Luckily, I have a partner who is well-versed in mind-body consciousness as well as gender constructions. She works with me to get through this. She is cognizant of how our minds work and what social constructions have led us here. Together, we talk through the problem and the ways that we can constructively solve our issues.
She understands how my father's emphasis on sports and his lack of expression has influenced me, despite my own formal education. It's not my dad's fault. His father raised him in much the same way.
Then there's the media and the cultures in which we grow up. Growing up a Buckeye fan, I watched men like Chris Spielman dominate his opponents by using an almost animal-like instinct for destroying his enemy. With reckless abandon, #36 would take out 300-pound blockers on his way to punishing tailbacks and wide receivers. If Chris Spielman ever cried, it was because they lost to Michigan, the Buckeyes' arch rival.
Years later, Spielman stood by his wife who was suffering from breast cancer. He left football for a time to be with her. I'm sure he cried during this time, but I wonder if he was ever able to find the words to express himself.
I've seen this same lack of emotional intelligence as a teacher. Boys come to school unable to express empathy or remorse. As their teacher, I would try to reflect on their behavioral or academic failings only to find that they hadn't ever learned how to express themselves. I feel I've spent more time teaching boys how to appropriately express emotions than any math strategy or reading comprehension.
__________________________________________________________________
Are we born this way? Will boys be boys? If it is our miseducation, is it limited to how we deal with emotions?In Raising Cain, Kindlon and Thompson want us to believe that the only failings in raising boys is our incompetence in in providing ways to deal with emotion, helping boys navigate body image, and dealing with teasing. While I agree with these findings, I do not agree that boys learn or act differently because of their biology.
Boys are not more active because they are wired that way. They are conditioned to play in a certain manner that encourages activity. Boys are constantly being shown images of male athletes flinging themselves across the playing field. Boys are different from girls because that's how we've raised them.
I have real troubles with Kindlon and Thompson using learned behavior to explain some issues with boys while ignoring others to suit their arguments.
I have primarily worked with lower income families in my teaching career. In these families, I have noticed that the girls can often be just as active or aggressive and easily distracted as the boys. This is due to their upbringing. Boys are not anymore naturally inclined to be active or impulsive than girls. The way we act and respond socially has so much more to do with how we are raised.
I am skeptical about the rest of this book if it is as near-sighted as the first four chapters. Sorry for the rant.
1 comment:
I see what you mean. It's nature vs. nurture alright. The statement (generalizatiion) that "boys are wired this way" cannot be true across the board, so I'm with you, there. While I've always been quite aware of the social influences upon us, it's hard for me to believe (unlike some purely social constructivists) there is not a "self" at all. This could be a romantic notion, of course, but it's also an intuitive one that I'm not sure I can change!
Post a Comment