mike geary: A popular gender stereotype that girls are better at languages than boys undermines boys' language performance because it causes worrying that erodes the mental resources needed for problem solving, new research at the University of Chicago shows. The research study also showed for the first time that this threat to performance caused by gender stereotyping can also hinder success in *other* academic areas because mental abilities do not immediately rebound after being compromised by language anxiety. This could help explain why boys don't perform as well in languages, and why boys and men would be less likely to choose careers dealing with languages. Do you agree, gender stereotypes about languages could affect a boy's academic abilities in languages and other academic areas as well? Here is an article about the research study that was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/07052402806.htm|||Yes. Gender stereotyping causes many individuals to question their own capacity to learn. A child's developing mind is the greatest resource in our world. It should be protected and encouraged to thrive. Any child who displays an aptitude for languages should be encouraged to study languages. Any child who displays an aptitude for math should study math. A person's ability to excel in any given area is related to interest in the topic and how hard the person works. One is only limited by what he/she believes about him/herself. Note that my answer contains absolutely no gender bias, proof that it IS possible to communicate and live with gender equality - if one is willing to TRY.|||It's true in most of academia now - what was once a system geared toward educating boys, is now geared toward educating girls. Girls now do significantly better in school than boys. They are 10% more likely to graduate high school, and almost 20% more likely to go to college.|||Come on graymalkin. You don't think we actually buy this garbage, do you? I am well aware that negative stereotyping CAN cause a human to avoid certain subjects. That takes a certain type, however- an (emotionally) WEAK one. How do we avoid having weak children? The answer is simple. When they are young, explain to them that they can do anything. Over and over. Stand up for your kids. On the flip side, don't make them arrogant, and explain that everything important takes dedication and hard work. The formula is VERY simple. The solution to these problems is good parenting, which is at a premium from what I can gather, and good education. We need to stop relying on the government for both and realize that it is first and foremost the responsibility of PARENTS to do this. My biology teacher pointed out a little while ago that parenting is the single most important job that one can have that requires absolutely no training or, very often, has any rules. Sure, one could be charged with abuse, but how often are such cases even brought to the courtroom? The fact is that the requirements to become a parent and remain a parent are relatively minimal. That doesn't mean that a parent can't learn and apply himself/herself to make sure his/her children turn out to be the best they can be.|||I guess it all depends on strength of character. I was never one to believe that I could not do something or that I'd be bad at doing something - for any reason. Thus, I was extremely good at every subject in school. I never studied, everything just came easy. On the other hand, if someone accepts it as truth when they are told that they are worse at something because they are a boy then it would be very detrimental. If believe it or even just use it as an excuse to be mentally lazy and just not learn the subject it's terrible (I've seen things like this happen everywhere). So I'd say from a 'survival of the fittest' view on things, it's great. Stereotype away and those of us with the will power will rise above and beyond, using it as a source of energy. But from Bush's viewpoint... "Leave no child behind" the gender stereotyping about language is bad. I believe in the first method more than the latter, myself.|||What stereotype ? The worlds most famous literates are male from scriptwiters over theater to musical anybody who counts something is male. Only famous writer I can think of is the gal who wrote Harry Potter.|||"threat to performance caused by gender stereotyping..." Du-uh. Psychologists and feminist organisations have been pointing this out for DECADES. You guys are only just now figuring out it's a double-edged sword? I think I understand: you guys don't give a crap until precious boys are shown to be affected by blind belief in gender stereotypes. Then, "the SKY is falling!" EDIT; I ASK AGAIN: WHY ON EARTH IS THIS 'NEWS'? “Based on his own experience and the research that it helped spark, Aronson suggested that in most situations human intelligence reflects a social transaction: When one person in the social interaction holds a negative stereotype of the other person, like Mr. Tomlin’s notion of long hairs’ intelligence, it can cause the stereotyped person to mirror the other’s expectation. Aronson further suggested that if teachers focused on counteracting negative stereotypes of certain groups’ academic abilities, like those of blacks, Hispanics and women, they could help to dramatically improve those groups’ performance. “Even if we can’t get better teachers, we can improve the system,” he said. “We should be stressing belongingness, engagement and challenges.”|||there's no deficit in language among boys. males tend to write & speak in a condensed form such as The New York Times. We don't write romance novels cause we have no drama queens X-)|||Extremes don't have anything to do with the average man or woman in the middle. The average man is not discriminated against and doesn't have a problem whether he is good at language or as good at language as women or not. It simply doesn't matter. If a man is bad at language and he's really interested in it, he can pursue it anyway. I have a brother who's an English major that is very bad at English. I thought he was illiterate, but maybe he's dyslexic or something. It didn't stop him from pursuing it, but clearly he's not as good at it as me. He wasn't disadvantaged or discouraged by generalities about men being a little worse off in the languages area, just like he wasn't discouraged from majoring in a field he clearly sucks at. So, I don't think this matters in the long run. I think the same is true of women on first glance in the sciences. However, the difference is, which you failed to include, is that there aren't currently large numbers of women dominating the languages and discriminating against males trying to enter that field. Whereas women in sciences have to overcome first the possible natural disadvantage, then the stereotype, then the male tenure block or whatever you want to call it. It's not just about generalities or perceptions on the individual level. It's about who has the power to let you in or cut you off. Men still hold most of the power, even in areas they don't excell in. So no matter how much you compare the two and claim we're making excuses, the simple fact is, it's not about what happens to the average INDIVIDUAL. It's about who holds the power. If all things were equal and we had equal amounts of power then your arguements would be valid. But they're not.|||Gender stereotypes in general undermine in general. They serve no purpose today and should be eliminated.