This relates to the articles which I think will end up being below this.  (Not quite sure how this Blog program will enter it.)

After wrting this I came across another excellent series of articles in The Globe & Mail about the five main reasons that boys are underachieving.  One of them is titled "The feminization of education."  Check it out.

HERE

     “The War Against Boys” was the name of a book by Christina Hoff Sommers, published in 2001.  That’s a while ago, but its relevancy does not seem to have faded, based on reports published in the Globe & Mail, Macleans and highlighted on the news over the past few weeks.
     These recent reports point to a broad range of underachievement among males in everything from kindergarten to university.  Problem behaviour, special needs and below average achievement scores in boys seem to be endemic in schools.  Boys are reluctant readers.  Fewer boys than girls are now being successful in high school and entering university. 
     Twice as many boys repeat a grade as do girls.  As a teacher I can tell you with fair reliability that there are just as many girls as there are boys deserving of failing a grade, even if my experience is that this is almost never considered as an option in elementary schools.  In the 1990’s many studies pointed at girls as having lower self esteem and success in schools.  In reaction to this and the feminist movement of the last quarter century, adjustments were made to the education system to promote a more girl-friendly system.  Textbooks and guidance programs were tailored to girls to be sure that female success was highlighted.  While a lot of this was necessary and productive, an over compensation led to a gender prejudice in schools, one result of which was that it was less inclined to repeat (fail) girls.  Behavioural objectives and Learning Skills were tailored to girls and emphasized in classrooms. 
     To put it simply, boys were told that in order to be successful they had to act more like girls.  I know that many of my female educator friends will say “That’s because girls are just better.”  I don’t think that it takes too much thought to identify that as a gross oversimplification.
     A good example of how this works was seen about 10 years ago when my school had a contest for students to design a new mascot for the sports teams.  The theme was Bulldogs.  The winning drawing showed a great rendition of a bulldog with a spiked collar.  The female staff (and I say this confidently because the minority male staff definitely did not concur) insisted on removing the spiked collar because it seemed too violent.  The boy who designed the figure, having been appropriately castrated, did not offer any other artwork, nor did he feel inclined to participate in any other school activities. 

(Continued below.)

      If you look at reading, for example, you see the reality in a microcosm.  As a former Intermediate teacher, I know the challenge of getting adolescent boys to read.  If you look at the Facebook preferences of many boys, you see under “Favourite Books” the simple statement “don’t read!”.  What has created that attitude?  Having talked to a lot of boys, I have to conclude that one thing that causes it is that reading is perceived as something that girls do, not boys.  Reading has become feminized, partly because it involves prolonged periods of inactivity, partly because the boys who do read are often seen as nerds, and partly because the books that are promoted in schools and often read aloud to students in primary and junior classes are girl books, chosen for their “appropriate content”.  -Appropriate in this case meaning that the character behaves like a girl, or at least has no strong male characteristics such as aggression or competitiveness. 
     There are cases where I have been able to get adolescent boys to read, in some situations where I’ve had to buy additional copies of a book to avoid fights.  Some examples of books that strongly motivated boys to read are “Ender’s Shadow” by Orson Scott Card and “The Knife of Never Letting Go” by Patrick Cress.  What made these books different?  They were hard hitting, with tastefully presented elements of violent conflict or (in the case of “Youth In Revolt”) budding sexuality.  (Let’s face it, one of the most common stereotypes of male teenagers reading is “letters to the editor” in Playboy, under the covers, with a flashlight.)  Many of these books would not be the first choice for inclusion in libraries, especially by predominantly female librarians and elementary teachers.  But seeing non-reading boys walk down a school hall between classes, bumping into people because their noses are buried in a book, should count for something.  Personally, I have to say that I learned to read as a kid from comic books which presented me with a strong, advanced vocabulary and complex themes, framed in action and fantasy.  The formula still works.  Look at Harry Potter. 
     Some people have advocated the creation of gender segregated schools to solve the problem.  Reports from the trial schools that have been established seem positive, but more research and inspection is probably warranted.  Certainly this
would relieve the need to present two radically different learning styles to students in the classroom.  But, by itself, it is not going to be the answer.
     Ironically, boys are currently suffering from the same issues that were facing girls 25 years ago.  As one article stated, if it were girls, or an ethnic group that was lagging behind so significantly, it would not be tolerated.  With girls, the entire attitude towards education shifted to accommodate them (which was in many ways a good thing).  As is so often the case with educational policy, though, the pendulum seems to have swung too far to the other extreme, creating a system which clearly and unambiguously does not benefit the male student. 

