reinforcing sexism: long post but read it

[aliki]

From butterflysneeze:
From Assburger:

Assburger Researchers have recently found that the Discovery Store website's "Toys and Games" section has a list of Boys' toys and a list of Girls' toys. As lifelong nerds, we at Assburger have suffered accute azuritis of the testicles as a direct result of the exclusion of females from the sciences. We've compiled a list of Boy and Girl toys, highlighting the differences between the boy list and the girl list. Almost none of these choices make sense. Vive la 'diff(1)'!

Follow the link above, read the whole list. I mean honestly-- toys listed in girls only catalog include: "Bling Bling Bracelet & Ring Kit", "Deluxe Jewels & Gems Jewelry Kit", and "Discovery Learn to Crochet Set". Toys listed in boys only catalog include: "Discovery Awesome Avalanche Kit", "Kingmaster III Electronic Chess & Checkers Game", and "LEGO (tm) Mars Exploration Rover". When did LEGO and chess/checkers become a male-only toy.

I've posted about gender reinforcements and stereotypes that we impart on our children numerous times in my journal before. An exerpt from Phyllis Burke's book Gender Shock:

In one experiment, two female and two male sixmonth-old babies appeared in both sex-appropriate and cross-sex clothing, and they were given gender-appropriate names for their apparent sex. Women, who were themselves mothers, then interacted with the babies, whom they had never before seen. The sex they perceived the baby to be changed their behavior toward it. When they perceived that they were playing with a boy, even if they were not, they verbally encouraged the baby in its gross motor activities, responding significantly more often to the "boy" baby's movements. The researchers concluded that it would be no surprise that boys tend toward higher rates of activity and physical prowess, not because of a natural tendency toward it, but because of stimulation during infancy.

Another study identified an infant as "Adam," and dressed "him" in blue overalls. The same infant was later identified as "Beth," and dressed in a pink dress. Three toys were made available for the adults to give the baby: a duck, a doll and a train. The adults were parents who had both girls and boys of their own. The mothers gave the doll significantly more often to the baby when identified as "Beth," yet espoused the view that boys and girls should not be trained in sex-stereotypic roles. Most fathers reported themselves aware of playing more physical games with their sons, but the mothers showed no awareness of their differential treatment of "Adam" and "Beth."

In 1980, there was a study entitled "Baby X Revisited." The infants used in the study were from three months to eleven months old, and they were dressed in gender nonspecific clothing of T-shirts and diapers. The same baby was introduced at different times as male, female, or with no gender information. Sixty undergraduate subjects at Hunter College were told that they were in a study concerning "young infants' responses to strangers." The subjects ranged in age from seventeen to forty-five years, and the racial composition was White, Black, Hispanic and Asian. Three toys were made available for the subjects to present to the babies: a small rubber football, a Raggedy Ann doll and a teething ring. None of the men presented a "girl" baby with the football, and 89 percent of them presented "her" with the doll. Eighty percent of the women presented a "boy" baby with the football, and 73 percent of them presented a "girl" with the doll.

And from a study by Condry & Condry in 1976:

A group of people were asked to describe the emotional behaviour of some 9 month-old infants, who had been startled by a Jack-in-the-box. Those, who had been told the infants were boys, described the reaction as anger. If they thought the infants were girls, they described the reaction as fear. Thus we make attributions based on the child's perceived sex, and have expectations which the child reflects. The suggestion is, that boys may react with anger, and girls with fear, because we expect them to. All through our lives we tend to behave to match the attributions people make from social stereotypes because, to behave untypically, sets us apart. We are unconsciously behaving how we are expected to. To do otherwise, puzzles and alarms people. In effect, we are merging with, and adapting to our environment. Otherwise we run the risk of being labelled eccentric unless, of course, we are able to make a virtue of it.

Comments

[steelergirl.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of these studies are biased because the researchers themselves are judging their findings based upon an incorrect stereotype. For example, in the last one, they study fear, when maybe they should study just ANY emotion, which would be more relevant anyways.

I'm pissed at the Discovery Toy Store, and it may be necessary to write them a letter with my thoughts.

[aliki.livejournal.com]

I am definitely pissed at Discovery. I'm writing them a letter too (I dont like phone calls anyways. Feel they don't do much).

I think in that last study, it wasn't the researchers that judge what people perceive. I think basically when the jack-in-the-rabbit pops up and the baby reacts, people were asked to write down what they thought the child felt, the researchers didn't coax them to say either "anger" or "fear"-- people could write down any emotion they wished. It's just that statistically, the emotion "fear" was chosen more often when the subjects knew the baby was a girl, and "anger" more often when the subjects knew it was a boy. I'm sure those emotions weren't the only two "answers" possible and that it was an open-ended blank line that people filled in.

[pansola.livejournal.com]

so messed up )-:

I hope I don't unconsciously (or consciously) do these things...

[vanilla-christ.livejournal.com]

What I would be interested in is to get those same babies, put the same toys in front of them, and see which toys they themselves grab first.

