Christina Hoff-Sommers’ 2001 book The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, the second of her books criticizing radical feminism, really introduced the idea that modern public education is failing boys, misdiagnosing them as learning disabled when really, they were just approaching learning like, well, boys. That is, they weren’t as compliant, they wanted to know WHY they were learning things, and they are emotionally behind girls of the same age, and maturation expectations are unrealistic for many boys.
This past week, Albert Mohler reported on an article from City Journal that confirms the data in Sommers’ book. The source article, How the Schools Shortchange Boys, is well worth the read. It confirms not only the harm that radical feminism (as opposed to healthy feminism) has done, it displays how badly we need to reform public education, and how those of us who want to have healthy, successful kids ought to look for alternates to public education in the meantime.
Here are some critical points (my titles):
1. Boys, by nature, challenge authority
As Sommers understood, it is boys ‘aggressive and rationalist nature’ redefined by educators as a behavioral disorder’ that’s getting so many of them in trouble in the feminized schools. Their problem: they don’t want to be girls.
2. If you don’t answer the important questions boys ask, they disengage
When a teacher assigns a paper or a project, girls will obediently flip their notebooks open and jot down the due date. Teachers love them. God loves them. Girls are calm and pleasant. They succeed through cooperation.
Boys will pin you to the wall like a moth. They want a rational explanation for everything. If unconvinced by your reasons – or if you don’t bother to offer any – they slouch contemptuously in their chairs, beat their pencils, or watch the squirrels outside the window.
3. Our current system labels healthy male behaviors “learning disabled”
The notion of male ethical inferiority first arises in grammar school, where women make up the overwhelming majority of teachers. It’s here that the alphabet soup of supposed male dysfunctions begins. And make no mistake: while girls occasionally exhibit symptoms of male-related disorders in this world, females diagnosed with learning disabilities simply don’t exist.
4. Labeling our boys as “learning disabled” is mostly a self-fulfilling prophecy
In the first IEP (Individualized Educational Program) meeting, the boy and his parents learn the results of disability testing. When the boy hears from three smiling adults that he does indeed have a learning disability, his young face quivers like Jell-O. For him, it was never a hustle. From then on, however, his expectations of himself – and those of his teachers – plummet.
5. White males are now almost absent or relegated to the bottom rungs in our textbooks
But even in their superficial aspects, the textbooks advertise publishers’ intent to pander to the prevailing PC attitudes. The books feature page after page of healthy, exuberant young girls in winning portraits. Boys (white boys in particular) will more often than not be shunted to the background in photos or be absent entirely or appear sitting in wheelchairs.
6. Male characteristics actually help them excel in the hard sciences
In today’s feminized classroom, with its ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘inclusiveness,’ a student’s demand for assurance of a worthwhile outcome for his effort isn’t met with a reasonable explanation but is considered inimical to the educational process. Yet it’s this very trait, innate to boys and men, that helps explain male success in the hard sciences, math, and business.
There is plenty of data showing the average differences between both boys and girls, and how they learn and approach things, including realiable differences in:
-
Life priorities
-
Interest in people v. things
-
Risk-seeking
-
Spatial transformation
-
Mathematical reasoning
-
Variability
Of course, we have in the recent past had overly *masculinized* education. The advances of healthy feminism have gone a good way towards correcting that. But radical and lesbian feminism, which hates the true masculine, and has tried to get us to buy that equal also means “the same,” and that gender norms based on biology are harmful to “non-traditional gender identities” (read gays/transgenders), has damaged our entire culture, from education to marriage and sexuality. It’s time to return to the rational approach, which is that boys and girls are different, and have unique needs and learning styles. Me, I think they should be educated separately until a certain age so that they can focus on education that is designed for them.
Seeker,
I'm not going to take the time to argue about this with you, since I know exactly how it will turn out. You will insist that boys are somehow the victims of vast feminist conspiracy, and I'll wonder how anybody can possibly believe that.
What's occuring here isn't a radical shift in priorities, but rather, a centralizing force, wherein the same is expected of boys and girls. Why is this centralization necessary?
Because schools, for far too long, ensured the success of boys, particularly of athletic, aggressive boys. Everybody else – girls, less athletically inclined boys, etc – was shunted to back of the priorities list. And this is what people like you were comfortable with. But now that those priorities have shifted – that is, now that the sorts of people who used to be regularly abused by those athletic aggressive boys – are having success, you don't know what to do. Neither does Christina Hoff Sommers.
