The War Against Boys

The following is a 2-part discussion of Christina Hoff Sommers' May 2000
Atlantic Monthly article "The War Against Boys," in which she claims that 
feminists have overstated girls' problems in/with school and that boys
are the ones who are really shortchanged.  The discussion took place on 
WMST-L in May/June 2000.  Also of interest may be a 1994 discussion of 
Hoff Sommers' book _Who Stole Feminism?_  For additional WMST-L files 
available on the Web, see the WMST-L File Collection.

PAGE 1 OF 2

I recently saw the May 2000 issue of _Atlantic Monthly_, with the cover 
story: "Girls Rule! Mythmakers to the contrary, it's boys who are in 
deep trouble." The article, written by Christina Hoff Sommers, makes a 
logical argument that feminists have grossly overstated the "problem" of 
American adolescent girls.  She proves, with statistical data, that 
girls out-perform boys in every area in school, except sports -- that 
girls are more motivated, do better homework, get higher grades, are 
more likely to go to college, participate in class more 
enthusiastically, etc.  Boys are now performing very poorly, and could 
even be considered "at risk".

These facts are interesting, but the tone of the piece is what bothers 
me.  Sommers really attacks feminist scholars who have made such a 
brouhaha about girls in danger.  She picks Carol Gilligan especially. 
Sommers and her research assistants attempted to see the data that 
Gilligan used in her book _In a Different Voice_, but were repeatedly 
told by Gilligan's assistant that the raw data was too sensitive to be 
seen by the public, and the studies were not available.  This secrecy 
leads Sommers to doubt the accuracy or validity of Gilligan's research.

As a scholar of adolescent femininity, I am very disturbed by this 
article.  If the data Sommers uses is right, does that mean that 
feminists have succeeded in their goals of balancing out the experiences 
of boys and girls in schools?  Or does it only mean that girls are 
_performing_ well, but may still be emotionally in danger, partly 
because they put such high importance on performing their good-girlness? 
 Therefore, the problem here may be the gap between a scienctific 
approach (Sommer's method, using facts-n-figures) and a more 
psychological/cultural approach, where statistics are not the place you 
look for evidence of people's inner lives.

Most disturbing to me is the implication behind this article that 
feminist research is a pile of hooey, that women don't have it any worse 
than men (or at least, girls than boys), and that the 1990s explosion of 
concern about teenage girls was just a long, national nightmare dreamed 
up by zealous feminists who want to keep the conspiracy theories going.  
Indeed, such an attitude is almost unavoidable when you look at the data 
about girls doing better than boys in every subject in K-12 education.

I would like to know what others on this list think of this article.  
Should we take it as a warning that feminist scholars have been given 
too much popular credence, too quickly, and that we need to buttress our 
work better, if we're to salvage our public efficacy?  Or should we 
wonder whether there's some fact missing or some skewed angle in 
Sommers' argument? When I see such a sharp distinction between what I 
have believed (that girls are in danger) and such an impressive array of 
contrary data, I have to wonder "What causes this difference -- what am 
I missing?"  Most importantly, how do we answer our non-feminist friends 
at cocktail parties who will have read this article, and then say to us 
smugly, "What about THAT, huh?"

I do apologize if somebody else here has brought up this article 
already.  Having been out of town for a while, I simply skimmed right 
through the recent pile of WMST messages, and may have missed a previous 
discussion.

Ilana Nash
American Culture Studies
Bowling Green State University
inash  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu

FYI:
If you want to read the on-line copy of the article and an interesting
exchange between Gilligan and Sommers- please see

http://www.TheAtlantic.com/issues/2000/05/sommers.htm

http://www.TheAtlantic.com/issues/2000/08/letters.htm

Janni Aragon
University of California Riverside
Department of Political Science

<<  Most importantly, how do we answer our non-feminist friends at cocktail
parties who will have read this article, and then say to us smugly, "What
about THAT, huh?" >>

Ilana, I agree with your assessment of the article as an impressive
compilation of statistics sadly devoid of critical analysis.  My cocktail
party answer is that both boys and girls suffer from rigid gender roles, as
evidenced in the article -- but that the article does not examine why girls
continue to earn less and to have less power in adulthood, despite their
impressive school performance.
-- Lanette Fisher-Hertz
SUNY New Paltz

I'm glad to see that other people were disturbed by this article.  I
agree that the tone was among piece's more distressing aspects.
However, I did also want to point out that I believe a reasonable
rebuttal could be made using the very facts and figures that the article
cites.