I don't have any kids, won't have any, and therefor the Discovery store is not an issue with me. If it isn't that store, however, it'll be another, or some TV commercial. Is the issue that we as adults are forcing femininity onto girls, or am I just stupid in not seeing the deeper darker significance with giving a doll to a girl, rather than a football or a truck?

[aliki.livejournal.com]

Yes, comparative studies have been done to see which toys a baby would grab first. It is precisely because these similar-aged babies demonstrated no preferential selection for a gender-assigned toy (girl babies don't pick out the dolls any more than they do the football) that these gender-stereotyping studies are very significant in describing what we attribute and teach our children. Girl babies do not innately reach for the doll. But we truly do believe that it is what the baby want.

To me, the deeper significance of giving a doll to a girl instead of a truck is this: when I go to Target, the "girl toys" aisle was pink and the only toys I saw were dolls (Barbie, Bratz and some other one that peed itself) and homemaking tools (vacuum cleaner, an oven, cleaning cloths and oven mitts). The "boy aisle", right next to it, was in neutral green and had skill-building toys like Legos, Lincoln Logs, and so forth. If you buy into these pre-supposed notions of what a child wants, you essentially prevent your child (a girl) from learning spatial concepts, building structures, and more.

One hotly contested notion in the past was whether men were genetically better at engineering (spatial concepts) and the sciences (Discovery volcano-building kit), while women were genetically better at nurturing jobs such as being daycare providers, flight attendants and nurses (playing with dolls). In the past, these were jobs that were historically gender-dominated, one way or another, and it was believed sociologically that women entered nurturing jobs because "we are better at it". To me, clearly how we are raised is a big indicator of what we believe we are good at, and what we strive to do.

I am sure that my analysis, perspectives and views are nowhere in a sample size large enough to draw conclusions, but here are my personal insights: My sister and I grew up playing LEGOs, they were our favorite toys. We built castles, buildings, forts. We didn't get a Barbie (from a horrified aunt) till I was 12 years old, and at that point, I really wasn't interested in her at all. We're now both PhD students in the biological sciences.

My best friend grew up with trucks and cars. She never had a doll. She's now a soil scientist. My roommate was a younger sibling to a dominating older brother. She grew up playing football with his friends. She's now a marine biologist.

Three of my college roommates were raised traditionally female (only played with dolls. Never cars or trucks). They are now in the following positions: one is in college for education (wants to be an elementary school teacher), one graduated with a BA in English (currently unemployed) and one is traveling Europe.

Of course these are by no means scientifically sound, but I really have a feeling that the darker significance is not so much giving a doll to a girl but rather NOT giving a truck/football to her. You teach her to be neat, to be polite, to be clean, to behave. You teach her to be pretty, to be verbal, to nurture. You teach your daughter that she isn't physically strong, she doesn't like dirt, she doesn't like sciencific projects/kits. There once was a Barbie that, when you pulled her cord, she said "Math is hard" (Mattel later withdrew it with national protests).

Refix

[jonlaor.livejournal.com]

I think you're right that we force our expectations on to children. But it's not only with sexism. It's with every other belief- religion, politics, career choices, etc. So the one question is, why is it sexism that bothers you most of all? What about the political influence of parents, or the career influence of parents, or the influence of parents on sense of humor? What about the belief in god which is continually perpetuated from one generation to the next? Why do you write a letter to Discovery about sexism but not a letter to someone complaining about their promotion of religion? Why is one different from the other?

When parents push their children into certain roles, I think they mean it in their children's best interest. Many people think it's better for their children to conform in many aspects. (Because maybe the parents themselves conform.) But then the question is, why is it preferable for some people to conform? I think people feel they're better off conforming because there is very little security in this world if you act different. The risks are much greater than the rewards. So if you're going to cause a change that brings about more equality, you first need to address the reason of why people are so willing to fit themselves to what is rather than what should be.

The way you said that so and so children grew up to be scientists, and then compared them to other non-scientists in a sort of derogatory way is not helpful either. You're taking on an assumption yourself that hard science is better than english. That a rigid career is better than a free-floating life-style. Why? I think you have an assumption that social thinkers, artists, writers, etc. are not necessary. In my opinion, there's so much science out there about nature and yet our society has very little understanding of itself.

Last major point. If you think that people should treat all boys and girls equally, which I don't disagree with, how are you going to accomplish it? You seem to be saying that girls should be treated more like boys- and not the other way around. Why is that? You are saying that boys are 'more developed'?

I think that the reason that girls and boys are treated differently has to do with a the long history of humanity and our relationship to nature. We used to be organized on the basis of families and tribes. In our advanced society now, everything is mass-produced and packaged out of sight of the consumer. The family is almost a meaningless institution now. And the family, and the stereotypes that come with it, are what is left of our old primitive way of seeing the world. But we still don't have control over our own culture. Our culture is basically run by people who don't care about us but only about our money. Writing letters to Mattel and Discovery won't change the fact that Mattel and Discovery don't care about you or their affect on society. Their first concern is profit. But at the same time, they work off of people's prejudices and they accentuate them.

So, just to complain and blame the specific parents or individuals, I think is leaving a lot out of the picture.

