Boys Will Be Boys, So Segregate the Li'l Bastards

Categories: Schutze

Never ever thought I would hear myself saying this --- ever never ever. But there may be something to say for certain kinds of all boys schools. Well, that is, if there is anything good at all to say about boys, and there may not be, then maybe it's a good idea after all to lock them up with each other for a while.

This is inspired by a recent David Brooks column in The New York Times about the alarming and growing achievement gap between boys and girls in America. He writes: "The eminent psychologist Michael Thompson mentioned at the Aspen Ideas Festival a few days ago that 11th-grade boys are now writing at the same level as 8th-grade girls. Boys used to have an advantage in math and science, but that gap is nearly gone."

I seldom agree with Brooks on anything, because Brooks is a conservative, and I'm a liberal, and, as I think we would all probably agree here in Dallas, liberals are a lot smarter than conservatives. But as the late Ernie Makovy used to say, "Even a blind hog finds the acorn once in a while."

A young Jim off to school.
So this is an acorn day for Brooks. He writes persuasively to argue that the hearts and souls of boys are shriveled by an educational culture that vaunts and rewards girl traits -- such as empathy, thinking ahead, organizational ability, self-control -- while it denigrates and punishes all the best boy traits, like punching people in the face.

That's a theme that has bothered me, too, for a long time. Maybe almost forever. I attended a boys boarding school as a kid. Don't worry. It conveyed no social status on me personally at all. I was a fish-out-of-water scholarship kid before schools like that had fish-out-of-water scholarship kids. Nothing stuck.

But when I showed up the social differences were vast. My years there could have been miserable, devoted to nothing else. But we pretty much took care of all of that in the first few weeks by punching each other in the face. And then it was over.

We had our own new social pecking order, the punch-in-the-face pecking order. There was less snobbery at that school than anywhere I have been since, maybe because people just got tired of the punching after a while.

My best friend from those years is the guy I punched the most. He says he punched me the most. We even got in a halfway testy argument about it decades later when I tried to apologize for putting in the infirmary. He said he must have punched me in the head a lot harder than he thought, because he was the one who put me in the infirmary. Whatever.

My own son attended the opposite kind of school, a wonderful Montessori School in East Dallas where a wise and insightful faculty brought out the best in both boys and girls ... until middle school. That would be, until puberty. And there's the rub.

Many boys -- not all, but many -- turn into little ass-holes at puberty. They're aggressive, rebellious, hyper-active, and they have that state prison thing: They can be perfectly well behaved at one moment, then accidentally brush shoulders passing in the corridor and try to kill each other.

So what to do with them? Well, it's all zero tolerance and psychotropic drugs these days. But what is the outcome of that regimen in the long run? Brooks wonders what would have happened if this modern culture of boy repression had been imposed on Shakespeare's Henry V:

"Then he'd rebel," Brooks writes. "If the official high school culture was über-nurturing, he'd be über-crude. If it valued cooperation and sensitivity, he'd devote his mental energies to violent video games and aggressive music. If college wanted him to be focused and tightly ambitious, he'd exile himself into a lewd and unsupervised laddie subculture. He'd have vague high ambitions but no realistic way to realize them. Day to day, he'd look completely adrift."

I worried about all of that with my own son, because I saw it happening with many of his Montessori buddies. It seemed to me the middle school was treating the boys like defective girls, and the boys didn't have anything much they could do about it but flip everybody the bird. Which they did, often and well.

I was lucky. My son found his way into several little bad-boy bands of brats, guys on dirt-bikes in East Dallas and country kids in East Texas who thought fighting was an inter-scholastic sport.

If tolerating some of this was good for him, and I believe it was, I get no credit. It was his poor long-suffering mother who knew enough to step back wordless into the house sometimes and allow nature, however unattractive it might be, to take its course.

I do believe that one way or the other boys need to have a place where they can be ass-holes. It's male destiny. They need to have a realm where they can work things out in their own way, stupidly.

