Let Boys Become Men: The Need for All-Male Education

by Anthony Esolen (June 2018)

Ashton Grammar Boy Cycling to School 1960s, Steven Bruce
Whenever the idealistic Left, never satisfied but ever meddlesome, sees some discrepancy between the performance of one group and that of another, they who find injustice everywhere but in their own hearts leap to the conclusion that some “system,” like an evil mage working his malignant designs out of the sight of men, has carved out the canyon. And then it is the task of those who worship an even ground to fill in the Grand Canyon, with pebbles, good wishes, reams of law and regulation, and other people's money.
People who actually know something about cultures and their differences, and about men and women, do not necessarily see anything untoward about the canyon. I am not the first to note that the Left waves the idea of “culture” about when it suits them, as for instance to assert that there is a “rape culture” on our college campuses, brought about by a culture of “patriarchy” (though in a really patriarchal country like Italy, if you rape someone's sister you may wake up in a ditch the next day, bleeding from Australia), and then they forget about the force of culture when it is embarrassing to remember it. So the gap in the performances of black Americans in school and white Americans is to be attributed to the mage, a “systemic racism,” but not to culture, for instance the culture that tells a black boy that if he likes to read he is behaving like a white boy, or the culture that has black children overwhelmingly growing up without a father in the home. Meanwhile, and again I am not the first to point it out, the most African of African Americans, that is, those who have emigrated from Africa, do better for themselves on average than do white Americans, a difficult thing to explain by systemic anything, unless perhaps the Mage is hard of hearing and mistakes the winsome lilt of a Nigerian accent for something Scandinavian, and so forgets in those cases to do his malignant work.
Nor am I the first to notice that men and women, if they are not pestered to death by the canyon-fillers, sometimes actually enjoy doing different kinds of work, and that a young man with a family dependent upon his income is by far the most aggressive worker in the world. He takes on more overtime, he stays on the lookout for more lucrative jobs, he presses for promotions and raises, and he plays a little hardball with employers to begin with. I did that when I was young, and so did my male friends who were in the same situation. Catch a tiger by the tail, ladies.
Yet there is one case where a canyon has opened up, which cannot be explained by cultureor, for that matter, by differences in native intelligence, family income, place of residence, quality of schools attended, sheer need, or the vicissitudes of home life. For this case, we are talking about two groups of people who have exactly the same family income, who live in the same place, attend the same schools, have the same decent or lousy home life, and roughly the same intelligence, if not that the group of people who perform more poorly are actually on average just a wee bit more intelligent, and more daring about it, by nature. The two groups are boys and girls.
Boys now make up only about forty percent of college students, and that is just to scratch the surface of their troubles. They drop out far more often than their sisters do. They commit suicide more often. They break the law and are thrown into prison more often. They do every illegal thing you can name more often, except for shoplifting and prostituting themselves. But why? They are as intelligent as their sisters. They are if anything bolder than their sisters, as witness their propensity to crime; for the capacity, let us say, to build bridges never conceived before is akin to the capacity to rob banks never robbed before. The dynamism may be directed to good as well as to evil. They come from the same families as their sisters, they have gone to the same mostly lousy schools, they have lived in the same subdivisions or apartments or mansions or farm houses. What explains their colossal failure?
We are talking about failure here, and not about girlish success. It is not as if the world has been set afire by our college graduates, who very seldom can write three sensible and grammatical sentences in a row, who might be able to parrot the slogans of gender theory but cannot identify Garibaldi or Catherine de Medici, and whose actual performance in the arts is generally beneath embarrassment. I have not the time here to argue that the age of great women novelists is largely past, or that the greatest woman poet is still either Sappho or Emily Dickinson, those artists of the lyrical and terse. I will say that civilization seems to have gained nothing at all by feminism, if you take into account every Bernini, Bach, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Newman, and Planck burnt out in the bud; because that is what is happening to boys, en masse. If I hear of a boy who has failed out of high school, I can make no assumptions as to his intelligence; he may be a genius. Certainly, the capacity to do well in our high schools, such as they are, is a strong indication against genius, and in favor of a neat and happy willingness to please, to do what is always socially acceptable, however that is defined from place to place and from time to time.
The reader will here challenge me to suggest why boys should be lagging behind their sisters—and I do not speak metaphorically there; they lag behind their sisters. Let me do so right now.
If you wanted to come up with teaching methods, school policies, and a curriculum perversely designed to bore the ordinary boy half to death, to frustrate him, to fail to engage his natural propensities, to give him no hope, to cut his heart right out, then you could hardly improve on what we have now.