     Here's an interesting looking web site.  I haven't had a chance to look through the whole thing, but what I've seen looks like it asks some penetrating questions.
http://www.boyslearning.com.au/

No, it's not me, although I just notice that it's another Peter W.

     You would think that an organism that is invading the minds of up to one third of the population, causing aggressive and promiscuous behaviour, would attract a little more attention.

     That's the story behind Toxoplasma gondii, a single celled parasite found primarily in cat feces and paws.  Outlined in a recent Macleans article, Toxo seems able to create symptoms from mild flu to suicide and schizophrenia.  The most common symptoms, it seems, are related to various forms of disinhibition, such as increased aggression and risk taking in males and increased promiscuity in females.  Unusually high frequency of Toxo infection is found in motorcycle fatalities.  Among people with depression, those infected with Toxo are found to be more likely to commit suicide. 

     When I examined studies from outside of the Macleans article, I found a confirmation of many of these findings, although the behavioural effects seemed to be downplayed.  This really opens the door on all kinds of questions.  Are there other parasites that affect us in other ways?  Can some part of the aggression we see in certain communities and cultures be attributed to Toxo?  Should horny young males look for girlfriends with cats, or buy them one?

     The theme of “innocence to experience” or “coming of age” has been a predominant theme in literature, drama and film throughout history.  From Pollyanna to Anne of Green Gables, -from David Copperfield to Harry Potter literature stories have painted the challenges of growing up on the backdrop of innocence and in that contrast has sharply defined many human qualities.  Ken Wilber says that the time of greatest personal  evolution and development occurs up to the mid twenties.  This is when major elements of our personality and how we see the world are established.  Afterwards, there are other challenges connected to jobs, relationships and parenting, but the moral and conceptual fabric of our lives is largely crystallized during that first 25 years.  (Until, perhaps, the onset of mid life crisis or retirement.)   It’s a question of horizontal versus vertical development.

     I am very partial to “coming of age” movies, telling stories of adolescents, teenagers or young men and women learning how to become who they’re predominantly going to be as an adult.  Since I’ve spent my life as an educator in several arenas, I see this development as the critical element of education.  The minor part of education is knowledge.  The major part of it is the development of values, perceptual and conceptual perspectives, and the evolution of consciousness/awareness so that this knowledge has a fertile medium in which to grow.  Coming of age movies highlight these particular challenges and focus them in ways that usually can’t be done in a love story, historical drama or other genre (-not that these don’t have their own charm).  That's why so many of them appear here.  Movies like "12 And Holding" or "Submarine" spotlight those developmental qualities and add to our understanding of them.
     That’s a really long, roundabout way of introducing the movie, “It’s Kind of a Funny Story”.  Stupid name, but great movie starring Zach Galifianakis and newcomer Kier Gilchrist as a 16 year old boy who checks himself into a psycho ward because he’s worried that he might commit suicide.  There, he learns about his own life and his place in the world.  It’s a dark comedy, reminiscent of “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” but from a teenager’s point of view.  I was impressed with the general quality of the film, especially Gilchrist’s acting which manages to capture a teenager’s inner psychological demons with subtle facial and vocal expressions.  It’s not a kid’s movie, but it’s one that adolescents would probably identify with and enjoy.
     This movie gets a B++.

The series of books by S. M. Stirling, called The Change, take place in our world when all technology stops working.  Most of the world's population does not survive, and the remaining people have to realign their lives along more primitive skills in a landscape where there are lots of hazards due to starvation.  It is an epic story, spanning several generations and describing brave characters putting civilization back together again.

The books are well written, although Stirling has a passion for description reminicent of Charles Dickens.  Most of the time that description reveals the details of primitive technology showing amazing research and deep thought.  There are some times, though, that the description gets a little long winded, where scanning or skipping a few paragraphs is necessary in order to maintain interest.  As a result, this opus series is now into its seventh volume, with another two on the drawing board.  As much as I'm enjoying them, I can't help but wonder if the main character (or maybe the author, or me) might die of old age before he gets home from his quest.  I don't relish the idea of having to wait another two years in order to see the ending of this story.

For those of us with an interest in survival and primitive technology, I really strongly recommend these books.  As I said, Stirling has done his research, and the post-devestation world he paints is realistic and enlightening. 