To pick just one example (and this might be one possible cocktail party
answer), the statistics indicated that school girls regularly score
better than boys on reading and math exams, and that they represent a
majority (55% I believe was the cited figure) of the college
population.  The conclusion that I derived from these facts was:  all
the more reason to investigate what happens to those successful girls
when they become women. If women are more capable of educational
achievement than men, given the current gender/social structures, then
why is it that those capabilities don't translate into equal
professional opportunities and equal salaries? In other words, where do
we have to look to find the root of this discrepency? Because,
personally, I find it even more disturbing to learn that girls routinely
score better than boys on math tests, but that the vast majority of
mathematics professors are men!  That's just one example but I think
that, if anything, the article points to a need to look elsewhere for
answers to pointed questions of inequality.

I'd love to hear what other people think.
Best,
Laura

My understanding is that there is a great deal of research available on
women's performance in math vs. men's - and that it clearly indicates that
at the highest levels of performance as measured by tests men outnumber
women 7 to 1.  There's a discussion of this in a recent issue of Gender
Issues.  Also, of course it's not the case that girls start mysteriously
doing worse than boys once they're in college. At this time, females
graduate at a slightly higher rate than males, and I believe in about five
years the numbers of female PhDs is expected to equal that of males (it's
not quite there yet). Of course this has nothing to do with the particular
fields men and women choose to go into, but I don't think that differentials
in career choice and work areas in themselves  should be presumed to mean
discrimination or some related problem.
DP


---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

>> Ilana Nash wrote:
>>
>> I recently saw the May 2000 issue of _Atlantic Monthly_, with the
>> cover story: "Girls Rule! Mythmakers to the contrary, it's boys who
>> are in deep trouble." The article, written by Christina Hoff Sommers,
>> makes a logical argument that feminists have grossly overstated the
>> "problem" of American adolescent girls.  She proves, with statistical
>> data, that girls out-perform boys in every area in school, except
>> sports -- that girls are more motivated, do better homework, get
>> higher grades, are more likely to go to college, participate in class
>> more enthusiastically, etc.  Boys are now performing very poorly, and
>> could even be considered "at risk".
>>
This reminded me of a comment my mother, now in her 70s, made:  "I noticed
that when I was in high school, the girls were always smarter, but as soon
as we got out, the boys were smarter, and I always wondered how that
happened."

I think that girls, who are socialized to need approval, tend to do well in
school because enthusiasm, good grades, neat homework, etc., win them
approval.  Boys, on the other hand, are socialized to be more independent,
need less approval, show less enthusiasm and emotion, have less regard for
neatness and so on and therefore do less well in many classes.  Pretty
stereotypical, but stereotypes can reflect at least part of reality.

Both boys and girls make assumptions about the future-- media and life
teach the boys to think they'll have someone to care for their needs while
they take an active role in the world, while some girls learn that they
will be caretakers and begin looking for the best bargain they can make.
Other girls assume that they will take an active role in the world, but
know they won't have a full-time support person.

The problem is not that boys do less well in school -- it is that girls do
not yet carry their patterns of success from school into the rest of life,
in part because of their expectations.

Once again an article makes a point that we are all aware of and pulls our
attention away from the actual problem.  Feminists don't need to be
defensive about girls' success in school.  We have to focus our attention
on why a major resource, the ability of girls and women, remains less used
than it might be, and how opportunities for human abilities can be expanded.

The last section of Carol Lee Flinder's book "The Root of This Longing"
talks about one teacher's experience with girls' perceptions of their
limited future and the attempts of the teacher, the school, and the
community to begin to deal with this problem.  She convinced me that there
is a problem and that with a great deal of attention, work, and time, we
can give girls a better chance.

Marilyn Grotzky

[in response to Daphne Patai's message, above]

Perhaps my example of mathematics professorships was poorly chosen.  What about
CEOs?  Just to clarify, my point is not to suggest discrimination per se, but
rather to suggest that we look at what happens that permits girls to excel in
school, but hinders women from excelling professionally?  We may well be 
looking for a whole nexus of issues that have to be disentangled.

Daphne Patai notes in a recent post that there is a great deal
of research available on women's performance in math compared
to men's.  This is true.  However, the quality and reliability of
that research is extremely variable. I suggest extreme caution in
interpreting and using that research, especially research that
purports to contain evidence or proof of innate biological differences
between men and women in the area of "math ability."  At the very
least one should be skeptical of such claims because we have no
clear definition of what math ability is, no sure way to measure it
if we did have such a definition, and no proof that if it exists and
can be measured, it's something completely or even greatly
determined by genetics.

