Reflections on Gender and Education/Extended Comments - Anne and Beth

I was finally able to commit some time to this blog post. I decided to start by reading my fellow classmate's blogs. When I came across Anne's blog and watched the "Does Gender Matter Video," my first reaction was to reject what Dr. Leonard Sax was saying. Here, I've posted the video on my own blog for convenience:



We had talked in class about gender equity, and how separating boys from girls would teach them that boys and girls are on opposite teams in this world. His suggestions, I thought, are also reinforcing gender stereotypes. However, I thought about his comment on the different ways boys and girls see, and I found it very interesting. Boys' eyes seek movement, and girls' eyes seek color. In an evolutionary way, it makes sense to me. Biology tells us that we were, before the agricultural revolution, hunter/gatherers. The males would hunt game, while the females gathered fruits and berries. If this is true, it would make sense for males' eyes to be hardwired to see movement - they would need to recognize movement to find game. It makes sense for females' eyes to be hardwired to see color - to find fruits and berries.

I came across a second video promoting Sax's theories on Beth's blog which made me question my initial reaction further:



Now I'm confused because, although I find the science and the research of Sax's theories to be believable, it makes me uncomfortable to see such gender stereotypes reinforced in this style of teaching. We can see that the boys are being taught to be active, to compete, to do, and the girls are taught to be passive, to be social, to be. At the same time, I think, perhaps this like the difference between "equal" and "equitable." Maybe it's different, but fair. The test scores are up and the grades are improving! Maybe the boys are getting what they need, and the girls are getting what they need, so maybe it is a good model for teaching . . . ?

David Sadker, mentioned briefly in the video, seems not to think so. I decided to find more information on his standpoint, and why he thinks same-sex schooling is "a cheap solution to a much deeper problem." The problem he is referring to, being gender bias. Here is a lecture given by Sadker, which provides some really interesting facts and statistics, and I think a good argument against same-sex education:







So who's right? Sax or Sadker? I would really like to debate on this in class!!!