Rating: 
Summary: Still a telling work
Review: I am happy to see that people are still commenting on this book after a number of years. I have shared it with a number of friends of various persuasions and get any number of thoughtful comments. If nothing else, Sommers, suggests that we can all make mistakes, even when we have the best intentions, and perhaps even more so when we espouse a political cause. Social scientists need to be held to account for their data, and she asks questions about much of its validity. She asks how can we better educate boys. Perhaps the greatest unanswered question to which this book led me was a policy question on how much of the traditional gender roles must we preserve and what should we attempt to modify. Putting it another way , "What's wrong with boys being boys?" And I mean that seriously as in: "What's wrong with girls being girls is that they passively set their sights too low." And we are led to agree with a final implication is that all children, boys and girls, deserve our best efforts.
Rating:
Summary: Truer words were never spoken
Review: Every mother of boys in America should buy this book NOW and read it from cover to cover, twice! Christina Hoff Sommers backs up with solid scholarship what I've known since my oldest son started kindergarten: Boys are a discriminated-against minority in our schools and society. From boring, sit-down-and-do-worksheet teaching methods, to ADHD and ODD "diagnoses" that assign a pathology to normal boys, to the continual shrinking of school recess time when boys can blow off steam, it's no wonder the nation's young men are in trouble. To top it off, boys are continually being told, in everything from TV shows to movies to books, how stupid and brutish they are and how they need girls to teach them how to be human and sensitive. Furthermore, a hypocritical society keeps reminding boys that gender equality is a one-way street. In my little town, for example, it's OK to have a "girls-only" soccer league, but boys' teams are not allowed to exclude girls. My 10-year-old son put it quite succinctly when he asked: "Why is it OK for girls to wear shirts that say 'Girl Power,' but there's no shirts that say 'Boy Power'? " THANK YOU CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS FOR SHOUTING "BOY POWER" FOR THEM! I only hope that teachers and administrators will start to follow your lead!
Rating:
Summary: Must-read material for parents of young boys
Review: "The War Against Boys" continues Ms. Sommers' laser-accurate attacks against our country's current government-funded gender inequity crisis. While critics have claimed that some of her (plentiful) statistics are incorrect, I've yet to come across a documented discrepancy. According to the book, our sons are currently paying dearly for the sins of their ancestors, and Ms. Sommers again presents her case clearly, concisely and convincingly. But the real reason I'm recommending this book is because of my five-year-old son. Having watched several commercials for various games, he asked me "If a boy and a girl are playing a game, does the girl always win?" The issue at hand is no longer avoidable, and anyone who either has a son or knows someone who does ought to read this compelling book.
Rating:
Summary: Junk Theories That Did Great Harm
Review: Like her earlier book, Christina Hoff Sommers exposes the intellectual fraud of certain feminist extremists who proposed radical theories about childhood development, dishing up data utterly fabricated and studies that had no scientific merit (studies that have not been peer-reviewed, and could not be validated), which the cooperative media and education establishment accepted as gospel simply because they were politically correct. As a result, schools were inundated with advocates, programs and teaching material that treated little boys as suspect criminals, doing grave harm to their development. The "gender feminists" are not swayed by the facts presented by Christina Hoff Sommers in "The War Against Boys", and earlier in "Who Stole Feminism?" They did not debate what she wrote; they attack her instead. Centuries ago, Bishop Bellamine refused to look through Galileo's telescope; he prosecuted him instead. Such are those who play the game of faith. This book puts a magnifying glass on one facet of the harms done by the radical left: how the gender feminists used frivolous theories to support programs and practices that demise the development of boys, and their dishonesty in this pursuit. It is well researched and well written. Sommers treats you to some fantasy theories, to cite just one: New born babies do not know anything about gender, and gender identities are therefore not innate but taught. Sommers: babies don't know anything about blood types either, but they still have one. It never ceases to amaze me how these advocacy or junk "scientists", many of whom have lofty credentials - PhD, directors, and what not - are engaged in literal intellectual fraud rather than honest scientific inquiry. In a few cases, Sommers takes the readers through their research data (where they made it available) and their interpretation, one sees that such research is virtually worthless, because it doesn't meet even the minimal standards of statistical inference and causation analysis. We need more people like Christine Hoff Sommers, who use a cool-headed approach to expose the intellectual dishonesty that is so pervasive in the social scene.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent Women Are Catching On
