Antiquated Gender Stereotypes Underlie Radical Experiments in Sex-Segregated Education
On Sunday, the New York Times Magazine devoted its cover story to the new sex segregation movement in public schools. The same day, the Washington Post published one of the more offensively misogynist op-eds in memory, arguing that as a biological matter, women are pretty stupid. Unfortunately, a reliance on archaic gender stereotypes unites the author of that op-ed (Charlotte Allen, of the Independent Women's Forum) and the leaders of the sex segregation movement, as the New York Times Magazine makes clear.
Charlotte Allen writes:
The theory that women are the dumber sex . . . is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size). The important difference is in the parietal cortex, which is associated with space perception. Visuospatial skills, the capacity to rotate three-dimensional objects in the mind, at which men tend to excel over women, are in turn related to a capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning, the grounding for mathematics, science and philosophy.
Sadly, she is not the only one weighing brains and concluding that women's just don't measure up. The leaders of the effort to promote single-sex schools and classrooms for public school students across the country tell a similar story of biological determinism. For example, Michael Gurian, the author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently! and one of the single-sex education advocates profiled, is the founder of the Gurian Institute, which trains teaches on gender differences; as the Times describes, these trainings are full of brain scan imagery and pseudo-scientific assertions about the fundamental physical differences between boys' and girls' minds. For instance, in the Teacher's Guide that accompanies his book, Gurian (a novelist and counselor whose graduate degree is in creative writing) writes:
Girls have difficulty learning some math, perhaps because they are not called on as much but also for biological reasons. Adolescent males receive surges of the hormone testosterone five to seven times a day; this can increase spatial skills, such as higher math. Increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle increases female performance in all skills, including spatials, so an adolescent girl may perform well on any test, including math, a few days per month.
Math teachers trained in these theories are unlikely to expect much of their female students -- at least most days of the month. Leonard Sax, a family physician and the founder of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education, also profiled in the Times article, argues that as a biological matter, girls' brains perform worse under stress, while boys' brains perform better, and thus girls should never be given time limits on tasks, while boys' classes should be structured around competition. Who do you think will perform better in a demanding work environment after receiving such a gender-typed education?
Not all advocates of sex-segregated education are brain difference theorists like Sax and Gurian (or like Allen, whose employer, the Independent Women's Forum, is another enthusiastic supporter of single-sex education). However, most schools experimenting with sex-segregated programs today are doing so on the basis of these theories. And it is difficult, if not impossible, to create a legal regime that permits sex segregation in education without opening the door to programs based on shoddy science and dressed-up stereotypes about gender difference. This is exactly why Title IX was written to prohibit sex segregation -- a protection that was undermined when the Bush administration amended Title IX regulations to encourage the creation of single-sex schools.
As the Times article explains, the science behind these radical experiments in sex-segregated education is shaky at best. Moreover, the overgeneralizations that brain difference theorists promote have pernicious real-world effects. While boys' classrooms are being designed to engage students physically, to allow for hands-on learning, and to make education a game as often as possible, girls' classrooms are places where students are encouraged to sit quietly at their desks and to talk about their feelings. Girls lose when their education is based on the notion that their brains leave them unqualified for abstract thought or risk-taking, just as boys lose when teachers assume that their brains leave them unable to empathize or to nurture. This is how gender stereotypes get perpetuated, and why gender-based discrimination continues. Our kids deserve better.
To learn more about the ongoing fight against this and other forms of gender-based discrimination, visit the ACLU's Women's History Month website.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I never heard any of these studies given as reasons for having separate for boys and girls. I doubt that they have had much influence. Indeed, I'm trying to think of a school in my region that is segregated by sex. There must be some, but the trend has gone the other way toward co-education.
So, I'm thinking this is a tempest in a teapot. However, I still find myself wondering why parents should select whatever kind of education they believe best benefits their kids. When you cut through the rhetoric here, that's what I see this article being about.
By the way, which parent is usually making this decision? Take a guess.
Your anger at the science itself is misdirected. There are people out there with an agenda and they will use anything they can to justify their archaic ideas. Why not show a positive example where science is being used to promote better education? Why does research that shows differences in male and female brain and behavior have to be used for segregation of the sexes? Your claims that sex segregation is due to the science itself is absurd and paranoid. Its like saying racism is because of biology. Some people in the 1800s may have distorted some of the science to support racism, but they were racists to begin with. Science has actually just proved that the concept of "race" is biologically unsupported and is mostly a cultural construct. Sex, however is really a biological concept.
Each person is different and although some probabilistic cues may be gained by such generalizations about a child's interests and abilities, each child must be treated as an individual. Its sort of like sexual preference. Equality is not about providing every child with what is deemed the standard for everyone but rather about providing everyone what they need and prefer. Science can be used as a source of knowledge in understanding such things. The enemy is the people who would abuse such knowledge. If we fear science and its implications, we are giving way to those who are willing to use it towards their own ends.
The research into brain-sex is being used in many countries to benefit women. In parts of the third world like India, women are starting to achieve unprecedented levels of higher education, taking advantage of specialized governmental institutes. These institutes always must have equality policies. Millions of women who would have had no chance to leave the patriarchal grasp that bound them have now, thanks to the development of enlightened models of thinking, started to venture into the workplace and even dominate fields that were once the realm of men. In India, for example, bioscience is on its way to becoming a women dominated field. This is a country where women were not seen as student material in the not-too-di
Determining brain types is more about understanding different needs than anything else. If we can identify interests and abilities at a younger age, we can build better adults and eventually better functioning societies. Let's go after the people who are promoting sex segregation, not after the scientists who are working for a better world.
Why did it take two women to write this article?
Educating boys and girls separately is very beneficial because when they're together they mostly think about each other rather than academics.
Right and then they could all grow up with good academics and pathetic social skills, leading to more depression, anxiety and suicide. If thats such a good idea, why does the west, where there is little sex-segregation, do much better academically than the muslim world, where sex-segregation is the norm?
This just verifies my thoughts that sex-segregation is a cultural idea like racism and is just using science to justify its self perpetuation. Meme, oh meme!
The goal of Western schooling is material advancement, whereas the goal of a Muslim education is spiritual advancement according to the standard of the Koran.
You're comparing educational systems with different goals using the standard of one of them. If you were to compare them according to who knows the Koran and practices islam better, the Muslims would obviously score higher.
Sex segragation is not a cultural idea. It is based in scripture, not only the Koran. It is also Vedic, and I presume Biblical as well.
Just to throw in a few facts (which support this article btw).
1. Yes, Men do better at spacial reasoning tasks. However, this is not, for the most part, a mathematical skill. This is how to throw a spear or a basketball to a target. It could help visualize advanced calculus concepts regarding what formula to use to calculate the area of a shape, but probably doesn't affect K-12 math, not even Geometry.
2. Yes, because of the spacial reasoning item, men do better on IQ tests, but that is just because the tests measure spacial reasoning as part of "intellige
3. In any case, the differences are statistically insignifigant. To put it another way, the 50th percentile boy may be smarter than the 50th percentile girl, if you believe the test, but... The 50th percentile girl is smarter than the 49th percentile boy. Or to put it another way, 49% of girls are better at math than 50% of the boys.
So what causes the differences in school? Perception and expectation. People buy into the crap about boys being better, and subtle social stimili tell the girls to "play dumb," while telling the boys "you are good at math." So that even boys who are not wired for math get forced into something they are not good at (and therefore hate) while girls who would be better than those boys are "helped," into home ec or other "easier," subjects.
I thought this crap was outdated in the 19th century with the brain weights and other nonsense. The continued cultural influence of the naysayers again goes without mention, like the female math teacher asking me why I was taking calculus (she'd never ask a guy that).
I was always competitive about it, right from those timed calculations exams (addition/
Sheesh. More Herbert Spencer crap. Next they'll be saying women shouldn't study because it means their breasts won't grow (I don't have that problem and I have a PhD).
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS. My daughter was in the top of her math class from grades 1-6.
She doesn't like pre=AP in jr. high, because everyone in the classes are "nerds" and socially inept. (that would be her definition). She is socially advanced, very artistic, smart and bored with all pre-AP classes. I don't believe she fits this rediculous generalization. Nor do any of her friends. Why don't they do a study on how much money is wasted on educational studies and kick that money back to school districts?
The only value I can see in segregating the sexes is the distraction that hormonally challenged teens face when trying to concentrate! The flip side of that is the brutal treatment all teens have toward each other of the same sex. I am not kidding. It is Lord of the Flies out there and if you don't know this, you aren't paying attention. I think that we have believed that it is normal for teens to act out and sullen and rude, etc. I personally, don't give a rip. I think that there needs to be a reinstatement of more authority given to teachers. I am constantly on my daughter about attitude. We don't allow it at home, so why should they at school.
As far as spatial thinking goes, there are many, many people (of both sexes) who cannot transform frickin' numbers into spatial ideas,but who can define 3-d space sculpturally ,mechanically and electrically in their minds. . As an artist,(and a woman) I'm extremely bored with the idea that you have to have numbers to explain everything. Everyone does not think "in numbers" .. Numbers are just another language to define something. Granted you must have this for building and design, however, I think the approach to learning needs to accomodate those who are "number " intuitives and those who are not. They are not mutually exclusive. Just different ways of approaching the same problem.
Look at one of the finest engineers in the world, Leonardo da Vinci. He was an artist as well as an engineer. While he was a genius, I think that we need to reassess our guides for teaching. Instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to use somebody's studies and skewed stats, we might consider going back to the future with a more integrative approach.
