Are Boys and Girls Really That Different (Part II)?

In honor of the one-year anniversary of Modern School, I'm reposting some of my favorite articles from the past year. The following is a a follow up to the quiz in Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different? which I recommend reading first (reposted yesterday)

Same Upbringing, Different Outcomes?

Kids in Gender Specific Costumes, by EpSos.de

Several friends have told me that boys and girls are inherently different from each other. Their evidence was that their own boys and girls came out so differently despite being raised in the same environment and in the same manner.

Even when the same parents raise two children in the “same” house and in the “same” manner, there are always slight differences in both. The furniture, decorations and toys change over time. Parents may be more stressed, confused, or overwhelmed early on, thus influencing how they interact with their first child. Grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, kids at daycare, television, videos, billboards, all broadcast gender images that babies start to pick up almost immediately.

My three-year old son recently explained to me that certain colors were for boys, and others were for girls, despite our best efforts to raise him in a gender neutral manner. Even if no one actually told him that certain colors were for girls or for boys, he certainly could have developed this hypothesis himself from observing people on television, at day care, and in the community. When I asked him what would happen if a child wore the wrong color, he very astutely answered that their feelings might get hurt.

Biological Gender Differences Are Actually Quite Small

Many people believe that girls and boys are innately or genetically different. They accept the sociobiological assumption that biology or DNA is destiny, that traits as complex as gender could have an entirely (or primarily) genetic basis.

This simply is not true.

Numerous factors influence a child’s development, and the role of genetics is actually quite small. There is really only one significant genetic difference between girls and boys (the presence or absence of a Y chromosome), and even this can be ambiguous. For example, a person born with XY chromosomes, but with a damaged SRY gene, will develop female genitalia and grow into a woman.

XY Females, from Wiki Commons

The SRY gene is what confers maleness, turning on the appropriate genes at the appropriate times during development to tell the body to start producing male hormones, testicles or facial hair. Lack of an SRY gene is what causes femaleness. Everyone, therefore, starts out as a female by default until an SRY gene turns on and starts producing male hormones and developing testicles and a penis. In addition to SRY mutations on the Y chromosome, there are over 400 known androgen receptor mutations that can occur on the X chromosome and cause XY individuals to grow into females due to insensitivity to male sex hormones.

 

There are numerous other genetic conditions that can result in ambiguous sexual differentiation. For example, someone who is born XXY has a condition known as Klinefelter’s syndrome and will usually have male genitalia, but may have some feminine secondary characteristics.

Klinefelter's Male from Wiki Commons

Even environmental factors, like pesticides and cosmetics can influence sexual differentiation. Gynecomastia (breast development in males) has been linked to tea tree and lavender oils. There are also numerous anti-androgenic pesticides and industrial chemicals (e.g., phthalates) that may cause gynecomastia, or alter the onset and progression of puberty.

So What Makes Girls and Boys Different?

Genetic factors (XX vs XY) contribute to primary sexual differentiation (development of testes or ovaries) as well as secondary sexual differentiation (development of body hair, voice, breasts and hip size) and play an important role in gender. Sexual differentiation is what most people think about when considering whether a person is male or female.

However, gender is more than what you have between your legs. Gender is the combined effects of sexual differentiation, behavior, social expectations and self-identity. The most obvious illustration of this is transgendered people who feel that they were born into the wrong body. Their gender does not match their biology.

While there is some variability in sexual differentiation (as discussed above), the non-biological influences on gender have considerably more variability. Many of our expectations and assumptions about gender are socially constructed. For example, in our society, it is unusual for men to wear gowns or to walk platonically hand in hand, yet in Morocco these behaviors are both common. Likewise, there is no rule that girls should play only with dolls and boys only with footballs, yet this is how most children are raised in our society, thus reinforcing gender stereotypes and the impression that gender is biologically predetermined.

