USA Today Interviews Michael Gurian on the Boy Crisis in Education
April 17th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's an interview with Michael Gurian (pictured) (USA Today, 4/8/09). It's short and basically skin-deep, but the upside is that it's in a widely circulated paper and Gurian says most of the right things about boys and education. So as usual, the piece is nowhere near what it should be, but something's better than nothing.
Gurian has training as a family therapist and has written some 25 books on a variety of topics. But his overarching interest is in brain chemistry, neurology, and gender behavior. He understands that male and female brains tend to function differently and he applies this to the practicalities of behavior, particularly learning. He has a basic understanding of why so many boys are failing is school and how that can be addressed.
A lot of what he says echoes Christina Hoff Sommers in The War Against Boys. Like her, he sees that sex-segregated classrooms can be an important part of correcting the problems boys and girls have in schools. Unlike Sommers (at least in her book), he understands that the absence of fathers in boys' lives is one of the major causes of boys' poor performance in schools. (How that escaped Sommers' notice, I don't know.)
He's weaker when he refers to "a set of social causes" such as poverty as resulting in boys' declining performance. I suppose it's simply off limits to mention the widespread misandric culture that routinely denigrates men specifically on the basis of intellect. But I've thought for many years that there's a connection between male failure in school and a culture that tells males we're dumb. That doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch, does it?
Beyond that, though, Gurian seems to be a sound thinker on the subject of boys and the educational system. There can never be too many of those.
"));
19 queries. 0.339 seconds.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am
But I've thought for many years that there's a connection between male failure in school and a culture that tells males we're dumb. That doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch, does it?
Especially considering how people go on and on about how negative reinforcements affect young girls. We're supposed to believe that girls are affected by being constantly criticized over their body image (and they are) but boys are not affected by being constantly told they are lacking in intelligence.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I just read a piece about Obama and congress is applying Title IX laws in science and math now. I think it is already law. Not much public discussion.
The American Association of University Women a powerful feminist group with congress helped with the "research" that supports that there are too many men in science and math.
Here's the math. There are 100 science students - 75 men, 25 woman, for example. Instead of expanding to 150 to keep the qualified 75 men and just accept 50 more woman (50 + 25 = 75)(75 men = 75 woman), Twenty-five (25) qualified men each year (the number is higher of course) will not be accepted to study there life's work. Many kids will blame themselves for not getting accepted to there number one choice school.
This math says nothing about the future of math and sciences in The United States, say in a generation or so.
Application: plan to send your son for education abroad. Academics in The United States is proven hostile toward men.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
"But I've thought for many years that there's a connection between male failure in school and a culture that tells males we're dumb."
Here' s my take on it. There is, in our schools especially, but everywhere really, a pronounced anti-intellectualism that tells guys it's not "cool" to study or to concern themselves with matters of intellect or culture. When guys are together, they're supposed to talk about "the big game," not philosophy. Kids who do well in school are too often called "fags."
I know that mainstream feminism denigrates these attitudes as emanating from the deepest bowels of poisonous hypermaculinity, but the reality is that this conduct is but one aspect of masculinity that is molded to attract a mate. Women/girls are the ones dictating this conduct, because the guys who fit this mold are generally the ones who end up in the sack with a girl at an earlier age. (I'm not condoning it.)
I don't think commercials or ads showing "the dumb dad" are the driving force behind this anti-intellectualism; I think they are merely reflecting what guys are taught -- by women -- is the kind of behavior that attracts a mate.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I visited American Association of University Women website now.
The site says stuff like.
"Breaking through the barriers for woman" More like putting up barriers for boys.
"Women have made gains, but equality fight is not over," Try superiority fight. In most areas of life, men have no chance because of legislation that criminalizes or micromanages his behaviors.
All the leaders of AAUW are women - isn't that illegal in the U.S? If they receive tax money it certainly is. Who donates to these people?
There are more women and girl only groups than I can keep track of. What's going on!!!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I notice that father's rights groups, websites, whatever, are sensitive to use inclusive language toward inviting women to the cause, among other things, yet women groups careless about real or perceived balance or equality in their ranks.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Did you know that the system of education has been redesigned BY social planners? And as usual they have failed. The system only maintains a resemblance to the original systems, with all its good parts gutted out. If any of you are serious about introducing a positive change in the system, you should reconsider the entire framework, not just bits and parts of it - rethink every single basic idea and return to a life enriching education.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Jamie:
This math says nothing about the future of math and sciences in The United States, say in a generation or so.
Kinda contradicts Obama's desire to boost Americ'a position on the worldwide Academic/Education stage (as we are lagging behind despite having access to some of the best tools and education in the world).
