i o n s are f r o m a s u m m a r y of the book i n the American Association of University Women Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n eight: T h e M o r a l Life of B o y s

A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n E d u c a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n , 1992), p. 72. 36. Z e m e l m a n et al.. Best Practice, p. 6.

1. Josephson Institute of Ethics, 1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth

3 7 . Lightfoot, " B o y s Left B e h i n d b y M o d e r n T e a c h i n g . "

( M a r i n a D e l R a y , C a h f : Josephson Institute of Ethics, 1999).

38. B o n n i e M a c m i l l a n , Why Schoolchildren Can't Read ( L o n d o n : Institute of E c o n o m i c A f f a i r s , 1997), p. 124. 39. Ibid., p. 1 2 5 .

3. Ibid., p. 88.

40. Janet Daley, "Progressive E d u c a t i o n i n B r i t a i n , " Ex Femina ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : Independent W o m e n ' s F o r u m , O c t o b e r 1998), p. 13.

Issue," Wall Street Journal, M a y 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 1. 4 2 . A n n O ' H a n l o n , " R u c k u s O v e r the H o n o r R o l l , " Washington

(Pittsburgh, Pa.: Office of Juvenile Justice

a n d D e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n t i o n , 1996), p. 3. 5. A l f o n s C r i j n e n , T h o m a s A c h e n b a c h , a n d F r a n k V e r h u l s t , " C o m p a r i s o n s of P r o b -

Post, A p r i l 8,

1997, p. D l . 4 3 . Ibid. 44. H i r s c h , The Schools We Need, p. 2 4 5 . 4 5 . C h a r l e s H y m a s , " B o y s G e t T h e i r O w n C l a s s e s to C a t c h U p , " Times ( L o n d o n ) , J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 9 4 , p. 1. 46. Ibid.

l e m s Reported b y Parents of C h i l d r e n i n 12 C u l t u r e s : Total Problems, E x t e r n a l i z i n g , a n d I n t e r n a l i z i n g , " Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry

36, no. 9 (September 1997), pp. 1 2 6 9 - 7 7 . 6. A n n a M u n d o w , " T h e C h i l d Predators," Irish Times, J a n u a r y 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , p. 8. 7. Janet Daley, " Y o u n g M e n Always B e h a v e Badly," Daily Telegraph, J u l y 2 0 , 1 9 9 8 . 8. Q u o t e d i n B e r n a r d L e f k o w i t z , Our Guys: The Glen Ridge Rape and the Secret Life of the Perfect Suburb ( B e r k e l e y a n d L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press,

4 7 . John D a n f o r t h , " S i n g l e - S e x E d u c a t i o n vs. W o m a n at V M I , " Washington Times, January 17,1996, p . A 1 5 . 48. N e w Y o r k C i t y N . O . W , h t t p : / / w w w . n o w . o r g . 4 9 . D e b o r a h Brake, " S i n g l e - S e x E d u c a t i o n A f t e r V M I " posted o n I n t e r n e t at [email protected], A p r i l 20,1998. 50. Judith S h a p i r o , " W h a t W o m e n C a n T e a c h M e n , " Baltimore Sun, N o v e m b e r 28,

1997), back c o v e r 9. Judy M a n n , The Difference: Growing Up Female in America ( N e w Y o r k : W a r n e r , 1994), p. 246. 10. S u s a n Faludi, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male ( N e w Y o r k : M o r r o w , 1999), p. 4 7 . 11. M a n n , The Difference, p. 243. 12. L e f k o w i t z , O u r G u y s , pp. 1 - 2 .

1994, p. H A . 51. M e g a n Rosenfeld, " A l l - M a l e C l a s s e s R a i s e G r a d e s a n d H a c k l e s , " Washington Post, M a r c h 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , p . A 1 6 . 52. A u t h o r ' s i n t e r v i e w w i t h W a l t e r Sallee. 53. D a m o n Bradley, " O n N o t L e t t i n g Georgette D o It: T h e C a s e for S i n g l e - S e x Educational Register (Boston: V i n c e n t / C u r t i s ,

1996), p. 5. D i a n e H u l s e , director of the Collegiate M i d d l e S c h o o l , a n a l l - b o y s a c a d e m y i n N e w Y o r k C i t y , did a s m a l l study c o m p a r i n g the attitudes of 186 boys at Collegiate to 2 3 9 children at a comparable coed school. S h e found that the Collegiate boys were less v u l nerable to pressure, felt t h e y h a d greater control over their academic performance, a n d h a d m o r e egalitarian attitudes t o w a r d w o m e n . S e e D i a n e H u l s e , Brad and Cory: A Study of Middle School Boys ( H u n t i n g Valley, O h i o : U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l Press, 1997). 54.

4. Office of Juvenile Justice and D e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n t i o n , Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System: Statistics Summary

41. June K r o n h o l z , "At M a n y U . S . Schools, the V a l e d i c t o r i a n Is N o w a T r i c k y

B o y s ' E d u c a t i o n , " The Vincent/Curtis

2. A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 t h ed. ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1994), p. 8 5 .

United States v. Virginia, 1 1 6 . S C t 2264, June 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 .

55. New York Times, O c t o b e r 9 , 1 9 9 7 , p. A 2 2 . 56. Fact sheet: "Single G e n d e r A c a d e m i c s Pilot P r o g r a m " (http://www.cde.ca.gov). M a y 7,1999. 57. R i c h a r d L e e C o l v i n , " C a n S a m e - S e x C l a s s e s A i d Desperate C o m m u n i t i e s ? , " Los Angeles Times, J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 1.

13. Ibid., pp. 4 - 5 . 14. Ibid., p. 7. 15. Ibid., p. 424. 16. Ibid., p. 80. 17. Ibid., p. 73. 18. Ibid., p. 82. 19. Jane G r o s s , " W h e r e ' B o y s W i l l B e B o y s , ' a n d A d u l t s A r e Befuddled," New York Times, M a r c h 2 9 , 1 9 9 3 , p. A l . 20. Joan D i d i o n , "Trouble i n L a k e w o o d , " The New Yorker, J u l y 2 6 , 1 9 9 3 , p. 50. S e e also W i l l i a m D a m o n , Greater Expectations: Overcoming

the Culture of Indulgence in

America's Homes and Schools ( N e w York: Free Press, 1995), pp. 4 2 - 4 5 . 21. G r o s s , " W h e r e ' B o y s W i l l B e B o y s , ' and A d u l t s A r e Befuddled." 22.

"Ethical Choices: I n d i v i d u a l Voices," T h i r t e e n / W N E T ( N e w Y o r k , 1997).

23. A b i g a i l T h e r n s t r o m , " W h e r e D i d A l l the O r d e r G o ? : School D i s c i p l i n e and the Law," i n Brookings Papers on Education Policy 1999, ed. D i a n e R a v i t c h ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : B r o o k i n g s I n s t i t u t i o n ) , pp. 2 9 9 - 3 2 5 .

236

NOTES

NOTES

24. Aristotle, Ethics, t r J . A . K . T h o m s o n { L o n d o n : Penguin, 1976), p. 109. 25. Ibid., pp. 9 1 , 9 2 . 26. Jean-Jacques R o u s s e a u , "tmi\e,"

i n The Philosophical

Foundations

1999, p. 16; see also K a t h l e e n K e n n e d y M a n z o , "Shootings S p u r M o v e to Police S t u dents' W o r k , " Education Week, M a y 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 , p. 14. of

Educa-

tion, ed. S t e v e n C a h n { N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row, 1970), p. 163; selection taken from The tmile

of jean Jacques Rousseau:

Selections,

53. A m e r i c a n P s y c h i a t r i c Association, Diagnostic tal Disorders, 4 t h ed., p. 88.

ed. W i l l i a m B o y d { N e w Y o r k : Teachers C o l -

lege, C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1962), pp. 1 1 - 1 2 8 . 27. W i l l i a m B o y d , ed.. The Emile of Jean Jacques Rousseau

R o u s s e a u , " £ m i l e , " ed. C a h n , p. 158.

29.

Ibid., p. 162.

30.

Ibid., p. 174.