Boys are natural statisticians and devisers of compendia, and if you ever meet a memorizing monster, it is sure to be male; the basketball player Jerry Lucas, I believe, memorized the Manhattan telephone directory. One summer I memorized the first four books of Paradise Lost; then school started and I had to set it down. My brother-in-law can tell you the winners of every major golf tournament for the last eighty years. Consider for which sex the baseball card was invented. Boys gravitate toward such things. Therefore, make sure that you de-emphasize the learning of true things. Make sure that you do not train the memory. Despise what from time immemorial was taken for granted as the basis of all education.
Be allergic to all systems: do not give your students taxonomies of truth. Linnaeus stands at one pole; finger-painting pictures of smiling dolphins stands at the other. Give your students finger-paints and a happy aquatic mammal named Delphinia. Think of the hierarchies within hierarchies that make up Thomas' Summa Theologiae, and consider how vast, subtle, comprehensive, and architectonically organized such a thing is; how masculine in its features, in its almost complete dispensing with emotion, its surgical acuity, its drawing of clean distinctions, and its never fleeing from where the logic leads. Then give students just the reverse of that. Give them a “unit” here and a “unit” there, politically chosen, and stress what the young people are supposed to feel about Nefertiti or the Navajos.
A lot of boys, and no girls that I have ever met, like to read about military heroes and battle campaigns: Cannae, Corregidor, Hastings, Waterloo. Make sure that you never touch upon those things. Cut those heroes down to size. Hannibal was a butcher—or, better yet, who's Hannibal? George Washington owned slaves. So much for him. If the boy bites away at a pop-tart to make the shape of a gun, send him to the principal.
Boys are map-makers. I have met plenty of men who love to do as I do, pore over a road map, look up cities in an atlas, find pictures of strange islands, chart out rivers, and plot mountain ranges. So get rid of geography entirely. While you are at it, make sure that you are not really learning history either, because that too may be charted, map-like. Do current events. Make a lot of political poses. Get out the pom-poms for the next progressive leap.
Boys don't care to read about girls. That is just a fact. I would not have read Pride and Prejudice when I was fifteen if my life depended on it. I happen to believe now that it is a novel of the highest quality, but when I was young it would have bored me and frustrated me. So make sure that you are not reading Treasure Island when you are eight, The Call of the Wild when you are ten, Huckleberry Finn when you are twelve, and Moby-Dick when you are fourteen. Get rid of C. M. Forrester, Raphael Sabbatini, John Buchan, Rudyard Kipling, and Robert Louis Stevenson, all of whom wrote mainly for an audience of boys and young men. Make the boys suffer the maunderings of feminists who do not like either men or boys: Toni Morrison, for example. Make them read Alice Walker, The Color Purple, till they are that color in the face, if they bother to open the book at all.
Boys need aggressive and rough activity. That is the boy's body speaking. His metabolism is not like his sister's. His bones grow and harden by rough play, and that explains what is otherwise pretty strange, that boys actually like not only to tackle but to be tackled. So make sure there is no dodgeball, no climbing trees, no pick-up games of football on the school playground, no king-of-the-hill. One way to do this is to make sure that there is no time for it. Check out Charlie Chaplin's movie Modern Times, and see if you cannot improve on the Billows Feeding Machine, for children in school. Give them ten or fifteen minutes to shove the calories down their throats, and when boys grow jittery and jumpy and won't listen in class—because who in the hell wants to listen to a lady teacher talking about women's suffrage and how rotten men used to be, anyway?—then drug the kid up, because obviously he has a disorder. We do not do to big energetic dogs what we do to boys.
Now, I do meet women who understand these things about boys, and who might make excellent teachers for them. But those women are seldom to be found graduating from our programs in education. In general, contemporary women seem quite content to watch the boys fail. So I draw an obvious conclusion. It is long past due. Men need to see, themselves, to the education of their sons.
It was the gymnasion that produced Socrates, the yeshiva that produced Judah Halevi, the medieval university that produced Thomas Aquinas, the Renaissance studio that produced Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Tintoretto and some thousands of others, the English schools and colleges that produced John Henry Newman, Matthew Arnold, John Ruskin, and in general the greatest tradition of prose writing in our language, with its hearty echo in the American schools that produced Emerson, Thoreau, Henry Adams, and those intellectual rogues the James Brothers. The male schools need no apologies, nor do I insist that they are for everyone. I do insist that we ought to have many more than we do have, and soon. They worked—and I can bring forth powerful anthropological reasons why they did, and why they must. What we are doing now quite obviously does not work. In the end, only men can make men out of boys anyway, and men do speak with an authority and a clear and hearty passion for truth, that boys respect and will hear. Go for it, then. Why suppress the male genius? Let Michelangelo thrive. He is a gift to everyone.


