did anyone read the article in last sunday's observer about raising boys...

[beforesunrise]

... and thought it was really, well, a bit crap? it was all about boys are being shortchanged by society, are much more likely to go to jail or be knifed etc. so far so good.

but then it went on to identifying the reasons as an increasinlgy "feminised" education system and teh fact that boys don't get to run around enough.

no mention of the huge impact of fatherless households, or of the stark divides of those crime stats by racial and economic background.

but, more fundamentally, i just don't think it is true that boys have it so hard. i mean, girls get into trouble in ways that don't make the headlines- ie they get pregnant, for example. and women are still marginalised and discriminated against in many parts of society. i reckon it's still harder to be born a girl than a boy. and raising girls is as hard if not harder, in the long run.

maybe because i am a mother of two girls, but i am still annoyed by it- so superficial, and so WRONG...

anyone else?

cornsilk - sometimes on here as teachers i feel our opinions/experience of hundreds of kids not just the family side of it gets brushed aside (not by anyone on this thread i hasten to add). I am so glad we are in agreement with this one.

stillenacht

He will play with Lego (his dad will spend longer on it than him tho )

Tonight he asked me what 'bugger' meant so i think i maybe entering the pre teen stage with him now....gulp......

I'm still not sure why forced gender roles from birth are being disregarded.

From my experiences there are massive differences, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle...

Of course they are important but as an educationalist i see the position that the education of boys is poorer for those of average intellectual ability in comparison with girls.

How so? Because of the sitting still thing? Which I am sure is a learned behaviour from when girls are tiny. From the "good girl" behaviour, eager to please behaviour? Which I'm sure is learned from birth. From not "mucking around" and doing as you're told? Learned...

I don't think it is just learnt beahviour - as i said before i do believe that natural biology plays a part in it. Of course there are going to be gradations of biology and social conditioning but generally (again here's that word) i think its down to many things including biology.

Not just because of the sitting still thing either - look at any primary classroom you can spot the boys' written work instantly (I know some people will say i am doing a disservice to boys but...).

So really this is a nature/nurture debate, which as far as I know is no-where near a resolution scientifically...

And I suppose people are informed mainly by their own experience and what their DC are like.

Personally, as if you hadn't guessed, I believe that the vast majority of differences in pre-pubescant DC are down to nurture.

Just look at the tat in the shops and the deep gender divide in everything we see on TV, magazines, products... it has a huge effect of course it does.

As i said before i used to believe in the nurture side and of course it plays a massive role but people tend to think it takes over from the nature side - i think they are equally as important. My DS2 as i said has severe autism. One of the theories behind this is that he had too much testosterone in the womb and therefore has "an exaggerated male brain" (as put forward by Simon Baron-Cohen leading researcher/professor at Autism Research Centre, Cambs). My DS2 displays all the features that are classic male features but highly exaggerated - enjoyment of repetition (eg racing cars, wheels, spinning turbines)interest in engineering - how things are put together, he has no emotional language at all, no social understanding and will communicate by learnt language alone (he is unable to process the outside world in a neurotypical way and therefore cannot be influenced by it) He is a classic example of pure nature - he is low functioning and therefore everything he does is instinctive and at a primal level. I think nurture has a lot to do with how children see the world but nature cannot be forgotten.

We are programmed differently, we have different brains.I think that has much to do with the issue.

BBB-I would have whole heartedly agreed with you re nurture until I went and got myself mixed sex twins.
Their early years were pretty identical in that they shared a room, had access to the same toys, listened to the same stories, ate the same food, even wore similar clothes to make life easier.
And bugger me if my son isn't a whirling dirvish of footie and mess and energy. And he had the dolls and the pushchairs and the my little ponies. And, to be honest he played with em. He even wore a pink nghtie for a bit cos his sister had one ( actually I think he ebjoyed the free access to his meat and two). But in the end nature won out.
Sis on the other hand is quite tomboyish compared to her mates. No pink. No sparkle. But, she does enjoy reading far more, and art, and chatting.
I wouldn't have believed it if you'd told me ten years ago. NO way.

as a university teacher, I find it difficult to believe that boys as a whole are disadvantaged in the long run

of course there are plenty of boys who never make it to university- but also plenty of girls

the ones that do (I see about equal quantities of each sex) seem to have got over the disadvantages, if any, of the early years

the only thing that occasionally disadvantages male students ime is overmuch confidence in their own abilities

yes cory i see the boys with a great deal of confidence at a GS near to mine - but its the average child i think who fares better in the primary and secondary education system are girls.

the reason my ds has done less well at primary than dd is no doubt that he is more immature

otoh there is absolutely no doubt that he has been getting far more attention and support from his teachers than she ever did

particularly in infants she (and other quiet non-disruptive girls) were basically left to get on with it, never given any stickers for good behaviour (no need since they behaved well anyway?)

he is actually doing better now with a female teacher than he did with a male teacher- I think that is mainly about development, but she also seems particularly good at understanding his needs

I agree for individual children the relationship that they have with their teachers is the key. And my ds, who has some behavioural problems has always got way more stickers etc than dd, who finds it very easy to be good.

