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
1 Comment
This essay is written in response to Go Terps remarks about how we are constantly making changes in order to make things right in our society. She provocatively states: “There will always be problems that individuals will find in the structure of society, but it will get better in time. It is a process. We are only human and mistakes happen, but it seems like our society is constantly practicing trial and error until we get it right. Our social structure has already changed immensely over time, and this should be acknowledged for what it is — very impressive.” It is true that our society is changing. However, we should not assume that those changes are necessarily good. What is truly important is not change but the kind of change that happens. Go Terps brought up interesting areas in which changes are occurring but fails to demonstrate how these changes will eradicate the gender related problems in our society. In the 2005 film TransGeneration, we see how difficult it was for transgendered students to discuss their gender with new friends and colleagues. It took them a whole lot of courage to openly explore issues related to their identities and how they feel as human beings. Lets take for instance one of the characters, Raci, who transitioned from male to female. Even though she was born with male genitalia, she didn’t feel that she was a man. She couldn’t live the norms associated with our social construction of gender. She struggled emotionally and physically with how people perceived her, and it was only after the transformation of her gender from man to woman that she was able to live and feel comfortable. This is an example of how problematic our social construction of gender is. I think it is important to be able to live according to how we feel about ourselves and not necessarily by the demands of others. . I feel it is imperative to allow individuals to explore their own identities. We are all created differently by God and have different aspirations in life. And if we want to impose onto others a rigid definition of what constitutes an appropriate gender, then people will suffer. It is important to realize that no matter how we construct gender, there will always be deviations. Therefore, what needs to change is rigidity. A “constantly improving” society is one which demolishes rigid gender categories. In a recent online post entitled “The Social Construction of Gender,” the author writes that the construction of gender “reveals that gender is not immutable or set in stone. Harmful aspects of our construction of gender can and should be discarded. But beyond that, if gender exists to support hierarchy, then gender, as it is viewed and practiced in our culture, is not only uncomfortable for many people, but a tool of oppression.” This post suggests that gender is not constant and the way we construct it is often offensive or distasteful to others who do not identify with the social construction. As long as we continue to have a rigid gender system, then the system will need to change. Again, the problem is the rigidity of the system, and this is precisely what Go Terps fails to understand. ~ Wenty Although it may be ideal for a child to be raised as gender aschematic, I believe deterring any gender stereotypes in our society is just not realistic. Even if parents do everything to resist acting in gendered ways, there are too many other outlets that expose children to gender categorization. I agree with Lady Lazarus in her recent remarks about Sandra Bem's gender schema theory: parents will not be able to censor the gender information their children receive at school. Besides school, children will experience gender categorization in other public places when they begin to realize all the commonalities that their peers of the same sex have with one another which are the result of a gender schema. I do acknowledge that being gender aschematic can lead to being socially androgynous which does have positive aspects for the individual mentioned by Sandra Bem and Lady Lazarus. Some of these aspects mentioned were that men would have more egalitarian views of women and other men while women could essentially have fewer mental issues and higher levels of self esteem. Also, parents who are not strongly gendered may lead to the child eventually becoming less gender typed themselves which brings about individuality. The children will not be following the gendered norms because they have created their own identity and could possibly create their own categorization that could lead to societal benefits. Eventually, this may lead to the end of gender schemas if enough children were raised this way in an ideal world. However, these are only possibilities and not definite outcomes. I believe this would be nearly impossible because of the gender driven society that we live in. In addition, as experienced by Bem’s son, people who become socially androgynous will still face social issues with their peers which make this style of living difficult. This fact supports my argument that being raised as gender aschematic may actually be more detrimental to the individual. Our society follows these gender categories and acting out of the norm may be difficult for the individual. . An example of the negative responses that people face when they do not fit a gender schema is from “What It Means to be Gendered Me” by Betsy Lucal. Lucal discussed the consequences of her inappropriate “gender display.” Although she is a female, she was gendered as a man because of her physical appearance. One of the specific problems Lucal faced was when women did not want her in women-only spaces and she would have to deal with such discrimination. In this case, Lucal was not raised as gender aschematic, but her situation demonstrates the result of a person who may be socially androgynous in today’s society. Another issue with being raised as gender aschematic is that other people will still place that individual into one of the gender categories in which they seem most closely to fit anyways. As Lucal remarks, people “do” gender for us when we fail to do it. Again, this creates problems for a person raised to be gender aschematic because then they may begin to have issues with identity and interaction because he or she may not have the same values and norms as society. ~ Drizzle 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
|