I would like to sidestep the debate that has been raging on this blog about whether people should raise their children to be gender aschematic, and instead I would like to examine a much older debate. Is our gender stratified society an expression of our biological natures, or alternatively, is the society we encounter each day entirely of our own social making? In other words, is biology destiny? Early civilizations were gendered, which is to say that in hunter-gatherer societies men and women had very different roles. Some have argued that these distinct roles may have been based on, say, the innate ability of women to produce breast milk. Here, society is created by the reality of our biology. Others emphasize that the structure of society is not dependent on biology and is instead the result of human doings. Whatever biology's "instructions" might be for society, humans find ways of doing what they want. Society, by this logic, is not something given but is instead something formed from a struggle of values and ideas. In fact, this fight of values and ideas continues today on this blog with some bloggers arguing that children should be raised in a gender aschematic environment. The argument that role specialization is based on biology is a bit out of the ordinary for me because it so sharply contradicts arguments posed by social constructivists. It encourages us to believe that the stratified society we see today is not one of human design but is instead biologically innate, and that position is not one I’m prepared to easily accept. Still the logic is difficult to dispute. If women are the ones who are biologically equipped to bear and breast feed children, which is a task their male counterparts can’t physically do, it makes some sense that the women of earlier societies stayed close to camp so they could feed and rear future generations. While it seems irrefutable that modern society has moved past any practical need to separate men and women, the argument that role specialization has its origins with biology makes some sense. In a piece about human sex differences, evolutionary psychologist Doreen Kimura claims that “[a] more rational view is that cultural norms arose in conjunction with, and in support of, biological imperatives.” She marshals evidence which suggests that sex differences (i.e., biological) are expressed in gendered norms and practices (i.e., culture). Role specialization, by this logic, is born from innate biological characterists. Not only is it important that only women produce breast milk, but Kimura extends the argument by suggesting that there also exist innate differences in cognition and hormones as well. Following Kimura, perhaps we can think of gender and its attendant role specialization as something that was created for practical reasons in hunter-gatherer societies, but now, long after it has ceased being practical, it remains with us and has become a basis for inequality. As I mentioned above, role specialization has been around longer than written history, but so too have people who have fought against role specialization—feminist sociologists, parents who want gender aschematic children, and me, to name only a few. New evidence has emerged to suggest that some women who lived in hunter-gatherer societies 10,000 years ago also fought against the inequality derived from role-specialization. . .
According to a theory born out of Iowa (here), not only did role specialization begin in hunter-gatherer societies, but opposition to role specialization also has its roots in such societies. This opposition materialized in the form of an attachment to a spear that made weapons easier for women to throw, thereby allowing them to do more of what was considered men’s work. The theory asserts that the atlatl, which is a stick attached to a spear, was not just an assist to those throwing spears in war or hunting, but it was also an equalizer. The spear itself was a man’s weapon because it required sheer upper body strength to throw and use as a weapon against members of other tribes or large animals. The atlatl made it easier for women to use the spear as a weapon, so it stands to reason that it may have been invented for women either to assist in the hunting activities, or to engage in warfare with other tribes. Although this type of prehistoric opposition isn’t a mirror-image of today’s opposition, which comes in the form of parents attempting to raise a child in a gender aschematic environment, it does show that resistance to role specialization and gender-based inequality has been around for a long time. So is biology destiny? My conclusion is, no. Role specialization between men and women may have coincided with biological attributes, but technologies such as the atlatl have long since allowed us to transcend biology. It is not at all clear that that our stratified society was inevitable, and even if it was, it certainly isn’t inevitabile today. ~ Junior
2 Comments
While I agree with Sandra Bem’s analysis of gender spheres, where there are clear boundaries dividing masculine from feminine, I also agree with an earlier post by Drizzle that argues Bem’s proposal is unrealistic because it does not adequately take into account the way gender roles are reinforced in ways that are beyond the control of parents. By extension, I also disagree with Bem's supporter, Lady Lazarus. By focusing narrowly on child rearing practices, Bem and Lady Lazarus do not propose a realistic model of social change. I think it is important to raise a child to be conscious of gender stereotypes, but I think there is a difference between raising your child to question gender stereotypes and raising them to be a martyr—your martyr—for social change. A more moderate approach begins by recognizing that there are degrees to which a child could be raised to be gender aschematic, and the view expressed in Lady Lazarus’ blog seems too extreme to me. In my view, it is sufficient to provide a child with the means of recognizing a stereotype as only one particular claim about a group of people. Revealing a stereotype in this way allows children to question whether a stereotype is useful or "true," This conscientizing process can be done without forcing one’s child to engage in a confrontational politics before they are ready. . .
As an adult, Betsy Lucal and other activists like her made their own choices not to “do” gender; is it fair to make this decision for a child? Activism is sometimes necessary to produce change, but when a child is forced to become an activist for a cause they do not yet understand, they may be harmed. People come to perceive their own gender based on the responses others offer them. If a child is not taught to “do” gender in the usual or expected way, or if they are forced to disrupt the gender binary, then they are being set up to have difficult interactions with others. Such difficult interactions will undoubtedly involve name calling and bullying and will shape the perceptions children form about themselves. In making our children activists, we have moved well beyond merely equipping them with the tools necessary to reveal harmful stereotypes. Let me be clear. I wholly support raising children to be aware of harmful stereotypes. However, I think Lady Lazarus’ support of Sandra Bem’s notion of gender aschematic child rearing is an advocation for unnecessary and unjustifiable martyrdom that can only harm children. Ideally, human beings should be nurtured to a point where they are able to form their own conclusions about the many gender-based ideas they encounter in the world. Children just aren’t ready to face such decisions, and they should be protected until they are ready. Once a child is old enough to contemplate the gender binary, they may very well decide it is necessary for them to reject conventional ideas, which tie masculinity to boys and femininity to girls. They may decide it is necessary to “un-do” gender, but this should only be a decision they confront when they are old enough to understand the potential consequences. ~ Vassmaster There has been significant debate on this blog about the pursuit of gender equality and the dismantling of the gender binary. In particular, Drizzle highlighted the possible detriment of raising children to be gender aschematic in contemporary society (here). Several bloggers strongly disagreed with Drizzle’s views, and explained that it is worthwhile and beneficial to raise a child in this manner. Country Girl explains that to raise a child without gender stratification may be a difficult task, but that we must try nonetheless (here). I agree that there is significant gender inequality in our society, and that it must be changed. However, I wish to discuss the consequences of some of the tactics that Country Girl and Lazy Lazarus suggest in their previous posts. Although neither author mentioned specific methods of raising children without gender, I believe that certain methods may inadvertently harm children. . .
Country Girl speaks to the broader implications of raising children without gender when she writes, “Children who have been exposed to gender aschematic ideas might be better equipped to become independent thinkers. They would be less inclined to simply accept the usual gendered explanations about how the world is supposed to work, and they will grow up having experienced what a world might look like if all people were equal and not stratified by gender.” Although I feel that many of these points may be accurate, I would like to acknowledge that dressing children in a sexually androgynous manner is a tactic by which many parents may raise there children without gender boundaries. I feel that this may actually do more harm to children. Since most children at school and in public are raised in a system of gender binaries, the tactic of dressing children androgynously may ultimately alienate them. I would like to know what Country Girl is doing in her own life to challenge the gender binary. Judging by her pseudonym, it appears she identifies herself by her gender above all else. I question whether Country Girl lives a life that is completely autonomous of gender norms. If she does not already, I suggest that she tries dressing in a sexually androgynous manner. That way she can experience what it’s actually like to go against our society’s intolerant gender norms. I would hope that she knows what its like, considering she is suggesting we raise our children this way. Raising children to fight your battles is not the answer to eliminating gender and social inequality. Consider the writings of Betsy Lucal, who is a woman that has a body type and style of dress that is not characterized as archetypically feminine in our society. Lucal has many experiences with people who put significant amounts of energy into assigning her a gender. In Lucal’s “What it Means to be Gendered Me,” She uses this social phenomenon of people “doing” gender for her to highlight how fixated we are on the gender binary. Although Lucal was born within a cultural system that operated by that binary, she eventually chose the brave path of living outside the gender binary. Dressing your child in this manner and forcing them outside the gender binary may result in serious consequences for them, including alienation, loneliness and serious confidence problems. Remember that Lucal chose that brave path; it was not assigned to her as a child. Alternatively, I suggest that we focus on finding realistic approaches to fighting injustice and inequality in our society. Raising your child to be gender aschematic will not help people in need and will not improve our society. Nor will it cause the gender binary to come crashing down. More successful and proven ways of fighting sexism include forming community groups and organizations, such as shelters for battered women or supporting organizations which protect and promote the rights of women. We should work in our communities to combat real problems ourselves, instead of forcing our children to bear the repercussions of challenging gender norms. ~ FLP There has been a recent debate in this blog about whether parents should strictly adhere to gender norms by raising masculine men and feminine women. I agree with Lady Lazarus that raising your children to be gender aschematic would in fact be beneficial. I agree with the argument that this would be the most ideal environment for a child and would provide a child with the best mindset. Drizzle’s post clearly disagrees with this sentiment. Instead, Drizzle argues that while this gender aschematic way of living may be possible in one’s home, gender aschematic values and habits might steadily erode as the child grows older and matures. In other words, it’s just not realistic, because once the child goes out into the real world he or she will experience gender categorization from many other institutions of society (e.g., school). It’s not going to work, so why try. As Lady Lazarus has done (here), one can easily argue against Drizzle with the following logic: the attempt to raise a gender aschematic child—even if we can’t ultimately deter the child from acting in gendered ways—is a worthwhile endeavor. Children who have been exposed to gender aschematic ideas might be better equipped to become independent thinkers. They would be less inclined to simply accept the usual gendered explanations about how the world is supposed to work, and they will grow up having experienced what a world might look like if all people were equal and not stratified by gender. After all, isn’t this what the United States has been aiming toward for centuries?! Those who would side with Drizzle would like us to acknowledge that Sandra Bem’s gender schema theory is a description of a utopia—which is “of course” a problem because our world is an imperfect one. Utopian ideas don’t work in imperfect societies, so again, why even try? This bit about our imperfection garners no disagreement from me. Take, for example how people today look toward ads and commercials for clues about how to reach their ideal gendered look. It is as if we are parrots and institutions like the media and the state are our owners. We are a docile lot and easily manipulated. We watch and observe others’ behaviors, and pick and choose which to imitate depending on some advertiser’s notion of perfection. We’re also imperfect because we’re power hungry. That is, when we’re not being manipulated, we’re attempting to manipulate others. It seems that we look for every instance to be superior, and do so by ridiculing even the smallest behaviors. For example, many times it comes down to how well someone performs their gender. Gendered norms are such a large part of our society and have been in practice for so long. They are are useful for keeping people in line, and they are reinforced by media representations. Surely, gender schema theory is bound to fail. In fact, trying to make it succeed would only be a waste of energy. Perhaps this is why some people feel so threatened by the prospect of raising their children in a gender aschematic environment. Perhaps they’re just convinced they will fail.
But say we make some headway and are able to reimagine what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man. Say a sizable number of parents adopt this idea of raising their children without the usual gender stereotypes. I suspect Drizzle would still remind us that we are just so imperfect and so power hungry as a society that even if gender ceased to be the means of determining superiority, another trait would likely fill its absence. I imagine Drizzle would shake his/her finger, saying “One cold reality of this world is that people are fond of status hierarchies. Nothing will change that. If not gender, we’ll find another category with which to make ourselves miserably stratified.” If we adopt Drizzle’s apprehension and if we fail to try simply because we are convinced we are bound to fail, then our fate is sealed. We will almost certainly condemn ourselves to perpetual inequality. But at what point do people stop justifying the status quo because alternatives seem too remote to even contemplate? Even if it is true that we can never escape creating status hierarchies—and I don’t believe this is true—isn’t a better society one that tries to address injustice? In the end, even if we are only able to create a single day free of prejudice and discrimination, isn’t that far better than refusing to try? ~ Country Girl In a recent blog entry titled, “Why Gender Typing is Positive,” Drizzle states that raising children to be gender aschematic is “unrealistic” because “there are too many other outlets that expose children to gender categorization.” Drizzle also states that the proposed benefits of raising your children to be gender aschematic are “only possibilities and not definite outcomes.” I do agree that once children leave the confines of the home they will be subjected to gender stereotypes, but to assume they will blindly accept these rigid ideas about gender is too simplistic. I am not asserting that by raising one's child in an environment relatively free of gender typing, the child is guaranteed to become socially androgynous. I do however believe that raising children in a gender aschematic environment will make them more open-minded about the full range of opportunities available to them and will encourage independent thinking. Children will be more likely to question the way in which gender is structured in society and will be more capable of critiquing gender stereotypes. I would also argue that a child who has lived in an environment relatively free of gender typing will be cognizant of the fact that a rigid gender binary does not reflect an inevitable reality. They will be able to understand that gender is not inherent and thus can be constructed in a variety of ways. . Betsy Lucal Drizzle later counters my