Daphne also notes that girls do not mysteriously start doing worse
than boys once they are in college.  This is also true, in part because
the vast majority of girls have taken themselves out of the
science and math pipeline well before they ever get to college,
partly in response to peer pressure and societal/cultural
expectations about what girls should or should not be good at.
Although I am not an advocate of anecdotal evidence alone to support
a point, I would like to include this quote from an engineering
student here at K-State who was involved with a recent Girl
Scout Day on campus - the engineering students show these
4th and 5th grade girls how engineering relates to every day life.
The student's comment on the effect of the program on the
Girl Scouts was this:  "they realized that there are lots of girls
out there that are great in school and math, so they should not
be ashamed of their talent."

Differentials in career choice and work areas for _individuals_
do not necessarily imply discrimination or related problems.
That is, I chose to go into engineering, while my best friend
in high school did not; that difference does not in itself prove that
my friend was discriminated against, or that I was not.
However, I feel it is important to emphasize that when broad
patterns of differential career choice and gender differences in
the workplace makeup are observed, one must, as a good
scientist, at least begin to wonder what might be responsible
for those patterns.  (This is, I think, in part what Title IX says
about sports programs.)

Given the lack of a clear biological or genetic link to a vaguely
defined "math ability"; given the profound effect that societal change
enacted by Title IX has had on women's sports performance, where
biological links might be expected to be more clearly evident; and
given that girls in 4th grade, at least here in central Kansas, are
already "ashamed" of their talent and ability in math and school - given
all that, if I observe differential patterns in women's participation in
math and science related careers and in math and science workplaces,
then I think I have to be mightily ashamed of myself as a scientist
if I do not first ask myself whether or not there might be some
societal/cultural explanation for the observed pattern.

It could be outright discrimination; it could be subtle pressures on girls to
give up ambitions for math and science and to downplay their talent;
it could be that math and science are perceived by society at large
as nerdy professions and girls are more clued into those perceptions
than boys; it could be that girls realize they can make more money
in a shorter time period with less personal hassle and grief from
peers and professors if they go into, say, business, than into
math or science; it could be some or all of those things.
I would be a stupid scientist indeed not to at least ask those questions,
and to focus instead on biologically-based studies that rest on
ill-defined premises.

And what if, in the end, there is indeed some biological component
that we discover?  What does that knowledge imply?  That we should
not be concerned that girls do not participate in math related careers
at the same rate boys do?  Should we then be content to say that
women just biologically cannot do math as well as men and that's it?
Let's think of a biological analogy.  Some people do not see as well
as other people do because of innate biological/genetic differences.
We could say "tough, that's the luck of the draw, you're just going to
see crappy the rest of your life.  You can't drive a car or fly a plane
or do anything that involves seeing well at a distance or closeup, but
that's okay, because we have other people who can see just fine and
they can do all that work."   No, we don't do that; what we do is we make
eyeglasses and contact lenses and we even devise new forms of
laser surgery to make the eyes work better than the genetic card
Nature dealt.  What's so different about math?  Nobody's born being
a math expert.  Math is something you learn.  Surely if we can find
ways to improve peoples' physical inheritence, we can find a way to do
a better job than we currently do with the things that people _learn_.

Suzanne E. Franks, PhD
Director, Women in Engineering and Science Program
115 Ward Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS  66506-2504
sefranks  @  ksu.edu
phone 785-532-3395
fax 785-532-6952

Two things about Hoff-Summers newest complaints about feminist
scholarship.  1) the Nation recently dealt with this topic, I can't find
the citation now, and indicated that at least with regard to college
enrollments, the difference is entirely explainable by the recent
decline of enrollments among men of color.  Thus the answer is that
gendered racism account for girls higher rates percentage of college
enrollments.  2)  The data from Gilligan's book, In a Different Voice,
would be irrelevant to Summers argument.  It dealt with girls abortion
decision-making, not school achievement.

Carole McCann
Director of Women's Studies
UMBC

I'd like to point out that this is not the first time the Atlantic has
published an article which uses research about gender issues for a
conservative purpose.