What I find strange is that you don't seem to expect anything of boys. They shouldn't have to change their approach, nor should they have to live by anybody else's rules. Girls though? Girls definitely have to live by artificial rules created by people like you. So do gays. So does anybody, basically, who isn't you or like you. What's strange here is that what you're basically objecting to is a change in the system wherein you're no longer benefitting.
Grow up. Athletic aggressive boys are falling behind because nobody is used to expecting anything of them. Everybody is so used to simply giving those boys anything that they ever wanted that now that they're being deprived, we're lead to believe that there's something wrong with the state of affairs in the world. Not true, by a long shot. Boys, and you, just need to grow up.
Sam, I do not agree with Seeker on this, I agree with you but I want to play a little devil's advocate. Where in Seeker's post is the topic of "athleticism" brought up? Is Seeker referring to non physical differences between boys and girls?
It most certainly isn't brought up. But the jocks are the ones who have usually been given free reign, and they dominated over the lesser boys, and the women. Now that schools are rejiggering where the attention is paid, those traditionally rewarded are now falling behind, and that includes jocks.
The issue is less about athletes than about those that have traditionally run things. Because others are now on top of the food chain, we have to hear about how there is a problem.
But the jocks are the ones who have usually been given free reign, and they dominated over the lesser boys, and the women.
What comes to mind after reading this is the "dodge ball" controversy. I am thinking that this is part of what Seeker is talking about, that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Children today are so insulated from the mental and physical "trauma" of losing that they are unprepared for what it's like in the real "unfair" world when they become adults. I know "survival of the fittest" is how nature works and man should consciously fight against a "survival of the fittest" mentality in society. But the fact is, there is a social pecking order and perhaps over protecting kids does them a disservice.
Cineaste,
Knowing Seeker, we should both recognize that in fact "survival of the fittest" doesn't occur. God chooses those who survive and those who don't.
But as for your point, that overprotecting kids does them a disservice. I think that's there's a genuine difference between overprotecting kids and letting certain kids run schools like Lord of the Flies. Seeker, and Sommers and others, seem anxious for a world in which a certain cohort of children are allowed to act however they want, and the lesser boys and all of the girls are subservient. I think we can all agree that this attitude is regressive.
You will insist that boys are somehow the victims of vast feminist conspiracy,
No, a conspiracy is something secret. The anti-masculine tendencies of the lesbianized feminist movement have been an open secret for a while now. We are, however, the victims of a pendulum that has swung from overvaluing the masculine to denegrating and devaluing it, rather then brining balance.
wherein the same is expected of boys and girls.
That's not what is being said here. Rather, we have gone from expecting all children to be like boys to expecting them to all act like girls. Rather than embracing both feminine and masculine, we have gone from embracing on the masculine to embracing only the feminine.
Everybody else – girls, less athletically inclined boys, etc – was shunted to back of the priorities list. And this is what people like you were comfortable with.
No, this is what bigots want, but of course, you enjoy projecting your bigoted stereotype, having missed the content of this discussion.
now that the sorts of people who used to be regularly abused by those athletic aggressive boys – are having success, you don't know what to do.
While I am glad bullies no longer have their way, it is too bad that we have asked them to become emasculated instead of healthy and responsible.
Seeker, and Sommers and others, seem anxious for a world in which a certain cohort of children are allowed to act however they want,
Not at all. This is about the education system failing boys because it is not designed for them. It has nothing to do with correcting real behavioral and character problems such as bullying or being disruptive or disrespectful or lazy.
Regarding "surival of the fittest," schools should to some extent shelter kids from fear, bullying, and other cruelties as much as possible, especially in the younger grades. We should adopt a zero tolerance for such things in older grades. However, you can't protect kids from being emotionally hurt by cliques, or social pecking orders. But you can design your curriculum and school structures to minimize the formation and impact of these byproducts of emotional insecurity and adolescence.
Structures such as single gender education have been shown to be helpful, as well as such things as uniforms, a highly structured day which includes physical exercise, high expectations, and sufficient personal attention from teachers. None of these can completely remove the social problems encountered in the real world, but it can help young children develop without excessive fear.
…anxious for a world in which a certain cohort of children are allowed to act however they want, and the lesser boys and all of the girls are subservient.