The Baby X Experiment

The original Baby X experiment was conducted by Dr. Phylis Katz, et al, at the City University of New York (CUNY) in 1975, with a single baby girl, dressed in a yellow jumpsuit. There were three toys in the room: a football, a doll, and a teething ring. She was introduced to some adults as a girl. Others were told she was a boy. Some were not given any clues about her actual gender.

The experiment was repeated in 1980 using infants of both genders. Both studies had similar results. When told that the baby was a girl, adults tended to give the baby a doll to play with. When told the baby was a boy, they were more likely to give the baby a football to play with. When the baby’s gender was not specified, the adults tried to guess, using stereotypes like “She is friendly, and female infants smile more,” or “she is a girl because girls are more satisfied and accepting.”

Gender and Sociobiology

The popularity of sociobiological thinking is understandable with all the hype about the Human Genome project and shows like CSI, which have made DNA and Genetics seem sexy and hot. Sociobiology has also been intellectually legitimized and self-promoted by prominent and well-respected scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. However, it is also a scientifically flawed oversimplification of social phenomena that has been abused throughout history by eugenicists, Nazis and other racists and supremacists.

The basic idea goes like this: All phenotypes (traits) are caused by proteins, which are synthesized based on genetic instructions. This is also known as the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Over the past ten years, mounting evidence has shown the central dogma to be a gross overgeneralization. As educators, we know that the phenotype of academic success is not based solely on a child’s intelligence, but also on socioeconomic factors that can influence cognitive and social development, health, resilience and motivation. Even intelligence is not based entirely on genetics. No gene for intelligence has been identified. Malnutrition, exposure to certain drugs and chemicals in utero and pollution can all play a role in cognitive development.

Despite the protestations of the sociobiologists, children’s color preferences in clothing are influenced by social factors, and cannot be reduced to purely biological or genetic causes. This is true for many of their likes and dislikes, communication patterns, what they want to be when they grow up, and numerous other behaviors that typify maleness and femaleness.

Many parents agonize over whether to allow their little boy to experiment with feminine clothing and cooking, or their little girl to be tough and play sports, out of fear that they will be bullied (or because of their own homophobia). However, a more fundamental issue is whether or not we teach our children to be resilient, self-confident, and accepting of others, especially those who do not fit our stereotypes.

See Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part I)

Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part I)?

In honor of the one-year anniversary of Modern School, I'm reposting some of my favorite articles from the past year. The following is a fun quiz that brings up some interesting questions about gender, sexuality and our assumptions and biases. Try the quiz and then read Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part II), which I'll repost tomorrow.

 

Can You Tell The Difference Between Boys and Girls?

Chances are you can’t tell the difference between baby boys and baby girls, especially if they are wearing gender neutral or ambiguous clothing. My students take the following test at the beginning of our genetics and reproduction unit.It's a fun way to introduce the subject and tie it into bigger social issues.

Test your gender IQ. Take the Baby X Test below.

Directions

Get out some scratch paper and record the number of the image

Record your answer (male or female)

Answers are given at the end of the test

Baby #1 (Image by Sean Drelinger)

Baby#2 (Image by Peasap)

Baby #3 (Image by MiriamBJDolls)

Baby #4 (Image by Wesley Oostvogels)

Baby #5 (Image by massdistraction)

Baby #6 (Image by hexodus)

Baby #7 (Image by Bram and Vera)

Baby #8 (Image by Mehregan Javanmard)

Baby #9 (Image by Badruddeen)

Baby #10 (Image by almoko)

Scroll down to see the correct answers

Answers

Baby #1 = female; Baby #2 = female; Baby #3 = male; Baby #4 = male; Baby #5 = female; Baby #6 = male; Baby #7 = female; Baby #8 = male; Baby #9 = male; Baby #10 = female.

Analysis

Most people score somewhere near 50% on similar tests. The reason is that babies have not yet developed any secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., facial hair, breasts) and, without any gender-identifying cues (e.g., pink or blue clothing; bows or ribbons), a baby’s gender is not obvious (without taking of the diaper, of course). Yet babies start to pick up gender cues almost immediately. Adults often treat babies differently depending on their gender (e.g., tone of voice, types of play). The babies observe their surroundings, how other children and grown ups dress and behave, advertisements, television. Our assumptions and prejudices influence how our children develop their own gender identities, but so does their environment and society .