What scared me about the East Dallas way of doing things was that it was sometimes carried out too far from adult view. When I say boys need to be boys, I mean they need to be boys with adults standing by with bullwhips, figuratively speaking. Otherwise, boys being boys goes to bullying in about five minutes, goes to Lord of the Flies in about 10 minutes.

One thing boys really do not have is brakes. I don't know about girls. I never had one. But boys do not have brakes, and some adult has to be there to put the brakes on for them -- sometimes stomp on the brakes.

All of which makes me think maybe segregating kids by gender, at least for part of the day, makes more sense than I used to think.

Not boarding school any more. Now they're all co-ed, and they're for smart kids. They probably don't punch each other in the face much anymore.

And it's probably a good idea to keep boys around their mothers for part of the day anyway. Mothers are smarter than fathers. Damn it.

Otherwise, you don't think they'll just do away with the whole male gender someday do you? We need to keep an eye on that. I think they may be having meetings about it already. Why wouldn't they?

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

It's worse. Men don't deal with a conflict like that by a fair compromise at the end. We deal with it in a total war sense, accepting nothing more than unconditional surrender. By breaking all reasonable men down, women are killing the very defense they will need when the scumbag brutes come to "put them back in the kitchen". When all that is left is macho turds and subjugated slave-men, there won't be anyone honorable to defend women from the naked force of the brutes.


The funny thing is, I would. Jim knee-jerks leftist, but being on the net and having to deal with comments forces him past the knee jerk, and at the end of the day, he ends up at his libertarian core.


I've been trying lately to see things from the other pov. Let's just do the republican thing and skip the schooling altogether and send the little imps straight to prison.


You say that as if to imply that the end of our "culture" would be a bad thing, Max.


Dog, You'll note I was careful to qualify my statements with "on the whole" and "often." With those qualifications in place, I stand by them. Certainly there are variations. Nobody's demanding a one-school-fits-all solution. Which is, as Jim points out, what we have now, that solution by and large favoring a single set of behavioral traits, which, I think it can be argued, does not adequately deal with boys. Neither is anybody here advocating that we stereotype boys or girls. I'm very much in favor of "tomboys" and boys who have the courage to take up supposedly unmasculine interests or show a softer, gentler nature. Nobody here wants to freeze them out. We're really hoping for a system that is more flexible in taking into account differences. The question of nature versus nurture in gender formation, smug pronouncements to the contrary, is still very much in the air. I agree that some of the seeming reticence of girls to speak out in the presence of boys in a classroom is due to early conditioning. The solution is not to throw them in with a bunch of boisterous boys and expect them to suddenly adopt bolder personalities. Nor is it to dampen that boyish behavior. The solution is to place girls in environments where they can thrive, learn self-assurance and pride free from the sometimes overbearing behavior of boys, who have received gender reinforcement of their own. Feminists have been calling for just such classrooms for some time now, and they are right. I think a lot of people of both genders cling hopelessly to the dogma that, social conditioning aside, the genders are identical. Equal, certainly, but hardly identical. There is no such thing as the "classical -- by which I suppose you mean typical -- girl or boy. But neither are boys and girls alike physically or developmentally or emotionally. By treating them as though they are, we are forcing them into a mold just as rigid and destructive as any of the hoary old gender stereotypes. What is happening -- and this disturbs some of the old gender warriors -- is that just as we recognized the old system was rigged against girls, so we are now coming to see that rigging it against boys is no solution.  


 Absolutely.  Even if the teachers are mediocre, the students will still do well in school and life in general as long as their parents give a damn.


On the other hand, the nuns were experts at shaming boy behavior. After 8 years with the good sisters it was such a relief to get to the Jesuits. 


Yet somehow, in my day we poor, stupid guys were able to compete with our female peers. I think there are a lot of factors at play here, not the least of is the factor you cite--these days, teachers treat boys like defective girls instead of healthy, normal boys. Oh, and a few reading assignments with male protagonists and action-driven plots might not hurt, either. 


 Replying to your own posts now?   ....

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault