Boys get blocks, girls get jewelry
Happy gendered Halloween, girls and boys. (Did you see what I did there? I put girls first. That’s very rebellious of me. Girls are supposed to come second. It’s boys and girls, not girls and boys. Isn’t that funny?)
The New York Times has such a fun scary story about how gendered everything is in kidworld, and how badly it fucks everything up. All that work we did, undone by marketers. Oh well – I guess we’ll just have to do it all over again! Or you will, because I’ll be dead by then, and your grandchildren will, if the glaciers haven’t all melted yet.
A web search for Halloween costumes of scientists produces only boys wearing lab coats and goggles. A search for nursing costumes turns up girls in skirts with stethoscopes. Cats and cupcakes are also girls, while sharks and astronauts are boys.
The same gender division exists not just in toys — blue toolboxes and trucks for boys, pink play kitchens and dolls for girls — but also in nearly every other children’s product, including baby blankets, diapers and toothbrushes.
These distinctions have long-term effects on children’s notions of gender roles, social scientists say. Costumes, toys and many other environmental cues can influence the subjects children choose to study, the jobs they pursue and the roles they play at home and in society.
But marketers being the enlightened people they are, that won’t mean girls are shunted into nursing while boys go into science…
…oh wait.
“If you drop the gender marketing, rather than narrowing a set of interests based on gender, it widens the possibility for the child to pursue interests that he or she cares about and has a talent for,” saidCarol J. Auster, a sociologist at Franklin and Marshall College who studies gender, work and leisure. “Way down the road, it allows a grown man or woman to pursue an occupation that is well matched with their talents or skills.”
But but but but gender is our favorite thing. If you drop gender marketing, that deprives us of all the joy and excitement of gender. Gender is fabulous!
…toys are more strictly gendered today than they were 50 years ago, when adult gender roles were much more separate, according to research by Elizabeth Sweet, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis.
Until the 1960s, girls’ toys focused on homemaking and boys’ on work in the industrial economy, she found. That changed significantly with the rise of the feminist movement of the 1970s. But in the 1990s, gendered toys returned with a vengeance, resulting in the action heroes and princesses available today.
In the Sears catalog ads of 1975, according to Ms. Sweet, just 2 percent of toys were marked as girls’ or boys’; on the Disney Store website in 2012, according to a study in which Ms. Auster was a co-author, all toys were labeled that way.
All of them.
But at least they’re careful to make sure the girls get toys that don’t just train them in passivity, right?
Boys’ toys and costumes tend to be associated with action or destruction: objects that move, characters that save the day and animals that prey. Girls’ toys and costumes are more passive: objects to be looked at, characters that are rescued and animals that are docile or pretty.
In the 2012 study analyzing toys on the Disney Store website, girls’ toys were mostly pastel and related to caretaking or beauty, like dolls and jewelry. Boys’ toys had mostly bold colors and related to action and building, like cars and blocks.
Oh.
It’s impossible to disentangle all the elements that shape children’s notions of gender roles or to separate nature from nurture, and no major longitudinal studies have been done. But researchers say drawing clear distinctions between genders a significant role in pushing children down particular paths and creating stereotypes.
Lynn Liben of Penn State University and Lacey Hilliard of Tufts University studied preschool students. In some of the classrooms, teachers made no distinctions between boys and girls. In others, teachers differentiated between them, such as asking them to line up separately.
After two weeks, the children in the group where distinctions were made were much more likely to hold stereotypical beliefs about whether men and women should be in traditionally male or female occupations, and spent much less time playing with peers of the opposite sex. Even saying “boys and girls” instead of “children” had the effect.
And everything does say “boys and girls” (in that order); every damn thing, all the time.
Maybe one reason so many kids today seem to be able to declare themselves trans at what seems like an incredibly early age to be considering sex differences, is that they are soaked in a culture of gender and don’t like the box they are in. A two year old has no word for patriarchy, but they have heard a lot about the differences between boys and girls.
Samantha, another reason is that people now take them seriously, as a result of all the activism over the last five decades. I came out (the first time) at an early age too; and was promptly quashed.
It’s funny, but when I was a kid the form of address was “Hello, girls and boys!”; perhaps echoing “Ladies and gentlemen!”
Clothes have also reverted to 1950s levels of segregation. The fashions are different, but it’s now just as Not Done for anyone to wear unisex clothes. Women must wear skintight everything. Men must never wear skintight anything. That goes for business clothes too. Maybe no yoga pants, but tight skirts and fuck-me pumps, while men wear body-concealing suits.
Meanwhile, just because nobody’s wearing poodle skirts or fedoras, it’s taken for granted that clothing is totally egalitarian now.