A "Lord of the Flies" system is certainly regressive but I find it hard to believe that even Seeker, conservative as he is, would want something like this. I don't think boys are being "harmed" by feminists, as Seeker puts it, but I do think perhaps this generation of parents is overprotective. What happened to "Piggy" in "The Lord of the Flies" was an injustice true, but children should be aware of how unjust the world can be right? It's easier to prepare yourself for a blow when you can see it coming. I am not suggesting children should be brought up like Spartans, but if you take "feminization" to be synonomous with "protecting children" when it comes to the school system, then perhaps schools have become "over feminized." Keep in mind, I am playing devils advocate and this may not necessarily be my personal view.
if you take "feminization" to be synonomous with "protecting children" when it comes to the school system, then perhaps schools have become "over feminized."
The article says nothing of bullying or protecting children. It is about presenting materials and designing work to be done in a feminized method ONLY, so we value teamwork and cooperation, we fail to answer the questions about WHY we are learning things, and other approaches geared only to the feminine. So boys who can't adapt to this in exclusion to methods that fit the more individualized and focused, meaningful approach are left out, and then labeled as "disabled."
Rather than encouraging the strong points of the masculine and feminine, we are handicapping our kids by forcing them to be merely gentle girls. While I was a gentle kid in school, it is a pity that we have abandoned the beauty of the true masculine.
We are handicapping our kids by forcing them to be merely gentle girls
I don't agree with this. I think it's ridiculous. I agree with Sam then.
Well, I think the author makes a compelling case that we are making the opposite error of tailoring education only to boys by tailoring it only to girls. While teamwork and cooperation may be good to encourage, to demand that boys learn like girls is part of the imbalance of our culture, and the report clearly indicates that it is causing our boys to fail. But as long as we cater to PC views of man rather than rational ones, public education will continue to fail our children. This type of teaching will only continue to emasculate men, and then we will wonder why men aren’t being responsible and intelligent as compared to women anymore. Wildly idiotic.
It is silly to think that boys and girls are the same. They are different and in a general sense they learn differently. Schools should not cater to one or the other, they should educate all children as well as possible. Why is that a problem?
I have two boys myself and it is obvious that they are different than girls from the beginning. They approach things from a different angle. If you define they way they approach things as "abnormal" then you handicapp them from the beginning.
I don't see it as a conspiracy, but rather part of the bureaucratic mess of public education. Perhaps, Sam is right in that the past favored the more athletic and the bullies, but swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction is no more right. A balanced approach that educates all the children should be the direction everyone seeks.
And to Sam saying seeker is favoring the athletic and the jocks, that seems kinda funny because seeker has often said that he has never had any interests in sports and has not been part of those groups.
Seeker,
Schools aren't demanding that little boys act like little girls. Schools are demanding that little boys be good, and quiet, and responsible, just like their feminine counterparts. And I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. Masculinity shouldn't be a free pass for boys to do whatever they want – although that's certainly been the case in the past. Masculinity has to do with doing the rights things at the rights times, at bearing the brunt of the load when necessary, and doing so without complaint; that's a far cry from allowing boys to run around the classroom while the girls are doing their work.
You seem to oppose anything that requires men (boys) to do anything whatsoever, and I'm not entirely sure why that is. What's wrong with society expecting certain behavior out of its boys? What's wrong with boys learning that it isn't acceptable to run around the classroom, to constantly disrupt, to constantly antagonize?
Perhaps you all should read the actual article. It wasn't Seeker who was stating these things, but an article by Gerry Garibaldi, a teacher, which you can read at http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_schools_boy…
You are arguing about points that don't apply. The article deals with the means and methods of teaching and how they favor a feminized version of society. Conversely, the boys are then deemed as having some sort of learning disability and all-but written off. It is an interesting read. It has nothing to do with "running around the classroom" as Seeker has already pointed out numerous times, but I guess it's easier to setup and strike down Straw Men than it is to deal with the actual issue.
Aaron,
I went to school, just like you did. And while I was in school, I knew plenty of quiet boys who did their work, who participates in the classroom, and who excelled. I also remember boys who didn't want to sit in their chairs, who wanted to cause a commotion, who wanted to interrupt classes. I'm not sure why we should give those boys a free pass, and then just chalk it up to "boys being boys." Again, there's nothing wrong with expecting something better from our boys, and there's nothing wrong with letting them know that they'll have to work to achieve their success, instead of handed it, as has historically been the case.