( N e w Y o r k : Teachers

was the equivalent of a death sentence. See R o n a l d G r i m s l e y , "Jean-Jacques R o u s s e a u , " of Philosophy,

57. C o l l e e n O ' C o n n o r , " M a k i n g C h a r a c t e r C o u n t , " Dallas Morning 1 0 , 1 9 9 5 , p. I C .

Ibid., p. 163.

34.

S a i n t A u g u s t i n e , The Confessions

of St. Augustine,

t r John K . R y a n ( N e w Y o r k :

Doubleday, 1960). Education:

Five Lectures

(Cam-

Ibid., pp. 3 - 7 .

Re-

P o r t n e r " E v e r y b o d y W a n t s to K n o w W h y , " p. 17. " M o r a l i t y Plays," Harper's

Magazine,

December

1994,

61. Alfie K o h n , " H o w N o t to Teach V a l u e s : A C r i t i c a l L o o k at C h a r a c t e r E d u c a t i o n , " Phi Delta Kappan, F e b r u a r y 1997, p. 4 3 1 . 63. T h o m a s J . L a s l e y I I , " T h e M i s s i n g Ingredient i n C h a r a c t e r E d u c a t i o n , " Phi Delta Kappan, A p r i l 1997, p. 654. 64. R i c h a r d S a t n i c k The Thomas Jefferson A n g e l e s : C a h f o r n i a S u r v e y R e s e a r c h , 1991).

37. Ibid., p. 5. 38.

News, M a r c h

62. Ibid., p. 4 3 3 .

N a n c y F. a n d T h e o d o r e R . Sizer, eds.. Moral

bridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970). 36.

Post, F e b -

58. W r a y H e r b e r t a n d M i s s y D a n i e l , " T h e M o r a l C h i l d , " U.S. News & World June 3 , 1 9 9 6 , p. 52.

60. B e n j a m i n D e M o t t , p. 67.

33.

35.

port,

59.

v o l . 7 ( N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1967), p. 218.

R o u s s e a u , " £ m i l e , " p. 160.

Men-

C e n t e r for the A d v a n c e m e n t of E t h i c s a n d C h a r a c t e r

T h e r e s e L e V a s s e u r A l l the c h i l d r e n w e r e sent to f o u n d l i n g homes, w h i c h i n those days

32.

of

" C h a r a c t e r Education Manifesto," available from the Josephson Institute of

55. D o n a l d Baker, " B r i n g i n g C h a r a c t e r into the C l a s s r o o m , " Washington r u a r y 4 , 1 9 9 9 , metro, p. 1. 56. Ibid.

31. H e is said to h a v e fathered five illegitimate c h i l d r e n by a n uneducated servant,

in Encyclopedia

Manual

Ethics, M a r i n a D e l Ray, C a l i f o r n i a , or from K e v i n R y a n , Director, B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y

College Press, 1970), p. 4 1 . 28.

54.

and Statistical

Ibid., pp. 8 - 9 .

39. S i d n e y S i m o n a n d H o w a r d K i r s c h e n b a u m , eds.. Readings

in Values

Clarifica-

tion (Minneapolis: W i n s t o n Press, 1973), p. 18. 40. See, for example, L a w r e n c e K o h l b e r g , " T h e C o g n i t i v e - D e v e l o p m e n t a l

Ap-

Center

Values Education

65. T i m Stafford, " H e l p i n g J o h n n y Be G o o d , " Christianity 1995, p. 34.

Project ( L o s

Today, S e p t e m b e r 11,

66. For a n excellent practical guide to the m o r a l d e v e l o p m e n t of boys, see M i c h a e l G u r i a n , A Fine Young Man ( N e w Y o r k : T a r c h e r / P u t n a m , 1998).

proach," Phi Delta Kappan, June 1975, pp. 6 7 0 - 7 5 . 41. L a w r e n c e K o h l b e r g , " M o r a l Education Reappraised," The Humanist,

NovemNINE:

b e r - D e c e m b e r 1978, pp. 1 4 - 1 5 . K o h l b e r g , r e n o u n c i n g h i s earlier position, w r o t e , " S o m e years of active i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h the practice of m o r a l education . . . has led m e to r e alize that m y notion . . . w a s m i s t a k e n

T h e educator m u s t be a socializer,

i n g value content a n d behavior a n d not [ m e r e l y ] a process-facilitator

teach-

of development.

. . . I no longer hold these negative v i e w s of indoctrinative m o r a l education a n d I b e heve the concepts g u i d i n g m o r a l education m u s t be partly 'indoctrinative.'

T h i s is

true, b y necessity, i n a w o r l d i n w h i c h c h i l d r e n engage i n stealing, cheating a n d aggression." 42. Pat S e b r a n e k Student

Dave Kemper, and Randall VanderMey, Workshops,

Activities,

and

Strategies

Write

Source

(Wilmington,

2000 Mass.:

43. John Stuart M i l l , On Liberty Tinker v. Des Moines

3.

School District, 3 9 3 U . S . 503, F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 6 9 .

48. James Q . W i l s o n , " I n c i v i U t y a n d C r i m e : T h e R o l e of M o r a l H a b i t u a t i o n , " i n The ed. D o n E b e r l y ( N e w Y o r k : M a d i s o n , 1995), p. 67.

49. G e r t r u d e H i m m e l f a r b , The De-Moralization to Modern

Sons and Raising

Mothers

and Sons: Women

Writers

Talk

About

Men ( N e w Y o r k : Scribners, 1999).

5. D e b o r a h G a l y a n , " W a t c h i n g Star Trek w i t h D y l a n , " i n Between Sons, ed. Stevens, p. 50.

of Society: From Victorian

Virtues

Values ( N e w York: R a n d o m H o u s e , 1994), pp. 5 0 - 5 1 .

50. Q u o t e d i n ibid., p. 52. 51. See, for example, L a u r e n c e Steinberg, Beyond

the Classroom:

Why

School

Re-

form Has Failed and What Parents Need to Do ( N e w Y o r k : S i m o n & S c h u s t e r 1996). 52. Jessica Portner, " E v e r y b o d y W a n t s to K n o w W h y , " Education

Mothers

10. M a r y G o r d o n , " M o t h e r a n d S o n , " i n Between p. 163.

Ibid., p. 306. Character,

County Register, J a n u a r y 2 4 , 1 9 8 8 ,

Ibid.

4. Patricia Stevens, ed.. Between

8. Janet B u r r o w a y , "Soldier S o n , " i n Between 9. Ibid., p. 40.

46. T h e r n s t r o m , " W h e r e D i d A l l the O r d e r G o ?," p. 304.

Content of America's

Confidence

Mothers

and

7. Ibid., pp. 5 1 - 5 2 .

(Chicago: Regnery, 1955), pp. 14, 84.

4 5 . Ibid., Justice Black, dissenting. 47.

2. T o m Wolfe, " T h e G r e a t R e l e a r n i n g , " Orange PJOI.

and the

6. Ibid., pp. 5 0 - 5 1 .

H o u g h t o n M i f f l i n , 1995), p. 217. 44.

1. Peggy O r e n s t e i n , SchoolGirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, Gap ( N e w Y o r k : Doubleday, 1994), p. 248.