My wife has been invited to give an informational talk to our kid’s school’s faculty in regards to establishing inclusive/welcoming environments for gender non-conforming children. A key point will be: cut the needless gendering of activities. For one section of 4th-grade health, it’s perhaps unavoidable (side note: still not sure how we’ll handle – it’s the “how your body will be changing”). But honestly, for any other section of any other subject at any other grade level… there’s just no reason for the toxic “boys over here and girls over there” crap.
Quixote, I noticed last time I went looking for slacks, that women’s must have side zippers, or no pockets, or a body hugging cut, or some kind of decoration– anything to make it very clearly Not Men’s Style. Which was annoying because I was looking for ones that were fitted for a woman but styled like men’s pants. *sigh*
“Did you see what I did there? I put girls first. That’s very rebellious of me. Girls are supposed to come second. It’s boys and girls, not girls and boys. Isn’t that funny?”
I had always thought it was normal to put girls first as in “ladies and gentlemen; girls and boys.” Then there is the nursery rhyme “Girls and boys come out to play.” It just sounds wrong the other way round. Maybe they do things differently in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_and_Boys_Come_Out_To_Play
My UK experience accords with what Bernard Hurley mentioned. I was brought up with a habitual “ladies first” which seemed to me, as a kid, to be just a matter of men being expected to be polite to women. A bit like always holding a door open for a woman (presumably regardless of whether she wanted to go through). There was no suggestion that the man would hold the door only for women, and could certainly hold a door for another man, but chivalry was expected. Even as a kid i began to get a feeling that this seemed a bit patronising. It seemed to echo a Victorian assumption that ladies (deliberate word choice) should be protected from things like physical work in case their hands stopped looking so dainty, a bit like Victorian ladies needing parasols to protect them from even the slightest bit of sunshine.
These days? Just hold a door for anyone if it will stop it from shutting in their face. Stronger people can carry extra bags. And say “children” instead of “boys and girls”.
Bernard @6 – I can’t speak for the entire USA, as i was never in more than one part of it at once, but I never heard it “girls and boys come out to play”. Everything was boys and girls in my childhood – even up to my near-adulthood, when my high school psychology teacher referred to us as “dear little boys and girls” (no wonder she wasn’t popular among the high school seniors who had to take her class).
That’s been an ongoing battle for me, too. Pockets are absolutely essential for my lifestyle, but getting harder and harder to find in women’s pants. I finally found a style of pants that I like, and I told my husband yesterday that I didn’t care if I had a whole bunch of pairs of black pants by the same manufacturer on the same style; they are comfortable, and they fit my needs (and I suppose I could differentiate by wearing other colors now and then). I have to roam the Internet to find them, though, because no place in our town carries any sort of pants for women that satisfy.
I remember some of that toxic sex separation from the 60s, when I started school. It continued through my schooling, with the girls taking Home Ec and the boys taking Shop. Any girl taking Shop was considered a “freak”. They finally did create a Home Ec class for boys (separate and not equal – they only learned some very basic bachelor cooking skills, which they trumpeted to the entire school as though they’d mastered quantum theory). There wasn’t a comparable Shop class for girls, though. They were simply addressing the growing reality that some of the young men would not marry right away when they got out of high school. It was expected that, in the event one of the freakish girls (like me) didn’t get married right away, they would just pick up the phone and call the local (male) fix-it company. My home upbringing was equally segregated. This has had a lot of impact on my path through the world, even though I resisted in many ways. How could it not? You’re constantly told you can’t do something because “girl” and “boy”, you begin to internalize that even if you know intellectually it isn’t true.
Quite a while a go, some experimental observation was published regarding the ways adults behaved toward infants, contingent on the perceived gender of the infant. Using the same babies, costumed differently to suggest male or female (pink bows, denim, etc.) Adult behavior was RADICALLY different.
‘Girls’ were constrained, but also more likely to be comforted. ‘Boys’ were encouraged to activity, but also taunted with objects out of reach etc.
I don’t recall if the adult’s declared views about gender were correlated to the way they behaved, but the child’s experience, at less than a year, was completely different according to the pink or blue labelling.
This crap is MUCH worse than is being recognized.
John the Drunkard, yes. Which of course is why it’s such bollocks when people talk about “natural” f/m differences in talents, abilities or inclinations: it is literally impossible to isolate any such differences – if indeed there are any at all – because you cannot control for other variables; socialisation is never gender-neutral and is as you say radically different from the very moment of birth. Even if we don’t know we’re doing it.
Re #8:
I remember my NYC junior high school of similar vintage had (Wood or Metal or Ceramics or Print) Shop for boys and (Sewing or Cooking) Shop for girls. During my two-year tenure at the school, that was changed, although they couldn’t bear to have boys take Cooking or Sewing, so the shops were renamed Chef and Tailor. The school also had segregated sex education, but my class rebelled, and so my sex ed class was co-ed.
