Investigating boys' issues is as joyous, challenging, contradictory and rewarding as work with boys in schools has always been. But it isn't easy. Some simple, popular notions are appealing, offering the tantalising chance of a quick fix. Unfortunately, there isn't one.
However school communities can benefit from the lessons learned by those who've bravely gone before. Here's how to avoid some common traps (based on Ludowyck 1994, Fisher 1994, Martinez 1999):
Focusing on differences between boys and girls denies a wealth of shared human attributes, and ignores diversity among boys (and among girls). If masculinity and femininity were truly biologically determined, behaviour could never change. But it can and does - across cultures, over time, within groups and for individuals. As educators it's our job to help students expand their understandings of gender issues, related behaviours and their consequences.
Reducing all behaviour to the individual case assumes that family, culture, peer group and other factors do not matter. But boys' shared experiences should not be disregarded. No man is an island. Parents, educators and boys themselves know how strong the influence of the group can be.
|
Generalising ignores different masculinities and the diversity of men's lives. But being an Indigenous boy in a remote community is not the same as being an Anglo youth in a regional centre or being a young immigrant in the inner city. Wealth, poverty, isolation, culture, language, health, disability, family violence and other factors impact strongly on boys' lives. Boys are not all the same.
|
|
Genders are not simple, complementary opposites. Masculinities and femininities develop in relation to each other. Power dynamics in gender relations are real, including those among men themselves. Some masculinities are more honoured and powerful than others (eg the 'sporting hero' versus the 'house husband'). Understanding gender means investigating those power differentials. Who is heard? Who is silenced? Whose needs are met? Whose are not? Who is more respected?
Blaming presumes that boys themselves are 'bad' or deficient. Programs based on this approach will deservedly fail. To engage boys, we must work respectfully to explore issues of concern. A supportive school context can encourage boys to question and reflect on different masculinities and gender relations, weighing the costs of violence, harassment, risk taking and self-harming behaviours.
Forcing, like blaming, is counterproductive and likely to incite resistance. Working respectfully with boys is essential to making progress on issues of behaviour, schooling and interpersonal relationships.
Divorcing behaviour from the environment within which it occurs (eg school) obscures the ways that specific institutions can shape behaviours and relationships. Boys engage with powerful influences within family, social, cultural and economic structures. They actively negotiate their masculine identities and may evade, comply with or resist the forces they encounter. Schools are not neutral, but can reinforce or challenge gender restrictions.
The 'competing victims' approach assumes that boys are losing out in a 'boys versus girls' competition at school and beyond. This is the 'battle of the sexes' refrain favoured by the mass media. Although participation and performance data shows that many boys are extremely successful at school, claims that boys in general are failing have received popular acceptance.
If we engage in the 'boys versus girls' debate, we are less likely to ask some crucial questions: 'Which boys (and which girls) are not succeeding? Why? What can we do about it?' Weighing the perceived disadvantages of boys and girls against each other can be unproductive. Boys and girls are not on opposite sides at school. Everyone can gain from more socially just and equitable practices.
The 'competing resources' dilemma grows out of the 'competing victims' approach. Put simply, the assumption is that special funding has 'fixed up' girls and other target groups in the past, so now the boys need it. Two issues arise here: (a) access to resources and (b) learning from previous work.
(a) Despite some popular perceptions, boys have not been starved of school resources. In fact, boys as a group
(b) There is much to be learned from previous work with girls to inform our work with boys. Many strategies have improved achievement and participation, but overwhelmingly girls from higher socioeconomic and dominant cultural groups have gained most. Poverty, isolation, family violence, disability and other factors, which put many girls (and boys) at educational risk, were often overlooked. We can learn from that by embracing diversity. Those boys with limited literacy skills who are most likely to achieve poorly or drop out are not likely to benefit from programs which assume that all boys are the same.
Competition for resources in schools can result in programs that duplicate work and produce isolated, narrowly focused activity. A whole-school approach to gender equity and educational risk is far more likely to be effective for both boys and girls.
Some programs for boys have aimed to develop a healthy, confident and non-oppressive masculine identity. The problem is that this assumes there is one agreed, universal, ideal masculinity. There isn't. No 'one size fits all' masculine identity will do. Masculinities are diverse and dynamic, changing through time, place, and context. Celebrating that diversity, as we educate students about gender relations between boys, and between boys and girls, is essential to support boys in successful personal relationships, work and community life.
Copyright |
Disclaimer |
Privacy |
Access keys |
Other languages
© The State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and the Arts) 2002.