Review: At long last, 40 years into second wave feminism, intelligent women are catching on to the fact that the male of the species is in a confused freefall. Sixty percent of North American college students are female. Projections surmise that women will be 2/3 of students on American college campuses by 2010. Sommers points out that a pair of psychotic boys made headlines for the Columbine massacre at about the same time the U.S. girls soccer team did so for becoming international champs. Is this a coincidence, she wonders, or emblematic of how it's going for the two sexes? The dropping percentage of males on college campuses, a plummet if one considers the last 50 years, only parallels men's growing lack of interest in churchgoing and parenting. It's about time somebody blew the whistle on this and suggested that something is wrong! We live in a world geared to women: Schools and churches that ask us to sit still and listen rather than explore, compete, or seek adventure; a service sector economy that calls for deference and cooperation rather than energy or rivalry. Many men don't want to be Mr. Mom, our wife's junior partner in child rearing. Many men have a jazz 'em up and let em' run approach to child-rearing, which might be too hands-off for a baby, toddler, or 10-year-old but is well-suited to prurient, rambunctious, and liberty-starved adolescents. How many fathers are divorced and tangential to families by this point in their childrens' lives? The Tyler Durden character of the 1999 movie "Fight Club" represents what is missing in the domesticated modern man: risk-taking moxie, masculine swagger. These are not trivialities. They make men vital and useful, not to mention...sexy to women. The rugged independence of the male mind has benefitted everyone. Or don't you value the airplane, the light bulb, the television, the cure for polio, and the very computer you're reading this on? Nowadays, though, Sommers claims, the very concept of masculinity is politically incorrect! Daring to be politically incorrect herself, Sommers suggests the Brits may have it right with their partial return to single sex education. Boys can jockey for status and compete on teams which she claims (and I agree) they love. Boys can read war stories (but also anti-war poems) and tales of adventure and discovery with male protagonists. I don't see what's wrong with gender segregation during the tumult of adolescence; in fact it's merely a counterbalance. Most boys already spend most of their lives deeply involved with women: their mothers, girlfriends, wives, and teachers. Sommers bemoans the liberal dispensation of Ritalin to male students as an attack on their fidgety but glorious energy. Girls enjoy recess, she claims, but boys need it. Well, something's got to give. We're raising a generation of bullies and eunuchs rather than those in the manly but mannered middle ground. No one has established that male-only schools foster misogyny. There are even those like Richard Hawley, headmaster of a boys school in the Cleveland area, who thinks just the opposite: Misogyny comes from a lack of manhood training a single sex environment can best provide. I bet Sommers would agree.
Rating:
Summary: Important book
Review: This is a look at how junk science claims about the state of girls is causing harm to the state of boys. It's not surprising people jump on stats and claims given to them by the media, without checking for validity. Sommers has researched the topics very well and gives her findings here, showing that the claims are ridiculous.
Personally, I was raised much along the lines as Sommers believes is the best way and I didn't turn into a law breaking deviant.
Rating: 
Summary: A few good points, but many more faulty ones
Review: Sommers' dissection of Carol Gilligan's published work is interesting - it is indeed difficult to see why we should take Gilligan's theories seriously if Gilligan refuses to publish the relevant data. I also liked her take on 'therapism' and the ludicrous American obsession with 'self esteem'. But ultimately Sommers' book is very disappointing because it becomes apparent that she has her own, pre-decided conservative agenda that is no improvement on that of the 'misguided feminists' in the book's sub-title.
The book is almost entirely set in the world of education, so that's what I focussed on.
The first fact that demands to be pointed out is that any differences in scholastic achievement between boys and girls are completely swamped by the differences that exist between socio-economic groups.
So instead of addressing the couple percentage points that separate (on average) boys and girls, it must surely be a higher priority to address the comparatively enormous differences in educational outcomes between the well-off and the poorer sections of the US community. In short, whether you are rich or poor has far greater influence on how you do in school than whether you are a boy or a girl. If you wanted to write a book that is largely about education, then something titled "The War Against the Poor: How American education favors folks with money" would be more apposite. Not surprisingly, a conservative like Sommers (who after all works at the American Enterprise Institute) doesn't want to go there.
The other major strike against Sommers' book is that she seems amazingly ignorant of 'progressive' education and she ignores the reasons WHY 'progressive' educational practices have evolved in the first place. (In passing, it beats me how Sommers managed to write a book about US education without even mentioning John Dewey - did no-one bother to edit her book?).
If some educational practices are ideologically motivated, then let's get rid of those. But the majority rest on valid and well-attested psychological theories of learning. By contrast, Sommers' knowledge of educational theory, and her faulty promotion of a 'progressive/traditional' dichotomy, seems to be stuck in a time warp.
The basic problem is that Sommers tries to segue from her (well-substantiated) critiques of feminists like Gilligan et al into a general dismissal of all modern educational practice. But it just doesn't follow. WHY give blanket approval to 'fact-based learning, memorisation and drill' and dismiss cooperative learning methods holus bolus? Where's her evidence? Why are people like Alfie Kohn wrong to point out the pernicious effects of competition on children? Sommers has nothing to say.
And speaking about competition, I could have accepted that many boys do sometimes learn better in a competitive situation, or that some elements of old-fashioned schooling are worth retaining, but Sommers goes way, way too far when she claims that 'competition in matters of intellect...is essential to progress'. She presents no evidence for such a statement, nor for her statement that 'competition and winning are necessary for an effective life'. Sommers approvingly quotes a non-teacher saying 'Competition is what America is all about. The more they compete the better they become.' Says who? These are polemical statements to make the folks at the American Enterprise Institute feel all warm and fuzzy, but the book provides no factual evidence for them. In summary, the book is about a grossly overstated problem, by a conservative commentator who is substantially ignorant of educational theory. As the father of two boys, I found it simplistic and very disappointing.
