|
Last spring my church sponsored a book discussion group about the book, "The Wonder of Boys" by Michael Gurian. Gurian's thesis is that boys' and girls' brains (Portland area lurkers, note that I have used the apostrophes correctly!) are hard-wired differently and they will inevitably think, feel and respond to most things in life differently. He notes repeatedly that neither is better than the other, but we need to be more aware of the differences.
I bring this up, because it struck me several times that the description of what Gurian calls, "Boy Culture" points out areas where I have had to adjust my own thinking to fit into what might be called the ref culture. I have just noted this a few times on this board, and now I'm desperate enough for some legitimate referee talk that I'd like to expound a little. The book is 250 large pages of small print, so I can't go into a lot of detail but there are about five points that intrigue me. I think I will start five threads, so that each point can be considered separately. It's not that I think this stuff is so huge, just that the different areas are somehwat separate.
Could I also ask that the personal stuff stay on some other threads? If no one wants to talk about this book, fine, just let these thread die. Thanks.
Point 1: Competition vs. Collaboration
Gurian observes that boy culture is based much more on competition than girl culture which he calls collaborative. His whole thinking is that competition is fundamental to a boy's relationships to other boys, and it's a big part of his self-definition. The other important part of this is that the competition shouldn't be aimed at winning at all costs. It should seek to find the place of the individual in the pecking order. In other words, just because someone isn't on top doesn't mean he's hopeless, it just means that his place in the hierarchy is different. Also a boy could be on top in one area, such as refereeing, but be in a crowd in the middle in another area, such as at work, or in church leadership.
I see this so clearly in the Portland Basketball Officials' Association (another great use of the apostrophe!). There is this constant atmosphere of competition and challenge. Although we are instructed not to compare schedules, everybody does it in subtle ways. This competitive atmosphere is one of the first things that really grated for me. I am very feminine in being aggressively collaborative, and struggled mightily with the competition I felt in the air.
After reading this book, I see that it doesn't have to be a bad thing, and in fact, is part of the culture. It helps refs feel a sense of belonging to know where they fit in, and it helps define the social interactions as well. People who want to get ahead, watch the top dogs, knowing who the best are by their place in the pecking order. People who watch the leaders, and don't want that pressure, or whatever, know how to behave differently. There are some who say they'd like a better schedule, but don't seem to get ahead. These people have a place to be, for now and can move up if they are willing to jump through the hoops. Or they can try to change the hoops.
But the basis of the structure is competition. We compete for "tournament votes", for the "best" games, for Varsity status, for a place at the "right" table at meetings, for board positions, and so on. Even the door prizes at the banquet are given by a sort of competition (drawing).
Are there any Associations out there that are made up of primarily women that are structured differently? I'd be interested in seeing a collaborative model if one exists.
I'll be adding other points from the book in other threads, but not today. I've got to go exercise my feminine side, and be a mom.
|