Reading

Boys’ schools are the perfect place to teach young men to express their emotions and are more likely to get involved in activities such as art, dance and music, according to research released today. Far from the traditional image of a culture of aggressive masculinity in which students either sink or swim, the absence of girls gives boys the chance to develop without pressure to conform to a stereo­type, the US study says. Boys at single sex schools were said to be more likely to get involved in cultural and artistic activities that helped develop their emotional expressiveness, rather than feeling they had to conform to the "boy code" of hiding their emotions to be a "real man".

Photo by Rachel Papo

The report, presented at a conference of the International Boys’ Schools Coalition in London attended by the heads of private and state schools, goes against received wisdom that boys do better when taught alongside girls. The headmaster of Eton, Tony Little, warned that boys were being failed by the British education system because it had become too focused on girls. He criticised teachers for failing to recognise that boys are actually more emotional than girls, despite the fact that girls "turn on the waterworks".

The research argued that boys often perform badly in mixed schools because they become demoralised when their female counterparts do better earlier in verbal skills and reading, because the left side of the brain develops faster in girls. They also felt they had to be "cool" rather than studious. But in single sex schools teachers are able to tailor lessons to boys’ learning style, letting them move around the classroom and getting them to compete in teams to prevent boredom, wrote the study’s author, education expert Abigail James, of the University of Virginia.

Teachers could encourage boys to enjoy reading and writing with specifically "boy-focused" approaches such as themes and characters that appeal to them. Boys in boys’ schools "loved" to pen verse because they enjoyed the "inherent structure in poems", James said. Because, the researchers say, boys generally have better spatial skills, more acute vision, learn best through touch, are more impulsive and more physically active, they need to be given "hands-on" lessons where they are allowed to walk around, with this natural impulse not seen as disruptive. "Boys in mixed schools view classical music as feminine and prefer the modern genre in which violence and sexism are major themes," James wrote. Single sex education also made it less likely that boys would feel they had to conform to a stereotype gained from the media by girls that men should be "masterful and in charge" in relationships. "In the present sexualised atmosphere prevalent in mixed schools, boys feel coerced into acting like men before they understand themselves well enough to know what that means," the report said. [via The Guardian]

It looks like the practice of same-sex lovin’ may have evolved more than once, and for more than one reason. Researchers look to the animal kingdom for hints about the origins of homosexuality, and a recent review of that research suggests that those origins probably vary depending on species, environment and chance. The article doesn’t have much to say about human sex or homosexual preference (the authors point out that animals probably don’t have sexual identities the way people do), but it does seem to imply that there could be more than one evolutionary/biological basis for homosexuality in Homo sapiens. [via Boing Boing]

First, there are the adaptive hypotheses, which provide an explanation for same-sex behaviour that would boost the biological fitness of one or more of the individuals involved. For example, several species, including bottlenose dolphins, seem to use same-sex behaviours to promote social bonding. Others may have evolved them as a form of intrasexual conflict. Indirect insemination, as in the flour beetle, provides a third possible adaptive advantage. Then there is the practice hypothesis, that individuals are honing their skills for mating, which seems to hold good for male fruit flies at least. Several other adaptive explanations have been invoked to explain same-sex behaviour in humans, including kin selection – helping to further the genes you share with close family members – and "over-dominance" – the idea that certain genes somehow increase fitness in individuals who possess a single copy of them but are associated with same-sex behaviour in people with two copies. Then there is "sexually antagonistic selection" – the idea that alleles promoting same-sex behaviour in men are favoured by selection because they increase the reproductive chances of their daughters.

There are also various non-adaptive explanations. Mistaken identity could indeed be one cause. Van Gossum’s damselflies exemplify another idea, known as the prisoner effect, in which depriving individuals of interaction with the opposite sex prompts them to mate with members of their own sex. Then there is the evolutionary by-product hypothesis – selection for some other independent trait, such as high sexual responsiveness, might make individuals more likely to participate in same-sex sexual behaviour. It has also been suggested that same-sex behaviours appear when organisms are imperfectly adapted to their environment.

Read on at the New Scientist: Homosexual Selection: The Power of Same-Sex Liasons