Having

Sourcebook:

War and Peace

Week, A p r i l 28,

11. Ibid., p. 164.

and Sons, ed. Stevens, o 3 7

Mothers

and Sons, ed. Stevens,

A A U W , see A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of University Women acfiievement tests, 32 A C L U ( A m e r i c a n C i v i l Liberties U n i o n ) , 171 action figures, 75 A D H D (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder), 2 5 - 2 6 , 1 2 9 adolescent psychology, 19 adrenal androgens, 88

alcohol use, 2 6 , 1 8 4 Allen, Laura, 89,90,91 allergies, 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 Allred, Gloria, 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 6 , 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 9 8 A m b r o s e , Stephen, 1 3 5 - 3 6 A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Women (AAUW): boys' problems d i s m i s s e d by, 4 1 - 4 2 educational bias against girls asserted by 14,21-23,25,34-35,36,37,42

A d v a n c e d Placement ( A P ) p r o g r a m , 24, 27

play behavior w o r k s h o p s of, 7 7 - 7 8

A E R A (American Educational Research

school h a r a s s m e n t s t u d y of, 6 5 - 6 6

A s s o c i a t i o n ) , 23 African Americans: boys, education of, 3 9 , 1 7 3 sex differences i n h i g h e r education of, 40 aggressiveness: creativity l i n k e d w i t h , 6 3 - 6 4

self-esteem s u r v e y of,

20-22,29,105,

121 on single-sex education, 176 A m e r i c a n C i v i l Liberties U n i o n ( A C L U ) , 171 A m e r i c a n Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n ( A E R A ) , 23

as c u l t u r a l message, 85

A m e r i c a n E n t e r p r i s e Institute, 31

c u r r i c u l u m guides on, 5 2 - 5 3

A m e r i c a n Psychiatric Association ( A P A ) ,

girls' interpersonal skills used w i t h , 87

19,141,179-80,201

i n p l a y g r o u n d activities, 5 2 - 5 3

A m e r i c a n Psychological A s s o c i a t i o n , 90

r o u g h - a n d - t u m b l e play m i s c o n s t r u e d

American

as, 9 4 - 9 5 sex differences in, 6 2 - 6 3 , 7 6

Teacher 1997, The,

36-37

androgens, 88 anger management, 5 3 , 1 5 3 , 203

240

INDEX

INDEX

A P ( A d v a n c e d Placement) p r o g r a m , 24, 27

e a r l y - c h i l d h o o d cultural adaptation of,

A r c h e r , C h r i s , 183, 206 architecture, 87

emotional style of, 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 1 3 7 ,

204 artistic ability, 25

h a r a s s m e n t p u n i s h m e n t s of, 5 4 - 5 6

Canada, B e n j a m i n , 95

language skills of, 1 4 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 3 - 3 4 ,

Can Boys Do Better? ( B r a y et al.), 161,

Education, 201 assertiveness skills, 3 7 athletics: 172-73

computer games, social interaction in, 151

m o t h e r s ' recognition of nature of,

casual sex, 93

conduct disorders, 5 0 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 4 ,

C e n t e r for W o m e n Policy Studies, 38

209-11

13-14,46-47,56-57,128,145-47,

sex differences i n participation, 2 5 , 2 6 ,

212

(ADHD), 25-26,129 attentiveness, 23

psychological d y s f u n c t i o n attributed to,

A u g u s t i n e , Saint, 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 1

45-71, 74-86,93,127-28,131-34, single-sex education of, 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 ,

(Faludi), 81

Bartky, S a n d r a Lee, 86

see also sex differences

Progress,

Quarterly

Researcher, 13,

27-28 C o n n e r s , A n n e , 171

S h u m a k e r ) , 167

construction, creativity of, 64 cooperative learning, 1 6 0 , 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 1 6 9

124-29

106-7

civil rights of, 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 - 9 6

Motivation

105 W E E A report to, 4 7

Congressional School, The ( R u g g a n d

children:

suicide rates of, 20

Boys' Achievement,

child-centered education, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 9 3 - 9 4 , Child-Centered

education testing mandated by, 33 G e n d e r E q u i t y E d u c a t i o n A c t of, 23,

see also m o r a l i t y

Child Development,

170-77

Barbie dolls and games, 62, 7 7 , 1 5 1 battery, death by, 48, 49

Congress, U.S.:

child development, sexual identity in, 74,

1 3 9 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 2 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 2 , 213 Backlash

congenital adrenal h y p e r p l a s i a ( C A H ) , 88

212

138-57,211-12 resocialization sought for, 1 5 , 4 4 ,

( A u g u s t i n e ) , 191

C o n f u c i a n i s m , 154

Character Counts Coalition, 201,202

cheating behaviors, 1 7 9 , 1 8 7

210

201 Confessions

character education, 1 7 3 , 1 8 8 - 9 2 , 200-205,209,213

physical activity required by, 9 4 - 9 7 ,

attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

C e n t e r s for Disease C o n t r o l a n d Prevention ( C D C ) , 1 9 - 2 0 , 49, 51

132,133 pathological behavior attributed to,

violence and, 48

138,146,198-200,203 competition, educational value of, 160,

capitalism, 6 4 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 7 , 1 2 8 , 1 2 9

character education and, 1 7 3 , 2 0 2 27,43

C o l u m b i n e H i g h School, shootings at, 13,

m o r a l education of, see m o r a l i t y

paternal presence needed by, 1 2 9 - 3 1 ,

academic s t u d y materials based on,

14,30-31

1 6 9 - 7 0 , 1 7 2 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 5 , 210

162-63,172

87,161,162-65,168

A s p e n D e c l a r a t i o n on C h a r a c t e r

sex differences i n e n r o l l m e n t levels i n , C o l u m b i a Teachers College, 165

176,177 call-out gap, 2 2 - 2 3 , 6 0

149,150-57

Aristotle, 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 1 9 8 ,

C A H (congenital adrenal hyperplasia), 88 C a l i f o r n i a , s a m e - s e x education funded i n ,

124-29

see also boys; girls

cooperative skills, 52 C o x , M a r i a n , 170

Creating Sex-Fair

Family Day Care,

76-77

Chira, Susan, 21-22

creativity, m a s c u l i n e principles of, 6 3 - 6 4

chivalry, 210

Crew, R u d y 3 9 , 4 0

Boys and Girls (Paley), 96

Chodorow, Nancy, 1 2 4 - 2 6 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1

c r i m i n a l behavior:

Bennett, W i l l i a m , 202

B o y Scouts of A m e r i c a , 73

C h r i s t i a n i t y , m o r a l t r a i n i n g and, 188,

B e n t o n , Joanne, 8 4 , 9 9

Bradbury, Ray, 162

bereavement counselors, 155

Bradley, D a m o n , 1 7 5 - 7 6

C h u , Judy, 132

B e r e n b a u m , S h e r i , 88

Brady, T a w n y a , 64, 6 7

C i n c i n n a t i , U n i v e r s i t y of. G e n d e r

Bernstein, Elizabeth, 112,113

brain structure, sex differences i n , 8 9 - 9 0 ,

B e a n Strategy, 61

and Participation

Beck's D e p r e s s i o n Inventory, 140

Saunders, a n d Benefield), 163

bed-wetting,

129

Bertsch, Tatiana, 1 0 7 - 8

(MacDonald,

92

best friends, 94

Brake, D e b o r a h , 1 7 1 , 1 7 2

Best Practice ( Z e m e l m a n , Daniels, a n d

Brawer, Barney, 1 5 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 4 5

Hyde), 166-68

Between Mothers

and Sons (Stevens, ed.),

209-10

E q u a l i t y C e n t e r at, 24

of boys vs. girls, 26 conduct disorder as risk factor i n , 50 lack of m o r a l education tied to, 1 8 1 - 8 6 , 198-200,202,203 one-parent f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d and, 130

C i r c l e of Friends, 5 2 - 5 3

schoolmate shootings,

civil rights, disciplinary needs vs., 188,

sexual assault, 1 8 1 - 8 6

195-96

critical t h i n k i n g , 204

bridge construction, 64

C h n t o n , B i l l , 130

C r o s b y , Faye, 109

Broca, Paul, 91

clothing, gender identity associated w i t h ,

Brown, L y n Mikel, 117-19

Black, H u g o , 1 9 5 , 1 9 6

Bryant, Anne, 20-21,23

Blankenhorn, David, 129-30

B u d d h i s m , 154

Blunkett, David, 1 6 3 , 1 6 4

b u l l y i n g , sexual h a r a s s m e n t vs., 6 4 - 6 8 , 69-70

75

145-i7,198-200

shoplifting, 1 7 9 , 1 8 7

class rankings, 169, 204

Breyer, Stephen, 69

bisexuality, 86

B o n a n n o , George, 153

190

C u l t u r a l R e v o l u t i o n , 78 c u r s i n g , 150

coeducation, s a m e - s e x classes vs., 3 9 , 1 6 2 , 163,170-77 cognitive m o r a l development, 193

Daily Mail ( L o n d o n ) , 163

Cohen, Bruce, 143-44

Daily Telegraph ( L o n d o n ) , 1 6 9 , 1 8 0 - 8 1 Daley, Janet, 1 6 9 , 1 8 0 - 8 1