Mikbry24,
I believe what some of us are contesting is this alleged "feminized society" that is being taught. The issue isn't feminizing society, it's asking for good behavior from our boys, the same as we ask for from our girls. And I'm not entirely sure why you're opposed to having high expectations for boys, unless the idea that boys would somehow be asked to do something is threatening to you. The issue is quite clear: schools are changing, and there are those out there who are desperate to go back to a time when girls didn't succeed, and weaker boys didn't succeeed. But that's unnacceptable. Boys aren't being left behind – they're having expectations put upon them, and it's their responsibility to meet those expectations.
I am not talking about allowing boys to disrupt everything. i am talking about the methods used for teaching and how it is structured in such a way as to generally benefit the minds of girls more than boys.
I agree boys should meet expectations and we shouldn't let them get a free pass simply because they are boys. I hope you continue to agree with that statement when we are talking about affirmative action and other situations that hold everyone to the same standard as opposed to speical (lower) standards for certain people.
Sam, you are being ridiculous if you think this has anything to do with going back to keeping girls and weaker boys down. You get so angry at some low ball politics, yet you contiually assume the absolute worst motives for those you disagree with.
There needs to be balance that helps everyone succeed. The same standard should be applied to everyone, which means teaching in a way (or ways) that helps everyone succeed, not expecting boys to think like girls or girls to think like boys. It could work the other way as well.
Aaron,
Nobody is expecting boys to think like girls. People are just expecting boys to sit quietly, to particpate, to do their work, and to not interrupt. I'm sorry, but I don't think those expectations are too much.
Neither do I and that is not what I am talking about.
That is what you're talking about, because that's precisely what we're talking about.
No, I am talking about the teaching methods, not saying that boys can run around and disrupt because they are boys. I am saying that they learn differently and they should be taught in ways that educates both of them, without sacrificing classroom order.
Saying "teach boys in a way that helps them understand," is not the same as saying "strong boys should be able to disrupt class and pick on weaker classmates." I'm not sure why you believe that to be the case.
Aaron,
In what way should we change education so all of these poor little boys will finally have a chance at success? How should classrooms operate? Explain to me how things should work, but please remember than any proposed solution had better not exclude weaker boys or girls.
Teachers should teach material in ways that benefit different types of learners (visual, audible, etc.). Instead of simply assuming that everyone learns by listening and taking notes.
This is for the younger grades, I think once you get to high school and especially college – boys should be able to learn that way by then, but it still would help some who may struggle if they could learn the material in a different way.
I am still at a loss as to what changes are proposed for boy/girl education. What are they? Is it a seperate but equal type of mentality?
I am still at a loss as to what changes are proposed for boy/girl education.
I agree, that is the question. The author is asserting that the recent 10-fold increase of "learning disabled boys", as well as their increased failure to graduate, is to be blamed in large part on our teaching methods, not society.
I'm not sure what he suggests as solutions, but we could propose some based on the supposed problems he outlines:
– make sure that teaching methods are not just relational, but spatial, physical, and individual-oriented as well (that's in ADDITION, not taking away the relational)
– make sure that the topics are related to things that are relevant to the real world – explain WHY things must be learned, rather than expecting children to obey because you "told them so." For example, in home schooling, one of the exercises you do in learning math is to take your kid to the store, and ask them to compare prices, compute unit costs, and give them the money that they end up saving you.
– ensure that our textbooks fairly represent each gender and ethnicity, so that all children can see themselves as leaders. Let's watch out for all male or all female, or all white/ all minority imbalances and the like.
– it might help to have some classes separated by gender, or even entire grades – there is precedent for this (think "prep-schools", usually considered to be superior to public schooling)
– it might help to delay boys by a year so that they are emotionally equal to the girls, rather than just forcing them to be the same age, while being less socially mature
I'm sure smarter people than us have already brainstormed about this. Maybe we should all go read Sommers' book. :D
I attended The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) when it was all male and I didn't like the idea of it going co-ed. I do believe that there are benefits to single sex education, as well as disadvantages, but I also think that segregating boys and girls in the classroom when they are very young is harmful. It's not realistic, meaning it does not prepare them for the real world. In addition, it's walking a fine line on gender discrimination.
…make sure that teaching methods are not just relational, but spatial, physical, and individual-oriented as well
In practical terms, what the heck does this mean?