Jamie:
Here's the math. There are 100 science students - 75 men, 25 woman, for example. Instead of expanding to 150 to keep the qualified 75 men and just accept 50 more woman (50 + 25 = 75)(75 men = 75 woman), Twenty-five (25) qualified men each year (the number is higher of course) will not be accepted to study there life's work. Many kids will blame themselves for not getting accepted to there number one choice school.
Funny thing is this is the same zero sum game invocation that women's advocates say that men do all the time when comes to helping women. Most of them would look at the math here and just claim that turning those 25 men away for just being men (meaning they worked hard for high marks just to get turned down for being the wrong gender) is not only fair but will say its not sexist. Interesting that they complain that in the past men have enjoyed unfair advantages over women but now that women are enjoying unfair advantages over men they want to claim that its not sexism but an effort to even out the field. I wonder how much comfort that is for the 25 guys that did nothing to deserve to get turned away like that.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Pierce Harlan said
"Women/girls are the ones dictating this conduct, because the guys who fit this mold are generally the ones who end up in the sack with a girl at an earlier age. (I'm not condoning it.)"
But when women realise that this lack of interest in education means that they don't make good breadwinners, they aren't interested in marrying them.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
"But when women realise that this lack of interest in education means that they don't make good breadwinners, they aren't interested in marrying them."
Which is irrelevant to men who don't want to get married in the first place. Many who have rejected the traditional paradigm of man-as-breadwinner are having fabulous lives because they've found it's very easy to make enough money for themselves. When they no longer desire to impress a woman with the trappings of a high income, life becomes simplified. There's also a wide spectrum within the 3.7 billion women in the world. A college-educated woman might turn her nose up at a man because he doesn't make enough money, whereas another woman might sincerely appreciate and admire it. In my experience, women who are in or have gone to college are not better in the kitchen nor in the bedroom than women who have not. College filters men according to attributes women traditionally have looked for in a house-bound (husband). College does not filter women for attributes men traditionally look for in a wife.
Two trends I see is 1) lower overall productivity as men stop hyperproducing, either by choice or circumstance and 2) college-educated women being largely unable to find a suitable (higher-income with equivalent or higher education) spouse- all vying for the alpha males like a pack of baboons. Oh yeah- and lots of low-investment, non-committal sex until things get back on track (I'm guessing ~10-15 years, so if any of you guys want to get married and can wait, I'd recommend waiting. A man's age isn't as disadvantageous to marriage prospects as a woman's.).
April 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Academics, like divorce, is a "planned economy." In such an environment, central planning by the government is so extensive that it controls and formulates all policy and procedures about the system's inputs and outputs.
Because of the strength and momentum of woman's right movement, today and in the future, ordinary men and boys are legislated out of government controlled systems.
If men form support groups toward to protest for change, which may include critical analysis of the unjust system of rules and laws and policies, then men I observe are ignored or shamed and marginalized.
China and a few South American countries is the place to be - low divorce rate and plenty of jobs. Find a patriarch country and run to it. If you're an ordinary man, there's little or no opportunity for peace and freedom in family, education or work in the U.S.A.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
"He's weaker when he refers to "a set of social causes"
April 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
"He's weaker when he refers to "a set of social causes"
This doesn't surprise me at all. Nearly all of these people are social constructionists, even the conervatives. They've had it hammered into their brains from day one and it's impossible to train themselves out of it.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
SerenityNow:
Damn good post on #9. Spot on.
"Many who have rejected the traditional paradigm of man-as-breadwinner are having fabulous lives because they've found it's very easy to make enough money for themselves."
This is the whole 'Men going Galt' issue we've heard about on the fringes, which is really an explanation of the Marriage Strike in economic terms. More and more, men are weighing the pros and cons and opting out. Economics is, after all, a study of trade-offs, right?
In my city, I see panic as 'career women' in their mid thirties to early forties realize that men are slowly starting to use their brains instead of their you-know-what's to make relationship decisions. That's the last thing women want men to do. For the past thirty or so years, the goal has been to keep us dumb and rope us in.
Men have indeed stopped hyperproducing. The number is small, but it's growing. And I say - why not? What reason do we have to hyperproduce, when life can be lived simply and cheaply? Sure, I might experience sadness at the thought of never having kids, but if having kids means putting up with the lazy, self-centered narcissism of today's women, I choose to opt out.
You mentioned education. Well, some of my friends are married to 'educated' women on the Master's degree level. And from direct observation I can tell you that the more edcucation these women have, the less common sense they display. One woman, who is an architect, claims to not be able to learn how to cook from a book. So, wait a minute: you can design a multi-level parking garage, but you can't learn how to make a pot-roast from a magazine? Yeah, right. My brother's wife has grad-school under her belt, yet is too stupid and lazy to take care of her kid's teeth.