See Comments Thread at Democratic Underground

Coming Soon: Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part II)?

What are the implications of our assumptions and prejudices around gender?

Teachers: Madonna And Whore

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

When people hear that I’m a teacher they routinely make comments like, “Wow, that must be a tough job,” or “Thank you so much for doing this important work,” or “Man, you must be really patient and courageous. I could never do it.” My gut reaction is always to feel a little honored and proud, until I consider that much of this respect and awe stems from an irrational fear of kids, especially teenagers, or from an acknowledgement that most of us are pretty poorly paid for the amount of work and stress the job entails. In other words, teaching is something they cannot imagine doing themselves because it scares, disgusts or intimidates them. Thus, teachers are seen as selfless martyrs or Madonnas, willing to make great personal sacrifices to nurture and care for our most precious resource: children.

Of course, teaching is an incredibly tough job, and always has been, even before the current wave of Ed Deform began. Simply interacting with 150-175 different personalities every day, keeping them motivated and on task, even when they are hungry, depressed, sick or in pain, or suffering from PTSD, is a big challenge that requires considerable patience and empathy. Then there is the reality of having your day controlled by bells, in 50 minute spurts, unable to go to the restroom when you need to because you are legally responsible for your students for that entire 50 minute block. Preparing engaging, exciting, meaningful lessons is fun, but time consuming—even more so when you take the time to predict where your students might falter and develop scaffolding (eduspeak for teaching prerequisite skills) so that they actually understand and can perform the activities you so carefully planned. And, of course, let us not forget the absolute frustration, fear and anxiety that occur each time a student is aggressive or confrontational, or a parent or administrator accuses you of some oversight or misdeed.

With the current attacks on teachers, the Madonna image is being supplanted with that of a greedy, self-serving whore who just wants to get fat on the public’s dime. It’s not enough to be professionally trained or to work 50-60 hour weeks or to compassionately care for other people’s children. Teachers must do so for low wages and without the security that they will ever be able to retire. They are expected to fix the educational deficits that result from growing up in poverty, but ignore the causes of poverty. They are encouraged to jump aboard the latest self-serving “reforms” of the corporate education raiders or be blamed for declining test scores. Anyone who resists or who demands to be treated with respect and dignity and paid a decent wage, is guilty of selling out our children. They are worse than a whore.  They are guilty of child abuse!

Yet, in reality, teachers encourage the Madonna stereotype. They are incredibly hardworking and self-sacrificing. Most care so passionately about their students that they readily take on extra responsibilities to help them. Getting teachers to go on strike or work to rule or even attend a lunchtime union meeting is particularly hard because of their dedication to their students. Teachers don’t want to cause their students to miss even one club meeting, review session or class activity.

In a culture in which teachers are seen as Madonnas, any push back at all will be perceived by some as a betrayal of children, even if it is only to ensure a decent wage or job security. And any attempt to have a decent standard of living will seem greedy and selfish if it can be spun to seem like its coming at someone else’s expense. While it may seem counterintuitive, virtually every attempt by teachers to improve their working conditions or to resist reforms, serves the interests of children. Better pay and benefits help to attract and retain the best qualified teachers. In contrast, attacks on working conditions, pay, benefits, and professional integrity drive many of the best teachers away from the children who need them most. Likewise, most of the reforms that are intended to improve student achievement are costly to school districts and have little or no data to support their efficacy. Furthermore, many are simply scams to benefit private companies. In either case, without compelling evidence that they will work, we are simply throwing away money that schools could use for sure things like books, supplies, safer facilities, and sufficient staffing.

