-four of the forty assets. On almost every important measure of well-being, girls had the better of boys: they felt closer to their families, they had higher aspirations and a stronger connection to school (Sommers 37).Sommers also discusses how "feminized" education can have harmful consequences on boys. Teachers are beginning to think that it is their job to correct the "gender inequality" in schools. Society will be on a path to genuine fairness when school boards, principals, and teachers begin to focus in an objective way on the moral and cognitive development of all the children in their care. Children and teenagers need strong moral guidance from the people they look up to. They need firm discipline in a school environment that does not tolerate egregious nastiness or gross incivility, whether sexual or nonsexual. If parents begin to stand up for their sons, if they refuse to allow schools to subject them to the mercies of the self-made equity "specialists", the future of Americas boys will improve (Sommers 71). Gender reformers are shaping the attitudes and policies of many schools. Educators have been convinced that it is good for society to break down male stereotypes at a very early age. None of them wonder whether they are harming boys by encouraging them to be more feminine. They havent considered the resentment of the pressure to be more feminine as anything more than an expression of very outdated attitudes (Sommers 80).Despite the numerous studies and factual data that Sommers presents in her book, there are many people who disagree with her argument. Brooke Lea Foster, a writer for The Washingtonian, argues that Sommers is making a unproductive attempt to prove that boys and girls are naturally different and not raised "gendered." This debate is alive in academia, but Sommers is foolish to think that she can settle it by repeating other peoples studies. Sommers declares that all the research was "made up" to...