Boston Globe, 8 4 , 8 5

Bw//i/proo/(Sjostrom), 67-68

Cole, N a n c y , 32

Bowen, Elizabeth, 107-8

B u r k e , E d m u n d , 198

College B o a r d , 32

D a l t o n School, 7 8 , 9 9

boys:

B u r r o w a y , Janet, 2 1 0 - 1 1

college education:

D a n f o r t h , John, 1 7 1 , 1 7 7

African-American, 39-40,173

B u s h m a n , B r a d , 156

of A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s , 40

Darwin, Charles, 1 0 2 , 1 2 1 - 2 2

i n atmosphere of disapproval, 5 7 - 5 9 ,

B u s w e l l , B a r b a r a , 77

economic value of, 31

D a u g h e r t y , M r s . (sixth-grade teacher),

Bybee, Jane, 1 5 2 - 5 3

h i g h school A d v a n c e d Placement

134,147,211-12 college e n r o l l m e n t levels of, 14

B y e r s , Stephen, 1 6 0 , 1 6 8

programs i n , 24

158-59,166 Davis, A u r e l i a , 68

242

INDEX

INDEX

Davis V. Monroe County Board of Education, 6 8 - 7 1

i n language skills, 1 4 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 3 - 3 4 ,

debating clubs, 25

i n mathematics, 24, 2 5 , 4 3 , 1 6 0 , 1 7 2 - 7 3

Debold, E l i z a b e t h , 8 5 - 8 6 , 1 3 1

m o r a l , see m o r a l i t y

D e F a z i o , Jackie, 3 8 , 8 0 - 8 1

p h y s i c a l safety and, 69

De-Moralization

school violence and, 1 4 6 ^ 7 , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0

Everett M i d d l e S c h o o l , 80

i n science, 2 4 , 2 5 , 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 3 , 1 6 0

E x p l o r e r Scouts, 73

self-esteem m o v e m e n t i n , 1 5 6 - 5 7 ,

e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r activities, 25, 26, 2 0 5 - 6

of Society, The

(Himmelfarb), 197-98 D e M o t t , B e n j a m i n , 203, 204 depression, 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 0

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), 19, 141-42

engineering, 87

gender identity:

ethical behavior, s e x u a l stereotypes of, 91,

161,162-65,168

106-7,135-36 "Ethical Choices: I n d i v i d u a l Voices," 186-87

124- 25,127-28,134-36,149 of ethical behavior, 9 1 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 1 3 5 - 3 6

sex segregation i n , 3 9 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 7 0 - 7 7 s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t concerns i n , 1 4 , 4 7 ,

Failing at Fairness

(Sadker a n d S a d k e r ) ,

18, 7 8 - 7 9

53-58,64-71,82 student engagement w i t h , 2 7 - 2 9 , 3 4 ,

Faludi, S u s a n , 8 1 , 1 4 7 - 5 0 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 5

traditional discipline vs. progressive approaches to, 1 5 8 - 7 0 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 , 1 9 3 ,

D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e A w a r e n e s s M o n t h , 45

194 women-centered curriculum in, 80-84,

Fatherless America

196-98 (Blankenhorn),

129-30

approbation of, 3 6 , 3 7 , 1 0 1 on boys as v i c t i m s of m a s c u l i n e

Florig, K e i t h , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1

d r u g use, 26

E d u c a t i o n A m e n d m e n t s , T i t l e I X of, 51,

Ford, J a c k 1 4 5 , 1 4 6

DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), 19,

Education Department, U.S.:

Easton, N i n a , 66 E d e l m a n , M a r i a n W r i g h t , 202 education: A d v a n c e d P l a c e m e n t p r o g r a m s i n , 24, 27

on A d v a n c e d P l a c e m e n t e x a m i n a t i o n

F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t , 175 200,212 F r e m o n , Celeste, 94

c u r r i c u l u m guides funded by, 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 6

F r e u d , S i g m u n d , 155

gender-equity p r o g r a m s sponsored by,

Friedan, Betty, 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 5

3 8 - 3 9 , 4 7 - 4 8 , 75, 76

125- 29,141,150 on m i l i t a r y ethos, 1 3 4 - 3 6 p a t r i a r c h y criticized by, 1 5 , 3 6 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 117,122,130 research data and m e t h o d s of, 102, 1 0 3 -i, 107-11,112-13,119-22,129 o n resociaUzation of boys, 8 5 - 8 6 , 131-34,148

176 sex-difference s u r v e y s by, 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 ,

gallantry, 211

on single-sex classes, 171

games:

British, 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 8 - 3 9 , 4 3 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 - 6 4 ,

on student engagement, 2 8 - 2 9

Education Leadership, 85 Education

on s e l f - s i l e n c i n g of girls, 3 6 , 1 1 1 - 1 3 ,

G a l s t o n , W i l l i a m , 130

28-29,30,121

attentiveness i n , 23

Week, 1 5 , 2 1 , 3 2 , 1 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 3 1 ,

competition i n , 1 7 4 , 2 0 8

137 o n sex differences i n m o r a l discernment, 1 0 6 - 8 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 6 - 3 7 s e x i s m of social science tradition

i n school p l a y g r o u n d activities, 5 2 53 social interaction i n , 151

167,200

shifted by, 110 on voice, 1 1 4 - 1 6 w o m e n ' s groups inspired by, 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 9 ,

gender equity, federal p r o g r a m s i n

cheating i n , 1 7 9 , 1 8 7

E h r e n r e i c h , Barbara, 31

child-centered models of, 1 5 9 - 6 0 ,

electromagnetic fields ( E M F ) , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1

193-94

137,139,140,147,155 on m a s c u l i n e separation from mother,

Froebel, Friedrich, 1 6 5 - 6 6

Office of C i v i l Rights, 3 9 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 7 1 ,

Galyan, Deborah, 210,211

call-out a n s w e r s i n , 2 2 - 2 3 , 60

17-18,19,41,102-5,117-19,120,

freedom, m o r a l restraint vs., 1 8 9 - 9 1 , 1 9 6 ,

rates, 24 on college e n t r a n c e of b o y s vs. girls, 14,

on s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t concerns, 5 3 - 5 4

167,168,169,170,177

127-28,134-36,149 crisis of adolescent girls posited by,

Fortas, A b e , 195

of A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s , 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 7 3

b u l l y i n g behavior and, 6 6 - 6 8 , 6 9

stereotypes, 1 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 ^ 2 5 ,

Ford, Maggie, 4 1 , 1 7 6

52,59,66,68

30 Eagly, Alice, 9 0 , 9 1

Gilligan, Carol, 9 9 - 1 3 7 , 1 4 5

FBI, 49

E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g Service, 32, 69

d y s t h y m i a , 19

G . I . Joe dolls, 7 7 , 7 9

fathers, absence of, 1 2 9 - 3 2

dropout rates, 3 2 - 3 3

dyslexia, 8 7

g e n t l e m a n , V i c t o r i a n m o r a l ideal of,

Fiske E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , 84

207-8

support of, 2 3 , 3 9 , 5 0 - 5 2 , 5 3 - 5 4 gender-equity activists:

e l e m e n t a r y schools:

104- 5,137 G i n s b u r g , R u t h Bader, 6 8 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 girl-crisis movement, 1 7 - 2 3 , 3 5

class rankings i n , 169, 204

a n t i h a r a s s m e n t p r o g r a m s i n , 47, 5 3 - 5 4

m a l e - a v e r s e attitudes of, 5 9 - 6 2

G i r l P o w e r ! , 39

college e n r o l l m e n t levels and, 14,

see also education

m i s i n f o r m a t i o n from, 4 8 - 5 0

girls:

29-31,40 competition incentive i n , 1 6 0 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 172,173,174,175,210 e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r activities and, 2 5 , 2 6 , 205-6 grading patterns i n , 2 7 i n kindergarten, 165

" E m i l e " ( R o u s s e a u ) , 191 E m m a Willard School, 111-13 m a s c u l i n e style of, 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 1 3 7 , 149,150-57 m o r a l restraint on, 189 Intelligence

reeducation efforts advocated by, 50, 207-8 sexual i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n addressed by,

e m o t i o n a l expression:

