Carl J..pdf

26

As a parent, sociologist, and educator, I often seem to see the world differently from others. Whilesome see a public policy debate as a football game between winners and losers, I see it as a vitalway to create a good society. While some see education as a means to an end, I see it as a goal inand of itself. Some see gender equality growing in society because of the obvious changes inwomen’s roles. However, I question this perception of increasing equality, as gender roles appearto me to remain strongly tied to traditional practices.

MONTESSORI LIFE SPRING 2012

Gender vs.Sex

Frida Azari Photography

What’s the Difference?By John Carl

120384 AMS_txt_Layout 1 4/2/12 10:41 AM Page 26

27

My youngest daughter attended an excellent preschoolprogram. It was widely known for its open atmosphere, itsracial and ethnic diversity, and its fair-minded attitudetoward teaching young children. At this bastion of equality,gender differences still existed. Each year on Mother’s Day,the children held a Mother’s Day Tea Party at which they sangto their mothers a song of love and tenderness. The eventended with the children presenting their mothers with a long-stemmed rose and a kiss on the cheek, reciting, “In all theworld, there is no other to take the place of my dear mother.”

Contrast this with Father’s Day. For that holiday, theschool held a hot dog cookout on the playground. Thefathers did the cooking and played with their children. Forthe presentation, the children sang a ditty called “RoadkillCharlie,” a fun little song about a man who cooks andserves dead opossum. While singing the song, the childrentossed hand-painted T-shirts with “DAD” on them to theirfathers.

When I suggested to the director of the school thatfathers might prefer a touching poem and/or song in lieu ofan invitation to eat roadkill, she laughed, saying, “Dadsdon’t want that. Mommies are special.” This progressive,well-intentioned person was unknowingly reinforcing gen-der stereotypes. Such are the ills of thinking of gender dif-ferences in the United States. You find yourself often raisingpoints of view that others don’t seem to be able to see.

Gender and sex are not the same thing. Gender isdefined as the personal traits and position in society con-nected with being a male or female. For instance, wearinghigh heels is associated with the female gender, while wear-ing combat boots is associated with the male gender.Gender is different from sex because sex refers strictly to thebiological makeup of a male or a female. Clearly boys andgirls have different biology, but that does not necessarilymean that biology creates personality. The simple correla-tions of boys to aggression and girls to verbal expression arenot the whole story. Correlation is not cause, though it maybe tempting to think that these simple correlations support

the idea that gender-based behavior emanates from biolog-ical sex (Kennelly, Merz & Lorber, 2001). As a sociologist, Iwould suggest that a more important factor than biology issocialization.

I am not a house husband, but I do my share of cooking,shopping, and chores around the house. When my daugh-

ter was born, I was in graduate school, so I spent a lot oftime bathing, feeding, and caring for her. At one point, myfather suggested that I was “doing too much with her.” Hesaid, “She’s a girl, and fathers need to be careful about thatkind of stuff.” I can only surmise that he feared she mightdevelop some nontraditional ideas about gender becauseher father was so involved. Personally, I hoped she wouldbecome nontraditional in her understanding of gender roles.

In their classic book, The Second Shift (2003), ArlieHochschild and Anne Machung contend that the women’sliberation movement may have actually created additionalburdens for women because many of these women haveentered the working world while at the same time cominghome to a second shift of work at the end of the day.Interestingly, the authors find that most women think thisdistribution of labor is fair. Why? I would surmise that atsome level, the gender construction (how we get ideasabout gender) these women were taught told them that thiswas their role. But gender is not a set of traits or roles; “it isthe product of social doings of some sort” (West andZimmerman, 1987). Sociologists West and Zimmerman sug-gest that gender is developed in two ways. Not only do we“do gender,” or participate in its construction, but we alsohave gender done to us as members of society. When littlegirls are told their fathers do not want tenderness fromthem, they are both doing gender to themselves and theirdads, and having gender done to them.

Theorist Janet Chafetz argues that “doing gender” notonly “(re)produces gender difference, it (re)produces gen-der inequality” (1997). This is quite clear in verbalexchanges between men and women. Deborah Tannen’sYou Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversationsuggests that through our conversations we pass on “differ-ent, asymmetrical assumptions about men and women”(2007). In other words, the way we talk about men andwomen is different and frequently reproduces genderstereotypes, like “Mommies are special.” Chafetz arguesthat it does seem true that men and women communicate in

different ways. Men tend to dominate conversations, whilewomen might struggle to follow some undefined ruledictated to them by men. Women use “verbal and bodylanguage in ways that weaken their ability to assert them-selves,” which supports the notion that they are somehowless powerful then men. This is learned early in life, when


Gender: the personal traits and position in societyconnected with being a male or female.

