Gifted Boys and Gender Issues - By: Jane Langille

In the last issue we explored gender issues that may be experienced by gifted girls. This time it’s the boys’ turn! Gifted boys have many of the same struggles with gender issues as average boys, but their high intellectual ability, intensity, and heightened sensitivity give these issues a different spin. This article will outline the many problems that may be encountered by gifted males and provide some important advice for raising your sons to help them achieve their potential.

In the book Smart Boys, authors Barbara Kerr, Ph.D. and Sanford Cohn, Ph.D. present an exploration into determining why so many of Dr. Kerr’s gifted male classmates from 1969 did not achieve greater potential. In their follow-up study, these authors found that the men had an overall lack of concern for eminence and uncertainty about chosen vocations. They reviewed another study done by Dr. James Alvino in 1988, where it was discovered that the gifted males suffered from limited self and role-identities, as well as limited rights and capacities to express emotions. The boys in this study felt closer to their mothers than their fathers and feared their fathers’ expectations. Fifty percent of the boys felt that it was necessary to hide their intelligence and two-thirds admitted to problems of fitting in with other boys. Perfectionism was also an issue, as was the success trap – the problem of putting success ahead of happiness.

Kerr and Cohn outline several other issues gifted boys may face. First of all, boys who are gifted carry a special burden to develop and prove their masculinity while at the same time developing their intellectual gift. There can be an early pressure to compete in athletics, an attempt to ensure the masculinity of the gifted boy so that he is not stereotyped as a nerd. “Kindergarten redshirting” is the practice of delaying a child’s entrance into kindergarten by a year to give him extra time to mature, which could well be required in some cases but for some bright little boys, can be more reflective of the parents’ motive to ensure that the child has a physical advantage in sports or has an edge against potential bullying at recess. In fact, bright boys may be better off entering kindergarten earlier than average boys, especially if they are showing signs of being ready, for example previous preschool experience or early reading precocity (Gullo & Burton, 1992).

In his book Real Boys, William Pollack discusses the unspoken rules that all boys must learn to assert their masculinity, called “The Boy Code”. Pollack is a clinical psychologist and a director of the Center for Men at the Harvard Medical School. He describes the four tenets of the code as: “The Sturdy Oak” or the need to be stoic, stable and independent, never needing help from others; “Give ‘em Hell” or the imperative to engage in risky, daring behaviour and act tough and macho; “The Big Wheel” or the need to achieve leadership, status, dominance and power; and “No Sissy Stuff” or the credo to never show dependence, warmth, sympathy or demonstrate emotional responses to another male. While all boys may be subjected to “The Boy Code” as they grow up, it becomes particularly problematic for gifted boys who may suffer from internal turmoil when they attempt to live by the Boy Code while at the same time being full of emotional sensitivity and intellectual intensity. They may grow to resent the fact that their intensity cannot be directed toward intellectual or creative activities if they are to prove they are “real boys”. Pollack also asserts that other external societal myths keep gifted boys from expressing their true selves. The first myth is “Boys will be boys”, which assumes that th ere is a direct link from testosterone to aggression to violence and that there are few things parents or educators can do to shape boys’ behaviour. The second myth is “Boys should be boys”, perhaps even more insidious than the first myth because it implies that boys must fulfill the masculine stereotype. The third myth is that “Boys are toxic”, due to their lack of emotional awareness a nd their destructive behaviour to the social environment”. This myth implies that boys are unfeeling barbarians who need to be grouped with girls to be civilized.

Another important issue explored by Kerr and Cohn is that of underachievement. One of the most important findings across a number of studies of underachievers is that the vast majority are male. Kerr and Cohn have given the name “Bartleby Syndrome” to the pattern of behaviours they have found common in a particular type of underachieving gifted boy, one who exhibits a puzzling pattern of congenial refusal to do homework or complete tasks which “he would prefer not to do”. They have recognized Bartleby-like behaviours in gifted boys starting between the third and fifth grade. The boys are usually friendly and mildmannered and seem to have no particular motivation for underachievement. The authors assert that the underlying cause may be the need for these boys to establish their independence by making their own decisions and resisting the wishes of authority figures. As well, by the third grade, gifted boys who continue to excel academically begin to be teased by other boys, so the cost for intellectual achievement rises. Finally, this may be a tactic for the boys to separate themselves from the girls, who may be starting to be more assertive in class. In general, underachieving gifted boys have several common issues: they are more socially immature in that their emotional judgment lags their intellectual development; they have more emotional problems, which tend to be more long term in nature than situational; they engage in more antisocial behaviour, however they are not sociopaths as they have an inherent need for profound thought; and they have lower self-concepts, i.e. they are convinced of their own inability to succeed.

There are many things parents and educators can do to help gifted boys develop their own sense of masculinity while developing their intellectual gift. Thomas Hebert published an article called “When Bright Boys Play Sports: How Parents Can Help”. He advises parents who are unable to convince their non-athletic son that his life is not miserable simply because he does not do well athletically. If he is passionate about sports, parents should consider encouraging non-competitive sports or suggest that their son apply his intellectual talents to sports in a creative way, such as becoming the sports writer for the school newspaper. It is recommended that the choice of the sport belongs to the child, as many young men speak out if they are not enjoying a sport selected by their parents and only tolerate the sport until they are old enough to exert their own influence and then drop it for good. As well, parents should remember that there is nothing wrong with not playing a team sport. The most important thing is that boys are enjoying themselves and are developing some self-esteem regardless of the sport, from the solitude of long-distance running, to the more social sports of golf, tennis and skiing, to the camaraderie of team sports.

William Pollack asserts in Real Boys that parents should refuse to subscribe to “The Boy Code” and recognize that there are many ways that boys develop into worthy men. Boys are not just victims of their hormones and their behaviour can be shaped by those who care about them. Kerr and Cohn provide ideas for intellectual challenge, emotional support and spiritual guidance to help gifted boys achieve their full potentials as gifted men. Starting with help for the very young gifted boys, schools should consider instituting early identification programs for those in preschool and kindergarten. Parents should understand the hazards of kindergarten redshirting for gifted boys. Ideally, gifted education programs should be created to challenge gifted boys before the “Bartleby Syndrome” sets in. Mentors and advanced training are very important in leading gifted boys to explore and excel in their chosen professions. Mentors can be either male or female. Of interest, Ernest Hemingway and Pablo Picasso were both mentored by Gertrude Stein, and eminent psychotherapist Carl Rogers was mentored by Leta Hollingworth, considered the “mother of gifted education”. In terms of overcoming underachievement, Kerr and Cohn recommend “nipping it in the bud “, help the boy discover topics and areas of interest, model achievement through their own behaviour, and working with educators to ensure an education which is stimulating, appropriate, challenging and flexible.

Overall, the goal is to help gifted boys achieve a secure masculine identity together with a strong identity as gifted individuals.

References

Kerr, Barbara A. Ph.D. and Sanford J. Cohn, Ph.D.,(2001) Smart Boys: Talent, Manhood & The Search for Meaning, Great Potential Press, Scottsdale, Arizona, www.giftedbooks.com.

Pollack, William (1998). Real Boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. Holt: New York.

Hebert, Thomas P. When Bright Boys Play Sports: How Parents Can Help. Excerpt from Parenting for High Potential (June 1998). National Association for Gifted Children, www.nagc.org/Publications/Parenting/sports.htm