Teachers, especially their unions, are also complicit in the proliferation of the whore stereotype. Each time they resist a reform they are portrayed as villains. However, each time they resist and later compromise or give in, they are seen as impotent. Like the misogynistic fantasy that women are weak and subservient, the ruling elite believe that unions are easily manipulated.  Their cries of “No, no,” really mean “Yes, yes.” Certainly teachers unions have had their minor victories. Yet whenever they are accused of any offense (e.g., being  opposed to parental choice or reform efforts) their immediate reaction is to be defensive and then trip all over themselves to prove that they do indeed support these reforms, even at the expense of compromising their members’ working conditions. Or when they are told that budget crises require concessions by their members, they immediately acquiesce instead of demanding higher taxes on the wealthy.

I am not suggesting that teachers should become callous or cavalier. Compassion, patience and nurturance are all part of the job and required for creating the kind of classroom culture necessary to promote children’s learning and intellectual growth. However, at the same time, teachers do need to speak and act out regularly in defense of their students’ wellbeing by opposing all reforms that lack a solid track record, especially those that sap resources from well-proven existing programs and services like class size reduction. Furthermore, teachers really need to speak out in favor of the one reform that actually has any hope of closing the achievement gap: Closing the wealth gap, reducing poverty, and creating the conditions at home that children need to be academically, socially and physically ready to succeed in school. This will require organizing among teachers, but also organizing among parents and solidarity-building among all workers to improve everyone’s wages, benefits and living standards.

As long as teachers continue to accept the demands of the Ed Deformers and take on more and more work in order to solve social problems that cannot be resolved within the context of schools, they will continue to be seen as Madonnas. And if they continue to complain, while taking impotent stands and then compromising and giving in, they will also continue to be seen as whores. However, if teachers really start to stand up and fight, not only to improve their own working and living conditions, but to improve those of their students and their families, too, they may start to earn the respect they deserve as advocates and fighters for social justice, and shed the stereotype of Madonna and whore. And with a narrowing of the wealth gap, they should also see a rise in student achievement.

Japan Deliberately Exposing Children to Unsafe Levels of Radiation

The Japanese government has loosed the rules on the amount of radiation children can be exposed to at school. The rules were relaxed in order to allow schools in the region of the nuclear disaster to re-open. However, they are now allowing children to be exposed to ten times the amount of radiation that was previously permissible, according to the Teacher Solidarity website.

Physicians for Social Responsibility condemned the decision, saying that the new limit of 20 millisieverts “for children exposes them to a 1 in 200 risk of getting cancer. And if they are exposed to this dose for two years, the risk is 1 in 100. There is no way that this level of exposure can be considered ‘safe’ for children.”

A statement from the Fukushima Teachers Union is reposted from the Teacher Solidarity website below:

Protect Children from Radiation Health Damage

Since the terrible disaster of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the radiation levels remain incredibly high. For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we have been continuously urging the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Fukushima Prefecture Education Board to set guidelines for security measures. On April 19, a month after the catastrophe, the MEXT finally notified “Tentative Guideline on Use of School Buildings and Playgrounds in Fukushima Prefecture”. On this “guidelines”, however, many anxious voices are raised from the parents and teachers in Fukushima whether their children could really be protected from the radiation effect by the new radiation standard.

The MEXT has set 20mSv/y as the upper limit of radiation levels for school children on April 19. It states that this maximum level of 20mSv/y is based on the recommendation Pub.109 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) that recommended a tentative safety standard within a band of 1 to 20 mSv/y as reference levels in “Post Emergency Situation”. But this standard is set for the general public. It is not for school children. Moreover, it should be noted that the current guideline of regulation is set on 1 mSv/y. The threshold quantity of 20mSv/y is for the planned exclusion zones and also matches the annual radiation exposure dose limit for workers at nuclear plants (the 1990 Recommendation of ICRP). It is apparently very dangerous to adopt this standard to children who are the most vulnerable to radiation. Moreover, when children are exposed to radiation over many years, cumulative radiation will be considerable amount and therefore their risk to cause health damages will be substantial. If we follow the MEXT’s guideline, the lives and health of our children would never be protected.

