The "farce" of having it all

The chapter on "Alphas in Love," really struck a nerve with me. I was impressed with Kindlon on the information that the Alpha Girls he interviewed are committed to having loving relationships and children. Unlike Alpha Girls of prior generations, or women that wanted to have strong careers, Alpha Girls, according to Kindlon, don't have to choose between having a careers that fulfills them, while at the same time having children and a spouse. Why does there have to be a choice? I came from a two-parent household where both of my parents worked full-time. While my mother was not at home everyday when I got in from school, I don't believe that it lessened my quality of life. I thought it was almost fascinating to the point of upsetting that many of the pool of Alpha Girls wanted strong careers, to get married later, then have children, choosing then to stay at home. While I believe in the concept that women can make decisions about their own lives, and that includes choosing to work or choosing to stay home, I am alienated by how different this all seems from me and my life, and especially the lives of my students. Looking at the faces of my students, grading papers, entering grades, I have predictions of what I think their futures can hold. For my brighter girls, I see college, graduate school, strong careers. I envision lives where they can take care of themselves, growing and becoming members of society that I know will change our world. Would the choice even be open to girls to stay at home? If they did not work, how would they support themselves? Would society believe that they are on welfare? Would my girls have a "responsibility" to the race to work and have a family?

Subtle Sexism in the Classroom

The AAUW report cited in Kindlon's discussion of alpha girls states: "Boys were given higher-quality instruction than girls and were chosen more often to answer questions in front of the class and then given more time to formulate a response(76)." The report concluded that school systematically cheat girls of classroom attention, by emphasizing competition instead of cooperative learning. The statement caused me to question how do my personal biases affect my classroom? What underlying ideas cause teachers to react differently to students?

Reading Alpha Girls has caused me to become more introspective about how my gender biases impact my classroom. In Language Arts, a subject where girls typically excel, I find myself asking my female students to read constantly. My students have noticed that I call on girls more than I call on boys to the extent that I have to purposefully select boy-girl pairs for each task. While it may improve my female students' self confidence, I am well aware that it may make the boys in my classroom feel unwanted in my classroom. My actions also reinforce stereotypical gender roles in education.

Furthermore, the push to have students succeed individually may also result in gender bias. The report showed that competition amongst students reinforce the boy's ability to succeed, especially in math and science. Girls struggled to feel confident in those subject areas, and the lack of collaborative learning allowed the cycle to continue. With the present encouragement to use collaborative learning versus a group setting are girls excelling more in classrooms? How would using the competition model foster the development of an alpha girl? Is competing in the classroom harmful when a similar model is present in employment settings?