Sex: the biological makeup of a male or a female.

120384 AMS_txt_Layout 1 4/2/12 10:41 AM 7

girls take a backseat to boys while they wait in line for theswing-set or help the teacher clean the room during recess.Girls quickly learn that women who do not behave in thisway, who “do gender” inappropriately, are often rejected byboth men and women (Chafetz, 1997). Doing gender meansthat boys and girls are likely to follow pre-scripted behav-ior that they think is appropriate for their gender.

When my daughter’s preschool teacher suggested thatchildren should give their mommies flowers and their dad-dies T-shirts because that is what each group would expect,she was really teaching the children to “do” gender. Themessage was: Pay attention, children—cherish your motherbecause your father doesn’t need your affection. I wouldsuspect that no other man at that event thought he hadbeen slighted, as I did. Was that because I am educated on thematter, or merely because I was jealous I didn’t get a flower?

Perhaps the answer is rooted in my own sense of malegender or “gender identity.” Childhood is the prime timefor development of gender identity. Children learn whatbehavior is “appropriate” for each gender and how to fit inwith others who are like us. At my daughter’s preschool,there was a tire swing hanging from a tree. On a parent vis-iting day, my daughter asked me to help her ride on theswing. While we stood in line, I noticed she was the only lit-tle girl waiting. She noticed this too and asked, “Is it okayfor me to do this?” Do we teach children gendered identitiesthat can set them up for problems later in life?

Sociologist Michael Messner (2000) looked at the differ-ences between two soccer teams and how boys and girlsbehaved. He observed the all-boy Sea Monsters and the all-girl Barbie Girls. Gender construction occurred at the firstpractice, even before the season started. As the Barbie Girlsmet, they began to dance and sing around a float with aminiature Barbie doll on it. The girls were color-coordinated,in team uniforms perfect for “Barbie girls.” Meanwhile, theSea Monsters were rather disheveled. The boys saw thegirls dancing and singing and quickly invaded, resulting ina game of chase, which stopped the dance and resulted inchaos in both groups. The parents who saw this happeningsuggested that little boys and little girls are two differentspecies—boys aggressive and girls sweet.

As the season went on, Messner pointed out that mostparents failed to recognize the similarities between the girlsand boys. For example, all children cried when injured andseemed more interested in post-game snacks than the gameitself. Frequently, boys and girls could be seen in the middleof a game watching birds, looking at clouds, or generallynot paying attention to the game itself. Messner argues thatadults have no problem seeing differences in boys and girls,in part because it is what we expect to see. Gender is beingdone to them. However, we fail to see similarities becausethey do not fit into our preconstructed notions of gender. Inother words, we have trouble seeing the similaritiesbetween boys and girls because we approach them as differ-ent in the first place.

Nowhere are gender differences more pronounced thanon television. If you want to understand how popular cul-ture views gender, look no further than reality shows.Shows like The Bachelor teach us that men pick women, andwomen must “sell” themselves to attract men. What are thelessons for gender in this show or its counterpart, TheBachelorette? The icons for beauty and manhood presentthemselves to the public as ideal types for the display ofgender. In the show Bridalplasty, brides-to-be compete towin free plastic surgery to become “perfect brides.” Canyou imagine men doing this? What do these images teachour children about gender?

In Dr. M. Gigi Durham’s The Lolita Effect: The Media

28 MONTESSORI LIFE SPRING 2012

We fail to see similarities [between girls andboys] because they do not fit into our pre-constructed notions of gender.

Westside M

ontessori


29

Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It(2008), she articulates how girls are socialized into gender.They are taught to “do gender” through five myths. Durhamcalls these myths the “Lolita Effect” and suggests that theyultimately work to undermine girls’ self-confidence whilecondoning female objectification. According to her, popularmedia teach girls that:

1) Girls do not choose boys; boys choose girls, and onlythe sexy ones;

2) There is only one kind of sexy: slender, curvy, and white; 3) Girls should work hard to be that type of sexy; 4) The younger the girl, the sexier she is; 5) Sexual violence can be attractive.

If you think about the way movies and television shows,even those directed at children, depict gender, you will seehow frequently such a message is given to girls.

Consider the Disney Channel. In most of its shows,stereotypical myths are directed to young people. WhenMiley Cyrus puts on her blonde wig to become teen sensa-tion Hannah Montana, she instantly illustrates for girls thatphysical transformations can change you from awkwardgirl to teen idol. Disney movies are filled with “princesses,”such as Ariel, Cinderella, or Sleeping Beauty, all giving clearmessages to children: girls must be pretty if they want to getboys. The gender lessons for such films are clear: strongboys save pretty girls. While this message may seem to pro-vide a harmless fantasy for children, it clearly defines gen-der for them. Are these really the messages we want to giveall children? What does the child who feels weak or unat-tractive learn from such messages?

What can educators do about the reality of gender differ-ences? What have we done? The research on how teachersinteract with boys and girls and how that may or may notaffect those children is diverse. For example, it appears thatin general teachers do not view gender differences in abil-ity in children unless those children are performing poorly.This is particularly true for boys and girls and math.Teachers do not view math performance based on differ-ences in gender for strong students, but for poorly perform-ing students they often do. Their gender biases tend tosupport the notion that girls are not good in math, and sotheir behavior toward boys and girls who are underper-forming is different (Tiedemann, 2002).

We also know that demographics influence how stu-dents and teachers interact. In short, teachers respond morepositively to students from the same or similar back-grounds as themselves. Such interaction influences studentoutcomes. And since most teachers of young children arewomen, it makes sense that they would see young girlsfavorably. Could this play a role in the development of chil-dren? If a student perceives that a teacher has an interest inher, that student is more likely to be successful (Dee, 2005).

A few years ago, my daughter began second grade veryexcited but came home the first day feeling down. When Iasked why she was so upset, she said it was because shehad “a boy for a teacher.” In fact, the “girl teacher” she hadexpected to have had recently quit and the school had hireda man to take her place. What does my daughter’s disap-pointment reflect? Indeed, what might such gender distri-bution teach boys and girls about education?

Is it possible that the distribution of teachers in the edu-cational system is unconsciously teaching a generation ofchildren to “do gender” in a way that stresses the importanceof education to girls and boys differently? Is this changing?Perhaps a look back can help. Historically, men and womenhave received vastly different educations. Oberlin Collegewas the first college to offer coeducational enrollment in1837, but even so, women students were encouraged to study


Gender biases tend to support the notion thatgirls are not good in math, and so their behaviortoward boys and girls who are underperformingis different.

Frida Azari Photography


30

“feminine” concentrations, such as nursing and teaching.Men at Oberlin focused on fields that involved either voca-tional or intellectual skills, such as engineering. While thesedifferences are no longer forced on specific genders, there stillremains a clear educational divide between men and womennationally (“Colleges for Women”).

Women now earn the majority of associate’s and bache-lor’s degrees in the U.S. Further, women earn slightly morethan half of all master’s and professional degrees and about40 percent of doctoral degrees (Jacobs, 1999). Although thisis a major improvement for women, it also reflects a slightdecrease in higher education attainment for men. In addi-tion, women still seem to make gendered choices when set-tling on major courses of study in college, as they receivethe majority of art, music, and social science degrees, whilemen receive the majority of engineering, chemistry, andmedical degrees. Clearly, we are still “doing gender” ineducation today.

Mark Twain wrote, “Education consists mainly in whatwe have unlearned” (Tripp, 1987). If that is true, then eachof us seems to have some unlearning to do. Gender rolesand expectations consist not only of what we do, but whatis done to us. As a little league coach for a girls’ soccer team,I frequently had to teach the girls to attack the ball aggres-sively. I never saw a boys’ coach do thesame drills. Why? In part because, withevery Mother’s Day Tea Party andevery self-fulfilling math prophecy, weteach our children what we expect ofthem and how we expect them to reactto us. Clearly, and with few exceptions,the media seems intent on reinforcinggender stereotypes, some of which canlead girls in particular to seeing them-selves as little more than sex objects, lefthoping to be the next bride chosen towin plastic surgery so she can be “per-fect.” Surely we can do better than this.

ReferencesChafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and

sociology: Underutilized contribu-tions for mainstream theory. AnnualReview of Sociology, 23: 97–120.

“Colleges for Women,” National Women’sHistory Museum, www.nmwh.org/exhibits/education/1800s_6.htm.Retrieved August 18, 2008.

Dee, T. (May 2005). A teacher like me: Doesrace, ethnicity, or gender matter? TheAmerican Economic Review, Vol. 95, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the OneHundred Seventeenth Annual Meetingof the American Economic Association,

Philadelphia, PA. January 7–9, 2005. pp. 158–165.Durham, M. G. (2008). The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of

young girls and what we can do about it. Woodstock, NY: TheOverlook Press.

Hochschild, A. & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift. New York:Penguin.

Jacobs, J. (1999). Gender and the stratification of colleges. TheJournal of Higher Education, 70(2): 161–187.

Kennelly, I., Merz, S. N. & Lorber, J. (2001). What is gender?American Sociological Review, 66(4): 598–605.

Messner, M. A. (2000). Barbie girls versus sea monsters: Childrenconstructing gender. Gender and Society, 14(6): 765–784.

Tannen, D. (2007). You just don’t understand: Women and men in con-versation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers’ gender stereotypes as determi-nants of teacher perceptions in elementary school mathemat-ics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 49–62.

Tripp, R. T. (1987). International thesaurus of quotations. New York:Harper and Row, p. 279.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender andSociety, 1(2): 125–151.

JOHN D. CARL, PhD, is the associate dean of the Social SciencesDivision, Rose State College, Midwest City, OK. He is the authorof Think Sociology, Think Social Problems, and A ShortIntroduction to the U.S. Census.



31MONTESSORI LIFE SPRING 2012

Expand your knowledge andexperience the Montessori difference!

Montgomery MontessoriInstitute

...shaping the future of education

The knowledge. The experience.The Montessori Infant & Toddler andEarly Childhood Teacher Education

courses for you.10500 Darnestown Road

Rockville, Maryland 20850MMI prides itself on its history of successful graduates.

Contact MMI RIGHT [email protected]

Approved byMaryland Higher Education Commission

Affiliated with the American Montessori Society and Accredited by MACTE

Exppx aexperien

MM

and your knowledge andce the Montessori difffef ef ren

MontgomeryMontessori

nce!

M

...sh ppa i

The know

Early Child

MontessoriInstituteing the fuuf ture of educatio

wledge. The experi

dhood Teacher Edu

on

ence.

ucation

a y C dc

10Roc

MMI prides its

CR3

d ood eac e ducourses foof r you.0500 Darnestown Roadckvvk ille, Maryland 20850elf on its history of successfuuf l gr

Contact MMIIGHT away!301-279-2799

ucat o

raduates.

3m

A

mi

ry mmif il i o

MA

301 279 [email protected]. oom ntessori-m im .com

ApA p oovr vo ed yybMa yr la ddn Higgi her E ud cu ata ion Com im ssion

ffA fiff li iated witti h t eeh A eem icr ci an Montn essori S co iete ya ddn AcA crediti ed by AM CTE

Educational Sounds & ImagesE S

I&

Did You Know?

Child Poverty—National Center forChildren in Poverty:

Nearly 15 million children in the UnitedStates—21% of all children—live infamilies with incomes below the fed-eral poverty level—$22,050 a yearfor a family of four. Research showsthat, on average, families need anincome of about twice that level tocover basic expenses. Using this stan-dard, 42% of children live in low-income families.

Child poverty rates are highestamong black, Latino, and AmericanIndian children.

Most of these children have par-ents who work, but low wages andunstable employment leave theirfamilies struggling to make endsmeet. Poverty can impede children’sability to learn and contribute tosocial, emotional, and behavioralproblems. Poverty also can contributeto poor health and mental health.Risks are greatest for children whoexperience poverty when they areyoung and/or experience deep andpersistent poverty.

Research is clear that poverty is thesingle greatest threat to children’s well-being. But effective public policies—to make work pay for low-incomeparents and to provide high-qualityearly care and learning experiencesfor their children—can make a differ-ence. Investments in the most vulner-able children are also critical.

Across the states, official childpoverty rates range from 10% in NewHampshire to 30% in Mississippi.

http://nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html.Retrieved January 8, 2012.


Copyright of Montessori Life is the property of American Montessori Society and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Carl J..pdf

Documents

Transcript of Carl J..pdf