Emotional

Justice ( S t e i n

a n d Cappello), 5 6 - 5 7

E A . O . S c h w a r z , 62

173

domestic violence, 4 5 - 4 6 , 4 8 ^ 9 , 5 6 , 6 1

141-42

i n reading c u r r i c u l a , 16 Gender Violence/Gender

discipline, 1 5 8 - 5 9

D r e x l e r M e l i s s a , 146

b o y s v i e w e d as v i c t i m s of, 1 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 2 ,

161-62,193-94

Fallon Park E l e m e n t a r y School, 202

D o w n e s , Peter, 162

see also m a s c u l i n e i d e n t i t y gender stereotypes:

standardized tests of, 3 1 - 3 3

dolls, 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 5 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 7 9 , 8 8 , 9 7

98-99 socialization and, 7 4 - 7 5 , 76, 9 8 - 9 9

D i d i o n , Joan, 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 - 8 6 moral, 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 5 - 9 6

i n child development, 7 4 , 1 2 4 - 2 9 gender-equity activists on, 7 4 - 8 5 ,

( G o l e m a n ) , 87

74-85,98-99

adolescent d e v e l o p m e n t a l crisis and, 17-18,19,41,102-5,117-19,120, 137,139,140,147,155 c r i m i n a l b e h a v i o r of, 146

G e n d e r E q u i t y Education A c t , 23

federal legislation o n educational

Gender Equity for Educators, Parents, and Community, 75

loss of self-esteem c l a i m e d for, 1 0 2 - 5

equity of, 23

243

244

INDEX

girls (cont.) loss of voice c l a i m e d for, 3 6 , 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 137

INDEX

H e i n z A w a r d , 101

Jarvis, E W a s h i n g t o n , 203

Le Bon, Gustave, 91-92

H e l d , V i r g i n i a , 106

Jefferson C e n t e r for C h a r a c t e r Education,

Lee, V a l e r i e E . , 3 4 , 4 3

Herbart, J o h a n n Friedrich, 165

single-sex education of, 1 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 7 5 - 7 6

H e w i t t , John, 156

suicide rates of, 20

h i g h school:

see also sex differences

A d v a n c e d Placement programs in, 24, 27

Girls and Boys Getting Along, 53 G i r l Scouts of A m e r i c a , 155

e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r activities in, 25, 26, 205-6

G l e b e E l e m e n t a r y School, 54 G l e i c k , E l i z a b e t h , 18

204

Lees, Darcy, 59

Jefferson Junior H i g h School, 2 0 2 - 3

Leffert, Nancy, 37

Jones, G a i l , 23

Lefkowitz, B e r n a r d , 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 4

Jones, Jenny, 1 5 4 , 1 8 5

Leo, John, 35

Jonesboro, A r k . , shootings in, 146

L e v a n t , R o n a l d E , 86

Josephson Institute of Ethics, 1 7 9 , 2 0 1

L e w i n , Tamar, 22

journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 4 0

Liebert, H u g h , 108

see also education

L i l l a r d , Janice, 78

G l e n Ridge, N.J., rape case i n , 1 8 1 - 8 4 , 1 8 5

H i l l , A n i t a , 82, 8 3 , 8 4

G l e n v i e w E l e m e n t a r y School, 78

Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 197-98

K a m a r c k , Elaine, 130

goals, ethics t r a i n i n g on, 205, 206

H i n e s , M e l i s s a , 88

K a m i n e r , H a n n a , 153

Golding, William, 184,191

hippies, health problems of, 208

Kant, Immanuel, 91,193

G o l e m a n , D a n i e l , 87

H i r s c h , E . D . , Jr., 1 6 0 , 1 7 0

K a t z , Jackson, 6 1 - 6 2

Little League baseball, 48

G o r d o n , M a r y , 211

Hitler, Adolf, 1 1 8 , 1 4 6 , 2 0 4

Kekelis, L i n d a , 7 7 - 7 8

Littleton, Colo., C o l u m b i n e H i g h S c h o o l

G o r e , A l , 139

H o l o c a u s t s u r v i v o r s , 153

K e n i l w o r t h J u n i o r H i g h School, 66

shootings i n , 1 3 , 1 4 6 , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 ,

G o s s V. Lopez, 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 - 9 6

Holt, John, 167

Kennedy, Anthony, 6 9 - 7 0

203

graffiti, 64

h o m e w o r k assignments, 2 8 - 2 9

K e n n e d y , C a r o l , 95

L o g a n , Judy, 8 0 - 8 4 , 99

G r e a t B r i t a i n , b o y s ' education i n , 1 5 - 1 6 ,

h o n e s t y i n b o y s vs. girls, 1 7 9 , 1 8 7

K i l p a t r i c k W i l l i a m H e a r d , 167

Longo, A l e x , 8 4 - 8 5

38-39,43,160,161-64,167,168,169,

h o n o r rolls, 169

K i m u r a , D o r e e n , 76

Lorde, A u d r e , 119

170,177

h o n o r societies, 25, 37

kindergarten, 165

Lord of the Flies ( G o l d i n g ) , 1 8 4 , 1 9 1

Lingua Franca, 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 " L i s t e n i n g to B o y s ' Voices" (Pollack), 138, 140-41,143-44 L i t e r a c y Hour, 1 5 , 1 6 3

Great Relearning, 208-9

Horatio Alger Association, 4 0 , 4 3

Kingle, K i p , 146

L o u r y , G l e n n , 79

G r e e n e , D a v i d , 27

h o r m o n a l differences, 76, 78

K i r s c h e n b a u m , H o w a r d , 193

Lucas, C h e r y l , 200

Klebold, D y l a n , 1 4 6 , 1 9 8 , 1 9 9 - 2 0 0

Luce, C l a r e Boothe, 92

grief, 1 5 3 , 1 5 5

Hostile Hallways,

guns, 1 4 5 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 0

H o u y , S e t h , 13

G u r , R a q u e l , 90, 91

How

G u r R u b e n , 90

65-66

Schools Shortchange

Girls,

21-22,

29,105,121

K l e i n f e l d , Judith, 4 1 , 4 3

L u r i a , Z e l l a , 109

K o h l , Herbert, 167

L y l e , Katie, 6 4 , 6 7

K o h l b e r g , L a w r e n c e , 193

" H o w to Be Successful," 2 0 4 - 5

K o h n , Alfie, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 2 0 3 - 4

h u m a n rights, 92

Kosters, M a r v i n , 31

H a i g h t - A s h b u r y Free C l i n i c , 208

H u n A c a d e m y , 58

K o z o l , Jonathan, 167

M c L a n a h a n , Sara, 130

Hamlet (Shakespeare), 147

h y g i e n e practices, 208

Krents, Ehsabeth, 7 8 , 9 9

M c L e a n Hospital, C e n t e r for M e n at, 13,

Hanson, Katherine, 4 7 - 5 0 , 5 1

h y p e r m a s c u l i n i t y , 63

138,139-40,143^4,147

H a r f o r d H e i g h t s E l e m e n t a r y School,

M a c m i l l a n , Bonnie, 168

172-74 H a r p e r C y n t h i a , 130 Harper, John, J r , 1 6 9 - 7 0 H a r r i n g t o n , Jerry, 2 0 5 - 6 Harris, Eric, 1 4 6 , 1 9 8 , 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 Harter Susan, 119-20 H a r v a r d G r a d u a t e School of Education, 74, 8 5 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 2 4 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 4 H a r v a r d M e d i c a l School, 1 3 8 , 1 4 4 H a r v a r d Project on W o m e n ' s Psychology, B o y s ' D e v e l o p m e n t and the C u l t u r e