I agree with you that girls often times do not have access to certain skill building games. But boys are not taught a lot of things either: How to question authority, how to sympathize with a weaker person, how to take defeat lightly, how to cooperate rather than compete, etc...

Re: Refix

[aliki.livejournal.com]

First off: thank you for the good post. It made a very interesting read and truly got me excited. :) I like intelligent and reflective posts.

I agree that regardless of our good intentions, we are going to force expections on our children one way or another. Children will mimic and absorb all the ideologies that I pass on to them, whether it be right or wrong, and this spans beyond sexism, it includes racism, views on the death penalty, war, contraception, foreign politics, affirmative action, and more. It isn't so much that sexism bothers me the most of all, but it is one that bothers me greatly.

I suppose it is because I am a female in the biological sciences, and when I look for role models in the tenured faculty of academia, there are very few women to look towards. It is not that I feel I would need a woman to guide me, but it cannot be denied that you feel a little disheartened that greater percentages of males are offered tenure than females of equal careers and backgrounds. Or the fact that 84 of 100 senators are male. That we still haven't had a female president. Wait, make that we've never even seen a female vice-president. More startling, in the latest US census, women holding equal educational levels as male counterparts with equal work experience, continue to earn significant less. In other words, I am seeing that a female lawyer with 10 years experience earns $10,000 less than a male colleague who graduated with her. Why?

I believe that everybody is free to choose what they believe in and what they teach their children. However, I draw the line when discrimination detrimentally disadvantages a group of individuals. I support freedom of religion, so far as it does not encroach upon the freedom of others. THerefore, I will not write a letter to a parent about their religious teachings, but I will write a letter to Discovery, because I feel Discovery is promoting a belief that negatively affects the growth and well-being of children through gender stereotyping.

I did not see my examples as being derogatory because I do not hold social sciences to be any "lower" than natural sciences. I do not take on the assumption that hard science is better than English-- but I do take on the view that females are forced into careers and fields that do not involve the hard sciences. My only beef is that sociological studies have shown that male nurses are viewed as sissy-like, that their jobs are not taken seriously (see the movie "Meet The Parents" for a good media reflection on societal beliefs). THe nursing profession is seen as a job to be only taken on by a female. And this is precisely my beef. I do not think that free-floating unemployed people are lazy. But I do think that encouraging females to pursue certain paths (i.e. become an elementary teacher. Stay unemployed. Someone will marry you. You dont have to work after you're married anyway) is flat out wrong. Boys and girls should be equally encouraged to enter the nursing field. Boys and girls should be equally encouraged to like math.

Re: Refix

[jonlaor.livejournal.com]

Hi. We recently learned a theory about this in my Economics of the Employment Relationship class called Statistical Discrimination. If you are an employer, you have to make a choice on hiring based on the information you have, without knowing everything about the person. So what you do is compare that person's traits as markers and look at the general population. Like for instance, someone with a high degree is more likely to be more responsible than a drop out, and less likely to be resonsible than a college graduate.

The same thing, though it's unfair, can be applied to race and sex. A manager wanting to maximize profits will choose the least risky option, meaning hiring a white male. If all other indicators are the same, statistically they are most likely to be properly educated, grown up in a stable home, least likely to take time off to raise children, and so on. Also, women and minorities are more likely to be paid less, so an employer will offer them less knowing they have fewer other options. So over the entire economy, it's a self-perpetuating cycle that women and minorities will have to work harder to get the same benefits.

The same thing can be applied again in politics. If people are going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to a candidate, if given a male and female with equal qualifications, they'll choose the male because they want every possible advantage.

Re: Refix

[aliki.livejournal.com]

(cont.)

My post was largely on how girls should be treated more like boys, but I also believe the other way around (I did not get into that because my post would've been twice as long and I feared nobody would read). I do believe that boys should get dolls, that they belong in the kitchen with their sisters. Both my sons and my daughters (if I should have any) will learn to cook, they will learn to play football, they will both learn to play the piano. They will both get karate lessons and they will both go to hockey games with me. They will both come on fishing trips with me when I work, they'll both learn to mend buttons on their shirts. That is how I will accomplish my goal of treating boys and girls the same. Can I affect the entire world? Unlikely. Can I try and change how other people raise their children? All I can do is try. Change starts in the family, and that is what I can control.

If everybody took on the view that they cannot change the world, little would get done in society. I will leave you with two quotes that I firmly believe in:

Margaret Mead is a fellow Barnard alumnae as I am. She believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. This conviction drew her into discussions of the process of change, expressed in the slogan, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, nothing else ever has."

And: There is only one thing worse than evil, and that is indifference to evil. The lowest point of morality is "I couldnt care less!"

Re: Refix

[jonlaor.livejournal.com]

I agree with Margaret Mead, although I would put the emphasis on the word group.

I would recommend a book to you on the whole subject, if you aren't too busy: "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State" by Engels. It's a pretty important book in Anthropology. It concentrates on the earliest stages on human society. I've only read parts of it, but I will read the whole thing eventually.