SciFi and Fantasy series each often create a whole unique universe in which to play.  Some of the best works of fiction fall into this category.

The best, I believe, is the Dune series, first created by Frank Herbert and carried on by his son.  The original seven books start off masterfully, but tend to become a little less engaging as they progress.  The dozen or so penned by his son, Brian Herbert, have all been of a very high quality. This series has spawned two computer games, a board game, and three movies. The scope of the story is majestic and profound.

Orson Scott Card's Ender series is a close second.  The five Ender books and the five Shadow books work together to tell one complete story.  Two of the books won Hugo awards and the first Shadow book really should have, easily being one of the top ten SciFi books ever written. 

His Dark Materials, a series by Philip Pullman, is surrounded by controversy, because of its authors pro-atheist statements.  (The first volume is best known as "The Golden Compass".)  Personally I don't understand this.  While Pullman's books are clearly anti-religion and church, they don't strike me as being atheistic.  There is a spiritual thread running through the books which has a Deist or Taoist sentiment. The story is rich, and the ideas are thought provoking. 

The newest series that has demonstrated its excellence is the WWW Trilogy ("Wake", "Watch" and "Wonder").  Robert Sawyer has always struck me a little pompous and full of himself (especially on his web site), but that seems to work in his favour in this series, where he is really spilling his thoughts onto the pages, putting forth opinions on a variety of random topics, but managing to still achieve some cohesion.  The central concept of an emerging intelligence on the Internet explores the nature of consciousness in a way only SciFi can. 

Other series would include Farmer's Riverworld series, Niven's Ringworld series and Pohl's Gateway series.  Of course you can't forget the grandparents of SciFi/Fantasy, The Lord of the Rings and the Foundation series (although I've never been that impressed with the latter.)
Creating and animating a universe is one of those things only SciFi and Fantasy can do properly.

     It must be Halloween.  With the season comes a new crop of violent and scary horror flicks.  In lockstep with that comes a new study reportedly showing a connection between violent movies/games and consequences in teenagers, with the understood conclusion that such games and movies are detrimental to general behaviour. 

When I leave an action movie, especially one that has car chase scenes, I feel an exhileration when I get into the car to drive home.  I feel like I should be speeding through the streets and driving aggressively.  Do I do it?  No, not usually.  Do I feel the same a half an hour later?  No, not at all.  The "rush" which may have been excitement, or adrenaline or may have been some kind of cognitive push, or (as this study suggests) an overstimulation of a specific part of my brain, Has faded away with no evidence at all that there is permanent or long term behavioural change. 

If you look carefully at this and other similar studies, -and, as you know, I always encourage that any studies and statistics be carefully examined-, you see that there is no mention of long term behavioural change in the subjects.  The study points to brain activity and hormonal changes during and immediately after engaging in violent media.  There is, in fact, no measurement at all of behaviour.  Therefore, there should be no conclusions about behaviour, other than what the teenage boy may do during the participation in these media.  Also, I would suspect that you would find similar physical reactions to similar aggressive sports, such as hockey, where on ice fights are not uncommon.  (In fact, the physical and probable long term effects are likely to be even stronger in sports because it is direct physical engagement wrapped in a way of life that extends beyond the ice rink.)

It is possible and likely that the violent movie or game has stimulated a measure of excitement and engagement, which is definitely going to produce heightened biochemical and neurological activity.  I used the word "rush" above, and that is at least a major part of what is happening here.  To infer more, is just that, -an inference.

In order to conclude anything about long term behaviour, you have to measure long term behaviour.  That's not likely to happen, because psychology ethics is not going to allow you to randomly divide a group of teenage boys into two groups, then routinely expose half of them to violent media in order to measure long term behaviour, like whether they get into more fights or engage in criminal activity.  But any other kind of study has got to admit that their conclusions are highly suspect.  Studies that correlate hours of violent gaming to aggressive behaviour cannot prove causality.  They have no way of proving whether the behaviour is the result of the gaming or the gaming is a result of the behaviour. 

I think most teenagers have the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.  It's called, achieving the "age of reason".  Those teenagers who become over stimulated by violent media, are violent in their predisposition already and are going to find an outlet for that urge one way or another.  It is in the area where the distinctions between fantasy and reality are blurred where we have to be really careful (like aggressive sports or media that masquerade as real life).  Desensitization from watching the news and seeing the parade of corrupt politicians, religious leaders, military officers, etc, does more to desensitize morality in a teenager than playing any video game. 