In a Different

Voice ( G i l l i g a n ) , 1 0 6 - 1 1 ,

114,122,125-26 incarceration rates, fatherlessness l i n k e d to, 130

Influence of School Climate on Gender Differences in the Achievement and Engagement of Young Adolescents, The (Lee, C h e n , and S m e r d o n ) , 3 4 - 3 5 intelligence, historical sexual stereotypes of, 9 1 - 9 2

laddism, 3 8 , 1 6 2

M c P h e r s o n , Joseph, 174

L a k e w o o d , Calif., S p u r Posse activities in,

M a d h u b u t i , H a k i , 50

148,181,184-86 L a m b , S h a r o n , 55 Landon, 175,177

(Gilligan, Lyons,

Maltman, David, 183-84,196

brain structure distinctions reflected in, 89-90 sex differences i n , 1 4 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 3 - 3 4 , 8 7 , 89-90,161,162-65,168

interpersonal skills, 87

Lasch, Christopher, 117

hate crimes, 70

intimacy, i n social Ufe of girls, 94

Lasley, T h o m a s , 204 L a u r e l School for G i r l s , 117 Lavie, Peretz, 153

"Jack a n d Jill," 77

laws, m a n n e r s vs., 198

Hedges, L a r r y , 3 3 - 3 4 , 4 3 , 1 6 0 - 6 1

Jacklin, C a r o l , 63

learning disabilities, 3 3 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 , 1 6 8 ,

Heights School, 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 1 7 7

James, Etta, 8 1 , 8 3

39

Connections

and H a m e r eds.), 1 1 1 - 1 3 , 1 1 7 m a l e bonding, 96

H a s b r o T o y s , 73

U . S . , p r o g r a m for girls launched by,

Making

Langmuir Irving, 100,122

Larry King Live, 139

H e a l t h a n d H u m a n Services D e p a r t m e n t ,

M a h e r Brendan, 108-9

language skills:

intelligence tests, 32

of M a n h o o d , 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 4 5

Maccoby, Eleanor, 63

184

Mann, Judy 181,182,185 manners, 173,198 M a r s h a l l , Nancy, 74 masculine

identity:

e a r l y childhood development of, 124-27 e m o t i o n a l distress attributed to, 1 4 8 150 v i r t u e l i n k e d w i t h , 175 mathematics: class e n r o l l m e n t s in, 2 4 , 2 5 girls' deficits i n , 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 3

245

246

INDEX

INDEX

mathematics

g i r l s - o n l y h o l i d a y established by, 4 5 ,

(cont.)

Soviet competition in, 160 spatial m a n i p u l a t i o n ability l i n k e d with, 87,88 sports-based m a t e r i a l used i n s t u d y of, Meeting

at the Crossroads

(Brown and

Offer, D a n i e l , 19

M u r p h y , G e e n a , 143 m u s i c a l ability, 25

On Liberty The ( H e w i t t ) , 156

Myth That Schools Shortchange

Girls,

violence i n , 7 3 - 7 4 playhouses, 7 3 - 7 4 , 88

( M i l l ) , 194

Pledge of Allegiance, 204

O ' R e i l l y , Patricia, 24

P o l l a c k W i l l i a m , 13, 8 6 , 1 3 8 - i 4 , 1 4 5 - 4 7 ,

O r e n s t e i n , Peggy, 8 0 - 8 3 , 207

148,149-50,154

Our Guys ( L e f k o w i t z ) , 1 8 1 , 1 8 2

T/ie ( K l e i n f e l d ) , 41

Gilligan), 117-19

151,210

O l s o n , L y n n , 167 Olweus, Dan, 67

of Self-Esteem,

w i t h toys, 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 5 , 8 5 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 3 1 ,

o l d l i m b i c s y s t e m , 90

Son's D a y proposed by, 4 5 - 4 6

Myth

172-73

J

51,104-5

Povich, M a u r y , 185 Powell, L e w i s , 1 9 5 - 9 6

m e n , Faludi's findings on distress a m o n g ,

P r e v e n t i o n of V i o l e n c e A g a i n s t W o m e n ,

148-49 men's studies, 86

N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences, 101

Paglia, C a m i l l e , 6 3 - 6 4

m e n t a l disorders, prevalence of, 149

N a t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t of E d u c a t i o n a l

Paley, V i v i a n G u s s i n , 9 6 - 9 8

mentoring, 39

Progress ( N A E P ) , 3 3 , 1 6 4 N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for Education Statistics,

parenting skills, 7 6 , 1 2 5 - 2 6

M e r l i n o , N e l , 105 gender issues i n education s u r v e y e d

N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n for Sex E q u i t y in

M i c h i g a n , U n i v e r s i t y of, 6 5 - 6 6

National Education Association, 52,53,

M i l l , John Stuart, 194

N a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n for E d u c a t i o n a l

Moral Education

( S i z e r a n d Sizer, eds.),

192-93 morality, 1 7 9 - 2 0 6

N a t i o n a l Institutes of H e a l t h , 153 N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , 148 N a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n for W o m e n ( N O W ) , 70,83,171

A r i s t o t l e vs. R o u s s e a u on, 1 8 8 - 9 2 , 1 9 8 child-centered approaches to, 1 9 2 - 9 5 , 212 c r i m i n a l behavior and, 1 8 1 - 8 6 ,

N a t i o n a l School B o a r d Association, 54

201-5,209,213

sexual h a r a s s m e n t w i t h i n larger context of, 6 5 , 6 7 , 7 1

New

York Times, 2 1 - 2 2 , 3 9 102-3,121,

mother:

n u r t u r i n g behavior, 7 6 , 9 7 , 1 2 5

M o y n i h a n , D a n i e l Patrick, 129

e a r l y childhood separation of b o y s from, 1 2 5 - 2 9 , 1 4 1 Nussbaum, Emily, 153,155

97

at n u r s e r y school level, 9 6 - 9 7 p h y s i c a l activity needs m e t in, 9 4 - 9 7 r e f o r m i n g aggressiveness of, 5 2 - 5 3 , 74, 76-80 rough-and-tumble, 7 6 , 9 4 - 9 5 sex differences i n , 6 3 , 7 3 - 7 9 , 8 5 - 8 6 ,

>, 'ij

R & T (rough-and-tumble) play 94-95 rape, 4 8 , 4 9 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 1 8 4 Ravitch, Diane, 1 4 , 2 2 , 1 6 7 reading: b o y s ' taste in, considered in c u r r i c u l a , 16,162,163 l e a r n i n g disorders in, 8 7 , 1 6 8 sex-related differences i n skills of, 14, 15-16,33,161,162-65,168 Readings

in Values Clarification

(Simon

a n d K i r s c h e n b a u m , eds.), 193 Real Boys (Pollack), 1 3 , 8 6 , 1 3 8 - 3 9 , 147 recess periods, 94, 9 5 - 9 6 Regier, D a r r e l , 149 R e h n q u i s t , W i l l i a m , 69

sex segregation i n , 96

repression, v a l u e of, 1 5 2 - 5 5

O a k Street M i d d l e School, 66

social skills developed i n , 94, 96

Reproduction

O'Connor, Sandra Day, 6 8 - 6 9

tag games, 5 2 - 5 3

M s . F o u n d a t i o n for W o m e n : 31

w i t h dolls, 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 5 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 7 9 , 8 8 ,

87-88,96-97,151

Ms., 101 educational gender bias asserted by, 14,

^

N W L C (National Women's L a w Center),

171

competition in, 174, 208, 210

i n h i e r a r c h i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d groups, 94

Women), 70,83,171 Nowell, Amy, 3 3 - 3 4 , 4 3 , 1 6 0 - 6 1

Mothers Against D r u n k Driving, 203

Quit hi, 5 2 - 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 6 , 6 0 , 6 2 , 71

Plato, 189 play behavior:

127,128

M o r r i s , Estelle, 16

209-11

Q u i n d l e n , A n n a , 18 203-4

Pipher M a r y 18,19-20,81,139,147,150, 155

N O W (National O r g a n i z a t i o n for

son's innate character recognized by,

37 Puka, William, 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 2 0 3

94-97

Yorker, 1 8 5 - 8 6

York Times Magazine,

Today, 6 6 - 6 7

Pestalozzi, J o h a n n H e i n r i c h , 165

p h y s i c a l activity, b o y s ' e n j o y m e n t of,

V i c t o r i a n g e n t l e m a n as model of,

m a s c u l i n e separation from, 1 2 5 - 2 9 , 1 4 1

Public E d u c a t i o n N e t w o r k ( P E N ) , 36,

newspapers, school, 2 4 , 2 6

value-free approaches to, 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 212 196-98