For example, in home schooling, one of the exercises you do in learning math is to take your kid to the store, and ask them to compare prices, compute unit costs, and give them the money that they end up saving you.
Parents can do this for their children if they attend public schools as well. Just curious Seeker, were you home schooled?
Maybe we should all go read Sommers' book.
My honest opinion, at face value, that book sounds like quakery. I'm skeptical, as usual.
P.S. In case you have never heard of VMI its like West Point. General Stonewall Jackson was a professor there and Genreals George Marshall and George Patton were VMI grads.
I was public schooled. However, because I was a smart kid , after kingergarten in a Montessori school, I skipped first grade in public school, and was in accelerated programs until 7th grade. However, because I was a year younger, my physical and social maturity was behind my peers, which caused me a lot of pain. Also, because I was bookish and had no father (jail), I did very poorly on normal boy tasks like buildling models and such. Lots of trauma there (don't ask about the boy scouts and the soap box derby).
We moved to the country and I went back into regular school, where I coasted into late high school. However my public school teachers in high school were pretty good.
In general, I feel like the public school system tried to help me, but it failed in many respects, esp. with respect to my need for kids of similar emotional and physical development (not hitting puberty until sophomore year in high school was a DRAG).
Today's public schools, however, are more suspect because (1) they are more dangerous, with more drugs and weapons, and (2) their curriculums have drifted from classical education to PC education, including "bad white man" history, promoting sexual perversion and promiscuity, and evolutionary teaching in biology (though, thankfully, evolution is only a small part of most biology teaching, and has no real impact on real science, only on geology and paleantology – in genetics, it's more of a confusing factor, not a real boon).
This is why the Baptists and other xian denominations are considering motions to recommend taking our kids out of public schools, while others are intent at reforming the schools (I support both of these).
I hope to home school my kids if I can afford it. I may send them to a charter or private school instead. Public school? I'd rather not risk my kids to the system.
that book sounds like quakery.
Actually, I think you mean "quackery." I don't think the Quakers had anything to do with this book. ;)
their curriculums have drifted from classical education to PC education, including "bad white man" history, promoting sexual perversion and promiscuity, and evolutionary teaching in biology (though, thankfully, evolution is only a small part of most biology teaching, and has no real impact on real science, only on geology and paleantology – in genetics, it's more of a confusing factor, not a real boon).
You threw this in the just to be polemical. You know this is viewed as religious BS talk by everyone except the religious.
Actually, I think you mean "quackery." Yes, forgot the "c"
You know this is viewed as religious BS talk by everyone except the religious.
I know many liberalists and secularists hold this view. Don't forget that a MAJORITY of Americans still believe in special creation.
The fact that most scientists feel otherwise might bother me if I hadn't been a scientist myself. I certainly understand how the training and cultural orthodoxy of modern science has cowed and brainwashed most scientists into not questioning the party line.
Don't forget that a MAJORITY of Americans still believe in special creation.
Don't forget the majority of the world does not. Science is practiced world wide so its global, not just American, not just the Democratic party, not just liberals. Science deals with universal laws that can be proven by experiment in any nation, by anyone, not just Americans. It's narrow thinking to just use America in your example; and thinking that science around the world is just toting the party line.
I found this too Seeker…
According to CUNY's definitive American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), the number of "Nonreligious" American adults more than doubled between 1990 and 2001 while the number of "Religious" and "Christians" declined. The "Nonreligious" are now the fastest growing segment of the population.
You know, all of this backlash against the so-called evils of "feminism" (and I love how people throw this term around without regard for any of the specifics that it might (and does) entail) is nothing but bull****. I think the people who tote the "OMG the feminazis are ruining society" line need to ask themselves one thing: why is it that when you are faced with a problem as complex as the one addressed in this article (and anyone should see that this is not a simple matter), the first thing you point your finger at is "feminism"? I think the fact that it IS the first thing that you blame belies the ideological underpinnings of your though.
What is this abstract "feminism" that is ruining these young men's life chances? Even if we were talking about radical feminism, that strain so vehemently repudiated by most popular discourse (especially as of late), how does this link up with educational methodology in public schools? I'm failing to see the connection. Do you think that all of the teachers are radical feminists, and that they therefore invented some sort of mysterious, evil pedagogical method that puts boys (as a group) at a learning disadvantage? Even if that was what you believed, it wouldn't make much sense anyway, because none of the "feminisms", or feminist theories, actually advocates animosity towards men, and certainly not towards children. And even if they did, you want me to believe that the majority of the teachers in this country espouse radical feminist ideologies and put them into practice in the classroom? Can somebody honestly explain to me how they see feminism as being responsible for this phenomenon, without resorting to cheap rhetoric? Because I am not seeing it.
