Are boys falling behind in school, or do they just not care? According to the article “Boys at the Back” by Christina Hoff Sommers, boys are steadily falling behind in classes compared to girls, even though their test scores say differently (303). Sommers believes that boys should be given special attention in their classes to excel in them, despite the fact that girls do well in classes with no special attention. Christina Hoff Sommers uses persuasive devices to try to convince the reader that boys need help in school, but her rhetoric is ineffective as she puts unnecessary blame on girls for doing well in school and feminism for boys’ lack of interest in school in the name of “equality.” 

Sommers’s main argument is that boys are put at a disadvantage in school because it is not the right environment for them to learn in, and society should do as much as possible to make sure these boys are “equal” to girls. Sommer’s is trying to ultimately convince teachers and principals of K-12 school that it is their duty to help these boys succeed. She also claims that as the school system developed, the creators forgot about boys’ “nature” as boys (304). Her comment suggests that all girls do well within a school environment that is “more feelings-centered, risk-averse, collaboration oriented, and sedentary” (304). This statement is completely ineffective because it is a statement that generalizes young girls. She also mentions how the subtitle of her book The War Against Boys used to be “How Feminism is Harming Our Young Men,” while also saying later in the article that she is personally a feminist (305-306). This attacks her credibility as a writer because how can she identify with something that is the “cause” of the problem she is trying to change. She is also implying that boys do not have the equal opportunity to learn because of their “characteristics as boys.” In which case, the blame should not be placed on girls and feminism, but on human nature itself. 

Sommer’s tries to use pathos throughout the article to make the reader feel bad about the disadvantages that boys are put at for simply being boys. The question arises: should boys get special treatment for their lack of determination in school because of their human characteristics? Sommers argument is based off this statement, which makes it flawed. This is ineffective because her argument seems to be centered around that being a boy is some type of disability that must be evened with special treatment. It is also a flawed argument because women were shut out of education in the past simply because they were women. Is she saying that men are shutting themselves out of education through being, as Sommers puts it, “restless and unfocused?” (304). No, she is blaming women for the progression that they worked hard for and disguising it as them getting the upper hand on something they cannot even control. 

Sommers’ uses facts to appeal to logos, but the majority of solid statistics are in one single paragraph. On page 305, Sommers gives at statistic from economist Andrew M. Sum after conducting a study on Boston public schools which says, “For the graduating class of 2007, there were 191 black girls for every 100 boys going to attend a four-year college. Among Hispanics, the ratio was 175 for every one hundred boys; among whites, 153 for every 100” (305). While this fact does support her argument, it is ineffective because she uses the majority of her paragraph to spew the fact at the reader, and she does not back this fact up with an informed opinion or another fact to make this a convincing reason for her audience to help boys.

Her main idea also appeals to logos: if we help the young boys succeed in school, the work force will become better, which will put the United States ahead of other countries (304). This idea follows a logical progression for the United States advancement, but ultimately fails due to her contradicting statements and unconvincing rhetoric. Instead of simply talking about the importance of having boys do well in school, she puts blame on the wrong people and does not effectively get her point across. Facts that could have helped her rhetoric, should have been on boys’ behavior and why they need special attention; this is something that the author blows over, barely mentioning it, which makes the reader focus on the blame of girls. Sommers’s use of logical appeals miss their mark.

Ethos is used in this argument by Sommers to make her audience feel that it is their job to help these young boys succeed and overcome their nature as boys. If our boys do not do well in school, how will we do well as a country? While this implied question is valid, it is misguided by her evidence to support this argument and what blames she puts on others. The fact that she ignores her own ethics by passing blame makes her an unreliable writer. If Sommers would have gotten more substantial and pertinent facts for her logical appeals, her ethical appeals would have been more convincing.

Christina Hoff Sommers article “Boys at the Back” tries to convince her audience of school teachers and principals that it is their responsibility to make sure that boys excel in school. She believes that boys should be given special treatment and certain privileges to be bribed into doing well in school. This rhetoric of “boys will be boys” is completely ineffective, even though Sommers tries to convince the reader otherwise through the use of persuasive devices.
