David Brooks had an interesting but flawed column today, about recent findings in neurological gender differences, and how they explain problems boys are having in school. (Sorry for the pay link–you can sign up for the two week freebie, but don’t forget to cancel if you don’t want to pay.) His bottom line was that literary lessons were designed to appeal to girls, and that boys need different kinds of assignments to learn to appreciate reading. Less Austen, more Hemingway.
It make sense to me: literary education at that age is more about seduction than stretching your palate. You have to have a palate to begin with. Work with what boys will like, get them hooked, then stretch their little minds.
I have mixed feelings about Brooksâ€“sometimes heâ€™s close, often he writes in cariacature without depth. I wrote a response to his column. The whole column was OKâ€“muddied a couple points, missed some interesting possibilities, but it was fine till the last line. Here was my critique:
“Consciousness-raising doesn’t turn boys into sensitively poetic pacifists. It just turns many of them into high school and college dropouts who hate reading.”
David, this is a deeply confused sentence. OK, I accept that boys and girls should be educated in different ways, based on recent findings.
But this sentence (if not necessarily the article) confuses “consciousness-raising” with literary education. One could teach boys to love literature with Twain and Vonnegut, and by other means teach them to appreciate the viewpoints of others, including women.
You could teach both sexes the very lessons you enumerate in your article–men and and women are different, and here’s how. These are your tendencies for strength and weakness.
“If your brain worked this way, here’s how you would see the world.” That sounds like some very interesting consciousness raising.