Rating: 
Summary: tripe
Review: Be aware. This book is dealing with an important topic but in a very conservative fashion. If you like writers like Diane Ravitch, Michael Gurian (Wondor of Boys) and ED Hirsch (Cultural Literacy) you might like this book. If you have any progressive ideas at all and like writers like Theodore Sizer (Horace's Compromise), Alfie Kohn (The Schools Our Children Deserve) or God forbid, Rousseau!, be aware that she is not only blasting feminists in her book but progressive thinkers throughout history. She even goes so far as to blame my old friend John Tinker (Tinker vs. Des Moines School District) for "the beginning of the end of effective school discipline." If you want a better understanding of boys growing up today, I would stick with William Pollack's "Real Boys" or Kindlon & Thompson's "Raising Cain". If you want conservative, reactionary tripe, go with Sommers. (FYI -I have been an educator for nearly 30 years and have never written a book review until this book made me mad enough to do so.)
Rating: 
Summary: Alarming!
Review: According to Dr. Christina Hoff Summers, this is an era when academic reformers are looking to improve the lot of girls, who are perceived to be being crushed within an oppressive patriarchal system, and to improve the nature of boys, who are perceived to be culturally programmed to be oppressors and sexual predators of females. She begins the book by comparing the myth of the "fragile girl" with the actual statistics, which show that boys are the sex most in danger of failure in our present atmosphere. Then, she goes on to examine the philosophy of the groups that have the most influence within the education establishment, and what they actually say and are doing. I first heard about this book recently, while watching the show 60 Minutes, and I rushed out to get it. I have read many books that I found unsettling, but this is the first one that I can actually say that I found alarming! The extremist views espoused by influential educators and politicians reminded me of the views I have seen attributed to chauvinistic nineteenth century men talking about women. Truly, these are the bad old days. My one complaint about this book is that the author does not present any suggestions for steps that can be taken to counter the influence of these people. But, that said, this is a very good book, one that I suggest any parent of a boy should read.
Rating:
Summary: Actually two books in one
Review: I think that the reviews here reflect that the fact that this is really two different books put together. I rate it four stars mostly for the first part where the author is at her best. In this part she presents a critical analysis of the supposed research that has been done by Carol Gilligan and others. Having read Gilligan as part of my doctorate in psychology program I found it interesting to read that Gilligan's data has never really been subject to scrutinty to see if it holds up position support by science rather than philosophy. The author also takes William Pollock to task and makes a cohesive argument on this point. I personally liked portions of "Real Boys," but my fault with it was that Pollock relied too much on unscientific Freudian focus on the mother-son relationship. As Hoff Sommers points out, there is no data to support that any negative feelings boys have springs from a break in the mother-son relationship. But interestingly, there is very good data that boys do better in the world when their fathers are involved in their sons' lives. Hoff Sommers does an excellent job of showing that more extreme voices in the feminist camp still seem to be the ones setting the feminist agenda, though that might be changing, and I think Hoff Sommers supports the theme in her book that this particular form of feminism not only fails to take into account how boys are in the world, it implicitly and sometimes explictly rejects boys and how they are. But then we get to the second part of the book. Hoff Sommers is an ethics professor, and when it comes time for her to build an argument, as opposed to tear one day, she really does not do much better at supporting her position with tested, scientific data than did Gilligan and Pollock. Rather, she mostly turns into a philosopher who wants to debate the merits of Rousseau versus Aristotle. She still writes this section in a fairly interesting, readable fashion, which gets her one star more than just three (three for the first part). And I think many people will at least find their minds mulling over what the author says in this second part, testing it out against their own beliefs and experiences. Just as a general example, Hoff Sommers correctly criticizes some feminists for pointing the shootings at school as representative of boys in crisis because of the patriarchal society. She argues that most boys are well-adjusted, thank you very much. But when she wants to argue that schools are failing to teach morals and ethics to our boys, she contends suddenly that this is a crisis (what happened to boys mostly being well-adjusted?), and points to the same shootings and the responses in schools to incidents in these boys' lives before the shootings as examples of this failure, even though this was supposed unrepresentative data when used by feminists. It is exactly this kind of inconsistenty and flaw that runs throughout the second half of the book and brings it down one star. Readers who like to blame all that is wrong in the world on our supposed "oppressive patriarchal society," will detest this book, as can be seen by the negative reviews. I personally think that Hoff Sommers does a bit of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Often the discussion about what it means to be masculine is automatically viewed as feminist talk. And I think this is shortsighted. As a middle-aged white male, the father of two sons, a lawyer and psychology student, I definitely can see how some of the expectations of how a man should be in this society are poor stereotypes and it requires extra effort at times to see them for what they are. But ironically, I think when Hoff Sommers wants boys to learn to act morally and respectfully, she wants essentially the same thing that many feminists want. To the extent that Hoff Sommers fails to see that, her book is potentially counterproductive as a rigid approach will just polarize the debate. But the book is still worth reading if for no other reason than to get a well written argument for one side of the debate about the interaction of feminism, our schools, and our boys.
|