Kneejerk pundits who maker careers out of bitching and moaning about the differences between male and female and how we must pretend that there are none out of foolish political correctness need to wake up and smell the java. This is a non issue. Why must we always bow to the constant anal retentive agenda of paranoid minorities?
We are being outpopulated by a 3rd world invasion because western culture is screwed up and we have lost the will to reproduce at a consistent replacement rate. Feminist troublemakers are nothing but wanna be males with a reincarnated soul of the opposite sex. One day science will prove this. But by that time, Anglo America may be extinct.
My daughter is ranked #1 in her class, she loves math, physics and the sciences. There are a couple of Indian girls in her AP classes that also do well. Beyond that, it's mostly boys.
So you tell me what's going on? Most likely, her naval officer mom (she's an engineer) and I (retired Marine) busted her chops big time and did not put up with any crap while she was in grade school and jr high. The mom comes from a long line of math/engineer types and I believe that family is hard wired for that kind of thing.
Some of it is learned, but I tell you, with out a doubt, this kid is hard wired towards this kind of stuff and I have rarely seen females perform on this level.
The sexes are different, and I believe more different than you will ever admit to. I also believe mental abilities as well as disabilities can be handed down. And sure, keeping the TV turned off and the cell phone off until work is done helps.
As a Mathematical Physicist, I struggle daily to subdue my over-inclination to think spatially. In discussing Mathematics and its applications, we should not be constrained by any idea that it is necessarily spatial or demands spatial thinking. Anyone who cannot think spatially as well as a basketball player can get on with and do well at the equally fundamental linguistic, algebraic, abstract, conceptual, ... aspects of mathematics. If boys do think spatially better than girls as a rule, I have personally found this skill to be as much a hindrance to my mathematical life as a help; if we are to indulge further in stereotypes, the better social skills of girls equips them to be better mathematicians of a different kind. A significant hindrance to girls doing well in mathematics may perhaps be that teaching less spatial mathematics often does not happen enough before College.
"Women are dumber than men." What an unenlightened statement! What are we defining as intelligence? Who gets to write the assessment?
Women and men learn differently? Well, duh!
Should education segregate males and females? Absolutely not. A knowledgeable educator would encourage heterogeneous groupings, allowing all stakeholders to learn from each other.
The Washington Post? Well, consider the source. Conservatives always complain about the NYT's liberal bias, and rightly so sometimes, but then they just as quickly bend right over to lap up whatever garbage the WaPo is serving. The Washington Post doesn't exactly pander to the most intellectual crowd, so it's hard for me to get too worked up over their misogynist dribble, but it's sad to see this type gender-bias promoted as anything remotely legitimate.
I will second other posters on this sight regarding the reality of higher education, however. Sure, I certainly believe that girls are discouraged from pursuing science and math in the K-12 realm, which is an absolute crime, but when you look at the college level, women are quickly and significantly out-numbering and out-ranking the men in math and science fields. I spent my first few years in college pursuing a Chemical Engineering degree with a Biotechnology emphasis, but ended up graduating with a degree in Mathematics. Guess what? The women out-numbered the men nearly 2-1 in both majors, and this was back in 2000.
I'm a physicist and my brother is a writer. Would we have been allowed to cross-register? When one is reading these studies, it's important to realize that although we might find that a small number of one gender or the other is at the extremes on the ability charts, the vast number of children of both sexes are spread equally throughout the middle. To place all little girls in rooms that are quiet and reflective denies those of us who are active, hands-on learners access to learning. Likewise, not all little boys thrive on competition. The secret to successful learning for both sexes is have a classroom that offers some of each. Separate is not equal here either.
No, you wouldn't have been able to cross register. My school district almost implemented the ideas of Gurian and Sax (see the NY Times article), and they were going to make the program mandatory. In other words, one day the neighborhood public school to which you were assigned would begin teaching boys and girls differently based on outdated gender stereotypes, and there would be no way to opt out. The ACLU got an injunction here. We're waiting to see if the district tries again (they have said they will).
Disgusting. Guess they wanna go back to producing Mrs. degrees.
More females are going to college than males right now, correct? I looked at the gender breakdown of my graduate school and it is 65% female (in one of those traditional male occupations). Does this have any bearing on this report? Does the outdated school model have anything to do with males having lesser academic performance? Camile Pagilia talks about this all the time in her Salon articles. Just wondering if we need to look at things in more broad terms.
men have also been shown to be better at having penises than women. yeah, try to refute THAT observation, HuffingtonPost! bwahaha.
Articles about alleged benefits of separating students by gender usually dwell heavily on supposed male and female learning styles. They never seem to address why, with all the resources and technology we have today, it isn't possible to tailor programs that support learning styles of individuals. Why address the perpetual problem of learning differences among people with a nineteenth century solution that's crude at best?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