Anthony Esolen is a Fellow of Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. He is a translator of several epic works, including Dante's Divine Comedy (Random House), and the author of a variety of books on culture, literature, education, and theology. Among the latter are Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture (Regnery), and Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI). His newest book, to appear in the fall, is Nostalgia: Going Home in a Homeless World (Regnery).

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast

30 May 2018
Send an emailRebecca Bynum
Excellent article. I worry about our boys and the general decline of education. John Dewey shifted the emphasis from the subject to the child. We used to teach the subjects, now we teach the children.

31 May 2018
Christina McIntosh
I must be a very strange woman, then. Because I enjoyed History and Geography and still do. I *love* - and have always loved - maps (incidentally, my mother, an artist, at the age of 11 - 11! - created a detailed map of Australia, drawn by hand, with every place-name, river, border, and major and minor town, and mountain ranges, carefully marked in, almost entirely correctly - remember, **eleven**). And I memorised things by heart from the time I was in middle school - at 15 I think I knew a couple of hundred poems of various kinds (including two by Rudyard Kipling, neither of them about daffodils or butterflies). I still know by heart all the Psalms that I memorised when I was 15. Military heroes? Battle campaigns? Are you aware that *women and girls* DO read C S Forester? *I* certainly did, and enjoyed - and enjoy - his Hornblower books!! I *loved* John Buchan's Richard Hannay books - 39 Steps, etc. I loved The Jungle Book (and I am sure many other girls did, too). And believe it or not, I read and enjoyed 'The Call of the Wild'. I didn't particularly like Mark Twain - but then, I am in good company, C S Lewis found him a bit thin, also.) Tree-climbing? been there, done that. Rock-climbing, ditto (I grew up in the bush).

12 Jun 2018
Great Article. Unfortunately, all-male schools have been shut down by liberals, so if you want them back you must defeat liberalism first. If you want Western civilization back, you must defeat libealism.

16 Jun 2018
Send an emailMark Millward
Christina McKintosh. Good for you, however this article is about the needs of most boys in the normal distribution of all boys. Your own achievements are perhaps illustrative of a few girls at one extreme end of the normal distribution of all girls. No one is saying that there is no overlap between the abilities of boys and girls just that they don't overlap exactly and that, as Mr Esolen says, most boys need something rather different from most girls.

20 Jun 2018
Send an emailEric Brown
We are seeing this in our home. We have twins, a boy and a girl. They just finished (Catholic) co-ed middle school. While that program is far less PC than the standard public fair, the boys in that school were constrained from rough play, etc far too much in many parents' estimation. While of similar raw intelligence, my daughter earned straight A's and my son struggled to get homework he had actually completed handed in. Luckily, we have decent options. Next year, for high school, my daughter will proceed to a quality co-ed Catholic HS (and do very well). Our son will attend an all-boys Catholic school with a vigorous JROTC program (both elements his choice). I was hesitant to split them up, but my wife had already come to the same conclusions as Mr. Elosen.

24 Jun 2018
Christina McIntosh
I would like to make a further point. I really cannot understand why Mr Esolen assumes that it is *only* or *primarily* boys, qua boys, who are good at memorising data, and/ or poetry). *I* was rather under the impression that 'learning by heart' - both of facts of all kinds, and also of poetry and speeches - was a major part of the pre-modern education process for *all* children; that it is a general *human* art and capacity, not a "masculine-only' speciality or passion. (If female humans in general had no interest in or even capacity for memorising large amounts of information, we would not have very many competent nurses and female doctors! nor, if there were not a significant number of girls capable of bulk-memorisation of poetry and speeches, would the Royal Shakespeare Company be able to function for long). I have two sons and two daughters, all of normal intelligence; I have not found that the girls had empty shallow little brains that didn't retain information as well as their brothers!

20 Aug 2018
Send an emailDenys Picard
Thank you Anthony, you got me weeping...I have been strongly maintaining this opinion that we MUST bring back Boys only Schools for 20 years. Thank you for expressing this more eloquently than I could ever have done.

Pre-order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!
Enter Goodreads givaway.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!



Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Adam Smith (1) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew E. Harrod (2) Andrew Harrod (5) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (6) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Bruce Bawer (23) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (869) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (758) Daniel Mallock (5) David Ashton (1) David J. Baldovin (3) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Devdutta Maji (1) Dexter Van Zile (75) Donald J. Trump (1) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (14) Esmerelda Weatherwax (10129) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (77) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (184) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (350) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (31) Hugh Fitzgerald (21503) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (25) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janet Charlesworth (1) Janice Fiamengo (4) jeffrey burghauser (2) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2523) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (4) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (394) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lawrence Eubank (1) Lev Tsitrin (26) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (3) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Martha Shelley (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (51) Matthew Stewart (2) Michael Curtis (793) Michael Rechtenwald (65) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2594) New English Review Press (134) Nidra Poller (74) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (241) Rebecca Bynum (7250) Reg Green (35) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (19) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sam Westrop (2) Samuel Chamberlain (2) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (35) Sumner Park (1) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (983) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (33) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
Site Archive