I have one friend whose wife is a nurse. She can run circles around the so-called 'educated' and book-smart women my other friends are married to. She's funny, whip-smart, and capable, and treats my buddy like a king. Since my buddy is a very successfull guy, she in turn gets treated like a queen. A simple formula, right? Too bad the 'educated' women are too stupid to get this.
I'm not knocking formal education. I guess what I'm trying to say is that nearly all of my friend's 'educated' wives are really just snotty, self-ceneterd, incapable twits who can't even balance a check-book. I'll take the pretty girl who works at Wal-Mart anyday.
Then again, I've gone Galt, so it doesn't matter!! I have more fun playing my guitars!!
April 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
What i say to these gender feminist scholars is ...Go BREAK YOU"RE OWN PATRIARCHY!!
We are slowly creating a gender feminist ruling class...who's children goto schools with male teachers, and a certain degree of safety, and education taking place.
And the underside of the gender feminist ruling class... is the matriarchal underclass, where very few children have fathers, little to no male teachers, and there is little to no chance for these people of climbing out of the perpetual matriarchy.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Well, didn't take long for me to spot something wrong coming out of this guy's mouth - mainly, the answer to the very first question:
"I'm using male 'purpose' as a replacement word for male 'role.' Purpose means this boy is directed toward a healthy development of self that serves family, community and world. "
Boys and men are programmed to seek status, which is what ultimately determines their mate value. The concept of "healthy developement" sounds like more of a female model - you know, like doing jobs which are more "fulfilling" - unless one wants to say that boys' learning to compete is itself a form of healthy developement, insofar as it will be useful in adulthood .
Both boys and men compete for status within the male dominance hierarchy. This starts at a very young age. The ultimate reason for this is that males are 'genetic filters' for the species, so 'weaker genes' must be weeded out by more or less isolating them from the pool, i.e. minimize the chance of carrying on unsuitable genes to the next generation by placing (the majority of, or most) boys at relatively low-status levels. The 'cheater detection' mechanism then contributes toward holding them at their rank (within the DH).
I suppose Gurian isn't totally wrong if he's referring to the way society might attempt to steer boys in the directions he mentions. Also, the things he mentions could be looked at as proxies for status, such as getting ahead in the community and the 'world'. The key word there however, is getting ahead.
The 'social science' model regarding men-women has been scientifically debunked. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we will do things which help males such as placing them in single-sex classes. Until then, most of it's just talk.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
#15: Excellent, Norman. As always.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Thanks Peirce,
long time no "see" !! Actually I've been quite busy lately with something else so have of necessity cut back on the MR board thing.
maybe I was a little hard on Gurian. I suspect he may already know much of this stuff due to his scientific background. But you would be surprised at how many people who are otherwise scientific, still hold fast to social science when it comes specifically to the issue of differences between the sexes; or at least they do not recognize it formally, perhaps due to feminist-p.c. pressure.
A good example is David Buss, the evolutionary psychologist. In his classic text on ev psych, I seem to recall his being quite p.c., or maybe it's just lack of knowledge in a particular area. In fact now that I remember, I asked Steve Moxon himself about Buss, re: his issue, and if I remember correctly he did say that Buss may be relatively ignorant in this area.
One thing that is definitely true in Buss's text, is that he does 'big up' women as compared to men. Which is not surprising, since that is innate behaviour which all of us exhibit.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
should say, "re: this issue"
April 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I`ve been aware of Mr Gurian`s work for a few years now and have even contacted him a few times.Hes mostly got it right,but as robert franklin observes,hes still a little too politically correct when discussing the causes of boys academic decline and how to address the needs of boys.Its time for someone to have the guts to admit the real reasons for boys problems and to admit that our undivided attention needs to go on boys,at least for a while.Not on girls and boys at the same time.We`ve given enough time and resources to girls,at the exclusion of boys.Its time to put the girls on the back burner for a while,without fear of offending ideologues or politicians.Of course,I`m not optimistic that this will ever happen.I see more of the same to come.More marginalization of men and boys and more preferential programs and legislation for wemon and girls.
April 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I'm not a fan of formal education at all. I hated school and find 99% of formal education is a complete waste of time, for both males and females. I could go on a nice big rant, but that would be boring. Instead, I'll just refer those who are interested in reading furhter on this topic to John Taylor Gatto. His 30 years in the public education system and eloquence bring forth the topic much better than I can.
There is plenty of reading material on the net, just do a Google search and you will find plenty.