Psychology

Phi Delta Kappan,

1998 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, 179

of s p o r t s m a n s h i p , 173, 202

Peace Corps, 25 Pellegrini, A n t h o n y , 94

Petersen, A n n e , 19

E q u i t y in E d u c a t i o n ) , 5 9 - 6 1

New

Prose, F r a n c i n e , 1 0 3 - 4 prostitution, 93

Neill, A . S.,167

New York Observer, 149

136-37

historical sex bias of, 91

on, 151

171 N C S E E ( N a t i o n a l C o a l i t i o n for S e x

New

191-92,193,194 promiscuity, 9 3 , 9 6 , 1 4 2 - 4 3

P B S , 187

P E N (Public E d u c a t i o n N e t w o r k ) , 36, 3 7

sex differences i n , 9 1 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 1 2 6 ,

Test

progressive education, 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 6 5 - 7 0 ,

115-16,119,122,124-25,131

personal relationships, female e m p h a s i s

of self-esteem m o v e m e n t , 1 5 6 - 5 7

Profile of SAT and Achievement Takers, 32

fatherlessness w i t h i n , 1 3 1 , 1 3 2

National Women's L a w Center ( N W L C ) ,

military 135-36,210 resurgence of c h a r a r t e r education i n ,

c u l t u r a l achievements of, 6 3 - 6 4

N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n , 3 9

198-200,202,203 emotional restraint and, 154

prodigies, 32 profanity, 150

G i l l i g a n ' s criticisms of, 1 5 , 3 6 , 1 0 5 - 6 ,

R e s e a r c h , 163

M i t c h e l l , J i m , 169

pathological science, 100

of E a s t vs. West, 116

54,67

m i l i t a r y culture, 1 3 4 - 3 6 , 2 1 0

A c h i e v e m e n t Initiative i n , 3 9 p r o b l e m solvers, social, 94

patriarchal society, 4 4 , 5 8 , 86

Education ( N C S E E ) , 59-61

by, 3 6 - 3 7 , 4 3 , 1 2 1

Prince George's C o u n t y , M d . , Black M a l e

P a r k Robert, 101 Parks, Rosa, 8 3

24

M e t r o p o l i t a n Life I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y ,

51 Prevette, Jonathan, 54

of Mothering,

( C h o d o r o w ) , 125

The ^

247

248

INDEX

INDEX

resocialization of boys, 1 5 , 4 4 , 4 5 - 7 1 , 74-86,93,127-28,131-34,139,148, 152,210,212,213 revisionist history, 35 Reviving

Ophelia (Pipher), 1 8 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 81,

147

Science, 3 3 - 3 4

g i r l - c r i s i s m o v e m e n t charges of, 21,

scouting organizations, sexes separated i n ,

single-sex education opposed as, 39,

73 S e a r c h Institute, 3 7 , 4 3

Riley, R i c h a r d , 199

See, C a r o l y n , 18

Riordan, Cornelius, 176,177

Seles, M o n i c a , 83

R i o r d a n , Pat, 169

self-esteem:

R o h r b o u g h , D a n i e l , 13 Roosevelt, T h e o d o r e , 133

sex d i s c r i m i n a t i o n :

Science News, 21 Scientific American, 76

A A U W report on girls' lack of, 2 0 - 2 1 , 29,42

23 170-72,175-77 U . S . legislation on, 23 sexual abuse, e m o t i o n a l repression and, 153 sexual h a r a s s m e n t :

Society for the P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t u d y of M e n a n d M a s c u l i n i t y , 86 soldiers, 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 1 0 Sommers, David, 150-51 Son's Day, 4 5 - 4 6 , 4 8 , 2 1 1 Souter, D a v i d , 69 Spafford, M a r t i n , 5 7 spatial reasoning, 87, 88 special education programs, 25

b u l l y i n g vs., 6 4 - 6 8 , 6 9 - 7 0

speech disorders, 8 7 , 1 2 9

c u r r i c u l u m programs on, 5 3 - 5 4 , 5 6 - 5 7 ,

sports:

Rosenau, Kenneth, 54-55

adolescent loss of voice and, 102—i

r o u g h - a n d - t u m b l e ( R & T ) play, 9 4 - 9 5

B r i t i s h educators on, 1 6 1 - 6 2

domestic violence linked w i t h , 56

R o u s s e a u , Jean-Jacques, 1 1 7 , 1 5 9 , 1 8 8 - 9 2 ,

as educational goal, 1 5 6 - 5 7 , 1 6 5

b y girls, 82

character education t h r o u g h , 173, 202 sex differences of participation i n , 25,

58,67-68

m o r a l education vs., 1 8 6 , 1 9 3 - 9 4

hostile e n v i r o n m e n t as, 56

R o x b u r y L a t i n S c h o o l , 203

of S p u r Posse, 1 8 5 - 8 6

i n larger m o r a l context, 65, 67, 71

Ruddick, Sara, 8 6 , 1 0 6

T a k e O u r D a u g h t e r s to W o r k D a y as

l a w s u i t s on, 5 4 , 5 5 , 6 6

195,198,199, 200,203,206,212

academic study m a t e r i a l s based on, 172-73

26,27,43 violence and, 48

boost to, 105

p u n i s h m e n t s for, 5 4 - 5 6

spread p h e n o m e n o n , 3

Separated by Sex, 176

in schools, 1 4 , 4 7 , 6 4 - 7 1

Springer, Jerry, 154

R u s s e l l , B e r t r a n d , 197

separation a n x i e t y disorder, 1 4 1 - 4 2

S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l i n g on, 6 8 - 7 1

S p r u n g , Barbara, 62

Ryder, N o r m a n B . , 180

serial killers, 4 7 , 1 9 9

R u g g , H a r o l d , 167

Rumpelstiltskin,

78

sex, casual, 93 sex differences: Sadker, D a v i d , 1 8 , 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 5 1 , 79

i n academic a c h i e v e m e n t , 2 4 - 4 3 , 1 0 2 - 3 , 161,162-65,168,178

sexual identity, see gender identity; m a s c u l i n e identity

S p u r Posse, 1 4 8 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 - 8 6

Sputnik, 160

sexual p r o m i s c u i t y , 9 3 , 9 6 , 1 4 2 - 4 3

Stafford, T i m , 205

Shakespeare, W i l l i a m , 45

Stein, N a n , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 4 , 5 6 , 5 8 ,

Shalala, D o n n a , 39

60,62

in aggressiveness, 6 2 - 6 3 , 7 6

Shapiro, Judith, 1 7 1 - 7 2

Sallee, W a l t e r 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 7

i n brain physiology, 8 9 - 9 0 , 91

Shaw, Roberta, 144

Saltzman, A m y , 22-23

i n focus o n objects vs. personal

S h a y w i t z , Bennett, 89, 90

stepfathers, 130

S h a y w i t z , S a l l y 89, 90

Stevens, John Paul, 69

S h e h a n , B i l l y 185

Stiffed

shopHfting, 1 7 9 , 1 8 7

stoicism, 1 5 3 - 5 5

Sadker, M y r a , 1 8 , 2 2 , 3 6 , 5 1 , 7 8 - 7 9

Satel, Sally, 5 9 , 6 1 Sattel, Sue, 4 7 , 4 8 , 5 0 , 6 0 Saturday

Today, 1 4 5 - 4 6

relationships, 1 5 1 - 5 2 , 210 historical d i s c r i m i n a t o r y attitudes on, 91-92

Steinem, Gloria, 4 4 , 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 9 8 , 1 3 4 , 207

(Faludi), 8 1 , 1 4 7 - 4 9

Scaha, A n t o n i n , 69

hormonal, 76,88

Shriver Maria, 145,146

student g o v e r n m e n t , 25, 26, 205

Scarsdale H i g h S c h o o l , 2 7

i n mathematics, 2 4 , 2 5 , 3 3 , 3 9 , 4 3 , 8 7 ,

S h u m a k e r , A n n , 167

s t u d y habits, 2 8 - 2 9

S i m o n , Sidney, 193

stuttering, 1 2 4 , 1 2 9

single-sex education, 16, 3 9 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 ,

suicide, 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 6 , 4 9 , 1 2 9

Scherzer, K e v i n , 1 8 3 , 1 8 4 , 206 S c h e r z e r L y l e , 183, 206 Schlechter, S u s a n L e v i n , 60 Scholastic A s s e s s m e n t Test ( S A T ) , 32, 33 SchoolGirls