Barbara Whitehead's "Dan Quayle Was Right" cover article, from the early to
mid-nineties, did the same regarding the socio-economic fallout of divorce
on children.   Beginning with an echo of Malinowski's defintion of the
"family" as a unit which exists solely for the purpose of raising children,
Whitehead writes a long elegy for the white middle class nuclear family.
Instead of applying a feminist analysis to the dire stats and research
findings she quoted, she implied that all this awful stuff was the fault of
selfish men and women -- particularly women -- who put their own desires
before the needs of their children.

To me, it's another lesson that quite intelligent, concerned people, good
writers included, can use research in ways that are flatly stupid and wrong.

Pamela Kemner

Although I haven't read this particular article the discuss reminds
me of an issue which arises in the British press with some
regularity. The apparant 'failure' of boys in schools gets a lot of
attention at various times and is worrying precisely because the
POLITICIANS take it seriously when they are formulating education
policy, etc.

Analysis of the problem is not lacking though and I would suggest
those who research or teach in this area to look for British
articles in the field of education. I'm sure some of the
women/feminists at the Institute of Education in London have done
some work on this but so have many others.

Unfortunately, I don't have any references at my fingertips but a
search through the normal channels should yield lots of information.
Yes, the education system here is different but I'm sure there is
much to learn from our experience with this debate.


Dr. J. VanEvery
Dept. of Cultural Studies and Sociology
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT
0121 414 3730
0121 414 6061 (fax)
j.van-every  @  bham.ac.uk
*I do not check e-mail daily.*

I missed the original post on math ability, but re: the idea that there may
be a biological component to boys' superior performance -- I would like to
point out that this "fact" in itself does not hold up cross-nationally.
There are countries -- India is one, I believe -- where girls systematically
and repeatedly out-perform boys in standardized tests of math ability.
Unfortunately, I don't have references to support my point easily to hand.

Alex Beam in the Boston Globe talked about the Atlantic piece and did some
investigation into Hoff-Sommers' complaint that Gilligan's refused to share
her raw data. It turned out that Hoff-Sommers request was disingenuous to
say the least. She had someone working with her pretend to be a Harvard
graduate student asking for the data and of course considering the
confidential nature of the raw data, the interviewees were promised that
their responses on abortion, sexuality and other issues would not be
shared, this very offhand request was refused. This story appeared about 10
days ago in Beams's column.

Cambridge Documentary Films, Inc.
P.O. Box 390385 Cambridge, MA 02139-0004
ph (617)484-3993  fx (617)484-0754
www.shore.net/~cdf
cdf  @  shore.net

Lanette Fisher-Hertz writes:
>Ilana, I agree with your assessment of the article as an impressive
compilation of statistics sadly devoid of critical analysis.  My cocktail
party answer is that both boys and girls suffer from rigid gender roles, 
as evidenced in the article -- but that the article does not examine why 
girls continue to earn less and to have less power in adulthood, despite 
their impressive school performance.<

As were many of you, I was disturbed by the article both for its form and
its content.  The statistics are useful, but as is typical with Christina
Hoff-Sommers, there are others she does not cite, and the ones she does can
be read precisely the reverse of the way she presents them.   And the
vituperative tone towards Carol Gilligan was slanderous (as well as filled
with empirial inaccuracies).  


The major conclusion I think to be drawn from the available research is
that the major obstacle to the safety and achievement of boys AND girls in
school is...boys.  Or, rather, it is certain ideas about masculinity - not
the biological maleness of boys - that create atmospheres that are hostile
to both boys and girls.  For example, it's not the achievement of girls -
often attained in spite of barriers - that stands in the way of boys'
achievement.  It's the pervasive anti-intellectualism of boyhood
masculinity, especially in English and reading.  (There's terrific research
on this.)  


I've spent a lot of time thinking about these questions, because I believe
that this is the beginning of a new anti-feminist effort.  Anti-feminists
seem to think that feminism is vulnerable on the boy question - demonizing
boys, promoting girls at the expense of boys etc. - and the publication of
Hoff-Sommers book will launch a new anti-feminist initiative.  


This past January I gave the keynote speech at the Wellesley Center's
annual conference on Gender in Education on this topic.  I gave a modified
version of it last month in Carol Gilligan's class at Harvard, which, I
suppose is now considered ground zero in the "war against boys."  For those
interested, you can access it at the Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women website, or you can write privately and I'll send you a copy
electronically.

Michael Kimmel

Am I misremembering or has  Carol Gilligan begun to work on boyhood and
male adolescence in recent years--which would seem to add a layer of
irony to all of this?
Sara Murphy

Dear Listmembers-

I was concerned about this article and the way the analysis of the stats
misled. The fact is that girls have for some time worked far harder in school
and received better grades than boys.

But this is the problem-girls work harder than boys and are praised for being
hard workers rather than inherently intelligent. Boys are praised for their
intelligence regardless of the work they do in school.  And, in the end,
boys' advantages in the workplace far outweigh those of women. How to explain
this? How to explain the fact that girls are outperforming boys and reaping
less rewards as well as recognition for it? I am talking about salaries,
managerial positions, and job opportunities not to mention statistics re:
depression, mental health, etc.

The statistics are daunting, I agree. But I challenge Hoff-Sommers to spend
the day in my daughter's 3rd grade classroom and continue to explain those
figures in the way that she did.

Thank you so much for initiating a discussion of this article.
Stephanie

Stephanie  Chastain, Ph.D.
chastainst  @  cs.com
We read the way we love--blindfolded.    ----Proust

>Christina Hoff Sommers, makes a logical  argument that feminists have
>grossly overstated the "problem" of American  adolescent girls.  She
>proves, with statistical data, that girls  out-perform boys in every area
>in school, except sports -- that girls are more  motivated, do better
>homework, get higher grades, are more likely to go to  college,
>participate in class more enthusiastically, etc. <

There's a logical inconsistency here. Girls outperform boys, but boys are
nevertheless socially and economically favored. Teachers give more
attention to boys, and are more tolerant of their acting-out and
interruptions. That girls try harder seems consistent to me with their
still-subordinate role. Controls on their behavior are tighter. By middle
school they are expected to defer to boys and under increasing pressure to
acquire boyfriends, frequently under less-than-favorable terms.

Where girls are at risk is not, speaking generally, in academic performance
--though social pressure turning them away from math and science can be
severe -- but in social patterns and roles: eating disorders, date rape,
abuse (verbal as well as physical). Where boys are most at risk is from
other boys, not from girls.


Max Dashu    Suppressed Histories Archives
 <maxdashu  @  lanminds.com>

Max Dashu wrote: "Where girls are at risk is not, speaking generally, in
academic performance --though social pressure turning them away from math
and science can be severe -- but in social patterns and roles: eating
disorders, date rape, abuse (verbal as well as physical). Where boys are
most at risk is from other boys, not from girls."
     This may be true, but it does not alter the fact that a great deal of
feminist writing has been devoted to the idea that "schools shortchange
girls" - and it this that it seemed we were discussing.  What Dashu writes
above is quite a different topic.  One problem with jumping in this way from
one theme to another is that the overall effect argument slips and slides
but always ends up in the same place, with some version of the statement:
"well, even if women/girls aren't oppressed in area X, they still are in
area Y."
      I think, on the contrary, that we want to look very carefully at each
of the general areas usually raised as evidence of women's continuing
oppression and actually resolve--using the best available information--
whether the conventional wisdom about it within feminist circles is an
accurate or an inaccurate statement about women's (and girls') status today.
To say that girls suffer from date rape is a vastly different thing than to
say that "schools shortchange girls," and it's the latter that has been
accepted and repeated constantly in feminist writings and teachings.  I
believe that is why Christina Sommers and other critics spend time and
energy refuting this claim.
D.

---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

On 1 Jun 2000, at 20:20, Stephanie Chastain wrote:

Dear Listmembers


> But this is the problem-girls work harder than boys and are praised for being
> hard workers rather than inherently intelligent. Boys are praised for their
> intelligence regardless of the work they do in school.

I couldn't agree more, after a one semester experience teaching
7th graders at an Austrian middle school (in 1991). I heard the
same story about the lazy, but intelligent boys over and over again.
Since I went to an all-girls school myself I was quite surprised that
even experienced and caring teachers promoted this "theory".
What teachers did Hoff-Sommers talk to? Would be interesting to
know...

Does anybody know why Hoff-Sommers picks on Carol Gilligan
with such a vengeance? It seems a bit late for "revenge", feminist
research has certainly produced a lot in between.

Elisabeth Binder

Thank you.  See Valerie Walkerdine's "School Girl: Fictions." Routledge? 83?
Girls: Rote-learning, Memorization, Hard Work, Technicians simply Reproducing
knowledge.
Boys: Potential, Capable, Have all the ingredients if they simply apply
 themselves,

Imaginative and creating Knowledge.

G.Coe
jillcoe  @  umich.edu