Gender Matters by Leonard Sax
After reading Boys Adrift, I read Gender Matters, also by Leonard Sax. Gender Matters was written before Boys Adrift, but I happened to hear about that one first. I’m glad I did read Boys Adrift first because it is more alarming and attention getting than Gender Matters. However, this book provides more evidence for the differences between boys and girls and how that affects the way children react to subject matter and how they can best learn different types of material.
In Boys Adrift, Sax’s focus is on boys and he largely ignores girls, though he does mention that fact is not because girls do not have problems in the educational system. Gender Matters presents more hard data on gender differences and makes recommendations on how parents and teachers can or need to respond in regard to raising and educating children.
Examples include the sight and hearing differences between males and females mentioned in the Boys Adrift post. Another example cited it the common male characteristic among primates for rough and tumble play among primates. This kind of play is commonly discouraged in our society and reflected in our educational systems with the result that games such as dodge ball and similar rough or dangerous activities (teeter-totters, swings, and slides) remove a necessary outlet for the aggressive tendencies of boys. Males that are not allowed rough and tumble behavior among primates have a tendency to produce brutal behavior later. The rough and tumble activities of friends appears to teach them rules of fair play that instills boundaries for the activities of adult activity. He says that our efforts to create a more soft and gentle boy may result in more aggressive and brutal activities in adults. Sax cites examples and research to support these conclusions.
The feminist theory of our times lead us to believe that gender differences are minimal and largely taught. The foundation of Sax’s theories is founded in research that demonstrates the differences in the ‘hard wiring’ of the brains between boys and girls. As an indirect result, Sax believes the modern gender philosophy is driving a trend to drug both boys and girls; boys with amphetamine stimulants such as the Ritalin family of drugs and antidepressants for girls.
In summary, a very thought provoking book well worth reading.
In Boys Adrift, Sax’s focus is on boys and he largely ignores girls, though he does mention that fact is not because girls do not have problems in the educational system. Gender Matters presents more hard data on gender differences and makes recommendations on how parents and teachers can or need to respond in regard to raising and educating children.
Examples include the sight and hearing differences between males and females mentioned in the Boys Adrift post. Another example cited it the common male characteristic among primates for rough and tumble play among primates. This kind of play is commonly discouraged in our society and reflected in our educational systems with the result that games such as dodge ball and similar rough or dangerous activities (teeter-totters, swings, and slides) remove a necessary outlet for the aggressive tendencies of boys. Males that are not allowed rough and tumble behavior among primates have a tendency to produce brutal behavior later. The rough and tumble activities of friends appears to teach them rules of fair play that instills boundaries for the activities of adult activity. He says that our efforts to create a more soft and gentle boy may result in more aggressive and brutal activities in adults. Sax cites examples and research to support these conclusions.
The feminist theory of our times lead us to believe that gender differences are minimal and largely taught. The foundation of Sax’s theories is founded in research that demonstrates the differences in the ‘hard wiring’ of the brains between boys and girls. As an indirect result, Sax believes the modern gender philosophy is driving a trend to drug both boys and girls; boys with amphetamine stimulants such as the Ritalin family of drugs and antidepressants for girls.
In summary, a very thought provoking book well worth reading.
posted by complexspecificity | 4:48 AM
4 Comments:
Sounds like an interesting book. If I follow the logic properly then it seems clear that this would support the "Wild At Heart" material quite closely by claiming that men are different and that their differentness (centered around a tendency towards rough-housing and danger) is not necessarily a bad thing.
Did you make the connection to Wild At Heart and/or Waking the Dead?
The general idea is there and as a result males need to be raised and specifically educated differently than females.
However, the male tendency to like danger and to consistently overestimate their skills can have dire consequences. For instance, Sax says research shows that male primates (if I remember correctly, chimps were cited) are born with about a 50/50 gender ratio, but by the time they are adults, the oops factor has reduced that ratio to 1 male for every 5 females. Humans don’t have the same kill ratio, but accidental death is still disproportionally higher for men than for women.
I think John Eldredge would say that men in general like to live closer to the edge than women, but that life in God’s kingdom offers plenty of opportunity to fight important battles that we men are specifically designed for. Leadership responsibility requires that our survival is an important, though not paramount requirement for our families. Truth, justice, and other values may be higher and may in the short run require risk unto death and in the long run serve those who come after. An example of this type is the missionaries who were killed by the Auca/Huaorani Indians of Ecuador. They died, but laid a foundation for their wives and others to bring hope and healing to the Auca/Huaorani people.
Time to blog some more...you readin' anything? Tell us about your bidnessez.
I can see the evolutionary connections here: how this risk taking, rough and tumble, would be rewarded. However, it is less clear what God has in mind with it. Does going into the dangers of new frontiers take a natural inclination to danger or faith? How does faith and dependence on God work in this paradigm? How much of this behavior sin nature? The use of primates as examples seems to equate natural with divine, in that nature is used to exemplify what God intended. If this is true, then what is happening when the lion lays down with the lamb and it's not for dinner?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home