In Slate, Christina Sommers offers her take on Hanna Rosin’s views. It’s well written and worth a read, as is Rosin’s piece. Men still rule the risk-taking and scientific endeavors that are so key our society, Sommers argues. True enough, but why are we letting so many of those males slip away? And why are we doing so little to encourage more females to take on those challenges?
For ideological reasons, I can see why Sommers and Rosin can’t be on the same side in the upcoming debate.
But I still argue that the two “sides” are designed more to accommodate interesting debaters than true opposing views. I’d rather see Sommers and Rosin square off against a couple of debaters who would argue there’s no need to make schools more boy friendly because the ‘boy troubles’ are a fantasy. Did the AAUW refuse to play ball?
Fyi: I love the kicker to the piece by Sommers:
The cartoonist Nicole Hollander once asked, "Can you imagine a world without men?" Her answer, "No crime and lots of happy fat women." Well, crime would certainly decline, and we'd probably put on a few pounds. But would we be happy? Not most of us. Women, alas, love men, and need them. They are our fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, and friends. Their fate is our fate--this is no zero-sum competition. Men are not finished because neither men nor women will permit that to happen. After all these years, it turns out women need men much more than a fish needs a bicycle.
The opinions expressed in Why Boys Fail are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.