SexismInEverydayMath < Kitchen

10 Aug 2005 - 20:47

sexism in Everyday Math

Christopher has complained for a very long time that, in schoolbooks and on children's television, boys are always the losers. They're dumber than the girls, weaker than the girls, slower than the girls; and they deserve what they get.

My impression has been that he's right.

Then a couple of days ago Instructivist posted a link to an American Educator article showing that at least two different sources have formally banned 'positive stereotypes' of boys in textbooks. I'm sure many more sources have informally and implicitly banned 'positive stereotypes' of boys as well; I'm equally sure that, in practice, 'no positive stereotypes' means 'no positive images,' period.

Certainly that would be the smart way to go. Drop in a positive image of a boy and you risk getting dinged for positive stereotyping. Drop in no positive images of boys and you don't.

Simple.

I'm sure that's the thinking, because when I look at textbooks or watch TV, I see an awful lot of cool girls, but precious few cool boys.

Which brings me to Everyday Math.

Given the well-documented deterioration in the academic performance of boys (Ed tells me that the NYU student body is now 60% girls), I am actively hostile to the inclusion of problems like this one in the Grade 5 E-Math curriculum:

source:
What the United States Can Learn from Singapore's World-Class Mathematics System (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An Exploratory Study, page 77 (pdf file)

Message: men are rude schmucks, titter, titter.

It's a cliche, but it goes without saying that you could not publish the same word problem about blacks or women or Jews or old people or Muslims or Navajo Indians.

But you can tell 10-year old boys that when they grow up they'll be dopes.

source:
Banned Words, Images, and Topics: A Glossary that Runs from the Offensive to the Trivial

update: you can't say that

Almost 20 years ago, when I was a Contributing Editor at NEW WOMAN, I wrote an article about elementary school and boys. I talked to everyone, major developmentalists, psych researchers, recognized authorities. All agreed that boys and elementary school are a bad fit. Grade schools are run by women, and are predicated upon little-girl behavior, which is demonstrably less rowdy and more organized than little-boy behavior.

When I turned it in, my editor--still a close friend today--said there was no way she could get it through the editorial staff at NEW WOMAN. The message was wrong.

She wanted to see the article in print, so she sent it to a friend at, IIRC, WORKING MOTHER.

The editor there called me up and said, and I quote:

If I even showed this article to anyone else here you would never write for us. No one would look at anything you did.

True story.

So here we have a report that ran in the Detroit News on January 9, 2005:

The nation's boys are slipping and researchers say it's time to worry.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, boys have fallen behind girls in academic achievement. Fewer boys than girls are enrolling in and graduating from college and fewer men have master's and doctoral degrees.
While it may look like girls have won the gender wars, some wonder if something is amiss.
In the last 30 years, more boys than girls have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities, and more boys have dropped out of school.
"There is serious concern about what is happening to boys," said Katherine Newman, a sociologist at Princeton University. Experts offer a variety of reasons for the decline.
They say a disproportionate number of boys are diagnosed as learning disabled too early in life, a label that can later prove difficult to shed. Others argue that boys have been neglected in a large-scale societal effort to help girls. Others blame classroom cultures that have developed over time without accounting for the physically active nature of young boys.
"I think (elementary school) matches girls' personalities," said West Bloomfield mom Liz Fellows.
Whatever the reason, researchers agree the trend needs a closer look, in part because it will influence the ability of future men to make a living. "Since the 1970s, this has not been true," Newman said. "This is a serious concern because the possibility of a well-paying job without education has become more of an issue."
source:
Boys fall behind girls in grades

People studying child development knew all this 20 years ago. At least.

So I'm sorry. I can't see this as a case of 'neglecting' boys in a 'large-scale societal effort to help girls.'

When you have the New York City Board of Education formally banning depictions of boys as curious, intelligent, or able to overcome obstacles you're talking about something more malign than a simple oversight.

Here is Tom Mortenson's fact sheet, What's Wrong with the Guys?. (pdf file)

USA Today report on 135:100 boys:girls ratio in college
sexism in Everyday Math
invisible boys
boy trouble (New Republic on boys)
slacker boys, middle school, & forbidden positive images of boys in textbooks
throw rocks at them
please remain seated at all times
Ann Althouse thread sums up classroom change
cooperative vs. competitive learning
the girl show (8th grade graduation awards)
the boy show (character ed)
the other boy show
Where the Boys Aren't

letter from Robert Lerner, former commissioner NCES
Tom Mortenson's research
The Boys Project board
for every 100 girls —

Back to main page.

Comments

After entering a comment, users can login anonymously as KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.

I love the passion you bring to this subject, a passion I share.

I think the impulse behind the banning of positive images of boys is the same as the impulse behind so-called affirmative action. The advocates of this type of social engineering see discriminatory measures as a corrective to boost oppressed and marginalized groups (as they see it) and to put down the oppressor (as they see it).

Also curious is the use of "stereotype". It's a tool in some quarters to deny unpleasant reality on the one hand and to make desirable but disfavored traits taboo on the other. It's absurd on its face. There really are curious boys, shorter girls and infirm elderly.

BTW, I posted the American Educator excerpts but forgot to identify myself as Instructivist.

I tried repeatedly in the past to register as a regular user, but didn't get through.

Maybe the procedure is simpler now and I'll try again.

Instructivist

-- KtmGuest - 11 Aug 2005

I wondered if that was you!

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Aug 2005

I tried repeatedly in the past to register as a regular user, but didn't get through.

Oh for heaven's sake.

Let us know how it goes, because we're constantly trying to improve useability......especially in a site as sui generis as ktm.

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Aug 2005

I didn't post this up front, but a friend of mine told me her son asked her this question:

"How come 'feminist' means 'hates men' and it's good, but 'misogynist' means 'hates women' and it's bad?"

I think this is terrible.

Why would we be conveying to children the idea that they are responsible for bad things that happened long before they were born--for bad things they've never even heard of?

They are children; they need our protection and care.

Barry sometimes talks about constructivist math programs being abusive. I'll add that I find any educational approach that tells children they belong to a naturally bad group abusive.

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Aug 2005

I feel strongly that, when it comes to images in textbooks, all boys should be represented as curious, intelligent, and able to overcome obstacles.

As should all girls.

-- CatherineJohnson - 11 Aug 2005

Have you heard the flap lately about these t-shirts girls are being sold that say (IIRC) 'boys are bad, throw rocks at them'?

I don't see why it isn't possible to bolster girls without dissing boys.

-- CarolynJohnston - 14 Aug 2005

Worse yet, the math is wrong. It's the usual mixup of percents with percentage points.

Look at #5. Food is about 80%, Dandruff about 10%, but 80% is not 60% greater than 10%. 60% of 10% would be 6%. 80% is eight times bigger than 10% or 800%

-- KtmGuest - 17 Aug 2005

Have you heard the flap lately about these t-shirts girls are being sold that say (IIRC) 'boys are bad, throw rocks at them'?

Yup.

Infuriating.

I just read more stats today on college & boys & girls: IIRC, it's 56% girls applying to college this year, versus 44% boys.

-- CatherineJohnson - 18 Aug 2005

WebLogForm
Title:	sexism in Everyday Math
TopicType:	WebLog
SubjectArea:	ConstructivistTeaching, EverydayMath
LogDate:	200508101646

Navigate KTM

Kitchen Table Math

KTM User Pages

Service Groups

Parent Groups

Personal Pages

Blogs

Special lists

Help