John the Drunkard, and opposable thumbs,
” socialisation is never gender-neutral and is as you say radically different from the very moment of birth.”
Yes! In fact (although I’m not able to locate the source) I seem to recall that this starts earlier than birth if the child’s sex is considered known. I think it was something to do with differences in how mothers/pregnant women (and perhaps others) would speak *to* the fetus, that is, the use of different words and tones etc. depending on if the fetus was considered to be female or male.
And then of course there are more stark differences, such as a woman being thrown down stairs with the intent to induce miscarriage, because she refuses to abort her female fetus.
My husband took Home Ec. The other boys made fun of him for it. He had a bunch of girls trying to feed him cookies.(And one of my high school classmates was the lone male cheerleader until a few other guys paid attention to what he was telling them about being on a bus with 60 girls in short skirts whenever they went somewhere. Next semester there were 6 male cheerleaders.) Homosocialization strikes me as one of the weirdest things about society.
I was lucky. I went to a newly opened school when I was 11 & 12 that was testing out new ideas in education. Large open plan classrooms were a complete disaster, but all pupils did sewing, home ec, wood and metal work in the first year. I rapidly discovered I was terrible at metal work, average at woodwork and sewing (but enjoyed both) and good at cooking (which I enjoy to this day and am quite good at I have to say).
Sadly, when I went to high school it was impossible to stream home ec alongside wood work and as a result few boys chose home ec and few girls chose woodwork. From 15 onward it was impossible to stream any tech subjects alongside any science subjects.
I’m very glad I was given the chance. As a result I have two satisfying hobbies and life skills and can do basic repairs to clothing etc. After the Zombie apocalypse I’ll even be able to make my own clothes from rabbit fur ;-)
(waste no part of anything you kill).
Not sure what the status of things are now.
@John the Drunkard
And it worked in the other direction as well, IIRC: the adults’ perceptions of the babies(as determined by the way they described them) varied along gender stereotypical lines depending on whether the kid was dressed in pink or blue.
Re Halloween costumes: one ray of light–at Team Trivia the other night, we learned that one of the top five most popular costumes for little girls is–pirate.
Aaaaaar, maties.
Come to think of it, the two most popular character costumes for girls were Anna and Elsa, from the movie Frozen. Princesses, all right, but they rescue each other. And one of them winds up owning her superpower and running the Queendom.
They say that nobody predicted the incredible popularity of Frozen. Little girls: give them half a chance, and they’ll resist the old narrative.
Kevin @4: Growing up in Israel, sex-ed classes were co-ed, both in elementary and secondary school.
OTOH crafts/shop classes were gender-segregated from 5th grade to 9th – boys did woodworking, girls did sewing, knitting, weaving. Except 7th grade when the classes were mixed – but since we can’t have boys sew (the horror!) we did leather-work that year.
In my child’s schools, health class is co-ed, except for 1-2 sessions in 5th grade. While all other classes are open to students of any gender, certain classes tend to be biased towards a particular gender.
For instance in junior year, AP US History has a huge girl majority while regular US History is obviously a class with a majority of boys.
re: clothing, a few years back I needed to buy a swimsuit so I could splash around in the motel pool with my newly acquired grandchildren (don’t say the s-word). I went to a local department store, and everything they had in men’s swimwear was baggy and damn near knee-length. Mid-thigh was as short as I’d ever worn before. The only thing close to what I was used to was at a sporting-goods store, an expensive competition suit which didn’t come in “Portly.”
I have no idea why men’s swimsuits are getting longer and baggier, while what’s offered to my granddaughters would get a one sent home, if not arrested, at the beaches of my youth. How do guys even swim in those things? It’s like a burka for your legs. Compare what basketball players wore in the 1970s to today; a standard uniform-short inseam back then was three to four inches, but now they’re knee-length on people who are seven feet tall.
Oh, that’s funny, Pieter, I noticed just the other evening when channel-surfing, I bumped into one of those “reality” shows where people compete to murder each other on an island or something, and paused to stare – all the women were in very tiny very tight underpants, and all the men were in baggy shorts down to their knees. It seems to be that the tinier and tighter the women’s underpants get, the longer and baggier the men’s shorts get. It looked so bizarre. Why on earth would anyone ever wear tiny tight underpants for a physical competition other than plain running?
RATINGS
I give you beach volleyball. Until 2012 women had a choice between a one-piece suit or a bikini with maximum side width of 75mm. Most women players chose the bikini while men got to wear boardies.
Check out the 2014 rules for a nice graphic comparison of the previous status quo
http://www.fivb.org/EN/BeachVolleyball/Rules/BVB%20Uniforms%20OG%202004.pdf