OPINION & EDITORIAL
Gender-based schools combat sexism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert Phansalkar:
- 'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action (November 14, 2007)
- 'Taser this' editorial tame compared to past (October 2, 2007)
- Lawmakers' plan bigger problem than baggy pants (September 18, 2007)
- Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Single-sex schooling comes back in style (September 1, 2005)
- Gender segregated public schools sexist (March 10, 2005)
- Tackling Taboos (December 3, 2007)
- Urban kids deserve a fair chance (September 12, 2006)
- Referendums inefficient for school change (February 1, 2007)
by Robert Phansalkar
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
At first glance, it looks like a program that most can oppose.
When school districts start talking about gender differences in educational ability, red flags pop up everywhere, and who can blame us for feeling this way? The truth is that breaking boys and girls apart from each other in public school classrooms because they "learn differently" just sounds bad.
Then, we are quickly reminded of the overt sexism in education of the past and even more recent examples, such as former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, who said that "innate" differences in learning ability caused women to pursue fields other than math and science. But if you take a closer look at the recent gender-based educational classes introduced at two high schools in Wisconsin, it is easy to see how these programs actually enhance equality, rather than inhibit it as Summers' comments or previous educational methods had in the past.
Arrowhead High School in Hartland and D.C. Everest Senior High School in Weston are the latest to jump on this bandwagon of separating girls and boys into different classrooms.
The programs are entirely voluntary, meaning that boys and girls who want to learn in coeducational environments are still provided the opportunity to do so, and the program only applies to a few subjects.
The underlying logic behind this is not just that girls and boys learn differently, it is that girls will be able to express themselves more freely in an all-female environment as opposed to the status quo. The results thus far are encouraging and perhaps surprising as the girls have been outperforming their male counterparts, as reported in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
But in these times of political correctness, surely recognizing differences between sexes in education, like Summers attempted to, could lead to the schools being brandished as sexist or misogynist.
Not so says Arrowhead Principal Gregg Wieczorek, who told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the reason people believe these programs are controversial is only because "not everyone's doing it" — a point that is sure to be lost on a great deal of people, but shouldn't be.
The program appears to be helping young women learn in a way that can insulate themselves from often distracting and domineering young men, and that in itself is worth something. Even if the girls are being placed into an educational environment that rarely exists in the outside world, cultivating and giving young women the kind of confidence that this program seems to inspire is an encouraging sign of greater equality on the horizon.
Because the programs are voluntary and strictly up to the students' discretion to participate in, the students are not being put into situations where they are forced to recognize differences by sex, as girls and boys can continue to learn together if they so choose. However, for others who prefer to learn in same-sex environments, which may be more conducive to their learning styles, these programs offer the opportunity for choice in education where it had been previously lacking.
The separation between the two sexes does not assume a connection between learning capacity and sex, as girls and boys are not being separated into remedial courses for one and advanced for the other. Rather, because the program seems to be finding ways for talented young women and men to find different methods of learning to maximize their knowledge, it serves their interests better than if the programs did not exist.
Fundamental to the acceptability of this program is the fact that choice exists. Without this, it could be perceived as perpetuating an unjust assumption that young women and men prefer to learn or learn best with each of their respective sexes. But in this case, it provides a choice for these young people, and consequently gives them the opportunity to succeed and eventually become equal in an environment that had been previously absent.
And that is precisely what feminism and equality are about.
Robert Phansalkar (rphansalkar@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 9:14am):
The logical inconsistencies and contradictions in this article, from the headline continuing throughout the text just about make my head explode.
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 9:41am):
"And that is precisely what feminism and equality are about."
Not anymore, Robert. Today "feminism" and "equality" are mutually exclusive terms. You need to get out more, dude.
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 10:07am):
I'm glad to see that the paradoxical "separate but equal" approach that we long ago abandonned in questions of race is still acceptable for gender issues. You say that it's ok, because the students have a choice. Would it be ok if I said I want to learn in an all-White or all-Christian environment? Probably not. What is the difference? Do tell.
There is also no overwhelming support that men and women have significantly different learning styles. Differences in how people learn are also found between cultures and ethnicities. Are we going to put all international students in one classroom and all hispanics in another?
And furthermore, if women are not able to express themselves freely because of the status-quo, does it seem like a good idea to isolate them from the status quo completely? Isn't this just a way of avoiding actually changing the status-quo and even a way of accepting it. I think so.
A program like this only reinforces the stereotypes that men and women are entirely biologically different and avoids trying to encourage acceptance across genders. If you allow students a chance to say "I don't want to learn with boys/girls", you are allowing and even encouraging them to make vast generalizations about large groups of people, that are in no way uniform. What if I am a boy with what my high school considers a typically female learning style. Where do I go to get my optimal learning experience?
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 10:39am):
People actually DO go to all-Christian schools. There are tons of private schools that are faith based, from elementary schools to colleges. But everyone thinks that's fine, because you have a choice to go there - no one makes you go to a certain school or college.
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 10:41am):
the columnists don't even write the headlines, so why does everyone always complain like it was the person who wrote it? i see this all the time on the message boards.
Anonymous (April 18, 2007 @ 10:49pm):
Maybe the headline writers were as confused by the columnist as I was?
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 8:19pm):
i really dislike that fact that people would even try to say that girls and boys learn differently...girls can do anything they set thier mind to and so can boys!!!! its just not right to be serpareted..at all...in any kind of way!!!
Anonymous (April 14, 2008 @ 11:35pm):
I suggest that those of you who question this practice read "Why Gender Matters" by doctor Leonard Sax. You will understand that the reason to offer different classes is actually a function of physiology not sexism. Girls' hearing is 7 times more sensitive than boys', rods and cones in all mammals eyes are different between males and females, different parts of the brain are activated during various activities between males and females. During sex,for example, a males brain is most active in the brain stem, the lowest and least sophisticated part of the brain. In fact the brain activity is similar to that when one has a bowel movement. In women the part of the brain that is most active is the cerebral cortex, a very sophisticated part of the brain. These are facts that have been documented through research using MRI technology.
In studies of children across the world from a variety of different cultures girls draw pictures of people, flowers and play using about 10-12 different bright colors, boys draw action pictures without people using 4-6 dull colors. This study has been replicated dozens of times around the world, always yielding the same result. All of these differences can be addressed properly through single gender classes
For the person who suggested that we would not allow all white or all Christian public schools: we shouldn't, there are no physiological differences that affect the way people of different races or creeds learn. There are however for boys and girls.
Men and women are different, neither better than the other, just different. Until we learn to accept the differences and embrace them we will continue to have sexism in our society. As a father of a small boy and girl, I can only hope by the time they are adults society will except this premise.
Anonymous (September 6, 2008 @ 8:08am):
Yes men and women respond differently to the same stimuli but these differences in behavior that men and women exibit has little to do with physiology and more to do with subconsciens undertones established by a traditionalists society. Seperating students based on sex only encourages the idea that men and women live and think on two completly different levels.If we were to encourage students to change classes based on their ethnicity "because suposivley it is a more suitable learning environment" woudnt this segragation increase racial tension? This seems so obvious yet most of us think nothing of buying GI joes for boys and barbie dolls for girls which reinforces behaviorial/gender segragation! Society tends to look down upon feminine men and tomboys, those who run against the group dynamic. I think this idea is far more than archaic its down right evil. By supporting gender segragation in schools you are commiting a social injustice, a developmental impedence. Society must "evolve" past its comforting superstitions and move forth to a cosmopolitan future.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
