Abstract
As the title implies, Rivers and Barnett’s goal is to challenge the toxic gender stereotypes held by parents, teachers, and the general public. These toxic gender stereotypes suggest boys and girls are so vastly and fundamentally different that they must be parented and educated in a gender-specific fashion. To challenge toxic stereotypes, the authors bring research findings from academic journals to light for teachers, parents, students, and the general public. As the authors point out, the overwhelming message from the media and other vocal pundits is that boys and girls are more different than similar but that research tells a very different, opposite story. They also highlight the consequences of an uncritical acceptance of such messages. The authors argue that educators and policy makers often base their decisions on sloppy reporting of misleading science and believe that the education and development of children are adversely affected.
The book begins with a passionate plea for parents and educators to listen to their message—that despite claims in the media, boys and girls are more similar than different. Rivers and Barnett do not hold back. They name names and assign blame. For example, New York Times columnist David Brooks is called out for his suggestion that boys have less verbal ability than girls and should therefore be provided with simple books about combat. Whereas the parents and educators are spared blame for the acceptance of stereotypes, the media, journalists, pundits, and many best-selling authors are not. For example, Leonard Sax (author of Why Gender Matters), Christian Hoff Sommers (author of The War Against Boys), and Michael Gurian (author of The Mind of Boys) along with PBS, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Parents magazine are all assigned blame for uncritically accepting and spreading gender stereotypes. Within the first three chapters, the authors work to debunk many stereotypes with a focus on what neuroscience/brain research can and cannot tell us. The next five chapters each challenge specific stereotypes (math, verbal fluency, toy choice, aggression, and caring). Next, they tackle the issue of single-sex schooling. The authors end the book by advocating for coeducation over single-sex schooling and also advise parents and educators to avoid gender stereotyping by focusing on each child’s individuality.
One of the strengths of this book is the collaboration of Rivers’ background in journalism with Barnett’s science background in psychology and women’s studies. This strength can be seen in the synthesis of media sources with empirical research findings to describe and challenge stereotypes. Also, the book has both breadth and depth. The authors thoughtfully report on the current state of the research literature across a wide range of topics from math and verbal skills to toy choice, aggression, and caring while also framing the information within the debate on single-sex versus coeducational schooling. Although the vast majority of the authors’ claims are backed up by consistent empirical research findings—even using meta-analytic findings where available—there are times when the authors fall short. For example, in Chapter 9 (The Ideal Classroom), the prevalence and pervasiveness of sex segregation by children is questioned. The authors state that sex segregation occurs only in a few artificial/unnatural settings (e.g., the school yard, but not at home in neighborhoods). Had the authors consulted the larger literature showing that sex segregation occurs across the life span and in many normative contexts such as school, home, and work (cf. Mehta & Strough, 2009), I think they would agree that their conclusion is, at minimum, debatable. That said, the authors should be commended for their largely successful attempt to accurately represent the state of the research literature on a wide variety of topics.
Because of the topic and accessibility of the writing, parents and teachers should be encouraged to read this book. Those interested in the debate on single-sex schooling would especially enjoy this book. In terms of using this book as a supplemental resource in the classroom, not only would students taking courses in gender or education benefit but so would any student working to understand how to critically evaluate research and scientific claims. In an interesting and readable manner, Rivers and Barnett highlight the difference between the media’s reporting of science and actual science—a valuable lesson for any student. For example, the authors point out the importance of checking the credentials of those claiming to be experts and to attend to features of studies being covered in the media (e.g., sample size, effect sizes, correlation vs. causation, replication). Overall, this book makes an important contribution to the conversation on gender stereotypes and single-sex schooling.