I too tried bringing them up in a non-gendered way, but the pressures from outside are huge, dd got given loads of plastic pink tat and praise whenever she was "girly" ds was expected to run around and get up to mischief. I don't think that it was entirely nature that made them respond in the way that they did in that dd got more "girly", ds got more "boyish". But then dd is much more extrovert and people orientated than ds, and that I am sure is personality (unless girls are naturally more extrovert?)

I read that autism male brain theory too, and it is very interesting, but then you read some of the research about under diagnosis of autism and girls and wonder which researcher has the right of it (if either). There is so much we don't understand about brains.

However I do think it is important to note that the argument about the differences between boys/girls (and men/women) has been going on for many years/generations, that education (at primary level at least) has always been dominated by women.

I would like to see comparisons internationally - do boys in countries like Singapore or Japan where more rigid/old fashioned teaching methods struggle more or less. Perhaps boys struggle because they aren't being caned any more, not because they have to sit at tables and colour in?

beforesunrise I was referring to how we start at a very early age to stunt our boys with a primary education system that does not respect their natural development. For what it's worth, I don't think starting school at this age does girls any favours either. I don't think girls put up with crap, I certainly never had and have enjoyed a fulfilling and rewarding career, so far. I think some women just want their cake and eat it (another thread). Yes, women are more likely to be raped or suffer domestic violence and this is where the fundimental differences between men and women are smacking us in the face - but, what do we do about it ?

Unfortunately or not, we are the ones who give birth and by nature/circumstances are the ones who will generally be primary carer for our children. I totally agree with you that the best way would be to develop the individual child be it a boy or girl, but that's a ideal world and we do not live in one ... that's what my point is.

Stillenacht I was quite enjoying our opposing views on this but have to say that one of your recent posts is a real load of sexist claptrap...

"classic male features" include an "interest in engineering - how things are put together" do they?

Presumably if something is a "classic male feature" it is something not frequently observed in girls...

So men have enquiring scientific minds and women can fuck off and look at clothes. Or what exactly? Not having an interest in how things work surely means you are thick. I am really angry about that comment. It is that sort of attitude that has kept the numbers of women in science down for years - and still does. Except biology of course -which involves drawing flowers at GCSE - and is therefore deemed suitable.

Really that is an appalling comment.

Interesting points nooka about international research. Would like to know definitely .

I think even when girls have autistic tendencies and autism itself the predominance for male 'characteristics' comes through. At my sons special school there are not many girls with autism (i think its 4 times more likelty if you are a boy) but those girls who have autism still have the traits of lack of social awareness/communication (even if they are at the higher end of the spectrum), interest in repetition (lining things up), lack of imaginative play, repetitive play, echolalia which can be associated with male interests (albeit in a very watered down form in neurotypical males).

No bigbella - maybe i didn't put it in the correct language/ way of describing - of course women shouldn't fuck off and look t clothes (personally i couldn't think of anything more boring). Of course girls are interested in how things work but i still believe nature plays a great part in how our brains are wired to find interest/motivation in something (as well as social conditioning).

"lack of social awareness/communication "
"interest in repetition "
"lack of imaginative play, repetitive play, echolalia "

Are you saying these are male traits?

I regularly get dragged along to motor sport with my DH as my DS1 and 2 love it (particularly DS2 with the repetition and noise!) the amount of women i see as i race around the track is prob about 5% of total race going number (DS2 will not sit down - he doesn't understand and has an obsession with the speakers so has to go the full length of the track to press his ear against each speaker to feel the vibrations) Train spotters are mostly male i would hazard too for similar reasons - interest in constancy, organising numbers and lists etc etc...our brains are wired differently surely...(I know these are not exactly the most important ways of showing differences)

Yes - i am saying that in general and in a much more watered down version they are male traits - they are not necessarily bad male traits as without them we wouldn't have Silicone Valley in the States and the computer generation wouldn't have taken off.(Silicone Valley apparantly has highest number of autistic children from its employees than anywhere ....its a little autie fact i heard a while ago) I think autism research has looked in depth at the 'male brain' idea.

of course neurotypical boys and men don't have these qualities in anyway near as much intensity as autistic children. Absolutely not but some remain traits more prevalent in boys (much) than girls.

I am angry and you have totally lost me with your nature agrument by trotting out such a load of claptrap basically supporting "traditional" notions of what makes a girl and what makes a girl.

Children are all individuals, to say that girls are innately not interested in how the world works is to deny them the opportunity of any kind of scientific interest or an enquiring mind.

If there is any gender difference in this respect at all I would blame the conditioning from birth - passive toys for girls and interactive "puzzle" toys for boys. The girl gets the ironing board thus teaching her how to be a good domesticated tidy little girl, and the importance of being nicely turned out, while the boys are given lego and other toys that you have to build and do stuff to make work, encouraging them to think in that way.

The whole setup makes my blood boil and then we have these tired arguments that men's brains are fundamentally more enquiring than women's, that women are better suited to sitting around nattering "oh excellent communication skill" or going into low paid "caring" roles "girls are so nurturing" while men can go off and make all teh discoveries, earn all the money and run the wolrd.