     Still on the subject of movies, there are two non-mainstream films that I'm anxious to see in the next few weeks. 

     The first is a Danish film called "Deliver Us From Evil" and the second is called "Winter's Bone".  People often ask me where I find these films.  Well, in this case both are highly recommended in various magazines including Rolling Stone, Macleans and several British misic mags that I enjoy.  NOW magazine is also a good source of movie reviews and gives a good heads up on cultural events coming to Toronto.

     However, both of these movies are only playing in limited engagements.  "Deliver Us From Evil" has a run at the Carlton (which I'm really glad has reopened), while Winter Bone has a three night run at the Fox Theatre.  (I think perhaps "Winter Bone" may have been playing more widely back in June.)  These films receive fantastic reviews and are among the best made.  On Cinema Clock, a site where the public can rate and write reviews on movies, these kinds of movies are always given the highest ratings by the movie going public, so it's not just snobby movie critics who value these films.  Andy yet they are the least distributed.  Crappy mainstream movies play the big theatres for months, while quality films get a week or a few days at an obscure downtown theatre. 

     I know that it is what the public wants.  But as Paul Wellar says, "The public wants what the public gets.) and I can't help but thing that if some of these films were given slightly wider distribution, even with some kind of special arrangement, many more people would discover these quality films before they disappear into DVD oblivion.  Perhaps one theatre in a 20 theatre mega-complex, could be devoted to alternative films.  Perhaps one night a week.  I'm sure that it would be financially positive.  The last few movies I've seen in mainstream theatres have only been about 20% full.  I'm sure some of these alternative films can do better than that if offered in limited showings.  It would provide more variety, maybe expose a little cultural quality, and probably help the theatres economically as well.

     My guess is that it is an industry problem, where distribution is controlled by rules and licenses.  If the industry's rules are choking the wider distribution of quality films, it can't be good for business. 

Here is a quick review of two mainstream movies seen in the past few weeks.
     “The Town” is a heist movie starring and directed by Ben Affleck.   The story line has a unique twist of a kidnapper befriending his victim without her knowing who he is, and a relationship developing.  It provides a good setting for Affleck’s conflicted mind and motives and, of course, sets up the emotional scene where the victim finds out that her new lover is the man who terrorized her.  I’m not really giving anything away here.  Right from the beginning, you know it’s destined to happen. 
     The problem I had with the movie is the portrayal of Affleck’s character in a heroic light.  We’re supposed to sympathize with him because he let his victim go and because he wanted to escape his life and start over.  And yet he is portrayed as an unrepentant bank robber who is willing to shoot and kill police officers in a gun fight.  His efforts to turn his life around are weak and ineffective.   I, for one, felt no sympathy for him and was a little offended by the film trying to foster sympathy. 
This movie gets a B. 

     “The Social Network” is the story of Mark Zuckerberg and the inception of Facebook.  Zuckerberg has referred to the movie as fiction, but neither he nor Sean Parker (the developer of Napster) , who was painted in a particularly negative light in the film, have made any strong statements against it, which leads one to believe that they probably just want it to go away.  Zuckerberg is painted as a self centred, socially retarded genius whose prime motivation for developing Facebook was spite felt when he was snubbed by his girlfriend and the frat boys of Harvard’s elite.  Although he is not a very likeable character, he is very interesting and it is easy to understand his motives, perhaps even sympathising with him a little.  This is a great film.  No action.  All cutting dialogue and character development, -so if that doesn’t appeal to you, be warned.
This movie gets an A-.

     Finally, just a work on “Machete”.  I wonder how well it’s dong in Texas and Arizona theatres...

The nominations have been announced for the 2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees.  I can't help looking at the list of members and nominations and seeing some glaring omissions.  Here are some people who I strongly feel deserve to be on the list.  I'm sure that you can think of some of your own.

Joe Jackson

Grandmaster Flash

Bad Religion

Paul Wellar

Squeeze

The Smiths

Steely Dan

Deep Purple

Moody Blues

Bruce Cockburn

Television

...JUST TO NAME A FEW  Several on this list are long overdue, such as Joe Jackson and Paul Wellar.  Both have contributed over 30 years of innovative song writing and recording.  Certainly a lot more than Donna Summer or LL Cool J.