88,172-73 m i s i n f o r m a t i o n in literature on, 14, 20-23,34-35,41-42 in moral discernment, 9 1 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 1 2 6 , 136-37

(Orenstein), 18,80

school newspapers, 2 5 , 2 6 schools: b u l l y i n g b e h a v i o r i n , 6 6 - 6 8 , 69 cheating i n , 1 7 9 , 1 8 7 sexual h a r a s s m e n t concerns of, 1 4 , 4 7 , 53-58,64-71

Supreme Court, U.S.:

S m i t h , T o m , 148

143 social c o n d i t i o n i n g vs. innate sources of, 7 4 - 9 2 i n spatial reasoning, 8 7

u n i f o r m s w o r n at, 173

in sports participation, 2 5 , 2 6 , 27,

see also education

Sizer, Theodore, 1 9 2 - 9 3 , 1 9 4

i n play behavior, 63, 7 3 - 7 9 , 8 5 - 8 6 , i n s e x u a l promiscuity, 9 3 , 9 6 , 1 4 2 -

43

(Neill), 167

superheroes, 8 5 , 9 7 , 1 3 1

S m i t h , S u s a n , 146

87-88,96-97,151

Summerhill

Sizer Nancy 192-93,194

m o t h e r s ' recognition of, 2 0 9 - 1 1

student safety levels i n , 69 violent c r i m e s at, 1 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 9 8 - 2 0 0

170-77

socialization: gender identity and, 7 4 - 7 5 , 76, 9 8 -

on civil rights of children, 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 196 on s a m e - s e x education, 1 7 5 - 7 6 sexual h a r a s s m e n t r u l i n g of, 6 8 - 7 1

99 m o r a l education needed in, 1 8 0 - 8 1 , 183 n a t u r a l child as corrupted by, 117, 189-90 see also resocialization of boys

tag games, 52 Take O u r D a u g h t e r s to W o r k D a y ( T O D T W D ) , 35,45,105 talk therapy, 155

statistical probability and, 8 8 - 8 9

social justice, 192, 2 0 3 ^

T a n n e n , D e b o r a h , 94

Schuster, S u s a n , 21

student attitudes on, 36, 3 7 , 4 1 - 4 2

social science, historical use of m a l e

T A T ( T h e m a t i c Apperception Test), 141

science:

i n toy preferences, 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 5 1

education i n , 24, 25, 33, 39, 4 3 , 1 6 0 poor research i n , 1 0 0 - 1 0 1

i n verbal skills, 1 4 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 3 3 - 3 4 , 8 7 , 89-90,161,162-65,168

m o d e l s i n , 110, 111 social skills, development of, 94, 9 6 , 1 5 1 , 173

Taubes, G a r y , 100 Taylor Curtis, 66-67 T a y l o r - T h o m p s o n , K i m , 187

249

250

INDEX

INDEX in sports activities, 48

teachers:

on television, 200

d i s c i p h n a r y methods of, 1 5 8 - 5 9 gender-equity t r a i n i n g of, 3 5 , 4 1 ,

60-61

V i r g i n i a M i l i t a r y Institute, 1 7 5 - 7 6

male, 174

virtue, m a n l i n e s s h n k e d w i t h , 175

on sex differences, 36

voice, 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 2 0

w o m e n ' s groups, i n g i r l - c r i s i s m o v e m e n t , 20-23

Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky et al.), 167 204 workforce:

practices of, 1 5 8 - 7 0 W a l k e r Lawrence, 1 0 6 - 7

college education in, 31

tests, standardized, 3 1 - 3 3

W a l s h , S e a n , 176

language skills needed i n , 3 3 -

T h e m a t i c Apperception Test ( T A T ) , 141

war, c u l t u r a l context of, 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 -

therapism, 1 5 5 - 5 7 , 2 1 2 T h e r n s t r o m , A b i g a i l , 195

136 W a r n e r V i c t o r i a , 61

T h o m a s , C l a r e n c e , 69

Washington

T h u r o w , L e s t e r 160

wealth, distribution of, 2 0 3 - 4

T i g e r L i o n e l , 89

W E E A , see W o m e n ' s Educational E q u i t y

Time, 101 Times ( L o n d o n ) , 1 7 0 , 1 7 7

Tinker V. Des Moines School District, 188, 195 Titel, Marc, 186,196 Title I X , 5 1 , 5 2 , 5 9 , 6 6 , 6 8

Today, 145 T O D T W D (Take O u r D a u g h t e r s to W o r k Day), 35,45,105

Post, 1 8 , 1 4 4 - 4 5

Act ( W E E A ) Publishing Center Weeks, Peggy, 60 W e i n m a n , Janice, 41 W e l d o n , Fay, 155 W e l l e s l e y C o l l e g e C e n t e r for R e s e a r c h on W o m e n , 36 c u r r i c u l u m guides of, 52 federal grants to, 5 1 - 5 2 s c h o o l y a r d sexual h a r a s s m e n t and, 4 7

toys, 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 5 , 8 5 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 3 1 , 1 5 1 , 2 1 0

on self-esteem of schoolgirls, 21

Tufts U n i v e r s i t y , B o y s ' Project at, 15,

on sexual identity formation, 7 4 - 7 5 ,

132

76

tutoring, 39

W e s t , C o r n e l , 36

T w a i n , M a r k , 133

W e s t m i n s t e r School, 58 White, Byron, 195-96 W h i t e , Vera, 2 0 2 - 3

United Nations ( U N ) Fourth W o r l d

W h i t n e y , Jane, 185

C o n f e r e n c e on W o m e n , 23

Why Schoolchildren

U n i v e r s i t y H i g h School, 58

Can't Read

( M a c m i l l a n ) , 168 W i l d e r - S m i t h , Barbara, 95 WiUiam's Doll (Zolotow), 79

values clarification, 1 9 3 , 1 9 4

W i l s o n , James Q . , 3 2 , 1 9 7

verbal skills, 87

Wilson, Marie, 4 5 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 5

see also language skills V i c t o r i a n morality, g e n t l e m a n l y ideal of, 196-98 violence: aberrant levels vs. h e a l t h y manifestations of, 6 2 - 6 3 b o y s labeled w i t h stereotypes of, 4 6 - 4 7 , 57,145-17,212

W i l s o n , Pete, 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 Windolf, J i m , 149 Wolfe, Leslie, 38 Wolfe, T o m , 2 0 8 - 9 w o m e n , male violence against, 45-46, 48-49 W o m e n ' s Educational E q u i t y A c t ( W E E A ) Publishing Center:

domestic, 4 5 - 4 6 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 5 6 , 6 1

c u r r i c u l u m guides of, 52, 60

fatherlessness linked to, 1 2 9 - 3 0

gender-equity reports compiled by,

media coverage of, 1 4 4 - 4 6 m i s i n f o r m a t i o n about, 4 8 - 4 9 , 61 i n play behavior, 7 3 - 7 4 of school shooting incidents, 1 3 - 1 4 , 146-47,198-200

I'

47-49,51,61 on social origins of gender identity, 75-76 Women's Education Equity Program, 51

Guide

(Sebranek and K e m p e r ) , 1 5 0 - 5 1 w r i t i n g skills, 1 4 , 1 5 , 3 3 , 1 6 1

W o o d l a n d Park M i d d l e School,

traditional discipline vs. progressive see also education

Write Source 2000 Teacher's

34

Yale U n i v e r s i t y 144

You Just Don't Understand (Tannen), 94 Y o u n g W o m e n ' s L e a d e r s h i p School, 39, 171

251

A B O U T

•

^ ;i

T H E

A U T H O R

C H R I S T I N A H O F F S O M M E R S is tiie W . H . Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. She has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Brandeis University and was formerly professor of philosophy at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. Sommers has written for numerous publications, ineluding The Wall Street journal. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and many others. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. She is married with two sons and lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.