Author favors female biology over ideology

By Karen S. Peterson
USA Today

•

Womanism vs. feminism In "The Wonder of Girls," family therapist Michael Gurian has developed what he calls a "womanist position," which he contrasts with his view of matching feminist positions. A sample: Womanism, from Michael Gurian: • Positive change for women once came from a victim philosophy, but now that philosophy keeps women one down from men. • The educational system can hinder girls and boys both, with boys now the worse off. • The ideal situation for a woman is being valued for work inside and outside the home. • Masculinity is mysterious, and we need to understand and shape it meaningfully, rather than fearfully. • Marriage is sacred and essential to human progress, especially when raising children. • Nature, male and female biology, is our best guide to wisdom. Feminist position, as defined by Gurian: • Positive change for women comes from proving that women are victims of men. • The educational system is set up to hurt girls and help boys. • The nonworking woman is not financially independent and a potential victim of men. • Masculinity is defective and dangerous. • Marriage is an inherently flawed institution, secondary to the needs of women. • Males and females are socialized to be the way they are. Feminist ideology is our best guide to wisdom. — USA Today

In his bound-to-be-controversial book "The Wonder of Girls" (Pocket Books, $26), family therapist Michael Gurian contends that a girl's feeling that she is not worth a three-dollar bill is a normal part of growing up, a function of brain development, hormonal changes and genetics.

Most of the time she will come out of adolescence healthy if she has the support and nurturing she needs, says Gurian, of Spokane, Wash.

Feminism ignores scientific explanations for young girls' dilemmas, he says, in favor of saying the culture "socializes" them.

He sums up his central message: "Female biology has to be more important than feminist ideology."

Gurian is once again hip-deep in controversy. His 1996 "The Wonder of Boys" helped launch the so-called boys movement, which claimed that while we focus at home and in school on the psyches of girls who shy away from math and science, we short-change little boys who fall behind in reading and writing.

He later championed the importance of dads in raising sons hard-wired by testosterone. Other male child development specialists proffered a less macho, more touchy-feely parenting style, applauding the continuing role of moms.

Gurian's latest book may be regarded as an explosive device by some advocates for young girls.

Stop telling a girl she should make it to the top of the corporate ladder, he says. She will feel inadequate if she doesn't crack the glass ceiling.

Her highest goal is the one her brain is basically hard-wired for: a life of attachments, "to bond, attach, marry, mate, love and be loved," goals he says feminism devalues. She is being taught, he says, that her biological role is "second best."

Gurian's views have put him at loggerheads with feminists. But Gurian insists that "there is nothing wrong with feminism" and that he wants to start a dialogue embracing the best of old and new thinking.

Count Gurian among a bevy of sociologists, psychologists, educators, academics and philosophers trying to help parents raise happy, moral children.

Many writing thoughtful tomes have created something of a gender war, intentionally or unintentionally pitting the needs of boys against those of girls and the proper roles of moms against dads.

Now Gurian fires the latest volley with his antithetical views on what girls — including his two young daughters — need. Some think the message is something of a powder keg.

Gurian is author of 14 books and co-founder of the Gurian Institute, which trains child development specialists.

USA Today asked some experts to evaluate his opinions. Some read the book; others reviewed a 10-page summary prepared by the publisher. A few have their own scars from the gender wars.

Most agree that Gurian raises interesting questions. But at the same time, many would like to take him to the woodshed.

• Christina Hoff Sommers is a supporter, a scholar who has rankled feminists for years. "Michael Gurian is one of the few writing about girls today who don't denigrate boys," says Sommers, the author of "Who Stole Feminism?" and "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men."

She does not agree with him totally. But she says, "For so long, we have had these gender scholars who view masculinity and femininity as disorders, conditions children need to be freed from. ... Both sexes have their virtues and their graces. And I appreciate his focus on the biological origins of the differences."

• "His construction of feminism is simplistic and not based on any feminism I know," says Lyn Mikel Brown, director of the women's studies program at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

She and Harvard professor Carol Gilligan, a star in the galaxy of feminists, have written together about the struggles of girls ages 6 to 18.

Gurian contends that parents, especially moms, must provide early nurturing, and teach their growing daughters that seeking attachment is their primary goal.

"His arrogance gets to me," Brown says. "I am not afraid of the attention this book will get. But this is pure and simple backlash, a reinventing of the status quo."

• Faye Wattleton of the Center for Gender Equality, a nonprofit think tank on women's issues, won her feminist spurs with Planned Parenthood of America. She questions Gurian's agenda.

And she objects to categorizing women as wanting either intimacy or power, which ignores the complexity of their lives, she says. "This is simply a mischaracterization of women."

His "black and white" thinking damages his message, Wattleton says, "when he does have some excellent points that need to be heard."

• Laura Sessions Stepp, author of "Our Last Best Shot: Guiding Our Children Through Early Adolescence," doesn't like labels that become self-fulfilling prophecies.

"I worry when we say (that) because of biology, boys act one way and girls another. The labels make us expect them to act a certain way. And then they react to our reactions."