argument about the beneficial aspects of raising children to be socially androgynous by asserting that children “who become socially androgynous will still face social issues with their peers which makes this style of living difficult.” Drizzle uses the example of Betsy Lucal and draws from her article “What it Means to be a Gendered Me” to support this claim. But Drizzle only applies a superficial reading of Lucal’s experiences. Betsy Lucal is a woman who has chosen not to "do" gender and as a result of her transgression of gender boundaries, Lucal is often mistaken for a man. Yes, Lucal did face adversity, but it is important to note that Lucal made this decision. At one point in the text, Lucal decided to grow her hair out and as a result was no longer mistaken for a man. To reduce Lucal's experiences of gender bending as experiences of victimization fails to acknowledge the activism she is trying to promote. Lucal seems to feel liberated by her experience because she feels she is helping to deconstruct a rigid and harmful gender binary. While I appreciate Drizzle's arguments and concerns about Bem's proposal, I still believe it is a beneficial and achievable goal to raise one's children to be gender aschematic. I think it is a mistake for Drizzle to dismiss this argument on the grounds that these ideas are only possibilities and not definite outcomes. It is never guaranteed that individual efforts to create equality will result in immediate success, but rather, success may need to be measured in intervals. In order to restructure the rigid binary gender system, we must understand gender as a historical construct which can be changed and is subject to improvement. In order to make positive change, individuals must actively resist adhering to gender stereotypes, and we must raise our children to do the same. ~ Lady Lazarus Recently I read a paper by Sandra Bem about gender schema theory that I felt was very relevant to the sociology of gender. Bem’s main argument in this paper is that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised in a gender aschematic environment or one without gender stereotypes. In society, gender is a very significant category used for classifying others and is usually the first thing that people notice when meeting others. This process of categorizing people based on sex is also apparent in young children as well. Studies have shown that young children utilize cultural ideas about gender to help determine their own behavior and define their relationships with their peers. Children are subject to gender stereotypes every day, and as Sandra Bem points out, children cannot help but take notice of the different activities and toys that are considered appropriate for boys and those that are considered appropriate for girls. According to Sandra Bem, it is bad for a child’s future development to categorize people based on sex. After weighing the pros and cons, I have decided that I agree with Bem on this issue. I believe that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised as gender aschematic. Before children enter school, their main sources of gender related attitudes and behaviors come from their parents and home life. In order for parents to raise their children in a gender aschematic environment, parents would have resist acting in gendered ways themselves. For example, they would have to divide the household chores evenly among themselves to show their children that housework is not just women’s work. Parents would also have to prevent kids from using gender categories by choosing gender-neutral colors and toys as well as shielding children from outside gender-typing. I feel that this goal of raising gender aschematic children would be very difficult, but achievable. I think that parents would face the most difficulty when their children start school. At this point, the parents cannot watch their children around the clock and censor the information that their child is receiving. In society, there are gender stereotypes everywhere and it is unlikely that children will remain completely unaffected. Even as impossible as this may seem, research has shown that children who are raised by parents who are not strongly gender typed grow up to be less gender typed themselves.
By raising children to be gender aschematic, it is likely that they will also be socially androgynous; meaning that they will have both masculine and feminine traits. This can be good and bad. On the one hand, boys who have both masculine and feminine traits later have more egalitarian views about men and women and are usually much more understanding of women. It is also beneficial for girls to be androgynous because women with masculine traits have higher levels of self-esteem and fewer mental health issues. I also believe that without gender stereotypes, children would feel freer to follow their true interests without feeling pressure to act in a manner that society has deemed appropriate for their gender. The downside to adopting Sandra Bem’s ideas on child-rearing would be that children may face problems assimilating with their peers, who may misunderstand the philosophy behind their social androgyny. For example, on Bem’s son’s first day of school, he wore barrettes and many little boys asked him if he was a boy or a girl. Just to restate my main argument, I believe that it is detrimental for children to use gender as a category to organize their own behavior and to define their relationships with others. I believe that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised as gender aschematic. ~ Lady Lazarus |
AuthorsThe Class Blog Project, or CBP, is a blog featuring undergraduate students forming a critical dialogue with each other around ideas related to the sociology of gender. Archives
May 2010
Categories
All
|