The MEXT just set the exposure limit at 3.8 μSv/h for children using a school playground. The radiation dose on school playgrounds, however, varies greatly from place to place. The radiation level is comparably high at side ditches and puddles where rainwaters or dusts gather. Children touch soil or sand and run around school playgrounds. They cannot avoid breathing dusts flying in the air. They sometimes fall on the ground and skin their knees. Then radioactive materials would attach to their wounds. Even the air dose rate is less than 3.8 μSv/h, children would receive higher radiation through direct touch with the ground than in the air. There is also a danger of internal exposure.

For the protection of children from health damage by radiation, we strongly demand the rapid control of the nuclear plant accident and the prompt implementation of safety measures to prevent risk to children’s health, instead of repeating, “There is no immediate threat to health”.

TAKENAKA Ryuichi, President of Fukushima Prefecture Teachers’ Union

Privileged Moms Enabling Corporate Child Abusers

A recent piece by Jenny Anderson, in the NY Times, tells the story of a Manhattan mom who sued her daughter’s $19,000-a-year preschool for failing to adequately prepare her daughter for the test to get into New York City’s hypercompetitive private schools. The mom was Nicole Imprescia, the school was York Avenue Preschool, and the test is known as the E.R.B.

Imprescia accused the school of not being “a school at all, but just one big playroom.” Without visiting the school I wouldn’t be able to speak directly to that claim. However, as a father who has been touring potential preschools in San Francisco, I have noticed a general trend toward “learning through play,” where schools set up various play areas, equipped with toys and games, and allow children to migrate to the activity that most interests them. Every preschool I have visited appeared like a big playroom. Furthermore, I have no problem with this. We’re talking about 3-5 year-olds. At this age, children are learning phenomenal amounts of skills and knowledge through exploration and experimentation, through emulation and through play-acting. If this mom is expecting homework, rote test-prep and teacher-centered Dick and Jane, she is not only barking up the wrong tree, her obsession with getting her precious daughter into the “right” school may end up harming her daughter’s social and cognitive development.

Anderson says that preschools like York Avenue Preschool are part of a mini-industry that includes consultants and vendors of test preparation materials. These corporate sharks exploit privileged parents’ fears that their children will get stuck in an inner city public school and corrupted by the nasty habits of poor black and Latino kids and their lazy, incompetent teachers. This fear and the sharks’ greed translate into child abuse for thousands of toddlers, whose art explorations and play-learning are replaced with lessons on bubbling-in and sitting still. Ultimately, for these high-powered toddlers, preschool becomes the new third grade, forcing them to grow up much more quickly and robbing them of their innocence and natural curiosity.

It seems that dragon moms like Imprescia do indeed expect their preschool aged children to be doing high level academic work. Her lawsuit said things like, “It is no secret that getting a child into the Ivy League starts in nursery school,” and “Studies have shown entry into a good nursery school guarantees more income than entry into an average school.” I’m not sure which studies she is quoting, but it is important to point out that correlation does not equal causation. If a “good” preschool is defined as expensive and elite, then a more logical explanation for the correlation between preschool and later success is that social privilege causes both. After all, privileged parents are the ones most likely to send their kids to these elite schools, and they are also more able to provide good diets and healthcare, supplemental enrichment activities during the summer and a lower stress lifestyle, factors that play a significant role in children’s academic success.

York Avenue Preschool may indeed be a lousy school. However, that is not really the point here. All children deserve good schools and all children deserve to be adequately housed, fed and cared for. Those who are financially well-off generally get all these things. Their children start kindergarten (and even preschool) with a substantial academic head start as a result of their economic privilege and this achievement gap grows over time, even if they wind up at a mediocre school with mediocre teachers. Forcing toddlers to learn competitively and to succumb to tedious and controlling regiments of homework and test preparation will simply stifle their curiosity and make them prematurely obsessive-compulsive or depressed.