Wouldn't a more practical starting point be to look at the administration of these educational systems and pinpoint, specifically, where they are failing? I remember when I was in high school, much of the problem (at least my problem) came from the watered down curriculum and the petty "incarceration" system that pervaded my school. The classes were ridiculously easy, the MEAP tests were a joke, and even the best students could be found regularly in suspension for having too many "tardies". Our classes, with the exception of some AP classes, were so obviously geared towards boosting standardized test scores (no doubt a result of NCLB, the brainchild of our beloved president) that it's no wonder no one was excited about their education. In this situation, in which no one is a true beneficiary (certainly not girls), you had two choices- either do the work because it is ridiculously easy to get a good grade anyway, or be "rebellious" and reject the system entirely. And this choice was only available for the "smart" people (and believe me, they didn't get this way through the education system).
And why is it that this watered down curriculum is seen as being somehow beneficial to girls? Just because they are able to do well in it to a greater extent than boys right now does not mean that it is specifically geared towards their "learning abilities", whatever they may be (I don't know and I am a female). I do, however, love how anything negative is shamelessly marked as a "feminization", as though the term should automatically signify something ominous and abject. I know the whole patriarchy thing starts to sound old and vague after a while, but come on- when we have people conflating the degradation of the public education system with some sort of "feminization", I have to call bull****. Why is something that is supposedly "feminine" marked as something negative?
And anyway, except for school being easier, I don't really see how it is much different than how it was before. If anything, adherence to authority was more vigorously enforced, and "visual learning" was virtually non-existent in the older system. Nowadays, kids get a much more visual experience in the classroom through the use of television and computers.
So what is it, if not the all-powerful, all-terrible feminism, that is filtering out today's male youth from school? I can't really say. However, I can speculate that perhaps some of it has to do with socioeconomic status, since statistics show that most white, middle-upper class boys do fine in school (with the exception of the occasional whiner, who has a high IQ but is "too smart" to have to deal with stupid, girly school work). The groups that seem to be dragging the male average down are minorities. I think a more interesting (and intellectually honest) investigation of the question would look into this intersection of socioeconomic status and gender, and how it is affecting the performance of certain groups of boys in school.
I agree that Jocks or sports minded boys were given the full benefits including secreted extra bonus marks to shunt them ahead of the pack eg the smart girls in the classroom.
I went to a coed Catholic and knew by grade 4 that the girls had the brains but so did 25% of the boys and 10% of the Jockboys were smart too but not the rest of them.
I was demoted to bench boy in Aussie rules footy because I was not a great kicker but I hated footy and loved theatre and singing plus a wee bit of basic ballet dancing to make up for my lack of sporting progress.
Know one but the girls tried to help me in class and no I was not a 'Janegirl ' (Sissyboy(* but I really appreciated them trying to help me lift my class marks and eventually in year 9 the light went on in my head and highschool was good all of a sudden.
I was 18 months older than all the other kids and so my maturity helped me halfway through year 9 when I was about 15 and a half because I repeated year 3 via a broken left leg and the fact I was kept back in my prep year.
So yes there are Feminists and I agree there should have equal rights but neither sex should be the winner in this silly battle of the sexes mellee because their sons are sufferings and the future daughters inlaws will have a deadbeat breadwinner not helping both sexes of the grandchildren not going up the social ladder of humanity in the beings known as MAN and man being both sexes because one with out the other equals zero.P.
Seeker, I agree with you, thank you for the article.
What an idiot!!! I stopped reading at #3 where it says "females diagnosed with learning disabilities simply don't exist" because I, for one, can PROVE that such is a lie!!! Not only do I have a birth certificate that says female, but I have two official diagnoses of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder from when I was 5 and 7 years of age. And I know lots of other females of many different ages who were also diagnosed with ADHD. They say if you tell a lie often enough, you'll start to believe it, so why don't you join the ranks of those stupid boys who think girls don't poop?
IRIS, that was a little bit of hyperbole. He means that their numbers are such a small minority as to show that something is wrong w/ how we handle boys.